This user blocks the author of the focused post.
🎓⚕️🧪🔬📰
The way we do science today is very vulnerable to clickbait and sensationalist headlines
Remember the microplastics in your brain, in male testes and in your bloodstream?
It didn't make sense with what we knew, but it made great entertainment.
#BadScience
www.theguardian.com/environment/...
‘A bombshell’: doubt cast on discovery of microplastics throughout human body
Exclusive: Some scientists say many detections are most likely error, with one high-profile study called a ‘joke’
This user is blocked by the person they're replying to.
This article is bad. Like climate gate was. It uses the arguments of the researchers who did the studies against them instead of producing more new research and data.
Typical fossil fuel playbook. Confuse and mislead.
Bottled water packed with nanoplastics, study finds | CNN
Bottled water contains millions of small particles, thousands of which are nanoplastics so tiny they can invade the body’s cells, a study finds.
This week, a researcher in Germany questioned the science of microplastics in the body in an article in the Guardian, arguing that “more than half of the very high impact papers” in the field have serious doubts associated with them.
A scientist questioned new microplastics findings. Then other researchers fired back.
A prominent scientist criticized microplastics research methods. Others are defending the work.
This user blocks the author of the focused post.
The article is exactly what a journalistic article should be, and they provide the links to the scientific articles.
And the controversy is very real because well, those claims didn't make much sense.
Plastic pollution is still a thing. Bu we don't need to make up science about it.
This user is blocked by the person they're replying to.
The authors of the first studies asked for more studies instead of blabla instead of real studies? You make it sound as if this article was more than blabla and you will have your own reasons.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco...
Tobacco industry playbook - Wikipedia
This user blocks the author of the focused post.
Journalists are not able to do more scientific research. They are following on what more recent scientific research says, and referencing those studies. So I don't understand what you're complaining about.
This user is blocked by the person they're replying to.
In this case, the journalists published a single opinion of a single person and presented it as if it were scientific research. As if Trump cried "climate is a hoax" and it's treated as a valid theory. The article is pure opinion and NOT about new studies that proof old studies wrong.
🚬 playbook
This user blocks the author of the focused post.
and by that I mean you're missing the point. There is no doubts about the existence of microplastics in human tissues.
There is a lot of scientific controversies on the amounts, and how they are detected, and so their impact on human health. And this is healthy science.
This user is blocked by the person they're replying to.
Climate change is real but it's not clear how much is caused by human? It's ok to make such an argument if one did real studies with real data. The article is opinion. We should be discussing an end of plastics instead of spreading opinions as if it were science 🚬
www.theguardian.com/environment/...This user blocks the author of the focused post.
I'm not talking about climate change. I feel you're trolling this thread, and that while I engaged you on good faith, you're just pushing propaganda in bad faith. Please stop or I will block you.
To me, the article is opinion by a single person from Germany.
To me, you represent this single opinion as real science and this could be called propaganda.
I made my point - we need more science and less opinion. I am out as I cannot add more than this.
Feb 1, 2026 12:41This user blocks the author of the focused post.
Yet you keep posting your own uninformed and biased opinion, and refuse to acknowledge that The Guardian links to the opinion of several scientific groups, not a single individual.
This is enough. Bye.
