Humans now live a lot longer than we did recently. Our organs now have to endure longer than evolution intended.

If the “inert” carbon in the lymph notes was indeed truly inert that might be a different story. But when that really fine particulate (< 1.0u) is looked at and chemically analyzed – it is often carrying with it heavy metals. Metals from inside of engines – sometimes cadmium from bearing surfaces.

Equally as bad is that the really fine stuff can cross over from the lungs into the blood stream, across the placenta and into the developing fetus.

How inert does inert have to be? Fine particulate almost always coagulates with other fine particulates bringing into the lungs stuff that we would choose not to eat – because we know the impacts to our biological systems are very bad.

Please refer to the age old maxim, the proponent ALWAYS bears the burden of proof.

OR as Sagan liked to say, “”extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”.

Start with the basics. Where are the dependent and independent variables? If we keep labeling this stuff (although interesting) as science, we won’t learn a thing.

Danny: Based on some of the stuff I’ve seen you post on LinkedIn, it seems you have a bias against the medical profession, but what’s your beef here? Are you saying that particulate matter doesn’t cause health problems? That air pollution isn’t bad for you? There’s a ton of research in that field showing otherwise. Here are just a few sources on that:

American Lung Association: https://www.lung.org/clean-air/outdoors/what-makes-air-unhealthy/particle-pollution

US EPA: https://www.epa.gov/pm-pollution/health-and-environmental-effects-particulate-matter-pm

NIH paper: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9223652/

NIH paper: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4740125/

Berkeley Lab: https://newscenter.lbl.gov/2013/04/10/hidden-dangers-in-the-air-we-breathe/

Danny: Since you’ve once again cited no evidence to support your claim, I’m going to assume it’s because you have none.

Allison, You are 100% correct. It’s real easy. All that’s required is to read the definition and see if the paper fits. The controlling element is found in #3. #1 and #2 are irrelevant without it. Of course if we don’t like that definition, we can change it. It happens all the time.

pseudoscience /soo͞″dō-sī′əns/
noun
1. A theory, methodology, or practice that is considered to be without scientific foundation.
2. False or pretended science; a pretended science.
3. Any body of knowledge purported to be scientific or supported by science but which fails to comply with the scientific method.

Good news Allison. Lymphatic tissue is replaced or regenerated. Depending on the literature and the “terrain”, it can occur in a few weeks to several months. We are fearfully and wonderfully made.

Ian, be careful with “purifiers” vs filters. Allison has addressed issues with purifiers more than once on this blog, I believe.

Danny: It’s easy to throw the pseudoscience label around when you don’t cite any proof. I’ve read the summary and a lot of the full paper and see no evidence to support your claim.

Roy, I think the point from John F was – the paper doesn’t include any “science”. It expresses nothing more than conjecture and opinions based on limited epidemiological observation.

I am not saying breathing clean air isn’t supportive of better health. But any assertions made in the name of science should include some reliance on the “scientific method” we were taught in grade school.

I believe truth and honesty are important. That’s why we should be careful about changing the meaning of words and terms to promote specific agendas, even those which might be seen as beneficial.

Just my opinion. Others may disagree.