It turns out not only was it a badly written paper but they failed to provide controls for the most important portion of the study.
I didn't pick up on this at first since the first two sections mentioned controls which made me think everything was on the up and up. This is wrong.
To not have controls for the incubation period where they found the majority of their findings is beyond negligence. So something is up with these guys.
Still it doesn't mean that there isn't nanotech either. Just that these researchers seem to have made their study intentionally bad. Perhaps in order to be ridiculed later and debunked? Now the shills are out there "debunking" it, I think all as planned.
It turns out not only was it a badly written paper but they failed to provide controls for the most important portion of the study.
I didn't pick up on this at first since the first two sections mentioned controls which made me think everything was on the up and up. This is wrong.
To not have controls for the incubation period where they found the majority of their findings is beyond negligence. So something is up with these guys.
Still it doesn't mean that there isn't nanotech either. Just that these researchers seem to have made their study intentionally bad. Perhaps in order to be ridiculed later and debunked (psyop)? Now the shills are out there "debunking" it, I think all as planned.
It turns out not only was it a badly written paper but they failed to provide controls for the most important portion of the study.
I didn't pick up on this at first since the first two sections mentioned controls which made me think everything was on the up and up. This is wrong.
To not have controls for the incubation period where they found the majority of their findings is beyond negligence. So something is up with these guys.
Still it doesn't mean that there isn't nanotech either. Just that these researchers seem to have made their study intentionally bad. Perhaps in order to be ridiculed later and debunked (psyop)?
It turns out not only was it a badly written paper but they failed to provide controls for the most important portion of the study.
I didn't pick up on this at first since the first two sections mentioned controls which made me think everything was on the up and up. This is wrong.
To not have controls for the incubation period where they found the majority of their findings is beyond negligence. So something is up with these guys.
Still it doesn't mean that there isn't nanotech either. Just that these researchers seem to have made their study intentionally bad. Perhaps in order to be ridiculed later (psyop)?
It turns out not only was it a badly written paper but they failed to provide controls for the most important portion of the study.
I didn't pick up on this at first since the first two sections mentioned controls which made me think everything was on the up and up. This is wrong.
To not have controls for the incubation period where they found the majority of their findings is beyond negligence. So something is up with these guys.
Still it doesn't mean that there isn't nanotech either. Just that these researchers seem to have made their study intentionally bad. Perhaps in order to be ridiculed later as a psyop?