Originally Posted by
PhilipK
You are obviously in very deep denial, which may help to explain your meltdowns and you ad hominem attacks (which, of itself, should be a strong indicator to you of how comprehensively you have lost the argument.
But let's just, for a moment (and to let you try to preserve a tiny shred of your dignity), examine your thesis above.
Can you please explain what evidence you have to refute all the published material (from many different researchers) in this area? Where have they all gone wrong? Is it in the scientific method employed? The sample sets chosen? The equipment used? The controls? The statistical tools? The deductions drawn from the data? I mean, if you're right and they are all wrong, it will be easy for you to show where they have gone wrong - won't it?