[Diggers350] Alternative media, honest & fake, doing what Private Eye should be...
tony at cultureshop.org.uk
Sat Oct 17 12:39:01 BST 2020
Moon of Alabama Its time to say goodbye
in which we debunk a debunking
Kit Knightly https://off-guardian.org/2020/10/16/__trashed-2/
Oct 16, 2020
Bernhard, the proprietor of alternate-news site
Moon of Alabama, has taken it upon himself to
one of our many Covid-related articles. It was
done without informing us of his intent, or
indeed offering us a right of reply.
Whilst this is regrettable and highly
unprofessional I do understand, given the
nature and quality of the article, why he would
neither want us to read it, nor respond to it.
Nevertheless, read it I did, and respond we must.
I would like to start with a few words of regret,
mourning for the age of solidarity now passed.
Until very recently I had believed perhaps
hoped is the better word that all of us in
the alternate news sphere were more or less on
the same side. After all, OffGuardian and MoA
have a long history continuing to this day of agreement.
On Ukraine, Syria, Libya, Russia-gate, Assange
and MH17 our opinions and coverage have always
almost totally aligned. This pattern is solid up
to this very day, with the obvious attempted coup
Belarus forming the most prominent recent example.
I would hope that such numerous strokes of
agreement accompanying as they do a broadly
similar world-view would therefore be able to
comfortably encompass such diversions of opinion
as are sure to manifest between even the most
like-minded of people. I had assumed that any
such conflicts of interpretation which did
eventually arise would be handled with, if not
amiable good humour, at least passing civility.
Sadly, that is not the case, and whilst B is
not noted in the alt-media world for either his
good humour or social skills, it is nonetheless
sad to find a former ally has become so willing
an enemy. Disagreeing is one thing, but publicly
attacking our intentions and honesty is quite another.
Secondly, I would like to make note of certain
contradictions not only from MoA, but across a
lot of those who consider themselves independent
journalists or alternative news or alt-media
or whatever their preferred nomenclature.
Specifically the contradiction of picking and
choosing when and how to trust the mainstream.
Many of these people devote their entire careers,
if not their lives, to debunking and
contradicting the mainstream media and yet,
when a story appears with which they agree, which
reinforces their preconceived ideas or bolsters
their own particular biases they gladly accept
it. MoAs fact-check is a prime example. I have
to say I fundamentally disagree with this approach.
The modern media is not a machine you can trust.
Not ever. It is a construction built to control
and corral opinion. To shuffle the public mind
around a game-board they do not know they are on,
based on rules they must never be allowed to
understand. It serves no other function. It
doesnt tell the truth sometimes; it isnt
occasionally trustworthy. Its a buffet of
poisoned courses, selectively stacking your plate
to suit your palate will not spare you the toxic
effects. Youll just smile as you choke.
To choose to believe or disbelieve the media only
when it suits your case is as foolish as being
entirely oblivious to its nature. Perhaps more
foolish, because you cannot hide behind blameless
ignorance. You, notoionally, know better.
Scepticism is a lens through which one must
examine everything, or nothing. It cannot be put
aside lightly when you want to score easy points,
or salve your own sense of panic, or you just
feel like fitting in for once. To do so is moral cowardice.
Using the mainstream propaganda term covidiot
is a perfect example. It is the product of the
same Deep State-media thinktanks and focus groups
that birthed conspiracy theorist into the
public consciousness. More recently we have seen
Russian bots and Assad apologist and Kremlin
stooge join these ranks alongside the ubiquitous denier.
These are labels designed to encourage
groupthink, to other dissenters and stifle
intelligent and informed debate. To use them is
to debase both yourself and the conversation.
Thirdly, and finally, I would like to add a few
words about professionalism, integrity and the
ethics of journalism. Journalistic ethics are not
really different from the natural decency with
which one hopes everyone seeks to comport themselves.
It is unseemly, we can all agree, to attack
someone and give them no chance to defend
themselves. For example, blocking someone on
twitter and continuing to bad-mouth them or their
work when they can offer no refutation, is not
generally speaking the done thing. Likewise, it
is basic professional practice that, if you
intend to refute someones work, you inform them
of this. It would usually be considered right to offer them space to reply.
Likewise selectively quote-mining is always considered bad form.
