THERE’S NO BETTER PREVENTION THAN SHARING THE KNOWLEDGE FASTER THAN THEY SHARE THEIR PROPAGANDA!

By the end of last century, The Military has abandoned you and has joined Pharmafia and the super-rich elites in a plan to govern you with bioweapons and psy-ops. As I’ve said many times, Big Pharma and Big Tech are long gone, The Military BioTech Complex has been running the show for quite a while.
This is just a chapter from that book, more to come if we get some love.

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW:

INDIA BLACKLISTED US CDC FOR SECRETLY FUNDING BIOWEAPONS RESEARCH IN MANIPAL – Silview.media

Government pulls up U.S. agency for work on Nipah virus – The Hindu

NIPAH IS ONE OF THREE VIRUSES MODIFIED BY WUHAN LAB AT NIAD’S REQUEST, FAUCI E-MAIL REVEAL – Silview.media

In 2019, World’s deadliest viruses were ‘shipped to Wuhan ‘leak lab’ from Canada by rogue scientists linked to Chinese military’ – The Sun

Experts Say Nipah Virus Has Potential To Be Another Pandemic — With A Higher Death Toll – Yahoo

LATER UPDATE: JUST LEARNED THERE WAS NIPAH DRILL VERY SIMILAR TO EVENT201

‘For the next pandemic, we’ll have gigantic mRNA factories in India’ – Bill Gates

The next pandemic: Nipah virus? – Bill Gates’ GAVI

SOURCE

India fighting to contain Nipah, a virus deadlier than COVID-19 – NY Post

Experimental drug by Gilead completely effective against Nipah virus infection in monkeys – NIH

ALSO IN 2019, INDIA CONDUCTS NIPAH OUTBREAK DRILLS. OFFICIALS SAY THEY HOPE FOR FULL PREPAREDNESS BY 2022:

ECO-HEALTH ALLIANCE INVOLVED AGAIN!

Remember the host?

THERE ARE SEVERAL PATENTS FOR NIPAH DRUGS AND SOME ARE mRNA GENE THERAPIES REGISTERED AS VACCINES

SOURCE
SOURCE

BONUS

‘Contagion’ Reality Check: CDC Experts Explore Some of the Film’s Scenarios – PBS

WE ARE BEING PRIMED FOR THE DARKEST WINTER

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
We hardly made it before, but this summer something’s going on, our audience stats show bizarre patterns, we’re severely under estimates and the last savings are gone. We’re not your responsibility, but if you find enough benefits in this work…
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

We need to speed up our little awakening because we’re still light-years behind the reality.
This dwarfs Afghanistan and Covid is but a chapter in its playbook.
This connects all the trigger-words: 5G, Covid, Vaccines, Graphene, The Great Reset, Blockchain, The Fourth Industrial Revolution and beyond.

What Is the Internet of Bodies?

Source: The Rand Corporation (Download PDF)


A wide variety of internet-connected “smart”
devices now promise consumers and
businesses improved performance, convenience, efficiency, and fun. Within this
broader Internet of Things (IoT) lies a growing
industry of devices that monitor the human body,
collect health and other personal information, and
transmit that data over the internet. We refer to these
emerging technologies and the data they collect as
the Internet of Bodies (IoB) (see, for example, Neal,
2014; Lee, 2018), a term first applied to law and policy
in 2016 by law and engineering professor Andrea M.
Matwyshyn (Atlantic Council, 2017; Matwyshyn,
2016; Matwyshyn, 2018; Matawyshyn, 2019).
IoB devices come in many forms. Some are
already in wide use, such as wristwatch fitness
monitors or pacemakers that transmit data about
a patient’s heart directly to a cardiologist. Other
products that are under development or newly on the
market may be less familiar, such as ingestible products that collect and send information on a person’s
gut, microchip implants, brain stimulation devices,
and internet-connected toilets.
These devices have intimate access to the body
and collect vast quantities of personal biometric data.
IoB device makers promise to deliver substantial
health and other benefits but also pose serious risks,
including risks of hacking, privacy infringements,
or malfunction. Some devices, such as a reliable
artificial pancreas for diabetics, could revolutionize
the treatment of disease, while others could merely
inflate health-care costs with little positive effect on
outcomes. Access to huge torrents of live-streaming
biometric data might trigger breakthroughs in medical knowledge or behavioral understanding. It might increase health outcome disparities, where only
people with financial means have access to any of
these benefits. Or it might enable a surveillance state
of unprecedented intrusion and consequence.
There is no universally accepted definition of
the IoB.1
For the purposes of this report, we refer to
the IoB, or the IoB ecosystem, as IoB devices (defined
next, with further explanation in the passages that
follow) together with the software they contain and
the data they collect.

An IoB device is defined as a device that
• contains software or computing capabilities
• can communicate with an internet-connected
device or network
and satisfies one or both of the following:
• collects person-generated health or biometric
data
• can alter the human body’s function.
The software or computing capabilities in an
IoB device may be as simple as a few lines of code
used to configure a radio frequency identification (RFID) microchip implant, or as complex as a computer that processes artificial intelligence (AI)
and machine learning algorithms. A connection to
the internet through cellular or Wi-Fi networks is
required but need not be a direct connection. For
example, a device may be connected via Bluetooth to
a smartphone or USB device that communicates with
an internet-connected computer. Person-generated
health data (PGHD) refers to health, clinical, or
wellness data collected by technologies to be recorded
or analyzed by the user or another person. Biometric
or behavioral data refers to measurements of unique
physical or behavioral properties about a person.
Finally, an alteration to the body’s function refers
to an augmentation or modification of how the
user’s body performs, such as a change in cognitive
enhancement and memory improvement provided
by a brain-computer interface, or the ability to record
whatever the user sees through an intraocular lens
with a camera.
IoB devices generally, but not always, require a
physical connection to the body (e.g., they are worn,
ingested, implanted, or otherwise attached to or
embedded in the body, temporarily or permanently).
Many IoB devices are medical devices regulated by
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).3
Figure 1 depicts examples of technologies in the IoB
ecosystem that are either already available on the U.S.
market or are under development.
Devices that are not connected to the internet,
such as ordinary heart monitors or medical ID bracelets, are not included in the definition of IoB. Nor are implanted magnets (a niche consumer product used
by those in the so-called bodyhacker community
described in the next section) that are not connected
to smartphone applications (apps), because although
they change the body’s functionality by allowing the
user to sense electromagnetic vibrations, the devices
do not contain software. Trends in IoB technologies
and additional examples are further discussed in the
next section.
Some IoB devices may fall in and out of
our definition at different times. For example, a
Wi-Fi-connected smartphone on its own would
not be part of the IoB; however, once a health app
is installed that requires connection to the body to
track user information, such as heart rate or number
of steps taken, the phone would be considered IoB.
Our definition is meant to capture rapidly evolving
technologies that have the potential to bring about
the various risks and benefits that are discussed in
this report. We focused on analyzing existing and
emerging IoB technologies that appear to have the
potential to improve health and medical outcomes,
efficiency, and human function or performance, but
that could also endanger users’ legal, ethical, and
privacy rights or present personal or national security
risks.
For this research, we conducted an extensive
literature review and interviewed security experts,
technology developers, and IoB advocates to understand anticipated risks and benefits. We had valuable discussions with experts at BDYHAX 2019, an
annual convention for bodyhackers, in February
2019, and DEFCON 27, one of the world’s largest
hacker conferences, in August 2019. In this report,
we discuss trends in the technology landscape and
outline the benefits and risks to the user and other
stakeholders. We present the current state of governance that applies to IoB devices and the data they
collect and conclude by offering recommendations
for improved regulation to best balance those risks
and rewards.

Operation Warp Speed logo

Transhumanism, Bodyhacking, Biohacking,
and More


The IoB is related to several movements outside of formal health care focused on integrating human bodies
with technology. Next, we summarize some of these concepts,
though there is much overlap and interchangeability among them.
Transhumanism is a worldview and political movement advocating for the transcendence of humanity beyond current human capabilities.
Transhumanists want to use technology, such as
artificial organs and other techniques, to halt aging
and achieve “radical life extension” (Vita-Moore,
2018). Transhumanists may also seek to resist disease,
enhance their intelligence, or thwart fatigue through
diet, exercise, supplements, relaxation techniques, or
nootropics (substances that may improve cognitive
function).
Bodyhackers, biohackers, and cyborgs, who
enjoy experimenting with body enhancement, often
refer to themselves as grinders. They may or may not
identify as transhumanists. These terms are often
interchanged in common usage, but some do distinguish between them (Trammell, 2015). Bodyhacking
generally refers to modifying the body to enhance
one’s physical or cognitive abilities. Some bodyhacking is purely aesthetic. Hackers have implanted horns
in their heads and LED lights under their skin. Other
hacks, such as implanting RFID microchips in one’s
hand, are meant to enhance function, allowing users
to unlock doors, ride public transportation, store
emergency contact information, or make purchases
with the sweep of an arm (Baenen, 2017; Savage,
2018). One bodyhacker removed the RFID microchip from her car’s key fob and had it implanted
in her arm (Linder, 2019). A few bodyhackers have
implanted a device that is a combined wireless router
and hard drive that can be used as a node in a wireless mesh network (Oberhaus, 2019). Some bodyhacking is medical in nature, including 3D-printed
prosthetics and do-it-yourself artificial pancreases.
Still others use the term for any method of improving
health, including bodybuilding, diet, or exercise.
Biohacking generally denotes techniques that
modify the biological systems of humans or other
living organisms. This ranges from bodybuilding
and nootropics to developing cures for diseases via
self-experimentation to human genetic manipulation
through CRISPR-Cas9 techniques (Samuel, 2019;
Griffin, 2018).
Cyborgs, or cybernetic organisms, are people
who have used machines to enhance intelligence or
the senses.
Neil Harbisson, a colorblind man who can
“hear” color through an antenna implanted in his
head that plays a tune for different colors or wavelengths of light, is acknowledged as the first person to
be legally recognized by a government as a cyborg, by
being allowed to have his passport picture include his
implant (Donahue, 2017).
Because IoB is a wide-ranging field that
intersects with do-it-yourself body modification,
consumer products, and medical care, understanding
its benefits and risks is critical.

The Internet of Bodies is here. This is how it could change our lives

04 Jun 2020, Xiao Liu Fellow at the Centre for the Fourth Industrial Revolution, World Economic Forum

  • We’re entering the era of the “Internet of Bodies”: collecting our physical data via a range of devices that can be implanted, swallowed or worn.
  • The result is a huge amount of health-related data that could improve human wellbeing around the world, and prove crucial in fighting the COVID-19 pandemic.
  • But a number of risks and challenges must be addressed to realize the potential of this technology, from privacy issues to practical hurdles.

In the special wards of Shanghai’s Public Health Clinical Center, nurses use smart thermometers to check the temperatures of COVID-19 patients. Each person’s temperature is recorded with a sensor, reducing the risk of infection through contact, and the data is sent to an observation dashboard. An abnormal result triggers an alert to medical staff, who can then intervene promptly. The gathered data also allows medics to analyse trends over time.

The smart thermometers are designed by VivaLNK, a Silicon-Valley based startup, and are a powerful example of the many digital products and services that are revolutionizing healthcare. After the Internet of Things, which transformed the way we live, travel and work by connecting everyday objects to the Internet, it’s now time for the Internet of Bodies. This means collecting our physical data via devices that can be implanted, swallowed or simply worn, generating huge amounts of health-related information.

Some of these solutions, such as fitness trackers, are an extension of the Internet of Things. But because the Internet of Bodies centres on the human body and health, it also raises its own specific set of opportunities and challenges, from privacy issues to legal and ethical questions.

Image: McKinsey & Company

Connecting our bodies

As futuristic as the Internet of Bodies may seem, many people are already connected to it through wearable devices. The smartwatch segment alone has grown into a $13 billion market by 2018, and is projected to increase another 32% to $18 billion by 2021. Smart toothbrushes and even hairbrushes can also let people track patterns in their personal care and behaviour.

For health professionals, the Internet of Bodies opens the gate to a new era of effective monitoring and treatment.

