"New Japanese study proves Pfizer and Moderna v*ccines contain unauthorized “animated worm-like” entities".
Thanks for taking the time and having the patience to debunk this. Personally, that paragraph would have sent me screaming out if the room. The only thing that interests me is the question of motive. Stupid vs Malicious. Some combination of the two probably most likely.
"Do you think that coming from a place different from science undermines the validity of an argument?"
I'm going to make some assumptions before responding and you will have to let me know if I understand correctly or not. By "science" I assume you mean empirical science. So that would mean coming from a place different from empirical science. As you note, not all sources of knowledge are specifically reserved to that which can be measured. (You didn't exactly say that, but I'm making another assumption.) Empirical science has very specific protocols and to the degree you deviate from those protocols you damage the validity of the conclusions reached. As you implied, the "via negativa" means that conclusions are always contingent on the next perhaps more accurate measurement. (It's kind of ignorant to say the science is settled.)
Thank you for the comment, to be honest I didn't think about the distinction between theoretical and empirical science when I wrote but in retrospective it makes more sense if we limit the discussion to the latter
You should have lead with your disclaimer instead of leaving it in the conclusion, if it was truly meant to be a dispassionate discussion - the words “conspiracy theory” most definitely shouldn’t have entered the evaluation within the first paragraph, if at all, for whether you intend to or not your bias is clear.
ok fair enough - unfortunately in our attention addled society we are left with only “fore” or “shadowing” but rarely both - I suppose it all depends on wether your like starting at the beginning or beginning at the end.
I'm not sure what you mean, I was referring to the storytelling "technique", because in the end it is pretty clear what this paper was about-a conspiracy theory. Do you mind elaborating? I mean no harm, genuinely
When I came across your article I was immediately deterred from reading further because you lead with the ill defined “conspiracy theory” that usually precedes a diatribe with little intellectual honesty - so I jumped to the end to see your conclusion and was surprised to find a reasonable acknowledgement - so I went back and read the article in its entirety. Some people may not be as inquisitive but perhaps that’s not the audience you are trying to appeal to - but perhaps the one that might benefit the most…
Ok i get it! Thank you so much for the input, really appreciated. I see how it can put off a part of the audience, but at the same time I'm glad it still catches the attention of the more inquisitive like yourself :) glad you stuck around
I think this fact alone is an incredibly strong reason to dismiss the article. A scientific journal editor with any ethicality underpinning their professionalism would 1) completely recuse themselves from the editing/review process for their own work, 2) be fully transparent in disclosing their cross affiliation between editing the journal and submitting a paper they wrote for review, or 3) seek to publish in an alternative peer-reviewed journal to which they have neutral or no affiliation whatsoever.
The title of your article itself also lends to a sensationality that feels like conspiracy theory. Part of the reason I read your article was because I thought you were a Covid-19 vaccine conspiracy theorist, and I wanted to see the latest buzz words such people were using to further anti-Covid vaccine conspiracy theories.
This is a well known anti vaccine journal. There are “peer reviewed” journals out there that are basically garbage and should be ignored. They are low impact (meaning very low citation counts), but they can be cherry picked as “scientific findings” by wackos. There are also predatory journals that try to get academics to publish with them for $$$. I get unsolicited emails all the time along the lines of “professor, do you have a manuscript you could submit to our journal of [topic I have no expertise in]?” Delete.
There are lots of problem with the peer review system, but providing credibility for journals is still a valuable function.
Young Mi Lee, MD, Practicing Physician, Hanna Women’s Clinic Doryeong-ro 7, KumgSung Building, 2nd Fl., Jeju, Jejudo, 63098, Republic of Korea (South Korea)
Y
Daniel Broudy, PhD, Professor of Applied Linguistics, “Okinawa Christian University”
Lee is a Practising Physician, not a research physician. South Korea is packed full of crazy Christian cults, almost like the American Deep South, so I guess some agenda setting is going on here. Broudy, well need I say more?
I particularly like that you underline that ‘not scientific doesn’t mean not true’ while also very clearly explaining why it’s so important for these claims to be tested in a scientific way. Because if we have one that is true but tested and presented in a totally non-scientific way, in a sense that’s worse than it not being considered at all, because all reasonable people who believe in the scientific method will dismiss it out of hand as ‘woo nonsense’.
The fact is that medicine and science in general is far from infallible, and our governments are far from innocent when it comes to endangering the health of the population - whether through insufficiently tested medicine, toxic chemicals in everyday products, all the way down to sus military experiments conducted on (usually vulnerable minority segments) of your own population.
So in that sense we REALLY want to see proper evidence when these things are discussed.