Claiming that It makes little sense to review
and refute the whole mess, and choosing to
concentrat [sic] on the 6 of the 8 [sic] Take
Home Messages might seem, at first glance, to be
an effort at maintaining brevity. However a more
cynical reader might point out that, in doing so,
MoA has chosen the only section of the text with no hyperlinked sources.
Throughout the original 5,000 word article there
are over 60 linked references, the majority to
academic journals and peer-reviewed studies.
Bernhard does not refute one of these sources, in
fact he doesnt even acknowledge their existence.
Instead choosing to attempt to refute 75% of the
articles conclusions, whilst ignoring 100% of
the arguments and facts upon which those conclusions are based.
Lies by omission are poor form, you could even
call them the hallmark of hack journalism.
With all that said, let us turn our attention to
the task at hand. I will address each of
Bernhards criticisms in turn, firstly quoting
the original article authored by Dr Jeanmonod,
then Bernhards response, and then my thoughts.
Dr Jeanmonod has been informed on MoAs attack on
his work, and has given his blessing to us to
make a response; while we dont speak for him, we hope he can approve.
1. CORONAVIRUSES, COLDS, SARS AND MERS
article for OffG, Dr Jeanmonod wrote:
1. Corona viruses are one of the viral agents of
the common cold, which, just like the flu, invade
the whole planet every year. They cause largely
widespread, mostly benign, yearly pandemics of respiratory tract infections.
MoAs response fits a familiar pattern a rather
pedantic nitpick, and then rather dishonest conclusion.
There are seven distinct corona viruses that
infect humans. Four of those can cause the common
cold. The infections are generally mild. At times
they have more severe consequences like
pneumonia. The infection fatality rate for these
four corona viruses is estimated to be about 0.1%.
This is broadly speaking true. It also doesnt,
in any way, contradict anything Jeanmonod says.
This, however, is a misleading and irrelevant tangent:
The three other corona viruses, SARS, MERS and
SARS-CoV-2 are very different beasts. They cause
very severe symptoms in a significant numbers of
the infected people. The infection fatality rate
for SARS was 9% and for MERS it is even 37%.
Equating SARS and MERS with the other four
coronaviruses he already mentioned neglects an
important difference: The four common cold
coronaviruses cause around 15% of the worlds
colds. That is literally 100s of millions of
cases every year. Conversely, there have been
officially recognised cases of SARS and MERS
in over 18 years.
Clearly, Jeanmonod is justified in claiming the
vast majority of coronavirus infections as mostly benign.
SARS and MERS, themselves already the subject of
hysterical global health scares, have fatality
rates based on such small samples as to make them
meaningless. They are suffering from the same
problem the Sars-Cov-2 outbreak was suffering
from back in spring we have only hospital
admissions to go on. We have only severe case data.
There have been very, very few seroprevalence
studies done on these viruses, thus we have no
data for how widespread these viruses are. How
many asymptomatic infections for SARS or MERS
have there been? We dont know. How many mild
cases dismissed as the flu or colds etc.? We dont know.
However, even if we accept the high fatality for
SARS and MERs, that is irrelevant, which Bernhard
himself admits in the next sentence
The true infection fatality rate for SARS-CoV-2
depends on various circumstances (health service
availability, social and medical conditions of
the population etc.) but is currently estimated to be around 1%.
Firstly, the fatality rate for Sars-Cov-2 is not
1%. It is substantially lower than that. In May
the CDC estimated it to be 0.26%, they then
it to 0.65%. Dozens of studies have been done
around the globe which roughly confirm 0.2% (the
numbers range from 0.08% to 0.3%). According to
the WHOs best estimate
likely around 0.14%.
But lets put that aside (well go into it in
more detail in point 2) let us temporarily
concede that MoAs figure is correct that
Sars-Cov-2 has a fatality rate of 1%. Why is he
then listing it alongside diseases which have
fatality rates between 10 and 37 times higher?
He has conceded that the IFR for Sars-Cov-2 is
nothing like as high as the other viruses.
Introducing the fatality rates of SARS and MERS
is a good example of the Association Fallacy an
attempt to put some large scary numbers into the
mix, by claiming an irrelevant connection. All it
really does is demonstrate that the Sars-Cov-2
fatality rate is comparatively low.
Summary: The fatality rate of Sars-Cov-2 is much
less than 1%, as evidenced by many studies. The
fatality rates for SARS and MERS are entirely
irrelevant to discussion of Sars-Cov-2.
