Maybe you can inform me...
In all the decades of looking at things under a microscope, how many "new" or "unknown" or "never been seen before" contaminants are still out there in a well-run laboratory?
If they are contaminants, wouldn't they be recognized?
If they are contaminants, wouldn't the scientists check for that and thoroughly sterilize the equipment and then look again?
If similar analysis is being done in different labs across the globe, would it be expected to have the same contaminants appear? Would it be possible to test the theory by having different labs look at the vaccines to see if they all see the same "contaminants?"
That's a theory that can be tested, right?
-PJ
📌⬆
Good points
That’s a theory that can be tested, right?
Wait..are you talking about using that thing that used to be called the scientific method? Not just consensus based outcomes?
Wow.
/s
This is a most interesting article...we should see the same results all over the world, one would think ...if we were interested in knowing.
Bottom line:
If those are contaminants introduced in a sterile lab, then imagine what’s inside the syringes and needles which receive the compounds and then jabbed into people’s arms (sometimes directly into the bloodstream).
A lot of weird artifacts and/or contaminants shows up during microscopy. You'd be surprised.
If they are contaminants, wouldn't they be recognized?
Sometimes. Not always.
If they are contaminants, wouldn't the scientists check for that and thoroughly sterilize the equipment and then look again?
Yes, they should. This would include cleaning the microscope objectives/lenses and light source as well. Also, they should run controls (open vials of other vaccines and/or medicines and examine them exactly the same way - in parallel, using the same equipment and technique).
You are right about comparing results from multiple labs.
I'm not trying to be a naysayer, but I have to be honest about what my impressions or that data are. It it's valid data, prove it by being more rigorous.