This is the mystery commentator, my good friend Henry Lahore. You have to use your common sense sometimes, and here, the pattern of conspiracy when these stories are viewed together is overwhelming. And what I am saying is not that there is no evidence, but that what we have is scant and statistically unimpressive.
OMG, a brilliant article. They always manage to create a panic to direct the herd to a certain conclusion...... unless you see thru the illusion. Bravo
Like all of your articles, I found this one interesting when I read it last December. I hadn't particularly fallen for the whole plastic psy-op, and filed your piece away in my aging memory. I recently began reading a Substack by Dr. Charles Cornish-Dale, who calls himself the Raw Egg Nationalist. He's big into bodybuilding, health & nutrition, and very concerned about the rather dramatic decline (worldwide) in testosterone. He attributes this, in part, to xenoestrogens and phytoestrogens we're exposed to from the environment. I've started having some hormonal problems in my old age, and have wondered to what extent this is affecting me. (For what it's worth, my T tests in the "normal" range.) I realize there are many factors that can disrupt our hormonal balance, but it's tempting to believe Cornish-Dale may be at least partially correct. I'm reading his book The Last Men: Liberalism and the Death of Masculinity, in which he elaborates on this theme. He presents it not as an 'environmental crisis', but as a fertility and masculinity crisis. That prompted me to come back and re-read your article. It will be interesting to see how far he takes this, and whether the two views can be reconciled (once I finish the book).
The claim that plastics break down into smaller pieces makes sense, but Dr. Robert provides no evidence that I can see that those smaller pieces oxidize and disappear.
- nanoplastics forces fungi to become more aggressive to decompose them. In this process they ramp up their oxidative power epigenetically and genetically stored. The side effect is (limited) resistance to oxidatives like eg. chlorine dioxide, and such fungi are already hitting hospitals for 2 years now I think, where such fungi are resistant to all known anti-fungals.
But limited resistance means with every failed treatment we have bred a stronger variant. We need determined multi-drug multi-target therapy for the “hacking down” phase (eg combining ClO2 with hypochloroous acid pH 3.5-5.5) as well as the “build back better” phase by especially precision PREbiotics and (heavy metal, trauma, EMF perhaps) detoxing.
This is from reading in papers and habitat / milieu theory and my own observation from a trampoline net, were behind it in main wind direction a young tree planted and a wild grown maple, but also established bushes suffered severe fungal patches and the young apple tree from a whole coating of fungus on its twigs. Treated like myself, hack down a bit (MMS1, next day Borax as spray), then donate some biome by bukashi so fermented compost manure diluted 1:5, on twigs and irrigated on soil a bit).
This concept of healing our environment is an attractive vision, have to learn much more about this. Inoftenndisrespected energy healing in my life, as Inwas not open to the concept. Have to be more humpe in admitting I know I don’t know.
I want to invite to expand this vision to the whole planet, and stop producing nanoplastics that are so hard to decompose. We need 2-phase materials we can signal to stay intact and repell fungi while in use, and stopping the maintenance coating will enable life to decompose and recycle it in acceptable time.
- a bad problem is PTFE prodiction as POFAS chemicals needed around the manufacturing are spilled into environment, and the PTFE also wears down over time. You can even measure this with a electric toothbrush (yes, PTFE bristles!) as adding toothpase means you add a grinding / polishing paste and prodice nanoplastics in your mouth. Most “ecological” or bio teeth brushs are not bio-degradeable, as companies do not want to tell the custimer he has to prevent bacteria and mould in sockets of bristles , yet drying it on a towel, then soraying 100% isoproanol, soaking sime seconds, then drying again, solves the problem. Kept my pair of swine bristle teeth brushs intact for 1/2 year now. No nanoplastics, just a bit more expensive but not really per month.
- nanoplastics is bred in our drinking water if flowing through plastic pipes, as oxidative water disinfectants (here 0.2ppm each ClO2 and HClO) are decomposing first the polyphenols (Irgafos Irganox etc) added into the plastic extrusion pellets as corrosion protection, then the HDPE matrix itself. Here gaseous ClO2 drills nano holes / paths, and HClO widens them. Read a paper naming tastes and molecules causing it. Sounds super yummy.
Depending on conditions, pipes get leakage after 30yrs, but in Cologne, a pipe worker reported to me, first leaks came after only 10yrs, so they use steel again. Easier would be disinfection at tap, where needed so around immune-compromised people like elderly people’s homes, that can use stainless pipes and add disinfectant. Then municipal water suppliers are free to use UV / ozone, that has a short cool-down time you can provide stainless pipes or small tank for. Of course one can spikingly flush the pipe network with eg HClO, but that alone without ClO2 may be less nano plastics and corrosion prone.
If we know that nanoplastics really behave bad in body, we have to research every single molecule that we may summon into existence.
For mother nature, all used ingredients are tested: by the “evolutionary trial”. So you can rest assured that bee’s wax, the oldest nano coating we have, is totally harmless.
So until humans evolve a sense for Gaia, and some vision, we should humbly imitate or use the gifts of nature, quite to the book.
(Eg. changing structure of mRNA to be non-decomposable is a bad idea, as it makes it some accumulating toxin).
