Microplastics have been detected in human brain tissue, and in 2025 one study produced a number that spread around the world: roughly a spoonful of plastic in the brain. But the closer you look at how that number was produced, the stranger the story becomes. This investigation follows the evidence to find out what is actually accumulating in our brains, how much is there, and whether it is doing harm.

Time Stamps

0:00 – The spoonful of plastic claim
1:00 – What the first brain study found
3:35 – An experiment inside living brain vessels
5:29 – The dementia finding
6:54 – A second human brain study
8:49 – How scientists measure plastic in tissue
10:15 – Another way plastic could affect the brain
12:02 – Where things stand now

BPC-157 is now used as a recovery peptide for tendon injuries, muscle strains, and stubborn joint problems. Some people report remarkable results, while others feel nothing. But its story did not begin in sports medicine. It traces back through human stomach fluid, an old Yugoslav research program, pharmaceutical development, and decades of experiments that still leave major parts of the peptide’s history unresolved. This investigation follows that evidence from the beginning to find out what BPC-157 actually is, what it may be doing, and how it became the healing peptide.

Time stamps:

0:00 – What BPC-157 really is
2:02 – How it got its name
4:50 – What the animal studies show
8:33 – The science that still doesn't add up
10:28 – A stability problem nobody talks about
12:17 – The human trial history
13:43 – A missing piece in the story
15:17 – What the evidence still doesn't prove
16:29 – Where things stand now

Synthetic food dyes were accepted for decades. Now regulators, states, retailers, and manufacturers are moving to remove them from American food.

Why now?

The controversy centers on two alarming claims: cancer and ADHD. This investigation follows both back to their origins, reopens the studies behind them, and asks whether the modern crackdown reflects new scientific evidence or something else entirely.

0:00 – Introduction
1:11 – The 1973 Hunch That Started It All
4:32 – The Hyperactivity Study Everyone Was Waiting For
8:20 – The Flaw No One Noticed
10:11 – A Second Test, a Different Answer
12:13 – Why the FDA Had No Choice
13:53 – The Real Reason Change Is Happening Now
18:47 – What Actually Changed

There is an element sitting in your brain right now, and nobody has established how much you are supposed to have.  It may shape how you think, how you act, and whether your mind holds up as you age. Last year a Harvard lab placed it near the center of Alzheimer's, arguing that running short of it may be one of the first things that goes wrong in the diease. It is already sold as the next longevity compound, the thing that finally protects the aging brain, and the people selling it have a real paper behind them. This investigation takes that case apart study by study to find out how much of it holds. The question sounds simple. The answer, as always, is not.

00:00 – Intro: Lithium and the Brain
01:57 – Lithium's Origin as a Bipolar Drug
04:55 – The Brain Growth Claim
10:10 – Where the Evidence Breaks Down
12:12 – The Harvard Brain Study
15:36 – Should You Take Lithium?
18:04 – New Trial Starting This Fall

Creatine is one of the most-studied supplements in the world, taken by millions of people who have been told for years it is about as safe as anything on the shelf. Then, within weeks of each other, two peer-reviewed studies reached opposite conclusions about what it does to cancer. One found that creatine helped cancer spread faster through the body. The other found that creatine helped the body fight cancer off. Same molecule, serious labs, and results that cannot both be simple. This investigation starts with the alarming study, published only days ago, and takes it apart: what it actually measured, what it measured only in mice, and what it never measured in a human at all. Then it does what the headlines will not, setting that study against the wider body of research to answer the only question that matters for the person taking it. Is creatine feeding cancer, or is something more ordinary going on?

0:00 – Introduction

1:04 – The New Study on Creatine and Cancer

3:22 – Other Studies Findings

6:38 – The Real Explanation

8:41 – A Study on Cancer Patients

9:54 – What's Still Unknown

There are tests now that claim to measure how old you really are. Not the number on your birth certificate, but your biological age, the idea being that two people born on the same day can be aging at different speeds, and that a blood or saliva sample can tell them apart. It starts with a discovery from fifteen years ago, that chemical marks on your DNA shift as you get older. Since then, the clocks built on it have moved fast, from reading your age, to forecasting how long you have left, to scoring each organ, to scoring individual cell types from a single vial of blood. So what does one of these numbers actually measure, how good have they become, and would one handed to your doctor change anything about what happens to you?

