Need Debunking: A recent article purporting to find evidence of nanobots in Pfizer and Moderna vaccines

[HolyCBatman]

The article is titled:

Real-Time Self-Assembly of Stereomicroscopically Visible Artificial Constructions in Incubated Specimens of mRNA Products Mainly from Pfizer and Moderna: A Comprehensive Longitudinal Study

It's roughly 60 pages with incredibly detailed reports of experiments performed on the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, all of which purport to suggest that there exist nanobots in aforementioned vaccines that can case a variety of health complications, all reportedly documented in existing (and referenced) literature.

Here is a link to the paper and where it was posted: https://www.ijvtpr.com/index.php/IJVTPR/article/view/102

And here is a PDF for convenience: https://www.ijvtpr.com/index.php/IJVTPR/article/view/102/291

Here's the abstract of the paper:

Systematic analyses of observable real-time injuries at the cellular level in recipients of the "safe and effective" COVID-19 injectables are published herein a peer-reviewed context for the first time. The global administration of these often-mandated products from late 2020 triggered a plethora of independent research studies of the modified RNA injectable gene therapies, most notably those manufactured by Pfizer and Moderna. The contents of COVID-19 injectables were examined under a stereomicroscope at up to 400X magnification. Carefully preserved specimens were cultured in a range of distinct media to observe immediate and long-term cause-and-effect relationships between the injectables and living cells under carefully controlled conditions. From such research, reasonable inferences can be drawn about observed injuries worldwide that have occurred since the injectables were pressed upon billions of individuals. In addition to cellular toxicity, our findings reveal numerous — on the order of 3~4 x106 per milliliter of the injectable — visible artificial self-assembling entities ranging from about 1 to 100μm, or greater, of many different shapes. There were animated worm-like entities, discs, chains, spirals, tubes, right-angle structures containing other artificial entities within them, and so forth. All these are exceedingly beyond any expected and acceptable levels of contamination of the COVID-19 injectables, and incubation studies revealed the progressive self-assembly of many artifactual structures. As time progressed during incubation, simple one-and two-dimensional structures over two or three weeks became more complex in shape and size developing into stereoscopically visible entities in three-dimensions. They resembled carbon nanotube filaments, ribbons, and tapes, some appearing as transparent, thin, flat membranes, and others as three-dimensional spirals, and beaded chains. Some of these seemed to appear and then disappearover time. Our observations suggest the presence of some kind of nanotechnology in the COVID-19 injectables.

I'm aware that IJVTPR isn't seen as credible by many in the field, but casting aside this paper on the grounds that it was published in an "ungood journal" doesn't feel robust enough.

Offhand, and without knowing anything about nanotechnology or biology, I feel like the suggestion that coil and rectangle shapes are evidence of some programmable technological system feels like a stretch; it kinda gives of "when you hear hoofclops, think horses, not zebras," vibes, where the authors have gone a step further and though pegasi. Additionally, something about insisting on a variety of conditions, namely including 5G in the research makes the whole paper feel a bit targeted towards a specific thought, rather than a scientific inquiry.

However, it all seems so thorough. And, unfortunately, I'm not well-versed enough in the literature to be able to really point to anything and say, "this was done improperly," or, "these results don't back up these conclusions."

Also, I apologize in advance if the way I've formatted this post was improper; I've read through the guidelines and looked to other posts for examples, but they all seem different in some way, so I hope I've settled on the right basic structure.

 

[Mendel]

I'm aware that IJVTPR isn't seen as credible by many in the field, but casting aside this paper on the grounds that it was published in an "ungood journal" doesn't feel robust enough.

For most people, it's sufficient. If there was something to it, it'd be replicated in a better journal.

Offhand, and without knowing anything about nanotechnology or biology, I feel like the suggestion that coil and rectangle shapes are evidence of some programmable technological system feels like a stretch; it kinda gives of "when you hear hoofclops, think horses, not zebras," vibes, where the authors have gone a step further and though pegasi.

To me, the abstract sounded like they had a look at a drop of pond water through a microscope for the first time.

