Chapter 4 of “Orchestration of a Pandemic Famine”
About the title of my new series of essays: “Orchestrating a Pandemic Famine”
What do cell based meats contain – besides, potentially, graphene derivatives, chitosan and synthetic DNA?
The Good Food Institute is officially promoting Graphene, carbon nanotubes – and even synthetic DNA – on the menu of cellular meats
Dans les viandes cellulaires commercialisées: des nano-fibres, à base de graphène et de chitosane, qui ne révèlent JAMAIS leur identité
What is behind the nano-fibers in cellular meats marketed, for example, by Gelatex and Matrix Meats?
Graphene in the edible films of animal meats
Appendix 1. Graphene in Human Tissue Engineering
Declaration of Intentions
After posting my last very voluminous dossier on the Chitinization of Peoples, and as I contemplated, in the pleasant atmosphere of my home, wisps of ganja smoke attempting to counterbalance the contaminations of nano-technological chemtrails – my Rigpa informed me that it was very likely that graphene oxide, or any other form of graphene, was on the occult menu of the “cellular, cultured, 3D meats”… which are announced as the ultimate sustainable, circular, eco-friendly, blah blah blah, food revolution. And that graphene is, even, without any doubt, in the very fibers of certain animal meats… I then went on a quest… and this quest was fruitful.
Very important addition of February 12, 2023. I have just discovered a patent granted in 2021 and relating to the use of graphene oxide in the feeding of lepidopteran and dipteran insects. This patent is entitled “Application of graphene oxide in preparation of feed for lepidoptera and diptera insects”. « The invention discloses an application of graphene oxide in preparation of feeds for lepidoptera and diptera insects. Wherein the mass-to-volume ratio (mu g/mL) of the graphene oxide to the feed for lepidoptera and diptera insects is 500: 1-2000:1. The feed is prepared by the following method: preparing a graphene oxide solution, preparing a culture medium, and dissolving the culture medium in the graphene oxide solution to prepare the graphene oxide-based feed for the diptera insects. The graphene oxide-based lepidoptera and diptera insect feed can shorten the growth period of insects, improve the survival rate of larvae, increase the weight of the larvae and pupae, and greatly reduce the time and production cost in the practical application process.» 
Ecce Homo chimericus!
Today, we are witnessing a hyperbolic and hysterical growth of start-ups embarking on the adventure of cellular meats… and other abominations, supposedly food, “cultivated”, or “cultured”, in metal tanks from stem cells – of beef, duck, lobster, shrimp… These cellular soups are fed with chimeric transgenic yeasts (and many other industrial substances) and they are structured by hydrogels, or other polymers, made of nano-substances, equally industrial – and toxic.
“Cell meats” are, also, called “cell-based meats”, “3D meats”, “cultured meats”, “cultivated meats”, “synthetic meats”, “in vitro meats”, “laboratory meats”, “fake meats” and, even, “clean meats”.
The expression “clean meats” is propelled by the gang of (so-called) environmentalists, promoting the “New Green Deal » nonsense, and it implies that its opposite – namely “dirty meat” – is produced from farmed animals that would constitute, intrinsically, an abomination destroying Nature. Is everything okay?
“Synthetic meats” are a fundamental element of the demented Klaus Schwab’s “4th industrial revolution” and, every day, I pray to Mother Earth to activate the Great Reset, terminally, of this despicable eugenicist who believes himself to be the new Green and Universal Messiah on Earth.
My declared and transparent intention, for this essay, is to highlight that some of these hydrogels, or other polymers, are already based on graphene oxide, carbon nanotubes, or other graphene derivatives, for the confection, architecture and structuring of the said cell-based meats. It is, also, to emphasize that these hydrogels, based on graphene, are present, also, in numerous animal meats: either in the packagings, or by means of the anti-flu animal “vaccines”, or in direct injections, or in the “protective” films supposedly edible.
Since the publication, in French, of this article, I wrote a 5th chapter titled “Graphenization of the meat, and proteins, by “vaccines” injected into the livestock”. 
I affirm, moreover, that graphene will become, very quickly, one of the essential elements in the creation of muscular tissues, or other tissues, called “cell meats”, intended for “human food”.
On November 17, 2022, the FDA in the US gave its first approval for the commercialization of cell cultured meat – in this case, Upside Foods’ cell cultured chicken.  Upside Foods manufactures cell-grown meat using samples from live animals as well as “recently slaughtered animals that were already in the food system”.
The “cell samples from recently slaughtered animals” are reminiscent of the cult film Solyent Green, which I mentioned in my last essay Homo chimericus. In the case of Solyent Green the bones, organs, tissues, etc, of the deceased are also part of the food system… of the un/deceased.
Why is graphene going to form the basis of a large part of the fake meats? Because the graphene family has been, already, for a good 15 years, one of the fundamental elements in a plethora of medical applications: vaccines, nano-vectors of allopathic remedies, sensors, etc… including – and this is what is important to us here – the regeneration of muscle tissues, bones, cartilages, nerves, etc.
Indeed, the industrialists of 3D cell-based meat are interested in the great capacity of myogenic differentiation conferred by graphene oxide, or carbon nano-tubes – among other capacities… real or fabricated.
It is therefore very easy for them to join forces with firms operating in the medical nano-fibers sector, or to use their patents – as these firms have already been in practice for about 15 years.
Why is graphene going to form the basis of a large part of the cell’s false meat? Because graphene – once expensive because it came from China and was concocted using expensive technologies – is now exceedingly cheap to produce since new processes make it possible to make it from any carbonaceous biomass.
In January 2020, graphene was still very expensive: between $67,000 and $200,000 per ton.
And, to manufacture it, in particular, thanks to the revolutionary processes invented, at Rice University in Houston, Texas, by the internationally recognized chemist, James Tour.
James Tour is one of the 5 most internationally recognized chemists. Therefore, his positions are tolerated – especially since he holds over 600 patents – despite the fact that he professes a Judaist, strictly anti-neo-Darwinist paradigm and, even, promotes “Intelligent Design”.
James Tour is absolutely right in his conception of Evolution, except that the claims of the Yahwehist myth must be replaced by the authentic, organic perceptions and visions of the Gaian world – and, what is more, in fusion with the Gaian world.
According to James Tour: « The world throws out 30% to 40% of all food, because it goes bad, and plastic waste is of worldwide concern. We’ve already proven that any solid carbon-based matter, including mixed plastic waste and rubber tires, can be turned into graphene... Essentially, we’re trapping greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and methane that waste food would have emitted in landfills. We are converting those carbons into graphene and adding that graphene to concrete, thereby lowering the amount of carbon dioxide generated in concrete manufacture. It’s a win-win environmental scenario using graphene.»
One of the most promising methods for producing graphene, on a large scale, is the use of chemical exfoliation combined with chemical reduction to obtain reduced graphene oxide.
As reported in the journal Nature, flash graphene is made in 10 milliseconds by heating carbon-containing materials to 3000 Kelvin (about 2726° Celsius). According to James Tour: «The source material can be nearly anything with carbon content. Food waste, plastic waste, petroleum coke, coal, wood clippings and biochar are prime candidates.»
As stated, the slow geological process – by which carbon evolves into its ground state, graphite – is greatly accelerated by a heat spike but is stopped at the right time, at the graphene stage.
According to the propagandists of graphene, recycling waste into treasure (of graphene) is the foundation of the circular economy. In other words, Garbage would be the Graphene of the future?
If the contents of daily garbage, and waste of all kinds, constitute the sources of the graphene of the future – which the industrialists want to impregnate us all with – they will not be able to constitute, at the same time, the bio-mass necessary to feed insects for the industrial production of “alternative” proteins.
As the bio-mass becomes more and more scarce, due to the programmed, and orchestrated, destruction of agriculture-livestock, one day – if the People do not take to the streets to chase away the Predators – we will have to choose between transforming organic waste, or plastic waste, into graphene… or into feed for insects… or into sources of necro-fuels for the cars.
