Submitted by Harold Saive
A BIOMOLECULAR CORONA is not about a “virus”. It’s about the interaction of blood serum with Graphene Oxide nanoparticles (NP). The nanoparticle of interest is Graphene Oxide found by the LA Quinta Columna group inside vials of the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA “vaccines”.
Study published 3/19/2021: In depth characterisation of the biomolecular coronas of polymer coated inorganic nanoparticles with differential centrifugal sedimentation
“Due to their unique size and surface properties, NPs have the potential to engage with cellular machinery with high affinity, precision and specificity opening up the potential for tailoring their biodistribution; though in vivo targeting remains a major issue7,8.
In many in vitro and in vivo scenarios, NPs strongly interact with proteins and other biomolecules readily available in biological fluids to which they are exposed to, often forming the so called ‘biomolecular corona’9,10,11. From many reports, it is clear that the biomolecular corona may impact the identity and alter the behaviour of the NPs depending on its composition and topological organisation, leading to the presence of specific motifs i.e. epitopes of the adsorbed biomolecules, prone to be recognised with high affinity and specificity by the cell receptors, and therefore often steering the interactions and uptake routes.”
https://www.nature.com/
______________________________
WHISTLEBLOWER (Liberty Man) REVEALS WHY BIO-TECH GLOBALISTS SEEK TO INJECT EVERYONE (Alex Jones)
Liberty man explains how Graphene Oxide (GO) is the secret ingredient in the gene therapy “vaccine” that biotech is hoping will establish the platform for control of humanity by remote control and electronic coercion. The literature actually make the claim that a BIOMETRIC CORONA is created when GRAPHENE DIOXIDE comes in contact with blood plasma.
https://forbiddenknowledgetv.
______________________________
Graphene Oxide touches blood: in vivo interactions of bio-coronated 2D materials (2018)
Abstract
Graphene oxide is the hot topic in biomedical and pharmaceutical research of the current decade. However, its complex interactions with human blood components complicate the transition from the promising in vitro results to clinical settings. Even though graphene oxide is made with the same atoms as our organs, tissues and cells, its bi-dimensional nature causes unique interactions with blood proteins and biological membranes and can lead to severe effects like thrombogenicity and immune cell activation. In this review, we will describe the journey of graphene oxide after injection into the bloodstream, from the initial interactions with plasma proteins to the formation of the “biomolecular corona”, and biodistribution. We will consider the link between the chemical properties of graphene oxide (and its functionalized/reduced derivatives), protein binding and in vivo response. We will also summarize data on biodistribution and toxicity in view of the current knowledge of the influence of the biomolecular corona on these processes. Our aim is to shed light on the unsolved problems regarding the graphene oxide corona to build the groundwork for the future development of drug delivery technology.
https://pubs.rsc.org/en/
______________________________
Personalized Graphene Oxide-Protein Corona in the Human Plasma of Pancreatic Cancer Patients (5/25/2020)
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.
______________________________
Nanoparticle Size Is a Critical Physicochemical Determinant of the Human Blood Plasma Corona: A Comprehensive Quantitative Proteomic Analysis (2011)
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/
______________________________
Human Plasma Protein Corona of Aβ Amyloid and Its Impact on Islet Amyloid Polypeptide Cross-Seeding
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.
______________________________
Nanotoxicity of Graphene and Graphene Oxide
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/
______________________________
Thrombogenicity and biocompatibility studies of reduced graphene oxide modified acellular pulmonary valve tissue
Abstract
Current strategies in tissue engineering seek to obtain a functional tissue analogue by either seeding acellular scaffolds with cells ex vivo or repopulating them with cells in vivo, after implantation in patients. To function properly, the scaffold should be non-thrombogenic and biocompatible. Especially for the case of in vivo cell repopulation, the scaffold should be prepared in a manner that protects the tissue against platelet activation and adhesion. Anti-thrombogenicity can be achieved by chemical or physical surface modification. The aim of our study was to evaluate the platelet activation and thrombogenic properties of an acellular tissue scaffold that was surface modified with reduced graphene oxide (rGO). Graphene oxide was prepared by a modified Hummers method. For the study, an acellular pulmonary valve conduit modified with rGO was used. The rGO modified tissue samples were subjected to in vitro testing through interaction with whole blood under simulated laminar flow conditions. The following cellular receptors were then analysed: CD42a, CD42b, CD41a, CD40, CD65P and PAC-1. In parallel, the adhesion of platelets (CD62P positive), leukocytes (CD45 positive) and platelet–leukocyte aggregates (CD62P/CD45 positive) on the modified surface was evaluated. As a reference, non-coated acellular tissue, Poly-l lysine and fibronectin coated tissue were also tested. The rGO surface was also analysed for biocompatibility by performing a cytotoxicity test, TUNEL assay and Cell Cycle analysis. There was no significant difference in platelet activation and adhesion between the study groups. The only significant difference was observed for the PAC-1 receptor between Poly-l lysine group and rGO and the percentage of PAC-1 positive cells was 6% and 18% respectively. The average number of activated platelets (CD62P) in the field of view was 1, while the average number of leukocytes in the field of view was 3. No adherent platelet–leukocyte aggregates were observed. There were no significant differences in the DNA fragmentation. No significant effect of rGO on the amount of cells in different phases of the cell cycle was observed. Cytotoxicity indicates that the rGO can damage cells in direct contact but have no effect on the viability of fibroblasts in indirect contact.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/