Caroline Mansfield*

Jade Research Services Ltd, UK

*Corresponding Author: Caroline Mansfield, Registered Naturopath and Clinical Researcher, Jade Research Services Ltd, UK.

Received: September 01, 2026; Published: October 05, 2026

  This exploratory pre-post cohort study investigated the presence, anatomical distribution and longitudinal change of second harmonic dominant nonlinear junction detector (NLJD) responses in 22 human participants during a defined 63-day supplementation period with MasterPeace^® Zeolite-Z^®. Nonlinear junction detectors are established instruments used to identify nonlinear electronic junctions through analysis of harmonic return signals, with second-harmonic dominant responses characteristically associated with semiconductor-type junction behaviour. The EDD-24XT used in this study classifies this response pattern as “Probability Silicon,” providing the operational basis for recording signals consistent with synthetic silicon-based electronic circuitry. Although semiconductor nanowires, graphene-associated conductive interfaces, flexible mesh electronics and other miniaturised bioelectronic systems have been developed to interface with biological cells and tissues, the consistent detection and anatomical distribution of second-harmonic dominant NLJD responses in human subjects has not previously been systematically evaluated within a defined cohort.

  Twenty-two participants (12 female, 10 male; 26-75 years) were assessed at baseline and following 63 days of daily supplementation. Standardised full-body scanning was performed using an EDD-24XT nonlinear junction detector under controlled procedural conditions. Discrete anatomical locations demonstrating qualifying second-harmonic dominant responses were recorded as Active Signal Spots. Signal Intensity was recorded at each site and aggregated to calculate a participant-level Signal Intensity Score, while Mean Signal Intensity per Detection Site was used to distinguish changes in the number of detectable sites from changes in the intensity of responses remaining detectable. 

  Second-harmonic dominant responses classified by the EDD-24XT as “Probability Silicon” were detected in all 22 participants at baseline and demonstrated a recurrent anatomical distribution across the cohort. Following 63 days of supplementation, mean Signal Intensity Score decreased from approximately 1,340 to 277 (−79%), mean Active Signal Spots decreased from approximately 21 to 7 per participant (−67%), and Mean Signal Intensity per Detection Site decreased from approximately 64 to 40 (−38%). The reductions therefore reflected both fewer anatomically detectable signal locations and attenuation of the responses remaining detectable. 

  The findings are considered within the wider literature concerning semiconductor nanowires, graphene-associated bioelectronic interfaces, mesh nanoelectronics and Wireless Body Area Network technologies, and within Young’s proposed GrapHene Oxidative Silicon Technology (GHOST™) framework. Within this proposed framework, graphene-, oxygen- and silicon-associated materials are considered in relation to bioelectronic architecture and anatomically localised semiconductor-type nonlinear responses. The substantial temporal reductions observed during MasterPeace^® Zeolite-Z^® supplementation are additionally considered in relation to the adsorption, ion-exchange and molecular-sieving properties of natural clinoptilolite and previous human analytical findings obtained within this research programme.

  This study identified recurrent anatomically localised second-harmonic dominant NLJD responses in all participants at baseline and substantial reductions across three complementary signal measures following the 63-day intervention. NLJD measurements identify nonlinear harmonic behaviour and do not independently establish the chemical or structural composition of the material responsible for individual detections. The findings therefore provide a basis for further investigation of the proposed GHOST™ framework and the potential role of clinoptilolite-based intervention. Independent replication incorporating controlled study designs and direct chemical and structural characterisation at corresponding anatomical locations is warranted.

