This Italian study, which claims to show “strange particles” in the blood after an anti-Covid RNA vaccination, is not following scientific protocol

published on Monday, October 03, 2022 at 16:09

Since the end of August, publications have been warning of the dangers of anti-Covid vaccination, based on an Italian study that explained that 94% of people who received a messenger RNA vaccine had a “blood cell and red blood cell buildup” showed the presence of “particles of different shapes and sizes” in the blood. However, this study does not respect the scientific protocol and the online journal in which this work was published is not recognized as a reliable source, specialists have pointed out to AFP. While the After the European Medicines Agency last year recognized a “possible link” between certain vaccines and “very rare cases of blood clots,” the agency nevertheless concluded that the benefits of vaccination continue to outweigh the risks.To date, there has been no new warning on this Theme. “The consequences of the Covid injection: a study shows that 94% of people who received the injection have blood clots and foreign particles”, captioned a blog post published on Aug. 24.

Screenshot from 03/10/2022 This post was shared over 1,000 times on Facebook, also in Finnish.

The blog post cites a study published in a journal with the title “the International Journal of Vaccines, Theory, Practice and Research”, on August 12, 2022.

This study claims to have shown that“One month after mRNA vaccination, there were 948 subjects (94%) whose blood showed an unusual accumulation of erythrocytes or red blood cells, and particles of various shapes and sizes were observed in the blood, which showed a tendency to stick together and become gigantic form lumps”.

A review of dubious credibilityThe International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research, which published the study, presents itself on its website as “an open-access, peer-reviewed journal devoted to the development, distribution and regulation of vaccines and their components”. In his archive, the oldest edition of the online journal dates from July 2020.

AFP forwarded the link to the International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research to Dr. Vesa HyTONen further. The professor of cell and molecular biology at the Finnish University of Tampere regretted that the studies contained therein do not respect “scientific protocol“.

The qualification of the editors is unusual for an online journal with a focus on vaccinations, the scientist added.

The editor, for example, is depicted with a degree in languages. Although some members of the editorial board – responsible for peer-reviewed articles submitted to the online journal – have training in microbiology or chemistry, others are linguists, osteopaths or computer scientists.

A search of the journal’s archives revealed that it focuses only on research articles critical of vaccines, particularly those being developed against Covid-19.

In its December 2021 edition, L’International journal of vaccine theory, practice and research published a research article originally published in The defender, a publication by Children’s Health Defense, an anti-vaccine group, whose content has been reviewed several times by AFP, such as here or here.

AFP has investigated whether other works published on L’International journal of vaccine theory, practice and research appeared in the American Library of Medicine (NIH) database of biomedical literature, affiliated with the American National Institutes of Health PubMed, without obtaining a result.

No control group Researchers interviewed by AFP also questioned the methods used to conduct the Italian study itself.

“The main issue [de cette étude, NDLR] is that they did not analyze a control group”said dr Vesa Hytonen. “Without a control group, I cannot believe such data.”

dr Markus Vähä-Koskela, senior researcher at the Finnish Institute of Molecular Medicine agrees: “This is not an experimental study with a control group”he said on September 8th.

A control group, also called a control group, is a group of people who do not receive the treatment tested in a scientific experiment. This creates a standard for later comparisons with the group testing a drug or vaccine.

Without a control group, it’s impossible to determine whether a treatment being studied actually has a significant effect on a experimental group, the Encyclopedia Britannica points out.

vague symptomsThe Italian study states that it is analyzing “a drop of peripheral blood [le sang qui circule dans le corps, NDLR]of 1,006 symptomatic subjects who received an anti-Covid injection of mRNA”and a month later found clumps of red blood cells and other particles in 94% of them.

However, the cause of these symptoms is not specified. “In my opinion, when patients have vague symptoms, it is very difficult to judge the origin of these symptoms based on the particle composition of the blood,” underlined Dr. Vesa Hytonen.

