In the year 2025 when man was still alive

They found out, yeah they found out, day trippers each one

https://x.com/i/status/1898429242431713618

Died Suddenly Worldwide

@_DiedSuddenly

Microscopy by Maria Crisler. This is what she found in the blood - quote: I christened them “sentinel hybrid organisms”.The image shows structures in human blood identified as "sentinel hybrid organisms" by Maria Crisler, a clinical laboratory scientist, using 3D ECHO microscopy.

These structures are part of ongoing discussions about self-assembling nanotechnology in biological samples, as highlighted in Crisler's work and related interviews on platforms like Rumble.

Nanotechnology in healthcare, including potential applications in diagnostics and drug delivery, has been a growing field, but concerns about safety and environmental impact persist, as noted in scientific reviews.

The term "sentinel organisms" traditionally refers to species that signal environmental changes, but Crisler's use suggests a novel application to monitor or indicate changes in human biology, possibly linked to medical interventions or exposures.

(When an element exists in more than one crystalline form, those forms are called allotropes. Graphene is a carbon allotrope, as are diamond and graphite. Graphene, which is isolated from crystalline graphite, is a flat monolayer composed of single-atom-thick, two-dimensional sheets of a hexagonally arranged honeycomb lattice. Because of its unique structural, specific surface area and mechanical characteristics, the functions and applications of graphene have gained considerable attention since the discovery of the material in 2004.

The graphene family of nanomaterials (GFNs) is known to be toxic in the human body:

“GFNs can be delivered into bodies by intratracheal instillation, oral administration, intravenous injection, intraperitoneal injection and subcutaneous injection . GFNs can induce acute and chronic injuries in tissues by penetrating through the blood-air barrier, blood-testis barrier, blood-brain barrier, and bloodplacenta barrier etc. and accumulating in the lung, liver, and spleen etc. For example, some graphene nanomaterials aerosols can be inhaled and substantial deposition in the respiratory tract, and they can easily penetrate through the tracheobronchial airways and then transit down to the lower lung airways, resulting in the subsequent formation of granulomas, lung fibrosis and adverse health effects to exposed persons.” (Ref https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309765724_Toxicity_of_graphene-family_nanoparticles_A_general_review_of_the_origins_and_mechanisms )

A more recent paper by Dr Campra referenced at ResearchGate covers four main brands and 7 separate vials. It indicates that graphene-like structures were definitely present in 4 of the 7 injection vials sampled, and quite possibly in 2 others. The closing comment of the researcher seems appropriate in the circumstances:

“This research remains open and is made available to scientific community for discussion. We make a call for independent researchers, with no conflict of interest or coaction from any institution to make wider counter-analysis of these products to achieve a more detailed knowledge of the composition and potential health risk of these experimental drugs, reminding that graphene materials have a potential toxicity on human beings and its presence has not been declared in any emergency use authorization. We leave a link to download this report at the end of this video.”

Some months ago another researcher, a Dr Andreas Noack in Austria, reported finding graphene hydroxide in some CV vaccine vials. Dr Noack had a PhD in this area and claimed to be the only expert who knew the science behind graphene (Hydr)oxide in Europe. He was arrested while making his video report (https://www.bitchute.com/video/Ju3wAZKJbFYG/) He finally published the video interview on the 23rd of November 2021 (https://t.me/geddes/13536) and was killed 2 days later in a brutal assault.

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsanm.5c00122

The controversy surrounding the existence of “graphene oxide” as a well-defined material is explored. While the term “graphene oxide” suggests a specific and uniform structure, the reality points to a mixture of oxidized carbon materials with variability in oxygen functionalities and crystallinity. This discussion challenges the conventional understanding, proposing that graphene oxide may be more accurately described as a spectrum of oxidized carbon structures rather than a singular material. This Comment encourages a re-evaluation of how we define and study these complex nanomaterials.

Graphene Oxide: Myth or Misconception?

---

Concerns have been raised about the potential nanotoxicity of “graphene oxide”, particularly regarding its effect on cellular systems, which may include cytotoxicity, oxidative stress, and inflammatory responses. (1) These health risks are further complicated by the significant variability in the structure, composition, and particle size of “graphene oxide” across different samples. Therefore, it becomes crucial to define and standardize what is meant by “graphene oxide” as the term is often used loosely, referring to materials with diverse chemical compositions, degrees of oxidation, and physical characteristics. Establishing a clear definition is essential for reproducibility in research and for accurately assessing the biological impacts.

If the reader performs a quick online search, they may find that graphene oxide is also commonly understood as graphite oxide─previously known as “graphitic oxide”─and is frequently described in nonacademic contexts as “a compound composed of carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen in variable ratios, produced by treating graphite with strong oxidizing agents and acids to eliminate extraneous metals. The resulting maximally oxidized material is a yellow solid with a carbon-to-oxygen ratio ranging from 2.1 to 2.9, retaining the layered structure of graphite but exhibiting significantly larger and more irregular interlayer spacing.” While this popular definition draws upon several scientific references, it primarily reflects a generalized understanding outside the rigorous framework of academic research, further emphasizing the material’s ambiguity and the need for standardized definitions within the scientific community.

