Do You Think People Are Too Stupid To Understand Teslaphoresis?
ANMAT finally admitted the shots contain graphene. I want to cover Teslaphoresis because it's crucial to humanity's survival to understand it. Would my explaining it make any difference?
The Starfire Codes by Demi Pietchell is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Honest question. I’m not trying to be a jerk by asking this. I want your honest answer: Do you think people are too stupid to understand Teslaphoresis?
Part of me feels like it’s a lost cause to explain Teslaphoresis since people tend to pride themselves on the fact that they don’t read. (Gravitating toward other types of learning such as audio-visual or kinetic because it makes more sense to you and suits the way your brain works better is one thing; being pompous about refusing to learn just makes you a self-aggrandizing moron.)
Part of me wants to try to address it anyway since understanding the concept is critical to your survival, and I care about that, whether you do or not. (Most act like they don’t. Having an affinity for playing Russian roulette is not cute. Lacking the good sense to take credible threats seriously and act accordingly just makes you a willful idiot.)
Another part of me wants to be conscientious about how I spend MY time: If people aren’t going to attempt to understand what I am explaining and apply the knowledge to their lives, it doesn’t really make any sense for me to spend time explaining it to anyone. If you don’t care about surviving, I have better things to do.
Against my better judgment, I’m going to try anyway. Let’s see how many of you get it or if I’m just spinning my wheels….
What is Teslaphoresis?
Scientists at Rice University discovered something while playing with Tesla coils and carbon nanotubes. They were able to get the carbon nanotubes to self-assemble when the carbon nanotubes were within range of a frequency being emitted by a Tesla coil.
They then figured out that they could use this phenomenon to create self-assembling circuits.
As you see here, one of their experiments was getting these components to self-arrange in a way that made it possible to light up LEDs. They were successful.
How does Teslaphoresis make self-assembling circuits?
The scientists designed a special Tesla coil. This Tesla coil was then used to apply a long-range force field to single-walled carbon nanotubes.
The scientists discovered that once the carbon nanotubes were hit by the "Teslaphoretic field" (TEP), the positive and negative charges of the nanotubes began to oscillate. This oscillation caused the carbon nanotubes to automatically arrange themselves into wire-like structures. They described the nanotube wires as growing and behaving like nerves.
The wire-like structures were able to conduct electricity. The scientists found that these wires absorbed the energy from the Tesla coil. This phenomenon created a form of wireless power.
The Rice University scientists, successful in developing and proving the functionality of this phenomenon, were hopeful that Teslaphoresis could be applied to innovate the fields of biomedicine and electronics.
The scientists began to experiment with other materials to see if it would work on these as well. They studied the effects of Teslaphoresis upon carbon black, glass beads, gold, graphite, polystyrene, silica beads, and wax. They observed "directed, scalable assembly" in these materials as well.
Let’s watch this video of Rice University scientists demonstrating their discovery:
Why is Teslaphoresis relevant right now?
Teslaphoresis is able to assemble carbon black, graphite, carbon nanoparticles, etc., into wire-like structures which are able to conduct electricity.
According to Dr. Andreas Noack, a leading activated carbon expert who, according to his girlfriend, was killed after disclosing this information, the shots being administered to people in order to “protect them from COVID” contain one atom thick graphene hydroxide “razor blades” which are causing the massive uptick we are seeing in cardiovascular related deaths in professional athletes across the world this year.
This week, a governing body has finally admitted that the shots contain graphene. After a request was made to investigate someone’s death post-“vaccination,” Dr. Patricia Aprea, Director of Evaluation and Control for ANMAT in Argentina, had to admit on the record that the shots contain graphene. There are a massive number scientific publications that cite how toxic graphene is to biological organisms. (We’ll list these for your reference in the additional resources section below.)
So, what happens if a person, full of graphene, comes into contact with a Teslaphoretic field?
Exactly what you think would happen: The graphene components inside the human body will assemble into wire-like structures and will carry a charge. Considering the human body is electrical, these components could very well be used to influence or overtake many functions of the human body.
Additionally, researchers have found and published information regarding microstructures in the shots which are likely to be components of a wireless nanosensor network, lending further credence to the Teslaphoresis theory.
Is this what happened when people who had taken the shot who attended the Travis Scott concert got too close to the signals emanating from the “sound systems” at the show?
This is patently terrifying, but it’s also the theory that currently makes the most sense. Although, given the set up and the result, this event seems to have been utilized as a test environment, we don’t know for sure.
While Fauci is busy getting ceremoniously thrown under the bus for “gain of function research,” which we believe is a carefully crafted distraction designed to prop up the other side of the germ theory argument in order to keep people from catching on that contagion is a myth perpetuated by the medical industrial complex to keep people from undertsanding why they get sick so that they are beholden to the industry to keep them just barely well, the real bioweapons research is in designing biotoxic shots that contain components which become reactive when exposed to a Teslaphoretic field.
The medical industry is designed to turn human beings into medical annuities and to ruin the lives of doctors and researchers who figure out the truth and attempt to tell the world.
The hearings surrounding “gain of function research” are nothing but a bread and circuses paper trail designed to keep your eye off the ball. It’s a GIANT red herring.
So, then, where’s the ball? Project Veritas got closer to the ball than anyone else by exposing Fauci’s involvement with DARPA, but so far, no one has been connecting the dots among the focus of DARPA’s research in recent years and the Teslaphoresis theory.
To make an incredibly long story short, if you look back through the agenda and presentations from the DARPA symposia over the past three years, you’ll see that the bulk of the work being done is surrounding AI, biometrics, semiconductors, and most importantly, the development of applications for an INTERNET OF BODIES, which is similar to how we already know the Internet of Things (IoT) functions… except the “things” are people.
Why develop applications for a system you have not already developed? Well, it IS developed. The interface is in the shot: It’s graphene + microstructures + Teslaphoresis.
If graphene is so toxic to the human body, why are so many people recommending C60 for shot detox?
With all of the clear startling evidence of graphene cytotoxicity, genotoxicity, epigenotoxicity, etc., presented below, we have to seriously wonder why so many people who are teaching others how to “detox” from the shot are recommending C60 - graphene Bucky balls - as a beneficial addition to a detox regimen.
Why are people recommending this compound as a detox agent for the shot when, ostensibly, the goal is to remove graphene, and not to put more in?
Why would anyone recommend putting a graphene supplement into the body, when we know from all of the research below that graphene is toxic to the human body, to get rid of toxic graphene from the shot harming the human body?
This makes absolutely no sense.
To add insult to literal injury, fullerene, as the compound is known, was discovered by the same group of researchers at Rice University who brought Teslaphoresis to the world. In fact, fullerenes may ALSO be aligned to form fullerene wires using Teslaphoresis.
Anyone who is aware of this who has recommended C60 as a viable solution for this issue will need to recall that recommendation before causing more harm than good.
Can Ivermectin chelate graphene from the body?
It’s certainly possible: Ivermectin has a high affinity for graphene. My personal opinion is that this needs to be researched to see if it can be done safely.
On its own, the research shows IVM has the propensity to cause infertility issues. The research also shows that this can be reversed by using alpha lipoic acid (ALA) in tandem with IVM.
However, you have to be careful with that, too; ALA can mobilize heavy metal toxins such as mercury across the blood brain barrier. It can also mobilize IVM across the blood brain barrier. So, before utilizing ALA, it would be smart to do a heavy metal toxicity test and assess the risks with a doctor or a qualified chelation practitioner.
This seriously makes me wonder why all of the people recommending IVM are not coming forward and stating these conditions in order to best protect the people they are treating.
This is because IVM is HIGHLY TOXIC. This is yet another way to get these poisons into your system under the radar by presenting them as legit subversive treatments in order to entice those who do not want to roll with the stock narrative into putting poisons into their bodies. When IVM was utilized for scabies in the 1990s in human trials, there were excess deaths among the nursing home patients involved in the study.
This isn’t a miracle drug. It’s yet another pesticide that remains in your body, similar to glyphosate, and requires detoxing to get it back out after it has been ingested. This who do not get this poison back out of their systems often suffer from prolonged neurological, fertility, and bone/joint issues that take a long time to correct even if you know what you are doing and have the appropriate detox instructions in hand in order to figure that out.
I’ll be honest: I do not have the best feeling about most the recommendations being made and why because they all seem a bit off somehow. For instance, I have looked up every last vitamin and supplement being recommended for the illness itself or to detox from the shot and EVERY LAST ONE has data behind it that it’s useful for countering HYPOXIA, which is what many of us from the very beginning have been saying COVID itself seems to be - 60-Ghz induced hypoxia.
Why is there persistence behind this “virus” myth when we have proof that even the tests are absolutely useless? Buy a few and see for yourselves:
The moral of the story: Do not throw spaghetti at a wall to see what sticks because you can end up doing more harm than good. Go see a copacetic doctor. Interview doctors before making an appointment so that you know their understanding and concerns are in alignment with your own. Look for people in functional medicine, toxicologists, those who are Klinghardt or Shoemaker certified, chelation practitioners, etc. - people who are old hat at ridding the body of biotoxins.
Be smart about it: Find a strong ally who knows the research and has a handle on biochemistry who will work with you to support your family's care.
Akhavan, O. (2015). Dose-dependent effects of nanoscale graphene oxide on reproduction capability of mammals. Science Direct.
Alsaedi, I. (2019). Graphene nanoparticles induces apoptosis in MCF-7 cells through mitochondrial damage and NF-KB pathway. IOP Science.
Asghar, W. (2016). Toxicology Study of Single-walled Carbon Nanotubes and Reduced Graphene Oxide in Human Sperm. Nature.
Bernabò, N. (2018). Graphene oxide affects in vitro fertilization outcome by interacting with sperm membrane in an animal model. Science Direct.