0:00 – Can You Really Measure Your Age?
1:04 – The Cheek Swab That Started It
4:00 – Reading Death, Not Birthdays
5:45 – The Hidden Flaw
7:51 – Your Organs Age Differently
8:36 – 11 Ages, One Blood Draw
10:06 – 40 Clocks, One Vial
11:36 – The Missing Proof
14:15 – The Verdict

*Citations can be found on my website

For decades the reassuring story about tattoos was that the ink stays put: a permanent mark, sealed in the skin, chemically done with your body. It isn't. Pigment migrates out of the skin and lodges in your lymph nodes, carrying the carcinogens it came with, and it stays there for the rest of your life. That's not in dispute. What is in dispute is whether any of it actually causes cancer, and in 2024 and 2025 several teams finally ran the studies. They came back contradicting each other, one country finds tattoos raise melanoma risk, another finds the opposite, and the strongest study designs find nothing at all. So what does the evidence actually show, where's the real risk, and who's regulating what goes into the bottle?

0:28 The stained node no one could explain

2:01 What's actually in tattoo ink

3:28 The body's immune response to ink

7:23 Ink and vaccine response

8:42 Where the ink migrates to

12:30 Tattoos and cancer risk

14:44 Conflicting skin cancer data

16:03 A confounding factor in the data

17:27 The risk of laser removal

19:32 How tattoo ink is regulated

23:35 Practical takeaways

For most of a decade, vitamin D came with a warning: take it on its own, and the calcium it raises ends up in your arteries instead of your bones. The fix, supposedly, is vitamin K2. The claim is unusually specific for supplement advice, specific enough to put to randomized, placebo-controlled trials with arterial calcium scored on CT before and after. The trials came back. They don't agree with each other. So what does the evidence actually show, and did a 2026 trial change the answer?

0:00 – The trio everyone's told to take together

1:09 – The magnesium story

2:47 – Why K2 is different

3:45 – Putting it to the test

4:15 – What the trials found

5:55 – What you should actually do

6:40 – K2: cutting through the hype

7:06 – When it makes sense, when it doesn't

For most of the last century, apigenin was a footnote — a yellow pigment in chamomile and parsley, studied mostly by people cataloguing the antioxidants in plants. In the last few years it has become one of the most-recommended compounds on the internet: the third ingredient in the famous sleep stack, a fixture in longevity protocols built around NAD+, and an addition to formulas aimed at cellular aging itself. But how does the evidence hold up?

0:00 - Introduction

0:45 - Why apigenin is everywhere right now

2:30 - How apigenin works

4:30 - Human anxiety trials

6:00 - Second discovery

8:00 - What the marketing gets wrong

10:45 - Where the evidence actually stands

12:20 - Should you take it?

For decades, magnesium sat in the supplement aisle as a mineral for muscle cramps, sleep, and general nutrition. Around 2010, that changed. A branded form called magnesium L-threonate launched on the back of a 2010 MIT rodent paper, and a new category was born — magnesium for the brain. Fifteen years later, that category has expanded to include other brand-targeted forms, premium price points, and confident claims about cognition, memory, and synaptic density. In this investigation, we review the science underneath those claims.

IN THIS INVESTIGATION

• What two papers from 1984 actually said about magnesium and the brain
• Why magnesium concentrates differently in brain fluid than in blood, and what that implies for supplementation
• The 2010 MIT paper that launched the brand-targeted magnesium category, and the question it didn't answer
• What you find when you trace the authorship of the rodent studies that "independently confirmed" the original
• The magnesium acetyl taurate line and what a 2026 head-to-head comparison reveals about form-specific brain delivery
• Every human trial on magnesium L-threonate, who funded each one, and the structural feature they all share
• The 2024 paper that directly measured magnesium inside living human brains for the first time in twenty-five years
• What the ordinary forms — citrate, chloride, oxide — have actually demonstrated in independent human trials
• Why a failed 2007 traumatic brain injury trial matters for everything that followed
• The single piece of evidence the brand-targeted magnesium story has never produced
• What to do if you take magnesium for cognitive reasons

Subscribe for more investigations.