In 2017, the U.S. Federal Drug Administration approved the first use of digital pills in the United States. Digital pills contain tiny, ingestible sensors, as well as medicine. Once swallowed, the sensor is activated in the patient’s stomach and transmits data to their smartphone or other devices.

In 2018, Kaiser Permanente, a healthcare provider in California, started a virtual rehab program for patients recovering from heart attacks. The patients shared their data with their care providers through a smartwatch, allowing for better monitoring and a closer, more continuous relationship between patient and doctor. Thanks to this innovation, the completion rate of the rehab program rose from less than 50% to 87%, accompanied by a fall in the readmission rate and programme cost.

The deluge of data collected through such technologies is advancing our understanding of how human behaviour, lifestyle and environmental conditions affect our health. It has also expanded the notion of healthcare beyond the hospital or surgery and into everyday life. This could prove crucial in fighting the coronavirus pandemic. Keeping track of symptoms could help us stop the spread of infection, and quickly detect new cases. Researchers are investigating whether data gathered from smartwatches and similar devices can be used as viral infection alerts by tracking the user’s heart rate and breathing.

At the same time, this complex and evolving technology raises new regulatory challenges.

What counts as health information?

In most countries, strict regulations exist around personal health information such as medical records and blood or tissue samples. However, these conventional regulations often fail to cover the new kind of health data generated through the Internet of Bodies, and the entities gathering and processing this data.

In the United States, the 1996 Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPPA), which is the major law for health data regulation, applies only to medical providers, health insurers, and their business associations. Its definition of “personal health information” covers only the data held by these entities. This definition is turning out to be inadequate for the era of the Internet of Bodies. Tech companies are now also offering health-related products and services, and gathering data. Margaret Riley, a professor of health law at the University of Virginia, pointed out to me in an interview that HIPPA does not cover the masses of data from consumer wearables, for example.

Another problem is that the current regulations only look at whether the data is sensitive in itself, not whether it can be used to generate sensitive information. For example, the result of a blood test in a hospital will generally be classified as sensitive data, because it reveals private information about your personal health. But today, all sorts of seemingly non-sensitive data can also be used to draw inferences about your health, through data analytics. Glenn Cohen, a professor at Harvard Law school, told me in an interview that even data that is not about health at all, such as grocery shopping lists, can be used for such inferences. As a result, conventional regulations may fail to cover data that is sensitive and private, simply because it did not look sensitive before it was processed.

Data risks

Identifying and protecting sensitive data matters, because it can directly affect how we are treated by institutions and other people. With big data analytics, countless day-to-day actions and decisions can ultimately feed into our health profile, which may be created and maintained not just by traditional healthcare providers, but also by tech companies or other entities. Without appropriate laws and regulations, it could also be sold. At the same time, data from the Internet of Bodies can be used to make predictions and inferences that could affect a person’s or group’s access to resources such as healthcare, insurance and employment.

James Dempsey, director of the Berkeley Center for Law and Technology, told me in an interview that this could lead to unfair treatment. He warned of potential discrimination and bias when such data is used for decisions in insurance and employment. The affected people may not even be aware of this.

One solution would be to update the regulations. Sandra Wachter and Brent Mittelstadt, two scholars at the Oxford Internet Institute, suggest that data protection law should focus more on how and why data is processed, and not just on its raw state. They argue for a so-called “right to reasonable inferences”, meaning the right to have your data used only for reasonable, socially acceptable inferences. This would involve setting standards on whether and when inferring certain information from a person’s data, including the state of their present or future health, is socially acceptable or overly invasive.

Practical problems

Apart from the concerns over privacy and sensitivity, there are also a number of practical problems in dealing with the sheer volume of data generated by the Internet of Bodies. The lack of standards around security and data processing makes it difficult to combine data from diverse sources, and use it to advance research. Different countries and institutions are trying to jointly overcome this problem. The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) and its Standards Association have been working with the US Food & Drug Administration (FDA), National Institutes of Health, as well as universities and businesses among other stakeholders since 2016, to address the security and interoperability issue of connected health.

As the Internet of Bodies spreads into every aspect of our existence, we are facing a range of new challenges. But we also have an unprecedented chance to improve our health and well-being, and save countless lives. During the COVID-19 crisis, using this opportunity and finding solutions to the challenges is a more urgent task than ever. This relies on government agencies and legislative bodies working with the private sector and civil society to create a robust governance framework, and to include inferences in the realm of data protection. Devising technological and regulatory standards for interoperability and security would also be crucial to unleashing the power of the newly available data. The key is to collaborate across borders and sectors to fully realize the enormous benefits of this rapidly advancing technology.

Now more from the Rand Corporation

Governance of IoB devices is managed through a patchwork of state and federal agencies, nonprofit organizations, and consumer advocacy groups

  • The primary entities responsible for governance of IoB devices are the FDA and the U.S. Department of Commerce.
  • Although the FDA is making strides in cybersecurity of medical devices, many IoB devices, especially those available for consumer use, do not fall under FDA jurisdiction.
  • Federal and state officials have begun to address cybersecurity risks associated with IoB that are beyond FDA oversight, but there are few laws that mandate cybersecurity best practices.

As with IoB devices, there is no single entity that provides oversight to IoB data

  • Protection of medical information is regulated at the federal level, in part, by HIPAA.
  • The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) helps ensure data security and consumer privacy through legal actions brought by the Bureau of Consumer Protection.
  • Data brokers are largely unregulated, but some legal experts are calling for policies to protect consumers.
  • As the United States has no federal data privacy law, states have introduced a patchwork of laws and regulations that apply to residents’ personal data, some of which includes IoB-related information.
  • The lack of consistency in IoB laws among states and between the state and federal level potentially enables regulatory gaps and enforcement challenges.

Recommendations

  • The U.S. Commerce Department can put foreign IoB companies on its “Entity List,” preventing them from doing business with Americans, if those foreign companies are implicated in human rights violations.
  • As 5G, Wi-Fi 6, and satellite internet standards are rolled out, the federal government should be prepared for issues by funding studies and working with experts to develop security regulations.
  • It will be important to consider how to incentivize quicker phase-out of the legacy medical devices with poor cybersecurity that are already in wide use.
  • IoB developers must be more attentive to cybersecurity by integrating cybersecurity and privacy considerations from the beginning of product development.
  • Device makers should test software for vulnerabilities often and devise methods for users to patch software.
  • Congress should consider establishing federal data transparency and protection standards for data that are collected from the IoB.
  • The FTC could play a larger role to ensure that marketing claims about improved well-being or specific health treatment are backed by appropriate evidence.

ALSO READ: BOMBSHELL! 5G NETWORK TO WIRELESSLY POWER DEVICES. GUESS WHAT IT CAN DO TO NANOTECH (DARPA-FINANCED)

Internet of Bodies (IoB): Future of Healthcare & Medical Technology

Kashmir Observer | March 27, 2021   

By Khalid Mustafa

JAMMU and Kashmir is almost always in the news for one reason or another.  Apart from the obvious political headlines, J&K was also in the news because of covid-19.  As the world struggled with covid-19 pandemic, J&K faced a peculiar situation due to its poor health infrastructure.  Nonetheless, all sections of society did a commendable job in keeping covid  under control and preventing the loss of life as much as possible. The doctors Association in Kashmir along with the administration did  as much as possible  through their efforts.  For that we are all thankful to them. However, it is about time that we integrate our Healthcare System by upgrading it and introducing to it new technologies from the current world.

We’ve all heard of the Internet of Things, a network of products ranging from refrigerators to cars to industrial control systems that are connected to the internet. Internet of Bodies (IoB) the outcome of the Internet of Things (IoT) is broadly helping the healthcare system and every individual to live life with ease by managing the human body in terms of technology. The Internet of Bodies connects the human body to a network of internet run devices.

The use of IoB can be independent or by the health care heroes (doctors) to monitor, report and enhance the health system of the human body.  The internet of Bodies (IoB) are broadly classified into three categories or in some cases we can say three generations – Body Internal, Body External and Body embedded. The Body Internal model of IoB is the category, in which the individual or patient is interacting with the technology environment or we can say internet or our healthcare system by having an installed device inside the human body. Body External model or generation of IoB signifies the model where the device is installed external to the body for certain usage viz. Apple watches and other smart bands from various OEM’s for tracking blood pressure, heart rate etc which can later be used for proper health tracking and monitoring purposes. Last one under this classifications are Body Embedded, in which the devices are embedded under the skin by health care professionals during a number of health situations.

The Internet of Bodies is a small part or even the offspring of the Internet of Things. Much like it, there remains the challenge of data and information breach as we have already witnessed many excessive distributed denial of service (DDos) attacks and other cyber-attacks on IoTs to exploit data and gather information. The effects are even more severe and vulnerable in the case of the Internet of Bodies as the human body is involved in this schema.

The risk of these threats has taken over the discussion about the IOBs.  Thus,  this  has become a  great concern in medical technology companies. Most of the existing IoB companies just rely on end-user license agreements and privacy policies to retain rights in software and to create rights to monitor, aggregate and share users’ body data. They just need to properly enhance the security model and implement high security measures to avoid any misfortune. For the same the Government of India is already examining the personal data protection bill 2019.

The Internet has not managed to change our lifestyles in the way the internet of things will!


Views expressed in the article are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent the editorial stance of Kashmir Observer

  • The author is presently Manager IT & Ops In HK Group

ALSO READ: OBAMA, DARPA, GSK AND ROCKEFELLER’S $4.5B B.R.A.I.N. INITIATIVE – BETTER SIT WHEN YOU READ

And this is some old DARPA research anticipating the hive mind:

Hierarchical Identify Verify Exploit (HIVE)

Dr. Bryan Jacobs

Hierarchical Identify Verify Exploit (HIVE)

Social media, sensor feeds, and scientific studies generate large amounts of valuable data. However, understanding the relationships among this data can be challenging. Graph analytics has emerged as an approach by which analysts can efficiently examine the structure of the large networks produced from these data sources and draw conclusions from the observed patterns. By understanding the complex relationships both within and between data sources, a more complete picture of the analysis problem can be understood. With lessons learned from innovations in the expanding realm of deep neural networks, the Hierarchical Identify Verify Exploit (HIVE) program seeks to advance the arena of graph analytics.

The HIVE program is looking to build a graph analytics processor that can process streaming graphs 1000X faster and at much lower power than current processing technology. If successful, the program will enable graph analytics techniques powerful enough to solve tough challenges in cyber security, infrastructure monitoring and other areas of national interest. Graph analytic processing that currently requires racks of servers could become practical in tactical situations to support front-line decision making. What ’s more, these advanced graph analytics servers could have the power to analyze the billion- and trillion-edge graphs that will be generated by the Internet of Things, ever-expanding social networks, and future sensor networks.

In parallel with the hardware development of a HIVE processor, DARPA is working with MIT Lincoln Laboratory and Amazon Web Services (AWS) to host the HIVE Graph Challenge with the goal of developing a trillion-edge dataset. This freely available dataset will spur innovative software and hardware solutions in the broader graph analysis community that will contribute to the HIVE program.

The overall objective is to accelerate innovation in graph analytics to open new pathways for meeting the challenge of understanding an ever-increasing torrent of data. The HIVE program features two primary challenges:

  • The first is a static graph problem focused on sub-graph Isomorphism. This task is to further the ability to search a large graph in order to identify a particular subsection of that graph.
  • The second is a dynamic graph problem focused on trying to find optimal clusters of data within the graph.

Both challenges will include a small graph problem in the billions of nodes and a large graph problem in the trillions of nodes.

ALSO READ: BEFORE MRNA AND WUHAN, DARPA FUNDED THE BIRTH OF GOOGLE, FACEBOOK AND THE INTERNET ITSELF

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
We hardly made it before, but this summer something’s going on, our audience stats show bizarre patterns, we’re severely under estimates and the last savings are gone. We’re not your responsibility, but if you find enough benefits in this work…
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

Can’t wait to make a video and see if YouTube bans this!

Remember “The Good Cabal” who “fortified the 2020 elections” in US, according to TIME? You think they stopped after successfully hi-jacking the US Government?
However, this group below has been described by mainstream media as “The Good Club”. Right.

