The next big thing on the horizon poised to change the world. Graphene

I had this idea the other day and did not know where to put it. I did not want to create an entire new thread for it though.
[MENTION=5045]Skarekrow[/MENTION] has shown a lot of interesting stuff in relation to matter reacting to outside forces. I had this idea that maybe space really isnt empty. A fish in water, doesnt know its in water. To it, water simply (is). For a long while humanity did not know what "air" was.

We used to have this refrigerator that would cool beer almost to freezing. A few times I would open a beer and the added evaporation of gas from the top would cause it to crystallize (freeze) in your hand. I wonder if matter in the universe isnt something like this. Space was disturbed and caused matter to form out of seeming nothingness though it really isnt nothingness.....
 
Nonotechnology CAN go through the skin

here is a talk from the pentagon on weaponised nanotechnology designed to be fired through a spray onto the intended victim so that it can be absorbed through their skin before targetting parts of their brain

Did you even read the abstract I posted? Did you look at the article? They had an explanation for why early results mistakenly claimed that graphene can go straight through the skin as you suggest. And personally, I would very much trust a scientific periodical over some you tube video of a supposedly leaked pentagon video. You know those are basically never reliable, right? Literally, the chances that someone that works at the pentagon actually videoed something and then released it is highly, highly unlikely. That is arguably one of the most secure locations in the country. They would probably take notice if someone was holding up their cellphone while taking part in a classified meeting....
Be careful of your sources. Please reread my post about the scientific article. Read it for what it is, a trustworthy peer reviewed research. Do not fall prey to confirmation bias. Be open to opposing view points. You have to admit, there's a chance you could be wrong.
 
The scientists have identified its danger as a contaminant

The big money interests don't care about safety they care about profits; you mentioned oil spills and that's a good example of this profit orinetated approach causing problems. I believe there has just been an oil spill on the streets of LA

There have been many chemicals used eg DDT which were later withdrawn after conclusive damage was caused

A famous example would be the carcinogenic nature of cigarettes which was denied for decades by the big tobacco companies

Ok, you should not single out graphene as its danger as a contaminant, seeing as most modern day materials are a danger as a contaminant. Also, no the scientist have not. Read again. They said more research is needed to confirm the effects of graphene in the environment and in contact with living tissue. MORE RESEARCH NEEDED. No conclusive answer as you would suggest.
And this business about oil spills your talking about is complete off topic. All I used that as was an example of how there are many methods that can be used to contain contamination. Oil is unusually hard to get rid of because of its chemical properties, but it can be done. Graphene could be hard like oil to get rid of, or it might be easy like chlorine in the water to get rid of. We don't know yet. No research has been done on that topic as far as I'm aware.

Basically this entire statement was another example of you using words to try to make it sound big and scary to convince people. I'm telling you, that tactic is not going to work on me. If you want to convince me, you best have some real good evidence and the logic to back it up. That one scientific article I posted in the most proves your theory inaccurate, and in the least incomplete. Even you have to admit as much.
I don't take offense to your calling me naïve. I know I am young and have much to learn, especially in political topics as I do not enjoy politics. However in a topic like this with graphene, this is my forte. I was nearly a physics major, but I didn't like all the calculus. Specifically I was considering particle physics or astrophysics. Graphene is a materials science spin off of particle physics. I have even been to Argonne lab where they talked about graphene and its potential.
 
Ok, you should not single out graphene as its danger as a contaminant, seeing as most modern day materials are a danger as a contaminant. Also, no the scientist have not. Read again. They said more research is needed to confirm the effects of graphene in the environment and in contact with living tissue. MORE RESEARCH NEEDED. No conclusive answer as you would suggest.
And this business about oil spills your talking about is complete off topic. All I used that as was an example of how there are many methods that can be used to contain contamination. Oil is unusually hard to get rid of because of its chemical properties, but it can be done. Graphene could be hard like oil to get rid of, or it might be easy like chlorine in the water to get rid of. We don't know yet. No research has been done on that topic as far as I'm aware.

Basically this entire statement was another example of you using words to try to make it sound big and scary to convince people. I'm telling you, that tactic is not going to work on me. If you want to convince me, you best have some real good evidence and the logic to back it up. That one scientific article I posted in the most proves your theory inaccurate, and in the least incomplete. Even you have to admit as much.
I don't take offense to your calling me naïve. I know I am young and have much to learn, especially in political topics as I do not enjoy politics. However in a topic like this with graphene, this is my forte. I was nearly a physics major, but I didn't like all the calculus. Specifically I was considering particle physics or astrophysics. Graphene is a materials science spin off of particle physics. I have even been to Argonne lab where they talked about graphene and its potential.

Go back and read my posts; i am saying that they should not rush out new tech until we know whether it is safe or not...and it sounds like you are agreeing with me on that

The people you should be arguing with are those on the thread jumping up and down with excitement and clapping their hands and getting a hard on for graphene before they know conclusively whether or not it is safe to use in day to day applications
 
I had this idea the other day and did not know where to put it. I did not want to create an entire new thread for it though.
[MENTION=5045]Skarekrow[/MENTION] has shown a lot of interesting stuff in relation to matter reacting to outside forces. I had this idea that maybe space really isnt empty. A fish in water, doesnt know its in water. To it, water simply (is). For a long while humanity did not know what "air" was.

We used to have this refrigerator that would cool beer almost to freezing. A few times I would open a beer and the added evaporation of gas from the top would cause it to crystallize (freeze) in your hand. I wonder if matter in the universe isnt something like this. Space was disturbed and caused matter to form out of seeming nothingness though it really isnt nothingness.....
Hi eventhorizion. Actually, you are correct. You see, quantum physics has predicted, and experimentation has confirmed, something called virtual particles. These virtual particles are extremely small (I believe they are considered point particles) and exist for only the slightest fraction of a second. You see they always appear in pairs. One particle of matter (usually a quark I believe) and one particle of antimatter (an antiquark). You see, Einstein predicted that matter can be created from energy. Well the interesting thing about antimatter is it is in every way the opposite of its matter counterpart, including negative energy as its creation (not the kind of negative energy used in theories about wormholes). Basically, the net energy to create this pair of particles is zero, meaning in perfectly empty space, these virtual particles will just suddenly pop into existence. However, due to forces of attraction, they reconnect. And, as mentioned how antimatter is the opposite of normal matter, these two particles annihilate each other. And this all happens in mere fractions of a second. So they pop into exists out of nothingness and then destroy each other. The end result here is zero just as the starting cause was zero. However, some argue that the end result is not zero, and we do have a net positive (extremely small) result of energy from virtual particles. Some claim this as a possible explanation of dark energy.
It has been shown that space is constantly full of these virtual particles. Think of it as a boiling froth of particles popping into existence and destroying each other everywhere. But this effect is so quick and on such a small scale, we never notice it. This is actually one of the root causes of the argument between Einstein's general relativity and quantum mechanics. You see, Einstein assumes smooth space, but quantum mechanics shows these virtual particles, so space is not smooth. This is only a problem in two main cases that I know of: black hole singularities, and the initial few seconds after the big bang. Basically when the matter is crushed down to the quantum level (quarks or less) and we have to account for a quantum gravity. Our physics simply cannot describe that yet.
As for the way matter came to be, that was caused in the initial moments after the big bang. Basically, just a fraction of the second after the big bang, ever single thing that exists today was in the form of extreme energy. That energy converted into matter (I do not understand the process here) in both normal matter and antimatter. The type of matter here is called a quark-gluon plasma. You see quarks are the smallest type of matter that we know of. There are 6 quarks and they make up every physical thing that exists. Gluons are force particles (basically what makes magnets repel each other, protons and electrons repel each other, and gravity pull you towards mass like the earth *I do not believe we have found the graviton yet though*). Over the next few fractions of a second, the antimatter and matter started to annihilate each other creating a lot of energy. However, thanks to something called baryogenesis (I do not claim to know how it works, but a baryon is a combination of 3 quarks), there was a slightly larger amount of normal matter than antimatter. And I mean slightly. However it was enough that all the matter that exists today survived. Basically there was more matter, so some matter survived the annihilation. After that, Quarks and Baryons started combining to form protons and neutrons and shortly after that the first hydrogen and helium (and some lithium) ions. It wasn't for a while later that electrons were formed and matter as we know it today came to be.
 