The commercialization of “graphene oxide” has grown with dozens of companies offering what are claimed to be “purified” forms of the material. Notably, some companies list the chemical formula for “graphene oxide” as CxOyHz, further emphasizing the variability in its composition. Adding to the confusion, there is a school of thought (2) suggesting that “...If the exfoliated sheets contain only one or few layers of carbon atoms like graphene, these sheets are named graphene oxide (GO)....”

The Web of Science is now cataloging thousands of research articles with “graphene oxide” in the title. The concept of “graphene oxide”─in some cases called the “oxidized form of graphene” (3)─has captivated the scientific community for over a decade, with the material being heralded for its potential in various fields, from electronics to biomedicine. However, a fundamental question remains: does “graphene oxide” truly exist as a distinct material, or is it merely an umbrella term used to describe variably oxidized carbon-based materials with inconsistent and ill-defined structures?

According to the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC), an oxide network is defined as a network comprising only metal–oxygen linkages. (3) In the case of “graphene oxide”, the term implies a specific structural form of graphene sheets functionalized with oxygen-containing groups such as epoxides, hydroxyls, and carbonyls. However, unlike conventional oxides (e.g., SiO₂ or Al₂O₃), which exhibit well-characterized stoichiometry and crystal structures, “graphene oxide” lacks a consistent formula or structure across samples. If “graphene oxide” were to exist as a distinct material, it would need to be a monolayer graphene structure “uniformly” functionalized with oxygen atoms in a well-defined arrangement. Furthermore, the size of graphene flakes plays a crucial role, as larger sheets often exhibit uneven oxidation, resulting in regions that remain graphitic or partially oxidized. These issues collectively hinder the formation of a consistent, homogeneous “graphene oxide” material, instead producing a heterogeneous mixture of oxidized domains and structural defects that vary between samples.

Graphene Oxide or Oxidized Carbon-Based Material?

---

The synthesis of so-called “graphene oxide” typically involves the oxidation of graphite using methods such as Hummers’ method or its variations. (4) These processes result in a material composed of sheets with varying degrees of oxidation, lattice distortion, and defect density. While some oxygen functionalities are indeed introduced, the resulting materials cannot be consistently described using a simple oxide framework. Instead, what is frequently referred to as “graphene oxide” may more accurately be described as a complex mixture of oxidized carbon structures, including amorphous regions, partially oxidized graphitic domains, and defects. The variability in oxidation and crystallinity suggests that these materials represent a spectrum of oxidized solid carbon rather than a single well-defined compound.

Graphene Oxide Nanosheets Interact and Interfere with SARS‐CoV‐2 Surface Proteins and Cell Receptors to Inhibit Infectivity

Mehmet Altay Unal ¹, Fatma Bayrakdar ², Hasan Nazir ³, Omur Besbinar ^1,4, Cansu Gurcan ^1,4, Neus Lozano ⁵, Luis M Arellano ⁵, Süleyman Yalcin ², Oguzhan Panatli ⁴, Dogantan Celik ^1,4, Damla Alkaya ^1,4, Aydan Agan ⁴, Laura Fusco ⁶, Serap Suzuk Yildiz ², Lucia Gemma Delogu ⁶, Kamil Can Akcali ^1,7, Kostas Kostarelos ^5,8,✉, Açelya Yilmazer ^1,4,✉

• Author information

• Article notes

• Copyright and License information

PMCID: PMC8236978 PMID: 33988903

Abstract

Nanotechnology can offer a number of options against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) acting both extracellularly and intracellularly to the host cells. Here, the aim is to explore graphene oxide (GO), the most studied 2D nanomaterial in biomedical applications, as a nanoscale platform for interaction with SARS‐CoV‐2. Molecular docking analyses of GO sheets on interaction with three different structures: SARS‐CoV‐2 viral spike (open state – 6VYB or closed state – 6VXX), ACE2 (1R42), and the ACE2‐bound spike complex (6M0J) are performed. GO shows high affinity for the surface of all three structures (6M0J, 6VYB and 6VXX). When binding affinities and involved bonding types are compared, GO interacts more strongly with the spike or ACE2, compared to 6M0J. Infection experiments using infectious viral particles from four different clades as classified by Global Initiative on Sharing all Influenza Data (GISAID), are performed for validation purposes. Thin, biological‐grade GO nanoscale (few hundred nanometers in lateral dimension) sheets are able to significantly reduce copies for three different viral clades. This data has demonstrated that GO sheets have the capacity to interact with SARS‐CoV‐2 surface components and disrupt infectivity even in the presence of any mutations on the viral spike. GO nanosheets are proposed to be further explored as a nanoscale platform for development of antiviral strategies against COVID‐19.

Keywords: antiviral therapeutics, COVID‐19, in silico, in vitro, viral mutations