[RFEngineer]

“The credibility of the article is easily checked but if that is the complaint point to where the article is wrong not what you say the ICR believes, the ICR did not write the article, one person did.”

The article author misrepresented the quoted research per previous posts. However, that sort of article is fully in line with most ICR “research”.

It is completely reasonable to point to the ICR, it’s complete lack of scientific credibility and state with confidence that any conclusions reached by it or it’s “researchers” is erroneous.

Do you wish to defend the ICR?

[count-your-change]

The ICR can defend it's self if it needs to, what I ask is a bit sticking to the subject at hand and not wandering off into the wilderness of what was not said. Credibility and all.

But since you make this comment about the credibility of the author, “The article author misrepresented the quoted research per previous posts. However, that sort of article is fully in line with most ICR “research”.”, can you point to just what you're talking about? And about that sequencing stone and minerals? How are coming along with that?