Oct 4th(or Oct 11th) AT 1:22 PM CST(2:22 PM EST)NATIONWIDE EMERGENCY ALERT TO BE SENT TO CELL PHONES: Study Shows Cell Phone Signals Can Plausibly Activate Release of Biological PAYLOADS IN THE VAXXED
If I contacted the author, would they say they concluded in this paper that Graphene oxide can carry chemical or biological payloads?
Or is that your particular conclusion.
Your post "implies" that because there is no break in their work and your set of conclusions.
My mind was blown because I interpretted your conclusion as theirs, so I actually downloaded, read, this paper, and all it is saying is graphene oxide works as a conductor at GigaHertz (Ghz) frequencies. The paper's author's conclusion is:
..[W]e expect that GO could be used for transmission lines in next-stage electronics and could be very strong candidate for nanocarbon electronics.
It seems it is your conclusion and not theirs plus among others that:
Graphene oxide can carry chemical or biological payloads
Which is something entirely different.
The authors were doing very rudimentary work determining how well graphene oxide works as an RF (radio frequency) signal tranmission medium. That is about all they did on a trivial 2 port test setup (one port is "in", the other port is "out"). They publish s-parameter plots (scatter parameters) which quantify the power going in and out of each of the two ports as they send power in at "in".
It would be analogous to me doing a study on how well does a copper wire conduct electricity, and concluding it does pretty well here is the data. And then with no gap in my conclusion vs your conclusion it implies I said it can also deliver chemical and biological payloads. Woooah!
I now understand your question & absolutely agree with your analysis as the article stands.
I inadvertently omitted information from another paper that outlines the plausible mechanism for “drug-loaded NGO (nanocomposite graphene Oxide) passed through mobile-controlled external electrical stimulation, which triggers the release of both the drugs”.
When this is considered in aggregate with the former paper you referenced, this gives a PLAUSIBLE (not proven) means to stimulate delivery of any contents of a pathogen loaded NGO via cell phone signals to activate a low voltage current that interacts with Nanocomposite Graphene Oxide (NGO) molecules, causing efficient delivery of payloads.
Here’s the link to that paper:
Remotely controlled electro-responsive on-demand nanotherapy based on amine-modified graphene oxide for synergistic dual drug delivery - ScienceDirect
Miriam,
Are you saying the authors of the paper made the bottom conclusion that Graphene oxide can carry chemical or biological payload?
Here is your "continuous quote....I'm tryint to discern the author's conclusion vs your conclusion:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Start
From the conclusion of this published paper:
...[W]e expect that GO could be used for transmission lines in next-stage electronics and could be very strong candidate for nanocarbon electronics.
Conclusions
Graphene oxide can carry chemical or biological payloads.
---------------------------------------------End
I’m not sure that I understand your question.
However, my position is that only time will tell whether a payload is released & that is contingent upon the alert actually happening.
I pray that it doesn’t happen at all.
Thanks for the comment/question & thanks for reading my substack
OK. I'm sorry I wasn't clear.
If I contacted the author, would they say they concluded in this paper that Graphene oxide can carry chemical or biological payloads?
Or is that your particular conclusion.
Your post "implies" that because there is no break in their work and your set of conclusions.
My mind was blown because I interpretted your conclusion as theirs, so I actually downloaded, read, this paper, and all it is saying is graphene oxide works as a conductor at GigaHertz (Ghz) frequencies. The paper's author's conclusion is:
..[W]e expect that GO could be used for transmission lines in next-stage electronics and could be very strong candidate for nanocarbon electronics.
It seems it is your conclusion and not theirs plus among others that:
Graphene oxide can carry chemical or biological payloads
Which is something entirely different.
The authors were doing very rudimentary work determining how well graphene oxide works as an RF (radio frequency) signal tranmission medium. That is about all they did on a trivial 2 port test setup (one port is "in", the other port is "out"). They publish s-parameter plots (scatter parameters) which quantify the power going in and out of each of the two ports as they send power in at "in".
It would be analogous to me doing a study on how well does a copper wire conduct electricity, and concluding it does pretty well here is the data. And then with no gap in my conclusion vs your conclusion it implies I said it can also deliver chemical and biological payloads. Woooah!
Thank you for your reply.
I now understand your question & absolutely agree with your analysis as the article stands.
I inadvertently omitted information from another paper that outlines the plausible mechanism for “drug-loaded NGO (nanocomposite graphene Oxide) passed through mobile-controlled external electrical stimulation, which triggers the release of both the drugs”.
When this is considered in aggregate with the former paper you referenced, this gives a PLAUSIBLE (not proven) means to stimulate delivery of any contents of a pathogen loaded NGO via cell phone signals to activate a low voltage current that interacts with Nanocomposite Graphene Oxide (NGO) molecules, causing efficient delivery of payloads.
Here’s the link to that paper:
Remotely controlled electro-responsive on-demand nanotherapy based on amine-modified graphene oxide for synergistic dual drug delivery - ScienceDirect
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2468519422002166
I will go back & add the above content to the article.
Thank you for pointing out the gap in the article