As part of our drive to keep our comment section the best in New Zealand we showcase each week an example of a top-notch comment that adds value to The BFD.
Today’s comment was written by Rebecca Thank you Rebecca for taking the time to craft such an interesting comment.
A hypothesis is published. Other scientists challenge the hypothesis. If the hypothesis cannot survive the challenge, then it is not useful. However, authors may usefully modify their hypothesis to take account of the challenges. As everybody here knows, the name of this process is “science”. And the reason why smarmy or condescending tone is avoided by the best scientists is that today’s absurdity can be tomorrow’s major scientific advance.
In this case, the condescending tone doesn’t seem justified at all. Depending who you ask, “nanotech” involves particles of 1-100 nanometers. For some reason, Dickinson’s image has an arrow for nanotech pointing at the very lowest end of this range, which decision itself could justify an eye-rolling response if people were so inclined. However, her image also appears to show that a light microscope can see nanoparticles at the upper 100nm end of the range- just. But she puts an arrow for these images at a much larger position, the size of a human hair. So in the interests of science, I now challenge the placement of those arrows.
Equally importantly: some of the reviewers draw similarities to graphene tubules which definitely are nanoscale at only an atom thick, but can form tubules or membranes that absorb so much light that they can be seen with the naked eye- and therefore under low magnification. Perhaps a nanotech expert could comment on that?
And finally, assuming that Dickenson’s arrows and claims are correct: then what are hair-sized chunks of material that she says looks like dirt, doing in the vaccine or post mortem blood? The German pathologists know how to avoid contaminating their samples and say they’ve never seen anything like it in their long careers, so surely this supports the call to investigate? Particles that size are possibly even more alarming than nanotech size if Dickenson is correct.
