Although the author of the article appears to be controversial, I am concerned that none of the responses citing her controversial nature are actually rebutting anything in the paper.
I believe most of what was written here appears to be factual. What am I missing?
(Someone attacking the currently held beliefs taught by science is by nature controversial. More important question is whether they are pointing out flaws in those beliefs. )
I believe most of what was written here appears to be factual. What am I missing?
(Someone attacking the currently held beliefs taught by science is by nature controversial. More important question is whether they are pointing out flaws in those beliefs. )