2. DEATH RATES, SELECTIVE REASONING AND FILLER
In the original article for OffG, Dr Jeanmonod wrote:
2. COVID-19, the infection caused by SARS-CoV-2,
the current corona mutation, is not more lethal
than the flu, with a 0.1-0.2% infection fatality rate.
Bernhards response to this is in two halves
firstly a pedantic focus on the word mutation
and a lot of text about genomes, second an accusation of dishonesty.
This is a. outright nonsense that has no scientific basis and b. a lie.
The paragraphs devoted to waffling about genomes
are irrelevant. Viruses
very rapidly, for a number of reasons, and it
seems undeniably clear that Dr Jeanmonod is using
the word mutation as shorthand to refer to this
seasonal generation of respiratory viruses, that is all.
The accusation of dishonesty is far more serious.
He calls Jeanmonods claim that Sars-Cov-2 has a
fatality rate in line with seasonal flu a lie,
and claims it is outright false and easy to refute.
For some reason best known to himself, he then
chooses to refute this by doing his own maths
using rough, months old data from New York City.
Doing this he produces an IFR of 1.29%.
As we discussed above, this is much too high.
The World Health Organization estimated the IFR
to be 3.4% back in the Spring. This was an
absurdly high number which totally disregarded
the possibility of mild or asymptomatic cases. We
now know that the majority of infections are
symptomless, and the vast majority of those who
get symptoms only ever get mildly ill. The
corollary of this is the IFR has tumbled.
If Bernhard were being an honest broker on this
issue he would, at this point, acknowledge that
OffG has been shown to completely right about
this. We have been writing that the IFR was
inflated and would surely drop since May. Whereas
own predictions relating to IFR have not aged half so well.
Jeanmonod himself links to two studies showing an
respectively. At least a dozen other studies
around the world have demonstrated similar numbers.
Of course, Bernhard is free to disagree with
Jeanmonods interpretation, and to pick and
choose which evidence he puts weight on and which
he does not. But to ignore these data sources and
claim the author is lying is incredibly dishonest.
Summary: The 0.1-0.2% fatality rate is based on
seroprevelance studies from scientific journals. It is not a lie.
3. ON AGE AND CO-MORBIDITIES
In the original article for OffG, Dr Jeanmonod wrote:
3. An immense majority (95%) of fatal evolutions
happen in old and frail individuals with
premorbidities, with an average age of death at or above 80 years old.
Bernhard responded with:
That claim is again an outright lie
Im going to be charitable and assume that
Bernhards mistake here is to misread some admittedly ambiguous wording.
He calls the claim an outright lie, and
proceeds to try and debunk the idea that 95% of
Covid19 deaths are over 80 years old, but that is
not what Dr Jeanmonod said. The 95% here refers
to having serious comorbidities, not the age.
But, as I said, I will cede that this conclusion is ambiguously worded.
Of course, if Bernhard had bothered to tackle the
entire article and not just 6 of the 8
bullet-pointed conclusions he would know that.
Here is the full quote from the body of the text (with sources included):
For example in Italy, 95% of the fatalities
happened for patients suffering from one up to
three or more pre-existing morbidities, and the
age of the deceased patients was 82. Such a mean
fatality age is very close to the average life
expectancy of developed, e.g. European countries (83.6 years for Switzerland).
As you can see, there is no ambiguity here. The
95% here refers to pre-existing medical conditions, not the ages.
That the vast majority of alleged Covid19 deaths
have serious comorbidities is not just limited to
the figures from Italy it has been shown to be
US as well. In fact basically everywhere.
Bernhard does make a claim that these
co-morbidities dont cause death and the virus
does. This is unsourced conjecture, and is not in any way verifiable.
What IS verifiable is that government officials
all around the world
gone out of their way to point out how loose
their definition of covid death is, that it has
already lead to
It is also true that the average age of those who
allegedly die from/with covid19 is over 80 (you
can see a list of average age by
here). Bernhard does not refute this, because he cant.
Summary: His claim this statement is a lie is
based on either an accidental misreading of an
ambiguously worded sentence, or deliberate
quote-mining to take the authors words out of
context. Either way, the original claim is
demonstrably true, and sourced to official reports.
