So, just science being science then? Disagreements have always been a part of science, and always will be. The only important factor is how they are handled. Think a study is flawed? Repeat it, and change the flaws to see if the results differ significantly. But openly discrediting any evidence (for or against a case) without testing is as unscientific as it gets. I believe the person at the end also has a point: yeah, we don’t know if microplastics are as bad as they say, but better safe than sorry.

And this is why the current system (the tabloidisation) of publishing is a danger to science itself, because people might lose trust in it.

I don’t get the downvotes. The article explains that many researchers pointed out methodological issues in the tests measuring microplastics and the implausibility of some results. An the criticism was made writing letters to the respective journals that published the results, i.e. at the highest level, even some authors admitted the possibility of mistakes in the results. Sounds good news to me and honestly having microplastics in the brain equivalent to a credit card was hard to believe.

Removed by mod