In article ,
paghat wrote:

I helped a technician "prove" a "fact"
about cancer cells that was not actually in
evidence, & the head physician
in the department put his name to it. The resulting
report with scarsely a
single truth in it got the grant was renewed...




Well, thanks for filling us in on your ethics, but you
still have not provided any of the information you think
is so important.

You have gone to great lengths about the corrupt scientific
establishment, your contempt for Pathologists, etc. You
have shown us how important it is that the world know
*my* employer, *my* profession, and *my* credentials.

But when I ask you the same questions, you run like
a cockroach exposed to the light. Why is that?


Tell me, paghat, who is your employer?


Tell me, paghat, what are your credentials, other than
your claimed and demonstrated skill at deceit?


And, of course, my challenges stand. One teensy,
itsy-bitsy, scientific article in a peer reviewed
journal that claims to show that Roundup is dangerous
to humans when used as directed. One. Just one.
Uno. Ichi. Un. Une. Ein. Um.

You get the idea.


Oh, and I'm still waiting on the "table salt"
quote. Or a retraction. But I expect to wait.
You don't have the ability to provide the former,
and lack the integrity for the latter.


billo