Modifying My Interpretations, Moving On and Laughing Myself Out of Town
A revised perception of possible environmental microplastics, nylon/polyester filaments or other synthetics plausibly seen in my dark field and bright field blood microscopy
Microplastics Pollution 'Triffids' or Synthetic Self-Assembling Hydrogel 'Triffids'?
An invasion of microplastics pollution or sneaky stealth hydrogel filaments?
Or BOTH?
Contrary to many assertions made in my two part post last week, I'm now revising my position substantially, perhaps radically. A major shift of perspective and interpretation has ensued following my last two posts. This has been the result of further careful consideration and scrutiny of various fibres in my home environment plus calm reflection. It seems that I may have got carried away with my audacious enthusiasm or 'alarmed concern' last week. (The uncertainty continues, however. The lingering confusion goes on).
On reflection I now believe that I'm possibly seeing two things happening within my microscopy - (1) microplastics pollution (such as nylon/polyester fragment filaments) in my blood and inhaled from my environment and (2) stealth self-assembling hydrogel filaments in my blood. Both remain of great concern but I suspect that some interpretations derived from microscopic observations have possibly to some extent exaggerated, inflamed or inevitably distorted the true picture. A balanced perspective and careful conscientious discernment of what we're seeing is critically important. That's what we all struggle with, making sense of what we're seeing, particularly as amateur microscopists or lay observers.
Both microplastics pollution and stealth self-assembling nanotech are a convergent crisis but it now seems to me that the 'blue hydrogel filament' of my last two posts is quite likely a 'blue polyester filament' breathed in from my environment rather than from stealth self-assembly hydrogel sources. I'm now thinking that these may be a variation or derivative of the purple polyester/nylon microplastic fibres (that fluoresce blue with UV torch at 365nm) found in my household dust - and not stealth hydrogel filaments. It seems more reasonable and likely to assume this. Environmental-to-human contamination seems more prominent as a dominant explanation for a significant portion of my findings through microscopy. Maybe there's a 50-50 split between the two (microplastics pollutants and stealth nanotech)?
I did insert several cautionary warnings about my assertions in my last (two part) posting, which seems to have been prudent and fortunate, since I'm now revising and reversing my stance on 'synthetic household hydrogels' and repositioning this as 'synthetic polyester/nylon filaments' (microplastics from environmental airborne inhaled exposure).
To follow on from my last two posts, I'm hereby 'laughing myself out of town' and 'modifying my interpretations and moving on' - within a week since my previous posts ... which were not set in stone, so don't shoot me! Such is the evolutionary rocky and sporadic learning curve of my amateur microscopy path. My blood microscopy perspective has shifted dramatically within the last week and this post is an attempt to reframe how I now see things. Of course, I may still be wrong about everything - things could be far worse or not as bad as they seem. This is just my evolving blog, a free expression journey of my concerns and observations of human blood contamination as seen through my own amateur microscopy and the observations made by others.
So, I'm humbly revising my recent 'audacious assertion' that I'm dealing with 'synthetic household hydrogel filaments' (that was perhaps a step too far). I now believe that it's possibly household and environmental synthetic fabric fragments (microplastics, especially nylon/polyester) that get routinely breathed in and end up in the blood - and not solely hydrogel filaments. In particular, POLYESTER FILAMENTS is my fundamental shift, fragments from cotton-polyester clothing and bed linen. Of course, there's also the ingestion of microplastics from food and water plus from wider environmental pollution.
Whilst there clearly is alarming synthetic hydrogel filament growth (or Cross Domain Bacteria as defined by Clifford Carnicom) within blood, I now believe that common detritus (organic and synthetic fabric fragments) is also confusing what we're seeing in blood samples. This 'dirt' gets breathed in (or ingested) and circulates in blood before being eventually filtered and flushed out, excreted from the body through various routes. Or it gradually clogs us up, gets stored as permanent pollutant bodily deposits in our flesh, if it cannot be flushed out. It's a confusing picture of many things going on at the same time.