Additionally, something about insisting on a variety of conditions, namely including 5G in the research makes the whole paper feel a bit targeted towards a specific thought, rather than a scientific inquiry.

Yes.

I'll try to have a more thorough look later, if nobody beats me to it.

 

[Mauro]

Just gave it a quick look, but at first sight it looks they saw normal crystals and contaminants (ie., nematodes), introduced by their collection and manipulation of the samples, and thoroughly mischaracterized them. By the way they use the word 'nano' everywhere, but what they saw are micron to tens of microns-sized structures (they used a microscope with a 400x enlargement...). They also use a lot of weasel words and poisonings of the well, ie.:

In the early days of the push to herd earth's population into the COVID-19 global "vaccine"experiment...

which make their agenda clear.

 

[jdog]

The article is titled:

Real-Time Self-Assembly of Stereomicroscopically Visible Artificial Constructions in Incubated Specimens of mRNA Products Mainly from Pfizer and Moderna: A Comprehensive Longitudinal Study

...

However, it all seems so thorough. And, unfortunately, I'm not well-versed enough in the literature to be able to really point to anything and say, "this was done improperly," or, "these results don't back up these conclusions."

Also, I apologize in advance if the way I've formatted this post was improper; I've read through the guidelines and looked to other posts for examples, but they all seem different in some way, so I hope I've settled on the right basic structure.

One hint is the authors -- one is a "practicing physician specializing in obstetrics and gynecology, and is also a reproductive endocrinologist" with no credentials in this field. The other has no relevant medical expertise; he's a professor of applied linguistics (and associate editor of the journal).

Some key points about the quality of the journal:

• The journal features "Fact-based research papers on all facets of funding, distribution, regulation, marketing, promotion, and environmental impacts of vaccines," but the editor in chief doesn't list any relevant expertise. He has a PhD in General Linguistics who "is an experimentalist and theoretician with expertise in information theory and in the development of language and biosignaling systems across time."
• The senior editor has a PhD in opthalmology. The editorial board features some people with experience in virology and medine, but also a professor of rhetoric and applied linguistics; two lawyers who sue people over alleged vaccine injuries; an economist; and an electrical engineer.
• Among the policies:

Authors are free to offer hunches, inferences, and hypothetical conclusions based on their own best judgment, but such statements should not be based solely on opinion.

One positive element is they did publish a rebuttal to this paper: No Nanobots in Vaccines — Just Lipids on the Loose: Commentary on Lee and Broudy (2024), with the abstract:

Lee and Broudy (2024) reported conspicuous microscopic objects in mRNA vaccines, which they interpreted as "nano-robots". This is a misconception, because the wide range of different shapes can be readily explained in terms of self-assembling lipids (including cholesterol), as are used for transfection. Lipid nanostructures and their rearrangements will be discussed.

 

[JMartJr]

For most people, it's sufficient. If there was something to it, it'd be replicated in a better journal.

I'd agree it SHOULD be, but I'd suspect "most people" have no idea what is and is not a credible journal is, or even that some are frankly discreditable. "Study shows..." in a hedline is tantamount to "it has been proved!" to a lot of folks, especially when confirmation bias kicks in.

 

[Ann K]

I suspect the problem of this sort of thing is not the paper itself (which few people will actually read) so much as it is the misquoting of sweeping generalizations after the fact, by those who are anti-vaccine for their own various reasons. Providing a legitimate-sounding paper as a source gives them an undeserved authority.

 

[Mendel]

One positive element is they did publish a rebuttal to this paper: No Nanobots in Vaccines — Just Lipids on the Loose: Commentary on Lee and Broudy (2024),

That rebuttal is a very enjoyable read. Anne S. Ulrich is a full professor of Biochemistry at the Institute of Organic Chemistry (IOC) and Institute of Biological Interfaces (IBG2) at the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), and she takes no prisoners.

