by Kathleen Gotto, All News Pipeline:

The poisoning of the world’s population is picking up speed. In a recent interview with Maria Zeee and Dr. Ana Milhalcea, they discussed the findings by the University of Colorado at Boulder on the testing of 10 samples of the Articaine dental anesthetic using the Raman Microspectroscopy Methodology. These samples were sent to them for testing by dentist, Dr. Jim Lundstrom, of Fargo, ND, whose patients were inquiring about the safety of dental injectables. Of special concern was the issue of graphene in numbing agents.

TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/

The UC Boulder report states this conclusion after testing Articaine for graphene: Based on spectral results portraying D, G, and 2D peaks, I can affirm the presence of graphene oxide particles in this anesthetic with high confidence.

Since graphene oxide nanotechnology has been found in Articaine, there is a high probability it would be in other dental injectables or products. Why is graphene oxide even in dental anesthetics? Just what is graphene oxide and has it been proven safe in humans, or even animals?

This 7 February 2023 article provides a comprehensive and fairly easy-to-understand study of graphene-based materials in dental applications. It lists many advantages and properties of these materials:

Graphene nanoparticles are of interest to researchers for biomedical applications; in particular they have a lot of potential for use in dentistry where they may have applications as filler material in dental adhesives, teeth whitening compounds, and dental membranes [16–18].…The main challenge that the widespread use of graphene nanoparticles in dentistry faces is the biocompatibility of graphene nanoparticles [20, 21]. While there are studies that look at the biocompatibility of graphene nanoparticles, many of them are inconclusive [22–24]. Furthermore, there is a lack of studies on the long-term health effects of these nanoparticles in the body. This study will provide an overview of the current status of the use of graphene nanoparticles in dentistry and what steps need to be taken in order to improve their use in the future… Nanoparticles have some concerns when it comes to biocompatibility. Unlike bulk materials, nanoparticles are able to interact with and even enter individual cells [emphasis added]. Additionally, nanoparticles are able to easily traverse the body through the bloodstream [36]. As noted earlier, nanoparticles have different properties when compared to the bulk form of the same material. This leads to biocompatibility testing being required for the nanoscale form of materials that have previously been tested in bulk form. Currently, there are still many unknowns surrounding the biocompatibility of nanoparticles in the body and what steps need to be taken to ensure they are safe to use…Prolonged exposure to graphene can also cause long lasting damage through genotoxicity, where the graphene particles damage the genetic information of healthy cells [50].

The report concludes: Although graphene has been shown to display relatively good biocompatible qualities in various dental applications from in vitro tests, there is still a lack of long-term cytotoxicity studies of graphene nanoparticles in the body, as well as a lack of understanding as to how easily they can be excreted from the body. Many factors such as particle size, shape, and concentration appear to play a large role in how toxic these nanoparticles can be, and it would seem that the cytotoxicity varies on a case-by-case basis. Standardization of biocompatibility requirements for dental applications is also needed with long-term in vitro and in vivo studies to fully understand the biocompatibility of these nanoparticles and their long-term health effects.

A major question about the use of graphene oxide in dental applications is whether it is currently in use today. The test for graphene in the 10 samples of Articaine mentioned at the beginning of this article answers that question. Yes, it is. If it is in Articaine, there is strong likelihood that it is also in Novocaine and other injectables and dental products.

For several years Dr. Ana Mihalcea has studied and written about the known and unknown dangers of nanotechnology, and specifically, graphene oxide. So have many other doctors and scientists, such as Pablo Campra, who, back in 2021, used micro-RAMAN spectroscopy to analyze the COVID-19 shot for graphene nanoparticles. His summary states:

The identification of graphene oxide structures can be regarded as conclusive in 8 of them, due to the high spectral correlation with the standard. In the remaining 20 objects, images coupled with Raman signals show a very high level of compatibility with undetermined graphene structures, however different than the standard used here. 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.

Dr. Mihalcea lists professionals from different disciplines and their research on graphene in dental injectables, so it is not an isolated incident of graphene somehow getting mixed up in injectables.

People may rightfully be horrified at this new route to get nanotechnology into the bloodstream of people. Do dentists, doctors, pharmacists and others who inject people even have a care about what they are putting into patients? Did financial gain cause them to lose sight of safety first for their patients? Did they even wonder why they were really being paid bonuses to inject people? Ignorance is no excuse for educated people to not pursue knowledge of what they so blithely inject into the life blood of people who entrust their healthcare to them.

One reason why the dangers of nanotechnology in the healthcare field has not been made widely known (besides the pervasive use of media censorship), is the marketing push by technology industries. For instance, The Jackson Laboratory states on their website:

Biomedical science is capitalizing on various advances in tools to explore and manipulate genomes

These days, it doesn’t take a rocket — or genome — scientist to recognize that our capacity for exploring genomes is at an all-time high. In laboratories here at The Jackson Laboratory (JAX) and across the world, increasingly efficient machines churn out endless strings of genetic information; precise tools home in on specific spots in the genetic code and can even make corrections; and robust analytical methods help make sense of a morass of data. Propelled by these capabilities, scientists are uncovering clues within our DNA that shed light on the mysteries of biology and help unravel the complexities of disease. Studies in this field have already had a huge impact on the world, from CRISPR research winning the 2020 Nobel Prize in chemistry to genetic research leading the charge against the COVID-19 pandemic.

Really? Leading the charge against the manufactured COVID-19 pandemic vis-à-vis the manufactured COVID-19 shot, which was propagandized as a “vaccine?” So how did that charge work out for those who got jabbed? As of December 2023, 67% of the world’s population had been jabbed. What is not mentioned, of course, in Jackson Lab’s slick marketing ad is the numbers of global people who died after receiving the COVID-19 shot, not even counting the injuries. And yet, the COVID-19 jab has not been pulled.

Read More @ AllNewsPipeline.com