I was reading an article upcoming in this week’s New York Times Magazine when I was struck by a possible effort by the PM2.5 fraudsters to change their narrative.
Whatever one thinks of the epidemiology studies on PM2.5 — and I think they are fraud — biological plausibility is still needed to support the notion that PM2.5 kills. As presented in more detail in “Scare Pollution” there is no biological plausibility supporting the notion that PM2.5 kills because carbon particles are innocuous in the lung.
Yet the PM2.5 fraudsters have so far maintained that tiny PM2.5 molecules wreak havoc by entering the blood stream via the lungs where they supposedly cause fatal inflammation. This is all imaginary BS made-up to support the fraudulent epidemiology. There is, in fact, no scientific data to back up the fatal inflammation hypothesis.
So I came to this passage in the NYTimes article — note the use of the term “lung-corroding.”
Now the use of this term “lung-corroding” may just be accidental by the NYTimes reporter — or it could be that the Harvard fraudsters talking to the NYTimes reporter used this term to try to change the biological plausibility narrative on PM2.5.
Maybe they read “Scare Pollution” and know that the only fatal air pollution incidents the world has ever seen all involve acid gases that essentially corroded the lungs of victims.
The reason no one dies anymore from even the worst air quality in the world is because, even in the worst air, the levels of acid gases (like sulfur dioxide) are all within a safe range.
So are the fraudsters now trying to claim that PM2.5 corrodes the lung? Something to watch out for.