Stacy Palmer, editor of the Chronicle of Philanthropy, said the summit was unprecedented. “We only learnt about it afterwards, by accident. Normally these people are happy to talk good causes, but this is different – maybe because they don’t want to be seen as a global cabal,” he said.

  • May 26, 2009, 11:57 AM ET

Billionaires Try to Shrink World’s Population, Report Says

buffettgates0526_E_20090526111421.jpg

Last week’s meeting of the Great and the Good (or the Richest and Richer) was bound to draw criticism.

The New York meeting of billionaires Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, David Rockefeller, Eli Broad, George Soros, Ted Turner, Oprah, Michael Bloomberg and others was described by the Chronicle of Philanthropy as an informal gathering aimed at encouraging philanthropy. Just a few billionaires getting together for drinks and dinner and a friendly chat about how to promote charitable giving.

There was no agenda, we were told. And no plan for a follow-up meeting.

But in an age of fallen wealth idols, it was inevitable that a meeting of billionaire minds would draw scrutiny. Surely all that money and power in one room had to spell trouble for the rest of us.

An article in the Times of London, headlined “Billionaire Club in Bid to Curb World Population,” said the issues discussed in the top-secret meeting included health care, education and–by far the most controversial–slowing the global population growth.

“Taking their cue from Gates they agreed that overpopulation was a priority,” the article said, adding that “this could result in a challenge to some Third World politicians who believe contraception and female education weaken traditional values.”

Such a stand wouldn’t be surprising. Mssrs. Gates, Buffett and Turner have been quietly worrying about Malthusian population problems for years. Mr. Gates in February outlined a plan to try to cap the world’s population at 8.3 billion people, rather than the projected 9.3 billion at which the population is expected to peak.

But some right-leaning blogs have started attacking the billionaires as forming a kind of secret sterilization society or giant ATM to fund abortions. It fed into time-honored fears of the rich using their wealth to reshape mankind in its preferred image. Some are raising the specter of eugenics.

I am not taking a stand on population control. But from what I was personally told about the meeting–and what the Times spells out further down in its story–population control was just one of many items raised during the meeting, as each philanthropist talked about what they were working on. It wasn’t the reason for meeting and there are no real plans for a follow-up confab.

The notion that this secret gathering was aimed mostly at shrinking the world’s population just doesn’t ring true.

That said, almost all of the attendees are politically liberal. Do you think this Star Chamber of Philanthropists is something to worry about or something to be grateful for?

Oprah Winfrey’s charity challenge

Eleven of the world’s wealthiest people, including Warren Buffett and Bill Gates, met in secret a fortnight ago to discuss the future of philanthropy in light of the continued global economic crisis.

By The Telegraph UK
Last Updated: 7:41PM BST 21 May 2009

Other attendees included Oprah Winfrey, the billionaire chat show host, Michael Bloomberg, mayor of New York, Ted Turner, the media mogul, and George Soros, the man who “broke the Bank of England” in 1992.

Although details of the meeting are only now emerging, it is believed the group met to brainstorm how best to bolster charitable giving in spite of the recent reduction in wealth.

Despite market conditions, the 11 attendees still share a combined fortune of $120bn (£76bn), based on the Forbes 2009 list of the world’s richest people.

The meeting was held on May 5, at the private residence of the president of Rockefeller University on New York’s exclusive Upper East Side.

It is not known if the attendees discussed working together on a charitable basis, although all present have been involved in philanthropy in some shape or form.

Mr Gates has bestowed the majority of his $37bn fortune to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, while Mr Soros last week pledged $50m to the Robin Hood Foundation.

Article deleted and retrieved with the Wayback Machine:


Wednesday May 20, 2009 
America’s Top Philanthropists Hold Private Meeting to Discuss Global Problems
By Chronicle of Philanthropy 

In a quiet meeting closed to the news media and the public, Bill Gates, David Rockefeller Sr., Oprah Winfrey, and other leading philanthropists met in New York this month to discuss ways to promote charitable giving and make their philanthropy more effective in fighting problems at home and abroad.
The unusual event, which occurred May 5 at Rockefeller University in New York, was an unprecedented gathering of the world’s wealthiest — and most generous — people. Together, the philanthropists in the room have committed a total of more than $72.5-billion to charitable causes since 1996, according to Chronicle of Philanthropy tallies.
While the meeting and its hush-hush nature has triggered intense speculation by the news media about what was discussed, Patricia Q. Stonesifer, former chief executive of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, said it was simply a gathering of people who have a common passion for helping others.
“A group of philanthropists came together to discuss their giving,” said Ms. Stonesifer, who attended the meeting. “There’s really no secret about that. It was an informal get-together and a chance to exchange ideas about what motivates them and what they have learned so far.”
“There was an enormous amount of enthusiasm and excitement around their giving and that was a very big part of what they were there for,” she added.
Among the high-profile participants were Ted Turner, Warren E. Buffett, George Soros, Peter G. Peterson, Eli Broad, and New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg. (All of those philanthropists have appeared at one time on The Chronicle’s ranking of America’s most-generous donors.)Mr. Buffett, Mr. Rockefeller, and Mr. Gates called together the elite group, sending a short letter of invitation to each of the guests. Mr. Rockefeller arranged the location — the private Manhattan residence of Rockefeller University’s president. (Mr. Rockefeller is an honorary member of the institution’s Board of Trustees.)
Ms. Stonesifer, who helped coordinate the meeting, said it started at 3 p.m. and lasted through dinner. Given the personalities in the room, the meeting touched upon a variety of philanthropy topics, said Ms. Stonesifer, who is currently chairwoman of the Smithsonian Institution’s Board of Regents.“
It was a wide-ranging conversation,” she said, “but they each shared what motivates their giving, their areas of focus of their work, the lessons learned, and thoughts on how we might increase giving.”
Indeed, the philanthropic interests represented on that day were rather diverse. For example, Mr. Peterson, co-founder of a private-equity firm, is focused on changing the government’s financing of social programs and other fiscal issues, while Ms. Winfrey has primarily given money to education efforts in South Africa and elsewhere.
Ms. Stonesifer — and others who attended the event — declined to say what was specifically talked about. The former Gates foundation leader did say that the attendees are not working on a major collaborative charitable project but do plan to continue to talk to one another.“
It was a really great discussion, and we agreed to continue the dialogue in the future, but there were no specific action items out of the meeting,” she said.
With such a powerful guest list, some blog writers have fixated on the meeting as the origins of some international conspiracy. But Ms. Stonesifer objected to the meeting being described as a “secret” event with mysterious intent.“
It was a private gathering. There are often opportunities for each of these individuals to discuss their giving in public — and they often do. But this really was a conversation among friends and colleagues.”
She added: “People are automatically curious about these types of things. But they were all quite matter-of-fact about why they were there. It was like a gathering that you and I have, but it was just a different group of friends and colleagues discussing what they care about.”

But you’re crazy to suspect anything malicious.

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
We hardly made it before, but this summer something’s going on, our audience stats show bizarre patterns, we’re severely under estimates and the last savings are gone. We’re not your responsibility, but if you find enough benefits in this work…
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

We gave up on our profit shares from masks, if you want to help us, please use the donation button!
We think frequent mask use, even short term use can be bad for you, but if you have no way around them, at least send a message of consciousness.
Get it here!

Establishment fact-checkers are cognitively retarded and functionally illiterate copy-paste bots who still use Google, this is how you fact-check Stu Peters:

LATER UPDATES: A glimpse into the future or the present?

Status: pending

SOURCE

Status: Published March 2021, but submitted in April 2020, which means most of the research was done before the Plandemic.

SOURCE

So the people who claim many vaccines are just saline and the people who claim they are just graphene oxide can be right at the same time.

If you are reading this, chances ae you already know of La Quinta Columna researchers and Stu Peters shows that revealed large presence of very toxic graphene in Covid injections. If you don’t, you need to research and catch up with the details, there’s no cheating on the homework anymore.

Also read: URGENT! IT’S IN MASKS TOO: SUPER-TOXIC GRAPHENE OXIDE CONFIRMED BY MANUFACTURERS

Onw of Stu’s latest deliveries featured a very documented expert and Pharma analyst who formerly worked for Pfizer and revealed the graphene is hiding in the so called PEGs, I’ll explain shortly what these are.

So I went to fact-check this, even though the whistle-blower sounded very compelling and having deep insights in the business.

My findings show that they only scratch the surface of a larger problem:
As I’ve shown before, graphene has a large spectrum of applications today, most endangering our health. But graphene oxide (GO) is especially toxic and they will pump it in us with other treatments too.

GO-based PEGs have been the new rising star of drug delivery for quite a few years before Covid and they are usually graphene based, as a several studies and invention patents prove beyond doubt. I don’t think there’s any mRNA vaccine that doesn’t use them.

They are not featured in injections inserts as separate ingredient, which they are, but as a process. Yup, they are the PEG in PEGylation.
It’s like saying Coca Cola was sweetened instead of listing several sweeteners!

Here you can download the safety Data Sheet for ALC-0135, it’s bad stuff, really corrosive!

Moderna comes with the goods too, all their invention patents for the mRNA tech contain these PEGs:

Think of an oral drug capsule. The PEG is a high-nanotech version of the capsule fabric, which can do a series of cool tricks, but its mainly roles are to protect the content and help it penetrate tissue/cells and reach specific targets.

Now think the drug insert only lists the content ingredients. not the capsule.

“Poly(ethylene glycol) (PEG), also known as poly(ethylene oxide) (PEO), is an amphiphilic polyether that is soluble both in water and most organic solvents. PEG and its derivatives are among the few polymers approved for medical uses by the FDA.

Functionalized PEG, also named activated PEG, is a family of PEG derivatives decorated with functional groups. Funtionalized PEGs are used broadly for drug PEGylation, polymer engineering, nantechnology, biotechnology, and biomedical engineering.”
This is the description given by Sinopeg, Chinese company that delivers PEGs for most Covid injection manufacturers.

From their September 2020 blog post we extract more details confirming my earlier claims:

“The coupling of PEG to protein is also called protein polyglycolization, which is essentially a drug delivery technology. The coupling of activated peg with protein molecules can improve the three-dimensional space state of proteins, resulting in changes in various biochemical properties of proteins. For example, chemical stability increased, half-life prolonged, immunogenicity and toxicity decreased or disappeared, protein solubility increased. SINOPEG is a dynamic science company dedicated to drug delivery systems (DDS). SINOPEG are specialized in the R&D of long acting biopharmaceuticals, developing and manufacturing of block copolymers, lipids for drug delivery, medical devices, bio-engineering, and other broad uses.

Up to now, the FDA has approved 20 polyglycolic drugs. In addition to monoclonal antibodies, polyglycolic drugs have become the most powerful drug development technology.
As a leading company in polyethylene glycol derivatives (PEGs), SINOPEG is capable of supplying small to large quantities of rich selection of PEG derivative products with unique molecular designs (chemical structure, molecular weights (MW)) and exceptional product quality control to serve bio-technology and pharmaceutical companies and research organizations worldwide.”

At this point, you’re probably asking when is graphene coming in. I got you covered:

SOURCE

Polyethylene Glycol-Engrafted Graphene Oxide as Biocompatible Materials for Peptide Nucleic Acid Delivery into Cells

Bioconjugate Chemistry. 2018 Feb 7.

Ahruem Baek 1Yu Mi Baek 1Hyung-Mo Kim 1Bong-Hyun Jun 1Dong-Eun Kim 1 Department of Bioscience and Biotechnology, Konkuk University Neundong-ro 120, Gwangjin-gu, Seoul 05029, Republic of Korea.

Abstract

Graphene oxide (GO) is known to strongly bind single-stranded nucleic acids with fluorescence quenching near the GO surface. However, GO exhibits weak biocompatibility characteristics, such as low dispersibility in cell culture media and significant cytotoxicity. To improve dispersibility in cell culture media and cell viability of GO, we prepared nanosized GO (nGO) constructs and modified the nGO surface using polyethylene glycol (PEG-nGO). Single-stranded peptide nucleic acid (PNA) was adsorbed onto the PEG-nGO and was readily desorbed by adding complementary RNA or under low pH conditions. PNA adsorbed on the PEG-nGO was efficiently delivered into lung cancer cells via endocytosis without affecting cell viability. Furthermore, antisense PNA delivered using PEG-nGO effectively downregulated the expression of the target gene in cancer cells. Our results suggest that PEG-nGO is a biocompatible carrier useful for PNA delivery into cells and serves as a promising gene delivery tool.