Or limiting the growths of water glass by industrial excipients, yes, SiO2, as some trials found out, changes epigentics, immune system, and is a bit cancerous. If you use eg bambus extract (plant fertilised with ultra fine ground diatomaceous earth,
you get the highest yield of bio-available SiO2 of all blants and it is stotally safe, and gets aluminum out of brain, helping to fight ASIA (vax alu based MCAS), and in general neuro-degenerative diseases.
So my view on this is: emulate nature (emulate natural (glacier) corrosion by ultra milling) or if letting crystals grow and nano soze yield is really a key question, use excipients that our body uses, like phosphatidylcholine; or shown to be benevolent like horse chestnut saponins. This means I suspect that tge surrounding molecules fir nano crystals forming act like a negative in photography imprints a whole lot of properties. ( A bit like the information we suspect in homeopathy finally gets stored in sugar or water. Lots of stirring: high part in hexagonal form? Is that like a small nano crystals?)
To come back to reducing fungal load, we just have to transparently monitor air, soil, water and our food and supplements and medicine for toxins.
A good test that could be had cheaply and available is to apply a tiny sample in question to some healthy fed “model biome”.
As humans ferment food and other stuff for thousands of years, there is a lot of knowledge what “symptoms” a sour dough or sauerkraut or kimchi etc. could catch and how to balance it out again.
Please give me feedback if you can think of a model biome that would be near our biomes.
Anything distorting it, long term especially, also with a good deal of delay possible, has to be rejected. If the biome shrinks a bit but recovers fast, it is a benevolent anti-biotic. If it shrinks and after that is suffering dysbalance, it is revealing to be a bad one.
(I recognised disastrous effect on food intolerance developing 3 months after 3rd Hep A/B shots in 2019 that ended some happy time (decade?) of near symptoms-free. A friend’s daughter had zero bifido left some long weeks after a “flu” mild cold for her a few days in Jan. 2020 in DE, but afterwards she faltered in declining health issues. Only after guts cure with enphasis on biome balancing, the symptoms vanished.
The same will be possible to apply to whole ecosystems like : why are bees ore woods dying: just get samples to some expensive and rare nanolab. Or throw samples into a model biome, where for soil we have to find somethjng more … grounded, than a simple sour dough.
And I like to collect ideas how to cheaply and availably real-time measure and log “biome vitality” in terms of balance especially, (not necessarily the plain activity or total numbers).
So please donate your ideas.
I am sure I just started to scratch the surface of this topic.
Yet my opinion is:
- nano plastics is evil
- micro plastics is no problem mainly fir us, yet for smaller life.
- plastic gets decomposed faster than we think, but along with that, our selves. We need to learn a lot how fungi communicate with living beings. Or plants. Or ground biomes. I think all things or thoughts even helping communicate are in ancient healing systems axis of energy of life.
Many people claim EMF like WiFi or LTE enhances activity and aggressiveness of fungi: is it a message to them? How can we measure this? Some fungi nutritional petr dish should suffice. Imho.
Since childhood I have noticed the weird sweet smell of many plastics - particularly the softer ones especially when warm.
when traveling on a sailboat and needing to put food away immediately after meals due to the motion, i learned many years ago that a still-hot food put into a tupperware container would take on that sickly sweet plastic smell and taste - especially obvious with something mild like rice.
from that i have extrapolated that anything with a solvent nature, like vinegar, soy sauce or alcohol, will most likely break down plastic to some degree, thus polluting itself with plastic chemicals. i do not think this is benign.
there are good reasons most liquids used to be packaged in glass, including and especially food. the current packaging of nearly all foods in plastic started slowly with very few food categories, but it has rapidly increased, especially in the last decade until now it is often difficult to find anything packaged in glass, even very reactive foods like honey and kim chi.
i think the health hazards of this practice are self evident, even setting aside environmental pollution and harm to sea and land animals.
Although the concern about plastics may be overblown with fake information, I believe there are real concerns about plastic chemicals leaching into our food supply.
Thank you for your concise report exposing the manipulation that has been going on behind everyone's back for over 100 years. It's the same old game of "World Domination and Control" taken to another technological level by psychopathic timble-riggers and their dupes. I became first aware back in the 1980s with the invented AIDES epidemic. At that time as an adjuct professor of engineeing, I would often console those who were panicked by the hype, some were relieved, most were not. Having lives, family and jobs taking up most of their waking hours they had little time to do any in depth research and relied on the evening news. Walter Cronkite would never lie. They believed, "And that's the way it is."
No argument aginst my proof, they, as most, simply believed the major media's propoganda as presented to them daily.
As for me, I was, considered an intelligent, misinformed outlier by many, even my immediate family. They still do but to a lesser degree.
My persistence has made some think, others angry that I was right. Assuming by being right I thought less of them for being wrong, or I was showing off. Neither being anywhere true, the correct response being, "Thanks" (a rare response).
I am sure you have similar experiences in your search for clarity and truth.
So, in closing THANKS!
Thanks for your truth seeking efforts and thanks to Substack for providing us the form to present it. Both one great step in separating truth from the ever increasing lies that are thrust upon us.
if you fund the lie then it takes root in the heads of those whose minds have already been ploughed in preparation by the tractor pulling the plough of indoctrination fuelled by the schooling system...
