red_flanders said:Probably why he used the term "evidence" instead of "proof".
Benotti69 said:Mas is on twitter giving his opinion about the clinic for those interested.
Benotti69 said:Mas is on twitter giving his opinion about the clinic for those interested.
Granville57 said:Not since August, and it was mostly based around this mysterious thing, that he apparently couldn't understand, called a "vortex."
![]()
Benotti69 said:
Dr. Michele Maserati @DrMaserati · Oct 23
@dwuori Fontastic
Afrank said:Allow me to confirm what the truth is here.
Bluenote is not Dr. Maserati. For proof, I will site IP addresses. The two do not share a single IP that is even remotely similar.
Glenn_Wilson said:HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Good scoop.
thehog said:Koren spambot has been fudging IPs for a good few weeks now so not likely that users could fake their IP address![]()
thehog said:Actually it's vlassic Jocueim/Statue, I've changed my position.
Not Dr. M, but a good impression nevertheless.
TheSpud said:Ha Ha - please don't take this the wrong way, but that answer must have been written on a phone (small keys, etc.) or you've had a night out with JTL before typing that!
TheSpud said:Ha Ha - please don't take this the wrong way, but that answer must have been written on a phone (small keys, etc.) or you've had a night out with JTL before typing that!
Dear Wiggo said:Is obvious sockpuppet obvious? Belittling The Clinic whilst participating in it solely, whilst talking up the "skill" of provoking "thought"...
Seems legit.
TheSpud said:Ha Ha - please don't take this the wrong way, but that answer must have been written on a phone (small keys, etc.) or you've had a night out with JTL before typing that!
thehog said:Actually it's vlassic Jocueim/Statue, I've changed my position.
Not Dr. M, but a good impression nevertheless.
MarkvW said:I'm not so sure! He's discussing my posting history now.
the sceptic said:Free vortex. I feel like he might be holding back on this new account to not make it super obvious its him.
the sceptic said:Free vortex. I feel like he might be holding back on this new account to not make it super obvious its him.
Dr. Maserati said:You are in the UK I believe - so you posted this at 10:21am UK time.
This at 10:57 UK time.
Then this at 11:10am UK time.
Then you went to bed.....
If you have any further argument that you don't want public, then don't make your arguments in public.
Bluenote said:Various studies of EPO's ability to increase tumor growth is sufficient that the FDA issued a bulletin and developed a whole risk management plan, Doctor training, etc...
Who are these "some?"
Doctors? PhD medical researcher types?
The FDA?
Defenders of Armstrong on the internet?
If you know any of these "some" I suggest you tell them to contact the FDA and tell the FDA 'hey, you've got it all wrong boys.'
"some" also believe the Earth is flat. I don't find the measure "some people" agree / disagree to be a meaningful metric.
Yes, I acknowledged the underlined in my post.
Then why did you waste my time asking for "vetted" studies? Most vetted studies are behind paywalls. Yes, I can access these studies. No, I can not post them (copy write issues).
I would describe this as a "goalpost move."
-First you want "vetted" studies, which I provided.
-you ignore the importance of the FDA's actions on EPO
-But then the goalpost gets moved to 'has Bluenote studied this, what is Bluenote's scientific knowledge.'
I assume if I engage this line of argument, the goalposts will just move again. You'll be picking a nit about the statistical models the studies used, how they were regressed, how much I know about that stuff, etc...
If you're not going to accept the FDA's opinion, you're unlikely to accept anything else. Not worth wasting my time to argue this with you.
If you want to critique Archibold's imprecise use of language and say: 'hey Bro, you should have said 'EPO could be like rain on grass,' then go for it.
Though, one could turn that same criticism back on you.
You were imprecise when you said 'show the links.' You should have said 'show a 100% link,' or 'show a link that no one (not even some people!) would dispute.'
You were imprecise when you said 'some people.' How many people is 'some?' Does it matter if these 'some' are Doctors, or PhD types?
What does 'unremarkable' mean, in the context of a medical study?
We could play this language game all day. But why bother?
Archibald wasn't 100% correct when he described PEDs as gasoline to a spark, but he wasn't 100% incorrect either. Proving a guy wasn't right but he also wasn't wrong, isn't exactly winning the internet.
ChrisE said:Agreed, with a 'duh'.
No way is he the vortex.
Glenn_Wilson said:No way .![]()