4. ON T CELLS, HERD IMMUNITY AND THE SECOND WAVE
In the original article for OffG, Dr Jeanmonod wrote:
4. Antibody studies, cross immunization with
other corona strains and the completion of the
death toll curve in many countries are strong
evidence that the human population is developing
herd immunity against SARS-CoV-2. In this
context, a severe second wave for SARS-CoV-2 is
improbable. We may rather expect a new cold
episode from it just like every year, but of
regular or even weak intensity thanks to the gained herd immunity.
Bernhards response to this is flawed in a few ways. Firstly:
Antibody prevalence even in hard hit place [sic]
like New York City is way below the 80% or so
that would be needed for some kind of herd
immunity. In the U.S. and Europe antibody
prevalence is in total way less than 10%. The bay
area for example has only some 2%. Is the U.S.
ready to give 10 times more lives than the
266,000 who have already died of Covid-19 to
achieve a only potentially temporary herd immunity?
His figure of 80% exposure for herd immunity is
old, and based on flawed modelling which assumed
there was no pre-existing mucosal and cellular
immunity, this has been shown to be incorrect.
The Herd Immunity Threshold (HIT) for any disease
is always, at best, a rough estimate and
Sars-Cov-2 is no exception. It was stated as 80%
back in April, but back then they said the UK
would get 500,000 deaths and the IFR was 3.4%.
Sweden worked on the model of 60% HIT. An article
in Nature suggested
was closer 50%. Another
put it at 43%.
have suggested the herd immunity threshold is
to 20% or even as
<https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.15.20154294v2>low as 10%.
The point is the HIT is not nailed down, and
Jeanmonods statement is backed up by scientific
studies which Bernhard ignores.
Cross immunization with other corona viruses is a
conjecture. We have so far no data that shows
that there is cross immunity from other viruses that works against SARS-CoV-2.
This is simply completely untrue. There are many
papers and studies showing pre-existing
cross-reactive T-cells, likely the result of
previous coronavirus infections. Heres
<https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867420306103>4 of them.
The improbable second wave of Covid 19 is
already developing in several European countries.
Just take a look at France. And dont worry. The
rise in the still low death toll WILL follow the
infection curve with a four weeks lag.
He illustrates this point using a graph of cases
from France, insisting that the fatalities will
lag but are coming soon (his tone regarding
predicting the deaths of 1000s of people, is
slightly odd, almost gleeful, but were not here discuss his psychology).
What he doesnt mention is that cases have spiked
not just in France, but the rest of the Western
world ONLY thanks to a huge increase in the
number of tests. If you test 100,000s of people,
using a test with a known false-positive rate
(more on this in point 5), looking for a disease
with a high percentage of asymptomatic
infections, you will undeniably get a spike in cases.
And thats not actual cases, but cases.
You see, before 2020 a case of a disease was
someone who got sick and developed symptoms. For
some reason Covid19 has recently changed that,
previous clinical practice out the window.
Summary: The statement about immunity and
antibodies is backed up by several scientific
papers, and MoAs herd immunity threshold is out
of date. The second wave is likely being
generated by huge numbers of tests finding
asymptomatic cases and false positives.
5. ON PCR TESTS AND THE CASEDEMIC
In the original article for OffG, Dr Jeanmonod wrote:
5. PCR testing of SARS-CoV-2 presence does not
give any reliable prognostic evidence of its
infectious power and lethality. The monitoring of
the pandemic state and evolution is given only by
the daily evolution of fatalities. In Switzerland
as in many other countries, there is no longer
any excess mortality attributable to the COVID-19
pandemic. Positive test rate is low (around 3%),
and tests have as always a technical false
positive rate and react to inactive viral fragments or to other corona strains.
Since Bernhards response to this is refreshingly
brief, I will quote it in full:
The author says that to evaluate the state of the
pandemic we should follow the number (death) that
is known to lag at least four weeks behind
infections instead of following the number of new
infections per day. That is lunatic. Its driving
at high speed while only looking into the rear
view mirror. During a highly dynamic pandemic we
need current infection data and predictions, not reviews.
Also: SARS-CoV-2 PCR tests DO NOT react to other
coronaviruses. The RNA strings they are reacting
to are unique to SARS-CoV-2. The tests can not even see any other ones.
Before we address the flaws in what Bernhard does
say, lets take a second to focus on what he does not say.
He doesnt, for example, refute the statement
that PCR tests are of almost no diagnostic use.
Because he cant.