There is good thought process when saying, they should research something to make sure ifs safe before releasing it to the public. Had they done this with a great many other things we would be better off. Perhaps we end up not being able use graphene in its pure form and only get half its strength, even so it will still change the world.
 
Did you even read the abstract I posted? Did you look at the article? They had an explanation for why early results mistakenly claimed that graphene can go straight through the skin as you suggest. And personally, I would very much trust a scientific periodical over some you tube video of a supposedly leaked pentagon video. You know those are basically never reliable, right? Literally, the chances that someone that works at the pentagon actually videoed something and then released it is highly, highly unlikely. That is arguably one of the most secure locations in the country. They would probably take notice if someone was holding up their cellphone while taking part in a classified meeting....

Tell that to Edward Snowden who is still leaking NSA secrets

Be careful of your sources. Please reread my post about the scientific article. Read it for what it is, a trustworthy peer reviewed research. Do not fall prey to confirmation bias. Be open to opposing view points. You have to admit, there's a chance you could be wrong.

You have admitted you are young and naive so let me tell you how this works in the real world

MONEY TALKS

Money is not the only motivator. THREATS also work very well a lot of the time

Lets say that you are big business and you have a product that you want to sell to the public but you know the product is not safe. You pay (bribe) some dodgy scientists to do some research that skew the facts to create the perception that your product is safe when it isn't. You then get your powerful business partners who control the publishing houses and the journals to publish the research which you have funded and cherry picked. You then present this information to the necessary government regulator and under the table you pass the regulator a brown envelope full of cash

The regulator takes the cash and green lights your product. The regulator will do this because they have been hand picked by powerful people because the powerful people had a file on the regulator-to-be. In the file they have compromising photos of the regulator fucking underagers in a honeytrap operation which they set up in the first place

Your product is then put on the market and you make billions of dollars from it. Complaints begin to emerge from the public who are beginning to suffer health complaints from your product.

You deny all accusations pointing out to the public how your product has not only undergone rigorous testing but has also been approved by the government regulators. You then hire a Public Relations firm to manage the image of your company to try and create a favourable public image whilst you continue to sell your toxic product to the public

Eventually years down the line after you have pocketed billions of dollars the evidence against your product has become overwhelming and you no longer have plausible deniability. The government fines you several million dollars as punishment leaving you with your billions of dollars of profit, giving the public the false percetpion that justice has been served and that their government is working to protect them. The corporate media run by your business associates makes very little noise about the whole affair and the majority of the population are distracted by the dancing on ice or X factor and they soon forget the whole affair

Those injured try to sue for damages but the court case is dragged out by the lawyers until many of the victims die from their injuries before they get their day in court; the few survivors you pay small out of court settlements to keep their mouths shut
 
Hi eventhorizion. Actually, you are correct. You see, quantum physics has predicted, and experimentation has confirmed, something called virtual particles. These virtual particles are extremely small (I believe they are considered point particles) and exist for only the slightest fraction of a second. You see they always appear in pairs. One particle of matter (usually a quark I believe) and one particle of antimatter (an antiquark). You see, Einstein predicted that matter can be created from energy. Well the interesting thing about antimatter is it is in every way the opposite of its matter counterpart, including negative energy as its creation (not the kind of negative energy used in theories about wormholes). Basically, the net energy to create this pair of particles is zero, meaning in perfectly empty space, these virtual particles will just suddenly pop into existence. However, due to forces of attraction, they reconnect. And, as mentioned how antimatter is the opposite of normal matter, these two particles annihilate each other. And this all happens in mere fractions of a second. So they pop into exists out of nothingness and then destroy each other. The end result here is zero just as the starting cause was zero. However, some argue that the end result is not zero, and we do have a net positive (extremely small) result of energy from virtual particles. Some claim this as a possible explanation of dark energy.
It has been shown that space is constantly full of these virtual particles. Think of it as a boiling froth of particles popping into existence and destroying each other everywhere. But this effect is so quick and on such a small scale, we never notice it. This is actually one of the root causes of the argument between Einstein's general relativity and quantum mechanics. You see, Einstein assumes smooth space, but quantum mechanics shows these virtual particles, so space is not smooth. This is only a problem in two main cases that I know of: black hole singularities, and the initial few seconds after the big bang. Basically when the matter is crushed down to the quantum level (quarks or less) and we have to account for a quantum gravity. Our physics simply cannot describe that yet.
As for the way matter came to be, that was caused in the initial moments after the big bang. Basically, just a fraction of the second after the big bang, ever single thing that exists today was in the form of extreme energy. That energy converted into matter (I do not understand the process here) in both normal matter and antimatter. The type of matter here is called a quark-gluon plasma. You see quarks are the smallest type of matter that we know of. There are 6 quarks and they make up every physical thing that exists. Gluons are force particles (basically what makes magnets repel each other, protons and electrons repel each other, and gravity pull you towards mass like the earth *I do not believe we have found the graviton yet though*). Over the next few fractions of a second, the antimatter and matter started to annihilate each other creating a lot of energy. However, thanks to something called baryogenesis (I do not claim to know how it works, but a baryon is a combination of 3 quarks), there was a slightly larger amount of normal matter than antimatter. And I mean slightly. However it was enough that all the matter that exists today survived. Basically there was more matter, so some matter survived the annihilation. After that, Quarks and Baryons started combining to form protons and neutrons and shortly after that the first hydrogen and helium (and some lithium) ions. It wasn't for a while later that electrons were formed and matter as we know it today came to be.

:) I personally lean toward the idea that something cant just all of a sudden be. I know of the particles of which you speak. They could be coming from anywhere to include other dimensions.
 
Go back and read my posts; i am saying that they should not rush out new tech until we know whether it is safe or not...and it sounds like you are agreeing with me on that

The people you should be arguing with are those on the thread jumping up and down with excitement and clapping their hands and getting a hard on for graphene before they know conclusively whether or not it is safe to use in day to day applications

I do agree with you that more studies do need to be done. However, I disagreed with the way you came about saying that. By painting graphene as some "kill us all" material or super dangerous in other ways. That is inaccurate. Sure it has that potential, but you should seriously mention that it is only a potential. There is no evidence available to allow you to make claims like you did. Describing it in that way can cause public panic for no reason. It is potentially viable for us to reengineer graphene in a much safer way. However the public does not understand advanced material physics. They just hear graphene bad and hold that in their head forever. It is bad science for you to make such extraordinary claims, at least without pointing out what they are. Sorry if I sound heated, I just really dislike when people do things like that. I'm sure that you did not intend for it to come out the way it did. Please just be more careful with your sourcing and word choice as a panicked public will not be productive in advanced science. People are already generally refusing big bang theory even with the incredible evidence we have today.
 
I do agree with you that more studies do need to be done. However, I disagreed with the way you came about saying that. By painting graphene as some "kill us all" material or super dangerous in other ways. That is inaccurate. Sure it has that potential, but you should seriously mention that it is only a potential. There is no evidence available to allow you to make claims like you did. Describing it in that way can cause public panic for no reason. It is potentially viable for us to reengineer graphene in a much safer way. However the public does not understand advanced material physics. They just hear graphene bad and hold that in their head forever. It is bad science for you to make such extraordinary claims, at least without pointing out what they are. Sorry if I sound heated, I just really dislike when people do things like that. I'm sure that you did not intend for it to come out the way it did. Please just be more careful with your sourcing and word choice as a panicked public will not be productive in advanced science. People are already generally refusing big bang theory even with the incredible evidence we have today.

Please show me where i made these claims you claim i made
 
:) I personally lean toward the idea that something cant just all of a sudden be. I know of the particles of which you speak. They could be coming from anywhere to include other dimensions.
I'm afraid other dimensions are not a possibility for either the big bang or virtual particles so far as I understand them.
You see, in the initial moments of the big bang, literally all of existence came to be. Including concepts of other dimensions. But be careful here. Other dimensions are not the sci-fi concept of this other worldly place that things can just step out of or into. The world we live in is three spacial dimension and one temporal dimension. The higher level dimensions are not accessible to us. Now it is true that this idea of supersymetry can be explained by some very heavy particles being excited in such a way that they move up to the fourth, fifth, and possibly sixth spacial dimensions, however that is not after the matter was formed. Not the matter came from those dimensions.