Full text: https://ijvtpr.com/index.php/IJVTPR/article/view/106/321

Excerpts (emphasis mine):

It has long been known in the field of biophysics that all of the intriguing geometries described here by Lee and Broudy (2024) can emerge naturally from lipid preparations, as are used in the modRNA vaccinations in the form of lipid nanoparticles. They may show up especially when samples are stored over extended periods—or under inappropriate conditions. The astonishing μm-sized architectures can be explained by a simple physical process called lipid self-assembly. Notably, lipids make up the bulk of the vaccine ingredients, in other words, 2.5 mg/ml (one quarter of which is cholesterol), compared to a mere 0.1 mg/ml modRNA, in the presence of about 100 mg/ml sucrose and salts (as declared for ready-to-use Comirnaty/BNT162b2). Therefore, instead of seeking an explanation for the strange objects in terms of exotic additives, it is more plausible to start looking at the materials that are already known to be abundantly present in the injectable formulations.

Back to the current reports on the unusual microstructures and the alleged "nanobots" observed by Lee and Broudy (2024) in the vaccines. In fresh modRNA preparations or samples that have been stored properly, no objects should be visible under an optical microscope, because the original nanoparticles with a diameter of around 55nm are well below the resolution limit of 200 nm (Unruh et al., 2024). According to the manufacturer, the unopened injectable suspensions are stable for up to 10 weeks in a refrigerator. However, if they are stored for longer times or at higher temperatures, or are subjected to freeze-thawing, dilution, agitation, different salt concentrations or pH values, they can break down progressively. The delicate RNA chains are generally sensitive to hydrolysis by acids, bases, bacteria, and enzymes (for example, trace amounts of ribonuclease on the human skin), as well as to oxidation by atmospheric oxygen. Lipids can also decompose chemically in similar ways. Recently, it has been demonstrated that the Pfizer/BioNtech and Moderna injectables are in fact quite stable towards physical stressors for up to 8 days. However, the cholesterol and RNA contained therein are photosensitive and tend to get oxidized under irradiation corresponding to bright sunlight (Fongaro et al., 2023). As a result of any such degradation process, the lipids will rearrange in new ways once they have lost their cohesion due to fragmentation of the RNA chains or due to any change in the molecular composition of the sample.

It is commonly accepted that the physical shapes and sizes of lipid nanoparticles (especially in combination with RNA or DNA) tend to be only meta-stable. This means that the particles are kinetically trapped and have not yet reached their lowest energy state thermodynamically. As a consequence, time-dependent changes in their morphological appearance would be expected simply upon letting them stand. It is important to note that Lee andBroudy (2024) not only incubated their material for extended periods of up to 12 months; but,in fact, they diluted some samples with distilled water or blood plasma. To other samples they added oxidants like H2O2or ClO2, or they mixed them with some electrolyte solutions, or various colloidal/mineral suspensions. Any changes in the aqueous environment, as well the addition of low molecular weight compounds, proteins or colloids, can dramatically affect the stability of nanoparticles. Under the diverse experimental conditions that were used, a regrouping of the lipids into other types of structures is not at all surprising.

The tendency of initially invisible but meta-stable nanostructures to transform into larger μm-sized agglomerates by fusion and/or aggregation has been well documented for many years. Such processes can therefore fully explain the images published by Lee and Broudy (2024). The structures in Figure 1 are typical of the morphological diversity of amphiphiles—phospholipids, cationic lipids, and cholesterol alike, as encountered here in the modRNA transfection mixtures. Figure 2 presents in the bottom row a veritable zoo of different self-assembled shapes, all of which have been recognized in biophysics for decades (Jiang et al., 2018).

All of the characteristic structures mentioned above are nicely illustrated and meticulously described in the current publication by Lee and Broudy (2024). Unfortunately, their lipidic origin has not been recognized, hence the images were profoundly misinterpreted. Their poignant description as "synthetic hybrid organisms or possibly animated robotic structures" that could be intentionally "programed" to respond to electromagnetic stimuli, is certainly not appropriate. The self-assembly of amphiphilic lipids (including cholesterol), which are contained at high concentrations in the modRNA injectables, is a purely passive and classical physico-chemical phenomenon.

It appears that there occurred a naïve and premature misinterpretation of the data here, which should hopefully be resolved soon within the scientific community in accordance with good publication practice. Yet, the present example shows once again how the anxious reception of an unexpected image can shift the bias towards a worst-case scenario [..].

