"Dear" "unverifiable", "undocumentable" "and" "most" "likely"
"unpublished" "scientist" "Hank":
<I am one of Dr. Hirt's peers> LMAO. Please, pray tell, how do I verify that? Show me the proof because "I" "do" "not" "believe" "you".
You did not even know what Middlebury College was!
First of all, you seem to enjoy using quotes, but you do not seem to be able to use that library just steps from you. You once stated you could not find the AJIC there, you also chose not to read an article on an antiviral anti-flu agent before commenting on it as competition for Zicam and you refuse to acknowledge the abstract posted by Dan regarding Gel-Tech's study as presented in Corfu. The abstract data is compelling and the study model, despite what you say, fit the model used by previously published cold studies. If you actually read about cold virus research, you would know that and also know that you look like a buffoon harping on that.
You feel qualified to make this statement:<<As I keep trying to drill through Dan's thick head, there are very specific procedures one must follow to conclusively prove something scientifically. GUMM has followed NONE of them. >>
Note that the editor of the AJIC publicly stated that the GelTech study met peer-review requirements, yet you feel justified in making such a sweeping and clearly inaccurate generalization despite the availability of the abstract and despite the fact that a journal editor has stated that the study (whose abstract you have available) was valid.
Guess what? They are also good enough for the FDA...
So, "Mr. scientist", show us your qualifications. Who would have thought that a "scientist" wouldn't do his research? You seem to enjoy touting yourself as a scientist but have not given any proof. The fact that you poke fun at a "Dr." who is easily researched and verifiably has published from UCSF and Harvard makes your little anonymous petulant scientist act even more funny. Just how are you, anonymous "Hank", Dr. Hirt's or any other "Dr's" peer? |