Some theorize the imbalance of baryons and anti baryons was actually a result of the big bang. Instead of this symmetry that some predict between the matter and antimatter, some think there was a slight difference. In this case, no matter just came to be, and it simply followed the natural course and the excess matter survived. However, the other theory where matter and antimatter were in perfect symmetry is still very valid. When I say the baryons just came to be, that does not mean out of nothingness. That is just my own inability to understand the concept. There are certain conditions in quantum theory that allow for this difference to come about, but it is all very far above my head. I do not claim to understand it any more than that it is possible, lol. Sorry.


Virtual particles however are very unusual, and I admittedly don't fully understand them either. As far as I understand it, they do technically come to be and annihilate each other to go from nothing to something to nothing. However, they are like particles when they come into existence, but they are also not like particles. Its like they aren't completely matter but they have effects equal to normal matter. Its because of their short term existence. I don't understand how, but it has something to do with Quantum field theory which is to say that everywhere in space has a field at some level of every type of field (like electromagnetic field or gravity field*gravity is a weird example though*). These virtual particles are predicted in the theory, and they basically come from this intrinsic field energy that is everywhere. By intrinsic field energy I mean that energy value which is intrinsic to space that exists. You see space has an intrinsic energy that is non zero (but is still extremely small) according to quantum mechanics. That field energy is where virtual particles come from.
 
Last edited:
http://news.techeye.net/science/health-fears-hamper-graphene-development/

[h=1]Health fears hamper graphene development[/h] [h=2]Interview 'Wonder material' could be a risk to workers[/h]

While labs across the world continue to unearth more and more revelatory properties of graphene, the potential dangers of working with the material are often overlooked.
A study by scientists at the University of Edinburgh has shown that the near-universally acclaimed wonder material could pose serious health risks.
Following its discovery by two researchers at Manchester University – now both in possession of Nobel prizes and knighthoods – atom-thick graphene has exhibited many astounding qualities. With the potential to revolutionise the chip industry and elsewhere, the UK government has ploughed £50 million into moving lab developments to the commercial sphere.
There is understandable enthusiasm, but Edinburgh researchers have raised concerns about manufacturing the material.
New evidence has shown that disc-shaped graphene particles, known as nanoplatelets, could pose risks to the lungs of workers involved in producing the material in factory conditions.
The nanoplatelets, less than an atom-thick and invisible to the naked eye, are also aerodynamic, meaning that they could quite easily be breathed in by workers, causing organ damage.
Concerns over health risks could potentially put the brakes on lab work moving to shop-bought applications.
Graphene chips are not likely to see the light of day until at least the tail end of the decade. However, developments continue apace, and applications in touch screens, for example, are expected a lot sooner.
Professor Ken Donaldson, Chair of Respiratory Toxicology at the University of Edinburgh, told TechEye that with graphene heading towards large scale production the potential risks need to be taken into consideration.
“We appear to be on the cusp of graphene use, if that is true we need to be careful that people are not being exposed to large amounts,” he said, speaking with TechEye. “It stands to be produced in huge amounts – our work is to say that its shape is not like the average particle.”
According to Donaldson, the unusual flat shape is what could cause the health risks: “What we think is that graphene in the form of nanoplatelets come as quite an unusual shape – most particles are roughly spherical, these are quite different,” Donaldson said. “They are quite thin but they can be quite big, although they don’t weigh much.”
Donaldson said that there are cells which ingest particles which land in the lung, however, "the only ones that usually get to the deep part of the lung are quite small".
"But," he continued, "this is a particle which is big and flat and can get into the deep part of the lung, so when these lung cells try and deal with it is too big for them.”
The fact that lung cells measuring 10 microns are trying to deal with 30 micron graphene platelets is what causes problems, with most debris entering the lungs closer to around 3 microns.
“It is like trying to take a bite of a massive pizza, the cells are not able to ingest the flat platelets," Donaldson said. "In the natural world you don’t get a lot of particles which are flat like that. Because of this it can be a risk.”
Donaldson insists there is no reason for hysteria. “We are not trying to draw a moratorium on graphene, but we need to be aware of this,” he said. “The whole point of the exercise is to warn people to prevent health risks, to monitor what is in the air and prevent people from being exposed to this. If people are people are exposed to this over a long period of time it could lead to some sort of chronic lung disease.”
In order to deal with this he believes more substantial work is needed looking into the potential risks. “There is hardly anything being done with graphene – you really need to an inhalation study in animals to really test the hypothesis if it’s going to done in large amounts,” he said. “Someone needs to invest in doing this kind of thing. It costs a lot of money to do an inhalation study like that but there is definitely a need for that type of research.”
So far, there have not been any reported ill-effects from graphene production, but with work still in its infancy, it will take time before any dangers could become apparent.
“There haven’t been any cases so far – it usually takes years of highish exposure to show effects, so probably hasn’t been enough time to develop yet," he said. "But we are still on the cusp of large production so we need to be vigilant.”


 
Tell that to Edward Snowden who is still leaking NSA secrets



You have admitted you are young and naive so let me tell you how this works in the real world

MONEY TALKS

Money is not the only motivator. THREATS also work very well a lot of the time

Lets say that you are big business and you have a product that you want to sell to the public but you know the product is not safe. You pay (bribe) some dodgy scientists to do some research that skew the facts to create the perception that your product is safe when it isn't. You then get your powerful business partners who control the publishing houses and the journals to publish the research which you have funded and cherry picked. You then present this information to the necessary government regulator and under the table you pass the regulator a brown envelope full of cash

The regulator takes the cash and green lights your product. The regulator will do this because they have been hand picked by powerful people because the powerful people had a file on the regulator-to-be. In the file they have compromising photos of the regulator fucking underagers in a honeytrap operation which they set up in the first place

Your product is then put on the market and you make billions of dollars from it. Complaints begin to emerge from the public who are beginning to suffer health complaints from your product.

You deny all accusations pointing out to the public how your product has not only undergone rigorous testing but has also been approved by the government regulators. You then hire a Public Relations firm to manage the image of your company to try and create a favourable public image whilst you continue to sell your toxic product to the public

Eventually years down the line after you have pocketed billions of dollars the evidence against your product has become overwhelming and you no longer have plausible deniability. The government fines you several million dollars as punishment leaving you with your billions of dollars of profit, giving the public the false percetpion that justice has been served and that their government is working to protect them. The corporate media run by your business associates makes very little noise about the whole affair and the majority of the population are distracted by the dancing on ice or X factor and they soon forget the whole affair

Those injured try to sue for damages but the court case is dragged out by the lawyers until many of the victims die from their injuries before they get their day in court; the few survivors you pay small out of court settlements to keep their mouths shut
Now don't you try to play the "oh your just a kid" card on me. It won't work. At least I can admit that I have a lot to learn. However, this doesn't change the fact that I do have valid knowledge in topics such as these.

This is a very negative view of the world. I know that this is true some of the time (a good example is the controversy of the chemical aspartame) however I know that it does not happen all the time. In fact, cases like this are very rare. The only reason they don't seem to be rare is because those cases like the one you described are the ones that people talk about. You never hear on the news "oh this scientist discovered that chemical X is safe, and he was right". All you will ever hear from the news is "Oh this scientist found that chemical X was not safe, and then due to unusual reasons, changed his perspective. After a conversation with Business representative Y". That is a perfect example of confirmation bias. Your entire idea of the real world is based on confirmation bias. You assume all science is skewed by "big business" but that's not true. You only see what you want to see and nothing else. Please, I beg of you, open your mind to those view points that oppose your own and try to see them for what they are. At least a possibility of the truth.

This isn't even politics, this is psychology. And you are the perfect example. Please, try to honestly consider this.
 