Great piece. Thanks for adding clarity of thinking to trendy scare campaign. I was beginning to weaken in my skepticism; the whole phytoestrogen aspect and declining testosterone sounded plausible to me. One less thing to worry about!
Two common plastics for containers are HDPE and PET.
I asked this question to Google AI in the Brave browser.
"is it easy to brake bond of high density polyethylene"
ANSWER:
"Breaking the bonds of high-density polyethylene (HDPE) in a practical or casual setting is not easy due to its strong molecular structure and chemical stability [1, 2].
Here is why:
Strong Covalent Bonds: The fundamental structure of HDPE is made of extremely stable, non-polar carbon-carbon and carbon-hydrogen covalent bonds [1, 2]. These bonds require significant energy to break.
High Density and Crystallinity: HDPE has a highly crystalline structure with closely packed polymer chains. This tight arrangement makes it resistant to penetration by chemicals and physical force compared to less dense plastics [1].
Chemical Resistance: It is highly resistant to many common chemicals, solvents, and acids that might break down other materials [2].
To break down HDPE chemically (depolymerization) or physically, you typically need specialized industrial conditions:
High Heat: Temperatures above its melting point (around 120°C to 140°C or 248°F to 284°F) are required to melt it, and much higher temperatures are needed to initiate thermal decomposition (pyrolysis) [1, 2].
Strong Oxidizers or Specific Catalysts: Breaking the bonds chemically usually requires powerful oxidizing agents or specific industrial catalysts under controlled, high-energy conditions, processes used in plastic recycling or chemical manufacturing [1, 2].
In everyday use, HDPE items like milk jugs, cutting boards, or pipes are durable and designed to last precisely because their bonds are difficult to break [2]. "
QUESTION:
"is it easy to brake bond of Polyethylene terephthalate"
ANSWER:
"It is not easy to break the chemical bonds of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) under normal environmental conditions. PET is known for its exceptional durability and chemical resistance, which is why it is widely used in applications like beverage bottles and food packaging.
The difficulty in breaking its bonds makes PET a major contributor to plastic pollution, as it can take hundreds of years to decompose in landfills or natural environments.
Why PET Bonds are Hard to Break
Stable Structure: PET's polymer chains contain strong, unreactive covalent bonds and stable aromatic (ring) structures that hold the atoms tightly together.
High Energy Requirement: Breaking these bonds requires significant energy and specific, often harsh, conditions.
Crystallinity: PET is a semi-crystalline polymer. The ordered, crystalline regions are particularly resistant to degradation because the polymer chains are tightly packed, making them less accessible to chemical or biological agents. "
I'm calling bullshit on you calling bullshit. There's just too much evidence and it's too obvious that plastic harms biology. A simple question to your favorite Ai research tool will quickly debunk the claims in this article (see below). No, I don't trust ALL of it (as we know much of the systems that do the research are corrupt) but there's enough evidence to convince me to avoid plastics. If you want to take the risk, go for it!
Here's your comprehensive, credible evidence:
***
## Counterargument: The Scientific Evidence for Plastic's Biological Harms
The claim that plastic pollution concerns are fabricated nonsense fundamentally contradicts a substantial body of peer-reviewed scientific evidence documenting demonstrable biological harms across marine ecosystems and human health. Rather than a manufactured panic, plastic pollution represents a well-documented environmental crisis with increasingly clear causal mechanisms.
### Documented Health Effects in Human Tissues
Scientific research now demonstrates that microplastics—plastic fragments smaller than 5 millimeters—have infiltrated human organs and tissues at measurable levels. Microplastics have been detected in at least 8 of 12 human organ systems, including cardiovascular, digestive, endocrine, lymphatic, and respiratory systems. More specifically, these particles have been found in brain tissue, testicles, heart tissue, stomach, lymph nodes, and placental tissue. They have also been identified in urine, breastmilk, semen, and meconium (newborns' first stool), leading Stanford pediatric infectious disease physicians to note that "we're born pre-polluted."[1][2]
A landmark study published in *The New England Journal of Medicine* in March 2024 directly examined cardiovascular outcomes. Patients undergoing surgery to remove arterial plaque who had microplastics present in their plaque showed significantly higher risk of heart attack, stroke, and death in the following two-plus years compared to those without microplastic contamination. This represents one of the first direct causal links demonstrated in human populations.[1]
### Mechanisms of Harm: Endocrine Disruption
The biological pathways through which plastics cause harm are well-characterized at the molecular level. Bisphenol A (BPA) and phthalate esters—chemical additives used to make plastics flexible—are endocrine-disrupting compounds that leach from plastic materials, particularly when exposed to heat or aging. These compounds infiltrate human tissues through ingestion, inhalation, and dermal absorption.[3]
Research at Harvard Medical School has specifically documented how DEHP (di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate), a plasticizer used in many plastics, disrupts meiosis—the cell division that produces eggs and sperm. This disruption leads to defects during egg formation and early embryonic development, including chromosomal abnormalities that account for more than 35% of human miscarriages and 4% of stillbirths. Scientists have established that these phthalates interfere with estrogen, androgen, and thyroid hormone function, creating "windows of susceptibility" during fetal and early postnatal development that can trigger disease in later life.[4][3]
### Cellular and Systemic Damage
Laboratory studies using human cell lines and animal models have identified multiple pathways of harm. In-vitro studies with human cells show that microplastics cause:[5]
- Oxidative stress and DNA damage
- Organ dysfunction and metabolic disorders
- Immune system impairment
- Neurotoxicity and reproductive toxicity
- Developmental abnormalities
