Thread by @Jikkyleaks

Sorry but this is not a believable study.
1⃣ ORCID ID record for Lee is blank, she is not a molecular biologist (& address does not validate)
2⃣ No ethics approval despite clinical samples (blood and semen - seriously?)
3⃣ Vials were incubated for a year without bacterial or fungal growth - these people have never done cell culture.
4⃣Quoting #Sashagate as a source in scientific paper is a massive red flag

My view reading this is:

This paper was submitted to the IJVTPR to discredit it because it's one of the few journals that allows criticism of pharmaceutical companies.

I'm happy to reconsider if you can find a valid publication record for Young Mi Lee at that address.

@DiedSuddenly_ A bowling alley?

I can't find any record of "Hanna Gynecologist Clinic" using that provided address either.

This was from 2022:


I wonder if they targeted Broudy to add some credence to the LARP. ijvtpr.com/index.php/IJVT…

@DiedSuddenly_ I can find no evidence that these people exist in the scientific or clinical research realm
ijvtpr.com/index.php/IJVT…

I've found the clinic it's a tiny office in Jeju.

There is no pubmed history associated with the person or even the clinic.

It's not realistic that someone with no science publication history found nanobots after incubating an aqueous solution in a lab for a year.

Putting this all together and with the information that has been provided to me I suspect what has happened is that the person who has written the paper has tried to investigate without the necessary tools or experience or collegiate support (to tell them that it's all artefact).

Then the paper has been blown up by bad actors desperate to discredit the journal and anybody questioning the contents of the vials.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=LEE%2C+Y…