Here is one of many methods to detox from a cognitive weapon system, removing the in-situ dosed portion. This is my personal R&D work, based upon literature review.
This is a GREAT post, Brandon. I'm re-reading it now and have something to share.
You may already know that pool shock, also known as MMS2 in the MMS-Jim Humble-chlorine dioxide world, when taken internally, reduces to HOCL (hypochlorous acid). Your post prompted me to look in my voluminous files and found this on MMS2 (pool shock) with regards to degradation of graphene oxide. Forgive the length....
"Hypochlorite degrades 2D graphene oxide sheets faster than 1D oxidised carbon nanotubes and nanohorns"
It says: "In this study, we aimed to further the current understanding of the fate of oxidised CNMs in an oxidative environment. We tested whether sodium hypochlorite (NaClO), colloquially known as bleach, was able to efficiently degrade GO flakes in suspension.
Comparing the chemical degradation of GO to that of two other oxidised CNMs, specifically carbon nanohorns (OxNH) and oxidised multiwall carbon nanotubes (OxMWNT), we reasoned that GO will degrade faster than the other two nanomaterials due to its unique physico-chemical features. NaClO was chosen since it is a commonly used chemical by the public and industry.
Moreover, hypochlorite (ClO−) is naturally produced in the human body by various enzymes, such as myeloperoxidase and eosinophil peroxidase. 19 It was our hypothesis that the strong oxidative action of ClO−, from NaClO, would induce oxidative damage to the graphitic backbone, ultimately degrading the nanostructures to various extents. The degradation processes mediated by ClO− were followed over a week using a battery of characterisation methods. These included visual observation, transmission electron microscopy (TEM), atomic force microscopy (AFM), Raman spectroscopy, UV–Vis spectroscopy and Fourier transform infra-red spectroscopy (FT-IR). The observations were compared against when the materials were incubated in water.
We found that incubation in NaClO induced severe structural modifications in GO that was consistent with the materials degradation. Over the course of a week, GO degraded more rapidly than OxNH or OxMWNT. The results of this study adds information to ratify a proposal we made in a previous report concerning the mechanism by which carbon-based nanomaterials may degrade under a strong oxidative environment. 13 , 20
More info:
EU has started a billion project the Graphene Flagship in 2013. The Graphene Flagship puts an article on their website: "Graphene oxide biodegrades with help of human enzymes"
In this article, it says:
"During the inflammation process, neutrophils, a subtype of white blood cells, gather at the infection site and secrete myeloperoxidase, which catalyses a chemical reaction with chloride ions and hydrogen peroxide to produce strong oxidants such as hypochlorous acid. These oxidants have antimicrobial qualities, and are also known to degrade polyester-based implants, extracellular sugars and oxidised carbon nanotubes.
The study authors suggest that the high redox potentials of oxidants produced in the myeloperoxidase-catalysed reaction could in a similar way degrade graphene oxide held in suspension. Material breakdown likely starts at the level of carbon atoms connected with oxygen in the graphene lattice, and central to this is the hypochlorous acid produced in the reaction. Surface electric charge is also thought to contribute, as it does in the case of oxidised carbon nanotubes, since it favours the strong binding of graphene oxide with the enzyme, and subsequently triggers its degradation."
END OF ARTICLE
Theoretically, according to Jim's book, myeloperoxidase (MPO) is a heme enzyme that uses hydrogen peroxide to oxidize chloride to hypochlorous acid. And we use MMS2 to acquire Hypochlorous acid, which means MMS2 will degrade the graphene oxide and help it out of human body.
The nature article authors are simply unaware of the fact that once graphene GO is inside of the human body it can be "neutral" until it gets hit with a pulsing strongly magnetic field (transverse wave EMF directed energy weapon or electromagnetic pulse emp) then it becomes in-situ magnetized and also disrupts biological tissue due to the emf beam guiding and beam forming of a DEW weapon. This is where the nature authors have a knowledge gap, the dual-use weaponized version of GO is called "GONuts". People that are exposed to dirty electricity and electrosmog also over time can feel this is they bioaccumulate enough GO, but not to the extreme of the weaponized version of GO dosed internally and then shot-up through a nonkinetic threat weapon system.
So basically, the skin acts as a sponge for water and the ions and elements in it (e.g. why footbath works).
MPO has ROS that degrade GO. ROS = Reactive Oxygen Species. This is also what methylene blue + NIR/IR/Red Light does.
I know from personal experience that the footbath and body bath worked to remove bulk of GO. I can only speak to my own personal R&D.
Hope this feedback helps. The surface electric charge is interesting, need to dive into that one further, in otherwords does grounding while footbath work better or less better than non-grounding to earth.