He doesnt, you may notice, refute that PCR tests
have a noteworthy false-positive rate. Because he
And he doesnt, interestingly, refute that there
is no longer any appreciable excess mortality.
Because he cant. <https://www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps>Because its true.
Now, lets move on to what he does say.
Firstly, his assertion that new infections per
day is the best way to track the pandemic.
This is seriously flawed in more than one way:
The term new infections per day is incorrect.
Just because Person A is tested on Monday and
Person B is tested on Tuesday does not mean B is
a new infection, that is absurdly bad logic. If
you start widespread testing, testing 10,000s of
people every day you have no way of knowing
which infections are new and which are old. You
could only get new infections per day by
testing everybody every single day, which is obviously impossible.
If your test cant tell the difference between
viral RNA fragments and living virions (which PCR
does not, and cannot), then you cant tell the
difference between someone who is actively
infected and someone who was previously exposed
to the virus and either never got sick, or got sick and recovered.
If your test doesnt assess viral load (which PCR
does not, and cannot) then you have no way to
distinguish between a person who has enough
virions to cause disease and someone who does not.
If your test can
to the RNA of other viruses (which, counter to
does), then you have no idea who is positive for
Sars-Cov-2 and who just had a cold a couple of weeks ago.
All in all the cases number is unreliable and
borderline meaningless. To use it as a measure of
the pandemic would be to create a forever war on
an enemy which may already be defeated.
Summary: The PCR tests have been shown to be
highly unreliable in more than one way, and are a
potentially disastrous way of tracking a
pandemic. Jeanmonods preference for dealing
with confirmed deaths instead of misleading test
results is backed by science and experts in epidemiology.
6. ON LOCKDOWNS, DEATH AND HYPOCRISY
In the original article for OffG, Dr Jeanmonod wrote:
General isolation, distancing and lockdown
measures, by limiting social contacts, freedom
and basic human rights, add to the death toll
through an upsurge of psychosocial and economic
destabilization, worsening of psychiatric and
demented individuals and reduction of medical
care to the whole population. We have thus a
combined causality for an excess mortality of
COVID-19, a significant part of it being not due
to the SARS-CoV-2 virus itself but to the
worldwide COVID-19 panic wave and the imposed
introduction of drastic and inhumane measures.
Bernhard responds with his trademark tact and charm:
That is the Lockdowns kill thesis that many
covidiots use to claim that negative side effects
of pandemic control measures outweigh their positive effects.
The thesis is wrong. Spain had a total lockdown
everywhere between March 14 and May 9. It also
had a lot of excess death. A large countrywide
seroprevalence study showed where the most people
were infected. That data is available on a granular and localized level.
Here we see again the very careful process by
which Bernhard selects his data, choosing to
evidence his claim that lockdowns dont kill
people with a rather tortured statistical
reasoning based on numbers from six months ago,
and limited to a single country (Spain).
This is where the debunking lurches from
impolite strident arrogance into complete denial,
intellectual dishonesty and worst of all abject hypocrisy.
Lockdowns do cause death and destruction, this
has never been debated, even by the people
instituting them. The question was whether or not
the risks of Covid19 merited the undoubted toll
of collapsing the economy and shuttering
hospitals. No one, on either side of this
argument, has ever suggested they do no harm at all. Until now.
Refuting this kind of madness is like having to
refute someone claiming theyre a coffee table or
that they have six legs. Yes, its easy, and yes
it probably does need to be done
slightly demeaning, and since you know theyre
only going to ignore you and carry on being crazy, is there really any point?
Nevertheless, here we go: Yes, the lockdowns have
killed people, and will likely continue to do so.
They kill people in myriad ways which can be
broadly defined in three categories:
Denial of medical treatment. The shuttering of
hospitals has lead to countless tests,
screenings, treatments and surgeries being
cancelled. This is not up for debate. The exact
number of deaths caused by this is unknown, but
missed cancer diagnoses in England alone. Writing
in the Daily Mail, a prominent oncologist
110,000 patients are waiting to begin their
cancer treatments. A study at Birmingham
University found that, globally, over
MILLION surgeries had been cancelled.
In a similar vein, the medias pushing of the
message that the virus is incredibly dangerous,
combined with worrying people about over-crowding
hospitals, has lead to a huge drop in people
calling for emergency medical care. Hospital
attacks, strokes etc. are all way down from
yearly averages. According to the British Heart
Foundation, this has
lead to thousands of excess deaths from heart disease in the UK.
