Nanotechnology in food - as with GMO foods, is the intent to improve the yield of the human race and “standardise” its appearance? plus notes on “citrullination” and the Center for Food Safety

We have become familiar with the use of the term “lipid nanoparticles” in the experimental    C19 modified mRNA and viral vector injection. We have also learned how the “virus” or, at least, the “spike” protein has evolved at the angstrom level, We have learned of the adulterations ad contaminants (base metals, e coli, endotoxins, DNA etc) and adulterations (fragments of monkey virus DBA) have altered the characteristics of the injection way beyond the contents of the injections used in the clinical trials.

We have learned that we have been subjected a huge human experiment.

We have learned that the RT-PCR test is not an appropriate tool for determining the infectiousness of a substance, only its presence. 5.6 billion people worldwide have been experimented o with 13.6 billion injections for a false diagnosis of 700 million cases and 7 million deaths over four and a half to 5 years. Maybe 17 million have been killed by the injections and at least another 14 million from the use of inappropriate drugs like Remdesivir and midazolam, withholding of treatments like HXQ and IVM and the psychological stress lading to death from lockdowns and forced isolation. Maybe 31 million killed because of the intervention of the US military, bioweapons researchers, politicians and health regulator, aided and abetted by the MSM.

And we have learned that the combined effects of failed mRNA and viral vector technology have killed several times more people globally than were killed by the C19 disease caused by the SARS-COV2 virus and its spike protein. Outbreaks of monkey pox, shingles and jumps in cancer and heart disease rates are growing larger by the day. Cause and effect – correlation does equal causation using Bradford-Hill criteria.

A subscriber and friend, Mihael B, emailed research from a dozen years ago outlining the impact of the use of nanomaterials on human physiology.

Using the material Mihael sent and going down rabbit holes, this led to, let’s conflate the gene modification therapies with what we know about the use of gene modification and crops and see what this might tell us about the gene modifications intended for livestock and wild animal species.

And now the same bad actors are seeking to compound their genocidal actions by rolling out the same experiments into every form of animal life - livestock, pets and even fish (and reptiles?) – pigs, chickens, cattle and even wild animals.

Prior to the scamdemic, there was a large amount of resistance to genetically modified organisms used in the production of crops (GMO foods).

From here:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10320728/

“Nano carrier based genetically modified crops has been successfully introduced in several plants such as rice, tobacco, rapeseed, maize, wheat, onion, cotton, cowpea, spinach and arugula (Demirer et al., 2019). These nano-based agri-products need to be addressed with different disciplines and strategies to meet or evaluate any kind of hazardous (physico-chemical parameters) or negative effects in humans, animals and environment. Various countries including the United States of America, Europe, India, China, Canada, Australia, and others have developed regulatory frameworks to address genetically engineered agricultural products using nanocarriers.”

The intent is to improve crop yields and standardise quality using nano sized materials. I confess I have been using the term “lipid nanoparticles” as a generic term, rather than focusing on the term “lipid”. “Nanoparticle” is an adjective, like “box” or” car” – the operative word is “lipid”. Although not perfect, I am now picturing the term “lipid nanoparticle” as a tiny “dirty nappy”.

Enquiring minds want to know if the gene modification in the experimental C19 injections has the same goal – but not in a good way, rather, to eliminate people with “bad genes”.

Those research papers from a dozen years ago, were alert to the risks of the use of nanomaterials to the human physiology.

Here’s one example of the research from March 2011:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.2217/nnm.11.177

“… the aim of the study was to assess if nanoparticles are able to promote protein citrullination.”

“… The studied nanoparticles induced protein citrullination both in cultured human cells and mouse lung tissues. Citrullination occurred via the peptidylargininedeiminase-dependent mechanism. Cytokeratines 7, 8, 18 and plectins were identified as intracellular citrullination targets. Conclusion: Nanoparticle exposure facilitated post-translational citrullination of proteins.”

“Citrullination is implicated in several medical conditions that have serious consequences for the individual:

1. Rheumatoid arthritis (RA): As mentioned earlier, citrullination is directly related to the development of RA. The presence of antibodies to citrulated proteins (ACPA) is a specific marker for RA and plays an important role in the diagnosis and development of the disease.

2. Neurodegenerative diseases: Citrullination has been observed in various neurodegenerative diseases, such as multiple sclerosis (MS). It is believed that citrullination of myelin may affect demyelination and disease progression.

3. Cancer: Citrullination has also been linked to the development of certain types of cancer. A change in protein function due to citrullination may contribute to tumorigenesis, but the mechanisms are still under investigation.“

Citrullination is a post-translational modification (PTM) of proteins, where the amino acid arginine is converted to citrulline through a process called deimination. This modification is catalyzed by a family of enzymes called peptidylarginine deiminases (PADs).