HEY, KIDS, WANNA BUY SOME LETHAL INJECTIONS AMMO? HERE’S YOUR LINK!

Similar articles


AND THEN WE FIND OUT THIS THING IS COMMONLY USED IN PCR TESTING!

SOURCE

Facilitation of Polymerase Chain Reaction with Poly(ethylene glycol)-Engrafted Graphene Oxide Analogous to a Single-Stranded-DNA Binding Protein

Applied Material Interfaces. 2016 Dec 14

Hyo Ryoung Kim 1Ahruem Baek 1Il Joon Lee 1Dong-Eun Kim 1

Abstract

Polymerase chain reaction (PCR), a versatile DNA amplification method, is a fundamental technology in modern life sciences and molecular diagnostics. After multiple rounds of PCR, however, nonspecific DNA fragments are often produced and the amplification efficiency and fidelity decrease. Here, we demonstrated that poly(ethylene glycol)-engrafted nanosized graphene oxide (PEG-nGO) can significantly improve the PCR specificity and efficiency. PEG-nGO allows the specificity to be maintained even after multiple rounds of PCR, allowing reliable amplification at low annealing temperatures. PEG-nGO decreases the nonspecific annealing of single-stranded DNA (ssDNA), such as primer dimerization and false priming, by adsorbing excess primers. Moreover, PEG-nGO interrupts the reannealing of denatured template DNA by preferentially binding to ssDNA. Thus, PEG-nGO enhances the PCR specificity by preferentially binding to ssDNA without inhibiting DNA polymerase, which is analogous to the role of ssDNA binding proteins.

Similar articles

My favorite today is this invention patent and its great background info:

Method and process to make and use cotton-tipped electrochemical immunosensor for the detection of corona virus United States Patent 11035817
SOURCE

Abstract:

A method and process to make and use cotton-tipped electrochemical immunosensor for the detection of corona viruses is described. The immunosensor were fabricated by immobilizing the virus antigens on carbon nanofiber-modified screen printed electrodes which were functionalized by diazonium electrografting and activated by EDC/NHS chemistry. The detection of virus antigens were achieved via swabbing followed by competitive assay using fixed amount of antibody in the solution. Ferro/ferricyanide redox probe was used for the detection using square wave voltammetric technique. The limits of detection for our electrochemical biosensors were 0.8 and 0.09 pg/ml for SARS-CoV-2 and MERS-CoV, respectively indicating very good sensitivity for the sensors. Both biosensors did not show significant cross reactivity with other virus antigens such as influenza A and HCoV, indicating the high selectivity of the method.

BACKGROUND

The newly identified severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the last discovered member of the corona viruses that cause serious human respiratory infections. Other types of corona viruses were previously known such as the Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV), SARS-CoV1, HCoV-OC43, HCoV-229E, HCoV HKU1 and HCoV NL63. Since its first identification in China in 2019 until present, SARS-CoV-2 has spread globally causing significant morbidity and mortality. COVID-19; the disease caused by SARS-CoV-2; was declared as pandemic by the world health organization on March 2020. Until now, there are no available vaccines or drugs proven to treat COVID 19. Therefore, the timely detection of SARS-CoV-2, is urgently needed to effectively control the rapid spread of the infection.

The testing of the virus can be achieved by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test, detection of antigens, or by serological testing (the detection of the virus antibody). However, the serological tests are not reliable for the early diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection due to the relatively long delay between infection and seroconversion. Molecular diagnosis using RT-PCR is the primary used method for the detection of corona viruses. However, PCR takes relatively long time for analysis (minimum of 3 hours), and requires several steps including the collection of the specimens by swabbing, the transport of the sample into a solution and extraction of the viral RNA before amplification. Moreover, RT-PCR is relatively expensive which hindered its wide applicability for population scale diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2, particularly in low and middle income countries. Thus, sensitive, rapid and accurate diagnostic methods based on the direct detection of the viral antigens without pretreatment is highly demanded to control the COVID 19 outbreak. There are four main structural antigens for corona viruses: nucleocapsid (N), spike (S), matrix (M), and envelope (E). Among them, the S and N proteins have the potential to be used as biomarkers because they can distinguish different types of corona viruses.

Several diagnostic methods are being developed for the detection of COVID 19. Biosensors have been widely used for many diagnostic applications showing fast, easy and reliable detection. Until now, only few biosensors have been developed for SARS-CoV-2 such as the graphene-based field-effect transistor (FET) biosensor reported by Seo. et al. The FET immunosensor was used for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 using spike 51 protein as biomarker. Plasmonic photothermal biosensors for SARS-CoV-2 through nucleic acid hybridization have been also developed. Half-strip lateral flow assays (LFA) for the detection of N protein was reported. However, LFA provide qualitative or semi-quantitative results and more work is still required to develop more accurate detection methods.

Electrochemical biosensors are one of the most popular types of biosensors which offer several advantages such as the low cost, capability of miniaturization, high sensitivity and selectivity. These advantages make them ideal for use as point-of-care devices for diagnostic applications. Electrochemical biosensors have been widely integrated with carbon nanostructures to fabricate highly sensitive devices. Carbon nanofiber (CNF) is one of the materials that showed excellent applications in biosensors because of its large surface area, stability and ease of functionalization.

Cotton swabs have been recently used in the fabrication of immunoassays for the detection of different pathogens. In these assays, the colorimetric detection was achieved based on visual discrimination of the color change. These assays are simple, fast and easy to perform. However, they only give qualitative or semi-quantitative results. Thus, more accurate methods are still required.

Want some graphene nano-flakes with your milk?

COMPOSITION FOR PCR CONTAINING A POLYETHYLENE GLYCOL-ENGRAFTED NANO-SIZED GRAPHENE OXIDE United States Patent Application 20180155765

BACKGROUND

1. Field of the Invention

The present invention relates to a composition for PCR including polyethylene glycol-engrafted nano-sized graphene oxide (PEG-nGO), the composition for PCR being capable of increasing the efficiency and specificity of PCR and shortening PCR time, and a PCR method using the same.

2. Discussion of Related Art

Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is a method of artificially amplifying DNA and is an indispensable technology in modern biotechnology and molecular biology. PCR is widely used in diagnostics, gene manipulation, biosensors, and a variety of fields. However, the specificity and efficiency of PCR may be reduced due to unintended (re)annealing of single stranded DNA (e.g., primer dimerization, incorrect primer binding, and reannealing of PCR amplicons). Nonspecific primer binding in PCR steps may result in generation of a large number of nonspecific amplicons, which can be confirmed by agarose gel electrophoresis. That is, smearing of a PCR band, which is observed in an electrophoresed agarose gel, indicates the presence of a large number of DNAs having similar sizes (i.e., nonspecific amplicons). When a DNA template is excessively amplified in PCR and the same primers are used in the second or subsequent PCR, nonspecific amplicons may be generated. To solve these problems, various PCR techniques such as nested PCR have been developed. In the first step of nested PCR, a primer set for amplifying a broad range including a target sequence on a DNA template is used, and in the second step, primer sequences for amplifying only the target sequence are generally used as an inner primer (nested primer) set.

In addition, studies have been conducted to increase the efficiency and specificity of PCR using various nanomaterials such as gold nanoparticles, carbon nanotubes, carbon nanopowder, graphene nanoflakes, cadmium telluride quantum dots, graphene quantum dots, dendrimers, and titanium dioxide. For example, graphene nanoflakes serve to improve PCR efficiency by increasing thermal conductivity of a PCR mixture, and gold nanoparticles are capable of being adsorbed to DNA and proteins to reduce amplification of nonspecific DNA products. However, these methods have a disadvantage that the specificity and efficiency of PCR may not be fundamentally solved when each nanoparticle is present. It is also controversial as to whether gold nanoparticles play a role in increasing the specificity of PCR.

Graphene oxide (GO) refers to a material having a honeycomb-like nanostructure in which carbons are arranged in a hexagonal lattice, and is prepared by oxidizing a single layer of graphite, i.e., graphene. The surface of GO may have various functional groups such as epoxy groups, hydroxyl groups, and carboxyl groups, which allow the GO to be dissolved in a water-soluble solvent. In addition, GO may bind to single-stranded nucleic acids via π stacking interaction and hydrogen bonding, but has low affinity to double-stranded nucleic acids. Based on the functions of GO, GO has been widely applied in various areas such as DNA detection, biosensors based on energy transfer through fluorescence resonance, and real-time monitoring of fluorescently labeled nucleic acids.

However, GO is not soluble in a buffer solution containing Mg2+ and a high salt concentration, such as a PCR buffer, and is adsorbed to proteins such as a DNA polymerase via non-covalent bonding. It is well known that divalent cations such as Mg2+ induce strong crosslinking between GO sheets, allowing the GO sheets to be aggregated. That is, when other salts are added to a PCR sample for buffering, GO sheets may be aggregated by divalent cations such as Mg2+. In addition, it has been reported that GO is bound to proteins to induce protein aggregation, which may distort the structures of proteins and cause the loss of function of proteins. Polyethylene glycol (PEG) is known as a biocompatible polymer that reduces protein adsorption. Recently, to minimize nonspecific protein adsorption and increase the solubility of GO in a solution with a high salt concentration, nano-sized GO (nGO) was prepared, and the surface of the nGO was coated with PEG to prepare PEG-nGO (Non-Patent Document 1). In Non-Patent Document 1, it is disclosed that, when PEG-nGO interacts with a protein, a nano-bio interface may be formed due to PEGylation of the surface of GO, thereby significantly reducing adsorption of the PEG-nGO to the protein. Accordingly, PEG-nGO is attracting attention as a substance capable of interacting with proteins without impairing the structure and function of the proteins.

Therefore, the present inventors have tried to confirm the effect of PEG-nGO on the efficiency and specificity of PCR. During the denaturation step of PCR, polyethylene glycol-engrafted nano-sized graphene oxide (PEG-nGO) was capable of being adsorbed to single-stranded primers and a DNA template. Accordingly, when PEG-nGO was added to a PCR sample and PCR amplification was performed, in an initial PCR process in which an excessive amount of primers was included, primer dimerization was inhibited, and in a late PCR process in which amplified PCR products were accumulated, nonspecific reannealing between the amplified PCR products and other DNA strands was inhibited. Thus, it was confirmed that, when PCR was performed using a composition for PCR including the PEG-nGO of the present invention, the efficiency and specificity of PCR may be improved and PCR time may be shortened as compared with conventional PCR techniques. By confirming these results, the present invention was completed.

Or perhaps you want to find out about GO-based nano-biosensors:


Quantitative and Multiplexed MicroRNA Sensing in Living Cells Based on Peptide Nucleic Acid and Nano Graphene Oxide (PANGO)

If you’re curious about a Mechanism of DNA Adsorption and Desorption on Graphene Oxide, say no more!

So it shouldn’t surprise us that La Quinta Columna eventually found similar stuff in older vaccines too.

I bet there’s going to be a long line of such revelations in the near future, until they put the shackles on us.

Meanwhile, top researchers from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia find that GO induces high oxidative stress to the cells, slowly killing us:

Other studies compare graphene and carbon nanotubes to asbestos:

SOURCE

More from the study quoted above: “Furthermore, it is equally important that the material properties are reported in full in papers dealing with (eco)toxicity assessment of GBMs. Can the information that has been collected on safety of GBMs be applied to other 2D materials? We believe that some aspects might be common to all 2D materials, or even to all nanomaterials, while some “postcarbon” 2D materials will likely present with their own specific concerns. For instance, the propensity to dissolve in a biological environment with the release of ionic species that are more biologically/chemically reactive than the parental 2D material is an issue that has not been described for GBMs.(346) Moreover, Guiney et al.(347) recently commented that “with a constantly expanding library of 2D materials, the ability to predict toxicological outcomes is of critical importance” and suggested that high-throughput screening approaches may prove useful in order to elucidate cellular interactions of 2D materials. However, the issue is not so much the low throughput of current approaches as much as the inconsistent design of commonly used toxicity assays and frequent lack of material characterization. Indeed, careful characterization of both the test material and the test system is required, and a proposal was recently put forward for minimum reporting requirements in publications dealing with nanobiointeractions. Though such reporting requirements have not yet been adopted, it is important to discuss these issues in the scientific community. To conclude, the hype that inevitably follows with technological advances should be tempered by sound, science-based assessment of the potential impact on human health and the environment to ensure safe and sustainable development of new products and applications.”

