Can you factually refute anything I have ever said?
You can't. That's why you resort to insults and ad hominems.
I either provide references for every scientific fact I post or provide them after someone tries to call me out. Since I am so open about my sources, it should be a simple matter to look at them and identify how I have lied about them--if I am, in fact, lying. But since I take information accurately from the sources, no one yet has ever been able to refute me.
Why do you have a hard time believing that a scientist reads thousands of papers? Just because they're too technical for you to read doesn't mean that scientists can't read them. For us, it only takes a few minutes to read a paper. In its entirety.
They’re not too technical for me.
You’re projecting your own low intellectual ceiling onto others.
See your earlier post about “statistics, several kinds of chemistry, and calculus”
somehow conveying prestige.
They bore me because I know they are in the service of a lie.
What you don’t get, or admit, is that merely yanking someone’s funding does not remove their scientific skill or acumen; and that peer review fails of its essential purpose (see the recent scandals both Stanford and IIRC Dana Farber on falsified results, there are plenty of others); and finally, failure to appear in peer review is not the strong evidence of quackery which you portray it to be.