Since graphene nanoparticles can be produced from any carbonaceous biomass, it is very easy to mention on patents, or other propaganda, related to meats, and other so-called “cellular” foods, that their preparation includes extracts of “natural products” and, above all, “non-animal”.
See for example this study, from 2016, entitled “Graphene quantum dots from fishbone carbon nanofibers”,  which deals with the production of graphene quantum dots from carbon nano-fibers obtained by processing fishbones.
Indeed, any bio-mass means: rice straw, rice grains, wheat straw, grass, dog excrements, mushrooms, cigarette filters, cookies, honey, tree bark, charcoal, etc. All these elements can be used to manufacture, almost in a vacuum, carbon nanofibers. All these elements allow to manufacture, almost instantaneously, graphene or carbon quantum dots.
See the recent mega-study, from September 2021, entitled “A Review of Graphene: Material Synthesis from Biomass Sources”. 
There is another method using lower temperatures than those used by James Tour in Texas. During this process, sunlight is concentrated, through a biconvex lens, to form a focused spot of light, with a high temperature above 1000°C, which can directly convert fruit peels into graphene nanosheets – in 2-3 seconds.
See the study, from July 2022, entitled “Concentrated Solar Induced Graphene”  which uses peels of banana, melon, coconut, orange, etc.
In conclusion of this Declaration of Intent. It is quite possible, today, that I disseminate precious information… “in the human desert of the traffic jams”. Indeed, I understand very well that some people do not want to be interested in this problematic… claiming that they will never touch this kind of “food” that constitute the “cell based meats” – as much as the “vegetable meats” and the “insect meats”.
But have they asked themselves whether graphene derivatives would not contaminate animal meat as well?
However, unless one consumes only organically grown agricultural products – and even then – it is certain that no one in our modern societies can trace the totality of the substances that are introduced into the daily food of the population – often without their knowledge. And this is without mentioning the criminal problem of Chemtrails which constitute, in itself, an enormous investigation issue.
I specify, “and even then”, for organic agriculture because, nowadays, since the takeover of a very large number of organic companies by the mafia of food multinationals, one cannot be sure of anything… except that the lure of profit is the driving force behind their takeover.
Cultivate your garden and grow seeds!
Today, if multinational food companies, banks, financial funds, etc. (and other criminal Banksters), are investing heavily in the fake meat industry – based on insects, chimeric plants, chimeric yeast, stem cells… – it is because the word has been put out. By whom? By Klaus Schwab, and his gang of mafia thugs, from the World Economic Forum.
On the web there are photographs of Klaus Schwab and French President Mitterrand, dating from 1976. This scoundrel has been hanging out in the French presidential anterooms for half a century.
At the end of 2021, there were already more than a hundred companies producing cell-based meat and cell-based seafood products. There will, soon, be several hundred if the People let the gang of thugs, trained by Klaus Schwab, in the position of Authorities. And this is without mentioning the other hundreds of firms, in the world, producing, in metallic vats, fake milk, fake eggs, plant-based meat, fake fish, fake shrimps, fake silk, multiple insect-based products, etc, ad nauseam. Not to mention fake artemisinin and fake THC!
Thus, billions of euros of public money are invested in all these industrial productions called food… while the orchestration of the destruction of the agriculture-livestock sector is underway…
… and, consequently, the Orchestration of a Pandemic Famine.
About the title of my new series of essays: “Orchestrating a Pandemic Famine”
I title “Orchestration of a Pandemic Famine”, for my last four voluminous files published in this year 2022, by restoring to the term “Pandemic” its authentic etymological meaning – and essential.
Indeed, the term “Pandemic” means, quite simply, “the whole People”, “all the People”, “the entirety of the People” – or, even, “all the Peoples”…
“Pandemic” is derived from the Greek terms: “πᾶν, pân” and “δῆμος, dễmos”meaning “whole” and “People”.
The term “Pandemic” appeared for the first time in 1666, without joking, in the work of the English physician, Gideon Harvey (the father), entitled “Morbus Anglicus, or the Anatomy of Consumptions” – in relation to a pathology that would be generalized.
In fact, Gideon Harvey used two terms “Pandemic” and “Endemic”. Endemic, in turn, comes from the Greek “ἐνδημία/endêmía” meaning “stay” and the Greek “ἔνδημος/éndêmos” meaning “Indigenous” – namely “ἐν/en for “in” and “δῆμος/dễmos” for “people.” Endemic means, literally, “in the People.”
It is important to emphasize the kinship of these two terms, Indigenous and Stay, in the spirit of Lev Gumilev’s work on Ethnogenesis.
The physician Gideon Harvey used it only once, more precisely, in the following text, in chapter 1: «… which instances do evidently bring a Consumption under the notion of a Pandemick, or Endemick, or rather a Vernacular Disease (a disease alwayes reigning in a Countrey) to England; that is a common disease owing its rise to some common external and perennial (lasting all the year) cause of a Countrey; as a Consumptive Air, or a Consumptive Dyet. viz. eating much Flesh, drinking Hopt drink, &c».
Subsequently, this term “Pandemic” would have appeared only in 1752, in the French language – in the dictionary of Trevoux. According to the current definition of the Larousse, a pandemic would be an “Epidemic spread to the entire population of a continent, or even to the whole world”.
This definition has strictly nothing to do with the essence of the term “Pandemic” and it can only aggravate the syndromes of cognitive dissonance induced, in the populations, by multiple lying and genocidal campaigns, totally based on fear.
Thus, for example, the manipulations of the WHO, with regard to this concept of “Pandemic”, have been orchestrated by its directors Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus and Soumya Swaminathan – the daughter of the arch-criminal Mankombu Sambasivan Swaminathan, the father of the pseudo “Green Revolution” in India, a great ally of Monsanto and the Agro-Pharma Mafia.
Moreover, is it not surprising, in terms of pandemic synchronicities, that it is, also, in this fateful year, 1666, that Sabbatai Zevi appeared, ex judaismo – in Turkey, in Izmir: a new Messiah who took his Turk’s head for a divine incarnation… and who triggered a new messianic pandemic in the whole of Europe? The genocidal repercussions are still being felt today
Indeed, some individuals, with a very psychopathic behavior, obviously suffer from a virulent syndrome of “divine delegation” which incites them to control everything, to regulate everything, to possess everything, to steal everything, to despoil everything – and to eugenize and genocide the Peoples… according to their good will. It should be noted that the most contaminated of them claim to be, even, deified human beings on Earth.
If anyone has any doubts about my global vision, one needs only listen to the recent declarations of Yuval Noah Harari, Klaus Schwab’s psychopathic and autistic guru, who goes so far as to declare that the World Economic Forum has been so successful in its endeavors that it has acquired divine powers of creation and destruction. Historically, this claim to a divine right, over nations, does not date back to Yuval Noah Harari: it goes back to the Deuteronomy, but it is publicly and openly proclaimed today – at least for those who have ears to hear.
In fact, Yuval Noah Harari is intimately convinced that himself, Klaus Schwab – and others in their ranks and “castes” – need no longer wait for a Messiah, for they, themselves, are incarnated deities on Earth. And what would be their mission?
Their “divine” mission is “justly”, as the Tzaddik would say, to lead the bleating human herds towards a status, not divinized, but “augmented” – that is, “augmented” because connected to the Web by 5G. It is intrinsically about chimerizing the destiny of a formerly “human” entity, whose biology will have merged with electronics through metallic nano-particles – including, mainly, graphene derivatives – chitin derivatives and, perhaps, even through the use of synthetic DNA.
Klaus Schwab, the high priest of the nano-technological, graphene-scented, Tikun Olam, has even stated that if Humans listen to him: «they will own nothing, they will eat bugs, they will be graphenized and merged with the Network… and they will be Happy».
What do cell based meats contain – besides, potentially, graphene derivatives, chitosan and synthetic DNA?