And we find out the cytoxicity is widely known inside the industry, from a very interesting invention patent that I dug out and provides excellent background information, it’s a lot, but it gives us great details as to the extent of GO usage and impact on health:

Hey, kids, PEGylation is bad for you!
SOURCE

“The in vitro studies demonstrated concentration-dependent toxicity. The highest concentration (100 μg/mL) of non-PEGylated rGO had a lower toxic influence on cell viability in primary cultures of astrocytes and rat brain endothelial cells, while PEGylated rGO induced deleterious effects and cell death. We assessed hippocampal BBB integrity in vivo by evaluating astrocyte activation and the expression of the endothelial tight and adherens junctions proteins. From 1 h to 7 days post-rGO-PEG systemic injection, a notable and progressive down-regulation of protein markers of astrocytes (GFAP, connexin-43), the endothelial tight (occludin), and adherens (β-catenin) junctions and basal lamina (laminin) were observed. The formation of intracellular reactive oxygen species demonstrated by increases in the enzymatic antioxidant system in the PEGylated rGO samples was indicative of oxidative stress-mediated damage. Under the experimental conditions and design of the present study the PEGylation of rGO did not improve interaction with components of the blood-brain barrier. In contrast, the attachment of PEG to rGO induced deleterious effects in comparison with the effects caused by non-PEGylated rGO.”

Biocompatible graphene quantum dots for drug delivery and bioimaging applications – United States Patent 9642815

Abstract:

In this work we have targeted two aspects of GQDs, Size and ROS to reduce their cytotoxicity. Small size can damage cell organelles and production of ROS (reactive oxygen species) can hamper cell machinery in multiple ways. We have shown that cytotoxicity can be significantly reduced by embedding GQDs inside the PEG matrix rather than creating a thin shell around each GQD. Thin PEG shell around GQD can control ROS production but cannot circumvent the toxicity due to small size. Thus it was essential to solve both the issues. We have used a simple electrochemical method (12 h at room temperature) for synthesizing GQDs and embedded them in PEG matrix via a simple one step hydrothermal reaction (24 h at 160° C.) involving only GQDs, PEG, and deionized water. The P-GQDs formed after hydrothermal reaction show nanoparticles of diameter of ˜80-100 nm containing GQDs entrapped in PEG matrix. MTT assay showed significant 60% cells viability at a very high concentration of 5.5 mg/mL of P-GQDs compared to 10-15% viability for C-GQD and H-GQD. ROS production by P-GQDs was least compared to C-GQD and H-GQD in cell free and intracellular ROS assay suggesting involvement of ROS in cytotoxicity. In this work we have solved the issue of cytotoxicity due to ‘small size’ and ‘ROS generation’ without compromising with fluorescence properties of GQDs. P-GQDs was used for bioimaging and drug delivery in HeLa cells. In short we can obtain biocompatible P-GQDs in very short span of time with minimal use of hazardous chemicals and simple methodology.

BACKGROUND AND PRIOR ART OF THE INVENTION

A quantum dot is a semiconductor nanostructure that confines the motion of conduction band electrons, valence band holes, or excitons in all three spatial directions. Quantum dots (QDs) are traditionally chalcogenides (selenides or sulfides) of metals like cadmium or zinc (CdSe or ZnS), which range from 2 to 10 nanometers in diameter.

QDs have unique optical and electronic properties such as size-tunable light emission, narrow and symmetric emission spectra, and broad absorption spectra that enable simultaneous excitation of multiple fluorescence. Moreover, QDs are resistant to photo bleaching than organic dyes and fluorescent proteins. These properties are well suited for dynamic imaging at the single-molecule level and for multiplexed biomedical diagnostics at ultrahigh sensitivity.

However, for in vivo and clinical imaging, the potential toxicity of QDs remains a major concern. The toxic nature of cadmium-containing QDs is no longer a factor for in vitro diagnostics, since emergent use of fluorescent QDs for molecular diagnostics and pathology is an important and clinically relevant application for semiconductor QDs. (Kairdolf. B. et al., Annual Rev. of Analytical Chem. Vol. 6: 143-162.)

In prevalent practice, the use of carbon nanoparticles in synthesis of quantum dots, have emerged as a new class of quantum dot-like fluorescent nanomaterials. Carbon nanoparticles are used since their particle size can be controlled between 3-20 nm. Carbon atoms linked in hexagonal shapes, wherein each carbon atom is covalently bonded to three other carbon atoms to form graphene sheets. Graphene has the same structure of carbon atoms linked in hexagonal shapes to form carbon nanotubes, but graphene is flat rather than cylindrical.

Graphene quantum dots (GQDs) are used as fluorophores for bioimaging, owing to their physicochemical properties including tunable photoluminescence, excellent photostability, and biocompatibility. GQDs usually less than 50 nm in size have been reported to have excellent fluorescent properties. Due to luminescence stability, nanosecond lifetime, biocompatibility, low toxicity, and high water solubility, GQDs are demonstrated to be excellent probes for high contrast bioimaging and bio sensing applications.

It’s really good news that it’s become a meme topic!

References may be made to prior art documents for methods of synthesizing GQDs using electrochemical processes, hydrothermal methods and the modified Hummers process for graphene oxide synthesis and cytotoxicity assays to determine the cellular uptake of the resultant GQDs formed by these processes.

US patent publication, US 2013/0175182 provides a process for the transformation of single walled, double walled or multi walled carbon nanotubes to nanoribbons composed of few layers of graphene by a two-step electrochemical process. The process involves oxidizing dispersed carbon nanotubes (CNT) to obtain CNT oxide and further reducing it to form graphene layers.

In research publication, Chem. Commun, 2011, 6858-6860, Zhu et al, describe a method of GQD preparation wherein modified Hummers method is used for graphene oxide synthesis and hydrothermal method for GQD synthesis to obtain GQDs of particle size of 5.3 nm. At concentrations of 2.6 mg/ml, cell viability of 80% is observed.

Further Jianhua Shen et al. in New J. Chem., 2012, 36, 97-101 reported one-pot hydrothermal reaction for preparation of graphene quantum dots surface-passivated by polyethylene glycol (GQDs-PEG) and their photoelectric conversion under near-infrared light, using small graphene oxide (GO) sheets and polyethylene glycol (PEG) as starting materials.

Juan Peng et al. (Nano Lett., 2012, 12 (2), pp 844-49) describes the acid treatment and chemical exfoliation of carbon fibers, to provide GQDs in the size range of 1-4 nm. The publication provides that the GQDs derived have no toxicity at concentrations of 0.05 mg/ml. However, the cytotoxicity of GQDs at higher levels is unaccounted.

Chang Ming Li et al., (J. Mater. Chem., 2012, 8764-66) provide a method to develop graphene quantum dots (GQDs) from XC-72 carbon black by chemical oxidation, however toxicity assays confirm maximum cell viability at concentrations of 0.1 mg/ml.

The toxicity of GQDs is attributed to their size, since small sized GQDs interact with various proteins and organelles inside the cell and disrupt cellular processes. Another reason for the toxicity is their ability to generate more reactive oxygen species (ROS). Polymers, especially PEG coating has been used in the literature to decrease the toxicity of GQDs. However, even after polymer coating the cell viability at higher concentrations (>1 mg/ml) is low. Probably because even though the ROS production is lowered by the polymer shell coating, the size of the GQDs after coating still remains small (sub 50 nm) and are still in the size range that can interact with intracellular proteins and organelles.

In the following research publications, references may be made to PEGylation of carbon nanoparticles and the cell viability determined at concentrations of 1 mg/ml or lesser than that.

Bhunia et al., (Scientific Reports, 2013, 3:1473) describe carbon nanoparticles (FCN) which are polymer coated with PEG and the dosage dependent cellular toxicity of these fluorescent nanoparticles. At 1 mg/ml concentration of the FCN-PEG composition, 55-60% cell viability is observed.

Zhuang Liu et al., (J. Am. Chem. Soc., 2008, 130 (33), pp 10876-10877) describe pegylated nano-graphene oxide (NGO-PEG) of size 5-50 nm for delivery of water insoluble cancer drugs produced by Hummers method.

Omid Akhavan et al., (J. Material. Chem., 2012, Vol. 22, 20626-33) describes nontoxic concentrations of pegylated graphene nanoribbons for selective cancer cell imaging and photothermal therapy. At concentrations of 1 mg/ml of the composition. 28% cell viability was obtained.

Further Lay C L et al. (Nanotechnology. 2010 Feb. 10; 21(6):065101) reports delivery of paclitaxel by physically loading onto poly (ethylene glycol) (PEG)-graft-carbon nanotubes for potent cancer therapeutics.

Toxicity assays of GQDs synthesized by methods of the above prior arts report minimum cell viability at GQDs concentrations of 1 mg/ml, and lesser than that, thus posing limitations in cellular imaging applications. However, to realize biomedical applications of GQDs, low toxicity of the GQDS at higher concentrations is desired for cellular imaging.

With a view to provide graphene quantum dots (GQDs) with decreased cytotoxicity levels at higher concentrations i.e. greater than 1 mg/ml, the present inventors have provided a biocompatible composition of one or more graphene quantum dots (GQDs) in a nanosized polymer matrix of polyethylene glycol which is larger compared to small sized GQDs as observed in the prior art. The PEG matrix aids in reducing the reactive oxygen radicals (ROS) generated by the GQD surface while keeping the small GQDs inside the matrix; thus, also reducing their undesirable interactions with cellular proteins and organelles.

Meanwhile, these nutjobs want to use it to treat bone cancer in kids!

Or how about:

Graphene quantum dots, their composites and preparation of the same

United States Patent 9926202

Abstract:

Procedures for the synthesis of zero dimension GQDs based on exfoliation/reduction of surface passivated functionalized graphite oxide (f-GO PEG) are described. The synthesis procedures can include exfoliation/reduction f-GO PEG in presence of hydrogen gas, using focused solar radiation and under vacuum.

BACKGROUND

Graphene nanoribbons address this drawback of single layer graphene, however, more recently, focus has been on another carbon nanostructure called graphene quantum dots (GQDs) or carbon quantum dots (CQD) (also known as graphene quantum discs). GQDs show very desirable photoluminescence properties, as the size and shape of the GQDs can be tuned to have desired band gap and emission properties. Moreover, GQDs have desirable characteristics, for example, high surface area, larger diameter, better surface grafting using the π-π conjugated network or surface groups and other special physical properties due to the structure of graphene. Since most of the carbon nanomaterials including GQDs are biocompatible and nontoxic, GQDs can advantageously be used in biological applications for example, image scanning and sensing, drug delivery and cancer treatment. The photoluminescence properties of GQDs are useful for photovoltaic applications too as it has been theoretically proved that the energy gap in GQDs can be tuned by using electrostatic potentials.

The band gap of a GQD depends on its size and shape. With existing technology it is possible to cut graphene in to desirable size and shape forms. As the number of atoms increases, the energy gap in almost all the energy spectra of GQDs decreases monotonously. In the case of GQDs, along with size and shape, the edge type plays an important role in electronic, magnetic and optical properties.

THANKS FOR STAYING ON COURSE, THIS GOES DEEPER

This part of the article isn’t fully substantiated with third part peer-reviewed evidence, but with some of my own logic and observations, feel free to arbiter for yourself:

The graphene nano-ribbons mentioned above, if you payed attention, are most likely what La Quinta Columna and others noticed on their microscopes. Either that or carbon nanotubes, which are about the same thing, but in 3D.