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/04/140429125823.htm

[h=1]Graphene very mobile in lakes: Risks of negative environmental impacts if released[/h]
Date:
April 29, 2014
Source:
University of California - Riverside
Summary:
In a first-of-its-kind study of how a material some think could transform the electronics industry moves in water, researchers found that graphene oxide nanoparticles are very mobile in lakes or streams and therefore may well cause negative environmental impacts if released.


140429125823-large.jpg


Jacob D. Lanphere, a Ph.D. student at UC Riverside, holds a sample of graphene oxide.
Credit: Image courtesy of University of California - Riverside

In a first-of-its-kind study of how a material some think could transform the electronics industry moves in water, researchers at the University of California, Riverside Bourns College of Engineering found graphene oxide nanoparticles are very mobile in lakes or streams and therefore may well cause negative environmental impacts if released.


Graphene oxide nanoparticles are an oxidized form of graphene, a single layer of carbon atoms prized for its strength, conductivity and flexibility. Applications for graphene include everything from cell phones and tablet computers to biomedical devices and solar panels.
The use of graphene and other carbon-based nanomaterials, such as carbon nanotubes, are growing rapidly. At the same time, recent studies have suggested graphene oxide may be toxic to humans.
As production of these nanomaterials increase, it is important for regulators, such as the Environmental Protection Agency, to understand their potential environmental impacts, said Jacob D. Lanphere, a UC Riverside graduate student who co-authored a just-published paper about graphene oxide nanoparticles transport in ground and surface water environments.
"The situation today is similar to where we were with chemicals and pharmaceuticals 30 years ago," Lanphere said. "We just don't know much about what happens when these engineered nanomaterials get into the ground or water. So we have to be proactive so we have the data available to promote sustainable applications of this technology in the future."
The paper co-authored by Lanphere was published in a special issue of the journal Environmental Engineering Science.
Other authors were: Sharon L. Walker, an associate professor and the John Babbage Chair in Environmental Engineering at UC Riverside; Brandon Rogers and Corey Luth, both undergraduate students working in Walker's lab; and Carl H. Bolster, a research hydrologist with the U.S. Department of Agriculture in Bowling Green, Ky.
Walker's lab is one of only a few in the country studying the environmental impact of graphene oxide. The research that led to the Environmental Engineering Science paper focused on understanding graphene oxide nanoparticles' stability, or how well they hold together, and movement in groundwater versus surface water.
The researchers found significant differences.
In groundwater, which typically has a higher degree of hardness and a lower concentration of natural organic matter, the graphene oxide nanoparticles tended to become less stable and eventually settle out or be removed in subsurface environments.
In surface waters, where there is more organic material and less hardness, the nanoparticles remained stable and moved farther, especially in the subsurface layers of the water bodies.
The researchers also found that graphene oxide nanoparticles, despite being nearly flat, as opposed to spherical, like many other engineered nanoparticles, follow the same theories of stability and transport.
The research is supported by Lanphere's National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship; a NSF grant received by the UC Center for Environmental Implications for Nanotechnology, of which Walker is a member; and an NSF Career Award and US Department of Agriculture Hispanic Serving Institution grant, both received by Walker.


Story Source:
The above story is based on materials provided by University of California - Riverside. The original article was written by Sean Nealon. Note: Materials may be edited for content and length.


Journal Reference:

  • Jacob D. Lanphere, Brandon Rogers, Corey Luth, Carl H. Bolster, Sharon L. Walker. Stability and Transport of Graphene Oxide Nanoparticles in Groundwater and Surface Water. Environmental Engineering Science, 2014; 140317110400001 DOI: 10.1089/ees.2013.0392
 
Now don't you try to play the "oh your just a kid" card on me. It won't work. At least I can admit that I have a lot to learn. However, this doesn't change the fact that I do have valid knowledge in topics such as these.

No you played the 'your just a kid card' by saying you are young and naive; i just said: ok then here is how it works

This is a very negative view of the world.

No its an informed view of the world

I know that this is true some of the time (a good example is the controversy of the chemical aspartame) however I know that it does not happen all the time. In fact, cases like this are very rare.

Nonsense the big pharma companies, for example, are in the news all the time for bribing people; Glaxo Smith Klein are in the news at the moment for bribing health officials in China

The only reason they don't seem to be rare is because those cases like the one you described are the ones that people talk about. You never hear on the news "oh this scientist discovered that chemical X is safe, and he was right". All you will ever hear from the news is "Oh this scientist found that chemical X was not safe, and then due to unusual reasons, changed his perspective. After a conversation with Business representative Y". That is a perfect example of confirmation bias. Your entire idea of the real world is based on confirmation bias. You assume all science is skewed by "big business" but that's not true. You only see what you want to see and nothing else. Please, I beg of you, open your mind to those view points that oppose your own and try to see them for what they are. At least a possibility of the truth.

No i don't say that all science is skewed i say that big money skews science...stop twisting everything i say to match what you want me to be saying

This isn't even politics, this is psychology. And you are the perfect example. Please, try to honestly consider this.

It's all politics; it's worth baring in mind that just because you might not take an interest in politics doesn't mean politics won't take an interest in you
 
You won't see it if you die of graphene poisoning first

Here is an example of your assumption being portrayed in a black and white case where it makes it sound like you are right even though as I showed with the other article, it is inaccurate.
 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/11/kimberly-quinlan-lindsey_n_1004881.html

[h=1]Kimberly Lindsey Arrested: Bestiality, Child Molestation Charges Filed Against CDC Researcher (VIDEO)[/h]
A highly regarded scientist with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta has been arrested over allegations of bestiality and child molestation. The woman's night watchman boyfriend is also facing charges, police said.
Dr. Kimberly Quinlan Lindsey, 44, of Decatur, was arrested in DeKalb County Sunday after a six-week investigation into allegations she molested a young boy. Lindsey has been arrested and charged with two counts of child molestation and one count of bestiality, according to a DeKalb County criminal complaint.
"The bestiality charge is a result of evidence recovered during the investigation," DeKalb County police Lt. Pamela Kunz told The Huffington Post.
Investigators allegedly found photographs of Lindsey performing lewd acts on two pets. The offenses did not involve the child, police said. Kunz declined to elaborate. "The investigation is still active and we are not releasing further details [on that charge]," she said.
Lindsey's live-in boyfriend, Thomas Westerman, 42, also faces charges of two counts of child molestation. He was not charged with bestiality, police said.
The alleged sex acts involving the child took place between January 2010 and August 2011. The child would allegedly spank Lindsey and use an electric sex toy on her.
The couple's relationship to the alleged victim remains unclear.
"Detectives were notified by a medical professional in late August of an allegation of the child molestation of a 6-year-old boy," Kunz said.
"Evidence recovered during the investigation led to the issuance of criminal warrants against the defendants," Kunz added.
What makes the allegations especially outstanding is that the accused doctor is a woman well-known in her field and highly regarded.
According to her professional biography on the CDC website, Lindsey holds a doctoral degree in immunology and molecular pathogenesis from Emory University and a bachelor's degree in molecular biology from the University of Central Florida. Lindsey serves as the deputy director for the Laboratory Science Policy and Practice Program Office at the CDC.
During her long and distinguished career as a health scientist, Lindsey served as deputy division director in the Training Services Division of the Office of Workforce and Career Development and as deputy branch chief in the Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention.
Lindsey has also worked as a senior scientist with the Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Program and served as a senior health scientist in the Office of Public Health Preparedness and Response. Her primary role as the senior scientist was to provide "oversight of the $1.5 billion fiscal allocation process for Terrorism Preparedness and Emergency Response funding agency wide," according to the CDC website.
Since joining the CDC in 1999, Lindsey has received a dozen awards for outstanding performance.
Westerman began working for the CDC in January as a night watchman. His employee profile at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services lists him as a resource management specialist, Atlanta's WXIA-TV reported.
A spokesman for the CDC declined to comment on either employee.
Westerman was released on bail Sunday. Lindsey remains behind bars in lieu of $20,000 bond. Both suspects are scheduled to appear in court for a preliminary hearing on December 1.
 
Here is an example of your assumption being portrayed in a black and white case where it makes it sound like you are right even though as I showed with the other article, it is inaccurate.

