"Exactly as predicted. I called your bluff and that is all it was ... a bluff. "
Well, you can tell yourself that. But just tell someone who actually does that sort of work that 'data normalization' is an unnatural perversion of science. Be prepared to be laughed at.
"Changing data is not synonymous with either"
It is when that is what is done. Which is, in fact, done in the papers you are whining about. Look, less_, papers were published. They went through peer review and have been out there for years. Yet no one has successfully challenged them. Despite the manipulation that was discussed in the emails being made available and documented in the papers. Now, we are supposed to believe that only you know the truth here?
Get this into to tiny ganglion cluster you laughably call a 'brain'. There were papers published with the data in question. The manipulations were discussed, presented and defended. If there was the slightest thing strange, it likely would have been caught in the peer review, and if not, sometimes that happens, the letters section of the journal would have lit up like a light bulb. If a retraction wasn't forthcoming, there would have been a flood of papers pointing it out.
That, however, didn't happen. That should be your first clue you are FOS. Not that you would recognize a clue if it piddled on your shoe.
Just for you, I present this. You are the guy in the chair...
None of that happened. |
