Schädlich et al: "Accumulation of nanocarriers in the ovary: A neglected toxicity risk?" we knew 2010 that nano-particles were dangerous to ovaries & FERTILITY, damage to the reproductive organs
Nanocarrier accumulation in ovaries was a critical toxicity issue; nanoparticles have a negative impact on various organs, including reproductive system, induces abortion in women, sperm changes men
We need to know which pharmaceutical CEOs, was it Moderna’s, Pfzier’s, which others, knew of the dangers of lipid nano-particles and that delivery system, and yet still developed this fraud COVID injection around that platform? Which? We need investigations for we need serious accountability, including jail time if malfeasance is shown with proper public inquiries.
Nanoparticles have a negative impact on various organs, including the reproductive system. They also can induce abortion in women, reduce fetal growth and development, and can damage the reproductive system and sperm morphology in men. In some cases, it has been observed that despite the modification of nanoparticles in composition, concentration, and method of administration, there is still damage to the reproductive organs.
‘Several nanocarrier systems are frequently used in modern pharmaceutical therapies. Within this study a potential toxicity risk of all nanoscaled drug delivery systems was found. An accumulation of several structurally different nanocarriers but not of soluble polymers was detected in rodent ovaries after intravenous (i.v.) administration. Studies in different mouse species and Wistar rats were conducted and a high local accumulation of nanoparticles, nanocapsules and nanoemulsions in specific locations of the ovaries was found in all animals. We characterised the enrichment by in vivo and ex vivo multispectral fluorescence imaging and confocal laser scanning microscopy. The findings of this study emphasise the role of early and comprehensive in vivo studies in pharmaceutical research. Nanocarrier accumulation in the ovaries may also comprise an important toxicity issue in humans but the results might as well open a new field of targeted ovarian therapies.’
SOURCE 1
SOURCE 3
Potential adverse effects of nanoparticles on the reproductive system
For reference, nanoparticles are in the following:
Ketchup
Nonstick cookware
Coatings on eyeglass lenses
Synthetic fabrics
Fire retardants
Children's toys
This is only a small example of products that have added nanoparticles. If you care anything about your health, please look into this and try to eliminate them whenever possible.
Peer-reviewed medical literature and official documents (from the “health” agencies) openly describe huge amount of actionable information clearly showing that Operation C is nothing new.
Published papers relating to subtleties of biological research now so important date back 2 decades.
The very name advertised in media since the very beginning (“novel”) definitely indicates a man-made product. We have never used anything novel that originates from the nature. Novel applies to technological developments, solely. Correction: applied. The C leaders corrupted this part of the language as well, and now you can paste “novel” on anything, successfuly covering up the prints and sounding trendy on top of that.
Researchers or scientists went to great lengths to make the worst possible use of the available biological product base 3 or 4 decades ago, depending on how skillfully you connect the dots between their officially published papers, patent applications, press releases and media presentations. Four decades.
So the original message is true that they have been working on C viruses so long and so eagerly that the current market launch could be shortcut to a few weeks. It is true. They have been working on it for decades. And they published their findings in the same literature that - supposedly - every physician is obliged to read to advance his/her professional knowledge.
The question is:
How come nobody saw this through these 40 years?
Are readers of peer-reviewed literature incompetent enough not to be able to draw conclusions?
Or are they so much afraid of their positions that they will not risk warning the world about harmful medical progress?
You hear the phrase “we knew” a lot. Right, so if we knew, why we didn’t say a word?
To make it clear, I am not “we”. I am your regular neighbour. I always believed my doctors, because I didn’t know better. After these 2.5 years, no more. “We” does not include me or 7 billion other people.
“We” in this context are professionally trained medical personnel of various levels. People with sufficient knowledge to be the safety umbrella for the whole humanity.
They have done nothing over these four decades to stop, control, or merely challenge their own colleagues. Isn’t it as criminal as the very act of working on illegal projects, developing illegal products, and illegally approving the same for illegal population-wide experiments?
My point is: isn’t it time to really wake and place the responsibility where it belongs?
Using “we” to deflect it to the whole population is a slap in the face of those who are harmed and utter disrespect to those who have unnecessarily died and to their families.
How can “we” admit that “we knew” and have a peaceful sleep afterwards? It requires cognitive dissociation and compartmentalisation of knowledge that is a luxury in view of the imminent collapse of the human living capacity.
Every single day people are harmed by the new approvals, rollouts, recommendations and other forms of forcing of what “we know” should have never come into existence.