This report was published on the NIH website on 16th July 2020. It has now been withdrawn. It makes interesting, if worrying, reading. Link to archive copy https://scienceintegritydigest.files.wordpress.com/2020/07/fioranelli.pdf
To see this working, head to your live site.
Search
Well done Laura. I note how many likes and comments you have. If you had published a load of memes, you'd have been in the 100s by now. I'm not criticising the lovely people on this site but there's still the problem of low hanging fruit - if you get my meaning. Truth seeking is hard. Have a nice day. x
Thank you, low hanging fruit? Maybe I'm not welcome here...
You are very welcome clownworld and I loved your memes - very tasty fruit too - but don't you see the point?
Depends, who or what you are calling low hanging fruit, poster, reader or post, it's all a little bit well, insulting... One could come across as sounding superior...
C'mon clownworld. No-one's insulting you - I see you are a great poster with some very interesting posts. The low hanging fruit is obviously a reference to very entertaining posts, which your meme one was, compared to rather controversial and, frankly dangerous, information, which Laura was brave enough to publish. Furthermore it takes more time and effort to read a difficult scientific document and many people won't bother. I am not criticising people for this - it's just the way it is. Like I said the community has lots of lovely people in it and I'm proud to be part of. But truth seeking is hard and time-consuming. Did you read Laura's document? Now do you get the point?
Maybe, just maybe, hardly anyone has liked Laura's post is because they don't agree with it, maybe because it's not directly linked and when you do get to see it it's presented with the appearance of a scientific paper.
Just because it's presented as scientific does not mean it is scientific (followed the scientific method) or true...
Did you read the article? I suspect not many people did but I may be wrong. I think we must agree that in order to agree or disagree, then one should at least read it.
I totally agree that, just because something is presented as a scientific paper it doesn’t mean it is scientifically valid. By following the scientific method, I assume you mean applying the ‘Levels of Evidence’ test in order to assess the findings and any recommendations, eg DL Sackett et al:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3124652/
You raise an important issue regarding a number of problems with recent scientific research as cited in the BMJ:
Problems with Recent Research on Coronavirus (British Medical Journal)
https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m2045
Furthermore, I did some research on why the paper was removed. I found this on a blog by Elisabeth Bik on her site called the ‘Science Integrity Digest’. Ms Bik found this paper not just flawed but maybe the ‘worse paper of 2020’:
https://scienceintegritydigest.com/2020/07/23/worst-paper-of-2020-5g-and-coronavirus-induction/
You appear to have some scientific background so I will make no further comment regarding the contents and language of her review. I also checked her claims about the authors of the paper and have come to my own conclusions. If you care to do your own research, I’m sure you will come to yours too.
The removal of the paper is also a concern as it prevents further peer-reviews, which might well successfully address some of Ms Bik’s criticisms.
It is important we look at the evidence in order to reach any conclusions and would ask you again if you actually read the paper. Again, I make my point about how difficult truth seeking is in this case hence the analogy of ‘high hanging fruit’ as opposed to the immediate impact of a meme, which is ‘low hanging fruit’.
Thanks again for your comments, which are, in my opinion, important considerations. I hope you finally see my point now.
Occam's razor - maybe the paper was withdrawn because it's not correct or inaccurate.
You will be aware that Occam's razor is similar to KISS. Unfortunately it's impossible to keep the situation we are in simple. I have been at pains to point out the complexities, and I see little point in pursuing it.
Believing the paper was withdrawn because it's not correct or inaccurate without looking at the evidence is too simple. But at least it saves you having to do any further research 😀. I think we must agree to disagree and end this. I've been looking at your other posts - you're very busy. Enjoy your evening!
Yep, best option - agree to disagree.
I wish you a pleasant evening too.
So given the withdrawn paper i'd expect 5G - Will have been tested independently to ensure that it doesn't have any unexpected biological effects.
Clownworld probably can point us the range of papers on such testing.
You'll probably have heard of Nic Tesla and that he actively withdrew various 'wireless' technologies fearing humans would not use them responsibly. He was probably cooky too. !
Get familiar with the great man - well ahead of his time. Vilified by many and a true genius.
Unfortunately not so cooky - that he developed the electrical system you are using to view this very page.
https://www.stopumts.nl/doc.php/Artikelen/11701/5g_network_uses_same_emf_waves_as_pentagon_crowd_control_system