So what is really going on with the so-called “natural” food that the cells of cellular agriculture – by tissue or by fermentation – are fed?
Like all living cells inside a living organ within a living organism – itself coiled within a living Biosphere – the cells confined artificially, in captivity of plastic or metallic tanks, need to survive, and multiply, lipids, proteins, amino acids and carbohydrates… in addition to vitamins and other trace elements.
Mammalian cells also need a very sophisticated technology because the industrial tanks, of cellular agriculture, do not work with elbow grease! They require a lot of energy to stimulate, to stir… and to eliminate the famous product of cellular respiration: carbon dioxide or CO2. Cellular agriculture in tanks is, strictly, dependent on a permanent source of electricity.
First, embryonic stem cells; mesenchymal cells; totipotent stem cells; multipotent stem cells; pluripotent stem cells; induced pluripotent stem cells (artificially created by adding transcription factors); adult stem cells; satellite stem cells; fibro-adipogenic progenitors; primary fibroblasts; neurons; glial cells; human umbilical vein endothelial cells; smooth muscle cells; architectures/scaffolds; recombinant mitogenic proteins (bovine FGF2); recombinant rat, mouse, human activin A; recombinant rat, mouse, human transforming growth factor β; albumin; epidermal growth factor; human insulin-like growth factor 1; chimeric yeast; chimeric algae; chimeric bacteria; glucose; galactose; sucrose; maltose; lipids; hormones; mycoproteins; glucomannan; polyamines (spermidine, spermine, and putrescine); cytokines; cholesterol; chimeric leghemoglobin; cyanobacteria.
Cyanobacteria are the oldest living entities on the planet Earth and there are more than 7500 species listed to date. According to a study published on the net, cyanobacteria also grow on mineral medium. Here is, for example, one of the recipes for the culture of these cyanobacteria: sodium nitrate, potassium monohydrogen phosphate, magnesium sulphate heptahydrate, calcium chloride dihydrate, citric acid monohydrate, disodium EDTA, sodium carbonate, ammoniacal iron citrate… in addition to “metal mixtures” (H3BO4, MnCl2, 4 H2O, ZnSO4, 7 H2O, etc.). 
As for chimeric leghemoglobin, it is the company Impossible Foods that has developed a chimeric yeast strain, containing a soybean gene, in order to produce this recombinant leghemoglobin.
There are many strains of chimeric yeast for the production of recombinant proteins in the cellular agriculture sector. The main species of chimeric yeast for the production of recombinant proteins are Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Pichia pastoris, Yarrowia lipolytica, Hansenula polymorpha, Schizosaccharomyces pombe, Kluyveromyces lactis. These same chimeric yeasts also play a fundamental role in the production of recombinant proteins described as “therapeutic” by Big Pharma. These pharmaceutical proteins represent an annual market of nearly 100 billion dollars. They are particularly used for the production of the “vaccines” sold by the criminal Pharmacracy.
Amino acids: alanine, arginine hydrochloride, asparagine, aspartic acid, cystine, glutamic acid, glutamine, histidine hydrochloride, isoleucine, leucine, lysine hydrochloride, methionine, phenylalanine, proline, serine, threonine, tryptophan, disodium salt of tyrosine, valine.
Cells in tanks must also be fed with glutamine, an amino acid that is considered “10 to 100 times more important”  (depending on the glutamine vendor), for the preparation of cellular food, than other amino acids such as tyrosine and cystine. Glutamine is obtained, for example, from a mixture of glucose, fermented corn liquor, ammonium sulphate, monopotassium phosphate, magnesium sulphate heptahydrate, manganese sulphate monohydrate, zinc sulphate heptahydrate. Glutamine is, also, obtained by hydrolysis of proteins such as gluten.
For cell culture, the Big Pharma multinational Merck, for example, offers products and other solutions based on glutamine. Some of these solutions are, sometimes, supplemented with a cocktail of antibiotics, such as gentamicin, penicillin, streptomycin, etc.  But who is going to be offended by the fact that cell-based cultured meat is fed with antibiotics when industrial organic meat has been impregnated with them for half a century?
Vitamins: adenine, biotin, choline chloride, calcium pantothenate, folic acid, inositol, niacinamide, pyridoxal hydrochloride, riboflavin, thiamine hydrochloride, vitamin B12.
Inorganic salts: ammonium metavanadate, calcium chloride, copper chloride, copper sulfate, iron citrate, iron nitrate, ferric sulfate, manganese sulfate, magnesium sulfate, molybdic acid, nickel chloride, potassium chloride, potassium nitrate, sodium bicarbonate, sodium chloride, sodium metasilicate, sodium dibasic phosphate, sodium selenite, stannic chloride, zinc sulfate heptahydrate.
Various other inputs: albumin, dexamethasone, dextrose, ethanolamine, HEPES (or 4-(2-hydroxyethyl)-1-piperazine ethane sulfonic acid), linoleic acid, phosphatidylcholine, phenol red, putrescine, pluronic F68 (a cell stabilizer), recombinant human insulin, sodium pyruvate, thioctic acid, thymidine, transferrin, lactoferrin, fibronectin, laminin.
It is very likely that there are many other “suspect” substances in the culture media, but the cellular food industry will invoke professional secrecy in order not to disclose the list. Indeed, some of these industrialists, during the “cultivation” phase called “cellular differentiation”, introduce serum of fetal calf, serum of fetal bovine, serum of horse or, still, extracts of embryo of chicken.
Curious minds are invited to consult a French study (written in English, of course) from Inserm/CNRS entitled “Complex Interactions between Human Myoblasts and the Surrounding 3D Fibrin-Based Matrix”. It mentions some substances entering a medium whose mission is to feed cell cultures of human muscles extracted from a quadriceps of a 12 years old boy. These are horse serum, bovine fetal serum, antibiotics (penicillin and streptomycin), dexamethasone sodium phosphate, aprotinine…  These cell cultures are cultivated in industrial media – called, for example, Ham’s F10 or Ham’s F12, produced by Gibco – which contain an impressive range of amino acids, vitamins, inorganic salts and other inputs like the extensive list presented above. 
The curious minds are invited, also, to investigate the potential relations existing between these animal sera and human pathologies… All the more when we realize that during the “Spanish Flu” of 1918/1920 – which was a bacterial pneumonia as I explained in my essay “Vaccinations Anti-Méningite et Pathologies Respiratoires Imputées au Coronavirus ID/2019”  – the serums, medications and vaccines, concocted by the Rockefeller Foundation and distributed throughout the world, were prepared in live horses. Moreover, these were the same laboratory horses that were used for the preparation of various serums supposedly against meningitis, tetanus, diphtheria… Namely, the same horses that played the role of « bio-fermenters » when they were inoculated with various pathogens in order to produce serums in millions of copies – in order to “necro-ferment” human bodies. As early as the beginning of the 1890s, Dr. Emile Roux – an emulator of Pasteur the Impostor – used, in Paris, horses as living factories in order to produce, on a large scale, serum rich in “antibodies” against the bacterial toxin diphtheria. 
Since the presence of serums, and extracts, of animal fetuses could render hysteric the devotees of the vegan sect , the industrialists and chemists, of cellular agriculture, do their best to substitute them with other substances, proteinic or not – supposedly less suspect. These include, for example, shiitake mushroom extracts or soy hydrolysates, or transferrin, insulin, sericine, selenite, various amino acids, various vitamins, etc.
In fact, this cellular soup is, authentically, a soup “à la grimace” – in the etymological sense of the Latin “mask”. Cellular agriculture is a food masquerade whose primary function is to participate in the systematic destruction of agriculture/livestock farming in order to starve the Peoples – through undernutrition or non-nutrition. It is only time to drop their masks… and so many other masks!
The Good Food Institute is officially promoting Graphene, carbon nanotubes – and even synthetic DNA – on the menu of cellular meats
The Good Food Institute, contrary to what its name might suggest, is not about promoting good, wholesome, tasty, attractive, balanced, non-toxic food. Its mission is to promote the “alternative protein” industry – and, primarily, the cell-based meat industry.
