[ColoCdn]

You have stated this claim numerous times, without corrobating documentation or evidence.

Either provide the docs or recognize that your claim of validity has no foundation.

Your inattention to this request over the past few hours has been astonishing.

[ColoCdn]

As if anyone other than you and I cares. There's no traffic on this thread.

[WildTurkey]

You have stated this claim numerous times, without corrobating documentation or evidence. Either provide the docs or recognize that your claim of validity has no foundation. Your inattention to this request over the past few hours has been astonishing.

You were the one that claimed expertise and possession of the report. It is all in there. You should be able to disprove my arguments easily, if, if fact, you have the document and the expertise AND if my arguments were false. But, have fun!

[WildTurkey]

You have stated this claim numerous times, without corrobating documentation or evidence. Either provide the docs or recognize that your claim of validity has no foundation. Your inattention to this request over the past few hours has been astonishing.

Here it is from your earlier post. ONLY 23% of the criteria showed improvement! hmmmm. You failed to include what happenedd to the other 77%! hmmmm. Seems like pure random chance would work these odds!

First, Yes, Byrd's methodology has been criticized, but of the 26 criteria per patient that he monitored, several criteria showed improvement, as determined by the statistical analysis of the proofs set up prior to the experiment.