Wait, what about pylori?
On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 8:18 AM, Peter Gluck <[email protected]> wrote: > It is about minorities > % of physicists who believe in LENR; > % of LENR- ists who believe in LENR+ (but wait a year!) > > I think the most relevant, relative recent case is that of Helicobacter > pylori The case is well described, statistics cannot be made. > All the cases are half history , three quarter anecdote. > My poisoning hypothesis is analogous to it, but I will not receive > the Nobel Prize. > Peter > > > On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 5:34 PM, Alain Sepeda <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Just a practical question . (serious, I need a number) >> is there any statistic about the ratio of physicist who think LENR is not >> real? >> >> is there a recent number about the number or peer-reviewed papers, >> positive or negative about LENR, eliminating the journal that are dedicated >> to LENr, free energies, and uncommon science (as mainstream says)... >> >> does some people also know that kind of numbers for other past great >> discovery, at inception, like : >> - planes >> - hygiena >> - continental drift/wegener >> - QM >> - fission >> - heliocentrism >> - immunization >> - 5-symmetric crystal >> >> I'm afraid there are few of those data, and that the few data on recent >> stories have been erased (like 5-symmetries)... >> >> it seems that today it is a problem to address, so at least I should have >> answers. >> >> >> > > > -- > Dr. Peter Gluck > Cluj, Romania > http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com >
