It's a rambling article that provides no real evidence, only speculation about future discoveries (which never came) and absurd arguments why its concentration is supposed to be smaller.

Normally, you would try to falsify the existing theory, but, that is not an option, since it never existed - the proponents came with the claim that it had always been known and insisted relentlessly. It has subtle, nondescript symptoms, the only clear sign of the poisoning is its presence in the blood. There are some other measurable chamges, but that would only get stuck on me claiming that it proves its essentiality, vs you claiming that it proves the poisoning. All the evidence like the presence in bones, 250kyo neanderthal teeth, phosphates, coal and so on has supposedly been somehow proven irrelevant. The lack of improved health and intellect, rather the increasingly undeniable presence of the inverse is being ignored. It's essentially unfalsifiable.

Look, why do we suffer from all those intractable "lifestyle diseases", need glasses and in general are the most unhealthy population in recorded history, and why is everything falling apart? People are literally insane, its toxicity is the lie.

The world isn't being ruined by a meme. On the contrary, our problem is the complexity bias, which seems to have developed over the previous century.

As the result, nobody understands anything anymore. I fact it seems that more complex solutions have been worked out, that allow to run on sone kind of protocol, with little to no thinking involved.

Time is being wasted on dealing with problems in overly complex ways, and there is no room left for what can't be simplified.

First, NTs don't ever consider anybody except themselves, they only care about their own good. Even when they seem like they're helping you, they only think they get some benefit from being seen doing so.

Second, they don't think like you do: What you consider a failure is a success to them. They memorize the phrase, and learn how they're supposed to react to it. You think they understand the phrase and come up with their own reply like you do, but they don't, because they can't.

There is nothing that can be understood about the NT world, it's all just rote learned. It's a cargo cult remnant of what people created when they were still normal, mixed with some random nonsense creativity of the schizophrenics who work on "improving" it. The only reason why you think you're failing at it is that the difference in intelligence between you and them is so vast.

It is the nature of most real life signals that they are sparse when represented in certain domains, and what the neocortex does is that it finds these sparse domains, which has at least three consequences:.

1. Simplicity. As mammal thinking doesn't deal with the world directly, but only through this latent space of sparse data, it only needs to deal with the meaningful values. This results in great simplicity, and allows previously overwhelming problems becoming manageable, then simple, and later trivial, as the neocirtex succesfully finds their sparse representation.

2. The representation in which the signal is sparse is its theory. By engaging only with the meaningful values, a mammal's thinking and creativity gets restricted to what can be relresented with those meaningful values, and so gets restricred to what is real, or realistic. Unlike the schizophrenic, which comes up with completely random nonsense that he needs to test with the scientific method, healthy people can't even conceive the theory that he's testing, as it cannot be represented within the values that they use.

Healthy people thus have very little need for science, as their brains do all the science they need in their daily lives.

The third one is reconstruction. This is what in its most extreme for allowed for various seers, oracles, visions and premonitions, and other such things, and what is already used in practice in MRA machines, once its nature is known, its sparse representation can be used to reconstruct a shockingly clear and accurate picture from seemingly hopelessly inadequate data.

While science allowed the schizophrenics to fix their material related thinking (but they eventually corrupted that anyway) and become somewhat funcional in that regard, they have always stayed socially isolated. As such, all recent history that we are taught is narrated from their perspective. People suffered horribly, until science allowed the people to rise up against THEM. Anything else is at best mentioned as a side note, utter madness, a fringe belief only held by the 95% of the people. They were harmed, opressed, subjugated and gassed, and whatever else, but now they are free.

Just like the "intelligent" physicist concocts a theory, and then proves himself completely wrong with an experiment, an "intelligent" man concocts a social conspiracy theory, but nothing proves him wrong: instead, he pronounces those who "don't get it" hopelesly stupid, too socially dumb to participate in a society.

The schizophrenic doesn't understand that other people are sane!

Suddenly, it makes perfect sense - a schizophrenic (or perhaps a group of them) somehow came up with science. And for them it was a world changing event, as they could disprove their hallucinations one by one. It turned them from something that was barely surviving on the outskirts of society into somewhat functional beings.

But, for the same reason why he was insane in the first place, sooner or later he corrupts his science as well.

However the schizophrenic doesn't uderstand that others are sane.

So, when he was convincing the sailors that scurvy isn't from the lack of fruit, he fought their insane belief, like when he believed a leprechaun stabbed him. When he is convincing you that there are more genders than men and women, he is fighting your insane delusion, like when he disproved that there were fire spitting dragons flying in the sky! He's merely trying to bring you out of darknes, just like he did himself.

Somebody once claimed that the problem isn't that Johnny can't read, or that Johnny can't think, but that Johnny doesn't even know what thinking is, which is certainly a correct observation, but he incorrectly blamed it on the American schooling system.

But Johnny doesn't know what thinking is the same way that somebody who was born blind doesn't know what seeing is. You don't have to be taught to think, you just do. You figure things out, then you learn that others also know them. Or, sometimes that they don't, and know something completely different about the thing for whatever weird reason.

And such a person can live their entire life without thinking, convinced that being smart is simply about learning more and faster, and if they study hard, they will understand the topic on that deeper level like the old masters did, and perhaps they will also contribute something new one day.

But the thinking never comes.

For example, it was perfectly possible to be born when there was no powered flight at all, and live to see the moon landing. And, while there are all the plans, and everything there was to write down about Saturn V, we can't do it again, as the human potential isn't there anymore. In fact, we can't even fly supersonic anymore.

In fact, civilisation rises and falls as brainpower rises and falls. There only was a long period of rise recently, but, it's been long over, and we now live off the scraps of what it produced.

Anyway, if you really want to destroy a planet, you want sonething small but fast. It penetrates into the planet, and rips surface on the other side.

Still, your logic doesn't apply, and hitting something in a higher orbit shouldn't be that much harder. You also only need to nudge it to hit something UP. (though it does get harder with a lesser impact with increasing distances)

I fact there might not be that much of an effect at all when you consider that both Earth and the Oort cloud are in the Sun orbits - you would have to hit something pretty hard in the Oort cloud to create a massive impact on Earth, there would at best be a bit of leverage, which I guess wouldn't outweight the protective effect of Earth's atmosphere, unless you try to send something monumental, at which point you probably can just come down and hit Earth. Consider also the timescales involved.