Health & Fitness

This article was previously published February 17, 2021, and has been updated with new information.

In breathless tones, NBC News recently reported¹ the existence of a business where mask wearing isn't enforced. In the Naples, Florida, grocery store, hardly anyone wears a mask. The store's owner, who the news station claimed "is known for his conservative and often controversial viewpoints," told a reporter he's never worn a mask in his life and never will.

The store does have a mask policy posted, but video shows that many customers are fine with not wearing one. There is a mask mandate in Naples, but Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has issued a ruling that makes enforcement of the rule difficult, NBC said.

The irony of the whole thing is that while the media claims mask mandates are based on science and will "save lives," this simply isn't true. Science is actually being ignored wholesale and recommendations are primarily pushed based on emotional justifications and triggers. If science were actually followed, universal mask wearing by healthy people would not — indeed could not — be recommended.

A Timeline of Unscientific Extremes

From the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, health experts have been unable to unify around a cohesive message about face masks. In February 2020, Surgeon General Jerome Adams sent out a tweet urging Americans to stop buying masks, saying they are "NOT effective."² (He has since deleted that tweet.) Adams also warned that if worn or handled improperly, face masks can increase your risk of infection.³

Similarly, in March 2020, Dr. Anthony Fauci stated⁴ that "people should not be walking around with masks" because "it's not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is." Logically, only symptomatic individuals and health care workers were urged to wear them.

Fauci even pointed out that mask wearing has "unintended consequences" as "people keep fiddling with their mask and they keep touching their face," which may actually increase the risk of contracting and/or spreading the virus.

By June 2020, universal mask mandates became the norm and we were told we had to wear them because there may be asymptomatic super-spreaders among us. Interestingly enough, that same month, the World Health Organization admitted that asymptomatic transmission was "very rare." If that's true, then why should healthy, asymptomatic people mask up?

By July 2020, Fauci claimed his initial dismissal of face masks had been in error and that he'd downplayed their importance simply to ensure there would be a sufficient supply for health care workers, who need them most.⁵

Fast-forward a few weeks, and by the end of July 2020, Fauci went to the next extreme, flouting the recommendation to wear goggles and full face shields in addition to a mask, ostensibly because the mucous membranes of your eyes could potentially serve as entryways for viruses as well.⁶

This despite the fact that a March 31, 2020, report⁷ in JAMA Ophthalmology found SARS-CoV-2-positive conjunctival specimens (i.e., specimens taken from the eye) in just 5.2% of confirmed COVID-19 patients (two out of 28).

What's more, contamination of the eyes is likely primarily the result of touching your eyes with contaminated fingers. If you wear goggles or a face shield, you may actually be more prone to touch your eyes to rub away sweat, condensation and/or scratch an itch.

Toward the end of November 2020, the asymptomatic spread narrative was effectively destroyed by the publication of a Chinese study⁸ involving nearly 9.9 million individuals. It revealed not a single case of COVID-19 could be traced to an asymptomatic individual who had tested positive.

Around December 2020, recommendations for double-masking emerged,⁹ and this trend gained momentum through extensive media coverage as we moved into the first weeks of 2021.¹⁰ Undeterred by scientific evidence and logic alike, by the end of January 2021, "experts" started promoting the use of three^11,12 or even four¹³ masks, whether you're symptomatic or not.

These recommendations quickly sparked a mild backlash, with other experts encouraging the return to common sense, as wearing three or more masks may impair airflow, which can worsen any number of health conditions.

True to form, while promoting the concept of double-masking as recently as January 29, 2021,¹⁴ by February 1, Fauci conceded "There is no data that indicates double-masking is effective," but that "There are many people who feel … if you really want to have an extra little bit of protection, 'maybe I should put two masks on.'"¹⁵ In other words, the suggestion is based on emotion, not actual science.

The Singular Truth Behind Mixed Messaging About Masks

The logical reason for all this flip-flopping is because actual science is NOT being taken into account. From the start, the available research has been rather consistent: Mask wearing does not reduce the prevalence of viral illness and asymptomatic spread is exceedingly rare, if not nonexistent.

Both of these scientific consensuses negate the rationale for universal mask wearing by healthy (asymptomatic) people. The only time mask wearing makes sense is in a hospital setting and if you are actually symptomatic and need to be around others, and even then, you need to be aware that it provides only limited protection.

The reason for this is because the virus is aerosolized and spreads through the air. Aerosolized viruses — especially SARS-CoV-2, which is about half the size of influenza viruses — cannot be blocked by a mask, as explained in my interview with Denis Rancourt, who has conducted a thorough review of the published science on masks and viral transmission.

According to Rancourt, "NONE of these well-designed studies that are intended to remove observational bias found a statistically significant advantage of wearing a mask versus not wearing a mask."