On the subject of whether non-scientific views are valid yes, of course they are, with the caveat that questions of ethics in medicine will never be black-and-white. If we look at the types of experiments that made organ transplants possible, they literally make my skin crawl. But would I go back in time and stop them and thus deny us the benefits of organ transplantation? Probably not, honestly. So figuring out where we draw that ethical line will forever be important in science.
I didn't know about organs transplantations, but there are plenty of examples of things that start with questionable methodology and only later turn out to stand up to scientific scrutiny (for example the application of germ theory to medicine). Thank you for the input! Really appreciated
That too, of course. I was more thinking questionable morality of experiments (say like what is probably happening right now with genetic manipulation) but giving significant breakthroughs later.
Don’t google the history of transplants unless you’re very un-squeamish.
I'll go out on a limb here, as a non-scientist, I've been following #dranamihalcea's "work" and the #stevehirschman (and several other worldly morticians') non-blood, rubbery "CLOTS" growing inside bodies. I welcome this read, and your pont is well taken. However, I am a believer in what I have seen from their work. Specifically, as Dr. Ana Mihalcea's focus seems to be the activity in the CV- UNVACCINATED patients' blood, and also the grass fed, pasture raised beef. Unsettling to say the least.
It takes 5 seconds of googling to find it, but I'm not gonna give it further visibility. Also the primary source for this article is the paper I'm talking about throughout the whole article, so I'm not sure what you mean
I don't understand what do you need me to explain further. The main content to which I refer to throughout the whole post is referenced. The original post through which I first got to know the article is a pile of garbage that promotes this type of content without any critical reasoning. I don't need more people to see that, hence I'm not gonna link it.
"New Japanese study proves Pfizer and Moderna v*ccines contain unauthorized “animated worm-like” entities".
Thanks for taking the time and having the patience to debunk this. Personally, that paragraph would have sent me screaming out if the room. The only thing that interests me is the question of motive. Stupid vs Malicious. Some combination of the two probably most likely.
Malicious. It’s called poisoning the well.
Great post. Those conspiracies provide not the truth but the wonder and enchantment of science fiction.
People miss the wonder traditional medicine is unable to provide.
Are you suggesting that people are seeking wonder over medicine? I suppose that could explain a few things!
"Do you think that coming from a place different from science undermines the validity of an argument?"
I'm going to make some assumptions before responding and you will have to let me know if I understand correctly or not. By "science" I assume you mean empirical science. So that would mean coming from a place different from empirical science. As you note, not all sources of knowledge are specifically reserved to that which can be measured. (You didn't exactly say that, but I'm making another assumption.) Empirical science has very specific protocols and to the degree you deviate from those protocols you damage the validity of the conclusions reached. As you implied, the "via negativa" means that conclusions are always contingent on the next perhaps more accurate measurement. (It's kind of ignorant to say the science is settled.)
So, yeah.
Thank you for the comment, to be honest I didn't think about the distinction between theoretical and empirical science when I wrote but in retrospective it makes more sense if we limit the discussion to the latter
You should have lead with your disclaimer instead of leaving it in the conclusion, if it was truly meant to be a dispassionate discussion - the words “conspiracy theory” most definitely shouldn’t have entered the evaluation within the first paragraph, if at all, for whether you intend to or not your bias is clear.
It's called foreshadowing
Thesis statement is written in the beginning and the end. 🤦🏻♀️
ok fair enough - unfortunately in our attention addled society we are left with only “fore” or “shadowing” but rarely both - I suppose it all depends on wether your like starting at the beginning or beginning at the end.
I'm not sure what you mean, I was referring to the storytelling "technique", because in the end it is pretty clear what this paper was about-a conspiracy theory. Do you mind elaborating? I mean no harm, genuinely
When I came across your article I was immediately deterred from reading further because you lead with the ill defined “conspiracy theory” that usually precedes a diatribe with little intellectual honesty - so I jumped to the end to see your conclusion and was surprised to find a reasonable acknowledgement - so I went back and read the article in its entirety. Some people may not be as inquisitive but perhaps that’s not the audience you are trying to appeal to - but perhaps the one that might benefit the most…
Ok i get it! Thank you so much for the input, really appreciated. I see how it can put off a part of the audience, but at the same time I'm glad it still catches the attention of the more inquisitive like yourself :) glad you stuck around
Awesome article! I didn't know about this, and it worries me a lot that these conspiracy theories are influencing important people.
Thanks for making time to work on science communication. It is crucial for our society. Great job! :)
Really appreciated! Thank you :)
Just to note that one of the two authors of this very lengthy paper also edits the journal it was published in.
Oh shit I actually didn't notice that! Ahahaha great finding, thank you!!