Sinopeg claims it works with US scientists and collaborates with Chinese Academy. Just like Bill Gates, who is one of the very few foreign members of the Academia there, as I revealed last year.
It’s almost unconceivable that Gates didn’t know of these PEGs and didn’t want to protect the secret from the general public.
Sharing the manufacturing and the patents with the whole world would’ve almost certainly lead to information leaks, and that is what worried Gates more than money leaks, which are his last concern right now, I suspect.

IN CONCLUSION:

Ah, and in case you want to go even deeper into the science:

Other References:


Yu, et al., Tuning the Graphene Work Function by Electric Field Effect, Nano Letters 2009 9(10): 3430-3434.
Eswaraiah, et al., Top down method for synthesis of highly conducting graphene by exfoliation of graphite oxide using focused solar radiation, J. Mater. Chem. 2011; 21: 6800.
Mei, et al., Ultrasonication-assisted ultrafast reduction of graphene oxide by zinc powder at room temperature, Carbon 2011; 49: 5389-5397.
Peng J., et al., “Graphene Quantum Dots Derived from Carbon Fibers,” Nano Letters, vol. 12, Issue 2, pp. 844-849 (2012).
Qian L., et al., “Electroluminescence from light-emitting polymer/ZnO nanoparticle heterojunctions at sub-bandgap voltages,” Nano Today, vol. 5, Issue 5, pp. 384-389 (Jan. 2010).
Rakhi R.B., et al., “Electron field emitters based on multiwalled carbon nanotubes decorated with nanoscale metal clusters,” Journal of Nanoparticle Research, vol. 10, Issue 1, pp. 179-189 (May 15, 2007).
Reich S. and Thomsen C., “Raman spectroscopy of graphite,” Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. A, vol. 362, Issue 1824, pp. 2271-2288 (Nov. 15, 2004).
Schedin F., et al., “Detection of individual gas molecules adsorbed on graphene,” Nature Materials, vol. 6, Issue 9, pp. 652-655 (Sep. 2007).
Schniepp H.C., et al., “Functionalized Single Graphene Sheets Derived from Splitting Graphine Oxide,” Journal of Physical Chemistry B, vol. 110, Issue 17, pp. 8535-8539 (2006).
Shang D., et al., “Magnetic and filed emission properties of straw-like CuO nanostructures,” Applied Surface Science, vol. 255, Issue 7, pp. 4093-4096 (Jan. 15, 2009).
Shen J., et al., “Facile preparation and upconversion luminescence of graphene quantum dots,” Chemical Communications, vol. 47, Issue 9, pp. 2580-2582 (2011).
Shen J., et al., “Graphene quantum dots: emergent nanolights for bioimaging, sensors, catalysis and photovoltaic devices,” Chemical Communications, vol. 48, Issue 31, pp. 3686-3699 (2012).
Si Y. and Samulski E.T., “Exfoliated Graphene Separated by Platinum Nanoparticles,” Chemistry of Materials, vol. 20, Issue 21, pp. 6792-6797 (Oct. 15, 2008).
Singh TH.J. and Bhatt S.V., “Morphology and conductivity studies of a new solid polymer electrolyte: (PEG) xLiCIO4,” Bulletin of Materials Science, vol. 26, Issue 7, pp. 707-714 (Dec. 2003).
Soin N., et al., “Enhanced and Stable Field Emission From In Situ Nitrogen-Doped Few Layered Graphene Nanoflakes,” Journal of Physical Chemistry C, vol. 115, Issue 13, pp. 5366-5372 (Mar. 11, 2011).
Stankovich S., et al., “Graphene-based composite materials,” Nature, vol. 442, Issue 7100, pp. 282-286 (Aug. 2006).
Stoller M.D., et al., “Graphene-Based Ultracapacitors,” Nano Letters, vol. 8, Issue 10, pp. 3498-3502 (Sep. 13, 2008).
Sun X., et al., “Nano-Graphene Oxide for Cellular Imaging and Drug Delivery,” Nano Res., vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 203-212 (2008).
Sun Y-P., et al., “Quantum-Sized Carbon Dots for Bright and Colorful Photoluminescence,” Journal of the American Chemical Society, vol. 128, Issue 24, pp. 7756-7757 (Jun. 21, 2006).
Titelman G.I., et al., “Characteristics and microstructure of aqueous colloidal dispersions of graphite oxide,” Carbon, vol. 43, No. 3, pp. 641-649 (2005).
Tuinstra F. and Koenig J.L., “Raman Spectrum of Graphite,” The Journal of Chem. Phys., vol. 53, No. 3, pp. 1126-1130 (1970).
Tung V.C., et al., “High-throughput solution processing of large-scale grapheme,” Nature Nanotechnology, vol. 4, pp. 25-29 (Jan. 2009).
Viculis L.M., et al., “Intercalation and exfoliation routes to graphite nanoplatelets,” Journal of Mater. Chem., vol. 15, pp. 974-978 (2005).
Wang G., et al., “Facile Synthesis and Characterization of Graphene Nanosheets,” The Journal of Phys. Chem., vol. 112, No. 22, pp. 8192-8195 (2008).
Wang G., et al., “Synthesis of enhanced hydrophilic and hydrophobic graphene oxide nanosheets by a solvothermal method,” Carbon, vol. 47, No. 1, pp. 68-72 (2009).
Wang J., et al., “Cu2ZnSnS4 nanocrystals and graphene quantum dots for photovoltaics,” Nanoscale, vol. 3, Issue 8, pp. 3040-3048 (2011).
Wang J.J., et al., “Free-standing subnanometer graphite sheets,” Applied Physics Letters, vol. 85, pp. 1265-1267 (2004).
Wang X., et al., “Room-temperature all-semiconducting sub-10-nm graphene nanoribbon field-effect transistors,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 100, Issue 20, pp. 206803-1-206803-4 (May 23, 2008).
Williams G. and Kamat V.P., “Graphene-Semiconductor Nanocomposites: Excited-State Interactions between ZnO Nanoparticles and Graphene Oxide,” Langmuir, vol. 25, Issue 24, pp. 13869-13873 (2009).
Wu Z-S., et al. “Synthesis of high-quality graphene with a pre-determined number of layers,” Carbon, vol. 47, pp. 493-499 (2009).
Yamaguchi H., et al., “Field Emission From Atomically Thin Edges of Reduced Graphene Oxide,” ACS Nano, vol. 5, No. 6, pp. 4945-4952 (May 27, 2011).
Yoo E., et al., Enhanced Electrocatalytic Activity of Pt Subnanoclusters on Graphene Nanosheet Surface, Nano Lett., vol. 9, No. 6, pp. 2255-2259 (Jun. 2009).
Yoo E., et al. “Large Reversible Li Storage of Graphene Nanosheet Families for Use in Rechargeable Lithium Ion Batteries,” Nano Letters vol. 8, No. 8, pp. 2277-2282 (Aug. 2008).
Yu K., et al., “Significant improvement of field emission by depositing zinc oxide nanostructures on screen-printed carbon nanotube films,” Applied Physics Letter, vol. 88, Issue 15, pp. 153123-1-153123-3 (2006).
Zhang S., et al., “Field-emission mechanism of island-shaped graphene-BN Nanocomposite,” The Journal of Physical Chemistry C, vol. 115, Issue 19, pp. 9471-9476 (2011).
Zhang S., et al., “First-principles study of field emission properties of graphene-ZnO Nanocomposite,” Journal of Physical Chemistry C, vol. 114, No. 45, pp. 19284-19288 (2010).
Zheng W. T., et al., “Field Emission From a Composite of Graphene Sheets and Zno Nanowires,” Journal of Physical Chemistry C, vol. 113, No. 21, pp. 9164-9168 (2009).
Zhu S., et al., “Strongly green-photoluminescent graphene quantum dots for bioimaging applications,” Chemical Communications, vol. 47, Issue 24, pp. 6858-6860 (2011).
Zhu Y.W., et al., “Large-scale synthesis and field emission properties of vertically oriented CuO nanowire films,” Nanotechnology, vol. 16, Issue 1, pp. 88-92 (2005).
Zickler G.A., et al., “A reconsideration of the relationship between the crystallite size La of carbons determined by X-Ray diffraction and Raman spectroscopy,” Carbon, vol. 44, Issue 15, pp. 3239-3246 (Dec. 2006).
International Search Report and Written Opinion for International Application No. PCT/IB2014/063909 dated Apr. 14, 2015.
“Composition of PLATINUM,” National Institute for Standards and Technology, Retrieved from the Internet URL: http://physics.nist.org/cgi-bin/Star/compos.pl?matno=078, retrieved on Feb. 12, 2016, pp. 1-1.
Allen M.J., et al., “Honeycomb Carbon: A Review of Graphene,” Chemical Reviews, vol. 110, Issue 1, pp. 132-145 (2010).
Baby T.T. and Ramaprabhu S., “Cold field emission from hydrogen exfoliated graphene composites,” Applied Physics Letters, © 2011 American Institute of Physics, vol. 98, Issue 18, pp. 183111-1-183111-3 (May 2011).
Baby, T.T. and Ramaprabhu S., “Effect of metal nanoparticles decoration on electron field emission property of graphene sheets,” Nanoscale, vol. 3, Issue 10, pp. 4170-4173 (Aug. 25, 2011).
Balandin A.A., et al., “Superior Thermal Conductivity of Single-Layer Graphene,” Nano Letters, vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 902-907 (2008).
Chae H.K., et al. “A route to high surface area, porosity and inclusion of large molecules in crystals,” Nature vol. 427, pp. 523-527 (Feb. 5, 2004).
Chen G. et al., “Atomic decoration for improving the efficiency of field electron emission of carbon nanotubes,” Journal of Physical Chemistry C, vol. 111, Issue 13, pp. 4939-4945 (Mar. 9, 2007).
Cheng H., et al., “Graphene-Quantum-Dot Assembled Nanotubes: A New Platform for Efficient Raman Enhancement,” ACS Nano, vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 2237-2244 (2012).
Chung D.D.L., “Review Graphite,” Journal of Materials Science, vol. 37, Issue 8, pp. 1475-1489, (2002).
Dervishi E. et al. “Supplementary Information—Large-Scale Graphene Production by RF-cCVD Method,” Supplementary Material (ESI) for Chemical Communications, This journal is (c) of the Royal Society of Chemistry, pp. 1-5 (2009).
Dervishi E., et al., “Large-scale graphene production by RF-cCVD method,” Chemical Communications, This journal is (c) of The Royal Society of Chemistry, pp. 4061-4063, (May 27, 2009).
Forsman W.C., et al., “Chemistry of graphite intercalation by nitric acid,” Carbon, vol. 16, Issue 4, pp. 269-271 (1978).
Gao W., et al., “New Insights into the structure and reduction of graphite oxide,” Nature Chemistry, vol. 1, Issue 5, © 2009 Macmillan Publishers Limited, pp. 1-6, (Jul. 5, 2009).
Gao W., et al., “Supplementary Information—New Insights into the structure and reduction of graphite oxide,” Nature Chemistry, vol. 1, Issue 5, © 2009 Macmillan Publishers Limited, pp. 1-20 (2009).
Geim A.K. and Novoselov K.S., “The rise of graphene,” Nature Materials, © Nature Publishing Group, vol. 6, pp. 183-191 (2007).
Gokus T. et al., “Making Graphene Luminescent by Oxygen Plasma Treatment,” ACS Nano, Copyright © 2009 American Chemical Society, vol. 3, Issue 12, pp. 3963-3968 (Nov. 19, 2009).
Gómez-Navarro C. et al., “Electronic Transport Properties of Individual Chemically Reduced Graphene Oxide Sheets,” Nano letter, Copyright © 2007 American Chemical, vol. 7, Issue 11, pp. 3499-3503 (Oct. 18, 2007).
Goswami S. et al., “Preparation of graphene-polyaniline composites by simple chemical procedure and its improved field emission properties,” Carbon, vol. 49, Issue 7, pp. 2245-2252, (Jan. 31, 2011).
Green A.A. and Hersam M.C., “Solution Phase Production of Graphene with Controlled Thickness via Density Differentiation,” Nano Letters, vol. 9, Issue 12, pp. 4031-4036 (Dec. 2009).
Huang W., et al., “Solubilization of Single-Walled Carbon Nanotubes with Diamine-Terminated Oligomeric Poly (ethylene Glycol) in Different Functionalization Reactions,” Nano Letters, vol. 3, Issue 4, pp. 565-568 (2003).
Hummers, Jr., W.S. and Offerman R.E., “Preparation of Graphitic Oxide,” Journal of the American Chemical Society, vol. 80, Issue 6, pp. 1339-1339 (Mar. 20, 1958).
Hwang J.O. et al., “Vertical ZnO nanowires/graphene hybrids for transparent and flexible field emission,” Journal of Materials Chemistry, vol. 21, Issue 10, pp. 3432-3437 (Aug. 2, 2011).
Hwang J.O. et al., “Workfunction-Tunable, N-Doped Reduced Graphene Transparent Electrodes for High-Performance Polymer Light-Emitting Diodes,” ACS Nano, Copyright © 2011 American Chemical Society, vol. 6, Issue 1, pp. 159-167 (Dec. 13, 2011).
Jang H-S. et al., “Enhancement of field emission of SnO2 nanowires film by exposure of hydrogen gas,” Solid State Communications, vol. 140, Issues 11-12, pp. 495-499 (Dec. 2006).
Jeong H-K. et al. “Unoccupied electronic states in graphite oxides,” Chemical Physics Letters, vol. 460, Issues 4-6, pp. 499-502 (Jul. 2008).
Jeong S-H., et al., “Template-based carbon nanotubes and their application to a field emitter,” Applied Physics Letter, vol. 78, Issue 14, pp. 2052-2054 (Apr. 2001).
Kaniyankandy S., et al., “Ultrafast Charge Transfer Dynamics in Photoexcited CdTe Quantum Dot Decorated on Graphene,” Journal of Physical Chemistry C, vol. 116, No. 30, pp. 16271-16275 (2012).
Kaniyoor A., et al., “Supplementary Information—Graphene synthesis via hydrogen induced low temperature exfoliation of graphite oxide,” Journal of Materials Chemistry, Supplementary Material (ESI) for Journal of Materials Chemistry, This Journal is (c) the Roral Society of Chemistry, Issue 9, vol. 20, pp. 1-9 (2010).
Kaniyoor A., et al., “Graphene synthesis via hydrogen induced low temperature exfoliation of graphitic oxide,” Journal of Materials Chemistry, vol. 20, pp. 8467-8469 (Sep. 7, 2010).
Knibbe R., et al., “Ultrahigh Electron Emissive Carbon Nanotubes with Nano-sized RuO2 Particles Deposition,” Journal of Nanoparticle Research, vol. 9, Issue 6, pp. 1201-1204 (Dec. 2007).
Kong B-S., et al., “Electrical Conductivity of Graphene Films with a Poly(allylamine hydrochloride) Supporting Layer,” Langmuir, vol. 25, No. 18, pp. 11008-11013 (Aug. 6, 2009).
Kudin K.N., et al., “Raman Spectra of Graphite Oxide and Functionalized Graphene Sheets,” Nano Letters, vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 36-41. (2008).
Lee S.W., et al., “A Study on Field Emission Characteristics of Planar Graphene Layers Obtained from a Highly Oriented Pyrolyzed Graphite Block,” Nanoscale Research Letters, vol. 4, No. 10, pp. 1218-1221 (2009).
Li X., et al., “Chemically derived, ultrasmooth graphene nanoribbon semiconductors,” Science, vol. 319, Issue 5867, pp. 1229-1232 (Feb. 29, 2008).
Li Y., et al., “Nitrogen-Doped Graphene Quantum Dots with Oxygen-Rich Functional Groups,” Journal of the American Chemical Society, vol. 134, No. 1, pp. 15-18 (2012).
Lin Y-H., et al., “Atomic Layer Deposition of Zinc Oxide on Multiwalled Carbon Nanotubes for UV Photodetector Applications,” Journal of the Electrochemical Society, vol. 158, Issue 2, pp. K24-K27 (2011).
Liu J. et al., “Improved field emission property of graphene paper by plasma treatment,” Applied Physics Letters, vol. 97, No. 3, pp. 033109-1-033109-3 (2010).
Liu J., et al., “Reduction of functionalized graphite oxides by trioctylphosphine in non-polar organic solvents,” Carbon, vol. 48, Issue 8, pp. 2282-2289 (Jul. 2010).
Liu J., et al., “Ultrathin Seed-Layer for Tuning Density of ZnO Nanowire Arrays and Their Field Emission Characteristics,” Journal of Physical Chemistry C, vol. 112, No. 31, pp. 11685-11690 (Jul. 10, 2008).
Lu Z., et al., “The Field Emission Properties of Graphene Aggregates Films Deposited on Fe—Cr—Ni Alloy Substrates,” Journal of Nanomaterials, vol. 2010, pp. 1-4 (2010).
LV W., et al. “Low-Temperature Exfoliated Graphenes: Vacuum-Promoted Exfoliation and Electrochemical Energy Storage,” ACS Nano, vol. 3, Issue 11, pp. 3730-3736 (Oct. 2009).
Ma W-L., and Li S-S., “Electrically controllable energy gaps in graphene quantum dots,” Applied Physics Letters, vol. 100, Issue 16, pp. 163109-1-163109-4 (Apr. 2012).
Maiti A., et al., “Effect of adsorbates on field emission from carbon nanotubes,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 87, Issue 15, pp. 1-4 (Oct. 8, 2001).
Meng L.Y and Park S. J., “Synthesis of Graphene Nanosheets via Thermal Exfoliation of Pretreated Graphite at Low Temperature,” Advanced Materials Research, vol. 123-125, pp. 787-790 (Aug. 2010).
Murakami H., et al., “Field Emission from Well-aligned, Patterned, Carbon Nanotube Emitters,” Applied Physics Letter, vol. 76, Issue 13, pp. 1776-1778 (Mar. 2000).
Novoselov K.S., et al., “Electric Field Effect in Atomically Thin Carbon Films,” Science, vol. 306, Issue 5696, pp. 666-669 (Oct. 22, 2004).
Novoselov K.S., et al., “Two-dimensional gas of massless Dirac fermions in graphene,” Nature, vol. 438, pp. 197-200 (Nov. 10, 2005).
Pan D., et al., “Hydrothermal Route for Cutting Graphene Sheets into Blue-Luminescent Graphene Quantum Dots,” Advanced Materials, vol. 22, Issue 6, pp. 734-738 (Feb. 9, 2010).
Baby, T.T., “Carbon Nanocomposites: Synthesis and Applications in Electron Field Emission, Nanofluid and Biosensor,” A Thesis to be submitted for Award of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, Department of Physics, Indian Institute of Technology, Madras, pp. 1-17 (Mar. 2011).