Conflict of Interest Statement

I declare that I have no conflict of interest with regard to any of the content of the manuscript. I am employed solely by the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), as a full professor of biochemistry. The contributed manuscript is not of an experimental nature, but purely an intellectual excerpt of my working experience with membrane biophysics over the last 35 years, so no particular external funding has been acquired to derive these results.

tl;dr the vaccine contains 25 times as much lipids (fat molecules) as mRNA. When you let the vaccine stand past its shelf-life, these lipids break down and reassemble themselves (see the textbook picture above). That's the process that the authors of the study attributed to "nanobots". (No nanobots are involved.)

 

[FatPhil]

If there was something to it, it'd be replicated in a better journal.

Every time I see "The International Journal of ..." I read "Junk Vaguely Related to ..." [*]

The International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research (IJVTPR) is an anti-vaccine journal. It is known for promoting misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines.[1][2][3][4]
...
Matti Sällström, a professor of biomedical analysis at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden, said of the journal, "The editorial board is a joke. None of the editors or associate editors are scientists of a good reputation. Some even are not in the scope of the title of the journal."[4]

-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Journal_of_Vaccine_Theory,_Practice,_and_Research

[* /Beall's List of Potential Predatory Journals and Publishers/ lists many many pages full of such journals: https://beallslist.net/standalone-journals/ , but that doesn't include the ones that aren't listed because their *publisher* is a known predatory source, and there are 20 publishers matching that pattern, so potentially hundreds more journals.]

 

[MonkeeSage]

In addition to lipid formations discussed in the rebuttal paper, some of the "structures" could also potentially be microplastics.

Examples of microplastics:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0043135422010624

https://www.researchgate.net/public...e_mangrove_area_of_Versova_Creek_Mumbai_India

https://flseagrant.ifas.ufl.edu/med...MERI_Guide-to-Microplastic-Identification.pdf

https://tos.org/oceanography/assets/docs/ocean-observing-2023-koestner.pdf

 

[John J.]

Re. the 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",
https://www.ijvtpr.com/index.php/IJVTPR/article/view/102:

The authors get all the way to their third sentence before making an extremely contentious statement, without qualification or citations, that is contrary to the overwhelming corpus of evidence collected by responsible researchers, practising physicians and accountable public health bodies:

Observable real-time injuries at the cellular level in recipients of the "safe and effective" COVID-19 injectables are documented here for the first time with the presentation of a comprehensive description and analysis of observed phenomena. The global administration of these often-mandated products from late 2020 triggered a plethora of independent research studies of the modified RNA injectable gene therapies, most notably those manufactured by Pfizer and Moderna. Analyses reported here consist of precise laboratory "bench science" aiming to understand why serious debilitating, prolonged injuries (and many deaths) occurred increasingly without any measurable protective effect from the aggressively, marketed products.

(My emphasis).

The vast bulk of checkable evidence indicates that the "...without any measurable protective effect..." statement is almost certainly incorrect. It is likely to be, let's put this politely, objectively untrue in the real world. For example,

(1)

We observed limited waning in vaccine effectiveness against Covid-19–related hospitalization and death at 20 weeks or more after vaccination with two doses of the ChAdOx1-S or BNT162b2 vaccine...

Real-world data have consistently shown high levels of short-term protection by vaccines against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19), with regard to clinical disease and, more so, with regard to severe outcomes such as hospitalization and death

BNT162b2 vaccine is the Pfizer–BioNTech product, using messenger RNA (mRNA).
ChAdOx1-S is the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine, a viral vector vaccine.
"Duration of Protection against Mild and Severe Disease by Covid-19 Vaccines", Andrews, Tessier, Stowe at al.,
New England Journal of Medicine 386 (4), 2022 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2115481

(2)

Conclusion Vaccination with either one dose of BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1-S was associated with a significant reduction in symptomatic covid-19 in older adults, and with further protection against severe disease. Both vaccines showed similar effects. Protection was maintained for the duration of follow-up (>6 weeks). A second dose of BNT162b2 was associated with further protection against symptomatic disease. A clear effect of the vaccines against the B.1.1.7 variant was found.

