Graphene face masks dangerous; and we’re living in a graphene world
Jon Rappoport, Graphene face masks dangerous; and we’re living in a graphene world
July 13, 2021 (https://jamesfetzer.org/2021/07/jon-rappoport-graphene-face-masks-dangerous-and-were-living-in-a-graphene-world/) James (https://jamesfetzer.org/author/reginald/)Fetzerblog (https://jamesfetzer.org/blog/)
Graphenea.com (http://graphenea.com/) : “Graphene — What Is It? …Graphene is the thinnest compound known to man at one atom thick, the lightest material known… the strongest compound [ever] discovered… the best conductor of heat at room temperature … the best conductor of electricity known… potentially an eco-friendly, sustainable solution for an almost limitless number of applications. Since the discovery…of graphene, applications within different scientific disciplines have exploded, with huge gains being made particularly in high-frequency electronics, bio, chemical and magnetic sensors, ultra-wide bandwidth photodetectors, and energy storage and generation.”
On May 28 , I wrote and posted an article about toxic graphene-containing face masks. Since then, the subject of graphene has blown up across the Internet.
There are now claims that COVID test swabs and even vaccines contain the substance.
A group of Spanish researchers report they’ve analyzed a vial of COVID vaccine and found it’s virtually nothing but graphene oxide—98-99% .
I’m reserving my opinion about that. If true, it would mean the vaccine criminals were asking for their crime to be discovered. They weren’t trying to hide the graphene in the vaccine; they were parading it for anyone to see.
I hope another independent research group analyzes another vial of COVID vaccine and reports their findings.
Meanwhile, we are suddenly living in a graphene world. The substance is everywhere. This reminds me of the massive introduction of GMO farming in the 1990s. The strategy is familiar in industry: flood the market with a new “miracle” product; when doubters start reporting on serious health risks and damage, claim they’re crazy , while preparing to combat law suits that will drag on for decades. [5a]
Actually, that’s been the strategy of the COVID vaccine makers; except in their case, they’re legally exempt from liability. 
On the subject of graphene, here is a link to a stunning July 8 press release (https://www.inbrain-neuroelectronics.com/innervia.html)  from Innerva-Bioelectronics.
I strongly recommend reading the whole release. The first paragraph:
“INBRAIN Neuroelectronics, a company at the intersection of medtech, deeptech and digital health dedicated to developing the world’s first GRAPHENE-BASED INTELLIGENT NEUROELECTRIC SYSTEM, today announced a collaboration with Merck, a leading science and technology company. The aim of the collaboration is to co-develop the next generation of graphene bioelectronic vagus nerve therapies targeting severe chronic diseases in Merck’s therapeutic areas through INNERVIA Bioelectronics, a subsidiary of INBRAIN Neuroelectronics.” (emphasis is mine)
They’re not just talking about “vagus nerve therapies.” This enterprise is an attempt to create a whole new frontier for global medical experimentation and treatment, in order to “cure diseases that are presently incurable.” At the center is graphene.
The phrase “intelligent neuroelectric system” suggests the corporations are planning to superimpose their own automatic nerve inputs and responses, in the body, on top of the body’s natural nervous system. To put it another way, they want to replace “deficiencies and errors” in the natural nervous system with their own catalog of preferred stimuli and responses. If the extreme dangers of this reprogramming aren’t obvious to you, think it through. Take a prime natural physical system that is already automatic and sideline it in favor of a new ironclad automatic system. And you have a running start on an AI Pavlovian human.
“Doctor, we rang the bell and the patient drooled. It’s marvelous.”
Graphene toxicity requires a great deal of attention from independent investigators. Among the many topics needing clarification—the different forms of graphene, their relative toxicities, and their relative tendencies to detach from synthetic materials and enter the body.
My original May 28 graphene article about masks (with new edits):
Millions of face masks officially declared dangerous
As my readers know, for the past year I’ve been demonstrating that the SARS-CoV-2 virus has never been proven to exist.  Therefore, face masks are nothing more (or less) than a mind-control ritual.  [9a]
However, much has been written about the harm the masks cause.