COVID-19 Specific Mask Trial Failed to Prove Benefit

While most mask studies have looked at influenza, the first COVID-19-specific randomized controlled surgical mask trial, published November 18, 2020, confirmed previous findings, showing that:^16,17

The study included 3,030 individuals assigned to wear a surgical face mask and 2,994 unmasked controls. Of them, 80.7% completed the study. Based on the adherence scores reported, 46% of participants always wore the mask as recommended, 47% predominantly as recommended and 7% failed to follow recommendations.

Among mask wearers, 1.8% ended up testing positive for SARS-CoV-2, compared to 2.1% among controls. When they removed the people who reported not adhering to the recommendations for use, the results remained the same — 1.8%, which suggests adherence makes no significant difference.

Among those who reported wearing their face mask "exactly as instructed," 2% tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 compared to 2.1% of the controls. So, essentially, we're destroying economies and lives around the world to protect a tiny minority from getting a positive PCR test result which means little to nothing.

CDC Relies on Anecdotal Data to Promote Mask Use

If you want additional proof that health authorities are not concerned with following the best available science, look no further than the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.¹⁸ What do they rely on as the primary piece of "evidence" to back up its mask recommendation?

A wholly anecdotal story about two symptomatic hair stylists who interacted with 139 clients during eight days is all they offer. Sixty-seven of the clients agreed to be interviewed and tested. None tested positive for SARS-CoV-2.

The fact that the stylists and all clients "universally wore masks in the salon" is therefore seen as evidence that the masks prevented the spread of infection. The Danish study reviewed above didn't even make it onto the CDC's list of studies.

The CDC's own data^19,20,21 also show 70.6% of COVID-19 patients reported "always" wearing a cloth mask or face covering in the 14 days preceding their illness; 14.4% reported having worn a mask "often." So, a total of 85% of people who came down with COVID-19 had "often" or "always" worn a mask.

This too contradicts the idea that mask wearing will protect against the infection, and is probably a slightly more reliable indicator of effectiveness than the anecdotal hairdresser story.

Another recent investigation²² revealed the same trend, showing that states with mask mandates had an average of 27 positive SARS-CoV-2 "cases" per 100,000 people, whereas states with no mask mandates had just 17 cases per 100,000.

Masks Don't Protect Against Smoke

The CDC also contradicts its own conclusions that masks protect against viral spread by specifying that wearing a cloth face mask will NOT protect you against wildfire smoke, because "they do not catch small, harmful particles in smoke that can harm your health."²³ To get any protection from harmful smoke particles, you'd have to use an N95 respirator.

The particulate matter in wildfire smoke can range from 2.5 micrometers in diameter or smaller in smoke and haze, to 10 micrometers in wind-blown dust.²⁴ SARS-CoV-2, meanwhile, has a diameter between 0.06 and 0.14 micrometers, far tinier than the particulate found in smoke.

SARS-CoV-2 is also about half the size of most viruses, which tend to measure between 0.02 microns to 0.3 microns.²⁵ Meanwhile, virus-laden saliva or respiratory droplets expelled when talking or coughing measure between 5 and 10 micrometers.²⁶

N95 masks can filter particles as small as 0.3 microns,²⁷ so they may prevent a majority of respiratory droplets from escaping, but not aerosolized viruses. Influenza viruses and SARS-CoV-2 are small enough to float in the air column, so as long as you can still breathe, they can flow in and out of your respiratory tract.

The following video offers a simple demonstration of how masks "work." Or rather, don't, as the vapor flows in and out, all around the mask — even if you're wearing two of them.

>>>>> Click Here <<<<<

More Science

If you're still on the fence about whether masks are a necessity that must be forced on everyone, including young children, I urge you to take the time to actually read through some of the studies that have been published. In addition to the research reviewed above, here's a sampling of what else you'll find when you start searching for data on face masks as a strategy to prevent viral infection:

Surgical masks and N95 masks perform about the same — A 2009 study28 published in JAMA compared the effectiveness of surgical masks and N95 respirators to prevent seasonal influenza in a hospital setting; 24% of the nurses in the surgical mask group still got the flu, as did 23% of those who wore N95 respirators.

Cloth masks perform far worse than medical masks — A study29 published in 2015 found health care workers who wore cloth masks had the highest rates of influenza-like illness and laboratory-confirmed respiratory virus infections, when compared to those wearing medical masks or controls (who used standard practices that included occasional medical mask wearing). Compared to controls and the medical mask group, those wearing cloth masks had a 72% higher rate of lab-confirmed viral infections. According to the authors: "Penetration of cloth masks by particles was almost 97% and medical masks 44%. This study is the first RCT of cloth masks, and the results caution against the use of cloth masks … Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection."