My recent wifi polymer growth findings sent me off on a tangent with over focus on 'synthetic household hydrogel filaments' but this has proved to be a false excursion and wrong track. Or not? Perhaps it's been useful as a general 'rethink and reflect' trigger point? The wifi experiment with its twin tentacled polymer growth out of a household dust fibre fragment remains a huge mystery and points to strange hydrogel polymer growth, in my opinion. Other hydrogel filaments and structures in blood remain very alarming but my revised view is that (in general) a significant number of these other fibres seen in my blood are not stealth hydrogel filaments but are environmental microplastics filaments - pollutants - which is still not good but nevertheless a less actively overt malevolence?
These are dire times of dystopia and such a political climate infuses increased alarm on multiple fronts - including within the rocky realms of amateur microscopy. Continued careful reflection has caused me to rethink my perspective on the true nature of filaments found in blood, particularly many of the larger filaments or ribbons. As I’ve already said, I'm now wondering whether a considerable amount of what I'm seeing in my blood samples may be the passing detritus from environmental microplastics pollution which are breathed in at home or in any environmental setting, eventually ending up on the microscope slide via skin prick blood sample.
This is quite a radical shift in my thinking on many filaments. It would explain why these larger synthetic fibres appear strangely ready-made or manufactured in my blood samples and fluoresce using a UV torch at 365nm. The difficulty, however, is that many of the other self-assembling synthetic hydrogel filaments (which are themselves derived from plastics) also fluoresce. It seems that two fundamental dynamics are at play, both contributing to toxic pollution of unwanted synthetic material within the body.
This duality of filament origin also makes sense at another level. If many of these (quite large) fibre fragments merely represent what has typically been breathed into the lungs (from the environment) - and which then largely get filtered and flushed out through the blood - then maybe we're actually looking at a regular routine ‘healthy’ body detox process happening via live blood microscopy? If so, perhaps this is relatively good news and certainly a wholly revised viewpoint for me. The worry, though, is that these fragments are not being expelled, they’re slowly clogging up inside the blood vessels of the body.
What I'm grappling with (and apologies for repeating myself and hacking away at this) is that two confusing dynamics seem to be at play. There's the microplastics pollution filaments and there's the stealth synthetic self-assembly hydrogel filament growth in blood. BOTH are what seems to be happening at the same time, not one dynamic or the other. The danger is to attribute stealth nanotech/microtech self-assembly to everything, or as the dominant force, which has been my own tendency so far this year, for want of any other tangible compelling explanation.
Self-assembling synthetic hydrogel filament threads and structures found in my own blood samples remain of the highest concern to me. This is where the heart of unwanted stealth malevolence lies. This is happening against the back-drop of microplastics pollution, which hides or acts as added camouflage for stealth nanotech.
Having looked at a lot of household fibres recently (and earlier in the year) I now consider the synthetic fibres (invariably fluorescent blue using a 365nm UV torch) to be polyester fabric fragments mainly from bed linen and clothing, as well as from household carpets and upholstery, which become airborne and are then inhaled. After also scrutinising tissue paper and toilet paper I have again confirmed that these fibres are of a different texture and don't brightly fluoresce, except for specs of contaminants within them. Tissue paper, toilet paper, and the disposable face masks that I looked at (see images below), all have some contaminant synthetic fibres but these are all likely environmental debris, either from factory origin or from airborne contamination when unwrapped from their packaging.
The further difficulty is that stealth self-assembly hydrogel filaments (from Chemtrails or C-19 injection transfection etc) remain an extremely serious contamination factor whilst ordinary household and environmental microplastics fibre exposures are a secondary risk concern. Once again, there's a confusion between the two. In reality one hides behind the other or at least compounds it.
Having recently observed what appears to be a striking synthetic twin tentacled polymer growth originating from a speck of household dust fibre after 50 hours of wifi radiation exposure (see that post here) I had great renewed cause to review my perception of the ubiquitous microscopic fibres found throughout the year from my household dust. These typical fibres were found on all surfaces from the first days of my amateur microscopy endeavours in January of this year, as previously mentioned in my post on wifi exposure experimentation. However, as already explained, I now consider most of these household polyester/nylon/synthetic fibre fragments to be relatively inert innoculous detritus - not synthetic self-assembling 'household hydrogels' - so this is a sharp shift or realignment in my interpretation of things within the last week.
Every cloud has a silver lining. My shift of perception or switch of interpretation to nylon/polyester/synthetic filaments (environmental microplastic debris) over solely stealth synthetic hydrogel filaments has been a major rethink but I believe it has given me a more balanced view of what's likely going on. It's also several pegs down in overall alarmism, although the self-assembling hydrogels in blood still reign supreme in terms of unresolved alarming concern.