The Good Food Institute was established in 2016. Its annual budget, derived from large donations from foundations (such as the Bill Gates Foundation) and other industries, is in the range of $53-56 million.
The Good Food Institute employed, as of January 2022, more than 100 scientists, technicians, media people, propagandists, and other lunatics, whose mission is to develop cellular meats and new proteins. The Good Food Institute has a very bad reputation generated by recurrent accusations of a toxic work environment. So recurrent that some funding has dried up. 
The Good Food Institute publishes a plethora of reports on the production of “fake” substances: meat, fish, milk, eggs based on tissue cells and/or fermented cells – and, also, plant-based. As well as reports on the development, investors, etc., within this sector.
The self-proclaimed, self-prophetic and, above all, hysterical “experts” of the Good Food Institute predict a market of 370 billion dollars, as early as 2035, for fake meat, fake fish, fake shellfish… According to the Good Food Institute, this would be 1380 million dollars raised, from investors, by cellular meat production companies during the year 2021.
According to the very famous McKinsey firm, of all corruptions, involved, also, in fake meat and fake fish – in addition to fake missions, in France, for the benefit of the PharMacronie – the cultivated meat could represent a turnover of 25 billion dollars, by 2030. 
According to a fake report by the Good Food Institute, fake cellular meat, compared to real beef, would require 95% less land; produce 74-87% less “greenhouse gas emissions”; generate 94% less nutrient pollution, etc. 
With respect to our present issue, namely graphene in nano-fibers for 3D meats. In the recent Good Food Institute study of January 2022, entitled “Scaffolding Biomaterials for 3D Cultivated Meat: Prospects and Challenges” , it is specifically mentioned, with regard to 3D meat scaffolds containing a tripeptide consisting of arginine, glycine and aspartic acid, that «the addition of graphene oxide further improved the myogenic differentiation capacity».
This is, in fact, for example, what was also stated in this 2015 study entitled “Graphene oxide-stimulated myogenic differentiation of C2C12 cells on PLGA/RGD peptide nanofiber matrices”. 
The key phrase here is “myogenic differentiation”. Many older studies, allegedly for the medical sector, have claimed that graphene oxide strongly enhances the ability of “myogenic differentiation” – in tissue engineering.
“Nano-sized graphene oxide coated nanopillars on microgroove polymer arrays that enhance skeletal muscle cell differentiation”. December 2021. 
“Graphene Oxide Scaffold Stimulates Differentiation and Proangiogenic Activities of Myogenic Progenitor Cells”. 2020. 
“Myoblast differentiation on graphene oxide”. 2013. 
“Three-Dimensional Printable Gelatin Hydrogels Incorporating Graphene Oxide to Enable Spontaneous Myogenic Differentiation”. 2021. 
It appears from these few studies, taken as examples, that if the preparation of hydrogels, based on graphene oxide, allows a spontaneous myogenic differentiation in the sector of tissue engineering of human muscles, or other tissues… it can, also, allow it for the sector of tissue engineering of muscles “cultivated” from cells of cow, duck, etc. What do you think about it?
As a reminder. The Good Food Institute was one of the sponsors of the Food Systems Pavilion during the COP 27 in Egypt which, let’s remember, put « alternative proteins » in the spotlight. See my previous article.
Moreover, the Good Food Institute clearly mentions, in its very technical file – entitled “Deep dive: Cultivated meat scaffolding” – the use of graphene, carbon nanotubes, DNA – and other synthetic polymers – for the fabrication of cellular meat scaffolding. 
«Similarly, muscle satellite cells can self-renew when grown in a substrate that matches the stiffness of their native stem cell niche (Gilbert et al., 2010; Safaee et al., 2017). Tuning of the stiffness can be achieved by increased crosslinking, addition of carbon nanotubes (Shin et al., 2012), graphene (Martín et al., 2017), DNA (Chen and Seelig, 2019), or modification of natural or synthetic polymer materials with photo-crosslinkable side groups. Importantly, these photo-crosslinkable groups permit fast polymerization, allowing encapsulation of cells during a process such as bioprinting (discussed later). Cultivated meat scaffolds may thus be constructed with various composite polymer materials that dictate stiffness in a pre-patterned spatial orientation to replicate the fat, muscle, and connective tissue architecture found in a desired meat product. Indeed, studies have demonstrated the biasing of stem cell fates to bone and fat via stiffness properties within a single hydrogel (Freeman and Kelly, 2017). Alternatively, the hydrogel itself may be dissolved into a mixture of cell culture media and cells, assisting cell attachment and spreading. Mosa Meat describes the use of a cell-laden dissolved hydrogel to position cells in an apparatus dedicated for cell differentiation or structure (Breemhaar and Post, 2019). »
Cultured meat scaffolds can therefore be constructed with a variety of composite, and synthetic, polymeric materials that dictate rigidity in a pre-modeled spatial orientation to replicate the architecture of fat, muscle and connective tissue found in a desired meat product.
Furthermore, in the same brief, the Good Food Institute reiterates, quite clearly, the use of recombinant bacteria and yeast, namely genetically manipulated chimeric bacteria and yeast – commonly referred to as GMOs.
«Recent demonstrations suggest that textured soy protein can serve as a viable scaffold for bovine stem cell attachment (>80% seeding efficiency without prior functionalization) and proliferation (Ben-Arye et al., 2020). Some synthetic polymers such as PEGs are also FDA-approved. As previously mentioned, the majority of these polymers lack functional domains for cell adhesion; however, they can be functionalized with RGD peptides or combined with functional edible components such as gelatin (Enrione et al., 2017). Importantly, these scaffolds also tend to be affordable and scalable in terms of the raw material components, with scale limitations mainly determined by method of fabrication (discussed later). Some companies have independently demonstrated the large scale production of proteins such as collagen using recombinant yeast or bacteria, and this may serve as a future platform for the creation of biomaterials used by the cultivated meat industry. Lastly, many of these biomaterials have also been used for tissue engineering of bone (Levengood and Zhang, 2014), which may be applicable for cultivated meat if bone-in products are ever pursued.»
Is it necessary to mention that in the USA, among the edible “biomaterials” approved by the FDA, – for the realization of edible scaffolds for the culture of cell-based meat – are pectin, gellan gum, chitosan, gelatin, cellulose, glucomannan, starch, gluten and alginate, among others…
Indeed, it is unlucky, for that large part of the population allergic to gluten, for example, because glutenin is used as an ingredient in the scaffolding of cultured meat. 
For example, according to one study, the tensile strength, of gelatin nanofibers, increased from 8.29 ± 0.53 MPa to 21 ± 2.03 MPa after incorporation of graphene oxide. 
Moreover… because that’s not all. The Good Food Institute – in its reference to the use of graphene, carbon nano-tubes, DNA, etc., to make cell meat scaffolds – refers to Sifang Chen and Georg Seelig’s 2019 study “Programmable patterns in a DNA-based reaction-diffusion system”  , the presentation of which does not fail to raise deep questions. What do you think?
Does this mean that the Good Food Institute is promoting the addition of synthetic DNA to the scaffolds of cellular meats?
It seems, indeed, that it is so.
«Biology offers compelling proof that macroscopic « living materials » can emerge from reactions between diffusing biomolecules. Here, we show that molecular self-organization could be a similarly powerful approach for engineering functional synthetic materials. We introduce a programmable DNA embedded hydrogel that produces tunable patterns at the centimeter length scale. We generate these patterns by implementing chemical reaction networks through synthetic DNA complexes, embedding the complexes in the hydrogel, and triggering with locally applied input DNA strands. We first demonstrate ring pattern formation around a circular input cavity and show that the ring width and intensity can be predictably tuned. Then, we create patterns of increasing complexity, including concentric rings and non-isotropic patterns. Finally, we show « destructive » and « constructive » interference patterns, by combining several ring-forming modules in the gel and triggering them from multiple sources. We further show that computer simulations based on the reaction-diffusion model can predict and inform the programming of target patterns.» 