Again, BNT162b2 is the Pfizer–BioNTech mRNA vaccine.
"Effectiveness of the Pfizer-BioNTech and Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccines on covid-19 related symptoms, hospital admissions, and mortality in older adults in England: test negative case-control study", Lopez Bernal, Andrews, Gower et al.,
British Medical Journal 373 n1088, 2021, https://www.bmj.com/content/373/bmj.n1088

(3)

...between the week beginning Monday 16 August 2021 and the week ending Sunday 12 September, the rate of hospital admissions of over 80s was 50.5 per 100 000 in the fully vaccinated and 143.9 per 100 000 in the unvaccinated, while deaths were 45.5 and 145.4 per 100 000, respectively. These trends were seen across the board. For example, for 60-69 year olds the hospital admission rates were 13.5 per 100 000 in the fully vaccinated and 74.3 per 100 000 in the unvaccinated, while deaths were 4.1 and 24.3 per 100 000, respectively.

"Covid-19: How is vaccination affecting hospital admissions and deaths?", Iacobucci, G., British Medical Journal 374 n2306,
https://www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n2306 (for a population receiving both mRNA and viral vector vaccines at large scale).

(4)

On December 14, 2020, the United States began a nationwide vaccination campaign after the Food and Drug Administration's Emergency Use Authorization of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine...
...By May 1, 2021, 82%, 63%, and 42% of persons aged ≥65, 50–64, and 18–49 years, respectively, had received ≥1 COVID-19 vaccine dose. CDC calculated the rates of COVID-19 cases, emergency department (ED) visits, hospital admissions, and deaths by age group during November 29–December 12, 2020 (prevaccine) and April 18–May 1, 2021. The rate ratios comparing the oldest age groups (≥70 years for hospital admissions; ≥65 years for other measures) with adults aged 18–49 years were 40%, 59%, 65%, and 66% lower, respectively, in the latter period. These differential declines are likely due, in part, to higher COVID-19 vaccination coverage among older adults, highlighting the potential benefits of rapidly increasing vaccination coverage.

... These data are consistent with other preliminary reports showing a reduction in COVID-19 cases and severe illness in populations with high vaccination coverage.

"Decreases in COVID-19 Cases, Emergency Department Visits, Hospital Admissions, and Deaths Among Older Adults Following the Introduction of COVID-19 Vaccine — United States, September 6, 2020–May 1, 2021", Christie, Henley, Mattocks et al.,
U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 70 (23), 11 June 2021
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7023e2.htm

There are many other studies from reputable sources that demonstrate the efficacy and safety of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.



One of the authors of the "Real-Time Self-Assembly..." paper, Daniel Broudy, a linguist PhD, is also co-author of
"Cyborgs R Us: The Bio-Nano Panopticon of Injected Bodies?", Daniel Broudy, Valerie Kyrie ["Independent Scholar"], International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research 2 (2) 2022, which tells us

The impetus for this cross-disciplinary study was current reports from a substantial proportion of injected subjects who emitted alphanumeric signals in the frequency range corresponding to Bluetooth communications networks.

https://ijvtpr.com/index.php/IJVTPR/article/view/49

The same two authors give us "Syllogistic Reasoning Demystifies Evidence of COVID-19 Vaccine Constituents",
International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research 2 (1) 2021:

Incontrovertible evidence has now made clear that much of what has been perceived publicly about the story of SARS-CoV-2 and the pharmaceutical remedies offered (then mandated) was/is part of a sophisticated international fabrication of unprecedented proportion, depth, and deception. The origins of the virus, the approved testing regime, the flawed predictive models of spread and mortality, associated social-distancing mandates, and so-called vaccines and their claimed efficacy and safety, all point to a coordinated effort to manufacture public fear and hysteria so as to propagate and normalize transhumanist interventions in healthcare and human biology.