 Keywords: Nonlinear Junction Detector (NLJD); Second-Harmonic Response; Semiconductor; Silicon; Silicon Nanowires; Graphene; Graphene Oxide; GrapHene Oxidative Silicon Technology (GHOST™); Bioelectronics; Wireless Body Area Network (WBAN); radiofrequency (RF); Harmonic Detection; Active Signal Spots; Clinoptilolite; Zeolite; MasterPeace^® Zeolite-Z^®; Adsorption; Ion Exchange

References

1. K Cha., et al. “Detection of electronic devices using FMCW nonlinear radar”. Sensors16 (2022): 6086.
2. H Ilbegi., et al. “Classification of electronic devices using a frequency-swept harmonic radar approach”. Remote Sensing12 (2022): 2953.
3. JJN Digital. “EDD-24XT Portable Non-Linear Junction Detector (NLJD)”. JJN Electronics Ltd., Bishops Stortford, U.K.
4. RO Becker. “The bioelectric field pattern in the salamander and its simulation by an electronic analog”. IRE Transactions on Medical Electronics ME-7 (1960): 202-207.
5. RO Becker. “Search for evidence of axial current flow in peripheral nerves of salamander”. Science3472 (1961): 101-102.
6. RO Becker and DG Murray. “A method for producing cellular dedifferentiation by means of very small electrical currents”. Transactions of the New York Academy of Sciences, ser. II 29.5 (1967): 606-615.
7. R O Becker and D G Murray. “The electrical control system regulating fracture healing in amphibians”. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 73 (1970): 169-198.
8. R O Becker and J A Spadaro. “Electrical stimulation of partial limb regeneration in mammals”. Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine4 (1972): 627-641.
9. B Rubik. “Sympathetic Resonance Technology: Scientific foundation and summary of biological and clinical studies”. Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine6 (2002): 823-856.
10. K Famm., et al. “Drug discovery: A jump-start for electroceuticals”. Nature7444 (2012): 159-161.
11. MA González-González., et al. “Bioelectronic Medicine: a multidisciplinary roadmap from biophysics to precision therapies”. Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience 18 (2024): 1321872.
12. DA Koutsouras., et al. “The rise of bioelectronic medicine”. Bioelectronic Medicine 10 (2024): 19.
13. I Lerman., et al. “Next generation bioelectronic medicine: Making the case for non-invasive closed-loop autonomic neuromodulation”. Bioelectronic Medicine1 (2025).
14. F Patolsky., et al. “Detection, stimulation, and inhibition of neuronal signals with high-density nanowire transistor arrays”. Science5790 (2006): 1100-1104.
15. CM Lieber. “Semiconductor nanowires: A platform for nanoscience and nanotechnology”. MRS Bulletin12 (2011): 1052-1063.
16. C Xie., et al. “Three-dimensional macroporous nanoelectronic networks as minimally invasive brain probes”. Nature Materials12 (2015): 1286-1292.
17. G Hong., et al. “Mesh electronics: A new paradigm for tissue-like brain probes”. Current Opinion in Neurobiology 50 (2018): 33-41.
18. J Liu., et al. “Syringe-injectable electronics”. Nature Nanotechnology 10 (2015): 629-636.
19. V Lopes., et al. “The potential of graphene coatings as neural interfaces”. Nanoscale Horizons3 (2024): 384-406.
20. N Wu., et al. “Electrode materials for brain-machine interface: A review”. InfoMat 11 (2021): 1174-1194.
21. HA Ledesma., et al. “An atlas of nano-enabled neural interfaces”. Nature Nanotechnology 7 (2019): 645-657.
22. P Fattahi., et al. “A review of organic and inorganic biomaterials for neural interfaces”. Advanced Materials12 (2014): 1846-1885.
23. R Chen., et al. “Neural recording and modulation technologies”. Nature Reviews Materials 2 (2017): 16093.
24. RO Young. “Scanning and Transmission Electron Microscopy with Electron Dispersive X-Ray Spectroscopy Revealed Graphene-Silicon-Base Nanomaterials in the CoVid-19 Vaccines”. Acta Scientific Medical Sciences 8 (2022): 98-111.
25. DA Jasim., et al. “Tissue distribution and urinary excretion of intravenously administered chemically functionalized graphene oxide sheets”. Chemical Science 7 (2015): 3952-3964.