About synthetic DNA, here is what Mike Andersen had to say: «There are structures in the Janssen vaccine that match those found in the scientific literature. This suggests the presence of DNA nanotubes rather than carbon nanotubes. Dr. Campra’s images of the Janssen vaccine match those of Agarwal et al. This discovery comes shortly after the publication of my paper on DNA crystal self-assembly.  It reconfirms that vaccines employ a synthetic DNA nano-technology with self-assembly capabilities and, secondly, that graphene could be used to impregnate it and give it superconducting capabilities. The next Corona2Inspect article will discuss the analysis of these images and related literature, as well as the implications for the ongoing research process. We envision the real possibility that vaccines will be used to inoculate synthetic, replicable DNA with which to deploy the intracorporeal nano-communications network, modify genetics, and affect future generations. »
About Graphene “nanodots” in vaccines, here is what Mike Andersen had to say: «The legendary Antena 3 video , in which the magnetic properties of graphene are mentioned, hides another secret that has not yet been revealed. If you look closely, on the screens of the researchers’ devices, very characteristic triangular shapes appear. These would be triangular structures of graphene, which self-assemble and arrange themselves in a regular manner. These shapes appear on a larger scale in the Pfizer vaccine samples obtained by Dr. Campra. They also appear in the scientific literature as DNA crystals , graphene decorated with DNA, or DNA hybridized with graphene (see attached). In all cases, the literature refers to the self-assembly of these components. If you pay attention to the video, “magnetism is obtained by mixing graphene with living molecules”. It is interesting to note that origami DNA  that hybridizes with graphene can correspond to these “living molecules”, as conceived in works like that of (Benke, A.; Manley, S. 2012)  or less living, being synthetic DNA».
How can the general public suspect that these engineers are talking about the “cellular, circular and fair trade” meat burger they just bought for lunch, when they are talking about structural components at the nano-scale of 50 to 500 nm?
For the record: 1 nm = 1 millionth of a millimeter.
«Other parameters such as pore shape, volume, and roughness also need to be considered (El-Sherbiny and Yacoub, 2013). Ideally, the recapitulation of the ECM should happen on the scale of the structural ECM components themselves (i.e. 50 – 500nm diameter, (Barnes et al., 2007), while the porosity of the scaffold should be on the micrometer scale to permit cell invasion and migration. This general principle has been challenging to mimic. However, sophisticated techniques for fabricating large hydrogel scaffolds with these properties are coming-of-age (discussed later). Lastly, given that a tissue created for consumption does not need to be functional inside of a body, a scaffold designed to be less densely populated and organized by its downstream sensorial properties may be easier to achieve. Once populated, the structure could be compressed at harvesting or further structured into a final product. » 
The question arises, then, whether the following passage refers to graphene-based hydrogels in some form… that would be “biodegradable” in some mode.
«Careful design considerations have been made in tissue engineering to utilize non-immunogenic, biodegradable materials with biologically inert by-products (as they are intended to be inserted into the body for regenerative medicine purposes (Bajaj et al., 2014). Likewise, a scaffold that biodegrades into inert by-products would be desirable for cultivated meat not only to avoid non-edible materials being incorporated into a final product but also by allowing the cells to replace the hydrogel scaffold with their own native ECM. Indeed, hydrogels are typically static substrates that alone fail to dynamically recapitulate the spatiotemporal interactions between a cell and the ECM. One method to overcome this is by incorporating proteolytically degradable crosslinks (Khetan et al., 2013; Patterson and Hubbell, 2010), which permit naturally secreted enzymes such as matrix metalloproteinases to degrade the hydrogel substrate, permitting cell migration and establishment of dynamic reciprocity previously described. A suite of other methods such as photodegradable polymers (Kloxin et al., 2009) and unique chemistries permitting light-mediated crosslinking (Guvendiren and Burdick, 2012) have also been developed by bioengineers, enabling more accurate recapitulation of ECM-cell dynamics.»
In commercialized cellular meats: nano-fibers, based on graphene and chitosan, which NEVER reveal their identity
One of the compilations of the Good Food Institute presents, approximately, 230 companies, worldwide, involved in the production of fake meat and fish or other marine products – namely involved directly or indirectly.  
Again, for all these commercialized cell-based meats, it is more than likely that graphene derivatives are hidden in nano-fibers that do not reveal their real identity.
In fact, the Good Food Institute presents two compilations that correspond to two levels of products marketed in the fake meat sector and, more generally, in the so-called cellular agriculture sector – and even in the insect protein industry in one of the levels.
The first compilation is called “Companies focused on cultivated meat and seafood” and it breaks down 153 different ones. These companies, “downstream”, are directly involved in the refineries producing the terminal substances, i.e. those that are offered to the general public: fake meat, fake human milk, fake egg, fake leather, fake silk, fake THC, fake artemisin, etc.
The second compilation is called “Companies with initiatives in cultivated meat and seafood”. This denomination concerns companies that are involved, “upstream”, in the production of various “cellular” elements for the benefit of tissue engineering in the food or hospital sectors: human embryonic cells, architectures/scaffolds, pluripotent stem cells, primary fibroblasts, neurons, glial cells, transferrin, lactoferrin, insulin, recombinant mitogenic proteins (bovine FGF2), etc.
So, today, if we want to know the authentic elements that make up the fake products of cellular agriculture, it is necessary to investigate the industrial firms, upstream, that list on their website what they offer, commercially speaking, to all the industrial companies, downstream, whose function is to produce “alternative” food in metal tanks.
Indeed, the companies producing fake food have glowing blogs with sobbing propaganda speeches (sustainable, circular, eco-friendly, no animal suffering, etc, etc); thinly disguised attacks on agriculture/farming; and even photographs of their industrial refineries, of their metal vats – as if it were gastronomically and sensorially orgasmic…
but never, NEVER, with the list of ingredients.
The authentic list of ingredients, of cellular meat, is left to the fertile and feverish imagination of all the simpletons and other yuppies who consume it while swooning and yelping that they have reached the nirvana of universal gastronomy. What about a “Woke” Michelin Guide presenting the famous “grands crus”, and other legendary vintages, of fake 3D meats playing Zen in metal vats?
What’s more, does the World Economic Forum want to eliminate all the vines in the world after the maturing process – on the pretext of eliminating carbon dioxide? When will we see cellular wines, cultivated in metal vats, from chimeric yeasts?
In the context of this article, which is already far too voluminous, I will not dwell further on the cellular products – and other cellular pretensions and claims – of the industry of the same name. I will only mention a few of them.
Indeed, once one has understood the intrinsic scam that cellular meat constitutes, it is easy to spot it because it is reproducible, and reproduced, by all the companies in the sector: it is a totally chimerical and synthetic food (with even Graphene derivatives) coated with propagandistic speeches based on fake.
I’ve given up even trying to decipher the patents, of all these start-ups, because they are worded in such a way as to imply that other items can be added to the list they include in their exclusivity request – thanks to the magic formula “without being limited to”.
One of these start-ups, the first on a list, called “3D Bio Tissues”, and originating from Newcastle University,  presents “its ambition to produce bio-equivalent tissues for clinical and cellular agriculture” by specifying that it “applies novel bio-inspired manufacturing processes to generate complex structures”. What it proposes: “Tissue templating is an in-house engineering platform that takes a bio-inspired, bottom-up approach to tissue engineering to create structured, functional and scalable tissues” – namely for medical applications or for cell farming, according to its statements.  Its co-founder, Che John Connon, is a specialist in hydrogels.
We are at the heart of the nov-language, as hollow as its creators. Note the recurrent use of the prefix “bio”: “bio-equivalent tissues”, “bio-inspired approach”, “bio-printing”, “bio-reactor”, “bio-fermenter”, “bio-imaging”, “bio-compatible”, “bio-material”, “bio-residue”, “bio-composite”, “bio-polymer”, “biodegradable”..
