So, I'm skeptical of the magnetized human videos too. Worth looking into though and I'm quite interested in the results anyone from the forum can get with those in their lives who were foolish enough to take the jibjab.
Couple of days ago I spent some time looking at many of the "magnet" videos. And while I would advise to be highly suspicious of anything that is categorized as a "Tiktok challenge", some of the videos were not totally unconvincing.
But this is still an unreliable information until we can check it with people we personally know.
Now, Google made a good job as usual of hiding any of these videos or discussion about them from the first search results, putting all the debunking and "fact checking" at the top. But when I searched for "magnet vaccine", it still displayed on the first page of search results this curious research paper:
The efficiency of delivery of DNA vaccines is often relatively low compared to protein vaccines. The use of superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles (SPIONs) to deliver genes via magnetofection shows promise in improving the efficiency of gene delivery both in vitro and in vivo. In particular...
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
The efficiency of delivery of DNA vaccines is often relatively low compared to protein vaccines. The use of superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles (SPIONs) to deliver genes via magnetofection shows promise in improving the efficiency of gene delivery both in vitro and in vivo. In particular, the duration for gene transfection especially for in vitro application can be significantly reduced by magnetofection compared to the time required to achieve high gene transfection with standard protocols.
I don't know if the same principle can be implied to mRNA vaccines (but apparently magnetofection was adapted to all kinds of nucleic acids), and if this is what was actually done in Pfizer or Moderna vaccines, but this research paper shows that this kind of thing does exist.
So the question is, if this is how the mRNA vaccine works and there is nothing "nefarious" about it, why wouldn't they explain it in the "fact checking"?
Notice that all the people that are doing the "challenge" say that this is proof of being "chipped", and all the "fact checking" articles also put an emphasis on denying that there is a microchip or anything metal in the vacicne. Like
this article by Reuters, for example.
Personally, I find it strange that they wouldn't make an effort to shed a bit more light on how the vaccine works, unless it is a corporate secret. Or they may not want people asking more questions about it, and what kind of effects it may have. It is experimental after all.
It is also not clear if such amount of iron oxide would be magnetic. Or maybe they know that any mention of "nanoparticle" would remind people of all the sci-fi shows they saw about "nano-bots".
Perhaps that's the reason why all the "fact checking" articles have such asinine explanations that just ridicule the "chip" idea. Well, I am not defending them in any way
, and we do know thanks to the C's that some of these vaccines can have microchips in them, or there is some other "chipization" element involved.
What I am trying to say is that it's possible that the "magnet vaccine" videos are genuine, at least some of them, but the reason for it is different and not an indication of a "chip", but how the vaccine works. It doesn't mean that this mechanism isn't harmful, or can be harmful under specific circumstances. Or that these iron oxide nanoparticles may be used in some additional way.
But I think that the devil is in the details, and this kind of "crazy talk" about magnets in the vaccines without providing coherent explanation or not having proper understanding may be actually used against the "anti-vaxxers".
Another example would be 5G. We know about its harmful effects, and that there is research on the topic, but then there are also people that assign anything and everything, like Covid, to 5G. And this kind of blanket approach is similarly harmful.
Added: I was talking about it with my ex-colleague, and during the discussion looked if there are any papers about these "superparamagnetic nanoparticles" in Russian. And apparently there are. Apparently it isn't something new at all, and here's an example when it is
being discussed in scientific magazine in Russian in 2009.