On Monday, June 24, 2013 6:10:12 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Thursday, June 20, 2013 10:55:45 PM UTC-4, Mike Vandeman wrote:

On Thursday, June 20, 2013 6:29:16 PM UTC-7, wrote:



This has already been covered ad nauseam, so I'm not going to bother arguing it with you again. Time and time again you have refused to produce the search criteria for your "literature" review,



I just did! All you have to do is look up a few lines. I know, that's too difficult for you.





As I already wrote, this has already been covered and I don't feel like watching you evade my questions again. Your claims that you found "all" of them are evidence of your ignorance.



Anyone who is interested can search for the title of your unpublished "paper" and a term like "search criteria" and see for themselves where this conversation would have gone had I chosen to waste my time with it.



(1) If your literature review isn't reproduceable, it isn't science. Therefore, as written, your "paper" isn't science. It's fluff.



(2) Several papers have been published (by real scientists) on the topic since 2004. Search for my name in this forum for times I have told you about them directly.



That's specific enough.

If they don't use an experimental design, they are worthless. Ask your mommie what that means.