Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: EdLake

No, as I said - discredited is when the editor publicly acknowledges that a statement was there that should NOT have passed peer review. And when the article is rebutted in the same journal by another scientist who requests specific new information to be published - and the original author makes no response - THAT is discredited.

Of course when other authors quote and then ignore the conclusions of the author - as has now been done by the CDC/Army authors of the Aerosol Scince paper - that’s also a sure sign that a paper has been discredited.

Maybe Beecher will publish these pure spore SEM images - that is - if he still holds a job in the FBI labs.


292 posted on 04/29/2008 7:24:03 AM PDT by TrebleRebel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 291 | View Replies ]


To: TrebleRebel

Okay. Well the debate over “principles of coating” and silica is settled by the article published by the Dugway authors. They are the anthrax weaponization experts. “The FBI has no in-house experts on anthrax weaponization. We knew Ed was just making it up because he never cited the aerosol literature on silica coating of anthrax spores.

But I find even broader contradiction of various of Ed’s claims in the lucid discussion by USAMRIID’s leading anthrax scientist A.M. Friedlander and his colleagues in the revised treatise I mention. It mentions the unsolved anthrax mailings in the foreword’s first sentence and yet Ed never makes any attempt to correct his webpage or acquire relevant sources. Ed, local public libraries pretty much will get anything you want by interlibrary loan. All free (or at least you can set that condition).

For example, he doesn’t correct his “accomplices” points or address Dillon’s theory and instead misleads the gullible reader.


293 posted on 04/29/2008 7:39:06 AM PDT by ZacandPook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 292 | View Replies ]

To: TrebleRebel
discredited is when the editor publicly acknowledges that a statement was there that should NOT have passed peer review. And when the article is rebutted in the same journal by another scientist who requests specific new information to be published - and the original author makes no response - THAT is discredited.

The dictionary definition of "discredit" is:

Discredit, 1. to disbelieve. 2. to cast doubt on. 3. to damage the reputation of; disgrace.

So, "discredit" means to disbelieve. It doesn't mean to disprove.

By that definition, I guess it can be argued that some people disbelieved the article and wanted more proof.

But, obviously, the article can be TOTALLY TRUE and still be disbelieved by people who prefer to believe in conspiracy theories.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

296 posted on 04/29/2008 8:02:39 AM PDT by EdLake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 292 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson