Firstly, thank you for watching the video.
Since you’re interested, I’m going to link A LOT of papers and references to go back to.
If you’re anything like me, watching a guy talking is fine, but I want to see PROOF with my own eyes.
Note: please don’t get information overload, this has taken me months to piece together.
Also, MASSIVE thanks to Tony Pantalleresco, a lot of these papers are stuff he’s posted or sent us, especially about Carbon 60. Tony is the ORIGINAL source.
Links to breast cancer:
Regular toxicological studies:
High-dose effects in fish
think about the effects of regular intake over 3 years, 4 years, 10 years, 25 years.
My advice for a beginner, pick the last link, number 8 read it fully.
Some other important papers that involve nano silver:
Nanotech rapidly entering food and farming
I’ve gone through the whole paper in two streams:
Neurotoxicity of nanoscale materials with Tony’s comments
I’ve also done two videos going through this paper: https://rumble.com/v2z59ak-nanotech-neurotoxicity-nano-investigation.html
And now, the moment you’ve been waiting for. 12 studies. 11 years. A whole lot of mouse clicking.
Nano silver and fertility:
Links to breast cancer:
I also did a Rumble stream going through the WHOLE document
if you learn better by listening: check it out here:
Regular toxicological studies:
There it is, enjoy.
We all love a good psyop.
In this case, C60 sales methods are so good, even I have doubted myself in my research. Multiple times.
And every single time I came out the other end even more convicted of the depth of this psyop.
That being said, there is still nuance to the argument I do not yet fully understand.
There is also inconsistency when discussing C60 since different studies use different synthesis methods resulting in different impurities subsequently altering the effects on biological systems.
Despite this, read the literature and I believe coming to a similar conclusion as Tony’s (and ours) is not a tall order.
Tony has helped me a lot with this particular topic and I wouldn’t have the knowledge I do without his help.
– be aware that C60 is a type of carbon ‘fullerene’ and the word fullerene is used synonymously at times
– redox means oxidation
I believe in learning our opposition’s arguments and regularly challenging ourselves
This is how I, myself can provide insightful detail on certain topics. It’s because I doubt myself everyday and then go and investigate.
There are a few studies that the C60 propagators will constantly remind you of.
Some studies come in the middle and say certain chemicals involved in C60 synthesis are responsible for C60 toxicity.
It is clear that light also has a big impact as presented here.
I call into question these claims (of being health and non-toxic) and counter-balance them with the following information:
The accumulation of nanomaterials in the body is always a concern. With C60, this is no different.
The study I quoted at the start of my talk on C60: “Disposition of fullerene C60 in rats following intratracheal or intravenous administration”
Additionally, C60 is harder than diamond. How on earth will the body absorb or process that?
The answer: it doesn’t.
While not discussed at length in the video, this is a very valuable paper.
Instead of making their own C60, they purchased the C60 from online vendors in the health-food industry.
Sourced straight from the goofy gurus.
What did they find?
No lifespan OR health benefits.
At first glance, they claim that ‘pristine’ C60 didn’t cause any damage (I would take that with a grain of salt) –
They ALSO found that, C60 when exposed to light, actually forms “toxic species that can cause significant morbidity and mortality in mice in under 2 weeks”
Effects in embryonic zebrafish: oxidative response
Damage to human dermal fibroblasts (basically skin cells), human liver carcinoma cells (liver cancer cells) and neuronal human astrocytes (brain cells). Reference here.
C60 and genetic material.
If you think you need injections to mess with your genetics.
Just take some C60.
The 2005 study mentioned: Binds to and Deforms Nucleotides
Read the abstract on this one. Spoiler alert! It’s nasty.
Note: nucleotides are the building blocks of DNA & RNA.
The environment is always the big excuse.
But we are destroying it, no doubt about that.
Destroying humans: OK. Destroying environment: BAD.
Toxicity of an engineered nanoparticle (fullerene, C60) in two aquatic species, Daphnia and fathead minnow (note this may or may not be relevant to C60 in olive oil as the goofy gurus sell)
From ecotoxicology to nanoecotoxicology (C60 classed ‘very toxic’)
- BONUS STUDY: Reproductive toxicity in freshwater fish
Source: Acute and chronic effects of carbon nanoparticles fullerenes(C60) on aquatic invertebrate Chironomus riparius
This one is a tricky find. I wouldn’t know of it’s existence without Tony Pantalleresco.