"No evidence" masks prevent transmission of flu in hospital setting — In September 2018, the Ontario Nurses Association (ONA) won its second of two grievances filed against the Toronto Academic Health Science Network's (TAHSN) "vaccinate or mask" policy. As reported by the ONA:30 "After reviewing extensive expert evidence submitted … Arbitrator William Kaplan, in his September 6 decision,31 found that St. Michael's VOM policy is 'illogical and makes no sense' … In 2015, Arbitrator James Hayes struck down the same type of policy in an arbitration that included other Ontario hospitals across the province … Hayes found there was 'scant evidence' that forcing nurses to use masks reduced the transmission of influenza to patients … ONA's well-regarded expert witnesses, including Toronto infection control expert Dr. Michael Gardam, Quebec epidemiologist Dr. Gaston De Serres, and Dr. Lisa Brosseau, an American expert on masks, testified that there was … no evidence that forcing healthy nurses to wear masks during the influenza season did anything to prevent transmission of influenza in hospitals. They further testified that nurses who have no symptoms are unlikely to be a real source of transmission and that it was not logical to force healthy unvaccinated nurses to mask."

No significant reduction in flu transmission when used in community setting — A policy review paper32 published in Emerging Infectious Diseases in May 2020, which reviewed "the evidence base on the effectiveness of nonpharmaceutical personal protective measures … in non-healthcare settings" concluded, based on 10 randomized controlled trials, that there was "no significant reduction in influenza transmission with the use of face masks …"

Risk reduction may be due to chance — In 2019, a review of interventions for flu epidemics published by the World Health Organization concluded the evidence for face masks was slim, and may be due to chance:33 "Ten relevant RCTs were identified for this review and meta-analysis to quantify the efficacy of community-based use of face masks … In the pooled analysis, although the point estimates suggested a relative risk reduction in laboratory-confirmed influenza of 22% in the face mask group, and a reduction of 8% in the face mask group regardless of whether or not hand hygiene was also enhanced, the evidence was insufficient to exclude chance as an explanation for the reduced risk of transmission."

"No evidence" that universal masking prevents COVID-19 — A 2020 guidance memo by the World Health Organization pointed out that:34 "Meta-analyses in systematic literature reviews have reported that the use of N95 respirators compared with the use of medical masks is not associated with any statistically significant lower risk of the clinical respiratory illness outcomes or laboratory-confirmed influenza or viral infections … At present, there is no direct evidence (from studies on COVID- 19 and in healthy people in the community) on the effectiveness of universal masking of healthy people in the community to prevent infection with respiratory viruses, including COVID-19."

Mask or no mask, same difference — A meta-analysis and scientific review35 led by respected researcher Thomas Jefferson, cofounder of the Cochrane Collaboration, posted on the prepublication server medRxiv in April 2020, found that, compared to no mask, mask wearing in the general population or among health care workers did not reduce influenza-like illness cases or influenza. In one study, which looked at quarantined workers, it actually increased the risk of contracting influenza, but lowered the risk of influenza-like illness. They also found there was no difference between surgical masks and N95 respirators.

Statistics Show Mask Use Has No Impact on Infection Rates

Another way to shed light on whether masks work or not is to compare infection rates (read: positive test rates) before and after the implementation of universal mask mandates. In his article,³⁶ "These 12 Graphs Show Mask Mandates Do Nothing to Stop COVID," bioengineer Yinon Weiss does just that.

He points out that "No matter how strictly mask laws are enforced nor the level of mask compliance the population follows, cases all fall and rise around the same time." To see all of the graphs, check out Weiss' article³⁷ or Twitter thread.³⁸ Here are just a select few to bring home the point:

To Pose a Risk, You Need To Be Symptomatic

Studies have repeatedly shown that masks do not significantly reduce transmission of viruses, so it's safe to assume that a mask will in fact fail in this regard. That leaves two key factors: There must be a contagious person around, and they must be sufficiently close for transmission to occur.

We now know that asymptomatic individuals — even if they test positive using a PCR test — are highly unlikely to be contagious.³⁹ So, really, a key prevention strategy for COVID-19 seems to be to stay home if you have symptoms. As for masking up when you're healthy, let alone double, triple or quadruple masking, there's simply no scientific consensus for that strategy.

from Articles https://ift.tt/2YMxdr2
via IFTTT

As we enter into the 10th month of COVID injections, what can we tell about their effectiveness? Are they working? According to data from Israel — which is the best in the world at this point, thanks to the Israelis’ dedication to data collection and transparency — it seems the news is anything but good, and that is a profoundly serious understatement.

In an October 3, 2021, substack article,¹ Alex Berenson dissects a recent Eurosurveillance report² about a SARS-CoV-2 Delta outbreak in an Israeli dialysis ward. Eurosurveillance is a journal published by the European Centers for Disease Control.

Hospital Outbreak Reveals the Ineffectiveness of COVID Jabs

An unidentified dialysis patient came in for scheduled treatment with fever and cough. Over the course of several days, his condition continued to deteriorate, but he remained in the dialysis unit at the Meir Medical Center.

