response to all detractors video
contextual.
manipulative.
inaccurate.
not only cherry-picked, but a 'paid to publish' paper, simply to imply to the audience, the appearance of consensus and validation within the broader scientific community.
extreme confirmation bias.
audacity to attempt to reduce a required 10,000-hours of study, down to a 10-minute sound bite.
completely lacking in scientific rigor.
failure to defend premise.
easy to understand why broadcasts would repeatedly come under fire.
I don't see any real science demonstrated, only effective marketing attempts towards an audience which is more uninformed than the author.
an un-regulated, non-juried internet is a double-edged sword.
caveat emptor.
__________________
Photobucket album: http://s1271.photobucket.com/albums/jj622/aerohead2/
|