They are present in the air we breathe, the water we drink, the items we touch, and the food we eat. Microplastics are everywhere, making human exposure inevitable. A new study, published in the Science of the Total Environment, adds to the latest evidence.
Microplastics in human tissues
Plastic particles smaller than 20 micrometersTrusted Source, which are too small to be seen by the naked eye, can cross the cell membrane and accumulate in tissues. Previous research detected microplastics in the human colon, feces, placental tissue, human blood, and most recently, the lungs.
Dr. Fransien van Dijk, a researcher at the University of Groningen, explains in a 2019 Plastic Health Summit presentation, “Clothing textiles release micro and nanofibers to the environment. […] [In] the house where you live, approximately 20 kilograms of dust accumulates [per year], [of which] six kilograms [are] microplastic fibers, and because you spend most of the time indoors, this means that the exposure is pretty high.”
Microplastic exposure has been shown to cause inflammationTrusted Source, cell death, and DNA damage in laboratory animals and cell cultures. There is concern that toxicity to human cells from inhaled microplastic fibers may depend on the type of plastic, level of exposure, particle shape, size, absorbed pollutants, and leaching of additives present in plastics.
A study conducted by researchers from the University of Hull and Hull York Medical School assessed the presence of microplastics in human lung tissue obtained following lung reduction surgery or lung cancer surgery.
Lung reduction surgery removes damaged tissue in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) to improve lung function. Researchers used an analysis method called μFTIR spectroscopy to differentiate microplastics from non-microplastics.
μFTIR spectroscopy detected particles down to 3 micrometers in size.
Researchers used tissue samples taken from different lung areas after surgical procedures of 11 study participants at Castle Hill Hospital and Hull University Teaching Hospitals. 2 participants contributed 2 tissue samples from distinct lung areas.
45% of the study participants were female, with an average age of 63 years. Since microplastics are ubiquitous, the researchers used strict control measures to avoid and adjust for contamination.
Read more from original article: https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/microplastics-in-humans-after-blood-scientists-find-traces-in-the-lungs
Wearing a face mask results in exposure to dangerous concentrations of carbon dioxide in inhaled air, even when the mask is worn for just five minutes when sitting still, a study has found.
With surgical masks, the CO2 concentration of inhaled air exceeded the danger zone of 5,000 ppm in 40% of cases. With FFP2 respirators it exceeded it in 99% of cases. The CO2 concentrations were higher for children and for those who breathed more frequently.
The study, a pre-print (not yet peer-reviewed) from a team in Italy, used a technique called capnography to take the measurements of CO2 in inhaled air over the course of five minutes, following a ten minute period of rest, with participants seated, silent and breathing only through the nose. A medic took measurements at minutes three, four and five, with an average of the three measurements being used in the analysis.
The study found the mean CO2 concentration of inhaled air without masks was 458 ppm. While wearing a surgical mask, the mean CO2 was over 10 times higher at 4,965 ppm, exceeding 5,000 ppm in 40.2% of the measurements. While wearing an FFP2 respirator, the average CO2 was nearly double again at 9,396 ppm, with 99.0% of participants showing values higher than 5,000 ppm. Among children under 18, the mean CO2 concentration while wearing a surgical mask was well above the safe limit at 6,439 ppm; for an FFP2 respirator it was nearly double again at 12,847 ppm. The researchers found that breaths per minute only had to increase by three, to 18, for the mean concentration to reach 5,271 ppm in a surgical mask and breach the safe limit.
While the findings are clearly concerning enough, the researchers note that “the experimental conditions, with participants at complete rest and in a constantly ventilated room, were far from those experienced by workers and students during a typical day, normally spent in rooms shared with other people or doing some degree of physical activity”. In such conditions the CO2 concentration of inhaled air is likely to be considerably higher.
While the study did not find a reduction in blood oxygen saturation during the five minutes of observation of a person at rest, the authors note that research on 53 surgeons wearing masks for an extended period found that blood oxygen saturation decreased noticeably. They add that exposure to CO2 in inhaled air at concentrations exceeding 5,000 ppm for long periods is “considered unacceptable for the workers, and is forbidden in several countries, because it frequently causes signs and symptoms such as headache, nausea, drowsiness, rhinitis and reduced cognitive performance”.
The study is a pilot study, and so calls for larger and more detailed studies to confirm the effects it observes and explore them further. The authors remark that should their findings be confirmed (and there is no reason to expect they would not be), mask-wearing should be “reduced as much as possible when the [Covid] risk is low”.
The authors note this is the first study to assess properly the CO2 concentration of inhaled air while wearing a face mask. Two earlier studies were small and did not adequately remove water vapour. A third recent one was retracted for, among other concerns, not using a capnograph to distinguish inhaled and exhaled air. The present study addresses these problems. The full results are shown in the tables on the following pages:
A Joint Statement, representing 17,000 Physicians and Medical Scientists to end the National Emergency, Restore Scientific Integrity, and Address Crimes Against Humanity.