COVID measures at the hospital includes routine wearing of full protective equipment by all COVID unit staff, including N-95 mask, face shield, gown, gloves and hair cover. Patients also wear surgical masks when in the same room as another patient.

By the time the sick patient was tested and diagnosed with COVID-19, he had a PCR cycle threshold (CT) of 13.6, which means he had a viral load approximately 1 million times higher than a person with mild infection.

The infection spread rapidly among patients and staff, spreading from the dialysis ward to the COVID-19 ward and other units. At the time of the outbreak, 238 out of 248 (96%) of the exposed patients and staff had been fully vaccinated with Pfizer’s mRNA vaccine. Of the 238 fully vaccinated individuals, 39 (16%) were infected, as were three of the 10 unvaccinated individuals who got exposed.

Near-Maximum Vaccination Rate Yet No Herd Immunity

While all of the sickened staff recovered, five infected patients died and nine turned into severe or critical cases. All of the dead and severe/critical cases were fully vaccinated. Two unvaccinated patients who were infected only had mild illness. As noted by the authors:³

“The calculated attack rate among all exposed patients and staff was 10.6% (16/151) for staff and 23.7% (23/97) for patients, in a population with 96.2% vaccination rate (238 vaccinated/248 exposed individuals).

Moreover, several transmissions probably occurred between two individuals both wearing surgical masks, and in one instance using full PPE, including N-95 mask, face shield, gown and gloves …

This nosocomial outbreak exemplifies the high transmissibility of the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant among twice vaccinated and masked individuals. This suggests some waning of immunity, albeit still providing protection for individuals without comorbidities ...

This communication … challenges the assumption that high universal vaccination rates will lead to herd immunity and prevent COVID-19 outbreaks…

In the outbreak described here, 96.2% of the exposed population was vaccinated. Infection advanced rapidly (many cases became symptomatic within 2 days of exposure), and viral load was high.

Another accepted view is that, when facing a possible mismatch between the SARS-CoV-2 variant and vaccine or waning immunity, the combination of vaccine and face mask should provide the necessary protection.

Although some transmission between staff members could have occurred without masks, all transmissions between patients and staff occurred between masked and vaccinated individuals, as experienced in an outbreak from Finland.”

This case tells us a couple of important things. First, that even in a population where more than 96% are fully vaccinated, outbreaks will occur. This means the shots are clearly not even remotely creating any kind of herd immunity. Indeed, there have been outbreaks even in populations where the vaccination rate was 100%.⁴

Secondly, the unvaccinated who got sick had only mild illness, while the fully vaccinated all ended up with severe infection. The unvaccinated recovered without a problem while several of the fully vaccinated patients died.

Thirdly, it tells us masks, face shields and gloves provide little more than a false sense of security. Altogether, this report is evidence that everything we’re currently doing is foolishness.

COVID-Like Illness Among the Vaccinated

In the U.S., the data are far more manipulated, as this next section will reveal. The study⁵ in question, “Effectiveness of COVID-19 Vaccines in Ambulatory and Inpatient Care Settings,” was published September 8, 2021, in The New England Journal of Medicine.

The researchers identified a total of 103,199 hospitalizations between January 1, 2021, and June 22, 2021. Of those, 41,552 met the study criteria for inclusion (the real number is actually 41,159, as there’s a mathematical error⁶). Included patients were 50 or older, and had “COVID-like illness” (CLI), defined as COVID symptoms and a positive PCR test.

Excluded hospitalizations that did not meet the study criteria were patients younger than 50, patients without vaccination record, repeat admissions, patients that had no COVID test results, and those who had received their second dose of mRNA injection (or first and only dose required of the Janssen vaccine) within the last 14 days and therefore were not considered fully vaccinated.

The exclusion of people who got the jab within 14 days of their hospitalization is more than regrettable and designed to create real misinformation and fraudulent results skewed in favor of the jab. Researchers have determined that you’re at increased risk of infection during the first 14 days, because you haven’t reached adequate antibody levels yet.

A Swedish study⁷ posted April 21, 2021, found “The estimated vaccine effectiveness in preventing infection ≥7 days after second dose was 86% but only 42% ≥14 days after a single dose.” While maximum effectiveness isn’t reached until the 14-day mark, why shouldn’t hospitalizations that occur within that two-week window count?

According to The New England Journal of Medicine report, the effectiveness of the mRNA shots against lab-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, 14 or more days after injection, was 89%, on average. Effectiveness among those 85 and older, those with chronic medical conditions, as well as Black and Hispanic adults, ranged from 81% to 95%.

The effectiveness of the Janssen “vaccine” against lab-confirmed infection leading to hospitalization was 68%, and 73% against infection requiring emergency care. That sounds pretty good, but it doesn’t tell the whole story.

