Lack of significant dermal penetration of titanium dioxide from sunscreen formulations containing nano- and submicron-size TiO2 particles (Screenshot 3 und 5 und 6)
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20156837/
Safety of titanium dioxide nanoparticles in cosmetics
"In conclusion, almost all in vitro, in vivo and ex vivo studies, performed in humans or animals, showed that nano-TiO2 penetration was ‼️largely‼️ limited to the stratum corneum." -> Wer wissenschaftliche Sprache begreift weiß, was das eigentlich heißt.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31588611/
LOOOOL! Ist der Typ leseresistent! Immer wieder herrlich, wie verblitzt solche Birnen sind und wie wenig sie wirklich über Zellbiologie begreifen. Wir gucken mal in die Methodik SEINER zitierten Studie. (Screenshots 5 und 6).
Kann jemand dem Typen mal bestellen, dass, wenn man von nichts ne Ahnung hat und die eigene zitierte Studie nicht kapiert, man einfach mal die Fresse halten sollte?:
https://x.com/BergheimJeff/status/1940429853163126860
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20156837/
Safety of titanium dioxide nanoparticles in cosmetics
"In conclusion, almost all in vitro, in vivo and ex vivo studies, performed in humans or animals, showed that nano-TiO2 penetration was ‼️largely‼️ limited to the stratum corneum." -> Wer wissenschaftliche Sprache begreift weiß, was das eigentlich heißt.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31588611/
LOOOOL! Ist der Typ leseresistent! Immer wieder herrlich, wie verblitzt solche Birnen sind und wie wenig sie wirklich über Zellbiologie begreifen. Wir gucken mal in die Methodik SEINER zitierten Studie. (Screenshots 5 und 6).
Kann jemand dem Typen mal bestellen, dass, wenn man von nichts ne Ahnung hat und die eigene zitierte Studie nicht kapiert, man einfach mal die Fresse halten sollte?:
https://x.com/BergheimJeff/status/1940429853163126860
Titanium Dioxide Nanoparticles in sunscreens and skin photo-damage. Development, synthesis and characterization of a novel biocompatible alternative based on their in vitro and in vivo study
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666469023000143
https://doi.org/10.1039/D2SM00179A
Titanium Dioxide Nanoparticle Penetration into the Skin and Effects on HaCaT Cells
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4555280/
BSA Adsorption on Titanium Dioxide Nanoparticle Surfaces for Controlling Their Cellular Uptake in Skin Cells
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsabm.3c01138
Understanding the toxicological effects of TiO2 nanoparticles extracted from sunscreens on human keratinocytes and skin explants
https://particleandfibretoxicology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12989-024-00610-9
Tear of Lipid Membranes by Nanoparticles.
https://doi.org/10.1039/D2SM00179A
Ich glaube nicht, dass dieser Spacko überhaupt kapiert hat, dass es sich um TiO2-Nanopartikel handelt?
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666469023000143
https://doi.org/10.1039/D2SM00179A
Titanium Dioxide Nanoparticle Penetration into the Skin and Effects on HaCaT Cells
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4555280/
BSA Adsorption on Titanium Dioxide Nanoparticle Surfaces for Controlling Their Cellular Uptake in Skin Cells
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsabm.3c01138
Understanding the toxicological effects of TiO2 nanoparticles extracted from sunscreens on human keratinocytes and skin explants
https://particleandfibretoxicology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12989-024-00610-9
Tear of Lipid Membranes by Nanoparticles.
https://doi.org/10.1039/D2SM00179A
Ich glaube nicht, dass dieser Spacko überhaupt kapiert hat, dass es sich um TiO2-Nanopartikel handelt?
Btw: Sehr spannende Papers zum Thema Propaganda und UV-Radiation:
Ultraviolet B but not Ultraviolet A Radiation Initiates Melanoma
https://aacrjournals.org/cancerres/article/64/18/6372/511665/Ultraviolet-B-but-not-Ultraviolet-A-Radiation
Melanoma induction by ultraviolet A but not ultraviolet B radiation requires melanin pigment
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms1893
https://www.sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/news/2017/05/04/rare-and-deadly-melanomas-not-caused-by-the-sun--new-finding.html
Sun Exposure and Melanoma, Certainties and Weaknesses of the Present Knowledge
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/medicine/articles/10.3389/fmed.2018.00235/full
Ultraviolet radiation is not the major cause of melanoma mortality in the UK and sun exposure advice should be revised
https://academic.oup.com/bjd/article/192/3/548/7849684
Melanoma is not caused by sunlight
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0027510798001821
Der Unterschied zwischen "it is believed"+propagiertem Bullshit und tatsächlicher Forschung! Narf!
