- Joined
- Jun 4, 2002
- Messages
- 14,331
That’s a very well written advertisement by synthetek.
Are those of us who’ve tried it allowed to still disagree?
Logical fallacies and strong correlations/assumptions don’t cancel out our experiences and opinions.
Most of us just don’t argue because it’s sort of like bringing up an issue about Pfizer on a show sponsored by Pfizer.
If we aren’t allowed to have an opposing view, that’s okay. Just tell us.
Nobody here is definitively saying it IS anything, they’re just saying we know it isn’t likely to be the same muscle and trying to guess what the volume is made up of.
The burden of proof lies with the believer.
I assume I’ll just be blasted about those, so I’ll relieve myself from the thread.
What you are saying is that it's ok for someone to argue that the sky is red because they believe so, even though all evidence shows it's blue.
And about the article that I linked are all those independant studies done by reputable scientists and published in credentialed publications that the article relies on, were actually paid for by Synthetek? And all the various countries' health departments were duped by it in issuing the licences/permits?