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
We hardly made it before, but this summer something’s going on, our audience stats show bizarre patterns, we’re severely under estimates and the last savings are gone. We’re not your responsibility, but if you find enough benefits in this work…
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

ORDER

New from your favorite coincidence-theories magazine:
There’s two timelines here that seem to meet somewhere in the recent past.

#1

CDC has just announced retiring Covid PCR tests, starting from 2022 because they can hardly tell Covid from Flu. Where Covid is caused by a virus that no one has seen in full, purified and isolated form:

We all knew that, last summer I even made a meme where I coined the term “PCRdemic”.
But just imagine how “based” their Delta Variant detection must be then!
And someone was found already preparing for this, while the plebs are shocked by the admission or not even processing it.

#2

Only weeks before this announcement, media just whispered about the new unholy alliance between Soros and Gates, who suddenly decided to buy together a major UK Covid test maker.

I mean, when did this type of prescience ever happen before, right?
(WORLD BANK SAYS COVID-19 TEST KITS ARE BEING SOLD SINCE 2017)

This alliance has a legal and formal representation as the Global Access Health (GAH), something very similar to GAVI, but focused on pillaging Africa, South America and South-Asia.


Only months before this announcement, Soros and Gates became some of the most downvoted personalities in the Northern Hemisphere, with very little competition and no benefits for the public image of the Great Reset. Meanwhile, I was writing on HOW BILL GATES AND BANKSTERS GANGED UP TO TAKE MOROCCO. AND NOW ARE RUINING IT..


Only years before that, teachers and intellectuals in US were marching against Gates’ medical and food machinations in Africa.


A decade before that, Bill Gates Sr. and George Soros could be seen shoulder to shoulder promoting Democratic Party’s fiscal policies.

Watch the full thing, a rare recording I just dug up


And so forth… as far as we’re willing to dig we find ourselves entrapped and enslaved by the same inbred class that wages now a class war against the lower classes under various guises.



Every conspiratorial correlation comes with two options: conspiracy theory (causative) or coincidence theory (non-causative). I’m too experienced to hesitate here.

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
We hardly made it before, but this summer something’s going on, our audience stats show bizarre patterns, we’re severely under estimates and the last savings are gone. We’re not your responsibility, but if you find enough benefits in this work…
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

ORDER

Much like the Fed, CDC isn’t a government agency, it’s more like a prototype of today’s PPP’s (Private-Public Partnerships) used by the WEF to siphon public wealth into private pockets and subvert the political self-determination of the people.

One way for CDC to attract funds is their Foundation.
And we can’t follow the money if we don’t even know who the sponsors are.
If you had difficulties before in finding them, though I can’t imagine one, now you have no excuse, you just need to CLICK HERE to find out more about the conflict of interests in which Pharmafia thrives like a baby in the amniotic juice.
Removing that womb would terminate this vile genocidal cartel.
There’s more than just that page, but that’s where you start YOUR OWN RESEARCH.

Interestingly, the CDC Foundation self-portrait looks very much like Klaus Schwab:

“The CDC Foundation is an independent nonprofit and the sole entity created by Congress to mobilize philanthropic and private-sector resources to support the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s critical health protection work.

We are a catalyst for unleashing the power of collaboration between CDC and philanthropies, private entities and individuals to protect the health, safety and security of America and the world.

The government has unique capacities as well as limitations. The same is true for the private and philanthropic sectors. We believe that people, groups and organizations have greater positive impact and can accomplish more collectively than individually. By aligning diverse interests and resources and leveraging all parties’ strengths, our focused collaborations with private and philanthropic partners help create greater impact than any one entity can alone. Your support saves and improves lives—right now and in the future.

Thanks to our donors, we have launched approximately more than 1,200 health protection programs and raised over $1.2 billion to support CDC’s work over the past two decades. To keep people healthy, safe and secure, we managed hundreds of programs in the United States and in more than 140 countries.” – SOURCE

Now, to make my point, I just need to highlight some of the names found there, for your later references.
These are some of the people who home-detain, muzzle and inject us.
Interestingly, most of them are also partners in the World Economic Forum.

Before fusing humans with technology, the Schwaborg has fused Pharmafia with Big Tech, mainstream media and the Governments. These are not independent voices confirming one another, they’re the same entity, like the Borg (and I’ll prove later that Star Trek’s Borg is not just science-fiction entertainment).


If your nutritionist has a McDonalds badge, you have no nutritionist.
Btw, many US and UK hospitals, maybe in other countries too, host McDonalds restaurants.
Same people.

Some things are not meant to be businesses, public health is one of them.

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
We hardly made it before, but this summer something’s going on, our audience stats show bizarre patterns, we’re severely under estimates and the last savings are gone. We’re not your responsibility, but if you find enough benefits in this work…
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

ORDER

Bill Gates: My ‘best investment’ turned $10 billion into $200 billion worth of economic benefit

PUBLISHED WED, JAN 23 2019, by CNBC

  • Investing in global health organizations aimed at increasing access to vaccines creates a 20-to-1 return, the Microsoft co-founder and philanthropist says.
  • Putting $10 billion into the S&P 500 would have grown only to $17 billion over 18 years, factoring in reinvested dividends, Gates tells CNBC in Davos.

Investing in global health organizations aimed at increasing access to vaccines created a 20-to-1 return in economic benefit, billionaire Microsoft co-founder and philanthropist Bill Gates told CNBC on Wednesday.

Over the past two decades, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has donated “a bit more than $10 billion” into mainly three groups: the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization, the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, and the Global Polio Eradication Initiative.

