You could and apparently do Infer that. I am not looking for inference. He has not ever specifically responded (other than the piece we are commenting on) to Steve K’s specific points of contention. I would prefer to see that juxtaposition rather than the sarcastic ad hominem. Just seems weak IMHO
You could and apparently do Infer that. I am not looking for inference. He has not ever specifically responded (other than the piece we are commenting on) to Steve K’s specific points of contention. I would prefer to see that juxtaposition rather than the sarcastic ad hominem. Just seems weak IMHO
I’ve been reading back through Kirsch’s points but am having a hard time finding the article(s) where he addresses the legitimacy of the methods used to “isolate” the virus. I mean, I know he has provided links to the peer reviewed studies, but that’s where it ends. Do you have a link to where he actually takes apart the methods used within those studies he cites. Until then I can’t say I’ve heard him “contend” anything yet. It’s frustrating because I’m looking for any good argument that will challenge the analysis of the likes of Cowan, Kaufman, Bailey, etc. In the spirit of good science it’s necessary to find ways to disprove ones own position. I was hoping Kirsch might give us something to chew on but I’m still looking for it.
You could and apparently do Infer that. I am not looking for inference. He has not ever specifically responded (other than the piece we are commenting on) to Steve K’s specific points of contention. I would prefer to see that juxtaposition rather than the sarcastic ad hominem. Just seems weak IMHO
Steve,
I’ve been reading back through Kirsch’s points but am having a hard time finding the article(s) where he addresses the legitimacy of the methods used to “isolate” the virus. I mean, I know he has provided links to the peer reviewed studies, but that’s where it ends. Do you have a link to where he actually takes apart the methods used within those studies he cites. Until then I can’t say I’ve heard him “contend” anything yet. It’s frustrating because I’m looking for any good argument that will challenge the analysis of the likes of Cowan, Kaufman, Bailey, etc. In the spirit of good science it’s necessary to find ways to disprove ones own position. I was hoping Kirsch might give us something to chew on but I’m still looking for it.