No that's a hypothetical

he said he wants to see this product up and running and i was saying woah, there needs to be further testing because if it is poisonous and it is rushed out there it will poison people and he won't get to see a graphenated world if he has been poisoned by it

Go back and read what was actually said not what you want to have been said
 
http://www.naturalnews.com/032216_Thorsen_fraud.html

[h=1]CDC vaccine scientist who downplayed links to autism indicted by DOJ in alleged fraud scheme[/h]
CDC researcher Poul Thorsen, who famously headed up the "Denmark Study" that many claim disproved any link between autism and vaccines, has been indicted in Atlanta by a federal grand jury on charges of wire fraud, money laundering and defrauding research institutions of grant money.

Poul Thorson is a scientist who formerly worked for the CDC, and over the last several years, he oversaw millions of dollars in grant money that was used to conduct research to "prove" that vaccines have no link to autism. Dr. Thorson's research papers include the famous "Danish Study" entitled Thimerosal and the occurrence of autism: negative ecological evidence from Danish population-based data. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12949291)

This paper concludes that thimerosal, the mercury-based preservative used in vaccines around the world, has no statistically significant link to autism. It is one of the key papers used by vaccination proponents who argue that thimerosal is safe to inject into young children. That Poul Thorson's credibility is now being called into question by a federal indictment of fraud and money laundering will, of course, have ripple effects throughout both the vaccine industries and autism support groups (more about that below).

Be sure to see our "Web of Alleged Fraud" chart which accompanies this article: http://www.naturalnews.com/files/Web-of-Alle...

[h=1]Follow the money[/h]According to the official announcement of the indictment, Thorsen was awarded grant money by the CDC as far back as the 1990s. He arranged for the grant money to be awarded to an entity in Denmark, where he provided "input and guidance" for the research projects.

From 2000 to 2009, the CDC awarded $11 million in grant money to two Denmark government agencies to study, among other things, the possible link between vaccines and autism. In 2002, Thorsen moved to Denmark and became the "principal investigator" for the grant money, responsible for administering the research money that the CDC awarded.

But here's where things get interesting: According to the Dept. of Justice, Thorsen began allegedly stealing grant money by submitting fraudulent expense documents that were supposedly related to the Danish study. These fraudulent expense documents were given to the Danish government, Aarhus University and Odense University Hospital, the institutions involved in the research.

From February 2004 through June 2008, says the DOJ indictment, Thorsen allegedly submitted over a dozen fraudulent invoices requesting reimbursement for expenses that were fabricated. Interestingly, these allegedly fraudulent invoices were signed by a laboratory section chief at the CDC, indicating that someone inside the CDC was either duped by Thorsen or potentially involved in the alleged fraud.

What was Thorsen claiming in these allegedly fraudulent invoices requesting reimbursement? He claimed that a CDC laboratory had conducted work in conjunction with the research and was owed funds out of the grant money. These invoices were then handed over to Aarhus University, where Thorsen held a faculty position. Aarhus then transferred "hundreds of thousands of dollars to bank accounts held at the CDC Federal Credit Union in Atlanta," says the DOJ.

But here's the clever part: Those bank accounts were not official CDC accounts at all. They were allegedly private bank accounts belonging to none other than Dr. Poul Thorsen.

Once the money was transferred into Thorsen's private accounts, Thorsen "allegedly withdrew it for his own personal use, buying a home in Atlanta, a Harley Davidson motorcycle, and Audi and Honda vehicles, and obtaining numerous cashier's checks, from the fraud proceeds," says the DOJ.

According to government documents, Dr. Poul Thorsen, one of the key researchers in "disproving" any link between vaccines and autism, allegedly defrauded the scientific research community of over one million dollars.

See the chart we've assembled for this to help show you the web of money and influence at work here:
http://www.naturalnews.com/files/Web-of-Alleged-Fraud.pdf

[h=1]Aarhus distances itself from Thorsen[/h]More details are revealed through a statement issued in January by Aarhus University, which sought to sever its ties with Thorsen. It says, "Unfortunately, a considerable shortfall in funding at Aarhus University associated with the CDC grant was discovered. In investigating the shortfalls associated with the grant, DASTI and Aarhus University became aware of two alleged CDC funding documents as well as a letter regarding funding commitments allegedly written by Randolph B. Williams of CDC's Procurement Grants Office which was used to secure advances from Aarhus University. Upon investigation by CDC, a suspicion arose that the documents are forgeries." (http://www.rescuepost.com/files/thorsen-aarhus-1.pdf)

This letter goes on to state that Dr Thorsen was essentially hoodwinking others into thinking he was still a faculty member at Aarhus University:

In March 2009, Dr. Thorsen resigned his faculty position at Aarhus University. In the meantime, it has come to the attention of Aarhus University that Dr Thomsen has continued to act in such a manner as to create the impression that he still retains a connection to Aarhus University after the termination of his employment by the university. Furthermore, it has come to the attention of Aarhus University that Dr Poul Thorsen has held full-time positions at both Emory University and Aarhus University simultaneously. Dr Thorsen's double Full-time employment was unauthorised by Aarhus University, and he engaged in this employment situation despite the express prohibition of Aarhus University.

[h=1]The federal indictment against Thorsen[/h]Today, Thorsen is facing 13 counts of wire fraud and 9 counts of money laundering. NaturalNews spoke with the Department of Justice and confirmed that extradition proceedings are under way to bring Thorsen to the United States from Denmark, although no particular timetable for that extradition has been announced.

Thorsen now faces up to 260 years in prison from the wire fraud charges, and up to an additional 90 years in prison for the money laundering charges, plus a total of $22.5 million in possible fines. In addition, the federal indictment also contains a so-called "forfeiture provision" which seeks the forfeiture of the personal property Dr. Thorsen allegedly purchased with money he stole from the CDC's grant activities: A house in Atlanta, two cars and a Harley Davidson motorcycle.

The case is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorneys Stephen H. McClain and Michael J. Brown, both out of the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta). This Atlanta office has a well-known reputation for going after crooks, regardless of the political implications. This is the same office, for example, that indicted Atlanta's own mayor for corruption and tax charges in 2004 (http://www.justice.gov/tax/usaopress/2004/txdv0408-30-04.html).

The prosecuting attorney for that case, Sally Quillian Yates, is the same attorney contributing to this case. She said of Thorsen: "Grant money for disease research is a precious commodity. When grant funds are stolen, we lose not only the money, but also the opportunity to better understand and cure debilitating diseases. This defendant is alleged to have orchestrated a scheme to steal over $1 million in CDC grant money earmarked for autism research. We will now seek the defendant’s extradition for him to face federal charges in the United States."

Understand what is being alleged here: That Thorsen stole taxpayer dollars intended for medical research, then pocketed them in his own private bank accounts and used the money to buy luxury items for his personal use. This is a man with a history of strong ties to the CDC, research universities and medical journals. This is a person whose research has been widely quoted by the vaccine apologists who say vaccines are safe. And now, in the midst of all this, how many mainstream newspapers do you see covering Thorsen's indictment and his ties to the CDC? Virtually none.

This is the great untold story of an alleged criminal ring operating inside the CDC, with the purpose of falsifying research that would "disprove" any links between vaccines and toxic side effects.

[h=1]The upshot of all this[/h]What you read above are the facts of the case. What you're about to read is my own opinion analysis as the editor of NaturalNews. While I spoke with the U.S. Attorney's Office on these matters, what you're about to read are my own opinions, not theirs.

For starters, given that the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), the American Journal of Epidemiology and many other medical journals have published Dr. Thorsen's work, will they retract his scientific papers now that he has been indicted for fraud and money laundering?

Or do the medical journals only retract papers only from those whose research suggests that vaccines do, in fact, have a link to intestinal disorders and neurological problems in children? Remember, of course, that the conventional medical industry almost couldn't wait to denounce Dr. Andrew Wakefield's research, based on only the flimsiest of allegations which don't even stand up to basic scrutiny. And yet when one of their own "insider" scientists like Dr. Poul Thorsen is indicted for fraud and money laundering, they don't question the integrity of his scientific research in the least. In fact, the CDC is now publicly defending his research! His research is still openly cited on the CDC's own website! (http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/articles.html)

So don't hold your breath waiting for the medical journals to denounce Dr. Thorsen's research. His so-called "scientific findings" are such an important cornerstone in the false "scientific" evidence dispelling any link between vaccines and autism that they would probably let his research stand even if he was convicted of rape, murder and incest. No criminal is too criminal for the medical journals, it seems -- especially if his conclusions support the vaccine industry.

