My "conversation" with Sasha Latypova

and why I mention it

So, I just engaged in a very odd “conversation” with Sasha Latypova:

Yes, the book mentions graphene:

5.4.1.3 Other contaminants. The presence of other contaminants in the vaccines has been alleged, in particular of graphene or graphene oxide. However, we have not seen robust experimental evidence of this.

It does not confirm, but also does not exclude its presence.

Unfortunately, I didn't manage to save all the comments.

Sasha delated them and I unsubscribed from her publication.

Sasha wrote in her post:

Note: If you fell into a cult of dead-end fake binaries, I feel sorry for you. Please do not spam comments with “viruses have not been isolated” or links about graphene oxide, 5G and nanotechnology.

Although IT IS HER SPACE where she publishes her articles, I think it's rude to write "If you fell into a cult" "don't spam comments with…". My eyebrows raise in surprise.

However, the question is deeper: What is really going on? What is it all about?

Link to downloadable book mentioned in her post is here: https://doctors4covidethics.org/mrna-vaccine-toxicity/ mRNA Vaccine Toxicity – Doctors for COVID Ethics (doctors4covidethics.org)

This book uses the word virus 346 times. Yes, it talks about the toxicity of cationic lipids, but it doesn't consider them as the main reason for the toxicity of these injections.... Hmmm...

Page 153

9.1 The key mechanism of mRNA vaccine toxicity We have encountered at least three potential pathogenetic mechanisms that might account for the toxicity observed with the mRNA vaccines against COVID-19, namely:

1. the chemical toxicity of lipid nanoparticles,

2. direct toxicity of the spike protein, whose expression is induced by the vaccines, and

3. the destructive effects of the immune response to the spike protein.

Of these, we consider the third one the most important one, for the following reasons: 1. it follows from the theoretical considerations that were presented in Chapter 3, and 2. it accounts for the histopathological findings of intense inflammation and infiltration by immune cells, particularly lymphocytes, which are observed near foci of spike protein expression, as documented in Chapter 4.

If you read scientific articles on the toxicity of nanotechnology, you will find completely different conclusions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanotoxicology

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8376461/ Toxicity of Nanoparticles in Biomedical Application: Nanotoxicology - PMC (nih.gov)

3. General Mechanism of Nanoparticle Toxicity

The general mechanism by which metallic oxide nanoparticle induces toxicity is a joint function of the properties of the nanoparticle and its corresponding ability to induce ROS, and cause toxicity to cells, genes, and neurons.

3.1. Nanoparticle-Induced Oxidative Stress

Oxidative stress is among the commonly reported stresses that nanoparticles induce following exposure on a cellular level. Oxidative stress can be broadly defined as a lack of balance between antioxidants' activities and the production of oxidants [39]. A state of oxidative stress arises via increase in ROS production favored over antioxidants [40].

3.2. Cytotoxicity of Nanoparticles: Biochemical and Molecular Mechanisms of Cytotoxicity

In addition to cytotoxicity induced by ROS generation discussed earlier, cytotoxicity induced by nanoparticles can be caused by various physicochemical, biochemical, and molecular mechanisms.

3.2.1. Physicochemical Mechanisms

As noted earlier, particle size could contribute to cytotoxic potency because smaller nanoparticles typically possess larger surface areas which enable interactions with components of the cells, including carbohydrates, fatty acids, proteins, and nucleic acids. Moreover, these very small nanoparticles have more likelihood of entering cells, resulting in damage to cells [62].

3.2.2. Molecular and Biochemical Mechanisms

The perturbation of Ca²⁺ (intracellular calcium) induced by nanoparticles is a major cause of cytotoxicity induced by NPs and linked to energetic imbalance, metabolic imbalance, and cellular dysfunctions [72]. Although Ca²⁺ is among the major signaling molecules involved in the transduction of cell signal in the regulation of cellular metabolism and energy output, its increase has a direct toxic effect on cellular mitochondria which respond in an apoptic pathway via selectively releasing cytochrome c or by improved ROS production and making an inner pore of mitochondrial membrane open, all of which lead to cell death [73].

3.2.3. Cells Cycle Arrest

Cell divisions comprise two successive progressions, Mitosis (M), which is the nuclear division and interphase process, including G1, G2, and S phases. DNA replication takes place in the S phase and is preceded by the G1 phase within which the cells prepare for the synthesis of DNA; then it is followed by the G2 phase in which cells prepare for M. Cells within G1 phase may enter a state of resting known as G0, which is responsible for most part of the nonproliferating and nongrowing cells in humans [82].

Recently, it has been shown that nanoparticles' cytotoxic effect may not only lead to cell death but also to cell proliferation suppression that occurs once cells are arrested in at least one phase of the cell cycle (G2/M phase, S phase, or G0/G1 phase) [72]. Cells arrested within cell cycle either accumulate much damage leading to apoptosis or fix the damage [72].

3.3. Genotoxicity of Nanoparticles

The mechanism behind nanoparticle-associated genotoxicity is majorly due to the overproduction of reactive nitrogen (RNS) species and ROS, which results in increased oxidative stress and hence oxidative damage to the genetic material [87]. The NPs-mediated production of ROS and RNS can be due to intrinsic production, interaction with cell target, and/or inflammatory reaction. The resultant damage to the genetic material can be direct or indirect primary clastogenic or secondary (aneugenic, and DNA adduct production) genotoxicity [88]. The primary toxicity occurs due to the interaction of the NPs themselves with the DNA, whereas in the secondary genotoxicity, the genetic damage occurs as a result of ROS/RNS produced/carried by the NPs [89]. In the indirect primary clastrogenic mechanism, exocyclic DNA adducts are produced via unsaturated aldehydes produced as a result of ROS-mediated primary lipid oxidation. The secondary aneugenic mechanism's major consequence is chromosomal loss due to nondisjunctioning in the anaphase as a result of ROS and or RNS-induced protein oxidative lesions that affect the function of the mitotic apparatus [88]. Many scientific studies are in support of nanoparticles-induced genotoxicity.

3.4. Neurotoxicity of Nanoparticles

Neurotoxicity is a reversible or irreversible side effect that may affect the structure, function, or chemistry of the neurons in the nervous system [133]. Though the research community has centered its efforts on developing a brain-targeted drug delivery system using smart NPs, there is less information available on the neurotoxicity of these particles. Various research papers suggested that the neurotoxicity of the NPs is due to oxidative stress triggered by free radical activity [134, 135].

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7379444/ Nanotoxicity: a challenge for future medicine - PMC (nih.gov)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7379444/ Nanotoxicity: a challenge for future medicine - PMC (nih.gov)

Nanotoxicity and adverse effects of nanomaterials in exposed producers, industry workers, and patients make nanomaterials a double-edged sword for future medicine. In order to control and tackle related risks, regulation and legislations should be implemented, and researchers have to conduct joint multidisciplinary studies in various fields of medical sciences, nanotechnology, nanomedicine, and biomedical engineering.

HERE IS MY OPINION ON THE SUBJECT:

THE CAUSE OF THESE ADVERSE EFFECTS IS ACTUALLY THE NANOTECHNOLOGY USED.

THIS OPINION IS BASED ON EXISTING SCIENTIFIC STUDIES ON THE TOXICITY OF NANOTECHNOLOGY, NOT ON SPECULATION ABOUT BATS, PANGOLINS AND MYSTERIOUS VIRUSES LEAKING FROM LABORATORIES.

An update: