I am unsurprised. Overall intelligence is not inclined to question authority deeply. Only the bent brains who wonder why. And to rise in the world of work asking hard questions is only okay for profit not okay for uncovering graft by key officers backed by key shareholders.
Researchers discover that once graphene enters the lungs the immune system has trouble getting rid of it. Graphene nanoplatelets can penetrate deeper into the lungs than their size would suggest, say UK researchers. And once there, the body’s natural defences cannot deal with them effectively. Chronic exposure could therefore lead to inflammation and disease in a similar way to asbestos fibres.
Why would you put it in EVERY MASK?
a German study found clear evidence that if discrete nanometer diameter particles were deposited in the nasal region (in rodents in this case), they completely circumvented the blood/brain barrier, and travelled up the olfactory nerves straight into the brain
Why would you stick it a graphene PCR test into the brain and why would you inhale it for 3 years from your graphene-bio-mass masks?
• inhaled carbon nanotubes can suppress the immune system by affecting the function of T cells, a type of white blood cell that organises the immune system to fight infections.
And this is COVID and all other now common respiratory problems
For example, studies have established that the comparatively large surface area of inhaled nanoparticles can increase their toxicity. Such small particles can penetrate deep into the lungs and may move to other parts of the body, including the liver and brain.
A major study published in Nature Nanotechnology in May 2008 suggested some forms of carbon nanotubes could be as harmful as asbestos if inhaled in sufficient quantities.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32539642/ Applications of nanomaterials cause a general concern on their toxicity when they intentionally (such as in medicine) or unintentionally (environment exposure) enter into the human body. As a special subpopulation, pregnant women are more susceptible to nanoparticle (NP)-induced toxicity. More importantly, prenatal exposures may affect the entire life of the fetus. Through blood circulation, NPs may cross placental barriers and enter into fetus. A cascade of events, such as damage in placental barriers, generation of oxidative stress, inflammation, and altered gene expression, may induce delayed or abnormal fetal development. The physicochemical properties of NPs, exposure time, and other factors directly affect nanotoxicity in pregnant populations. Even though results from animal studies cannot directly extrapolate to humans, compelling evidence has already shown that, for pregnant women, caution must be taken when dealing with nanomedicines or NP pollutants.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphar.2017.00606/full In the last two decades, nanotechnologies demonstrated various applications in different fields, including detection, sensing, catalysis, electronics, and biomedical sciences. However, public concerns regarding the well-being of human may hinder the wide utilization of this promising innovation. Although, humans are exposed to airborne nanosized particles from an early age, exposure to such particles has risen dramatically within the last century due to anthropogenic sources of nanoparticles. The wide application of nanomaterials in industry, consumer products, and medicine has raised concerns regarding the potential toxicity of nanoparticles in humans. In this review, the effects of nanomaterials on the reproductive system in animal models are discussed. Females are particularly more vulnerable to nanoparticle toxicity, and toxicity in this population may affect reproductivity and fetal development. Moreover, various types of nanoparticles have negative impacts on male germ cells, fetal development, and the female reproductive system. These impacts are associated with nanoparticle modification, composition, concentration, route of administration, and the species of the animal. Therefore, understanding the impacts of nanoparticles on animal growth and reproduction is essential. Many studies have examined the effects of nanoparticles on primary and secondary target organs, with a concentration on the in vivo and in vitro effects of nanoparticles on the male and female reproductive systems at the clinical, cellular, and molecular levels.
Because of their small size, NP can penetrate into the circulatory system and directly propagate into cells thus causing different interactions with cellular organelles. While the toxicity of NP and their effect on embryonic mortality and developmental defects have recently been in focus, the exact toxic mechanism is still unclear, and only a few studies have centered their attention on the cellular response in embryos [Sawosz et al., 2009; Shimizu et al., 2009; Xia et al., 2011; Park et al., 2013].
The toxicity of NP can be explained by their different biological activities, including oxidative stress that damages lipids, carbohydrates, proteins and DNA. Moreover, their penetration into mitochondria, activation of the immune response and changes in receptor or ion channel functions after NP incorporation must be considered. Also, interactions of NP with enzymes, potential apoptotic or necrotic factors and also induction of inflammatory processes must be taken into account [Kohen and Nyska, 2002; Yeo and Kang, 2009; Park et al., 2011, 2013; Zhao et al., 2013]. Furthermore, NP show virus-like properties, which can cause DNA damage and delays in cell proliferation [Asharani et al., 2008a]. Furthermore, they can reduce mitochondrial function [Chen and Schluesener, 2008] and generate cellular morphological abnormalities [Hussain et al., 2005]. The mechanism of NP toxicity can also vary among different types of NP, depending on their chemical composition [Buzea et al., 2007].
