SAVE THE TREES - USE PLASTIC?
Remember when we were told to "save the trees” and use plastic?
Now they flipped the scare tactic - dont use anything plastic because of: MICROPLASTICS
It's been discovered that these micro plastic studies were severely flawed.
And I mean severely and I mean flawed.
In 500 studies Dr. Chris DeArmitt, polymer chemist and materials scientist, says he has NEVER seen one that shows microplastics are harmful.
Dr. DeArmitt said it’s a tiny non-toxic fraction of dust…you can feed 5% micro plastic to rats for months and nothing happens - literally zero. The only thing that might happen is you might eventually lose weight because you’re replacing food with plastic.
Dr. DeArmitt says there is a profit motive behind the plastic scare but I would also say there is a spiritual motive.
Anything that can make you fear goes against what the Bible tells us throughout: Do not fear, for I am with you.
Rather than fear when you read an article that says dangerous levels of microplastic is in everyone’s brain. Think to yourself "who is winning when I live in fear."
Then remember that these studies have recently been described as "severely flawed."
Dr. DeArmitt says “If you offered me a PVC bottle or a can or a glass bottle I would take the bottle or the can. I like the feeling in the hand. I like how cold it feels. I like the tactility of it. I’m not telling people to buy plastic. What I’m telling people is you should do exactly what you want. But what I don’t like is that well-meaning people are paying extra to increase harm because they’ve been lied to…Choose what you want but don’t do it based on a lie.”
I don’t live my life in fear of the enemy's plans.
"No weapon formed against me shall prosper."
Use code ISAIAH5417
for 10% off anything you choose.
You decide to live without fear and live under The Shadow of His Wing.
All Glory to God.
Sources:
The book by Dr. Chris DeArmitt:
https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/shattering-the-plastics-illusion-christopher-dearmitt/1147679069
The video interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2L4do7oCeE8
Recent scientific analysis (as of early 2026) has raised significant questions regarding the accuracy of several high-profile studies on microplastics in the human body, suggesting that some findings may be based on false positives, contaminated samples, or flawed methodology rather than actual, widespread infiltration of human tissue.
While not necessarily suggesting misconduct, experts argue that the rapid rush to publish in a new field has led to studies lacking rigorous quality controls.
Key Concerns and Critiques:
Contamination and False Positives: Researchers found that, in some cases, natural human tissue or laboratory equipment can produce chemical signals that mimic common plastics, specifically polyethylene.
Methodological Weaknesses: A review of prominent studies—including those claiming to find microplastics in human brains, blood, and arteries—revealed a lack of necessary "blank" samples to test for background contamination.
Questionable Detection Methods: A January 2025 study concluded that the commonly used technique of pyrolysis-gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (Py-GC-MS) is unreliable for detecting some plastics in human samples due to interferences, with some reported concentrations appearing "biologically implausible".
Specific Challenged Studies:
Brain Tissue: A study reporting increasing microplastics in human brain tissue was heavily criticized for weak controls and for potentially confusing fat with polyethylene.
Bottled Water: A study claiming 10,000 nanoplastic particles per liter in bottled water was deemed "fundamentally unreliable" by critics.
Toxic Plastics: A study on toxic chemicals in black plastic was corrected after a major mathematical error was found, revealing the risk was overestimated by a factor of ten.
Context on the Research Field
Despite these challenges to specific, high-profile papers, the broader scientific consensus remains that plastic pollution is an urgent, global environmental issue. The criticism is not that plastic isn't present in the environment or the body, but that the extent and specific locations reported in some studies may not be accurate.
Experts emphasize that more rigorous, standardized methods are needed to accurately measure micro- and nanoplastics, particularly because current instruments are operating near their detection.