And now we have an official declaration. On April 2, 2021, Health Canada issued an advisory, warning people not to “use face masks labelled to contain graphene or biomass graphene.”
Andrew Maynard covers this issue in a medium.com (http://medium.com/) article, “Manufacturers have been using nanotechnology-derived graphene in face masks—now there are safety concerns.” 
Those concerns? Masks could create lung problems.
Of course, since COVID-19 is claimed to be a lung disease, you can see where that leads: the remedy turns out to cause what it’s supposed to prevent. I could write a book detailing how many times this “coincidence” pops up in the field of medicine.
Maynard’s article traces the safety concerns to a Chinese mask manufacturer, Shandong, but points out that millions of graphene-containing masks are in use around the world, produced by a whole host of companies.
Yesterday, I saw a mask sold to a customer. It was sealed in a plain plastic bag. No manufacturer’s name, no list of materials in the mask, nothing but a bar code. Does the mask contain graphene? No way to know.
So far, it’s not clear whether the nanoparticles of graphene in the masks also contain highly destructive metals.
The mainstream literature on graphene is ambiguous and far from reassuring: ‘yes, it’s probably toxic to the lungs; perhaps not seriously so; perhaps only temporarily; there are more questions than answers.’
Why have these masks been certified anywhere in the world for public use? Why haven’t the CDC and the WHO made definitive statements about safety concerns? Why didn’t public health agencies, long ago, run/demand definitive tests to see whether, and to what extent, the nanoparticles of graphene detach themselves from various types of masks and enter the body?
At materialstoday.com (http://materialstoday.com/), we have, “Is graphene safe?” 
“But, it is the very nature of graphene that might be cause for concern: thin and lightweight, yet tough and intractable particles are notoriously worrisome in terms of the detrimental effects they can have on our health, particularly when breathed in…”
“Ken Donaldson is a respiratory toxicologist at the University of Edinburgh and he and his colleagues are among the first to raise the warning flag on graphene, at least for nanoscopic platelets of the material. It is not too great a leap of the imagination to imagine how such tiny flakes of carbon might be transported deep within the lungs similar to asbestos fibres and coal dust. Once lodged within, there is no likely mechanism for the removal or break down of such inert particles and they might reside on these sensitive tissues triggering a chronic inflammatory response or interfering with the normal cellular functions.”
Does this make any sane person feel safe about wearing a mask containing graphene particles?
“We have a new idea and a new product. It’s designed to force you to breathe in nanoparticles of graphene. Who knows what’ll happen? Try it and see.”
Yes, try it. And if you then develop a lung infection, since that is called a cardinal pandemic symptom, you could hit the jackpot and earn a diagnosis of COVID-19.
At which point the fun really begins, as you try to explain to your doctor that the cause isn’t a virus, but rather nanoparticles of graphene in your mask. If you play your cards right, you could end up in the psych ward with other “conspiracy theorists.”
“Can you believe it, nurse? I had this guy a few hours ago coughing and dripping mucus all over the place. Inflamed lungs. Classic COVID case. But he tells me he’s breathing in NANOPARTICLES. I gave him a sedative and sent him to the Crazy Pen. Where do these people get these stories? Have you ever heard of graphene? That’s what they put in pencils, right?”
“I don’t know, Doc. My cousin thinks she’s breathing in these nanos, too. I told her she needs a Thorazine drip.”
The masks are COVID-diagnosis promoters.
Step one: breathe in nanoparticles of graphene.
Step two: therefore develop a so-called major COVID symptom—lung infection.
Step three: test false-positive on the PCR test (happens millions of times, as I’ve documented). And boom, you’re a COVID case.
In keeping with local laws, I’ve applied for a license to own a mask as a weapon. If I gain approval, I plan to seal it in a glass box and mount it on the wall next to my grenade launcher and Civil War cannonball.