15 April 2022 - 2:30 am
On the 6th April 2022 the Guardian published an article titled:
“Microplastics found deep in lungs of living people for first time”
In this article it is reported that:
Microplastic pollution has been discovered lodged deep in the lungs of living people for the first time. The particles were found in almost all the samples analysed.
Samples were taken from tissue removed from 13 patients undergoing surgery and microplastics were found in 11 cases. The most common particles were polypropylene, used in plastic packaging and pipes, and PET, used in bottles.
The rest of the article talks about environmental concerns, cites a previous Guardian article from March 2022 about microplastics being found in human bloodstreams, and referenced a study also from March 2022 titled “To Waste or Not to Waste: Questioning Potential Health Risks of Micro- and Nanoplastics with a Focus on Their Ingestion and Potential Carcinogenicity”.
It seems clear that finding these plastic particles of polypropylene and PET (Polyethylene Terephthalate) deep inside human lungs “for the first time” is a serious concern. There is however one major omission from that Guardian article while the author speculated as to how such particles could get inside living people’s lungs. Can you guess what it is?
There is one major change recently made that seems to be an obvious pathway for such materials to be ingested and inhaled. The website “The Conversation” known for it’s strapline of “Academic rigour, journalistic flair” but not necessarily for it’s practicing of those qualities published an article back on the 19th November 2020 titled “Polypropylene, the material now recommended for COVID-19 mask filters: What it is, where to get it” authored by two members of the “Cloth Mask Knowledge Exchange”. As you can tell from the article title, it advocates for polypropylene to be used in facemasks, you know, those things many people have had over their faces for the last two years based on mandates forced on the public, “for the first time”.
To make their case for masks despite no studies in the last 30 years evidencing any positive health impact for them, they cite a research article on the Health Affairs website titled “Community Use Of Face Masks And COVID-19: Evidence From A Natural Experiment Of State Mandates In The US”. This ridiculous piece of “research” is used as evidence for the efficacy of masks to protect against transmissible infectious agents like COVID-19 despite stating the following:
The estimates from the meta-analyses based on randomized controlled trials suggest declines in transmission risk for influenza or influenza-like illnesses to mask wearers, although estimates are mostly statistically insignificant possibly because of small sample sizes or design limitations, especially those related to assessing compliance.
We were unable to measure face cover use in the community (that is, compliance with the mandate). As such, the estimates represent the intent-to-treat effects of these mandates—that is, their effects as passed and not the individual-level effect of wearing a face mask in public on one’s own COVID-19 risk. Related, we did not measure enforcement of the mandates, which might affect compliance. We also did not have data on county-level mandates for wearing face masks in public.
This study is referenced to prove the efficacy of face masks, and this study that is based on “community use of face masks” using data based on “state mandates in the US” and yet had no data on actual “face cover use in the community”, or if the mandates were enforced, or even whether counties within states actually even mandated them. On top of that they admit that previous meta-analyses had revealed only “estimates” that “are mostly statistically insignificant”. This though, is somehow “science” that proves masks work.
Really though, the important takeaway from The Conversation article is that polypropylene became a heavily pushed component in almost all face masks worn by the public in the last two years, “for the first time” and that micro- and nanoplastics (MNPs) are a serious health concern, especially if you’re ingesting or inhaling them. That last point would seem rather obvious to the thinking person and hardly requires an expensive scientific analysis to determine that breathing in plastic particles is going to be bad for you.
This is why anyone who just said “it’s only a face mask, just wear it and stop complaining” had no business making such claims and demands. On top of the obvious reduction in oxygen intake, the re-breathing of exhaled carbon-dioxide etc, the particulates inhaled from millions of cheap, plastic lined face masks for hours and days at a time that would provide as much protection from any alleged “virus” as a chain-link fence would from an incoming tidal wave was an obvious health issue waiting to happen.
And here we are, plastics found in lungs “for the first time” after people made to wear plastic lined masks “for the first time”. If it seems like I am labouring the “for the first time” point, it’s because I am. People need to realise what they have had done to them. This was deliberate. There was no “oh we didn’t know”. The “abundance of caution” excuse trotted out every time someone objected to authoritarian Public Health madness will simply not fly.
The dangers of plastics has been known and studied for years. The study referenced by the first Guardian article is chock full of references to studies going back years relating to the dangers and damage plastics are doing to the atmosphere, ecosystems and the health of animals and humans. And yet, Governments forced these plastic masks on the world.
Good old Amazon is still selling these masks…
…and some people are STILL wearing them, after dutifully having all their COVID injectable product doses (so far) and then more often than not, getting ill and believing they caught COVID anyway. Some fabric websites are still selling polypropylene specifically marketed as “face mask fabric”. At this point, with all the evidence as to the harms these plastics cause, this is akin to selling asbestos masks to people to protect them from getting burned.
The other plastic, PET (polyethylene terephthalate) has been reported on in the mainstream as a harmful component of face masks, by the BBC no less. But just like the Guardian article, it stops short of the full truth and arbitrarily ring-fences the harm, restricting it to “the environment” only. The BBC article from May 2021 titled “Covid: Disposable masks pose pollutants risk, study finds” seems oblivious to the idea that the “chemical pollutants and nano-plastics” being released by these face masks could harm the humans who wear them for hours directly breathing them in. Having also found traces of heavy metals on top of the chemicals from dyes and the plastics, it is absurd that the only concern is for the environment when these masks are thrown away (which is a legitimate concern of course) and not for the humans including children being made to wear these and spend hours a day breathing all that crap in.
It is unlikely the authors of these articles, or the quoted scientists and researchers are that stupid. It seems obvious that there is an editorial decision being made across mainstream media to completely avoid the topic of masks and their related contaminants and the sudden finding of these very materials in human lungs “for the first time”. Sure the sheer amount of this garbage in the atmosphere and infesting every aspect of the food-chain and ecosystems will mean it will find it’s way into the bodies of people, but this has been the case for years. Only now are they finding these plastics deep in people’s lungs after a never-before two-year stint of plastic mask wearing, that they admit leak these plastics everywhere else.