Don’t think you understood the underlying point of their comment.
Don’t think you understood the underlying point of their comment.
lol ok bud
genocide apologist
REMINDER: THIS IS WHERE WE STARTED
MY POINT = PROVEN CORRECT
PLEASE KEEP MOVING THE GOALPOST
The paper wasn’t retracted until 2010 lol. The point is that fraudulent papers can be published.
Still lmao.
This just shows the resilience of publishing, and the scientific community to fraud and [alleged] corruption
Uh… sure it does, buddy.
Lol I despise people not knowing what a strawman is. Go back to english class.
Tell me more about how antivax scientists didn’t successfully publish a paper with tons of biases and nonsensical findings.
No paper would be published if it was biased and as selective as you say.
That is incredibly naive of you and truly points to your lack of credibility.
What would make you think that a PC wouldn’t also be able to do this for longer? Lol.