This remains uncontrolled and unblinded experiment complicating the interpretation of the results. For instance, can you be sure that any changes you might see are not caused by (e.g., hormonal, behavioural) changes induced by your knowledge that you just received 10x the average amount of microplastics?
replyif 10x the average amount of microplastics are showing changes that are approximately equivalent to hormonal or behavioral changes, it's not a significant factor to be worried about.
replyThere are many times where unblinded experiments are still valid. And unfortunately, n=1 means that you can't have controls. The question: "did this intervention, in one person, cause a greater-than-normal increase in epigenetic changes, above baseline?"
>Microplastics are bad
replyI was just listening to something the other day about how there is essentially no way to study this right now, and the most common method of microplastic detection in samples has been proven largely inaccurate.
Is there some reason we think microplastics are more dangerous than the other nanoparticles of inorganic dust we consume and inhale every day? Serious question - I’ve got enough to worry about and this seems… very low on that list?
yes
replyTurns out both can be an issue if you’re not “firing on all cylinders”.
replyMicroplastics in your balls are one thing, but do you have concerns about introducing them in your heart and blood-brain barrier?
replyeh, not that concerned
replyPlease don't. The fact of this being a sample size of 1 and not being taken seriously because of that should be enough reason not to try it, let alone the health risks. I'm sure there are safer tests you could do.
replyok, but I don't think people are injecting them directly into their bloodsteam...
reply“Look, I’m fine!”
replyGodspeed you legend.
reply