So you can post any random study and claim it has gospel but GWB should refute everything with more science and data than you who simply cites one study??
Nothing is Gospel. That's the point, holmes. Gwb is a wide-eyed babe in media-land.
Hell, I provided him the Editor contact info.
gbw's article is nothing but an editorial for sure. Opinion. What's the problem you guys have with CDC Data, Scientific articles?
They are there with citations, if you don't like something about the article then bitch and moan all you want, but at the end of the day, I don't see any action to hold the generator of the paper of note to account. You snipe at the messenger. What up wit that? Go to the source.
Again, I see a report. It is an interesting take on a situation that has scientific merit. I went to the original paper. I provided a link to the original paper.
If the original paper is in error and it is proven, then guess what, the paper that proves it wrong is Now Much more authoritative, would you agree.
That's the way fact based inquiry proceeds through time and often nails down some truth in the process.
Some go for this big 'ol stud instead. It's a free country and there's no accounting for taste. exhibit 'a'.
Debunk this for us if you will... we'll wait.