Ultraviolet B but not Ultraviolet A Radiation Initiates Melanoma
https://aacrjournals.org/cancerres/article/64/18/6372/511665/Ultraviolet-B-but-not-Ultraviolet-A-Radiation
Melanoma induction by ultraviolet A but not ultraviolet B radiation requires melanin pigment
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms1893
https://www.sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/news/2017/05/04/rare-and-deadly-melanomas-not-caused-by-the-sun--new-finding.html
Sun Exposure and Melanoma, Certainties and Weaknesses of the Present Knowledge
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/medicine/articles/10.3389/fmed.2018.00235/full
Ultraviolet radiation is not the major cause of melanoma mortality in the UK and sun exposure advice should be revised
https://academic.oup.com/bjd/article/192/3/548/7849684
Melanoma is not caused by sunlight
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0027510798001821
Der Unterschied zwischen "it is believed"+propagiertem Bullshit und tatsächlicher Forschung! Narf!
Nature
Melanoma induction by ultraviolet A but not ultraviolet B radiation requires melanin pigment
Nature Communications - Exposure to ultraviolet light is responsible for a large proportion of melanomas but the molecular mechanisms are unknown. In this study, melanoma is found to be induced in...
Mutflash - Medizinische Argumentationen und Studiensammlungen
Btw: Sehr spannende Papers zum Thema Propaganda und UV-Radiation: Ultraviolet B but not Ultraviolet A Radiation Initiates Melanoma https://aacrjournals.org/cancerres/article/64/18/6372/511665/Ultraviolet-B-but-not-Ultraviolet-A-Radiation Melanoma induction…
Gucki looki:
Skin as an endocrine organ: implications for its function
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2658605/
Skin as an endocrine organ: A narrative review
https://ijdvl.com/skin-as-an-endocrine-organ-a-narrative-review/
The Trinity of Skin: Skin Homeostasis as a Neuro–Endocrine–Immune Organ
https://www.mdpi.com/2075-1729/12/5/725
Skin as an endocrine organ: implications for its function
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2658605/
Skin as an endocrine organ: A narrative review
https://ijdvl.com/skin-as-an-endocrine-organ-a-narrative-review/
The Trinity of Skin: Skin Homeostasis as a Neuro–Endocrine–Immune Organ
https://www.mdpi.com/2075-1729/12/5/725
PubMed Central (PMC)
Skin as an endocrine organ: implications for its function
Described as the body's largest organ, the skin is strategically located at the interface with the external environment where it has evolved to detect, integrate and respond to a diverse range of stressors. A flurry of recent findings has ...
https://fxtwitter.com/jeffreyatucker/status/1940006822619791804
Thank you, dear Stacy. ♥️
Lots to unpack here if real….
Thank you, dear Stacy. ♥️
Lots to unpack here if real….
FxTwitter
Jeffrey A Tucker (@jeffreyatucker)
This remarkable memo apparently leaked from big pharma presents a clever scheme to stop RFK: divide MAHA, drive a wedge between MAGA and MAHA, fund influencers among reputational conservatives, and clear the path for retaining power.
https://brownstone…
https://brownstone…
The Evolution of Koch’s Postulates
Evan's Pstoulate:
• Prevalence of the disease should be significantly higher in those exposed to the putative cause than in control cases not so exposed.
• Exposure to the putative cause should be present more commonly in those with the disease than in controls without the disease when all risk factors are held constant.
• Incidence of the disease should be significantly higher in those exposed to the putative cause than in those not exposed, as shown in prospective studies.
• Temporally, the disease should follow exposure to the putative agent with a distribution of incubation periods on a bell-shaped curve.
• A spectrum of host responses should follow exposure to the putative agent along a logical biologic gradient from mild to severe.
• A measurable host response following exposure to the putative cause should regularly appear in those lacking this before exposure or should increase in magnitude if present before exposure.
