Just been reading into this as someone shared it with me, from other discussions:
Scientists do "journal clubs" where we present and critique journal articles. It's been a long time. I'll bite, just for fun.
There is subjective language in the abstract that is politically inflammatory. That's a big no-no. I'm referring to this: "From such research,reasonable inferences can be drawn about observed injuries worldwide that have occurred since the injectables were pressed upon billions of individuals."
Nobody has a picture of their microscope be a figure.
Nobody makes a figure out of drawings done by hand.
Figure 5-7: No control.
Table 4 and Figure 4: Flu vaccine an inappropriate control. Your control needs to match everything except for the thing that you hypothesize has an effect.
Figure 5: Does nothing to address the hypothesis. This one to me is particularly egregious.
Figure 8: Still images of a field of sperm cells not an effective way to show changes in cell motility.
No positive controls anywhere
I gave up there. The paper is very long.
A research paper must be completely objective. There must be both positive and negative controls, the purpose of which are to prove that the specific thing you say is causing your hypothesis to be true, is the thing causing it. All figures must address your hypothesis. All figures must prove the thing that you're saying. This article fails at all of these.
1⃣ ORCID ID record for Lee is blank, she is not a molecular biologist (& address does not validate)
2⃣ No ethics approval despite clinical samples (blood and semen - seriously?)
3⃣ Vials were incubated for a year without bacterial or fungal growth - these people have never done cell culture.
4⃣Quoting #Sashagate as a source in scientific paper is a massive red flag
The lead author is listed as a Professor of Rhetoric and Applied Linguistics in the Graduate School of Intercultural Communication at Okinawa Christian University. He supposedly specializes in the research of propaganda.
Nothing about this paper is legitimate scientific research in the area of mRNA vaccines.
I actually suspect it's a vehicle for research with regards to dissemination of propaganda or articles that support cognitive biases on social media platforms etc.
> it was the FBI attempting to suppress a news story which later turned out to be true about the son of a candidate for president. That sort of thing should not happen.
No, it wasn't. It was Bidens presidential campaign asking to remove revenge porn.
Scientists do "journal clubs" where we present and critique journal articles. It's been a long time. I'll bite, just for fun.
I gave up there. The paper is very long.
A research paper must be completely objective. There must be both positive and negative controls, the purpose of which are to prove that the specific thing you say is causing your hypothesis to be true, is the thing causing it. All figures must address your hypothesis. All figures must prove the thing that you're saying. This article fails at all of these.
Here's what a good paper looks like. Look how direct and to the point every word and figure is. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10624257/
Sorry but this is not a believable study.
1⃣ ORCID ID record for Lee is blank, she is not a molecular biologist (& address does not validate) 2⃣ No ethics approval despite clinical samples (blood and semen - seriously?) 3⃣ Vials were incubated for a year without bacterial or fungal growth - these people have never done cell culture. 4⃣Quoting #Sashagate as a source in scientific paper is a massive red flag
The lead author is listed as a Professor of Rhetoric and Applied Linguistics in the Graduate School of Intercultural Communication at Okinawa Christian University. He supposedly specializes in the research of propaganda.
Nothing about this paper is legitimate scientific research in the area of mRNA vaccines.
I actually suspect it's a vehicle for research with regards to dissemination of propaganda or articles that support cognitive biases on social media platforms etc.
If so that’s actually pretty funny