Soooo, you didn’t read it. Instead you attacked the author. Ad hominem. Invalid.
You asked for a credible source, and I provided one. Since you did not read it, you missed his references and footnotes. Your burden of proof being “peer reviewed studies” shows that you are blind to authority. Peer review is a flawed system that can elevate falsehoods, and bury actual science that goes against the prevailing dogma.
Bro, it’s free to read! There’s no money to be exchanged for this!
You act all high and mighty demanding to see peer review, but you have refused to even look in the document. You have attacked this man for writing a well-referenced critique, claiming that he’s in it for the money. That is quite literally an ad hominem argument. Guess what, sweetheart? People have every right to ask for donations and support. But it is not required for you to support it financially. Your burden of proof being a paper that is peer reviewed is in the same camp. How does research get conducted? How does anything worthy of reading get written? Money. You’re demanding that I pull out some altruistic, zero-funding yet still peer reviewed paper. That doesn’t exist.
I will stand by my claim that peer reciew is flawed, and that you absolutely have no right to criticize the source I gave you, as you have not read it. Since you have not read it, you have not even looked into the footnotes and the dozens of references therein that they also reference good science that may not fit your peer review requirement, but guess what? Peer review is a new concept, yet, here we are, existing in a world where MOST scientific breakthroughs happened without peer review.
Set et aside your dogma, as difficult as that is for you, and just read the paper.
Soooo, you didn’t read it. Instead you attacked the author. Ad hominem. Invalid.
You asked for a credible source, and I provided one. Since you did not read it, you missed his references and footnotes. Your burden of proof being “peer reviewed studies” shows that you are blind to authority. Peer review is a flawed system that can elevate falsehoods, and bury actual science that goes against the prevailing dogma.
Bro, it’s free to read! There’s no money to be exchanged for this!
You act all high and mighty demanding to see peer review, but you have refused to even look in the document. You have attacked this man for writing a well-referenced critique, claiming that he’s in it for the money. That is quite literally an ad hominem argument. Guess what, sweetheart? People have every right to ask for donations and support. But it is not required for you to support it financially. Your burden of proof being a paper that is peer reviewed is in the same camp. How does research get conducted? How does anything worthy of reading get written? Money. You’re demanding that I pull out some altruistic, zero-funding yet still peer reviewed paper. That doesn’t exist.
I will stand by my claim that peer reciew is flawed, and that you absolutely have no right to criticize the source I gave you, as you have not read it. Since you have not read it, you have not even looked into the footnotes and the dozens of references therein that they also reference good science that may not fit your peer review requirement, but guess what? Peer review is a new concept, yet, here we are, existing in a world where MOST scientific breakthroughs happened without peer review.
Set et aside your dogma, as difficult as that is for you, and just read the paper.