• Experimental reproduction of the disease should occur in higher incidence in animals or humans appropriately exposed to the putative cause than in those not so exposed; this exposure may be deliberate in volunteers, experimentally induced in the laboratory, or demonstrated in a controlled regulation of natural exposure.
• Elimination or modification of the putative cause or of the vector carrying it should decrease the incidence of the disease.
• Prevention or modification of the host’s response on exposure to the putative cause should decrease or eliminate the disease (e.g., immunization or drug).
• The whole thing should make biologic and epidemiologic sense.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/sdfe/pdf/download/eid/3-s2.0-B9780702062858000010/first-page-pdf
Sehr lesenswert.
Evan's Pstoulate:
• Prevalence of the disease should be significantly higher in those exposed to the putative cause than in control cases not so exposed.
• Exposure to the putative cause should be present more commonly in those with the disease than in controls without the disease when all risk factors are held constant.
• Incidence of the disease should be significantly higher in those exposed to the putative cause than in those not exposed, as shown in prospective studies.
• Temporally, the disease should follow exposure to the putative agent with a distribution of incubation periods on a bell-shaped curve.
• A spectrum of host responses should follow exposure to the putative agent along a logical biologic gradient from mild to severe.
• A measurable host response following exposure to the putative cause should regularly appear in those lacking this before exposure or should increase in magnitude if present before exposure.
• Experimental reproduction of the disease should occur in higher incidence in animals or humans appropriately exposed to the putative cause than in those not so exposed; this exposure may be deliberate in volunteers, experimentally induced in the laboratory, or demonstrated in a controlled regulation of natural exposure.
• Elimination or modification of the putative cause or of the vector carrying it should decrease the incidence of the disease.
• Prevention or modification of the host’s response on exposure to the putative cause should decrease or eliminate the disease (e.g., immunization or drug).
• The whole thing should make biologic and epidemiologic sense.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/sdfe/pdf/download/eid/3-s2.0-B9780702062858000010/first-page-pdf
Sehr lesenswert.
🙏1
Forwarded from Klartext von Dr. Christina Baum MdB
Forwarded from Klartext von Dr. Christina Baum MdB
Es gibt keine Placebokontrollierte klinische Prüfung bei Kinderimpfstoffen
Nachdem der US-Gesundheitsminister, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., für die USA bestätigt hat, dass keine placebokontrollierten Studien bei Kinderimpfungen durchgeführt werden, ergeben sich daraus aus Sicht der AfD-Fraktion auch Folgen für Impfpflichten in Deutschland. Die AfD-Bundestagsabgeordnete Christina Baum, Mitglied im Gesundheitsausschuss, teilt dazu mit:
„Nicht nur in den USA, sondern auch in Deutschland werden keine placebokontrollierten Studien bei Kinderimpfungen durchgeführt. Dies offenbart unsere Anfrage an die Bundesregierung (Arbeitsnummer 6/223). Das bedeutet im Umkehrschluss, dass die Wirksamkeit von Kinderimpfungen wissenschaftlich weiterhin nicht eindeutig bewiesen ist, während gleichzeitig immer Risiken von Impfnebenwirkungen bestehen. Gerade aufgrund des Anstieges der Erkrankungen bei Kindern wie ADHS, Autismus, Sprach- und Entwicklungsstörungen, Allergien oder Kinderdiabetes wäre dringend eine Kontrollstudie zum Gesundheitszustand zwischen geimpften und ungeimpften Kindern erforderlich, die über viele Jahre hinweg durchgeführt werden muss. Eine Impfpflicht für Masern lässt sich deshalb weder begründen noch ist sie zu verantworten. Wir als AfD-Bundestagsfraktion stellen uns gegen jede Impfpflicht und fordern, dass die Wahlfreiheit auch bei Kinderimpfungen gewährleistet werden muss.“
Dr. Christina Baum
Mutig. Patriotisch. Freiheitlich!