Secondly, did you notice that the allegedly falsified invoices submitted by Dr. Thosen to Aarhus University were signed off by a CDC lab section chief? Someone inside the CDC, in other words, was enabling Dr. Thorsen to allegedly engage in this fraud. The question is: Was this person a co-conspirator?

To answer all this, you have to keep one thing in perspective: During the years of 2006 - 2008 when all this alleged fraud was taking place, the vaccine industry was under increasing attack by scientists who questioned their safety. The evidence linking vaccines with autism and gastrointestinal disorders was becoming increasingly evident and increasingly difficult to cover up. Dr. Julie Gerberding was at the help of the CDC, and she was no doubt trying to impress her future employers at Merck, where she is now the president of Merck's global vaccine division, having left the CDC the very next year following Dr. Thorsen's alleged money laundering scheme.

Question: Did the CDC actively enable and support Dr. Thorsen's alleged fraud in order to "pay him off" for falsifying the research that would supposedly disprove any link between vaccines and autism? And was this being masterminded by Dr. Julie Gerberding as part of her effort to prove her loyalty to Merck, where she now runs the global vaccine division?

Consider the ties here: Dr. Poul Thorsen used to have a CDC email address (pct9@cdc.gov). He was on the CDC payroll and spoke at CDC events. He had a private bank account at the CDC Credit Union!

Dr. Thorsen had enough pull with the CDC to get his pet grant project approved, even to the point of having the money wired overseas to a university in Denmark where -- guess what? -- he just happened to be a faculty member with "oversight" of where the money went. For Dr. Thorsen to have pulled off his alleged fraud, he would have needed help from inside the CDC -- from the "lab section chief" who signed his invoices that were submitted to Aarhus University for "reimbursement." Those funds, of course, were then allegedly used by Dr. Thorsen to purchase a home, cars and a motorcycle, among other things.

[h=1]Was Thorsen a patsy for a larger scheme?[/h]I see two possibilities here: Either the CDC conspired with Dr. Thorsen, or they set him up to take the fall. Every great scam needs a fall guy, you see, and the vaccine industry's fraudulent scientific cover-up of the truth about vaccine dangers is one of the greatest scams ever pulled off in the history of human civilization. The CDC has its fingerprints all over this case, as a former employer of Thorsen, the source of the money (which is really taxpayer money, of course), and even the source of the "lab section chief" employee who allegedly helped make all this happen.

To believe that the CDC may have conspired with Dr. Thorsen is not even a stretch. The CDC, as we've already shown, is deeply in bed with the vaccine industry and the drug companies. That's why the former head of the CDC is now the president of Merck's vaccine division (http://www.naturalnews.com/027789_Dr_Julie_Gerberding_Merck.html). It's also why the CDC urges everyone to "get vaccinated" at the first sign of a seasonal flu or an emerging epidemic. The pro-vaccine bias of the CDC has been blatant for years.

[h=1]Other CDC scientists also involved in the fraud?[/h]Writers Dan Olmsted and Mark Blaxill from the AgeOfAutism.com website have done additional research on this point, and they've found some solid evidence that should raise questions about the CDC's involvement in Thorsen's alleged fraud. As they published recently in an article entitled Poul Thorsen's Mutating Resume: (http://www.ageofautism.com/2010/03/poul-thorsens-mutating-resume.html)

In addition, several current CDC employees including Drs. Diana Schendel, Marshalyn Yeargin-Allsopp and Catherine Rice were affiliated with Thorsen's now-defunct research group. Age of Autism has obtained Internet-archived pages from the Web site of the North Atlantic Neuro-Epidemiology Alliances (NANEA) that list the members of the “Atlanta autism team” including Schendel, Yeargin-Allsopp and Rice, all of whom have been in leadership positions in the CDC’s autism epidemiology projects. Schendel is described as NANEA’s “coordinator at Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, USA.”

This article goes on to say, by the way, that Thorsen was also working with the American Psychiatric Association (APA) to alter the definition of "autism" in the DSM-V (the psychiatric industry's bible of diagnosis and treatment).

The CDC, of course, has downplayed the whole thing. It released a statement that attempted to characterize Poul Thorsen's alleged fraud as a "fiscal" matter, not something involving his science, as if to imply that a man can be a crook when it comes to his money, but an angel when it comes to his science.

They said:

"CDC is aware of the allegations by Aarhus University against Poul Thorsen, a Danish doctor who participated in CDC funded research. For the past 10 years, CDC has had a cooperative agreement with the Danish Agency for Science, Technology and Innovation (DASTI) and Aarhus University in Denmark to conduct research studies on issues such as cerebral palsy, autism, alcohol use in pregnancy and Down syndrome. Dr. Thorsen was one of many co-authors on these research projects. All of these were subject to extensive peer review and we have no reason to suspect that there are any issues related to the integrity of the science. The allegations that are fiscal in nature against Dr. Thorsen are being looked into by appropriate authorities."

(http://www.ageofautism.com/2010/03/...ine-researcher-dr-poul-thorsen-for-fraud.html)

But the other possibility in all this is that someone inside the CDC wanted to protect the CDC's reputation from all the quackery and fraud they saw happening there. Perhaps they were clued in to Dr. Thorsen's alleged money laundering, and they were sick of it. Maybe they saw Dr. Gerberding collect a multi-million-dollar salary from Merck while the rest of the people were left behind at the CDC collecting government wages. This is conjecture, of course, but it seems reasonable to suppose that someone from within the CDC could be the whistleblower on all this.

And if that someone reads this, we want to hear from you. Feel free to leak internal documents to NaturalNews any time you want, through our public feedback form. We protect the identities of all our sources and we are interested in seeing justice served. If there is an element in the CDC that is knowingly engaged in criminal fraud and conspiracy, that elements needs to be exposed and removed from the CDC for the good of the entire institution. Otherwise, more of this kind of news will only come out in the years ahead, and the reputation of the CDC will only continue to plummet.

Don't think the world isn't noticing already: Just two years ago, the CDC's reputation was relatively high even among natural health practitioners. But after watching the CDC's behavior through these last couple of flu scares, more intelligent people now fully realize the CDC has become little more than a mouthpiece for the pharmaceutical industry. It was the CDC, after all, that helped hype up the Swine Flu scare that resulted in billions of taxpayer dollars being needlessly spent on vaccines which were mostly thrown away unused after the scare passed.

[h=1]The DOJ earns street cred[/h]The real hero in all this, it turns out, is the Department of Justice (DOJ). Rather than bowing to the profit interests of the vaccine industry, the DOJ is going after Dr. Poul Thorsen based solely on his alleged criminal behavior, not based on politics or science. It's refreshing to know that some elements of the federal government are actually doing good work. I've seen this before from the DOJ in its indictments of various pharmaceutical companies, and I continue to believe that the DOJ may be the last remaining hope for justice at the federal level.

I did tell my contact at the DOJ, however, that they should watch out for pressure from the vaccine industry. There will be efforts made, no doubt, to limit the exposure of this case to only Dr. Poul Thorsen and not involve any other CDC employees or officials. Honestly, in talking to the DOJ about this case, I think they vastly underestimate the level of commitment the drug companies have to their vaccine profit machine; meaning they also vastly underestimate the tactics that are traditionally used by these companies to limit their damage.

For example, most NaturalNews readers know full well that I've had multiple threats placed on my life, I've been stalked, I've been impersonated, and there have been assassination attempts made on other leaders in the natural health movement who have dared to question vaccines. What the DOJ doesn't know (but I hope they will soon realize) is that the drug companies will stop at nothing to get their way: They will poison your dog, hack your website, threaten your family, leave nasty notes in your mailbox, plant fake bombs under your car and do whatever else it takes to get you to back off.