26. J R Roberts., et al. “Pulmonary toxicity, distribution, and clearance of intratracheally instilled silicon nanowires in rats”. Journal of Nanomaterials (2012): 398302.
27. Z Song., et al. “Cellular toxicity study of silicon nanowires”. Dose-Response 2 (2020): 1559325820918761.
28. R Condò., et al. “Cytotoxicity and internalization analysis of silicon nanowires in Buffalo Green Monkey cells: A preliminary study to evaluate the possibility of carrying viruses inside the cells”. New Microbiologica 1 (2020): 38-40.
29. P Lu., et al. “Mechanistic insights into the cytotoxicity of graphene oxide derivatives in mammalian cells”. Chemical Research in Toxicology 9 (2020): 2247-2260.
30. W Zhang., et al. “Deciphering the underlying mechanisms of oxidation-state dependent cytotoxicity of graphene oxide on mammalian cells”. Toxicology Letters 2 (2015): 61-71.
31. YT Li., et al. “Graphene oxide nanosheets toxicity in mice is dependent on protein corona composition and host immunity”. ACS Nano33 (2024): 22572-22585.
32. W Feng., et al. “Graphene oxide leads to mitochondrial-dependent apoptosis by activating ROS-p53-mPTP pathway in intestinal cells”. The International Journal of Biochemistry and Cell Biology 146 (2022): 106206.
33. NA El-Yamany., et al. “Graphene oxide nanosheets induced genotoxicity and pulmonary injury in mice”. Experimental and Toxicologic Pathology6 (2017): 383-392.
34. L Marcon and R Boukherroub. “Biocompatibility of semiconducting silicon nanowires”. in Semiconducting Silicon Nanowires for Biomedical Applications (2014): 62-85.
35. J F Zimmerman., et al. “Cellular uptake and dynamics of unlabeled freestanding silicon nanowires”. Science Advances12 (2016): e1601039.
36. Ö Çelik., et al. “Oxidative stress of brain and liver is increased by Wi-Fi (2.45 GHz) exposure of rats during pregnancy and the development of newborns”. Journal of Chemical Neuroanatomy 75 (2016): 134-139.
37. G Güler., et al. “Neurodegenerative changes and apoptosis induced by intrauterine and extrauterine exposure of radiofrequency radiation”. Journal of Chemical Neuroanatomy 75 (2016): 128-133.
38. E Odacı., et al. “Maternal exposure to a continuous 900-MHz electromagnetic field provokes neuronal loss and pathological changes in cerebellum of 32-day-old female rat offspring”. Journal of Chemical Neuroanatomy 75 (2016): 105-110.
39. A Al-Chalabi., et al. “Different periods of intrauterine exposure to electromagnetic field: Influence on female rats’ fertility, prenatal and postnatal development”. Asian Pacific Journal of Reproduction1 (2016): 14-23.
40. I Yakymenko., et al. “Oxidative mechanisms of biological activity of low-intensity radiofrequency radiation”. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine2 (2016): 186-202.
41. B Rubik and H Jabs. “The Effects of Electromagnetic Frequency (EMF) on the Human Biofield”. International Journal of Complementary and Alternative Medicine1 (2001): 23-34.
42. RL Swanson., et al. “Neurological Manifestations Among US Government Personnel Reporting Directional Audible and Sensory Phenomena in Havana, Cuba”. JAMA 11 (2018): 1125-1133.
43. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. “An Assessment of Illness in U.S. Government Employees and Their Families at Overseas Embassies”. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press (2020).
44. Mind Nexus (Cosmic Clarity Connections LLC). “RF Scanning Services — Evidence-Based Frequency Detection”. Cosmic Clarity Connections LLC (2026).
45. H Staninger, Report on L/N 30325, Phase I: Photomicrographic Images. “Advanced Materials Specimen Collection”. Re: Bonnie Kellerby, Integrative Health Systems, LLC (2018).
46. H Staninger, Report on L/N 30325, Phase II: EDS/SEM Microscopy and Phase III: Raman/Micro FTIR Spectroscopy. “Advanced Materials Specimen Collection”. Re: Bonnie Kellerby, Integrative Health Systems, LLC (2018).