Economic misery and poverty. The destruction of
the economy, including rendering
of people unemployed and possibly many thousands
literally homeless, will obviously result in
death and suffering.
all surge as poverty increases.
Plus the increased anxiety of financial
destitution causes stress-related disease
ulcers, heart attacks, strokes which we already
established are not being treated thanks to
medical shutdowns. In the United States, with
their private healthcare system, unemployment and
poverty can mean not being able to afford medications you need to live.
Fear, Anxiety and Stress. The increased stress
isnt just related to financial problems, but the
pandemic itself. Fear and anxiety as well as
causing heart attacks etc. also
the immune system, leading to increased risk of
other diseases. Further, denial of human contact
is known to
the progress of degenerative disease such as
Mental health treatments have been halted, and
people already suffering are at massively increased risk of suicide.
Even Dr David Nabarro, World Health Organization
special envoy for Covid-19,
We in the World Health Organization do not
advocate lockdowns as the primary means of
control of the virus[
]just look at whats
happened to the tourism industry
happening to small-holding farmers[
]it seems we
may have a doubling of world poverty by next
year. We may well have at least a doubling of
child malnutrition [
] This is a terrible, ghastly global catastrophe.
To argue that lockdowns dont cause harm, dont
cause death, is patently absurd. But, as I said, its also hypocritical.
Throughout this whole ordeal we Covidiots or
pandemic deniers or whatever you want to call
us have been told we are putting money before
people, that we dont care about the lives and
suffering of human beings. That were saying some
lives matter less than others. Weve been called
selfish, inhumane, even genocidal.
And now those authoritarians who are so
pro-lockdown are turning around and not just
backing policies which are proven to result in
deaths they are then refusing to acknowledge
the deaths they cause. To wipe thousands of human
lives out of existence, and claim they never
existed. Its sickening and, frankly, disturbing.
cause excess deaths. This has been shown across
multiple nations and for multiples causes.
Denying that, at this stage, is almost insane.
And one senses, more than anything, that Bernhard
is attempting to soothe his own conscience more than deal with reality.
On the whole, if there were a theme to this
debunking it would be selectivity.
He carefully selects to refute this article, and
not the literal dozens of others we have done over the few months.
He carefully selects to refute the only part of
this particular article without linked sources.
He carefully selects to refute the death rate
with old data from one city, instead of new data from all around the globe.
He carefully selects to refute the idea lockdowns
increased mortality with hastily constructed
correlation, instead of officially cited causation.
And all the way through he carefully selects to
ignore the academic sources Dr Jeanmonod
references, and choose instead to present him as
an ill-informed man making sweeping statements
based on no evidence, rather than the truth: A
highly educated expert making reasoned
conclusions based on dozens of academic sources.
Its not a debunking in the true sense. Its
2000 word strawman, deliberately twisting the
irrefutable original into something with which he
can argue. Its intellectually flawed, but its
also sad. MoA is a site I have always respected, but this is small.
His attacks on the authors honesty, and the
integrity of our site, are likewise unfair and,
worst of all, all based on his deliberate
misrepresentation of our position. There is no
attempt at even-handedness or discussion. Only venal rage and abuse.
If he wanted to disagree with our article or
any of our hundreds of articles he could simply
have done so with a logical argument which
acknowledged and attempted to understand our
position. That would be reasonable and display
integrity. He could have asked for a right of
reply (we have never denied one to anybody,
ever), or offered us one on his site.
If he would simply acknowledge that we cite
sources from academic journals, that our
interpretations differ but we have a reasoned
argument based on science, and that our worries
stem from a place of genuine concern for our
fellow human beings, then perhaps some kind of understanding could be reached.
Instead he has set about burning a bridge, and
claiming we started the fire. Theres a fevered
madness about it. An hysterical refusal to admit
any evidence he doesnt like even exists at all.
I dont understand it, and I cant excuse it.
If your only recourse to win an argument is to
simply ignore all the evidence you may be
mistaken, whilst spouting abuse and accusing the
other side of dishonesty
isnt that already an admission of something?
He closes his piece with this quote:
There are quite a number of authors with titles
who have preconceived opinions and defend them
even when that requires mangling the facts or to simply lie about the science.
The irony is apparently totally lost on him.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Diggers350