... The authors aim to disentangle the known, unknown, possible and likely contents and objectives of COVID-19 injections, in the context of the surrounding corporate, political, and ideological landscape. They conclude that the social disruptions created by COVID-19 have served as a means of instigating rapid transition to what unelected policymakers have called a Bio-Nano Age.
...

https://ijvtpr.com/index.php/IJVTPR/article/view/32

The politeness policy prevents me from stating what I would like to say about the works of Mr Broudy, Dr Lee and Independent Scholar Kyrie, but I have serious concerns that their comments about vaccines are ill-founded, grossly misleading, and might do more harm than good.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

Pop quiz

If someone had developed functioning nanobots they would:

A. Use them to revolutionize human civilization and make trillions of dollars.

B. Put them in vaccines to cause some sort of hazy, ambiguous harm to random people... that doesn't seem to add up to anything.

 

[NorCal Dave]

that doesn't seem to add up to anything

Yet! Not yet. Once enough people are infected with the nano-bots, the overlords can make them do whatever they want to make beyond trillions of dollars, need to step up your CT thinking .

The vast bulk of checkable evidence indicates that the "...without any measurable protective effect..." statement is almost certainly incorrect.

Yeah but, many in the anti-vax crowd operate in the anecdotal space unless there is a "peer reviewed paper" that backs up the anecdotes. Especially when it's in a "maverick" journal that's bucking the "mainstream" narrative on vaccines. We have a dear friend, that somehow ended up an anti-vaxxer. They wanted nothing to do with the COVID vaccine, not because Gates had nanobots in it, but that BigPharma lies for profit.

They never got a COVID vaccine and of course never got COVID. The wife and I got every vaccine we could, and both got COVID anyway . Anecdotally they were right. I had it for a few days, just got tired mostly. The wife had it for a few days BUT had respiratory issues for months. Our anti-vaxx friend can now lecture us on vaccines.

I understand that we're talking about large overall studies and positive results, but anecdotally it seems my anti-vaxx friend was right. And now they have a study to help back that up.

 

[FatPhil]

That rebuttal is a very enjoyable read. Anne S. Ulrich is a full professor of Biochemistry at the Institute of Organic Chemistry (IOC) and Institute of Biological Interfaces (IBG2) at the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), and she takes no prisoners.

Full text: https://ijvtpr.com/index.php/IJVTPR/article/view/106/321

Excerpts (emphasis mine):

It has long been known in the field of biophysics that all of the intriguing geometries described here by Lee and Broudy (2024) can emerge naturally from lipid preparations, as are used in the modRNA vaccinations in the form of lipid nanoparticles. They may show up especially when samples are stored over extended periods—or under inappropriate conditions. The astonishing μm-sized architectures can be explained by a simple physical process called lipid self-assembly. Notably, lipids make up the bulk of the vaccine ingredients, in other words, 2.5 mg/ml (one quarter of which is cholesterol), compared to a mere 0.1 mg/ml modRNA, in the presence of about 100 mg/ml sucrose and salts (as declared for ready-to-use Comirnaty/BNT162b2). Therefore, instead of seeking an explanation for the strange objects in terms of exotic additives, it is more plausible to start looking at the materials that are already known to be abundantly present in the injectable formulations.

I agree that it was a very well-aimed rebuttal - technical enough to precisely counter the claims made, but made simple enough that those with only vague familiarity with the field should understand it and be satisfied with its explanation. I complain a lot about science communication, but I consider that paper to be a good example of how to do it correctly. (Even the more impressive as it probably didn't have a chance to be tried out on a test audience first.)

The part about this whole tale I found most curious was how the misunderstandings in the paranoid woo dovetail so closely with many of the misunderstandings of the religiously-based no-abiogenesis brigade:
Reality, to biologists: amphiphilic lipids will align in low-energy surfaces and create lipophilically-bound bilayers, which can form closed structures, where their hydrophilic ends have attracted and encapsulated molecules with an uneven charge distribution.
Reality, to simple folk like me: membranes will form cells and contain proteins.
Through the paranoid woo eye: that's impossible, must be nanobots.
Through the creationist woo eye: that's impossible, must be god.

Of course, I've not solved abiogenesis here - who made the amphiphilic molecules and the sterols in the first place? However, that's a much simpler demand than "who made a cell in the first place?".