I know that DOJ prosecutors and attorneys will be reading this, so let me share something with you that you need to know: When you go up against the pharmaceutical industry, you are doing battle with what is essentially organized crime. We're talking a modern-day mob here, and they will not hesitate to engaged in attempted bribery, corruption or threats of violence to get their way. If the DOJ begins to uncover a deeper connection between Thorsen, the CDC and the drug companies, beware of the backlash headed your way from both the industry and even the top folks in D.C. The depth of the fraud and crimes being committed right now in the pursuit of vaccine profits is nothing short of astonishing. We've reported on many here at NaturalNews, and yet we've just barely scratched the surface of the real story.

Even the vaccine pushers in the online world engage in precisely the same kind of criminal behavior; fixing online polls, creating robots to maliciously attack anti-vax websites, engaging in the widespread posting of false information, and so on. This is, of course, a reflection of the exact same psychopathic criminal-minded behavior found inside the vaccine industry itself -- an industry staffed by sick-minded human beings who belong in federal prison, not running research for the CDC.

As the editor of NaturalNews, I have publicly, on numerous occasions, called for the Department of Justice to investigate the CEOs of drug companies for fraud, racketeering and conspiracy. While this indictment of Dr. Poul Thorsen isn't all that, it's at least a step in the right direction that may help uncover the truth about what really goes on behind the scenes with taxpayer "research money."

[h=1]How much vaccine research is based on outright fraud?[/h]It also raises the question: How many other scientific researchers and grant money administrators are on the take, pocketing taxpayer dollars that were intended for research purposes? How many of these people falsify their research data in order to keep getting grant money injections into their private bank accounts? Just how deep does the collusion between the corrupt scientific community and the fraudulent vaccine industry really go?

And, of course, what is the CDC's role in all this? It has been one of the top cheerleaders for the vaccine industry for at least the past decade. Now, we are learning that a CDC section chief knowingly or unknowingly colluded with a physician and researcher who has now been indicted for fraud and money laundering. How high up the CDC does this alleged fraud really go?

I don't know the answer to that. But it's not that complicated to figure out, especially when CDC employees become Big Pharma vaccine employees, and vice-versa. It's all a giant government-corporate-medicine orgy where the scientific trust was abandoned long ago in favor of Big Pharma profits.

We'll do our best here at NaturalNews to find out the rest of this story and bring it to you. That's what we do. That's why we're the 4th largest alternative news website in the world (and growing every day). We bring you the news about the fraud and corruption in the pharmaceutical industry that most mainstream media sources won't dare touch. Subscribe to my free daily email newsletter to receive a daily email that I send out, containing links to the top stories you need to know about. It's free, so sign up now at: http://www.naturalnews.com/readerregistration.html

By the way, I strongly recommend that you become a regular readers of www.AgeOfAutism.com which provides outstanding reporting on these issues. Make that site one of your regular sources of information. You'll be amazed by what they are able to report.

Additional sources for this story include:
http://kerboblog.blogspot.com/2010/03/news-flash-cdc.html

http://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/news/2011/04/13/dane-indicted-for-defrauding-cdc.html

http://www.ageofautism.com/2011/04/...d-autism-vaccines-link-indicted-on-fraud.html

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/13/us-crime-research-funds-idUSTRE73C8JJ20110413

 
http://worldtruth.tv/big-pharma-cri...d-price-fixing-now-a-matter-of-public-record/