As for the expression “clinical agriculture”, is it a trainee’s mistake? Or is it, perhaps, an admission of diagnosis as to the impact of such a cellular diet on the human organism?
Another of these start-ups, called “BioLead” sells cellular products for cellular agriculture, for medical applications, for bio-technologies, for immunotherapy and for cellular research. 
For example, they propose a whole range of unusual substances for the cell meat sector : transferrin; lactoferrin; insulin; recombinant mitogenic proteins (bovine FGF2); recombinant rat, mouse, human activin A; recombinant rat, mouse, human transforming growth factor β; albumin; epidermal growth factor; human insulin-like growth factor 1.
As a cell culture medium for meat, fish, eggs, they offer DMEM, DMEM/F12, L15 as references. For example, DMEM stands for Dulbecco’s Modified Eagle Medium. Cells successfully cultured in this DMEM include primary fibroblasts, neurons, glial cells, human umbilical vein endothelial cells and smooth muscle cells.
It should be noted that some cell meat companies work with a scaffold based on soy protein. Question: is it only soy protein?
Indeed, the 2018 study titled “Polyphenol-induced cellulose nanofibrils anchored graphene oxide as nanohybrids for strong yet tough soy protein nanocomposites”, focuses on making “polyphenol-induced cellulose nanofibrils anchored in graphene oxide as nanohybrids for strong and durable soy protein-based nano-composites.” 
We cannot close such a section without mentioning, in passing, the 3D meats that are produced – like gun-machines, all over the world – with “inks”, ad hoc, and qualified, even, as “bio-inks”.
Are we to assume that they are qualified as “bio” because they participate in food processes, supposedly, therefore of life … unlike the plethora of light and heavy weapons that can be made, today, with a good 3D printer – and the adequate substances … that could be qualified as “necro-inks”, due to their function.
The Good Food Institute presents, thus, in its very technical articles, a presentation concerning the manufacture of cellular meats, in 3D, which are made thanks to the use of “bio-inks” for the “bio-printing”.
«3D bioprinting is an additive manufacturing technique where pre-polymer solutions or pre-polymer solutions containing cells (i.e. a bioink) are deposited onto a substrate layer-by-layer under the guidance of a computer-aided design (CAD) process. The CAD files typically result from real bioimaging data such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computer tomography (CT) scans of tissues, but can also be user-generated to form limitless geometry types. Similar imaging strategies can be performed to replicate specific cuts of meat (Ebrahimnejad et al. 2018). There are several types of bioprinting, summarized in (Bajaj et al. 2014; Derakhshanfar et al. 2018) and described in detail below. » 
A May 2021 study, for example, entitled “Graphene Oxide-Embedded Extracellular Matrix-Derived Hydrogel as a Multiresponsive Platform for 3D Bioprinting Applications”  refers to the use of “bio-inks” from hydrogels made of graphene oxide or reduced graphene oxide – for tissue engineering.
There are two types of “bio-inks”: with or without scaffolding. A “bio-ink” based on scaffolding is, in essence, a hydrogel that is printed with cells. And these hydrogels are often made of graphene.
For example, the company Allevi 3D proposes, for cellular engineering – and, therefore, potentially for the production of meat in 3D – a “bio-material”, flexible, conductive and “bio-compatible” which is composed of more than 90% of Graphene… in order to elaborate muscles, cardiac tissue, nerves, etc…
What is behind the nano-fibers in cellular meats marketed, for example, by Gelatex and Matrix Meats?
In July 2022, the Estonian company, Gelatex Technologies announced that it was developing a revolutionary new cell meat scaffolding technology. 
Gelatex announced the ability to produce enough scaffolds to support the annual production of 300 tons of cultured meat. The company’s technology has reportedly already reduced the cost of scaffolds from €100,000 to €1,000 per kilogram. Future projections could result in scaffolding costs of less than €20 per kilogram of meat grown, within a decade.
Gelatex director Martens said the largest electrospinning units (technology currently in use) available on the market can produce 360g/h – Gelatex’s semi-industrial unit, meanwhile, can already produce up to 5kg/h. Such a production capacity represents enough nanofibers to produce 1300 kg of meat in a single eight-hour work day. With this much higher production rate and 28% less electricity consumption, Martens estimates that the cost of nanofibers can be reduced by up to 90%.
The basis of this technology is electrospinning, which according to the technical definition is a polymer processing method which, under the action of an intense electric field (of the order of 1 kV/cm), allows the elaboration of nanofibrous membranes (fiber diameter of the order of 50 nm to 1 μm) from polymer solutions or polymers in the molten state.
In 2019/2020, Gelatex Technologies, filed two patents – US20210155764A1  and EP3839120A3  – that relate to a material made of nano-fibers, non-woven, gelatin-based. Both patents were published in September 2021 but are pending acceptance.
According to the title of the patent: «Disclosed is a method for producing a nanofibrous non-woven material and a nanofibrous non-woven material with cross-linked gelatin nanofibers. The method includes producing gelatin nanofibers; producing a nanofibrous material using the produced gelatin nanofibers; and treating the nanofibrous material by a crosslinking agent for forming adhesion bonds in the nanofibrous material and to obtain the nanofibrous non-woven material.»
According to the description of the patent: «Additionally, optionally, the treatment solution comprises a filler. Examples of filler include, but are not limited to, hydrophilic or hydrophobic silica particles, diatomaceous earth, calcium carbonate, carbon black, montmorillonite or other clays. The concentration of filler in the treatment solution may be up to 75%. »
It is clearly stated: “but are not limited to”.
t is true that the patent does not specify that the filler material can be graphene or carbon nanotubes. However, one of the applicants for this patent, on behalf of his company Gelatex Technologie, is Uno Mäeorg – who is affiliated with the University of Tartu in Estonia. Uno Mäeorg is a graphene specialist.
I asked the two owners of Gelatex Technologie, Märt-Erik Martens and Mari-Ann Meigo Fonseca, by e-mail, if it was true that their nano-fiber scaffolds were based on graphene – all the more so because of the presence of Uno Mäeorg – but they have not answered me yet. Indeed, if this is proven, it is without the knowledge of vegan consumers of fake meat.
Indeed, Uno Mäeorg has authored, or co-authored, a plethora of studies involving carbon, graphene nanoparticles, or other nanoparticles, carbon nanotubes, aerogels, etc.
For example, the 2018 study entitled “Effect of contact material and ambient humidity on the performance of MWCNT/PDMS multimodal deformation sensors”, which focuses on sensors made from multi-walled carbon nano-tubes, a form of graphene, as conductive fillers. 
It does not take a great deal of imagination to see that graphene, in all its forms, is the base material for the nano-fibers of Gelatex, Estonia, for its annual production of 300 tons of cell meat.
It is more than likely that the same is true for the hydrogels of Matrix Metas in the USA and it is probably not a coincidence that the Food Navigator, US, devoted an article to them in the same breath: “From mush to meat? Talking edible scaffolfing with Gelatex and Matrix F. T.” 
Indeed, Eric Jenkusky, the director of the company Matrix Meats, (Matrix F. T), in an interview in August 2021 , stated that the nano-fiber technology that his company uses for the production of cellular meat was fifteen years old and that he licensed it from the company Nanofiber Solutions – which is dedicated to the so-called regenerative medicine from polymers.
Graphene has been used extensively in all areas of medical tissue engineering for at least a dozen years – but I have not investigated how long other types of nanofibers have been used for the same purpose.
Eric Jenkusky mentions polycaprolactone-based nano-fibers… without saying much more – because, as for Gelatex Technologies, these are « trade secrets » based on electrospinning technology.
Matrix Meats claims to be in active development relationships with 14 companies, from 7 countries, in the cellular meat sector.
