Yes but Daveg's post that you just had to correct, was indeed...

Yes but Daveg's post that you just had to correct, was indeed pretty much spot on other than the use of the phrase "TLG graphene". The gist of what he was saying is true, it could have been anyone's product and the result would be the same, yet TLG had to announce it as "TLG material found to improve blah blah". So then why did they not use TLG graphene and simply oxidise it with acidified permanganate?

The takeaway from that article, from a scientific standpoint, was the use of the leaf extract as the reducing and capping agent and the production via that process of a silver doped reduced graphene oxide that was found to be a very good a sensory material. IMO then, this is just fluff from TLG to show that they will have a value added market for the micrographite, whereas this study definitely does not show that at all. The 76% conversion comes at a large cost ($ and quality) so, IMO, TLG must sell the remainder in order to make it more viable.