 

[FatPhil]

Pop quiz

If someone had developed functioning nanobots they would:
A. Use them to revolutionize human civilization and make trillions of dollars.
B. Put them in vaccines to cause some sort of hazy, ambiguous harm to random people... that doesn't seem to add up to anything.

The fact that the test samples were not in a fit state to be injected into anyone, they were mixtures that had been "incubated" (that's kind of the opposite of Moderna/BioNTech's -25C cold chain), means that we don't even have a link between whatever mysterious structures they have assembled in a test tube and any harm being done to any people. The most evil deed we have evidence of is:

C. Publish papers, so that I can look productive to funding bodies/employers.

 

[captancourgette]

Pop quiz

If someone had developed functioning nanobots they would:

A. Use them to revolutionize human civilization and make trillions of dollars.

B. Put them in vaccines to cause some sort of hazy, ambiguous harm to random people... that doesn't seem to add up to anything.

Yes with any CT the first thing I do is ask myself Why? And their answers are 90% of the time implausible or just laughable.
eg with the Covid vaccines some of the CT ppl were saying it is all a plan to depopulate the earth. Now Its been years since I had my first Covid vaccine, why am I not dead? Have any of the proposers of this great human culling plan admitted their prediction didn't come to pass? I'm guessing no

Hell looking at the website International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research
https://www.ijvtpr.com/index.php/IJVTPR/index
shows its one of those places that's just a scheme to make money as well as promote their ideology

I'm pretty sure Nature or Science don't have a similar statement to this on their front page

Beginning August 31, 2024, upon final acceptance of any article for publication, the Requested Article Processing Fee is $300 for up to 15 pages or $20 per published page, whichever is the greater amount. Fees go exclusively to maintenance, security, and essential costs of the journal. They can be waived, or negotiated at the beginning of the review process, by a request to the Editor-in-Chief. Instructions for payment of any Article Processing Fees will be provided immediately upon final acceptance for publication and are due within 30 days. Options for payment are the same as for donations and can be handled by check, electronic bank transfer, or credit card.

Freakanomics done a two part episode on a similar topic recently
https://freakonomics.com/podcast/why-is-there-so-much-fraud-in-academia/
And they're talking about even the higher quality publications, let alone something like
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Journal_of_Vaccine_Theory,_Practice,_and_Research
from wikipedia

The International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research (IJVTPR) is an anti-vaccine journal. It is known for promoting misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines.[1]​[2]​[3]​[4]​

Editorial board

As of 2022, the journal's editorial board had 18 members.[5]​

The journal's editor-in-chief is John Oller, a former linguistics professor at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette who published a book falsely linking vaccines to autism in 2009.[5]​[4]​

Yes one should get all my info about vaccines from a former linguistics professor

 

[FatPhil]

Yes one should get all my info about vaccines from a former linguistics professor

Don't always shoot the messanger! You can get good science via someone in a different field, but they should always be citing someone from the appropriate field. Caveats about the telephone game of course apply. And of course, someone ill-versed in the field certainly isn't whom you would want to curate such a feed, so indeed he's totally inappropriate for the editorial position.

On fraud in academia, Sabine Hossenfelder also recently had a rant (that's not a criticism):

Source: https://www.youtube.com/embed/EpQobaBCSYk?si=lg4pO3F4aZwAWXyk


One thing that's become my regular first read of the day on a saturday morning with a cup of coffee is /Retraction Watch/'s ( https://retractionwatch.com/ ) /Weekend Reads/, which is a summary of all of their articles from the past week, and a whole lot more related stuff that didn't quite make the cut.
E.g. last weekend's is here: https://retractionwatch.com/2024/10...s-for-a-rector-the-early-days-of-peer-review/ . It's unrepresentative because it has about 2-3 times as many stories as a normal week. We must have gone through the tail of a comet, or something:

The week at Retraction Watch featured:

