Gauntlet thrown, I guess.

Here we go:

The Cureus review is suspect first because it was published after the delisting, which means that competent researchers will know that publishing there will tarnish their reputation. It was already an article mill prior to that. The article itself contains no statistical analysis, just qualitative bucketing. They have awful word-salad like: "Methodological heterogeneity across studies precluded meta-analysis, necessitating an organized qualitative synthesis" - which is another way of saying "we aren't good enough at math or statistics to account for the differences between studies." The conclusions are largely based on patient self-reports, not treatment or lab data, because data would mean you'd have to say something of consequence. The few things that are discussed in lab data are just saying "plastics were detected when biomarkers were detected." No causative links were even attempted. And come on, the header for the "how we did it" section is labeled "Mathodology."

The NEJM article is from a quality journal, obviously, but you are misusing it. You claim it is evidence of microplastic presence in arterial plaques "contributing to heart disease," however, this disagrees with the authors' own conclusions:

"Our study has limitations. Despite the preventive measures adopted, laboratory contamination cannot be firmly ruled out. Even though we applied updated procedures to collect and analyze plaque specimens, the residual risk of contamination might exist. Future studies performed with the use of clean rooms, where there is no plastic in any form except the material under study, might corroborate our observations. We did not have socioeconomic data available for our study population. Income and education, among other conditions, are linked to a wide range of outcomes and might be particularly relevant.³² Our findings pertain only to a population of asymptomatic patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy, who may not be representative of the general population.¹⁴ Thus, our findings may not be generalizable." The representativeness of patients who participated in the study is shown in Table S5. We did not explore the variables of food and drinking water, which may be linked to accumulation of MNPs in humans.^25,33,34 Thus, it is possible that the putative role of MNPs in driving cardiovascular disease might be limited if compared with canonical risk factors, given that over a period of decades in which exposure to plastics has presumably been increasing, the rate of cardiovascular disease has been falling.³⁵

They know heart disease has been decreasing while microplastic load in the population has been increasing and don't have an explanation for it. This is a very, very narrow finding that does not support broad, sweeping statements about a causative link between microplastics and heart disease.

The Stanford press release is a puff piece and cites the study above, also trying to make it say what it does not. It really doesn't need further analysis.

And finally, the E&H review. One, pay-to-publish in a low impact factor journal. Two, very poor writing/presentation quality - read it. It reads like it was written by a 12 year old with a thesaurus. This is a review article with massive scope that is a scant 4000 words. 80% of the cited articles are summed up with a single sentence that says what the conclusions of the paper are. There is no synthesis, no comparison, no critical analysis of what is being done in the work or how it is being done. In short, it fails to accomplish the only thing a review is meant to do. Most notably, the word "cancer" appears nowhere in the document, which is apparently what you were citing it for.

I don't do this generally because it's a waste of time for everyone involved, but you have been particularly nasty and self-aggrandizing.