For several years, there have been rumors of mRNA and Graphene Oxide in local anesthetics. The rumors took the holistic world by storm, and they are an example of bad science not being understood by the general population, and then spreading the word without proof. It ends up having the same effects as gossip would to damage the reputation of someone. The results of the study mentioned in another post in the featured section regarding local anesthetics containing graphene oxide or mRNA or nano technology are in. I’m posting this response everywhere that I can, so that as many people as possible can see it, because this rumor has been so powerful and widespread.
So let’s talk about the original rumor and why it’s bad science: The original post, which was shared far and wide comes from this website: Fargo Dentist Local Anesthetic. There are several problems with the study. First is that it literally only tested ONE local anesthetic carpule. Just one. It did not compare random selections of the same anesthetic from different parts of the country, different lots, etc. Second is that it also didn’t test multiple brands of the same anesthetic, or multiple brands of different anesthetics. Third, it didn’t use a control of just plain distilled water, to make sure the issue with contamination was not from other things the lab had tested prior that could have cross contaminated the equipment. Lastly, the scientific methods used are simply not advanced enough to detect what they are claiming to detect. There are just too many things that were not properly done to call this good science.
So, the IABDM.org decided to find a scientist who is at the forefront of the field to do some independent testing. They started the process by collecting different samples of local anesthetic from different parts of the country and different lot numbers etc. They tested each sample and found some interesting results, but the results were NOT consistent with Dr. Mihalcea’s claims. The results were published in a webinar meeting that the IABDM held on February 7, 2025. The gist of the meeting was that even the most advanced state of the art technology is not advanced enough to be able to make the claims that Dr. Ana Maria Mihalcea was making. Basically, Dr. Mihalcea created a lot of disinformation and misinformation by making claims that can’t actually be backed up properly, because the science has not yet advanced enough to be able to make the claims she was making.
The majority of the lecture was a review of anesthetics and how they work and their toxicology, etc. because even a lot of doctors are misinformed on the issues with anesthetics. So she took a good long time re-explaining all of that for people in the group who were not necessarily informed about how local anesthetics work, and how their toxicology functions. Then she went over all of the results of the anesthetics that were sent in.
I’m kind of bummed that someone didn’t send in a sample of Exparel because that is literally the only local anesthetic that I do know contains GO. It specifically contains it because it’s meant to last three whole days. However, no Biological Dentist worth their salt would use it, and it was members of the IABDM who sent in samples from all over the US, so nobody sent in a sample of that particular anesthetic. I’m hoping that Dr. Ewing can persuade the scientist who did this study to accept a sample of exparel and test it, and then publish those results, but we shall see. Had I known that nobody had sent in a sample of that, I would have gotten in contact with our colleagues who do use it and ask them to send me some.
When she reviewed the toxicology of local aesthetics, she made it clear that the local anesthetics without epinephrine could reach a toxic level much quicker and therefore cause more damage than the ones that had just a tiny bit of epinephrine. So my take away from that is that I’m going to continue using the anesthetics that I use that have epinephrine at the 1:200,000 concentration level. Our patients get about a quarter of the amount of epinephrine when I use our methods than the average patient in the US gets, because I use a local anesthetic with no epinephrine first to numb, and then I reinforce it with the anesthetic that does have epinephrine. So in the scheme of things, if the average dentist in the US is using 2 carpules of local anesthetic plus epinephrine 1:100,000 to numb up their patient, and I use two carpules of local anesthetic, one of which has no epinephrine, and one of which has epinephrine at 1:200,000 level of concentration, our patients are getting 1/4 of the amount of epinephrine that the average patient gets in their dental treatment. I’ve been doing that for 30 years, with great results.
She did find the same chemical signature for some kind of residue on literally every sample, including the distilled water that was the control. That led her to believe that whatever was seen, because it was literally in everything, including the distilled water, which should not have anything in it, was NOT GRAPHENE OXIDE. She said it was possible that it could be something as simple as a slide that isn’t fully clean. But that to have it across every single sample, including one that was 100% GO free tells her there was no GO in the local anesthetics.
Furthermore, she said that the material that was leaving the same signature across all of the samples did not behave the same way that graphene oxide behaves. What she meant by that is that when she has studied Graphene oxide as a material, she states that it flashes and sparkles brightly. And she said that none of the samples submitted truly had the same kind of sparkle or flash that GO has.
Now, the other thing that she said regarding nano technology and self assembling issues is that crystal structures like salt and sugar will self assemble, so to speak to any child that has ever grown crystals in their experiments has seen how crystals will “self assemble“. She believes that Whatever diluent the anesthetics are in potentially have a salt in them that when the liquid dries, will “self assemble into their Crystal structure”. That actually makes a ton of sense to me, and it should make the same kind of sense to literally anybody who has as a child grown crystals on a string. In the dark Field microscopy, or in any microscopy, if a liquid that is being observed under the microscope dries, and it has a salt dissolved in it that could potentially reassemble itself. If the liquid evaporates, that makes absolute perfect sense.
So our take away from this meeting was that they COULD NOT DEFINITIVELY FIND GRAPHENE OXIDE IN ANY OF THE LOCAL ANESTHETICS THEY TESTED, using the highest technologies that they could possibly use. And whatever the substance was that they did find was literally found in every single sample, including the control, meaning that whatever the residue was, it is widely disseminated throughout literally everything, and there is no avoiding it. She did say that the most of residue they found was in Orabloc specifically. But that again, nothing shone like GO.
Therefore, we are going to continue doing what we’ve always done with our patients for the last eight years – We are going to continue doing bio compatibility testing, and use the materials that our patients test most compatible with. That will always be the safest route. I hope that brings peace to all of your minds and hearts, and that you can move forward with your dental work without worrying about this rumor any longer.
Want to schedule an appointment?
.webp)