Digging Further Into the Data

In a Twitter thread,⁸ Ben M. double-checked and recalculated the vaccine efficacy, taking into account all CLI admissions, not just those where the patient had been vaccinated at least 14 days prior. When adding those previously excluded patients back in, Ben M. came up with a vaccine effectiveness rate of 13%.

He also discovered that if you look at how many people actually had a CLI clinical diagnosis code among the 41,552 included patients, the rate of diagnosis between the unvaccinated, the partially vaccinated and the fully vaccinated was nearly identical: 73% for the unvaccinated, 71% for the partially vaccinated and 72% for the fully vaccinated.

Here’s where it gets interesting. When you look at the rate of CLI, and add in the rate of positive PCR tests, all of a sudden, differences between the groups become clear. Only 2% of the fully vaccinated had a positive PCR test, compared to 6% of the partially vaccinated and 18% of the unvaccinated.

Ben M. speculates that vaccinated patients may be tested less routinely (12.5% less frequently to be exact), or unvaccinated patients are tested more routinely (11% more frequently than the vaccinated). But there may be another explanation. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention actually has two different sets of testing criteria, depending on the patient’s vaccination status.

Fully vaccinated individuals suspected of having contracted COVID-19 are to be tested using a CT of 28 or less, whereas unvaccinated patients are to be tested using a CT of 40.

Anything over 35 CTs has been shown to produce 97% false positives,⁹ so this biased testing guidance virtually guarantees that vaccinated patients are more likely to test negative, while unvaccinated patients are more likely to get a false positive.

Partially Vaxxed Are the Most Symptomatic for CLI

What’s more, when Ben M. looked at symptoms alone, he found that the partially vaccinated are the most symptomatic for CLI (29.2%), followed by the fully vaccinated (28.1%) and then the unvaccinated (27.4%).

When he then recalculated vaccine effectiveness based on symptomatic CLI alone (i.e., with or without a positive test), it again came out negative: -6% in the partially vaccinated and -3% in the fully vaccinated. As noted by Ben M. “this means that despite COVID-19 vaccination, people appear to get as sick and hospitalized (if not even more!), as before?!”

He provides a whole series of helpful visuals in his Twitter thread, so to get a clearer idea, I recommend reading through it and looking through all the graphs provided.¹⁰ In summary, what Ben M. discovered is that:

No Correlation Between Vaccination Rates and COVID Cases

In related news, Blaze Media recently reported the findings of Harvard researchers, who found “absolutely no correlation between vax rates and COVID cases globally.”¹² The paper’s title tells you pretty much tells the whole story and everything you need to know: “Increases in COVID-19 Are Unrelated to Levels of Vaccination Across 68 Countries and 2,947 Counties in the United States.”¹³ According to the authors:

“… the narrative related to the ongoing surge of new cases in the United States (US) is argued to be driven by areas with low vaccination rates. A similar narrative also has been observed in countries …

We used COVID-19 data provided by the Our World in Data for cross-country analysis, available as of September 3, 2021 …We included 68 countries that met the following criteria: had second dose vaccine data available; had COVID-19 case data available; had population data available; and the last update of data was within 3 days prior to or on September 3, 2021.

For the 7 days preceding September 3, 2021 we computed the COVID-19 cases per 1 million people for each country as well as the percentage of population that is fully vaccinated … The percentage increase in COVID-19 cases was calculated based on the difference in cases from the last 7 days and the 7 days preceding them …

At the country-level, there appears to be no discernable relationship between percentage of population fully vaccinated and new COVID-19 cases in the last 7 days. In fact, the trend line suggests a marginally positive association such that countries with higher percentage of population fully vaccinated have higher COVID-19 cases per 1 million people.

Notably, Israel with over 60% of their population fully vaccinated had the highest COVID-19 cases per 1 million people in the last 7 days. The lack of a meaningful association between percentage population fully vaccinated and new COVID-19 cases is further exemplified, for instance, by comparison of Iceland and Portugal.

Both countries have over 75% of their population fully vaccinated and have more COVID-19 cases per 1 million people than countries such as Vietnam and South Africa that have around 10% of their population fully vaccinated.

Across the U.S. counties too, the median new COVID-19 cases per 100,000 people in the last 7 days is largely similar across the categories of percent population fully vaccinated … There also appears to be no significant signaling of COVID-19 cases decreasing with higher percentages of population fully vaccinated …

The sole reliance on vaccination as a primary strategy to mitigate COVID-19 and its adverse consequences needs to be re-examined … Other pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions may need to be put in place alongside increasing vaccination rates.

Such course correction, especially with regards to the policy narrative, becomes paramount with emerging scientific evidence on real world effectiveness of the vaccines.

For instance, in a report released from the Ministry of Health in Israel, the effectiveness of 2 doses of the BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) vaccine against preventing COVID-19 infection was reported to be 39%, substantially lower than the trial efficacy of 96%.