However, there are numerous studies and experiments on composites based on polycaprolactone, chitosan… and graphene. Thus, for example, this study, from February 2022, entitled “The effect of polycaprolactone/graphene oxide electrospun scaffolds on the neurogenic behavior of adipose stem cells”. 
According to this study, the presence of graphene oxide, in the polycaprolactone scaffold, increases cell attachment, proliferation, infiltration into the scaffold and neuronal differentiation.
Or this October. 2022 study titled “Preparation, Properties, and Application of Graphene-Based Materials in Tissue Engineering Scaffolds”  which declares that «Graphene oxide was used to modify chitosan and polyurethane/polycaprolactone scaffolds. »
Graphene in animal meat
Since the Quinta Columna, Professor Pablo Campra – as well as many other researchers around the world – informed the Peoples of the presence of graphene, and of nano-technologies, in the CoqueVide/19 injections, tens of thousands of people have undertaken to microscopically analyze a plethora of food or medicinal substances  or simply to use magnets in order to verify if there is a magnetization phenomenon .
Numerous testimonies have thus emerged on the web of packaged meats that are totally magnetized.
As well as many testimonies of graphenization of remedies, cosmetics, food, etc…
I remind you, once again, that aqueous solutions, and other physiological serums, with graphene oxide, have been marketed since 2015, at least, by large Chinese industrial companies. See my essay of August 2021, “Une Pandémie d’Oxyde de Graphène”. 
- The magnetization phenomenon could be induced by animal vaccines – for example, the so-called “mRNA” vaccines, the catch-all messenger – which have been just as graphenized as human vaccines… and which probably do not contain any more RNA than do the Quantum/19 injections.
Human vaccines have been graphenized since 2019, at least, but they have been nano-particulated, metallic, since 2015, at least. See the VaccineGate scandal in Italy in 2016. 
Moreover, as early as 2015, in Germany, and in the USA, the Pharmacratic Mafia was experimenting, on humans, with mRNA injections against the fabulated H10N8 and H7N9 viruses.  Did you know about that?
Since the publication, in French, of this article, I wrote a 5th chapter titled “Graphenization of the meat, and proteins, by “vaccines” injected into the livestock”. 
For example, for some years now, there has been a two-dose “mRNA” vaccine for pigs (H3N2 cluster IV)  and an “mRNA” vaccine for poultry.  For these two injections, the firm Harris Vaccines gives the following very explicit precautions : «For veterinary use only. Do not vaccinate within 21 days before slaughter. Freeze at – 80°C for long term storage. Use within 7 days if stored at 4°C. Use entire contents when first opened/punctured. In case of anaphylactic reactions, administer epinephrine.»
As we have seen with all the other anti-vaccine injections from the Pharmaceutical Mafia, the extreme low storage temperatures are required so that the graphene does not start to flocculate under the effect of ambient heat.
Question: What happens if the meat is sold immediately after vaccination? Spanish farmers have, for example, put online a video of a chicken, ready to be sold, whose body continued to pulsate under the effect of an unknown energy. Could it be that of graphene oxide activated by a nearby energy source?
Speaking of unknown energy, have you seen videos of empty-hull injectables reacting to an electrical sensor at the injection point? Here is one of them: .
2. The phenomenon of magnetization could be induced by the packaging… because, today, many packages contain graphene oxide under the pretext of protecting the food they contain from bacteria, fungi, etc. However, testimonies of magnetization of meats also take care to unpack them “unnatural” phenomenon.
About graphenized packaging, see my various posts:   .
3. The magnetization phenomenon could be induced by the injection of a structuring substance, namely a graphene oxide-based polymer – in order to improve the texture, and the commercial presentation, on supermarket shelves, of meat (with growth hormones) that is unstructured and too soft, due to the appalling conditions of hyper-industrialized, and hyper-pharmaceutical breeding.
Namely, an injection operated with the objective of conferring a little more cellular scaffolding – as for the structuring of cellular soups that I mentioned – so that the cultivated meat can acquire a 3D structure.
4. Finally, this phenomenon could be induced by the presence, more and more frequent, of “edible films”, often invisible, which cover meats, or other products, in order to confer them bactericidal capacities, etc – or to organize the transmission of information by their “smart” capacity.
This is a separate issue to be elucidated, and I will address it in the next section, as these “edible films” are often stuffed with graphene… in order to stuff populations with a nano-metallic vector that can connect them to the network – without their knowledge and against their agreement.
Frankly, why wouldn’t the animal meat industry have recourse, liberally, to graphene when they do it for cell-based meats?
Graphene in the edible films of animal meats
Why is Graphene incorporated into edible films of animal meat – or other foodstuffs? For allegedly health reasons. The study mentioned below, from September 2020,  provides a brief summary.
«Nowadays, in addition to the desirable biodegradable packaging, there are global research interests for the development of active food packaging to extend shelf life, enhance safety, and maintain the organoleptic properties. Biocomposites with graphene derivatives can exhibit antioxidant, antimicrobial, and antifungal activity as extensively reviewed by Carvalho et al. . The radical scavenging capacity of rGO can provide antioxidant activity to biocomposites. Chitosane-based films with 20–33 wt% of rGO showed an increase of inhibition in the range of 54% to 82% after 8 h of incubation  and this activity can avoid the oxidation of packaged foodstuffs.
The antimicrobial and antifungal properties of graphene-based nanostructures are based on their capacity to induce cell membrane disruption and oxidative stress that compromise bacterial proliferation and sporulation . Biocomposites with graphene derivatives revealed in vitro antibacterial properties against a broad spectrum of pathogenic microorganisms (such as Enterococcus faecalis, Staphylococcus epidermidis, Escherichia coli, Staphylococcus aureus, Staphylococcus haemolyticus, and Bacillus subtilis). The surface modification of graphene derivatives with essential oils or other metal compounds such as Ag, ZnO, or TiO2 has been adopted as strategy to enhance the inherent antimicrobial potential of these nanostructures . Recently, a PLA/carbon nano-tubes/cinnamaldehyde film revealed great potential application as a controlled-release antibacterial active food packaging film with an active effect proven up to 21 days . Antifungal activities of biocomposites containing carbon nano-structures against Aspergillus niger, Cryptococcus neoformans, Candida tropicalis, Candida albicans, Botrytis cinereas, and Rhizopus spp. have also been described .»
The first question that any sensitive person should ask is the following. If graphene derivatives have such an ability to induce cell membrane disruption, and oxidative stress, for example in bacteria growing on meat, why should it be any different with respect to the elements of the human organism – cells, bacteria and viruses?
The bolding is mine to emphasize that it is all based on graphene derivatives… and Chitosan which is, remember, derived from Chitin. Here are some other studies on the various forms of graphene used in food films – edible or not.
“Edible Films on Meat and Meat Products”. November 2021.  This study details the various polysaccharides – such as chitosan, pectin, gums, starch, cellulose, alginate, carrageenan, and furcellaran – that are used in edible films.
In the furcellaran section, this study states the following «Furcellaran films present a slightly yellowish transparent appearance [90,93]. In many applications, transparent films are preferred as they can enhance the packaged product and influence consumer purchase intention . The incorporation of green tea extract, yerba mate and ZnO nanoparticles made the yellow color more intense . Furcellaran films with nanofillers (carbon quantum dots, maghemite nanoparticles and graphene oxide) indicated an inhibitory effect against the growth of Salmonella enterica, mainly because the polymer matrix contains reactive sulfate groups . The nanocomposites of graphene quantum dots showed an inhibitory effect against Staphylococcus aureus (Gram-positive) and Escherichia coli (Gram-negative) growth . Furcellaran can be one of the basic components in the production of “smart” films such as packaging materials with active and/or intelligent properties». 