Mitglied des Deutschen Bundestages
Nachdem der US-Gesundheitsminister, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., für die USA bestätigt hat, dass keine placebokontrollierten Studien bei Kinderimpfungen durchgeführt werden, ergeben sich daraus aus Sicht der AfD-Fraktion auch Folgen für Impfpflichten in Deutschland. Die AfD-Bundestagsabgeordnete Christina Baum, Mitglied im Gesundheitsausschuss, teilt dazu mit:
„Nicht nur in den USA, sondern auch in Deutschland werden keine placebokontrollierten Studien bei Kinderimpfungen durchgeführt. Dies offenbart unsere Anfrage an die Bundesregierung (Arbeitsnummer 6/223). Das bedeutet im Umkehrschluss, dass die Wirksamkeit von Kinderimpfungen wissenschaftlich weiterhin nicht eindeutig bewiesen ist, während gleichzeitig immer Risiken von Impfnebenwirkungen bestehen. Gerade aufgrund des Anstieges der Erkrankungen bei Kindern wie ADHS, Autismus, Sprach- und Entwicklungsstörungen, Allergien oder Kinderdiabetes wäre dringend eine Kontrollstudie zum Gesundheitszustand zwischen geimpften und ungeimpften Kindern erforderlich, die über viele Jahre hinweg durchgeführt werden muss. Eine Impfpflicht für Masern lässt sich deshalb weder begründen noch ist sie zu verantworten. Wir als AfD-Bundestagsfraktion stellen uns gegen jede Impfpflicht und fordern, dass die Wahlfreiheit auch bei Kinderimpfungen gewährleistet werden muss.“
Dr. Christina Baum
Mutig. Patriotisch. Freiheitlich!
Mitglied des Deutschen Bundestages
Forwarded from Chuck Chunder
This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
2SM Super Radio Network
@2SM1269
LISTEN: COVID VACCINE STUDY BULLDUST?
Academic and author Raphael Lataster joins Chris Smith to call it out.
MORE: https://omny.fm/shows/chris-smith-across-australia/covid-study-is-bulldust-raphael-lataster-the-university-of-sydney-joins-chris-smith
https://x.com/2SM1269/status/1939865530032357377
@2SM1269
LISTEN: COVID VACCINE STUDY BULLDUST?
Academic and author Raphael Lataster joins Chris Smith to call it out.
MORE: https://omny.fm/shows/chris-smith-across-australia/covid-study-is-bulldust-raphael-lataster-the-university-of-sydney-joins-chris-smith
https://x.com/2SM1269/status/1939865530032357377
❤1
Neurological and psychiatric aspects of long COVID among vaccinated healthcare workers: An assessment of prevalence and reporting biases
"In this study involving 467 participants, the incidence rates of long COVID symptoms were meticulously evaluated. Given a presumed above 10 % incidence of long COVID in the literature.,11,19 the sample size of 224 and 222 subjects in two major arms (symptomatic, and no history of COVID-19) should theoretically offer sufficient power to detect meaningful differences if they existed. Hence, the relatively modest sample size should not inherently render comparisons insignificant, particularly when considering the meticulous data collection and the presumed effect size of long COVID incidences.
Nevertheless, the apparent limited impact of long COVID within this cohort warrants careful interpretation. It is crucial to consider that this particular cohort may differ substantially from populations studied in previous long COVID research. Notably, all participants in this study were healthcare professionals who had received a minimum of three doses of COVID-19 vaccines (with some even having four doses) before the onset of the Omicron variant outbreak in Taiwan."
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1684118225001252#sec3
Quizfrage: Wo ist die ungeimpfte Kontrollgruppe? 😉 -> Vorsicht, man könnte unangenehme Realitäten bemerken.
"In this study involving 467 participants, the incidence rates of long COVID symptoms were meticulously evaluated. Given a presumed above 10 % incidence of long COVID in the literature.,11,19 the sample size of 224 and 222 subjects in two major arms (symptomatic, and no history of COVID-19) should theoretically offer sufficient power to detect meaningful differences if they existed. Hence, the relatively modest sample size should not inherently render comparisons insignificant, particularly when considering the meticulous data collection and the presumed effect size of long COVID incidences.
Nevertheless, the apparent limited impact of long COVID within this cohort warrants careful interpretation. It is crucial to consider that this particular cohort may differ substantially from populations studied in previous long COVID research. Notably, all participants in this study were healthcare professionals who had received a minimum of three doses of COVID-19 vaccines (with some even having four doses) before the onset of the Omicron variant outbreak in Taiwan."
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1684118225001252#sec3
Quizfrage: Wo ist die ungeimpfte Kontrollgruppe? 😉 -> Vorsicht, man könnte unangenehme Realitäten bemerken.
👍2