A University of California, San Francisco meta-analysis of existing research concluded that microplastics exposure is suspected to harm reproductive, digestive, and respiratory health, with suggested links to colon and lung cancer. One specific finding revealed that microplastics in human blood lymphocytes increased micronucleation (abnormal nuclear material), nucleoplasm bridges, and nuclear bud formation—cellular markers linked to infertility, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and neurological diseases including Alzheimer's and Parkinson's.[2][1]
### Marine Ecosystem Collapse
The harm to marine ecosystems provides abundant evidence of plastic's destructive capacity. A documented disease called "Plasticosis"—plastic-induced fibrosis—has emerged exclusively in seabirds, where tiny plastic particles irritate the digestive tract and cause scar tissue formation that disrupts growth and digestion.[6]
Entanglement and ingestion of plastic debris have impacted at least 914 megafaunal species, with more than 100 classified as endangered. The Mediterranean monk seal's second leading cause of death (after deliberate killing) is fishing gear entanglement. The Great Pacific Garbage Patch contains 180 times more plastic than biomass by weight, fundamentally disrupting the ecosystem balance and making plastic potentially a primary food source for organisms in that region.[7]
Microplastics attract persistent organic pollutants from seawater. When marine organisms consume them, these toxins bioaccumulate in tissues. As these contaminated organisms are consumed by predators higher in the food chain, toxins biomagnify to dangerous concentrations. Filter-feeding whales that consume vast quantities of water are particularly vulnerable, experiencing endocrine and reproductive system disruption that further endangers their survival.[8][6]
### Quantitative Exposure Reality
The scale of exposure is staggering. An estimated 10 to 40 million metric tons of microplastics are released into the environment annually, with projections to double by 2040. Scientists estimate adults ingest the equivalent of one credit card worth of microplastics per week. This is not theoretical exposure—it is measured and documented across multiple independent research institutions.[1]
### Why the Scientific Consensus Exists
The scientific evidence for plastic harms has been produced by major research institutions (Stanford Medicine, Harvard Medical School, UC San Francisco), published in peer-reviewed journals (*The New England Journal of Medicine*, *Environmental Health Perspectives*, *Biomedical Reports*), and involves reproducible laboratory findings across multiple research groups. This represents the standard evidence model for establishing environmental health risks, not a "fabricated panic."
The concerns about plastic are grounded in demonstrable mechanisms (endocrine disruption, oxidative stress, DNA damage), measured human tissue contamination, established disease outcomes (cardiovascular events, reproductive abnormalities), and ecosystem-scale evidence (species extinction risk, trophic food chain disruption). Dismissing this body of research as fabrication requires rejecting thousands of studies conducted across independent institutions with different funding sources and methodologies—a position inconsistent with how scientific evidence actually functions.
Barfing up 7 AI responses and 15 citations from the panic cabal does not convince anyone here. You should save your fear-mongering for high school kids who haven’t reached the level of discernment to know you’re spreading bullshit. (The same gullible, naïve kids that think climate change is real and Socialism is great.)
The human body is very good at dealing with dust, and that’s all plastic nanoparticles basically are, as you mentioned. They are no threat. Metal nanoparticles on the other hand interfere with the electrical functioning of the body and we can become hypersensitive to them which can be confirmed by blood test. The metal nanoparticles(titanium dioxide in particular, as it now surrounds the whole planet in the atmosphere) were implicated as the main cause of the huge increase in autoimmune disorders and certain cancers worldwide, prior to the covid era. The ema have reclassified titanium dioxide as unfit for human consumption, and banned from food products. As an ingredient in almost all composite dental fillings, billions are now sucking on titanium dioxide 24/7, and it will eventually affect their health if it hasn’t already. Dentists caused harm with mercury, then aluminium salts, and now it’s causing widespread harm from titanium salts.
I have posted over 150 studies/reports on Microplastics and animal health (mainly human)
https://vitamindwiki.com/pages/microplastics-causing-problems-in-humans-etc-vitamin-d-can-help-many-studies/
95% are just observations of microplastics in animals or just speculations of what might happen.
But 5% of them are indeed troubling.
This is the mystery commentator, my good friend Henry Lahore. You have to use your common sense sometimes, and here, the pattern of conspiracy when these stories are viewed together is overwhelming. And what I am saying is not that there is no evidence, but that what we have is scant and statistically unimpressive.
OMG, a brilliant article. They always manage to create a panic to direct the herd to a certain conclusion...... unless you see thru the illusion. Bravo
Like all of your articles, I found this one interesting when I read it last December. I hadn't particularly fallen for the whole plastic psy-op, and filed your piece away in my aging memory. I recently began reading a Substack by Dr. Charles Cornish-Dale, who calls himself the Raw Egg Nationalist. He's big into bodybuilding, health & nutrition, and very concerned about the rather dramatic decline (worldwide) in testosterone. He attributes this, in part, to xenoestrogens and phytoestrogens we're exposed to from the environment. I've started having some hormonal problems in my old age, and have wondered to what extent this is affecting me. (For what it's worth, my T tests in the "normal" range.) I realize there are many factors that can disrupt our hormonal balance, but it's tempting to believe Cornish-Dale may be at least partially correct. I'm reading his book The Last Men: Liberalism and the Death of Masculinity, in which he elaborates on this theme. He presents it not as an 'environmental crisis', but as a fertility and masculinity crisis. That prompted me to come back and re-read your article. It will be interesting to see how far he takes this, and whether the two views can be reconciled (once I finish the book).
