--- In [email protected], "dhamiltony2k5" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > So, after reading Thom Krysto's Weekly Reader article about how the > TMorg sanitizes things to their own benefit, who would you believe > more here about this PR science report? Dr. Pete's review on FFL or > Ken Chawkins of the MUM public relations department with this press > release of the MUM public relations department? >
I would believe neither. Remain skeptical. And actually look to the data. (Which I am sure Dr. Pet has not.) Which i am doing. And share freely to anyone intersted. http://2006-course-effects.blogspot.com/ > --- In [email protected], Peter <drpetersutphen@> > wrote: > > > > This is called PR science. It is a pile of shit and > > any serious scientist knows it. I'd love to see them > > try to publish this "research". What a joke. It is an > > insult to MMY and this tradition. > >