It is also emerging that immunity derived from the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine may not be as strong as immunity acquired through recovery from the COVID-19 virus. A substantial decline in immunity from mRNA vaccines 6-months post immunization has also been reported.

Even though vaccinations offers protection to individuals against severe hospitalization and death, the CDC reported an increase from 0.01 to 9% and 0 to 15.1% (between January to May 2021) in the rates of hospitalizations and deaths, respectively, amongst the fully vaccinated.”

from Articles https://ift.tt/2YI4IdM
via IFTTT

A recent study published in Environmental Science and Technology Letters¹ showed there was more polyethylene terephthalate in the feces of infants than there was in adults. This may not be surprising since past testing has demonstrated the ubiquitous nature of plastics.

When researchers want to evaluate the spread of a toxin, they analyze ants as they are found in nearly every corner of the Earth. In 2014, a group of researchers published data² demonstrating plastics were embedded in the cuticle of ants sampled from France, Spain, Morocco, Hungary and Burkina Faso. They wrote that chronic exposure to the pollutants resulted in the plastics easily trapped within the insect cuticle.

Two years later³ they published a follow-up paper in which they tested samples from the remote regions of the Amazon rainforest. Although the presence of phthalate pollution varied between species, the presence suggested pollution travels in atmospheric particles over long distances suggesting “there's no such thing as a ‘pristine’ zone.”⁴

When testing humans, the Norwegian Institute of Public Health⁵ found 90% of those tested from 2016 to 2017 had plasticizers in their urine. Plasticizers are a colorless, odorless chemical⁶ that is composed mostly of phthalates.⁷ More than 90% of the participants⁸ had eight different plasticizers known to leak into food from packaging or come from body care products, such as hand cream, toothpaste, and shaving products.

Because these chemicals are not strongly bound to the product, they tend to leach out and dissipate into the surrounding environment. This includes the drinking water and food. The National Toxicology Program finds that phthalates are “reasonably considered to be a human carcinogen,”⁹ and yet, the politics and regulations surrounding plastics have allowed them to remain in many of the products that you use today.

The price that society will pay for the ubiquitous use and distribution of plastic particles has yet to be quantified. Evidence suggests the long-term exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals like phthalates poses a significant danger to health and fertility.

Some even suggest that we are on course for an infertile world by 2045.¹⁰ Finding 10 times more polyethylene terephthalate in infant poop than adults are one indicator of the dire circumstances plastics has created.¹¹

Infants Are Pooping More Plastic Than Adults

In one pilot study,¹² researchers sought to define the magnitude of a human exposure to microplastics. They evaluated the concentrations of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) and polycarbonate (PC) microplastics in 10 adult, three meconium and six infant feces samples collected in New York state. Disturbingly, the researchers found PET in meconium samples, which is a baby’s first stool.¹³

The researchers collected the stool samples from the infants’ and newborns’ diapers. To ensure they were counting microplastics that originated in infants and newborns, they only analyzed the stool for PET and PC, which are distinct from the polypropylene plastics that diapers are made of.¹⁴

What they found was alarming. The PET concentration in infant stool was 10 times higher than what was found in adult samples. The PC levels appeared to be similar between the two groups. Yet, even meconium samples contained both PET and PC, which suggested that babies have plastic in their system that is absorbed from their mother.

This supports past studies¹⁵ that found microplastics in newborn meconium and in human placentas collected after cesarean section births. How this will affect human health is still being studied. There are up to 10,000 different plastic chemicals, 2,400 of which are known to have a negative impact on human health.¹⁶

Additionally, microplastics may contain heavy metals and are also known to grow communities of human pathogens that contain viruses, bacteria and fungi. On their own, phthalates are endocrine-disrupting chemicals which have been connected to metabolic problems like obesity¹⁷ and to reproductive challenges.¹⁸

Infants and children are vulnerable to endocrine-disrupting chemicals as their bodies are still developing. Kurunthachalam Kannan, Ph.D., an environmental health scientist at New York University School of Medicine and researcher of the pilot study, commented:¹⁹

“Unfortunately, with the modern lifestyle, babies are exposed to so many different things for which we don't know what kind of effect they can have later in their life. I strongly believe that these chemicals do affect early life stages. That's a vulnerable period.”

Millions of Microscopic Plastic Particles in Baby Bottles

The data from the pilot study adds to a growing body of evidence that babies exposed to microplastics may experience negative consequences. Since the plastic is found in an infant's feces, it may mean that the gut is also absorbing some of these particles that could end up in other organs, including the brain.

In one study²⁰ published in 2017, researchers demonstrated that carp could absorb nanoparticles of plastic, which then penetrated the blood-brain barrier in the fish and resulted in behavioral disorders.

While this study was done on a different species, a peer-reviewed article published in the American Journal of Public Health²¹ concluded that exposure to ortho-phthalates can impair brain development and increase a child's risk of learning, attention and behavioral disorders.