* Journal pulls pesticide article a year after authors engaged lawyer to fight retraction decision
* Springer Nature journal has retracted over 200 papers since September
* Psychology journal apologizes for paper with 'biased language' about Tibet
* Plagiarizing papers retracted from engineering journal after Retraction Watch report
...
Here's what was happening elsewhere (some of these items may be paywalled, metered access, or require free registration to read):

* "Columbia Cancer Surgeon Notches 5 More Retractions for Suspicious Data."
* Springer Nature will retract 75 papers by a rector in Spain and his colleagues. Our coverage from 2022.
* "The early days of peer review: five insights from historical reports."
* "While some authors with precocious citation impact may be stellar scientists, others probably herald massive manipulative or fraudulent behaviors infiltrating the scientific literature."
* "We are a group of sleuths and forensic meta-scientists who are concerned that Springer Nature is failing in its duty to protect the scientific literature from fraudulent and low quality work."
* "Harris campaign calls plagiarism claims a partisan attack. Expert says it was 'sloppy writing.'"
* "In the originally published article, the author failed to acknowledge adequately the contribution of Mitchell P. Goldfarb, who made critical initial observations…" A correction for Robert Weinberg, who has had five papers retracted.
* "I propose the R-Index, defined as the difference between the sum of review responsibilities for a researcher's publications and the number of reviews they have completed, as a novel metric…"
* "There is a dirty secret in publishing: most popular science books aren't fact-checked."
* "Positive publication bias is actively harming science."
* "Are open science practices in dentistry associated with higher Altmetric scores and citation rates?"
* "Scientific papers that mention AI get a citation boost."
* "Most of the peer-reviewed academic articles referenced in [Endangered Species Act] ESA listings came from low-IF [impact factor] or no-IF journals that tended to focus on specific taxa or regions."
* "PhD Scholar Hands Over Complaint Letter Highlighting Faculty Misconduct, Bribery, And Student Issues To TN Guv During Convocation At Bharathiar University."
* "The untold story of publishing at [London School of Economics] LSE."
* A scholarly publishing "Generative AI Licensing Agreement Tracker" from Ithaka S+R.
* "A mixed review for Plan S's drive to make papers open access."
* "When Malcolm MacLeod made it his personal mission to update the results of every clinical trial ever registered at the University of Edinburgh, UK, he didn't realize that the effort would take years."
* "Research assessment has always been controversial, yet it necessarily persists."
* "'Anonymous' genetic databases vulnerable to privacy leaks."
* "Science's human aspect is often outright ignored." A Retraction Watch guest post co-written by the same author, Reese Richardson.
* "Dealing with corrections and retractions: keeping science sound": A podcast episode with our Ivan Oransky.
* "Effects of the coronavirus 2019 pandemic on medical publishing: The sacrifice of quality for quantity?"
* "Gender gap in physics entrenched by biased collaboration networks, study finds."
* Paper apologizes for accusing doctors "of knowingly making false statements about statins."
* "House science panel says an 'absent' NSF failed to protect Antarctic workers from sexual harassment."
* "The NHS Health Research Authority turns back ethical standards for experimentation on patients by sixty years," scientists say.
* "After extensive criticism of the Ethical Review Act, a completely new law has now been proposed" for ethical review in Sweden.
* "Greek Academia Under Siege by Rise of Predatory Journals."
* "A thriving underground economy is clogging the internet with AI garbage — and it's only going to get worse."
* "Scandal in Neuroscience: The self-correction of research no longer works."
* "The S-index Challenge: Develop a metric to quantify data-sharing success."
* "The impact of COVID-19 on the debate on open science": "Focus on quality, retractions, and misinformation."
* Two researchers responsible for university rankings "discuss the importance of transparency of rankings."
* "Basing core research funding on external income is a bad idea," says research policy expert.
* Judge rules against researcher who admitted he "screwed up" using NIH data in race-IQ study.
* A "short history and modus operandi of paper mills, with the aim of increasing awareness."
* "We have a dilemma": Checking published studies, circa 1962.
* "How Science Diplomacy Can Reshape Global Research Publishing: A Theory of Change."
* Investigation finds "evidence of data fabrication, publication without the patient's consent, and a wrong diagnosis" in…a case report.