17,000 physicians and medical scientists declare that the state of medical emergency must be lifted, scientific integrity restored, and crimes against humanity addressed.
We, the physicians and medical scientists of the world, united through our loyalty to the Hippocratic Oath, recognize that the disastrous COVID-19 public health policies imposed on doctors and our patients are the culmination of a corrupt medical alliance of pharmaceutical, insurance, and healthcare institutions, along with the financial trusts which control them. They have infiltrated our medical system at every level, and are protected and supported by a parallel alliance of big tech, media, academics and government agencies who profited from this orchestrated catastrophe.
This corrupt alliance has compromised the integrity of our most prestigious medical societies to which we belong, generating an illusion of scientific consensus by substituting truth with propaganda. This alliance continues to advance unscientific claims by censoring data, and intimidating and firing doctors and scientists for simply publishing actual clinical results or treating their patients with proven, life-saving medicine. These catastrophic decisions came at the expense of the innocent, who are forced to suffer health damage and death caused by intentionally withholding critical and time-sensitive treatments, or as a result of coerced genetic therapy injections, which are neither safe nor effective.
The medical community has denied patients the fundamental human right to provide true informed consent for the experimental COVID-19 injections. Our patients are also blocked from obtaining the information necessary to understand risks and benefits of vaccines, and their alternatives, due to widespread censorship and propaganda spread by governments, public health officials and media. Patients continue to be subjected to forced lock-downs which harm their health, careers and children’s education, and damage social and family bonds critical to civil society. This is not a coincidence. In the book entitled “COVID-19: The Great Reset”, leadership of this alliance has clearly stated their intention is to leverage COVID-19 as an “opportunity” to reset our entire global society, culture, political structures, and economy.
Our 17,000 Global COVID Summit physicians and medical scientists represent a much larger, enlightened global medical community who refuse to be compromised, and are united and willing to risk the wrath of the corrupt medical alliance to defend the health of their patients.
The mission of theGlobal COVID Summit is to end this orchestrated crisis, which has been illegitimately imposed on the world, and to formally declare that the actions of this corrupt alliance constitute nothing less than crimes against humanity.
We must restore the people’s trust in medicine, which begins with free and open dialogue between physicians and medical scientists. We must restore medical rights and patient autonomy. This includes the foundational principle of the sacred doctor-patient relationship. The social need for this is decades overdue, and therefore, we the physicians of the world are compelled to take action.
After two years of scientific research, millions of patients treated, hundreds of clinical trials performed and scientific data shared, we have demonstrated and documented our success in understanding and combating COVID-19. In considering the risks versus benefits of major policy decisions, our Global COVID Summit of 17,000 physicians and medical scientists from all over the world have reached consensus on the following foundational principles:
We declare and the data confirm that the COVID-19 experimental genetic therapy injections must end.
We declare doctors should not be blocked from providing life-saving medical treatment.
We declare the state of national emergency, which facilitates corruption and extends the pandemic, should be immediately terminated.
We declare medical privacy should never again be violated, and all travel and social restrictions must cease.
We declare masks are not and have never been effective protection against an airborne respiratory virus in the community setting.
We declare funding and research must be established for vaccination damage, death and suffering.
We declare no opportunity should be denied, including education, career, military service or medical treatment, over unwillingness to take an injection.
We declare that first amendment violations and medical censorship by government, technology and media companies should cease, and the Bill of Rights be upheld.
We declare that Pfizer, Moderna, BioNTech, Janssen, Astra Zeneca, and their enablers, withheld and willfully omitted safety and effectiveness information from patients and physicians, and should be immediately indicted for fraud.
We declare government and medical agencies must be held accountable.
Who changed the scientific conclusions of a paper that could have saved millions? At last, we may have a name.
This is a scandal of immense proportions that warrants an immediate investigation.
If what you are about to learn was playing out onscreen, the collective gasp of the audience at the moment of reveal would register at deafening decibels.
First, let’s set the stage:
— Over one year ago, there were ample peer-reviewed, randomized controlled trials that provided strong evidence on ivermectin’s efficacy as a treatment for COVID in every disease phase.
— A paper considering these many studies was written by lead author Dr. Andrew Hill at the University of Liverpool for the World Health Organization’s COVID Guideline Development Group. Hill was an early and vigorous proponent for ivermectin. His paper showed that ivermectin could reduce deaths by 75% if used throughout the world.
— Inexplicably, just days before its publication, the paper appeared on a pre-print server, with its conclusions changed. Instead of concluding that Ivermectin—one of the world’s safest and most inexpensive drugs— should be rolled out globally, it now concluded that more studies on Ivermectin were needed before it could be recommended worldwide. Given the totality of scientific evidence for Ivermectin, it was a stunning—actually shocking—reversal by Dr. Hill.
—In an urgent Zoom call to Dr. Hill initiated by Dr. Tess Lawrie, Director of the Evidence-based Medicine Consultancy, Dr. Hill admitted to her that one of his study’s sponsors, Unitaid, had a say in the conclusions of his paper. But he would not divulge the name(s) of those who altered the paper’s conclusions.