One of the primary objects from which infants can absorb plastic is plastic baby bottles. In 2018, the baby bottle market was valued at $2.6 billion.²² The plastic segment accounted for 44.1% of the overall share. In one published study,²³ John Boland, Ph.D., from Trinity College Dublin, analyzed the release of microplastics from plastic baby bottles.²⁴

To collect their data, the bottles were initially cleaned and sterilized. Once the bottles air dried, the scientists added heated purified water that had reached 150.8 degrees Fahrenheit (70 degrees Celsius). This is the temperature the World Health Organization recommends for making baby formula.²⁵

Bottles were then added to a mechanical shaker for one minute, after which the team filtered the water and analyzed the contents. They discovered the bottles leached a wide range of particles that numbered up to 16.2 million plastic particles per liter of water.

The average number per liter of water was 4 million particles. When the experiment was repeated with the baby formula, the results were the same. Based on how often infants eat, the researchers predicted that infants up to 12 months may be exposed to 14,600 to 4.55 million microplastic particles daily.

Common Polymer PET in Water Bottles Leach Phthalates

There is a campaign by the PET manufacturers association to defend the use of PET. On their website they tell consumers that²⁶ “drinking water from a PET bottle that has been left in a hot car, frozen, used more than once, or repeatedly washed and rinsed does not pose any health risk.”

The industry magazine,²⁷ Food Safety,²⁸ publishes similar statements, claiming that safety is inherent because the FDA has approved it for contact with food and beverages for 30 years and it doesn’t produce dangerous substances “under conditions of normal use, including being subjected to hot cars or placed in a freezer.”²⁹

It seems the plastic industry is taking a page from the tobacco³⁰ and sugar industries,³¹ denying culpability and promoting the product until the evidence is irrefutable — or, in the case of plastics, until humans are no longer fertile.³²

And yet, for anyone who has read independent studies, like the one above studying babies’ exposure from formula fed from plastic baby bottles, you know this is not true. While PET “does not contain BPA, phthalates, dioxins, lead, cadmium or endocrine disruptors,” according to PETRA,³³ over 10 years ago researchers studying PET water bottles found they leach endocrine-disrupting chemicals.³⁴

One study from Goethe University in 2009 reported in ABC Science,³⁵ also demonstrated that endocrine-disrupting compounds were leaching from PET plastic bottles. Shanna Swan, epidemiologist at the University of Rochester, commented on this study, which found levels of estrogenic compounds at “surprisingly high levels” in water bottles:³⁶

"This is coming at a good time because the use of bottles for consuming water is getting very bad press now because of its carbon footprint. It's just another nail in the coffin of bottled water, the way I see it."

But, despite another nail in the coffin over 10 years ago, sales of bottled water have continued to soar, polluting the environment and human health.³⁷

DARPA Pushing More Plastic in the Food Supply

Apparently, there is not enough plastic pollution in the food supply, so the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) awarded Iowa State University and partners a $2.7 million grant to create a process that would make food from plastic and paper waste.³⁸

The intention is to use this to feed the military men and women who have dedicated their lives to defending this country. They believe the ability to turn the paper and plastic waste products into a consumable could help with short-term “nourishment” and improve military logistics for extended missions. They estimate the total award could reach $7.8 million before the project ends.³⁹

The system is aiming to convert plastic waste into fatty alcohols and fatty acids and paper into sugar that would then be bioprocessed by single cell organisms into an edible mass that is rich in protein and vitamins. In other words, the hope is that microorganisms can convert the endocrine-disrupting chemicals found in plastic to vitamins and proteins.

DARPA also awarded Michigan Tech⁴⁰ researchers $7.2 million to turn plastic waste into protein powder and lubricants. Battelle, a large research firm, announced in February 2021 that DARPA had awarded an undisclosed amount to create a process that “quickly convert[s] energy-dense waste into a useful substance to support expeditionary operations and stabilization missions.”⁴¹

DARPA wants to turn plastics that leach hazardous chemicals, which researchers have found threaten human health,⁴² into food stuff for the U.S. military. However, in an era where fake meat is valued over regeneratively and biodynamically grown real meat,⁴³ it doesn't take much to imagine that the next step could be plastic food for all.

Recycling Plastic Increases Risk of Phthalate Exposure

Although many call for recycling plastic to reduce the problem, it is questionable as to whether it's a viable answer since there's growing evidence that recycling has only a minor impact under the best of circumstances. While ramping up recycling has been suggested, the executive director of the Basel Action Network, Jim Puckett, told Rolling Stone magazine:⁴⁴

“They really sold people on the idea that plastics can be recycled because there’s a fraction of them that are. It’s fraudulent. When you drill down into plastics recycling, you realize it’s a myth.”