47. ISO/IEC/IEEE. “Information technology—Telecommunications and information exchange between systems—Local and metropolitan area networks—Specific requirements—Part 15-6: Wireless body area network”. ISO/IEC/IEEE 8802-15-6:2017 (2017).
48. J Liu., et al. “Technological requirements and challenges in wireless body area networks for health monitoring: A comprehensive survey”. Sensors 9 (2022): 3539.
49. DS Bhatti., et al. “A survey on wireless wearable body area networks: A perspective of technology and economy”. Sensors20 (2022): 7722.
50. E Azemi., et al. “Biosignal sensing device using dynamic selection of electrodes”. U.S. Patent Application Publication US20230225659A1, (2023).
51. MA Chevillet., et al. “Wearable Brain Computer Interface”. U.S. Patent 11,301;044 B1 (2022).
52. P Mineault. “Neural Decoding with Co-Learning for Brain Computer Interfaces”. U.S. Patent 11,314,329 B1 (2022).
53. RE Alcaide., et al. “Monitoring of Biometric Data to Determine Mental States and Input Commands”. U.S. Patent 11,609,633 B2 (2023).
54. S J Holmes and AB Stephen. “Non-linear junction detector”. U.S. Patent 6,897,777 B2 (2005).
55. JJN Digital, EDD-24XT Portable Non-Linear Junction Detector (NLJD) Datasheet. Cheltenham, U.K.: JJN Digital, (2020).
56. E Pabiś-Mazgaj., et al. “Mineral composition and structural characterization of the clinoptilolite powders obtained from zeolite-rich tuffs”. Minerals10 (2021): 1030.
57. FA Mumpton. “La roca magica: Uses of natural zeolites in agriculture and industry”. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 7 (1999): 3463-3470.
58. S Kraljević Pavelić., et al. “Critical review on zeolite clinoptilolite safety and medical applications in vivo”. Frontiers in Pharmacology 9 (2018): 1350.
59. A Mastinu., et al. “Zeolite clinoptilolite: Therapeutic virtues of an ancient mineral”. Molecules8 (2017): 1517.
60. R O Young. “MasterPeace Zeolite Z Pilot Study Found to be Safe and Effective in Removing Nano and Micro Toxic Forever Chemicals, Heavy Metals, Micro Plastics, and Graphene and Aluminum Found in the Human Body Cells and Fluids”. Acta Scientific Medical Sciences9 (2024): 111-117.
61. D Kuzum., et al. “Transparent and flexible low-noise graphene electrodes for simultaneous electrophysiology and neuroimaging”. Nature Communications5259 (2014).
62. K Kostarelos., et al. “Graphene in the design and engineering of next-generation neural interfaces”. Advanced Materials42 (2017): 1700909.
63. E Masvidal-Codina., et al. “High-resolution mapping of epileptic activity in the living human brain using transparent graphene microtransistor arrays”. Nature Nanotechnology 14 (2019): 280-288.
64. L Gao., et al. “Freestanding carbon nanotube embroidered graphene film electrode array for stable neural interfacing”. Nano Letters3 (2024): 829-835.
65. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). “N3: Next-Generation Nonsurgical Neurotechnology”. DARPA, Biological Technologies Office (2026).
66. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). “Six Paths to the Nonsurgical Future of Brain-Machine Interfaces”. (2019).
67. S Liang., et al. “Reproductive toxicity of nanoscale graphene oxide in male mice”. Nanotoxicology 1 (2015): 92-105.
68. M Li., et al. “Graphene Oxide Nanosheets Induce Mitochondrial Toxicity in Human Ovarian Granulosa Cells: Implications for Female Reproductive Health”. International Journal of Nanomedicine 20 (2025): 4461-4479.
69. RO Young. “Pathological Blood Coagulation and the Mycotoxic Oxidative Stress Test (MOST)”. International Journal of Vaccines and Vaccination6 (2016).

Citation

Citation: Caroline Mansfield. “GrapHene Oxidative Silicon Technology (GHOST™) Found in Human Tissues and Removed by Mineralised Nano-Sized Clinoptilolite". Acta Scientific Medical Sciences 10.10 (2026): 46-83.

Copyright

Copyright: © 2026 Caroline Mansfield. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.