(edited typos) Re: "When science cannot be questioned..." REPOST
Spudlydoo,
I'm sorry you've spent so much of your time 'with me'; if I lead you to believe I wanted to enter into this type of debate, you have my truest of apologies.
I simply have no intention of entering into debate or discussion with 'anybody anytime on anything' where it seems to me that others :::deep breath::: continually attempt to 'support their opinion on the subject at hand' by analyzing and picking apart every syllable of every word of every phrase uttered by others; then deciding what the phrases "really mean"; and then claim their conclusion proves someone else in the debate/discussion is not capable of making a valid contribution to the discussion.
Example:
>>>You have no idea that my lab work was inaccurate, and no evidence at all that any lab work is "notoriously inaccurate". You are basing your opinion on the opinion of others, which weakens your statements. <<<
In my opinion, your interpretation is as invalid as your conclusion.
I *have* researched the various errors made in hospitals & labs (it's of particular interest to me) and if you'd care to do the research you'd find that it's valid to say (albeit "general"): that "labwork is notoriously inaccurate".
I *never* said I knew your labwork was inaccurate, and your deciding that's what I "really meant" does not make itI what I said or what I meant.
There is nothing about my statement that in ANY way weakens the validity of any of the points I may ever make regarding flushing. Whether I am correct regarding statistics on labwork, has nothing to do with whether my points on
Liver Flushing are worthy of consideration. And quite frankly (having seen that you're extremely intelligent), I find it disrespectful & distasteful that you would use such tactics with me (or anyone else).
Again, I'm sorry for your waste of time on such a glorious day. Please don't think I'm upset or angry; I just choose not to involve myself in this debate, in this way, at this time.
Happy New Year,
Uny