You’re a liar.
First, about yourself. You pretended you were still on a first-name basis with Dr. Malone.
https://freerepublic.com/focus/chat/4192248/posts?page=65#65
Second, about Malone. He’s not a charlatan.
Third, about me. I don’t have a lack of knowledge of grad school.
You accused me of it to throw a cloud of ink in the water, to cover getting called out on your lie that you had read thousands of papers (by implication, in their entirety) in grad school. And to backpedal on your initial bluff that you were on a first’name basis with Malone.
https://freerepublic.com/focus/news/4192354/posts?page=98#98
Quote about grad school from that post:
This is only a selection of textbooks. In the course of getting my undergraduate then my PhD degrees, I had to take physics, classes on several types of chemistry, statistics, biology, genetics, and mathematics up through calculus. Yes, I did read all of the textbooks linked here, as well as many others. This represents six years of classroom instruction (four undergrad and two grad level). Since a STEM PhD degree is awarded on the basis of laboratory research designed to add to previous research, I have also read thousands of research papers.
Note the last sentence.
Dingbat.
Serially killers gonna serial kill.
They claim somehow it’s not their fault.
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.