{"id":31987,"date":"2017-05-26T20:54:53","date_gmt":"2017-05-26T18:54:53","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/ocasapiens-dweb.blogautore.repubblica.it\/?p=31987"},"modified":"2021-12-19T20:52:49","modified_gmt":"2021-12-19T19:52:49","slug":"hilarity-ensues-again","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archivio.ocasapiens.org\/index.php\/2017\/05\/26\/hilarity-ensues-again\/","title":{"rendered":"Hilarity ensues again"},"content":{"rendered":"

Scusate il deplorevole cross-blogging, m’\u00e8 debordata la Schadenfreude.\u00a0Il 24 maggio la\u00a0Dr. Antonietta Gatti<\/a>\u00a0sbarca da “Respectful insolence” sull’aria di lei non sa chi sono io:<\/p>\n

\n

Dear Mr Orac,
\nthank you for having reviewed my paper on nanocontamination in vaccines and the lack of quality control. I wonder on what your criticism may be based since it seems evident that you have no notion of nanotoxicity and nanopathologies.
\nI am looking forward to receiving the analyses you yourself have made, as basic science works like that. The rest is prattle. Any scientist can see that you did not demonstrated anything. You think you showed, in fact, that contamination is not present and for reasons you should explain, I forged my results.
\nI am sure you understand that that is far from being enough and you are not being credible the way nobody is when prefers chats to facts.
\nI will be glad to check your results as soon as you have some to show.<\/p>\n

Orac<\/a>:<\/p>\n

[…] I am amused by your seeming belief that in order to criticize a study I must repeat the experiments and get a different result. Sorry, but basic science, peer review, and post-publication review don\u2019t work that way. It is quite possible to recognize a bad study just by reading it. If I wanted to do something related to your work that would be one thing, but I\u2019m a cancer surgeon and researcher. That\u2019s where I put my energy in my career.<\/p>\n

Ms Gatti<\/a>\u00a0sull’aria di lei non sa chi sono io bis<\/em><\/div>\n
\n

Dear Mr. Orac (sorry, but I cuoldn\u2019t find any scientist by that name), It very strange that a great cancer surgeon as you say you are and a researcher to boot has never realized that the cancers he cuts contain solid, non biodegradable micro- and nanoparticles, particularly at the interface between healthy and pathological tissue. The impression you give is you are a mediocre amateur full of hatred.<\/p>\n

Orac \u00e8 ancora pi\u00f9 divertito<\/p>\n

You know, my real name is about the worst kept secret in the blogosphere. I now use it as a sort of intelligence test for commenters. If you can\u2019t figure it out, you\u2019re not worth much, if any, of my time. (Hint: It\u2019s right on this blog somewhere, and not difficult to find.) If my \u201creal identity\u201d means so much to you and you didn\u2019t bother to find out, then why should I bother to dig into your claims?<\/p>\n

As far as nanoparticles as The One True Cause of All Disease\u2026<\/p>\n

http:\/\/scienceblogs.com\/insolence\/2017\/02\/08\/nanoparticles-the-new-one-true-cause-of-all-disease\/<\/a><\/p>\n

La platea gongola:<\/p>\n

Well, someone has \u201cnano-particles\u201d on the brain, that\u2019s for sure.<\/p>\n

\u00c8\u00a0ben informata:<\/p>\n

a mediocre amateur full of hatred.<\/i>
\nSaid the person who thinks that Tungsten and Wolfram are different elements.<\/p>\n

Well, someone has \u201cnano-particles\u201d on the brain, that\u2019s for sure.<\/i>
\nhttps:\/\/pubpeer.com\/publications\/21196301<\/a>
\nhttps:\/\/pubpeer.com\/publications\/7C425F1D7E82F1280504EA4DEAC914<\/a>
\nhttps:\/\/pubpeer.com\/publications\/27669365<\/a>
\nhttps:\/\/pubpeer.com\/publications\/16362224<\/a>
\nhttps:\/\/pubpeer.com\/publications\/15332619<\/a><\/p>\n

Inferisce<\/p>\n

So, if these nano particles are non-biodegradable, does that mean if you exhumed a cancer victim, every part of their body except the cancer will have decomposed? Cool!<\/p>\n

Infierisce<\/p>\n

\n

The impression you give is you are a mediocre amateur<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Funny. That\u2019s exactly the impression I had of the whole collection of authors of that abysmally badly done paper on particles in vaccines. There\u00a0might<\/i>\u00a0actually be some minor issue with particulates in vaccines, but the paper was incredibly bad in documenting process and the actual work was apparently done without any reasonable controls to validate process that the only reasonable response is to reject the work in its entirety.<\/p>\n

There is a clear distinction between hatred and contempt.<\/p>\n

L’associazione con i morgelloni \u00e8 pertinente:<\/p>\n

Son of a gun. I\u2019ve signed out four cancers so far today but have observed none of these mysterious micro\/nanoparticles, even at the interface between normal and malignant tissue. They seem even more elusive than Morgellons critters.<\/p>\n

Bref, fama mondiale anche per la Prof. Gatti in Montanari, che non si fa pi\u00f9 viva.\u00a0Idem da quando le ho chiesto alcuni\u00a0chiarimenti<\/a>. Visto che legge il mio blog, ci riprovo:
\nNella sua\u00a0replica<\/a>, nega a pi\u00f9 riprese di essere la persona di cui parlo in “Spermatozoi infuocati, una scoperta italiana<\/a>”\u00a0e scrive<\/p>\n

