Quote:
Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald
And why would they do that? That is why they use labs to do analysis and validate each other's work.
That's a bad assumption. Don't think I've ever seen that. References, yes. Possible graphs or supporting math, but complete lab reports? Haven't seen that before. Articles are going to review findings and discuss those findings, not publish complete lab reports. Do you have articles like that?
How exactly do you repeat a surgery to remove a foreign object once that object has been removed? Or are you talking about the labs, which Leir stated had been verified by second analyses by a second credible lab? Why would they involve anyone from the outside world to confirm findings of a lab they are using a second lab to validate the findings?
I find it compelling because these people have claimed to have been through a highly descriptive traumatic event and have been able to identify a location of a possible implant, then surgery finds a foreign object at that location.
I don't disagree with you. There should be more testing. But that's what labs are for. That's why they paid the labs to do the analysis. Would I like to see more? Hell yes. Let's get to the bottom of the issue and see what is what. At the same time I can understand why they keep this stuff under lock and key. If it is what they claim it is, it is extremely valuable and many people would like to see it disappear.
Trust? I don't trust anyone or anything. I said it was compelling research and information. But I find lots of research in many areas compelling and worthy of more review. I find it interesting because it does support claims made by others who have been through similar traumatic events. The fact it is complimentary to other research is what makes me give it more rope. It's just like doing literature review and coming across information that is related, you have to go down that rabbit hole to determine how related and the affect on your research. I'm not saying this research is rock solid, far from it actually, but the reality is that all it takes is one of these implants to be what they are claimed to be, and everything we think we know changes. Same thing with all of this research. All it takes is one instance to be what is claimed, and its a whole new ball game, for good and bad.
|
In the private sector when you are buying things you routinely get access to lab reports. If the actual data and reports are not routinely part of the peer review process in academia that seems fairly flawed. I would expect any decent analysis of this type to discuss sample preparation, testing methodology, and list detailed results. This does not appear to exist.
All it takes is one instance. This is exactly why Leir’s work is garbage. If he has the smoking gun and has the evidence he says he has and the science is credible and not garbage then he could prove it.
This isn’t fuzzy photos, or memories. The claim here is easy to verify if he allowed access. I don’t understand how you would hand wave that away.
This started with you saying that there is numerous peer reviewed papers with physical evidence and you gave 3 names. I picked one, found claims with no peer review or evidence.