New Study Shows Disturbing Amounts of Plastic in Baby Poop

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

Are the COVID Shots Working?

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.

covid like illness

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:

The rate of CLI admission, diagnosis and symptoms are nearly identical between the unvaccinated and vaccinated, so there’s no indication that the COVID shot reduces CLI.

Sample exclusions distort the data, making the COVID shots appear more effective.

Of the included hospitalizations for CLI, 53% were either partially or fully vaccinated, compared to 47% unvaccinated.

As of June 15, 2021, 48.7% of Americans were fully “vaccinated,”11 so the distribution of unvaccinated and fully vaccinated individuals being admitted to hospital should have been close to 50/50 by June 22, 2021, which was the cutoff date in this study.

The rate of partially vaccinated has trended about 8% to 10% higher, which would put the vaccinated to unvaccinated ratio at around 60/40. If you assume the number of vaccinated people over the age of 50 was the same as the number of unvaccinated, or just slightly higher, the fact that 53% of CLI cases were vaccinated and 47% were unvaccinated, it suggests the rate of CLI is nearly identical regardless of vaccination status.

To tease out why vaccinated people develop CLI at the same rate as the unvaccinated, we need all-cause hospitalization and death data by vaccination status, but even though the CDC has acknowledged to Ben M. that they have this data, they denied his Freedom of Information Act request to obtain it.

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.”

Campus fascism: Colorado State University threatens unvaccinated students with ARREST if they are seen on school property

(Natural News) Unvaccinated students who attend Colorado State University (CSU) in Fort Collins are now being threatened with arrest if they so much as even set foot on campus without having had a Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) needle jammed in their arms. Michael Katz, Director at CSU’s Student Resolution Center, wrote a letter to unvaccinated students…

Supply shortages aren’t unintentional – they’re actually planned

(Natural News) Supply chains around the world have been facing shortages in recent months due to several factors. However, book author and blogger Charles Hugh Smith argues that the shortages are actually intended to increase the profits of global companies. He adds that the shortages are designed to prevent potential competitors from entering the market and undermining revenue…

Half a million pounds of canned beef recalled due to lead contamination

(Natural News) The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) has announced the recall of more than 525,000 pounds of canned beef products that were sold throughout the country. The canned beef is being recalled because it may contain unsafe amounts of lead. The affected products were produced between October 22, 2020,…

Trade group warns government against meddling in the meat industry

(Natural News) A meat trade group has warned the federal government against meddling in the meat industry. They argue that government action by means of laws and mandates will cost meat producers millions of dollars. The trade group’s warning comes amid plans by lawmakers to draft new legislation supposedly benefiting cattle producers in the United States….