Naturalmente se M.me Coyaud ha informazioni diverse sul mio conto che io stessa ignoro, me ne renda edotta.<\/p>\n

L’avr\u00f2 confusa con un’altra?<\/p>\n

il livello [di Oggi Scienza] non \u00e8 quello del dibattito scientifico e, dunque, si svolge su un terreno che non mi appartiene.<\/p>\n

Il\u00a0terreno che le appartiene\u00a0non<\/strong>\u00a0\u00e8 questo blog<\/a>\u00a0anti-vax e pro-ciarlatani?<\/p>\n

Non sono affatto una \u201cmilitante antivaccinazioni\u201d<\/p>\n

Non<\/strong>\u00a0ha scritto su quel blog una\u00a0recensione<\/a>\u00a0entusiasta di\u00a0Vaxxed<\/em>: \u201cFa solo notare una correlazione temporale fra la vaccinazione e alcuni effetti neurologici (principio di causa-effetto) che mi sembrano tragici\u2026\u201d pur sapendo, presumo, che una correlazione non implica il principio di causa-effetto neppure tra parentesi?
\nNon<\/strong>\u00a0ha scritto in \u201cVaccini s\u00ec o no?<\/a>\u201d e su una rivista-spazzatura che 28 vaccini iniettati nel sangue (sic<\/em>) sono contaminati con\u00a0nanoparticelle tossiche<\/a>, tra le quali il\u00a0wolframio [W] e<\/strong> il tungsteno [W]<\/a>?<\/p>\n

Che io appartenga ad un fantomatico \u201cDipartimento di Nanodiagnostica\u201d \u00e8 cosa che mi era ignota fino a che non ebbi a leggere lo scritto di M.me Coyaud.\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Fonte:\u00a0Journal of Nanomedicine Research<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

Risulta <\/a>sulla rivista-spazzatura di MedCrave, del cui comitato editoriale fa parte\u00a0Antonietta Morena Gatti <\/a>\u00a0e che ha pubblicato gli\u00a0articoli<\/a>\u00a0di \u201cAntonietta M Gatti* del Department of Nanodiagnostics, National Council of Research of Italy; *Corresponding author: Antonietta M Gatti, Department of Nanodiagnostics, National Council of Research of Italy\u201d.<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/em>io non ho mai avuto nulla a che vedere con azioni legali connesse in qualunque modo ai vaccini<\/p>\n

Non<\/strong>\u00a0\u00e8 l’Antonietta M Gatti che l’anno scorso insieme al marito Stefano Montanari ha effettuato e firmato la\u00a0perizia<\/a>\u00a0\u201cValutazione di vaccino Meningitec tramite indagine nanodiagnostica\u2026\u201d per conto dell\u2019accusa, nella causa intentata da anti-vaccinisti francesi?<\/p>\n

Per potersi esprimere con credibilit\u00e0 su un argomento [la presenza e conseguente tossicit\u00e0 delle nanoparticelle nei vaccini<\/em>, ndr] che prevede una ricerca basata su tecnica e scienza occorre avere le nozioni necessarie per farlo e le capacit\u00e0.<\/p>\n

Se\u00a0non<\/strong>\u00a0\u00e8 l’autrice della perizia, a quale titolo accusa\u00a0J.-C. Alvarez<\/a>,\u00a0ricercatori dell\u2019ANSM ed esperti<\/a> indipendenti, che l’hanno ritenuta dilettantesca, di essere incompetenti, ignoranti, inaffidabili e\u00a0incapaci?<\/p>\n

Domanda di riserva nel caso non avesse un’omonima e sosia dal\u00a0curriculum identico<\/a>\u00a0che, a sua insaputa, lavora con\u00a0suo marito ed \u00e8 la\u00a0vera fondatrice<\/a>\u00a0della loro azienda (il prof. Montanari sar\u00e0\u00a0bigamo<\/a>? Non oso immaginare le tragiche conseguenze delle informazioni di cui una delle due chiede di essere edotta…)<\/p>\n

6. Quali ricerche ha pubblicato in\u00a0riviste scientifiche<\/a>\u00a0sulla\u00a0burning semen disease<\/a>?
\nIn fiduciosa attesa di querela…
\nagg. 29\/5<\/strong>: altre notizie nei commenti sotto.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Scusate il deplorevole cross-blogging, m’\u00e8 debordata la Schadenfreude.\u00a0Il 24 maggio la\u00a0Dr. Antonietta Gatti\u00a0sbarca da “Respectful insolence” sull’aria di lei non sa chi sono io: Dear Mr Orac, thank you for having reviewed my paper on nanocontamination in vaccines and the lack of quality control. I wonder on what your criticism may be based since it… Continua a leggere Hilarity ensues again<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,20],"tags":[497,519,1826,1969,5628],"class_list":["post-31987","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bufala","category-medicina","tag-anti-vax","tag-antonietta-gatti","tag-david-gorski","tag-dipartimento-di-nanodiagnostica-del-cnr","tag-pubpeer","entry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/archivio.ocasapiens.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/31987","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/archivio.ocasapiens.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/archivio.ocasapiens.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archivio.ocasapiens.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archivio.ocasapiens.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=31987"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/archivio.ocasapiens.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/31987\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":44913,"href":"https:\/\/archivio.ocasapiens.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/31987\/revisions\/44913"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/archivio.ocasapiens.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=31987"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archivio.ocasapiens.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=31987"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archivio.ocasapiens.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=31987"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}