The FDA acts as the regulator of the use of nanomaterials in foodstuffs, cosmetics and packaging etc. I do not know whether the same “pay to play” business model used by big pharma also applies to big food.

FDA’s Approach to Regulation of Nanotechnology Products | FDA

“FDA’s approach respects variations in legal standards for different product-classes. Food additives are considered safe when there is a reasonable certainty of no harm from their intended use[1].  Drugs, by contrast, are evaluated not only on the basis of their risk profile but also their predicted benefit.[2] These differing legal standards demonstrate how different contexts could lead to different regulatory outcomes, even if two products present the same level of risk. Other products regulated by FDA are subject to yet different standards for safety or effectiveness. The result may be divergent regulatory outcomes for different product classes and different applications of nanomaterials, even where objective measures of risk are similar.”

Interesting – different legal and regulatory standards. As far as I can tell, regulators may have changed the definition of a “vaccine” so that gee modification “therapies” (they should be called “substances” since they are not therapeutic at all!) but the legal definition of gene modifying therapies has not changed.

Here’s a link to the FDA’s page o nanotechnology.

Nanotechnology | FDA

Standards on Nanotechnology Published by
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) International

“Nanotechnology, the manipulation of material at dimensions between 1 and 100 nm (0.001 to 0.1 micrometer), is a challenging scientific area where specific tools are needed to characterize and detect the nanoscale materials. Many conventional detection methods do not allow scientists to analyze or confirm the size and properties of these materials in FDA-regulated products. Recent advances have allowed scientists the ability to visualize, manipulate, and control matter of this size.”

Which links to this:

2022 NCTR Research Highlights | FDA

“Scientists from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s, NCTR Nanotechnology Core Facility (Nanocore) developed three International Test Method Standards in Nanotechnology. The three NCTR-developed standards published by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) International”

There are non-profit watchdogs who campaign for greater transparency and better regulations. Here’s one:

https://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/nanotechnology-in-food

Here’s a section of its splash page:

Each of those headings is a clickable tab with lots of detail at the product and country of origin level.

Here is an extract of its advocacy and commentary on the FDA guidelines on the use of nanotechnology in food, (from Mihael’s email).

“The Center for Food Safety and the International Center for Technology Assessment welcome these guidelines as a first step toward regulating nanomaterials in foods and food contact substances, and call on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to issue mandatory regulations in the future.

The Center for Food Safety, a nonprofit membership organization with more than 250,000 members, addresses issues related to new technologies and their application in food and agriculture”.

“Consultation documents and meeting minutes should be posted on the FDA’s website.

Product developers should not be allowed to claim that product health and safety information is being hidden from the public as “confidential business information”.

Same applies to the adverse events to the experimental C19 injections!!

“The FDA should revisit its previous GRAS decisions and require these companies to submit data showing that their products are safe for human consumption. All engineered nanomaterials used as food ingredients, food contact substances and food colours should be subject to a rigorous safety assessment prior to placing them on the market.

The FDA should withdraw from the market all products that have been shown to contain man-made nanomaterials as food ingredients that have not undergone pre-marketing safety assessments and have been shown to be safe for human consumption.”

GRAS = generally recognized as safe – presumably because no-one associated adverse events with nanomaterials when they get sick or die!

“Canadian and British organic food authorities have banned nanomaterials smaller than 100 nanometers and 200 nanometers respectively from organic foods.

The U.S. Organic Standards Board has recommended to the U.S. Department of Agriculture that nanomaterials smaller than 300 nanometers (nm) be excluded from organic foods.”

There are more recommendations, but you get the idea of the advocacy position of the Centre for Food Safety position – much of it coincides with the transparency and quality control that has been lacking in the C19 injections.

One last paper from a while ago:

https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/8/6/2200

Nanoparticles and Colloids as Contributing Factors in Neurodegenerative Disease

“This review investigates the processes underlying the adverse effects of the presence of insoluble or colloidal deposits in the central nervous system. These materials are chemically non-reactive and can linger in the brain for long periods of time. They can consist of mineral or protein materials of intrinsic or exogenous origin. Such nanoparticles and colloids are associated with a range of slow-progressing neu1rodegenerative conditions. “

Food for thought

Lastly, keep an eye out for this presentation that explores the “sped of science”. These issues will be discussed in detail in a few weeks here:

(100) The Attack on Food and Farming, and How to Fight Back (substack.com)

CHD-TV will be running an event on 6-7 September 2024 between 11-7 pm EDT, 8-4 pm PT and 3-11 pm GMT – a trap for the unwary – GMT is an hour behind British Summer Time until the last Sunday of October, so the time in the UK is 4 -12, not 3-11!

Onwards!!!

Please take a paid subscription or forward this article to those you think might be interested. You can also donate via Ko-fi – any amount from three dollars upwards. Ko-fi donations here:   https://ko-fi.com/peterhalligan