That shared Dr. Susan Rudd Bailey of the Texas A&M School of Medicine told AFP on September 21 “Accumulation of erythrocytes [ou globule rouge, NDLR] usually means that the chemicals used for sample preparation are old and/or the wrong technique is used. It does not diagnose any disease.

dr Vähä-Koskela agrees with this observation, noting that red blood cell clumping is not in itself diagnostic. “Why didn’t they use this technique to analyze the content of the vaccine as such? It would have shown whether the vaccines contain what is described in the article”, he regretted.

The reliability of the microscope images included in the study is also unreliable, said Dr. Vähä-Koskela “You can see all sorts of junk in the pictures, which makes you wonder if the blades were clean.” He also expressed doubts about the nature of the images: “There is no guarantee as to the samples from which the pictures were taken”.

“Unscientific and subjective”dr Vähä-Koskela also highlighted the unscientific nature of the Italian study, saying the authors’ skeptical attitude towards the Covid vaccination “transparent”. An example of this subjectivity is the reference to “so-called ‘vaccines'” and a statement that manufacturer “In our opinion, it must be clear what the injections contain and why they exist”.

He also noted the credentials of the study’s three authors, who are specialists in dentistry, acupuncture, oxygen therapy, ear, nose and throat medicine, and cytology (cell biology).

“My opinion of this item is that it is worthlessis not scientific and is subjective”he concluded.

The technique of dark field microscopy is controversialThe authors of the study state that they used the technique of“Darkfield Microscopy” to examine the blood samples taken. However, the use of darkfield microscopy, also known as dark field microscopy, in this way is disputed by scientists contacted by AFP.

In this method, samples are viewed under a microscope with a dark background, with the optically dense areas appearing light.

“Darkfield blood analysis is an alternative medical technique whose value in medicine has never been documented”said dr Bailey.

According to a 2019 article on Quackwatch, while darkfield microscopy is a valid scientific method in its own right, its use for live cell analysis is not.

Quackwatch is a website dedicated to the verification of “Healthcare scams, myths, fads, fallacies and wrongdoing”.

The Quackwatch article explains that “although some properties of blood (such as the relative size of the red blood cells) are observable [avec cette méthode, NDLR]the analysis of living cells with this technique invariably leads to misinterpretations of other things, such as e.g. and adds that most people who use darkfield microscopy work this way “are not qualified to treat the problems they claim to diagnose”.

Blood clots are a “very rare” side effect of AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson vaccinesIn April 2021, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) said blood clots should be on the list of side effects “very rare” Covid-19 vaccines from AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson (Janssen in Europe).

WEA recognized “a possible connection” between AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson vaccines and “very rare cases of unusual blood clots associated with low platelets”. For the AstraZeneca vaccine, the agency estimated the risk of such clots at 1/100,000 in April 2021.

The following month, she indicated that it was, however “No information so far‘ suggesting a link between Moderna’s and Pfizer’s messenger RNA vaccines and thrombosis. A thrombosis is a blood clot that forms in a blood vessel, vein or artery.

The WEA and the World Health Organization (WHO) still recommend continued use of the AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson vaccines, believing their benefits outweigh their risks.

“Today, no data show a risk of thrombosis with RNA vaccines Delivery boy” and there is none “no new signal” for these vaccines explained AFP David Smadja, professor of hematology at the George Pompidou Hospital.

He already stated that on August 24th in this previous verification articlethe very rare cases of thrombosis still only affect the vaccines from AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson. The position of science has not changed, there is nothing new about messenger RNA vaccines, on the contrary, Numerous studies over the past year and a half have shown that the vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna, which are now used almost exclusively in France, do not have the slightest thrombotic signal“.

Chilean infectious diseases specialist Ignacio Silva also pointed out to AFP that while the AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson adenovirus vaccines used in other countries can have side effects related to blood clots, these cases remained very rare.

“The health authorities at the time were very aware of this phenomenon, monitored and monitored pharmacovigilance and went so far as to limit its use as a very precautionary measure, since the number of cases was very small compared to the number of people vaccinated. Fortunately, the occurrence of this event is very rare.”he told AFP.

In that previous verification article, hematologists interviewed by AFP also recalled it Covid-19 increases the risk of cerebral vein thrombosisa consequence of the often overlooked disease.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *