Microplastics are defined as pieces of plastic up to 5mm in length. Perfectly visible to the human eye.
This is the full paper: Real-Time Self-Assembly of Stereomicroscopically Visible Artificial Constructions in Incubated Specimens of mRNA Products Mainly from Pfizer and Moderna: A Comprehensive Longitudinal Study (researchgate.net) Quite frankly, it's a bit weird to put it mildly.
Weird as in their starting premise, what they did, what they found and how they basically failed to do any analytical tests on what they found. We need further and more independent research done.
I never watched it, I just saw your comment and realised I'd never known what constituted a microplastic. Gave it a quick google and learnt that it can be up to 5mm! I always thought microplastics meant near-invisible powdery bits of old water bottles. I was equally disappointed when I discovered that most of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch isn't an entire floating island of M&S Best Ever Lasagne trays
In Science there is a principle called "Occam's Razor" where you start with the simplest explanation for any observation before moving on to more complex theories. They start with a preconceive idea and then try to find evidence for it. I'm astonished it got published, although I have never heard of that Journal and it's not my field so that's not particularly strange
I said the tweet you posted was from a racist clown, I haven’t said anything about John Campbell, unless he goes by the name King Bingo on Twitter. I watched it.
There's some interesting stuff on microplastics. They've found that some of the modern medical equipment actually puts microplastics deep into the system, which couldn't happen with the old stainless steel kits. What's not been demonstrated is a causal link between these plastics and harm.
You seem to know more about the poster than me, as I have zero idea. I never even noticed the name, as it is irrelevant, so trying to dismiss the content based on that is totally pointless. The issue was the actual clip that they posted, and Campbell has posted many interesting clips and is generally seen as credible.
Real-Time Self-Assembly of Stereomicroscopically Visible Artificial Constructions in Incubated Specimens of mRNA Products Mainly from Pfizer and Moderna: A Comprehensive Longitudinal Study Young Mi Lee, MD 1, Daniel Broudy, PhD 2 1 Practicing physician with a specialty in Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Hanna Women’s Clinic, Doryeong-ro 7, KumSung Building, 2nd Floor, Jeju, Jejudo, 63098, Republic of Korea, Tel: +82-64-711-7717, email: [email protected] (ORCID: 0000-0002-1210-4726) 2 Professor of Applied Linguistics, Okinawa Christian University, Nishihara-cho, Okinawa 903-0207, Japan, email: [email protected] (ORCID: 0000-0003-2725-6914) The authors don't fill me with confidence either
I agree, that's not particularly scientific, but it does leave some information out there for others to explore in a more scientific way.
Need help further debunking: IJVTPR (International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research) paper titled "Worse than the disease?" | Metabunk Immunologists and virologists complained on social media around 6 months ago about a recently-created sham scientific journal called "International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research" (IJVTPR) which was supposedly created by anti-vaxxers and intended to release anti-vax research papers. Since then I have noticed one specific IJVTPR paper, "Worse Than the Disease? Reviewing Some Possible Unintended Consequences of the mRNA Vaccines Against COVID-19" frequently cited in anti-vax forums all over the internet. More recently, a member of my family provided the following link to this same paper as proof that reputable peer-reviewed medical research shows the Covid-19 mRNA vaccines to be dangerous: https://dpbh.nv.gov/uploadedFiles/dpbhnvgov/content/Boards/BOH/Meetings/2021/SENEFF~1.PDF The URL is misleading: The impressive .gov URL (from Nevada Division of Public and Behavioral Health), which lends credibility to the link and paper, is only possible because the creators of this paper submitted the paper, as all members of the general public were allowed to do without scientific or government review, to an 8/10/2021 zoom meeting about Covid-19 vaccination by the Nevada Board of Health, and the .gov website lists all formally submitted comments from the public as PDFs in their online meeting minutes/notes: https://dpbh.nv.gov/Boards/BOH/Meetings/2021/NVBOH2021/ No reputable experts authored the paper: No professional immunologist, virologist, or vaccine specialist took part in the authoring of this paper. It turns out the paper's primary authors are: Stephanie Seneff, a senior Computer Science and AI (no professional expertise in medicine, vaccines, immunology, or virology) researcher at MIT who, according to her Wikipedia entry, "...began publishing controversial papers in low-impact, open access journals on biology and medical topics; the articles have received 'heated objections from experts in almost every field she's delved into'..." Greg Nigh, a naturopathic physician (not an MD, DO or PhD, degree from "National College of Natural Medicine"), licensed acupuncturist and founder of Immersion Health in Portland, Oregon. No reputable expert peer review found: Like most of the other papers created and posted by IJVTPR, I can find zero approving peer review by reputable experts in the subject matter of this paper. IJVTPR claims to be an open journal which allows the scientific community to potentially peer review each paper, but materials published by IJVTPR are not necessarily peer reviewed, and in practice, as far as I can tell, their papers are basically never approvingly peer reviewed by real medical and scientific experts. No new research or data: The paper does not contain any medical research or data of its own, and instead bills itself as a "review" of research and data created by other experts. Rehash of existing anti-vax misinformation gambits: The paper is a Gish gallop, a litany of many of the same anti-vax misinformation points refuted by professionals and experts in the subject. For example, it brings up the tired debunked argument that ADE is a unique problem with vaccines instead of the studied medical issue already well-known to professional immunologists and virologists. As another example, it refers to several embarrassingly disreputable sham papers, like the J Bart Classen paper which claimed without evidence that the vaccines can cause prions disease. This may explain it, about other papers in the same Journal Thought it was strange
Thanks for that. i think that puts it in context. I'm surprised Campbell didn't do the same digging that you and others have done before posting it.
You have already admitted you have nothing to base your opinion of the report he's mentioning, which gives context to your claim for where your bar may or may not be. Fortunately someone has done a bit of digging and presented some meat to the bone.