This is a GREAT post, Brandon. I'm re-reading it now and have something to share.
You may already know that pool shock, also known as MMS2 in the MMS-Jim Humble-chlorine dioxide world, when taken internally, reduces to HOCL (hypochlorous acid). Your post prompted me to look in my voluminous files and found this on MMS2 (pool shock) with regards to degradation of graphene oxide. Forgive the length....
Check this article found in the Nature website: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41699-017-0041-3
"Hypochlorite degrades 2D graphene oxide sheets faster than 1D oxidised carbon nanotubes and nanohorns"
It says: "In this study, we aimed to further the current understanding of the fate of oxidised CNMs in an oxidative environment. We tested whether sodium hypochlorite (NaClO), colloquially known as bleach, was able to efficiently degrade GO flakes in suspension.
Comparing the chemical degradation of GO to that of two other oxidised CNMs, specifically carbon nanohorns (OxNH) and oxidised multiwall carbon nanotubes (OxMWNT), we reasoned that GO will degrade faster than the other two nanomaterials due to its unique physico-chemical features. NaClO was chosen since it is a commonly used chemical by the public and industry.
Moreover, hypochlorite (ClO−) is naturally produced in the human body by various enzymes, such as myeloperoxidase and eosinophil peroxidase. 19 It was our hypothesis that the strong oxidative action of ClO−, from NaClO, would induce oxidative damage to the graphitic backbone, ultimately degrading the nanostructures to various extents. The degradation processes mediated by ClO− were followed over a week using a battery of characterisation methods. These included visual observation, transmission electron microscopy (TEM), atomic force microscopy (AFM), Raman spectroscopy, UV–Vis spectroscopy and Fourier transform infra-red spectroscopy (FT-IR). The observations were compared against when the materials were incubated in water.
We found that incubation in NaClO induced severe structural modifications in GO that was consistent with the materials degradation. Over the course of a week, GO degraded more rapidly than OxNH or OxMWNT. The results of this study adds information to ratify a proposal we made in a previous report concerning the mechanism by which carbon-based nanomaterials may degrade under a strong oxidative environment. 13 , 20
More info:
EU has started a billion project the Graphene Flagship in 2013. The Graphene Flagship puts an article on their website: "Graphene oxide biodegrades with help of human enzymes"
In this article, it says:
"During the inflammation process, neutrophils, a subtype of white blood cells, gather at the infection site and secrete myeloperoxidase, which catalyses a chemical reaction with chloride ions and hydrogen peroxide to produce strong oxidants such as hypochlorous acid. These oxidants have antimicrobial qualities, and are also known to degrade polyester-based implants, extracellular sugars and oxidised carbon nanotubes.
The study authors suggest that the high redox potentials of oxidants produced in the myeloperoxidase-catalysed reaction could in a similar way degrade graphene oxide held in suspension. Material breakdown likely starts at the level of carbon atoms connected with oxygen in the graphene lattice, and central to this is the hypochlorous acid produced in the reaction. Surface electric charge is also thought to contribute, as it does in the case of oxidised carbon nanotubes, since it favours the strong binding of graphene oxide with the enzyme, and subsequently triggers its degradation."
END OF ARTICLE
Theoretically, according to Jim's book, myeloperoxidase (MPO) is a heme enzyme that uses hydrogen peroxide to oxidize chloride to hypochlorous acid. And we use MMS2 to acquire Hypochlorous acid, which means MMS2 will degrade the graphene oxide and help it out of human body.
What do you think?
The nature article authors are simply unaware of the fact that once graphene GO is inside of the human body it can be "neutral" until it gets hit with a pulsing strongly magnetic field (transverse wave EMF directed energy weapon or electromagnetic pulse emp) then it becomes in-situ magnetized and also disrupts biological tissue due to the emf beam guiding and beam forming of a DEW weapon. This is where the nature authors have a knowledge gap, the dual-use weaponized version of GO is called "GONuts". People that are exposed to dirty electricity and electrosmog also over time can feel this is they bioaccumulate enough GO, but not to the extreme of the weaponized version of GO dosed internally and then shot-up through a nonkinetic threat weapon system.
So basically, the skin acts as a sponge for water and the ions and elements in it (e.g. why footbath works).
MPO has ROS that degrade GO. ROS = Reactive Oxygen Species. This is also what methylene blue + NIR/IR/Red Light does.
I know from personal experience that the footbath and body bath worked to remove bulk of GO. I can only speak to my own personal R&D.
Hope this feedback helps. The surface electric charge is interesting, need to dive into that one further, in otherwords does grounding while footbath work better or less better than non-grounding to earth.