“We feel there’s been over a 20-to-1 return,” yielding $200 billion over those 20 or so years, Gates told CNBC’s Becky Quick on “Squawk Box” from the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. “Helping young children live, get the right nutrition, contribute to their countries — that has a payback that goes beyond any typical financial return.“

As a comparison, Gates echoed what he wrote in an essay in The Wall Street Journal last week under the banner “The Best Investment I’ve Ever Made,” saying that same $10 billion put into the would have grown only to $17 billion over 18 years, factoring in reinvested dividends.

On vaccines, Gates also had a message for parents who fear side effects as a reason not to get their kids their shots. “It is wild that just because you get misinformation, thinking you’re protecting your kid, you’re actually putting your kid at risk, as well as all the other kids around them.”

Using measles as an example of a once-dangerous disease that’s easily preventable by a vaccine, Gates warned against complacency.

“As you get a disease down to small numbers, people forget. So they back off. They think, ‘Gosh, I heard from rumor. Maybe I’ll just avoid doing it,’” he said. “As you accumulate more and more people saying that for whatever reason, eventually measles does show up. Kids get sick. And sometimes they die.”

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
We hardly made it before, but this summer something’s going on, our audience stats show bizarre patterns, we’re severely under estimates and the last savings are gone. We’re not your responsibility, but if you find enough benefits in this work…
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

Sometimes my memes are 3D. And you can own them. Or send them to someone.
You can even eat some of them.
CLICK HERE

Are you wearing your conspiracy theory “wearables” yet? Get ready to “internalize” them!

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
We hardly made it before, but this summer something’s going on, our audience stats show bizarre patterns, we’re severely under estimates and the last savings are gone. We’re not your responsibility, but if you find enough benefits in this work…
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

Sometimes my memes are 3D. And you can own them. Or send them to someone.
You can even eat some of them.
CLICK HERE

You’ve likely heard of IG Farben, bud have you ever heard of American IG and the follow up story?

Imagine that the brutal experiments at Auschwitz were better concealed and the prisoners were drugged and brainwashed to believe that’s the best world out there for them. Then find out that the management has never stopped winning, expanding and perfecting their business model, up to today’s Great Reset.

CLICK HERE TO WATCH ON ODYSEE

good stuff that i had to leave out the video documentary:

Rockefellers brought the Nazi doctors and researchers to the US

SOURCE

ANSCO

Founded in Binghamton, New York, in 1901, Ansco was a manufacturer of photographic products and film. Ansco was originally founded through the merger of E. Anthony & Company and Scovill Manufacturing. In 1928, Ansco merged with Agfa to form Agfa-Ansco. The new corporation was a division of General Aniline and Film (GAF) Corporation, which was controlled by the German chemical cartel IG Farben. After Germany declared war on the United States in 1941, the United States Government seized the assets of GAF, including Agfa-Ansco. In 1943, the company removed “Agfa” from its name, once again becoming Ansco. The United States Justice Department oversaw Ansco’s operation until 1965, when government-held stock in GAF was sold to the public. In 1977, GAF eliminated its line of consumer photography products, including those manufactured by Ansco at the Binghamton facility. GAF also sold the Ansco trademark to Haking Enterprises. GAF continued to manufacture film at the Binghamton plant for industrial and medical use until 1981, when it sold the plant to Anitec Image Corporation. Over the next two decades, the former Ansco facility was sold several times, and in 2000, it was demolished.

Prior to the late 1970s, dozens of asbestos-containing materials were utilized in the construction and maintenance of buildings at Ansco’s Binghamton facility, including fireproof insulation, pipe covering and insulating cement. Inhaling dust from the application and removal of asbestos-containing materials placed workers at risk for developing an asbestos-related disease, such as mesothelioma or lung cancer.

Fireproof insulation was applied to structural steel during the construction of buildings at Ansco. Fireproofing materials were manufactured as a dry mixture of asbestos, linen and cement, packaged in fifty-pound paper bags. The dry mixture was mixed with water and sprayed onto the structural steel using a hose. Pouring, mixing and spraying fireproof insulation created clouds of asbestos-containing dust. After the fireproofing material was applied, it was typical for tradesmen, such as electricians or pipefitters, to scrape the fireproofing material from structural steel in order to install pipes and conduits. When the fireproof insulation was disturbed, asbestos fibers and dust became airborne.

Workers applied asbestos-containing pipe covering to pipes at the Binghamton Ansco facility. Pipe covering was applied to numerous piping systems in order to maintain stable internal temperatures and to protect pipes from damage. When pipe covering was applied, asbestos fibers were emitted. Insulating cement was also applied to pumps, valves and other equipment. It was manufactured as a powder and mixed with water to prepare it for application. Mixing insulating cement caused asbestos-containing dust to become airborne.

source:

What’s Bayer been up to lately?
We find out from their website:

The Bio Revolution is redefining innovation in the life sciences. How this might be a game changer.

The life sciences have made great advances in the past years. Biology, life sciences and the megatrend of digitization are growing closer together, enabling new inventions that impact our daily lives in a scope that we speak of a Bio Revolution. This revolution is reinforced by rapid increases in computing power and the emergence of new capabilities in AI, automation, and data analytics. These trends are further accelerating the pace of innovation and the potential for higher R&D productivity in the life sciences.

All this has led to new ways to understand and explore biology. The range of life forms on earth is incredibly complex and diverse. However, the methods to analyze them can be remarkably similar. Technologies and methods are transcending disciplinary boundaries even faster.

The implications across the life sciences can be enormous:

For human health, for example, a deeper understanding of the relationship between genetics and disease has led to the emergence of precision medicine, which can potentially be more effective than the one-size-fits-all therapies of the past. In the future, new technologies could help the healthcare industry not only treat, but cure or even prevent diseases. New gene and cell therapies, for example, aim to cure genetic diseases, potentially enabling sustainable organ replacement or reversing autoimmune diseases.

The Bio Revolution has the potential to help address some of the most critical global challenges, from climate change to pandemics, chronic diseases, and worldwide food security. Experts estimate that a significant portion of the economic impact of biological applications will be in health care, agriculture, and consumer products.3 Already today, the Bio Revolution with its convergence of science and technology has created an explosion of research projects in science and business. Each year, the amount of Intellectual Property related to the Bio Revolution is increasing.4 This can be seen, for example, by the number of patents in CrispR or plant biotech. In short: the revolution is gaining momentum and holds a great promise for health and food alike.

Total number of CRISPR patent applications worldwide per year from 1984 to 2018.

Quote symbolFueled by digitalization, growing connectivity, and falling costs, important advances in biotechnology are intertwined with more systemic shift in how bio-innovation is undertaken and who is involved. Microbiome technologies, advanced genomics, gene editing and synthetic biology are among key enabling technologies that have the potential to change the face of bio-innovation. This broader redefinition of bio-innovation creates new prospects to help address important nutrition, environmental and development needs.

World Economic Forum, Bio-Innovation Dialogue Initiative

.At the Forefront of the Bio Revolution

As a leading life science company, Bayer is aligned with the long-term market trends in health and nutrition and offers innovative and sustainable solutions to tackle some of the key challenges for humanity. Bayer brings to the table an extensive knowledge of human and plant science, supported by its expertise in regulatory processes and an impressive global footprint to ultimately bring innovations from labs to market. https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/EYE1gya7XiM?autoplay=1&start=0&rel=0

The Bio Revolution marks the beginning of a new era: Innovations enabled by the convergence of biology and technology have the potential to significantly improve our lives, our nutrition, and our health.

Did you know that Bayer is at the forefront of the wave of innovation coming from the Bio Revolution?

The Bio Revolution is expected to transform healthcare and agriculture over the next decades – but the revolution is already happening now. With its newly established cell and gene therapy platform in Pharmaceuticals and innovative gene-editing tools such as CRISPR, Bayer operates at the core of the Bio Revolution and has tremendous opportunities to improve health and nutrition.

In Pharma, Bayer’s new Cell & Gene Therapy (CGT) platform steers our strategy in the area and orchestrates our activities along the value chain providing an innovation ecosystem for the companies – including BlueRock Therapeutics and Asklepios BioPharmaceutical (AskBio), which are fully owned by Bayer but operate autonomously. These therapies hold the potential to significantly impact patients’ lives by moving from treating symptoms to potentially curative approaches.

Bayer’s development portfolio of cell and gene therapies already comprises eight advanced assets in different stages of clinical development. These are applicable in multiple therapeutic areas with high unmet need, such as neurodegenerative, neuromuscular and cardiovascular indications, with programs in Pompe disease, Parkinson’s disease, hemophilia A, and congestive heart failure. With over 15 preclinical assets in the cell and gene therapy field, the pipeline is expected to grow steadily year by year.

Yet Bayer is not only using biotechnology to advance health – the promise for agriculture is just as inspiring. In the Crop Science Division, for example, tools like CRISPR can make changes to plant DNA with more precision than ever before and make plants more weather- or disease-resistant, enabling farmers to grow more or better-quality products under changing conditions.

Advancing genetic solutions for a sustainable future (1)PreviousNext

Did you know that Leaps by Bayer invests into potentially disruptive technologies to tackle some of the largest, unsolved challenges in the life sciences?

With Leaps by Bayer – our impact investment approach utilizing venture capital – we are constantly scanning for additional potential breakthroughs that hold promise to either cure or treat people from diseases or help feed a growing population with less impact on the environment.

$1 Billion

Since 2015, Leaps by Bayer has invested over $1 billion in ventures that tackle fundamental breakthroughs and shift core paradigms in our industries.

Leaps by Bayer has an investment focus on potentially disruptive solutions in the fields of healthcare and agriculture. The Leaps investment approach is remarkable: It aims to invest into or build up new innovative companies. Bayer supports those companies by enabling the exchange of proprietary assets, which can include sharing own patents or providing access to the Bayer network’s technical capabilities and 150 years of expertise. The companies remain autonomous with respect to decision making, while Leaps facilitates and supports them in a so-called active incubation process. Experienced team members actively engage in the young companies’ development by providing resources and helping them to steer the initial strategic direction. Today, the investment portfolio includes more than 35 companies advancing potential breakthrough technologies.

Quote symbolLeaps is our way of thinking big.

Werner Baumann, CEO of Bayer AG

Many Leaps ventures have made significant progress towards unlocking the potential of new technology platforms with a promising and transformative potential. BlueRock Therapeutics, for example, started as a Leaps investment and is now an integral part of Bayer’s CGT platform and just received clearance to proceed with a phase I trial in Parkinson’s disease.

Other companies, like the biopharmaceutical player Triumvira, are specialized on next generation immuno-oncology treatments. Triumvira focuses on novel T-cell therapies that aim to be safer and more efficacious than current cell therapy cancer treatments. Treating, curing and preventing cancer is one of the focus areas of Leaps by Bayer, since this group of diseases still represents one of today’s biggest health challenges with limited curative or preventative therapies available.

Quote symbolWe face a huge disease burden, and the way we produce food isn’t sustainable for the planet. I believe the Bio Revolution can help us overcome these issues.

Jürgen Eckhardt, Head of Leaps by Bayer

Leaps is also investing in the development of sustainable biotechnological solutions in the field of agriculture. One of the ventures in this field is Joyn Bio, a company that aims to significantly reduce the environmental impact of synthetic nitrogen fertilizers through a technology that fixes nitrogen into the soil. Nitrogen is one of the most important nutrients essential for every plant to grow, however, its use and production as a fertilizer is estimated to contribute 3-5% to all global greenhouse gas emissions. Joyn Bio is working on an engineered microbe that enables cereal crops like corn, wheat, and rice to convert nitrogen from the air into a form they can use to grow. This technology may have the potential to help farmers use nitrogen in new ways, and as a result, reduce agriculture’s environmental footprint.

Leaps portfolio

The Leaps by Bayer investment portfolio includes more than 35 companies.

At least that’s what Bayer says. All I know is that they’re still running the show.

Ex-Standard Oil

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
We hardly made it before, but this summer something’s going on, our audience stats show bizarre patterns, we’re severely under estimates and the last savings are gone. We’re not your responsibility, but if you find enough benefits in this work…
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

We gave up on our profit shares from masks, if you want to help us, please use the donation button!
We think frequent mask use, even short term use can be bad for you, but if you have no way around them, at least send a message of consciousness.
Get it here!