He went on to describe the results of a study in 2017 that showed 91% of the plastic manufactured since 1950 has never been recycled.⁴⁵ In addition, the reporter from Rolling Stone wrote:⁴⁶

“Unlike aluminum, which can be recycled again and again, plastic degrades in reprocessing, and is almost never recycled more than once. A plastic soda bottle, for example, might get downcycled into a carpet.”

As well as not being a viable answer logistically, one study⁴⁷ published in 2014 in the journal Environment International showed that recycling contributes significantly to childhood phthalate exposure increasing a child's overall exposure to di-n-butyl phthalate (DBP).

Based on findings from the WWF International Study, Reuters⁴⁸ created an illustration showing how much plastic a person would consume over time from exposure to food, beverages and dust. According to these estimations, you could be consuming enough plastic to pack a soup spoon every week, enough for a heaping dinner plate every year and as much as the size of a standard lifebuoy every 10 years.

You can help by supporting legislation aimed at holding companies accountable for the pollution they create. These bills need your support since the industry has deep pockets and players are notorious for extensive lobbying and public-relations expertise. It's also important to remember that you have a significant impact by making simple changes in your daily life. Below are simple strategies that can help:

Don't use plastic bags	Bring your own mug for a coffee drink; skip the lid and straw
Bring water from home in a glass water bottle	Make sure the items you recycle are recyclable
Store foods in glass containers or Mason jars	Bring your own leftovers container when eating out
Avoid processed foods and bring your own vegetable bags for fresh produce	Request no plastic wrap on your newspaper and dry cleaning
Use nondisposable razors, cloth diapers and rags	Avoid disposable utensils and straws
Buy infant and pet toys made of wood or untreated fabric

from Articles https://ift.tt/3avDgTd
via IFTTT

A team of researchers has announced a major new advance in understanding how our genetic information eventually translates into functional proteins -- one of the building blocks of human life. The research elucidates how chaperones display 'selective promiscuity' for the specific proteins -- their 'clients' -- they serve. This property enables them to play an essential role in maintaining healthy cells and is a step forward in understanding the origins of a host of human illnesses, from cancer to ALS.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3p0Jx1E

Researchers believe zebrafish may provide clues to understanding how the human nervous system develops since this fish experiences new movements similarly to how babies do after birth. To understand how our nervous system enables us to move and learn new movements such as walking or swimming as we grow, researchers looked closely at the nervous system of zebrafish and built models of developing zebrafish spinal circuits to test and further understand the operation of spinal circuits for moving.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3FEIr1B

It's long been known that meditative mindful breathing helps with various health conditions, including pain.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3v83cOr

A simple form of talking therapy, delivered by trained support workers over the telephone, reduced loneliness in older people left isolated during the pandemic, the initial results of a new study has revealed.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3lvZhYl

New research found that changes in the brain associated with Alzheimer's disease are often visible early on in individuals with personality traits associated with the condition. The study focused on two traits previously linked to the risk of dementia: neuroticism, which measures a predisposition for negative emotions, and conscientiousness, which measures the tendency to be careful, organized, goal-directed and responsible.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3v80oRb

Investigators have developed a resource for analyzing how genetic variants in cells that drive type 2 diabetes may contribute to the disease.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3AzfAYQ

Researchers have discovered that the viral protein NS1 from respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) alters the activity of immune genes, sabotaging the immune response to RSV infection.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3FFZQXw

A researcher has discovered an enzyme that plays a key role in the ability of cancer cells to resist drug treatment.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3mGRl5O

Researchers are examining neurons and hormones associated with eating too much. This study is another step in understanding the brain circuits involved in eating disorders.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3ACFVoT

A raging pandemic, lockdowns, isolation. The past (nearly) two years have been challenging, and we now have the data to show just how devastating Covid has been.

from Health | body+soul https://ift.tt/3iVfrsF

People who have been diagnosed with a mental illness are more likely to have poor sleep quality compared to the general population, according to a large study.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/30mFGSr

Researchers have demonstrated that blood-seeking mosquitoes can be directed to feed on a toxic plant-based solution, which in turn kills them. This result could be one solution for the global problem of diseases like malaria or dengue fever by specifically targeting the mosquitoes while other species like bees won't be affected.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3oX5eQq

Scientists have identified a new detrimental effect of genes that cause inherited diseases.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3axl5MU

Her bald head. A bloody nose. Losing her hair. Shannen Doherty shows the journey from her first diagnosis to her second.

from Health | body+soul https://ift.tt/3awwMDO

The pandemic-related drop in greenhouse gas emissions in 2020 was likely the largest on record in a single year, but how our recovery might affect future emissions is less clear. New modeling examines alternative scenarios and how they could impact climate mitigation targets.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/2Xb8DQ4

With mass-sensitive particle tracking scientists can determine location and size changes of unlabeled proteins on membranes

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3oXwr5k

Researchers have developed an algorithm that enhances the ability to compare tumors between different patients, overcoming high inter-patient variability.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3AA26Mv