In the chitosan section, this study states the following «Chitosan is a high molecular weight cationic polysaccharide that exhibits a great filmforming capacity, and antimicrobial activities. Chitosan film was used as a packaging material for the preservation of different foods particularly when it is combined with other film-creating materials. Coating food with chitosan films lowers the oxygen partial pressure in the package, keeps the temperature with moisture transfer between food and its environment, controls respiration and declines dehydration. Moreover, chitosan is used for deacidification, setting texture, enhancing the emulsifying effect, natural flavor, and color stabilization of foods. Chitosan-based films are clear, flexible and tough, well resistant to fat, oil, oxygen, but highly sensitive to moisture. »
“Graphene Derivatives in Biopolymer-Based Composites for Food Packaging Applications”. September 2020. 
This study is extremely precise, and technical, considering the different types of polymers that are used for meat preservation: clay, cellulose, chitosan, pullulan, gelatin… and, above all, the “biocomposites”, or “bio-polymers”, based on graphene derivatives as food packaging materials.
Most of this study is devoted to graphene derivatives. It should be noted that the edibility factor is mentioned, a few times, for some of these polymers… but it is not mentioned for graphene derivatives.
In fact, it is not mentioned in this study but, as mentioned previously, it is mentioned in the study on furcellaran functionalized with carbon quantum dots or graphene oxide.
“Green Coating Polymers in Meat Preservation”. November 2021. 
This study focuses on the use of edible green polymers for meat preservation. Green polymers are defined as biodegradable polymers derived from biomass resources or synthetic pathways and of microbial origin that are formed into single or multilayer structures.
They can be “green” polymers… produced by synthetic means.
“Graphene Oxide Bionanocomposite Coatings with High Oxygen Barrier Properties”. 2016. 
This study presents the development of bio-nano-composite films on poly(ethylene terephthalate) possessing exceptional oxygen barrier properties. Pullulan and graphene oxide were used as the main polymer phase and as the nano-construction block, respectively.
Other nanoparticles are used in edible films covering meat: silver nanoparticles  or titanium dioxide nanotubes .
There is even a study entitled “Controlled release and antibacterial properties of PEO/casein nanofibers loaded with Thymol/β-cyclodextrin inclusion complexes in beef preservation”, which deals with the manufacture of nano-fibers, composed of casein and ethylene oxide, loaded with β-cyclodextrin and thymol with the alleged objective of preserving beef longer. It is not specified whether this nano-fiber film is edible or not.
Appendix 1. Graphene in Human Tissue Engineering
For the last fifteen years, graphene, in all its forms, has been omnipresent in medical technologies whose objective is to create muscle tissue, bone tissue, etc. – in humans – within the framework of a medicine that demented scientists do not hesitate to call « regenerative medicine ».
Why, then, should graphene not be, in the same way, prevalent in all the technological processes consisting in creating cellular scaffolds in the manufacture of fake meat? Namely, in the same way as chitin and chitosan.
The US Department of Health’s PubMed site, when queried with the terms « Graphene / Tissue / Engineering », presents more than 1500 entries.
The recent, March 2022, study “Graphene Oxide–Protein-Based Scaffolds for Tissue Engineering: Recent Advances and Applications” provides a good summary of the nature of these cellular scaffolds. 
«Since the native physiological microenvironment has the ability to be locally adapted for the regenerative process, multiple biomaterials have been explored to allow the infiltration, division, and differentiation of implanted cells. Scaffolds are required to mimic the specific tissue cellular microenvironment in order to support cell growth, differentiation, and proliferation and to provide an appropriate physiological morphology and the possibility of co-culturing various cells. From a mechanical point of view, scaffolds provide mechanical and shape stability to the repaired tissue. From a biological perspective, scaffolds are architectures that sustain the development of the extracellular matrix (ECM) and cell establishment. In addition, the permeability of the reconstructed tissue is a key element for enabling nutrient transfer from culture media and supports the elimination of noxious secondary products from the material without adversely affecting culture conditions. Further, the new scaffold should be stable for a certain period of time to enable the damaged tissue to repair or regain the ability to be restored. Time-dependent biodegradability is another important aspect to consider for tissue scaffolds in order to allow the take-over of cells to promote the healing process.
In the last years, both synthetic and natural polymers have been employed for tissue engineering, and scaffold features have been proved to depend on the polymer structure and concentration, pore size, flexibility, stiffness, etc. Synthetic polymers such as polylactic acid (PLA), polyvinyl alcohol (PVA), poly (lactic-co-glycolic) (PLGA), and poly ε-caprolactone (PCL) have been used for the preparation of 3D scaffolds due to their easily adjustable porosity, mechanical performance, and degradation time. With their higher biocompatibility, natural polymers such as gelatin, collagen, chitosan, alginate, elastin, and fibrin have attracted researchers’ attention for the preparation of 3D scaffolds that faithfully replicate the native tissue vasculature and channel interconnections that allow the perfusion of nutrients and oxygen diffusion during regeneration.»
The October 2022 study, “Preparation, Properties, and Application of Graphene-Based Materials in Tissue Engineering Scaffolds”, declares : «Tissue engineering has a great application prospect as an effective treatment for tissue and organ injury, functional reduction, or loss. Bioactive tissues are reconstructed and damaged organs are repaired by the three elements, including cells, scaffold materials, and growth factors. Graphene-based composites can be used as reinforcing auxiliary materials for tissue scaffold preparation because of their large specific surface area, and good mechanical support. Tissue engineering scaffolds with graphene-based composites have been widely studied. Part of research have focused on the application of graphene-based composites in single tissue engineering. The basic principles of graphene materials used in tissue engineering are summarized in some research. Some studies emphasized the key problems and solutions urgently needed to be solved in the development of tissue engineering and discussed their application prospect. Some related studies mainly focused on the conductivity of graphene and discussed the application of electroactive scaffolds in tissue engineering. »
Indeed, it is important to note that graphene derivatives are used, very often, together with chitosan, derived from chitin, in the fabrication of cellular scaffolds allowing the creation of new tissues in the human body: hydrogel-based chimeric tissue engineering. There is a wealth of published studies in this regard – namely more than 100 – since the year 2011.      
This is what I wanted to highlight in my last two voluminous files: the Authorities will try to Graphenize and Chitinize as much as possible the Peoples – as much as the cell-based meats… which are supposed to replace the real meats in time.
The PubMed site lists 23 of them for the year 2022. Here are some of them:
“Synthesis and Characterization of Chitosan-Containing ZnS/ZrO2/Graphene Oxide Nanocomposites and Their Application in Wound Dressing”.  This study focuses on the development of a nano-polymer composed of graphene oxide, chitosan, zinc sulfide and zirconium dioxide in order to create scaffolds for nano-films to repair skin lesions more rapidly.
“Fabrication of Conductive Tissue Engineering Nanocomposite Films Based on Chitosan and Surfactant-Stabilized Graphene Dispersions”. September 2022.  This study focuses on the fabrication of chitosan and graphene nanocomposite films with scalable biomechanics, electroconductivity, and biocompatibility using polyvidone and Pluronic F108 polymer as emulsion stabilizers for conductive tissue engineering.
“Study on Long-Term Tracing of Fibroblasts on Three-Dimensional Tissue Engineering Scaffolds Based on Graphene Quantum Dots”. September 2022.  This study focuses on the use of graphene oxide quantum dots, amino-graphene quantum dots, and carboxyl graphene quantum dots to trace human skin fibroblasts.
“Effect of carbon based fillers on xylan/chitosan/nano-HAp composite matrix for bone tissue engineering application”. February 2022.  This study focuses on the analysis of the effect of carbon-derived fillers (graphene oxide or reduced graphene oxide) on the microstructural, mechanical and osteoinductive potential of the xylan/chitosan/HAp (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons) composite matrix for a bone tissue engineering application
“Evaluating the effect of graphene oxide PEGylation on the properties of chitosan-graphene oxide nanocomposite scaffold”. May 2022.  This study focuses on the functionalization of graphene oxide with polyethylene glycol (PEG) to understand the effect of PEG-coated graphene oxide on the properties of the chitosan-based nanocomposite scaffold.