But now, “The Digger” on Substack (aka producer/director Phil Harper) has revealed the name of the person who could have edited the paper’s conclusions—which led to the WHO’s non-recommendation of the use of ivermectin. That decision could have led to the unnecessary deaths of millions across the world.
Mr. Harper studied the PDF of the paper, wanting to learn the identity of its “ghost” author. “The hope was that some artifact on the PDF would reveal something, maybe a font was different, maybe there was a hidden comment, maybe some tracked changes had been saved to the document,” said Harper. “None of those lines of inquiry came to anything.”
Then it came to him. Was it in the PDF’s metadata? “Sometimes it’s the most obvious of things,” Harper writes. “The ‘v1_stamped’ version of the paper did indeed have metadata. It even had author information inside the metadata. Expecting to see Andrew Hill listed as the author, instead, I saw a name I recognized. Andrew Owen.
“Unless someone used his computer, Andrew Owen has his digital fingerprint on the Andrew Hill paper.”
Professor Andrew Owen is the person who allegedly edited the critical Andrew Hill paper on Ivermectin. He was also in receipt of consultancy fees from pharmaceutical companies with competing products.
As it turns out, Andrew Owen is a Professor of Pharmacology & Therapeutics and co-Director of the Centre of Excellence in Long-acting Therapeutics (CELT) at the University of Liverpool. He is also scientific advisor to the WHO’s COVID-19 Guideline Development Group. Just days before Dr. Hill’s paper was to be published, a $40M grant from Unitaid, the paper’s sponsor, was given to CELT —of which Owen is the project lead. “The $40 million contract was actually a commercial agreement between Unitaid, the University of Liverpool and Tandem Nano Ltd (a start-up company that commercializes ‘Solid Lipid Nanoparticle’ delivery mechanisms)— for which Andrew Owen is a top shareholder,” says Harper.
Furthermore, Harper writes that, “Andrew Owen is prolific in the art of receiving money from pharmaceutical companies. He’s received research funding from ViiV Healthcare, Merck, Janssen, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Abbott Laboratories, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Tibotec, Roche Pharmaceuticals and Bristol-Myers Squibb.”
Read the entire essay HERE. In it, Harper reveals much, much more. This is just the latest in a series of postings on ‘The Digger’ exposing the machinations and the backdoor wheeling and dealing to prevent ivermectin from saving lives so that other, more profitable (and scientifically proven more dangerous) designer drugs could take center stage and make bank.
Before you even consider vaccinating your child (which is irreversible and may be permanently damaging) it is your duty of care as a parent, to find out why 15,000 physicians and medical scientists around the world signed a declaration publicly declaring that healthy children should NOT be vaccinated for COVID-19. On behalf of these MDs and PhDs, Dr. Robert Malone, who has devoted his career to vaccine development, provides parents a clear statement outlining the scientific facts behind this decision.
Full Statement from Dr. Robert Malone
My name is Robert Malone, and I am speaking to you as a parent, grandparent, physician and scientist. I don’t usually read from a prepared speech, but this is so important that I wanted to make sure that I get every single word and scientific fact correct.
I stand by this statement with a career dedicated to vaccine research and development. I’m vaccinated for COVID and I’m generally pro-vaccination. I have devoted my entire career to developing safe and effective ways to prevent and treat infectious diseases.
After this, I will be posting the text of this statement so you can share it with your friends and family.
Before you inject your child – a decision that is irreversible – I wanted to let you know the scientific facts about this genetic vaccine, which is based on the mRNA vaccine technology I created:
There are three issues parents need to understand:
The first is that a viral gene will be injected into your children’s cells. This gene forces your child’s body to make toxic spike proteins. These proteins often cause permanent damage in children’s critical organs, including
Their brain and nervous system
Their heart and blood vessels, including blood clots
Their reproductive system, and
This vaccine can trigger fundamental changes to their immune system
The most alarming point about this is that once these damages have occurred, they are irreparable
You can’t fix the lesions within their brain
You can’t repair heart tissue scarring
You can’t repair a genetically reset immune system, and
This vaccine can cause reproductive damage that could affect future generations of your family
The second thing you need to know about is the fact that this novel technology has not been adequately tested.
We need at least 5 years of testing/research before we can really understand the risks
Harms and risks from new medicines often become revealed many years later
Ask yourself if you want your own child to be part of the most radical medical experiment in human history
One final point: the reason they’re giving you to vaccinate your child is a lie.
Your children represent no danger to their parents or grandparents
It’s actually the opposite. Their immunity, after getting COVID, is critical to save your family if not the world from this disease
In summary: there is no benefit for your children or your family to be vaccinating your children against the small risks of the virus, given the known health risks of the vaccine that as a parent, you and your children may have to live with for the rest of their lives.
The risk/benefit analysis isn’t even close.
As a parent and grandparent, my recommendation to you is to resist and fight to protect your children.