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0748233720918689 Applications of nanomaterials cause a general concern on their toxicity when they intentionally (such as in medicine) or unintentionally (environment exposure) enter into the human body. As a special subpopulation, pregnant women are more susceptible to nanoparticle (NP)-induced toxicity. More importantly, prenatal exposures may affect the entire life of the fetus. Through blood circulation, NPs may cross placental barriers and enter into fetus. A cascade of events, such as damage in placental barriers, generation of oxidative stress, inflammation, and altered gene expression, may induce delayed or abnormal fetal development. The physicochemical properties of NPs, exposure time, and other factors directly affect nanotoxicity in pregnant populations. Even though results from animal studies cannot directly extrapolate to humans, compelling evidence has already shown that, for pregnant women, caution must be taken when dealing with nanomedicines or NP pollutants.
Etc.
So, graphene is USED in MASK - just google masks graphene - images - ALL MASKS CONTAIN GRAPHENE
In PCR tests - no wonder they insert these swabs close to brain not lungs - as there is a direct translocation of nanotech
I can understand how upsetting this would have been for your wife.
It's looking like she is being shunned.
Maybe a different rabbi at a different synagogue, but religion is an habitual exercise, and habits don't take easily to change.
Religion being obviously faith based, implies that the adherents are trusting types, and therefore the lower level religious soldiers will trust the messages from their superiors.
Not likely that this rabbi will want to rock any arks nor want those who receive his received wisdom to do any rocking either.
I realise that your wife is of advanced years, but also very intelligent; can she move herself to a new sort of freedom, from awareness of the flawed hierarchy she has been subjected to.
(I'm not trying to be a know-all, just trying to put myself in different shoes.)
I am unsurprised. Overall intelligence is not inclined to question authority deeply. Only the bent brains who wonder why. And to rise in the world of work asking hard questions is only okay for profit not okay for uncovering graft by key officers backed by key shareholders.
This something is nanotechnology. Graphene and other injected nanotech are TOXIC. This is science. The rest is unscientific rant and blind faith
https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/graphene-slips-deeper-into-lungs-than-predicted/3001864.article
Researchers discover that once graphene enters the lungs the immune system has trouble getting rid of it. Graphene nanoplatelets can penetrate deeper into the lungs than their size would suggest, say UK researchers. And once there, the body’s natural defences cannot deal with them effectively. Chronic exposure could therefore lead to inflammation and disease in a similar way to asbestos fibres.
Why would you put it in EVERY MASK?
a German study found clear evidence that if discrete nanometer diameter particles were deposited in the nasal region (in rodents in this case), they completely circumvented the blood/brain barrier, and travelled up the olfactory nerves straight into the brain
Why would you stick it a graphene PCR test into the brain and why would you inhale it for 3 years from your graphene-bio-mass masks?
• inhaled carbon nanotubes can suppress the immune system by affecting the function of T cells, a type of white blood cell that organises the immune system to fight infections.
And this is COVID and all other now common respiratory problems
For example, studies have established that the comparatively large surface area of inhaled nanoparticles can increase their toxicity. Such small particles can penetrate deep into the lungs and may move to other parts of the body, including the liver and brain.
A major study published in Nature Nanotechnology in May 2008 suggested some forms of carbon nanotubes could be as harmful as asbestos if inhaled in sufficient quantities.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32539642/ Applications of nanomaterials cause a general concern on their toxicity when they intentionally (such as in medicine) or unintentionally (environment exposure) enter into the human body. As a special subpopulation, pregnant women are more susceptible to nanoparticle (NP)-induced toxicity. More importantly, prenatal exposures may affect the entire life of the fetus. Through blood circulation, NPs may cross placental barriers and enter into fetus. A cascade of events, such as damage in placental barriers, generation of oxidative stress, inflammation, and altered gene expression, may induce delayed or abnormal fetal development. The physicochemical properties of NPs, exposure time, and other factors directly affect nanotoxicity in pregnant populations. Even though results from animal studies cannot directly extrapolate to humans, compelling evidence has already shown that, for pregnant women, caution must be taken when dealing with nanomedicines or NP pollutants.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphar.2017.00606/full In the last two decades, nanotechnologies demonstrated various applications in different fields, including detection, sensing, catalysis, electronics, and biomedical sciences. However, public concerns regarding the well-being of human may hinder the wide utilization of this promising innovation. Although, humans are exposed to airborne nanosized particles from an early age, exposure to such particles has risen dramatically within the last century due to anthropogenic sources of nanoparticles. The wide application of nanomaterials in industry, consumer products, and medicine has raised concerns regarding the potential toxicity of nanoparticles in humans. In this review, the effects of nanomaterials on the reproductive system in animal models are discussed. Females are particularly more vulnerable to nanoparticle toxicity, and toxicity in this population may affect reproductivity and fetal development. Moreover, various types of nanoparticles have negative impacts on male germ cells, fetal development, and the female reproductive system. These impacts are associated with nanoparticle modification, composition, concentration, route of administration, and the species of the animal. Therefore, understanding the impacts of nanoparticles on animal growth and reproduction is essential. Many studies have examined the effects of nanoparticles on primary and secondary target organs, with a concentration on the in vivo and in vitro effects of nanoparticles on the male and female reproductive systems at the clinical, cellular, and molecular levels.