I have managed to find a link for you, here.
The conductive, magnetic, frequency sensitive properties of C60 in relation to EMF sensitivity.
Let’s set the scene a little bit.
Transistors are the building blocks of computers, using something known as the logic gate they control electrical flow.
Traditionally they’re made of silicon. A close relative of C60, graphene, has already been used to implement nano networks, nano transmitters and more. Graphene is being developed as a replacement to silicon based computer-chips.
Carbon nanotubes have been used as a radio
So now C60 comes in.
In the above study, it is worthy noting that the C60 vibrated with electrical flow and produced terrahertz radiation.
Some of the applications listed by an industrial C60 supplier include the following:
Photoexcited C60-Polymer Composites
C60 Based Heterojunction Diodes
C60 Polymer Composite Heterojunction Rectifying Diodes
C60 Polymer Composite Heterojunction Photovoltaic Devices
Silicon Wafer Bonding
Hydrogen Storage and Primary Batteries
Electrodes for Secondary Batteries
If you’re interested, you can also look up carbon peapods.
Also, consider this, graphene sheets convert GHz frequencies (such as 5G) into THz frequencies. I believe this could also be applicable at least in part to C60.
If C60 acumulates in the body, is magnetic, a conductor and an amplifier of radiation AND is related to carbon nanomaterials that are highly reactive to EMFs, I think it is very plausible that C60 in the body can become even more toxic and highly dangerous in the presence of EMFs.
Have you ever walked into a public place and immediately got a headache?
Have you ever been sick and bedridden after going to the shopping centre?
That could be…. nanoo nanoo
Notes on Carbon Nanotubes:
Carbon Nanotubes and C60 Fullerenes are very closely related. While C60 is like a soccer ball of carbon atoms, a carbon nanotube is simply a tube of carbon atoms.
Evidence on the toxicity of carbon nanotubes is MUCH CLEARER than on C60. It has even been found to be WORSE than asbestos on some accounts.
On his page Tony uses some of the evidence of carbon nanotubes as part of his case against C60.
I have avoided doing this for a few reasons.
Carbon nanotubes and C60 are highly related which means there MUST be crossovers in properties and toxicity.
On the other hand, I always say, small differences on the nanoscale make a big difference in properties. So for personal research I would refer to carbon nanotube studies, but to avoid scrutiny for using studies on a different nanomaterial I have omitted these from the argument.
If you want to learn about carbon nanomaterials in general, here are some good resources from Tony and myself:
THESE NOTES ARE BY NO MEANS MY FINAL WORDS ON THIS TOPIC.
I genuinely feel that I have just begun to understand these concepts. I suspect in the future I will amend much of what is said here.
Zeolite and Silicon Dioxide:
Products include Zeolite, Diamateous Earth, Clay & Horsetail.
And there are so many silica products I’m probably missing something.
Silica (i.e., silicon dioxide) is what I call ‘the untouchable mineral’.
Say anything bad about it, and you’ll get hordes of angry Facebook truthers and ‘naturopaths’ screaming at you. Trust me, I’ve had that experience.
I will do a deep dive on this topic, sometime in the future.
In the meantime, if your curious soul wants to learn more:
Here’s a video from Tony talking about it. In the video, he also mentions silver and C60:
On The Above Evidence
You don’t need to fully believe the above information.
Not for nano silver, not for C60 and not for Zeolite.
But if you have 1% doubt. Is your health worth the risk?
Can you find non-toxic replacements for nano silver? C60? Zeolite?
Yes, yes, yes.
If you think the evidence I have provided has absolutely no credibility, then go ahead and use these products.
But if you have even the slightest niggle in your mind –
My question to you is this… is your health worth the risk?
Is the health of your loved ones, worth the risk?
Thank you for reading. Thank you for learning.
Thank you Tony Pantalleresco, find Tony’s podcast here.
Learn to protect yourself
P.S., if you’d like a full guide on identifying nanotech in products, including supplements so you can stop sabotaging your health and live your fullest life, signup to my email list.
I am currently developing this guide and will send you a copy when complete.
If you want to stop sabotaging your health and are interested, put your email below and click Submit.