Calfpupa [she/her]

I think they changed their versioning soon after you installed

Not Hong Nong?

My wife is the more knowledgeable one, but a meta-analysis is basically when you combine all the data of similar studies on a subject. It can expose studies that are bad within the data set and better assess the efficacy of the techniques used in a study. Compare that to what was done here, which was mostly just cherrypicking and highlighting the issues of a handful of studies.

I encourage you to give a peek at the counter counter-arguments! There is some jargon, but there is decipherable stuff in it (moreso than the original papers imo). One of them says something to the effect of “we had to skip the standard control because the control was in a container that was releasing microplastics” which I would consider reasonable.

I called this a hit piece because the person they quote about it being a “bombshell” works for DOW Chemical.

This is a hit piece, echoes of big oil & tobacco. It’s picking studies that have (debatable) issues, then is casting a wide net that is encouraging doubt of all microplastics in the body studies. They take the time to explain why these can be ignored, but depend on you to go read the counter-counterarguments made by the original researchers of each study yourself.

Rauert says there are absolutely nanoplastics in our bodies, but micro plastics are unlikely due to their size.

It doesn’t do a meta-analysis of all MNP studies and doesn’t disregard bad criticisms or biased voices (Kuhlman). It’s also sensationalised.

Pulled from a chat about this when this was released

Which locations weren’t impacted by the first trump administration’s education department or no child left behind?

The issue is the “some problem” with windows literally cannot be fixed and they’re asking for a solution.