https://www.karger.com/Article/Fulltext/362163 Toxicity of NP: Potential Mechanisms behind Their Cellular Effects during Embryonic Development
Because of their small size, NP can penetrate into the circulatory system and directly propagate into cells thus causing different interactions with cellular organelles. While the toxicity of NP and their effect on embryonic mortality and developmental defects have recently been in focus, the exact toxic mechanism is still unclear, and only a few studies have centered their attention on the cellular response in embryos [Sawosz et al., 2009; Shimizu et al., 2009; Xia et al., 2011; Park et al., 2013].
The toxicity of NP can be explained by their different biological activities, including oxidative stress that damages lipids, carbohydrates, proteins and DNA. Moreover, their penetration into mitochondria, activation of the immune response and changes in receptor or ion channel functions after NP incorporation must be considered. Also, interactions of NP with enzymes, potential apoptotic or necrotic factors and also induction of inflammatory processes must be taken into account [Kohen and Nyska, 2002; Yeo and Kang, 2009; Park et al., 2011, 2013; Zhao et al., 2013]. Furthermore, NP show virus-like properties, which can cause DNA damage and delays in cell proliferation [Asharani et al., 2008a]. Furthermore, they can reduce mitochondrial function [Chen and Schluesener, 2008] and generate cellular morphological abnormalities [Hussain et al., 2005]. The mechanism of NP toxicity can also vary among different types of NP, depending on their chemical composition [Buzea et al., 2007].
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269719014_Effects_of_graphene_oxide_on_the_development_of_offspring_mice_in_lactation_period In this work, we studied the potential developmental toxicity of GO when they entered the body of maternal mice and their offspring by oral exposure with two doses. The results showed that the increase of body weight, body length and tail length of the filial mice received GO at 0.5 mg mL(-1) (about 0.8 mg each mouse) every day in the lactation period was significantly retarded comparing with the control group. The anatomy and histology results revealed the delayed developments of offspring in high dosage group. We also evaluated the possible toxicological mechanism caused by GO and found that the length of the intestinal villus of the filial mice received high concentration GO were decreased significantly compared with the control group. It can be concluded that GO showed many negative effects on the development of mice in the lactation period. These findings can be significant for the development of graphene materials-based drug delivery system and other biomedical applications in the future. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0748233720918689 Applications of nanomaterials cause a general concern on their toxicity when they intentionally (such as in medicine) or unintentionally (environment exposure) enter into the human body. As a special subpopulation, pregnant women are more susceptible to nanoparticle (NP)-induced toxicity. More importantly, prenatal exposures may affect the entire life of the fetus. Through blood circulation, NPs may cross placental barriers and enter into fetus. A cascade of events, such as damage in placental barriers, generation of oxidative stress, inflammation, and altered gene expression, may induce delayed or abnormal fetal development. The physicochemical properties of NPs, exposure time, and other factors directly affect nanotoxicity in pregnant populations. Even though results from animal studies cannot directly extrapolate to humans, compelling evidence has already shown that, for pregnant women, caution must be taken when dealing with nanomedicines or NP pollutants.
Etc.
So, graphene is USED in MASK - just google masks graphene - images - ALL MASKS CONTAIN GRAPHENE
In PCR tests - no wonder they insert these swabs close to brain not lungs - as there is a direct translocation of nanotech
And of course, it is in these injections
I can understand how upsetting this would have been for your wife.
It's looking like she is being shunned.
Maybe a different rabbi at a different synagogue, but religion is an habitual exercise, and habits don't take easily to change.
Religion being obviously faith based, implies that the adherents are trusting types, and therefore the lower level religious soldiers will trust the messages from their superiors.
Not likely that this rabbi will want to rock any arks nor want those who receive his received wisdom to do any rocking either.
I realise that your wife is of advanced years, but also very intelligent; can she move herself to a new sort of freedom, from awareness of the flawed hierarchy she has been subjected to.
(I'm not trying to be a know-all, just trying to put myself in different shoes.)