Great catch. Circular reinforcement is common among conspiracy theorists.
I like to call it a circle jerk
lol well put!
I think this fact alone is an incredibly strong reason to dismiss the article. A scientific journal editor with any ethicality underpinning their professionalism would 1) completely recuse themselves from the editing/review process for their own work, 2) be fully transparent in disclosing their cross affiliation between editing the journal and submitting a paper they wrote for review, or 3) seek to publish in an alternative peer-reviewed journal to which they have neutral or no affiliation whatsoever.
The title of your article itself also lends to a sensationality that feels like conspiracy theory. Part of the reason I read your article was because I thought you were a Covid-19 vaccine conspiracy theorist, and I wanted to see the latest buzz words such people were using to further anti-Covid vaccine conspiracy theories.
Quick! Get those CVs to RFKJr
I’m sure they’ve already been noted and are on the list.
This is a well known anti vaccine journal. There are “peer reviewed” journals out there that are basically garbage and should be ignored. They are low impact (meaning very low citation counts), but they can be cherry picked as “scientific findings” by wackos. There are also predatory journals that try to get academics to publish with them for $$$. I get unsolicited emails all the time along the lines of “professor, do you have a manuscript you could submit to our journal of [topic I have no expertise in]?” Delete.
There are lots of problem with the peer review system, but providing credibility for journals is still a valuable function.
The Authors’ bios say a lot about this paper:
Young Mi Lee, MD, Practicing Physician, Hanna Women’s Clinic Doryeong-ro 7, KumgSung Building, 2nd Fl., Jeju, Jejudo, 63098, Republic of Korea (South Korea)
Y
Daniel Broudy, PhD, Professor of Applied Linguistics, “Okinawa Christian University”
Lee is a Practising Physician, not a research physician. South Korea is packed full of crazy Christian cults, almost like the American Deep South, so I guess some agenda setting is going on here. Broudy, well need I say more?
Like climate science ‘research’…
I particularly like that you underline that ‘not scientific doesn’t mean not true’ while also very clearly explaining why it’s so important for these claims to be tested in a scientific way. Because if we have one that is true but tested and presented in a totally non-scientific way, in a sense that’s worse than it not being considered at all, because all reasonable people who believe in the scientific method will dismiss it out of hand as ‘woo nonsense’.
The fact is that medicine and science in general is far from infallible, and our governments are far from innocent when it comes to endangering the health of the population - whether through insufficiently tested medicine, toxic chemicals in everyday products, all the way down to sus military experiments conducted on (usually vulnerable minority segments) of your own population.
So in that sense we REALLY want to see proper evidence when these things are discussed.
On the subject of whether non-scientific views are valid yes, of course they are, with the caveat that questions of ethics in medicine will never be black-and-white. If we look at the types of experiments that made organ transplants possible, they literally make my skin crawl. But would I go back in time and stop them and thus deny us the benefits of organ transplantation? Probably not, honestly. So figuring out where we draw that ethical line will forever be important in science.
This.
I didn't know about organs transplantations, but there are plenty of examples of things that start with questionable methodology and only later turn out to stand up to scientific scrutiny (for example the application of germ theory to medicine). Thank you for the input! Really appreciated
That too, of course. I was more thinking questionable morality of experiments (say like what is probably happening right now with genetic manipulation) but giving significant breakthroughs later.
Don’t google the history of transplants unless you’re very un-squeamish.
The researcher lady from Japan didn’t know her clothes and hair and most likely, lab was covered in these same fibers.
https://neomicroscopy.substack.com/p/chemtrail-fallout-smartdust-is-the?r=1yb1yj&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true
Sounds like a see what I can get move, countered by the peer reviewers with a do nothing (bait), thus exposing the authors.
Sure….we are now living in Hugh Howie’s ‘Wool’ trilogy.
Fun times
I'll go out on a limb here, as a non-scientist, I've been following #dranamihalcea's "work" and the #stevehirschman (and several other worldly morticians') non-blood, rubbery "CLOTS" growing inside bodies. I welcome this read, and your pont is well taken. However, I am a believer in what I have seen from their work. Specifically, as Dr. Ana Mihalcea's focus seems to be the activity in the CV- UNVACCINATED patients' blood, and also the grass fed, pasture raised beef. Unsettling to say the least.
It takes 5 seconds of googling to find it, but I'm not gonna give it further visibility. Also the primary source for this article is the paper I'm talking about throughout the whole article, so I'm not sure what you mean
I don't understand what do you need me to explain further. The main content to which I refer to throughout the whole post is referenced. The original post through which I first got to know the article is a pile of garbage that promotes this type of content without any critical reasoning. I don't need more people to see that, hence I'm not gonna link it.