We are suffering from a severe shortage of food and medicine; we are suffering from acute malnutrition.

My wife is four months pregnant. Due to lack of food and medicine, she has completely lost consciousness. Her life and the baby's are in danger, and I am helpless to do anything for her.

I feel like I am going to die. We are living in hell because of the war. I don't want to lose my wife. My wife needs treatment as soon as possible to save her life and the life of her unborn child. Please help me, don't leave me alone in this cruel world.

I ask for your help with a heart filled with sorrow, loss, and pain. I lost my mother and older brother in this war.

Therefore, I am asking for your help and compassion to save my wife's life. Is there anyone who can save my wife? We urgently need a course of treatment costing 450 euros to improve her condition.

Please Donate Now For Save Life Her

Gazavetters is trusted because they are Palestinian run AND they call out spammers and scammers they find.

Donate and Share to help reach more donors.

Can't Donate = Still Share it still helps this reach more donors.

me: is that true or is the normal critical scientific peer review and replication process underway, and being deliberately misconstrued by plastic companies for the 10,000th time

the guardian exclusive: it's just good science, sir :)

i look at the interviewees -> it's dow chemical company

doubt the science, cherry-pick scientists, minimize the impact, delay regulation. doubt, deny, delay. EVERY. TIME.

The referencing of a former chemist at Dow is what piqued my interest.

Your point about scientific peer-review is mirrored in the Guardian Letters response by Jamie Davies, Professor of experimental anatomy:

Research reports are published primarily for other researchers. Especially at the beginning of a field, foundational studies may be small, and “scruffy” in terms of methods, but worthy of publication because they highlight an important question and are a rallying cry for more researchers, with a broader range of collective expertise, to investigate thoroughly. Peer reviewers check that a report covers existing knowledge fairly, that it presents and analyses new data appropriately, and that the paper itself does not extend its conclusions beyond the data. Their job ends with the research report – they have no control over how press releases, AI summaries, bloggers and journalists transform what may be a nuanced report, whose uncertainties will be understood by other researchers, into an unjustified bald statement of fact. In my research life (nothing to do with microplastics), I have read many contradictory research reports, each entirely worthy of publication, and often turning out to be contradictory only because, like blind men of the parable each feeling a different part of the elephant, each early report explored only a facet of something eventually understood to be bigger and more complex. Scientific knowledge is always provisional, and research papers are not statements of eternal truth but contributions to an ongoing conversation between scientists. If the public is made sceptical of science by contradictory news reports, this may be because most newspapers say little about really solid areas of science and focus instead on the wild frontiers.

And this bit in another article: