PugBrady
On the Roster
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2006
- Messages
- 60
- Reaction score
- 129
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.this how wells gets a proverbial wedgie
This the perfect place to ask. Has anyone such as a physicist or a major university physics department come out and defended the Wells report findings as being correct?
Unfortunately, Kraft had a previous financial transaction involving the company the good doctor is affiliated with and any conclusion he draws will be poo pooed by the skeptics, regardless of his credentials. Each side has their go-to-guys.
You are absolutely correct......but the media is focusing on Kraft's connection...not the science in the report. Furthermore, Kraft was late to include a disclosure of the financial relationship. Amateur moves by Kraft's handlers ...and any impact they were hoping to achieve was dampened.Holding stock in a company, purchased as part of an investor group, is hardly a "financial transaction" to worry about. I have some retirement money in an index fund. Does that mean I've made "financial transactions" with all of the companies listed on the Dow Jones index?
Billionaires like Kraft have investments everywhere. He probably has investments that are tied in some way to some of the people that Wells hired for his sham report.
So any scientists argued counter to Mackinnon? Or drewfustin?
I believe I saw a twitter exchange from someone at Nature, but at worst, they stated with all of the unknowns, no real conclusion can be made.
I really think this should be decided by the science and not a bunch of hearsay of interpreting texts.