This Italian study that claims to show “foreign particles” in the blood after vaccination with anti-Covid RNA does not respect scientific protocol

Since the end of August, publications have warned about the danger of anti-Covid vaccination based on an Italian study that explains that it showed that 94% of people who received a messenger RNA vaccine presented an “aggregation of red blood cells and the presence of particles of various shapes and sizes” in the blood. But this study does not respect the scientific protocol and the online magazine in which this work was published is not recognized as a reliable source, specialists told AFP. If the Agence européenne des medicals avait recognizes a “lien possible” between certains vaccins et de “tres rares cas de caillots sanguins” l’an dernier, the agence avait néanmoins concluded that the benefits of continuous vaccination de l’importer sur the risks. To date, there is no new alert on this subject.

“The consequences of the Covid injection: a study reveals that 94% of people who received the injection present blood clots and foreign particles”, headlined a blog post published on August 24.

Screenshot taken on 03/10/2022

This post has also been shared over 1000 times on Facebook in Finnish.

The blog post cites a study published in a journal titled “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 unusual aggregation of erythrocytes or red blood cells, and particles of different shapes and sizes were observed in the blood that showed a tendency to coalesce and form huge lumps”.

A review of dubious credibility

The International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research, which published the study, is listed on its site as “a peer-reviewed open access journal dealing with the development, distribution, and regulation of vaccines and their components.” In its archives, the oldest issue of the online magazine dates from July 2020.

AFP sent the link to the International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice and Research on September 5 to Dr. Vesa Hytönen. The professor of cell and molecular biology at the Finnish University of Tampere regretted that the studies included there do not respect “scientific protocol“.

The scientist added that the ratings from the editorial board are unusual for an online magazine focused on vaccination.

The publisher, for example, presents himself as a language graduate. Although some members of the editorial board – responsible for the peer review of articles submitted to the online journal – have a background in microbiology or chemistry, others are linguists, osteopaths or computer scientists.

A search of the journal’s archives showed that it only focuses on research articles critical of vaccines, especially those developed against covid-19.

In its December 2021 issue, 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 contents have already been reviewed several times by AFP such as here or here.

AFP has investigated whether other works published in L’International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research they appear in the biomedical literature database belonging to the American Library of Medicine (NIH) and attached to the American National Institute of Health PubMed, without obtaining results.

Lire aussi : "Selon une étude..." : comment faire pour s'y retrouver ?

No control group

The researchers interviewed by AFP also questioned the methods used to carry out the Italian study itself.

“The main problem [de cette étude, NDLR] is that they did not analyze a control group”said Dr. Vesa Hytönen. “Without a control group, I can’t believe data like this.”

Dr. Markus Vähä-Koskela, Principal Investigator at the Finnish Institute of Molecular Medicine, agrees: “This is not an experimental study with a control group”said on September 8.

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

Without a control group, it is impossible to determine whether a studied treatment actually has a significant effect on an experimental group, notes the Encyclopedia Britannica.

vague symptoms

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

However, the cause of these symptoms is not given. “If patients have vague symptoms, in my opinion it is very difficult to assess the origin of these symptoms based on the particle composition of the blood,” stressed Dr. Vesa Hytönen.

Dr. Susan Rudd Bailey of the Texas A&M College of Medicine told AFP on September 21 that “erythrocyte aggregation [ou globule rouge, NDLR] It usually means that the chemicals used to prepare the samples are old and/or the wrong technique is being used. It does not diagnose any disease.

Dr. Vähä-Koskela agrees with this observation, noting that red blood cell formations are not diagnostic in and of themselves. “Why didn’t they analyze the content of the vaccine itself with this technique? It would have shown whether the vaccines contain what is described in the article,” he regret.

The reliability of the microscope images included in the study is also unreliable, said Dr. Vähä-Koskela. “You can see all kinds of garbage in the images, which raises the question of whether the blades were clean.” He also expressed doubts about the nature of the images: “There is no guarantee regarding the samples from which the images were taken.”

“Unscientific and subjective”

Dr. Vähä-Koskela further highlighted the unscientific nature of the Italian study, saying that the authors’ skeptical stance on vaccination against covid “transparent”. An example of this subjectivity is the reference to “the so-called ‘vaccines'” and a statement that the manufacturers “You should, in our opinion, be clear about what the injections contain and why they exist.”

He also noted the references of the three study authors, who are specialists in dentistry, acupuncture, oxygen therapy, otorhinolaryngology, and cytology (cell biology).

“My opinion on this item is that it is worthlessIt’s not scientific and it’s subjective.He concluded.

The disputed darkfield microscopy technique

The authors of the study explain that they used the technique of“dark field microscopy” examine the blood samples drawn. However, the use of dark-field microscopy, also called dark-field microscopy, in this way is disputed by scientists contacted by AFP.

This method involves viewing samples under a microscope with a dark background, with the optically dense areas appearing as light.

“Darkfield blood analysis is an alternative medicine technique that has never been documented to have any value in medicine”Dr. Bailey said.

According to a 2019 article in Quackwatch, darkfield microscopy is a valid scientific method on its own, but its use for the analysis of living cells is not.

Quackwatch is a site specialized in verifying “Health fraud, myths, fashions, fallacies and misconduct”.

The Quackwatch article explains that “although some characteristics of the blood (such as the relative size of red blood cells) are observable [avec cette méthode, NDLR]analyzing live cells with this technique invariably leads to misinterpretation of other things, such as the degree of clumping of red blood cells, changes in cell shape, and other things that occur when the sample dries with blood,” and adds that most people who use darkfield microscopy in this way “They are not qualified to handle the problems they claim to diagnose.”

Blood clots are a ‘very rare’ side effect of AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson vaccines

In April 2021, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) said that 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 link” between AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson vaccines and “very rare cases of unusual blood clots associated with low blood platelets”. For AstraZeneca’s vaccine, the agency in April 2021 estimated the risk of such clots at 1/100,000.

The following month, he stated that he had, however, “no indication to datewhich allows to suspect 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.

However, the WEA and the World Health Organization (WHO) recommend continuing to use the AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson vaccines, considering that their benefits outweigh their risks.

“This day, no data showing a risk of thrombosis with RNA vaccines Delivery courier” and there is not “no new signal” for these vaccines, explained to AFP David Smadja, professor of hematology at the George Pompidou hospital.

He already explained on August 24 in this previous verification article thatvery rare cases of thrombosis continue to affect only AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson vaccines. The position of science has not changed, there is nothing new about messenger RNA vaccines, quite the contrary, numerous studies over a year and a half show that there is not the slightest thrombotic signal with the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, which are now used almost exclusively in France“.

Chilean infectologist Ignacio Silva also told AFP that although the adenovirus vaccines from AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson, used in other countries, can have adverse effects related to the formation of blood clots, these cases are still very rare.

“Health agencies were at the time very aware of this phenomenon, monitoring, pharmacovigilance, even restricting its use as a very precautionary measure, since the number of cases in relation to the number of people vaccinated was very low. , the incidence of this event is very rare.he explained to AFP.

In this earlier fact-check article, hematologists interviewed by AFP also recalled that Covid-19 increases the risk of cerebral venous thrombosisan often overlooked consequence of the disease.

Leave a Reply

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