Right off the bat, my response to this essay is that anyone who has to boast about their IQ is a moron.
The claim that plastics break down into smaller pieces makes sense, but Dr. Robert provides no evidence that I can see that those smaller pieces oxidize and disappear.
- nanoplastics forces fungi to become more aggressive to decompose them. In this process they ramp up their oxidative power epigenetically and genetically stored. The side effect is (limited) resistance to oxidatives like eg. chlorine dioxide, and such fungi are already hitting hospitals for 2 years now I think, where such fungi are resistant to all known anti-fungals.
But limited resistance means with every failed treatment we have bred a stronger variant. We need determined multi-drug multi-target therapy for the “hacking down” phase (eg combining ClO2 with hypochloroous acid pH 3.5-5.5) as well as the “build back better” phase by especially precision PREbiotics and (heavy metal, trauma, EMF perhaps) detoxing.
This is from reading in papers and habitat / milieu theory and my own observation from a trampoline net, were behind it in main wind direction a young tree planted and a wild grown maple, but also established bushes suffered severe fungal patches and the young apple tree from a whole coating of fungus on its twigs. Treated like myself, hack down a bit (MMS1, next day Borax as spray), then donate some biome by bukashi so fermented compost manure diluted 1:5, on twigs and irrigated on soil a bit).
This concept of healing our environment is an attractive vision, have to learn much more about this. Inoftenndisrespected energy healing in my life, as Inwas not open to the concept. Have to be more humpe in admitting I know I don’t know.
I want to invite to expand this vision to the whole planet, and stop producing nanoplastics that are so hard to decompose. We need 2-phase materials we can signal to stay intact and repell fungi while in use, and stopping the maintenance coating will enable life to decompose and recycle it in acceptable time.
- a bad problem is PTFE prodiction as POFAS chemicals needed around the manufacturing are spilled into environment, and the PTFE also wears down over time. You can even measure this with a electric toothbrush (yes, PTFE bristles!) as adding toothpase means you add a grinding / polishing paste and prodice nanoplastics in your mouth. Most “ecological” or bio teeth brushs are not bio-degradeable, as companies do not want to tell the custimer he has to prevent bacteria and mould in sockets of bristles , yet drying it on a towel, then soraying 100% isoproanol, soaking sime seconds, then drying again, solves the problem. Kept my pair of swine bristle teeth brushs intact for 1/2 year now. No nanoplastics, just a bit more expensive but not really per month.
- nanoplastics is bred in our drinking water if flowing through plastic pipes, as oxidative water disinfectants (here 0.2ppm each ClO2 and HClO) are decomposing first the polyphenols (Irgafos Irganox etc) added into the plastic extrusion pellets as corrosion protection, then the HDPE matrix itself. Here gaseous ClO2 drills nano holes / paths, and HClO widens them. Read a paper naming tastes and molecules causing it. Sounds super yummy.
Depending on conditions, pipes get leakage after 30yrs, but in Cologne, a pipe worker reported to me, first leaks came after only 10yrs, so they use steel again. Easier would be disinfection at tap, where needed so around immune-compromised people like elderly people’s homes, that can use stainless pipes and add disinfectant. Then municipal water suppliers are free to use UV / ozone, that has a short cool-down time you can provide stainless pipes or small tank for. Of course one can spikingly flush the pipe network with eg HClO, but that alone without ClO2 may be less nano plastics and corrosion prone.
If we know that nanoplastics really behave bad in body, we have to research every single molecule that we may summon into existence.
For mother nature, all used ingredients are tested: by the “evolutionary trial”. So you can rest assured that bee’s wax, the oldest nano coating we have, is totally harmless.
So until humans evolve a sense for Gaia, and some vision, we should humbly imitate or use the gifts of nature, quite to the book.
(Eg. changing structure of mRNA to be non-decomposable is a bad idea, as it makes it some accumulating toxin).
Or limiting the growths of water glass by industrial excipients, yes, SiO2, as some trials found out, changes epigentics, immune system, and is a bit cancerous. If you use eg bambus extract (plant fertilised with ultra fine ground diatomaceous earth,
you get the highest yield of bio-available SiO2 of all blants and it is stotally safe, and gets aluminum out of brain, helping to fight ASIA (vax alu based MCAS), and in general neuro-degenerative diseases.
So my view on this is: emulate nature (emulate natural (glacier) corrosion by ultra milling) or if letting crystals grow and nano soze yield is really a key question, use excipients that our body uses, like phosphatidylcholine; or shown to be benevolent like horse chestnut saponins. This means I suspect that tge surrounding molecules fir nano crystals forming act like a negative in photography imprints a whole lot of properties. ( A bit like the information we suspect in homeopathy finally gets stored in sugar or water. Lots of stirring: high part in hexagonal form? Is that like a small nano crystals?)