[h=2]Big Pharma Criminality no Longer a Conspiracy Theory: Bribery, Fraud, Price Fixing now a matter of public record[/h]
Those of us who have long been describing the pharmaceutical industry as a “criminal racket” over the last few years have been wholly vindicated by recent news. Drug and vaccine manufacturer Merck was caught red-handed by two of its own scientists faking vaccine efficacy data by spiking blood samples with animal antibodies. GlaxoSmithKline has just been fined a whopping $3 billion for bribing doctors, lying to the FDA, hiding clinical trial data and fraudulent marketing. Pfizer, meanwhile has been sued by the nation’s pharmacy retailers for what is alleged as an “overarching anticompetitive scheme” to keep generic cholesterol drugs off the market and thereby boost its own profits.​
The picture that’s emerging is one of a criminal drug industry that has turned to mafia tactics in the absence of any real science that would prove their products to be safe or effective. The emergence of this extraordinary evidence of bribery, scientific fraud, lying to regulators and monopolistic practices that harm consumers is also making all those doctors and “skeptics” who defended Big Pharma and vaccines eat their words.
To defend Big Pharma today is to defend a cabal of criminal corporations that have proven they will do anything — absolutely anything – to keep their profits rolling in. It makes no difference who they have to bribe, what studies they have to falsify, or who has to be threatened into silence. They will stop at nothing to expand their profit base, even if it means harming (or killing) countless innocents. Let’s take a look at recent revelations: GlaxoSmithKline pleads guilty to bribery, fraud and other crimes It what is now the largest criminal fraud settlement ever to come out of the pharmaceutical industry, GlaxoSmithKline has pleaded guilty and agreed to pay $1 billion in criminal fines and $2 billion in civil fines following a nine-year federal investigation into its activities. According to U.S. federal investigators, GlaxoSmithKline (http://www.naturalnews.com/036416_GlaxoSmithKline_fraud_criminal_char…): • Routinely bribed doctors with luxury vacations and paid speaking gigs • Fabricated drug safety data and lied to the FDA • Defrauded Medicare and Medicaid out of billions • Deceived regulators about the effectiveness of its drugs • Relied on its deceptive practices to earn billions of dollars selling potentially dangerous drugs to unsuspecting consumers and medical patients And this is just the part they got caught doing. GSK doesn’t even deny any of this. The company simply paid the $3 billion fine, apologized to its customers, and continued conducting business as usual. By the way, in addition to bribing physicians, GSK has plenty of money to spread around bribing celebrities and others who pimps its products. The company reportedly paid $275,000 to the celebrity doctor known as “Dr. Drew,” who promoted Glaxo’s mind-altering antidepressant drug Wellbutrin (http://naturalsociety.com/top-radio-doctor-paid-by-glaxosmithkline-to…). As the Wall Street Journal reports:​
In June 1999, popular radio personality Dr. Drew Pinsky used the airwaves to extol the virtues of GlaxoSmithKline PLC’s antidepressant Wellbutrin, telling listeners he prescribes it and other medications to depressed patients because it “may enhance or at least not suppress sexual arousal” as much as other antidepressants do. But one thing listeners didn’t know was that, two months before the program aired, Dr. Pinsky — who gained fame as “Dr. Drew” during years co-hosting a popular radio sex-advice show “Loveline” — received the second of two payments from Glaxo totaling $275,000 for “services for Wellbutrin.”
(http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405270230393340457750503200685…)​
Merck falsified vaccine data, spiked blood samples and more, say former employees
According to former Merck virologists Stephen Krahling and Joan Wlochowski, the company: (http://www.naturalnews.com/036328_Merck_mumps_vaccine_False_Claims_Ac…)​
• “Falsified test data to fabricate a vaccine efficacy rate of 95 percent or higher.”​
• Spiked the blood test with animal antibodies in order to artificially inflate the appearance of immune system antibodies.​
• Pressured the two virologists to “participate in the fraud and subsequent cover-up.”​
• Used the falsified trial results to swindle the U.S. government out of “hundreds of millions of dollars for a vaccine that does not provide adequate immunization.”​
• Intimidated the scientists, threatening them with going to jail unless they stayed silent.​
This is all documented in a 2010 False Claims Act which NaturalNews has acquired and posted here:
http://www.naturalnews.com/gallery/documents/Merck-False-Claims-Act.p…
Millions of children put at risk by Merck
In that document the two virologists say they, “witnessed firsthand the improper testing and data falsification in which Merck engaged to artificially inflate the vaccine’s efficacy findings.”​
They also claim that because of the faked vaccine results, “the United States has over the last decade paid Merck hundreds of millions of dollars for a vaccine that does not provide adequate immunization… The United States is by far the largest financial victim of Merck’s fraud.”​
They go on to point out that children are the real victims, however:​
“But the ultimate victims here are the millions of children who every year are being injected with a mumps vaccine that is not providing them with an adequate level of protection. …The failure in Merck’s vaccine has allowed this disease to linger with significant outbreaks continuing to occur.”
Merck’s mumps viral strain is 45 years old!
According to the complaint, Merck has been using the same mumps strain — weakened from generations of being “passaged” — for the last 45 years! The complaint reads:​
“For more than thirty years, Merck has had an exclusive license from the FDA to manufacture and sell a mumps vaccine in the U.S. The FDA first approved the vaccine in 1967. It was developed by Dr. Maurice Hilleman, at Merck’s West Point research facility, from the mumps virus that infected his five year-old daughter Jeryl Lynn. Merck continues to use this ‘Jeryl Lynn’ strain of the virus for its vaccine today.”
A complete medical farce
This information appears to show Merck’s mumps vaccine to be a complete medical farce. Those who blindly backed Merck’s vaccines — the science bloggers, “skeptics,” doctors, CDC and even the FDA — have been shown to be utter fools who have now destroyed their reputations by siding with an industry now known to be dominated by scientific fraud and unbounded criminality.​
That’s the really hilarious part in all this: After decades of doctors, scientists and government authorities blindly and brainlessly repeating the mantra of “95% effectiveness,” it all turns out to be total quackery hogwash. Utterly fabricated. Quackety-quack quack. And all those hundreds of millions of Americans who lined up to be injected with MMR vaccines were all repeatedly and utterly conned into potentially harming themselves while receiving no medical benefit.​
Intelligent, informed NaturalNews readers, home school parents, and “awakened” people who said “No!” to vaccines are now emerging as the victors in all this. By refusing to be injected with Merck’s vaccines, they avoided being assaulted with a fraudulent cocktail of adjuvant chemicals and all-but-useless mumps strains over four decades old. They protected their time, money and health. Those who refuse to be physically violated by vaccines are, once again, turning out to be the smartest people in society. No wonder they also tend to be healthier than the clueless fools who line up to get vaccinated every year.​
Merck fraudulently misrepresented the efficacy of its vaccine and contributed to the spread of infectious disease, says lawsuit
The faked vaccine efficacy numbers aren’t the only troubles Merck is now facing. Shortly after the above False Claims Act was made public, Chatom Primary Care filed suit against Merck. That document is available from NaturalNews at:
http://www.naturalnews.com/gallery/documents/Chatom-Lawsuit-Merck-Mum…
It alleges that:​
• [Merck engaged in] …a decade-long scheme to falsify and misrepresent the true efficacy of its vaccine.​
• Merck fraudulently represented and continues to falsely represent in its labeling and elsewhere that its Mumps Vaccine has an efficacy rate of 95 percent of higher.​
• Merck knows and has taken affirmative steps to conceal — by using improper testing techniques and falsifying test data — that its Mumps Vaccine is, and has been since at least 1999, far less than 95 percent effective.​
• Merck designed a testing methodology that evaluated its vaccine against a less virulent strain of the mumps virus. After the results failed to yield Merck’s desired efficacy, Merck abandoned the methodology and concealed the study’s findings.​
• Merck also engaged in “incorporating the use of animal antibodies to artificially inflate the results… destroying evidence of the falsified data and then lying to an FDA investigator… threatened a virologist in Merck’s vaccine division with jail if he reported the fraud to the FDA.”​
• “Merck designed a testing methodology that evaluated its vaccine against a less virulent strain of the mumps virus. After the results failed to yield Merck’s desired efficacy, Merck abandoned the methodology and concealed the study’s findings. [Then] Merck designed even more scientifically flawed methodology, this time incorporating the use of animal antibodies to artificially inflate the results, but it too failed to achieve Merck’s fabricated efficacy rate. Confronted with two failed methodologies, Merck then falsified the test data to guarantee the results it desired. Having achieved the desired, albeit falsified, efficacy threshold, Merck submitted these fraudulent results to the FDA and European Medicines Agency.”​
• “Merck took steps to cover up the tracks of its fraudulent testing by destroying evidence of the falsified data and then lying to an FDA investigator… Merck also attempted to buy the silence and cooperation of its staff by offering them financial incentives to follow the direction of Merck personnel overseeing the fraudulent testing process. Merck also threatened… Stephen Krahling, a virologist in Merck’s vaccine division from 1999 to 2001, with jail if he reported fraud to the FDA.”​
• “Merck continued to conceal what it knew about the diminished efficacy of its Mumps Vaccine even after significant mumps outbreaks in 2006 and 2009.”​
Obama administration has zero interest in actual justice
Another interesting note in all this is that under President Obama, the U.S. Dept. of Justice showed no interest whatsoever in investigating Merck over the False Claims Act filed by two of its former virologists. Despite the convincing evidence of fraud described in detail by insider whistleblowers, the Obama Department of Justice, led by gun-running Attorney General Eric Holder who is already facing serious questions over Operation Fast and Furious, simply chose to ignore the False Claims Act complaint.​
When evidence of criminal fraud was brought before the U.S. Department of Justice, in other words, the DoJ looked the other way with a wink and a nod to the medical crimes taking place right under their noses. Who cares if tens of millions of children are being injected year after year with a fraudulent mumps vaccine? There’s money to be made, after all, and exploiting the bodies of little children for profit is just business as usual in a fascist nation dominated by corporate interests.​
Pfizer sued by retailers over anticompetitive scheme
Adding to all this, Pfizer has now been sued by five U.S. retailers (pharmacies) who accuse the company of monopolistic market practices. According to the lawsuit, Pfizer conspired to prevent generic versions of its blockbuster cholesterol drug Lipitor from entering the market. This was done to protect billions in profits while making sure patients did not have access to more affordable cholesterol drugs. Pfizer sells nearly $10 billion worth of Lipitor each year.​
According to the Reuters report on this lawsuit, Pfizer is being accused of (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/05/us-pfizer-walgreen-lipitor-…):​
• Obtaining a fraudulent patent
• Engaging in sham litigation
• Entering a price-fixing agreement to delay cheaper generics
• Entering arrangements with pharmacy benefit managers to force retailers to buy more Lipitor (chemical name is atorvastatin calcium)​
No arrests or prosecution of Big Pharma executives
One of the most astonishing realizations in all this is that given all the criminal fraud, bribery, misrepresentation, lying to the FDA, price fixing and other crimes that are going on in the pharmaceutical industry, you’d think somebody somewhere might be arrested and charged with a crime, right?​
Nope.​
To date, not a single pharmaceutical CEO, marketing employee or drug rep has been charged with anything related to all this fraud. In America, drug company employees are “above the law” just like top mafia bosses of a bygone era.​
How insane is this, exactly? Consider this:​
Imagine if YOU, an individual, went around town bribing doctors, falsifying data, selling a fraudulent product to the government, lying to regulators, engaging in anti-trade price-fixing and threatening your employees into silence. What would happen to you?​
You’d probably wind up rotting in prison, the subject of an FBI investigation and a DoJ prosecution.​
So why is it okay for a multi-billion-dollar corporation to carry out these same crimes and get away with it? Why are the CEOs of top drug companies given a free pass to commit felony crimes and endless fraud?​
I’ll tell you why, and you’re not gonna like the answer: Because America has become a nation run by crooks for the benefit of crooks. It’s one big country club, and as comedian George Carlin used to say, “YOU ain’t in it!”​
If Big Pharma would falsify data on vaccines, what else would the industry do?
I hope you’re getting the bigger picture in all this, friends. If these drug companies routinely bribe doctors, falsify data, defraud the government and commit felony crimes without remorse, what else would they be willing to do for profit?​
Would they:​
• Falsify efficacy data on other prescription drugs?
• Exploit children for deadly vaccine trials?
• Invent fictitious diseases to sell more drugs?
• Unleash bioweapons to cause a profitable pandemic?
• Conspire with the CDC to spread fear to promote vaccinations?
• Silence whistleblowers who try to go public with the truth?
• Give people cancer via stealth viruses in vaccines?
• Destroy the careers of medical scientists who question Big Pharma?
• Force a medical monopoly on the entire U.S. population via socialist health care legislation?​
But of course they would. In fact, the industry is doing all those things right now. And if you don’t believe me, just remember that five years ago, no one believed me when I said drug companies were engaged in criminal conspiracies to defraud the nation — something that has now been proven over a nine-year investigation.

 
Back
Top