Are we equally being contaminated by microplastic pollution rather than through stealth hydrogel vectors alone? I'm beginning to think that general microplastic pollution in blood is more central to the confused picture of what we're seeing under the microscope than the stealth nanotech invasion from synthetic hydrogels, or perhaps it's a deceptive combination of BOTH? It's likely that both microplastic pollution and stealth nanotech hydrogels are a dual action attack on our health. Yet the nano remains the more troubling unseen rogue stealth stalker.
I’m still trying to make sense of it all, just like anyone else. One last thought, when there’s such a proliferation of luminescent microplastics within us all, do “They” really need nanotech to ‘light us up’ and ID tag us? Are we not already lit up and tagged by myriad microplastic pollutants? Maybe microplastics is ‘generic tag one’ and nanotech is ‘wifi tag two’ (for internet of bodies)?
The image shown below is of my household dust when seen in darkness with a UV torch at 365nm wavelength shone at the sample. It fluoresces bright blue:
The following images below are of various microplastics contaminants found in tissue paper, toilet paper and disposable face masks. (The first two images of each paper sample in dark field and bright field show no plastic contaminants; the next three images of each do, shown in fluorescent blue using a 365nm UV torch. The first five images are of 2-ply tissue paper, the second five images are of toilet paper. Followed by two video clips of face masks with fibre contaminants seen moving on breath blowing):
The next few images show various dust fibres, which I now believe are mostly polyester or nylon microplastic fibres. Some are turquoise, some are red, but most in household dust appear purple and silver in bright field microscopy and fluoresce bright blue with a 365nm UV torch (as shown in the dust sample seen in the very first image above):
Finally, shown below are video clips and an image of what I have previously believed solely to be 'synthetic self-assembling hydrogel filaments' but now equally think may well be 'synthetic microplastic fibres' trapped within the blood. These are from a blood sample taken in March 2024. What are they really? Microplastic pollution filaments or stealth synthetic self-assembling hydrogel filaments? You decide! (Maybe also leave a comment):
The ones that fluoresce blue in environmental samples are a different fibre. In the blood using a proper UV setup with long pass wavelength filters very little if any of this biowarfare is showing to be UV fluorescent. I think most of the material is from the mostly visible to the far infra red Range. Maybe some wavelengths of UV but it doesn't seem to be around 365nm. Tried this many times on samples 3 years ago plus multiple times. It was only more recently using long pass optical filters like those used I. Spectrometry I released that the UV you do see is reflectance more than absorbance and fluorescence. But it is easy to mistake if you you are learning about UV and how to properly check for fluorescence. Nice pics.
Hey there Nigel, . . and what also counts in this 4 year discombobulation is what you’ve demonstrated so honestly here – integrity, authenticity, ingenuousness, and humility. As novice microscopers it’s been like looking in the rock-pools of Titan and trying to make conclusions based on our limited knowledge of Earthly biology. It’s a terrestrial paradigm shift with no manual. The most we can do is apply our best human traits to the endeavour of genuine exploration, and disseminate our observations to our collective consciousness – without adding too much ‘fluff’. And without loosing patience with the process. ‘Fluff’ being both analogous to the ‘red herring’ misdirection that seems to have been included intentionally at all levels of this abusive incursion on our reality – and of course literally, regarding the similarity of local micro-plastic fibre forms to the Morgellons phenomena.
General AI consensus suggests that absorption of local micro-plastic fibres would be limited to:
• For lung tissue, particles <10 µm are significant for absorption.
• For gut tissue, particles <5 µm, especially nanoparticles, show a greater potential for absorption.
. . so this would suggest credibility to the assertion of self-assembly when filaments much larger are observed in blood. Us amateurs can only speculate. And yeah, sometimes that turns out to be ‘fluff’.
Karl’s work, amongst a few others, is penetrating this frontier much more incisively, so I defer to and support his research while applauding all other genuine offerings. It’s your attitude and intention that inspires. It carries and emanates a collaborative frequency upon the collective consciousness that will ultimately support positive outcomes – collaborative creation manifesting out of the ether. I’m laughing with you mate. Think of it as a globally resonating chuckle.