To come back to reducing fungal load, we just have to transparently monitor air, soil, water and our food and supplements and medicine for toxins.
A good test that could be had cheaply and available is to apply a tiny sample in question to some healthy fed “model biome”.
As humans ferment food and other stuff for thousands of years, there is a lot of knowledge what “symptoms” a sour dough or sauerkraut or kimchi etc. could catch and how to balance it out again.
Please give me feedback if you can think of a model biome that would be near our biomes.
Anything distorting it, long term especially, also with a good deal of delay possible, has to be rejected. If the biome shrinks a bit but recovers fast, it is a benevolent anti-biotic. If it shrinks and after that is suffering dysbalance, it is revealing to be a bad one.
(I recognised disastrous effect on food intolerance developing 3 months after 3rd Hep A/B shots in 2019 that ended some happy time (decade?) of near symptoms-free. A friend’s daughter had zero bifido left some long weeks after a “flu” mild cold for her a few days in Jan. 2020 in DE, but afterwards she faltered in declining health issues. Only after guts cure with enphasis on biome balancing, the symptoms vanished.
The same will be possible to apply to whole ecosystems like : why are bees ore woods dying: just get samples to some expensive and rare nanolab. Or throw samples into a model biome, where for soil we have to find somethjng more … grounded, than a simple sour dough.
And I like to collect ideas how to cheaply and availably real-time measure and log “biome vitality” in terms of balance especially, (not necessarily the plain activity or total numbers).
So please donate your ideas.
I am sure I just started to scratch the surface of this topic.
Yet my opinion is:
- nano plastics is evil
- micro plastics is no problem mainly fir us, yet for smaller life.
- plastic gets decomposed faster than we think, but along with that, our selves. We need to learn a lot how fungi communicate with living beings. Or plants. Or ground biomes. I think all things or thoughts even helping communicate are in ancient healing systems axis of energy of life.
Many people claim EMF like WiFi or LTE enhances activity and aggressiveness of fungi: is it a message to them? How can we measure this? Some fungi nutritional petr dish should suffice. Imho.
Since childhood I have noticed the weird sweet smell of many plastics - particularly the softer ones especially when warm.
when traveling on a sailboat and needing to put food away immediately after meals due to the motion, i learned many years ago that a still-hot food put into a tupperware container would take on that sickly sweet plastic smell and taste - especially obvious with something mild like rice.
from that i have extrapolated that anything with a solvent nature, like vinegar, soy sauce or alcohol, will most likely break down plastic to some degree, thus polluting itself with plastic chemicals. i do not think this is benign.
there are good reasons most liquids used to be packaged in glass, including and especially food. the current packaging of nearly all foods in plastic started slowly with very few food categories, but it has rapidly increased, especially in the last decade until now it is often difficult to find anything packaged in glass, even very reactive foods like honey and kim chi.
i think the health hazards of this practice are self evident, even setting aside environmental pollution and harm to sea and land animals.
Although the concern about plastics may be overblown with fake information, I believe there are real concerns about plastic chemicals leaching into our food supply.
Robert,
Thank you for your concise report exposing the manipulation that has been going on behind everyone's back for over 100 years. It's the same old game of "World Domination and Control" taken to another technological level by psychopathic timble-riggers and their dupes. I became first aware back in the 1980s with the invented AIDES epidemic. At that time as an adjuct professor of engineeing, I would often console those who were panicked by the hype, some were relieved, most were not. Having lives, family and jobs taking up most of their waking hours they had little time to do any in depth research and relied on the evening news. Walter Cronkite would never lie. They believed, "And that's the way it is."
No argument aginst my proof, they, as most, simply believed the major media's propoganda as presented to them daily.
As for me, I was, considered an intelligent, misinformed outlier by many, even my immediate family. They still do but to a lesser degree.
My persistence has made some think, others angry that I was right. Assuming by being right I thought less of them for being wrong, or I was showing off. Neither being anywhere true, the correct response being, "Thanks" (a rare response).
I am sure you have similar experiences in your search for clarity and truth.
So, in closing THANKS!
Thanks for your truth seeking efforts and thanks to Substack for providing us the form to present it. Both one great step in separating truth from the ever increasing lies that are thrust upon us.
V/r,
AFF
None of us is as smart as all of us.
THANKS
Have you written anything about the global warming thing or could you point to an article that explains it well? Thanks!
SEE Cassandra's Memo and many posts in archives
https://robertyoho.substack.com/p/107-dr-patrick-moore-founder-of-greenpeace?utm_source=publication-search
https://robertyoho.substack.com/p/331-my-march-2022-patrick-moore-post?utm_source=publication-search
if you fund the lie then it takes root in the heads of those whose minds have already been ploughed in preparation by the tractor pulling the plough of indoctrination fuelled by the schooling system...
Great piece. Thanks for adding clarity of thinking to trendy scare campaign. I was beginning to weaken in my skepticism; the whole phytoestrogen aspect and declining testosterone sounded plausible to me. One less thing to worry about!
I Compliment You. This Gave Me A Completely Different Perspective On It. And I Agree With You. Keep Up The Good Work
Or, as I would say, screw these bitches.