Chatterjee, N. (2016). Differential genotoxic and epigenotoxic effects of graphene family nanomaterials (GFNs) in human bronchial epithelial cells. Science Direct.
Chen, H. (2015). A differential effect of graphene oxide on the production of proinflammatory cytokines by murine microglia. World Scientific.
Dervin, S. (2018). An in vitro cytotoxicity assessment of graphene nanosheets on alveolar cells. Science Direct.
Di Cristo, L. (2020). Repeated exposure to aerosolized graphene oxide mediates autophagy inhibition and inflammation in a three-dimensional human airway model. Science Direct.
Drasler, B. (2018). Single exposure to aerosolized graphene oxide and graphene nanoplatelets did not initiate an acute biological response in a 3D human lung model. Science Direct.
Dziewięcka, M. (2017). Short-term in vivo exposure to graphene oxide can cause damage to the gut and testis. Science Direct.
Fadeel, B. (2018). Safety Assessment of Graphene-Based Materials: Focus on Human Health and the Environment. ACS Publications.
Graphene-info. (2018). Graphene oxide is detected in the body by specialized cells of the immune system. Graphene-info.
Gurcan, C. (2019). A closer look at the genotoxicity of graphene based materials. IOP Science.
Guo, X. (2014). Assessment of the toxic potential of graphene family nanomaterials. Science Direct.
Gurunathan, S. (2019). Evaluation of Graphene Oxide Induced Cellular Toxicity and Transcriptome Analysis in Human Embryonic Kidney Cells. MDPI.
Hashemi, E. (2014). Cyto and genotoxicities of graphene oxide and reduced graphene oxide sheets on spermatozoa. Royal Society of Chemistry.
Ivask, A. (2015). DNA Melting and Genotoxicity Induced by Silver Nanoparticles and Graphene. ACS Publications.
Kim, Y. (2018). Graphene oxide nano-bio interaction induces inhibition of spermatogenesis and disturbance of fatty acid metabolism in the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans. National Library of Medicine.
Kucki, M. (2018). Impact of graphene oxide on human placental trophoblast viability, functionality and barrier integrity. IOP Science.
Li, M. (2018). Hydroxylated-Graphene Quantum Dots Induce DNA Damage and Disrupt Microtubule Structure in Human Esophageal Epithelial Cells. Oxford Academic.
Liao, C. (2018). Graphene Nanomaterials: Synthesis, Biocompatibility, and Cytotoxicity. U.S. National Library of Medicine.
Lin, Y. (2020). Blood exposure to graphene oxide may cause anaphylactic death in non-human primates. Science Direct.
Liu, L. (2020). Graphene nanosheets damage the lysosomal and mitochondrial membranes and induce the apoptosis of RBL-2H3 cells. Science Direct.
Lu, C. (2017). Graphene oxide nanosheets induce DNA damage and activate the base excision repair (BER) signaling pathway both in vitro and in vivo. Science Direct.
Mendonça, M. (2016). PEGylation of Reduced Graphene Oxide Induces Toxicity in Cells of the Blood–Brain Barrier: An in Vitro and in Vivo Study. ACS Publications.
Mittal, S. (2016). Physico-chemical properties based differential toxicity of graphene oxide/reduced graphene oxide in human lung cells mediated through oxidative stress. Nature.
Nasirzadeh, N. (2019). An assessment of the cytotoxic effects of graphene nanoparticles on the epithelial cells of the human lung. SAGE Journals.
Nirmal, N. (2017). Effects of Nano-Graphene Oxide on Testis, Epididymis and Fertility of Wistar Rats. ResearchGate.
Ou, L. (2016). Toxicity of graphene-family nanoparticles: a general review of the origins and mechanisms. BioMedCentral.
Ou, L. (2021). Oxygen content-related DNA damage of graphene oxide on human retinal pigment epithelium cells. Springer Link.
Palmieri, V. (2018). Graphene Oxide Touches Blood: In Vivo Interactions of Bio-Coronated 2D Materials. ResearchGate.
Palmieri, V. (2019). Graphene oxide touches blood: in vivo interactions of bio-coronated 2D materials. Royal Society of Chemistry.
Sasidharan, A. (2016). Cellular and molecular mechanistic insight into the DNA-damaging potential of few-layer graphene in human primary endothelial cells. Science Direct.
Souza, M. (2020). Can nanomaterials induce reproductive toxicity in male mammals? A historical and critical review. Science Direct.
Vallabani, N. (2011). Toxicity of graphene in normal human lung cells (BEAS-2B). National Library of Medicine.
Volkov, Y. (2017). Graphene toxicity as a double-edged sword of risks and exploitable opportunities: a critical analysis of the most recent trends and developments. IOP Science.
Wang, D. (2015). Can graphene quantum dots cause DNA damage in cells? Royal Society of Chemistry.
Wang, R. (2018). Potential adverse effects of nanoparticles on the reproductive system. Dovepress.
Xu, L. (2019). Genotoxic response and damage recovery of macrophages to graphene quantum dots. Science Direct.