Nordangård’s book is beside me as I read this. It’s the kind of book that needs to be nearby! Frequently dipped into and never quite finished.
Two common plastics for containers are HDPE and PET.
I asked this question to Google AI in the Brave browser.
"is it easy to brake bond of high density polyethylene"
ANSWER:
"Breaking the bonds of high-density polyethylene (HDPE) in a practical or casual setting is not easy due to its strong molecular structure and chemical stability [1, 2].
Here is why:
Strong Covalent Bonds: The fundamental structure of HDPE is made of extremely stable, non-polar carbon-carbon and carbon-hydrogen covalent bonds [1, 2]. These bonds require significant energy to break.
High Density and Crystallinity: HDPE has a highly crystalline structure with closely packed polymer chains. This tight arrangement makes it resistant to penetration by chemicals and physical force compared to less dense plastics [1].
Chemical Resistance: It is highly resistant to many common chemicals, solvents, and acids that might break down other materials [2].
To break down HDPE chemically (depolymerization) or physically, you typically need specialized industrial conditions:
High Heat: Temperatures above its melting point (around 120°C to 140°C or 248°F to 284°F) are required to melt it, and much higher temperatures are needed to initiate thermal decomposition (pyrolysis) [1, 2].
Strong Oxidizers or Specific Catalysts: Breaking the bonds chemically usually requires powerful oxidizing agents or specific industrial catalysts under controlled, high-energy conditions, processes used in plastic recycling or chemical manufacturing [1, 2].
In everyday use, HDPE items like milk jugs, cutting boards, or pipes are durable and designed to last precisely because their bonds are difficult to break [2]. "
QUESTION:
"is it easy to brake bond of Polyethylene terephthalate"
ANSWER:
"It is not easy to break the chemical bonds of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) under normal environmental conditions. PET is known for its exceptional durability and chemical resistance, which is why it is widely used in applications like beverage bottles and food packaging.
The difficulty in breaking its bonds makes PET a major contributor to plastic pollution, as it can take hundreds of years to decompose in landfills or natural environments.
Why PET Bonds are Hard to Break
Stable Structure: PET's polymer chains contain strong, unreactive covalent bonds and stable aromatic (ring) structures that hold the atoms tightly together.
High Energy Requirement: Breaking these bonds requires significant energy and specific, often harsh, conditions.
Crystallinity: PET is a semi-crystalline polymer. The ordered, crystalline regions are particularly resistant to degradation because the polymer chains are tightly packed, making them less accessible to chemical or biological agents. "
There are more details so read it yourself.
I'm calling bullshit on you calling bullshit. There's just too much evidence and it's too obvious that plastic harms biology. A simple question to your favorite Ai research tool will quickly debunk the claims in this article (see below). No, I don't trust ALL of it (as we know much of the systems that do the research are corrupt) but there's enough evidence to convince me to avoid plastics. If you want to take the risk, go for it!
Here's your comprehensive, credible evidence:
***
## Counterargument: The Scientific Evidence for Plastic's Biological Harms
The claim that plastic pollution concerns are fabricated nonsense fundamentally contradicts a substantial body of peer-reviewed scientific evidence documenting demonstrable biological harms across marine ecosystems and human health. Rather than a manufactured panic, plastic pollution represents a well-documented environmental crisis with increasingly clear causal mechanisms.
### Documented Health Effects in Human Tissues
Scientific research now demonstrates that microplastics—plastic fragments smaller than 5 millimeters—have infiltrated human organs and tissues at measurable levels. Microplastics have been detected in at least 8 of 12 human organ systems, including cardiovascular, digestive, endocrine, lymphatic, and respiratory systems. More specifically, these particles have been found in brain tissue, testicles, heart tissue, stomach, lymph nodes, and placental tissue. They have also been identified in urine, breastmilk, semen, and meconium (newborns' first stool), leading Stanford pediatric infectious disease physicians to note that "we're born pre-polluted."[1][2]
A landmark study published in *The New England Journal of Medicine* in March 2024 directly examined cardiovascular outcomes. Patients undergoing surgery to remove arterial plaque who had microplastics present in their plaque showed significantly higher risk of heart attack, stroke, and death in the following two-plus years compared to those without microplastic contamination. This represents one of the first direct causal links demonstrated in human populations.[1]
### Mechanisms of Harm: Endocrine Disruption
The biological pathways through which plastics cause harm are well-characterized at the molecular level. Bisphenol A (BPA) and phthalate esters—chemical additives used to make plastics flexible—are endocrine-disrupting compounds that leach from plastic materials, particularly when exposed to heat or aging. These compounds infiltrate human tissues through ingestion, inhalation, and dermal absorption.[3]
Research at Harvard Medical School has specifically documented how DEHP (di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate), a plasticizer used in many plastics, disrupts meiosis—the cell division that produces eggs and sperm. This disruption leads to defects during egg formation and early embryonic development, including chromosomal abnormalities that account for more than 35% of human miscarriages and 4% of stillbirths. Scientists have established that these phthalates interfere with estrogen, androgen, and thyroid hormone function, creating "windows of susceptibility" during fetal and early postnatal development that can trigger disease in later life.[4][3]
### Cellular and Systemic Damage
Laboratory studies using human cell lines and animal models have identified multiple pathways of harm. In-vitro studies with human cells show that microplastics cause:[5]
- Oxidative stress and DNA damage
- Organ dysfunction and metabolic disorders
- Immune system impairment
- Neurotoxicity and reproductive toxicity
- Developmental abnormalities
A University of California, San Francisco meta-analysis of existing research concluded that microplastics exposure is suspected to harm reproductive, digestive, and respiratory health, with suggested links to colon and lung cancer. One specific finding revealed that microplastics in human blood lymphocytes increased micronucleation (abnormal nuclear material), nucleoplasm bridges, and nuclear bud formation—cellular markers linked to infertility, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and neurological diseases including Alzheimer's and Parkinson's.[2][1]
### Marine Ecosystem Collapse
The harm to marine ecosystems provides abundant evidence of plastic's destructive capacity. A documented disease called "Plasticosis"—plastic-induced fibrosis—has emerged exclusively in seabirds, where tiny plastic particles irritate the digestive tract and cause scar tissue formation that disrupts growth and digestion.[6]
Entanglement and ingestion of plastic debris have impacted at least 914 megafaunal species, with more than 100 classified as endangered. The Mediterranean monk seal's second leading cause of death (after deliberate killing) is fishing gear entanglement. The Great Pacific Garbage Patch contains 180 times more plastic than biomass by weight, fundamentally disrupting the ecosystem balance and making plastic potentially a primary food source for organisms in that region.[7]
Microplastics attract persistent organic pollutants from seawater. When marine organisms consume them, these toxins bioaccumulate in tissues. As these contaminated organisms are consumed by predators higher in the food chain, toxins biomagnify to dangerous concentrations. Filter-feeding whales that consume vast quantities of water are particularly vulnerable, experiencing endocrine and reproductive system disruption that further endangers their survival.[8][6]
### Quantitative Exposure Reality
The scale of exposure is staggering. An estimated 10 to 40 million metric tons of microplastics are released into the environment annually, with projections to double by 2040. Scientists estimate adults ingest the equivalent of one credit card worth of microplastics per week. This is not theoretical exposure—it is measured and documented across multiple independent research institutions.[1]
### Why the Scientific Consensus Exists
The scientific evidence for plastic harms has been produced by major research institutions (Stanford Medicine, Harvard Medical School, UC San Francisco), published in peer-reviewed journals (*The New England Journal of Medicine*, *Environmental Health Perspectives*, *Biomedical Reports*), and involves reproducible laboratory findings across multiple research groups. This represents the standard evidence model for establishing environmental health risks, not a "fabricated panic."
The concerns about plastic are grounded in demonstrable mechanisms (endocrine disruption, oxidative stress, DNA damage), measured human tissue contamination, established disease outcomes (cardiovascular events, reproductive abnormalities), and ecosystem-scale evidence (species extinction risk, trophic food chain disruption). Dismissing this body of research as fabrication requires rejecting thousands of studies conducted across independent institutions with different funding sources and methodologies—a position inconsistent with how scientific evidence actually functions.
***
**Citations:**[9][10][8][6][3][5][2][4][7][1]
[1](https://med.stanford.edu/news/insights/2025/01/microplastics-in-body-polluted-tiny-plastic-fragments.html)
[2](https://jogh.org/2024/jogh-14-04179/)
[3](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/bdr2.1778)
[4](https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2020/01/plastic-additive-linked-to-excessive-reproductive-abnormalities/)
[5](https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/envhealth.3c00052)
[6](https://www.mcsuk.org/ocean-emergency/ocean-pollution/plastics/plastic-pollution-on-marine-life/)
[7](https://theoceancleanup.com/ocean-plastic-pollution-explained/)
[8](https://www.aupress.ca/app/uploads/120302_Farelly_et_al_2021-Plastic_Legacies.pdf)
[9](https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsomega.1c02760)
[10](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9180440/)
[11](https://robertyoho.substack.com/p/395-the-plastic-panic-is-just-as?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=690651&post_id=180138381&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1f08z4&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email)
[12](https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=8770&context=dissertations)
[13](https://talking-trash.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/TalkingTrash_FullReport.pdf)
[14](https://www.scribd.com/document/834788799/04-03-worksheet-2)
[15](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11342020/)
Barfing up 7 AI responses and 15 citations from the panic cabal does not convince anyone here. You should save your fear-mongering for high school kids who haven’t reached the level of discernment to know you’re spreading bullshit. (The same gullible, naïve kids that think climate change is real and Socialism is great.)
you didn't understand the post
The human body is very good at dealing with dust, and that’s all plastic nanoparticles basically are, as you mentioned. They are no threat. Metal nanoparticles on the other hand interfere with the electrical functioning of the body and we can become hypersensitive to them which can be confirmed by blood test. The metal nanoparticles(titanium dioxide in particular, as it now surrounds the whole planet in the atmosphere) were implicated as the main cause of the huge increase in autoimmune disorders and certain cancers worldwide, prior to the covid era. The ema have reclassified titanium dioxide as unfit for human consumption, and banned from food products. As an ingredient in almost all composite dental fillings, billions are now sucking on titanium dioxide 24/7, and it will eventually affect their health if it hasn’t already. Dentists caused harm with mercury, then aluminium salts, and now it’s causing widespread harm from titanium salts.