There are ONLY 3, maybe 4 genders, but there are multiple types of sexual identies.

originally posted by: tanstaafl
Said the person incapable of offering their own opinion so has to rely on the opinion of someone else who is almost certainly lying.

That's the best you have now? The physician who wrote this is lying? Did you stomp your feet when you wrote that?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: tanstaafl
That's the best you have now?

Of course not, I wouldn't waste time trying to give you my best even if I needed to, but the reality is, all I need to do is just answer you casually off the top of my head.

The physician who wrote this is lying? Did you stomp your feet when you wrote that?

I really hate repeating myself, but just for giggles... again: "If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science."

originally posted by: tanstaafl
I really hate repeating myself...

No, you don't, since you've done nothing but offer your personal opinion while stomping your feet.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: tanstaafl
No, you don't,

True... rotflmao!

since you've done nothing but offer your personal opinion

Better than only offering the opinions of others (who happen to be liars)...

originally posted by: tanstaafl
Better than only offering the opinions of others...

Peer reviewed, unlike your internet crank position.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: tanstaafl
Peer reviewed

You say that like it actually means something good. What is it they say about ignorance?

Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals:
"My point is that peer review is impossible to define in operational terms (an operational definition is one whereby if 50 of us looked at the same process we could all agree most of the time whether or not it was peer review). Peer review is thus like poetry, love, or justice. But it is something to do with a grant application or a paper being scrutinized by a third party—who is neither the author nor the person making a judgement on whether a grant should be given or a paper published. But who is a peer? Somebody doing exactly the same kind of research (in which case he or she is probably a direct competitor)? Somebody in the same discipline? Somebody who is an expert on methodology? And what is review? Somebody saying `The paper looks all right to me', which is sadly what peer review sometimes seems to be. Or somebody pouring all over the paper, asking for raw data, repeating analyses, checking all the references, and making detailed suggestions for improvement? Such a review is vanishingly rare."

Translation... the process of 'peer review' is pseudo-science at best, an outright vehicle for fraud at worst.

More links for you to pretend don't exist:

Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption, Jan 15 2009:
"It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as editor of The New England Journal of Medicine."

Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet:
"The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness"

So, pardon me if I laugh uproariously at your feeble appeal to some mystical authority.

a reply to: tanstaafl

LOL, now you attack the process. I have an idea, find a peer reviewed publication that supports the internet crank position you're pushing, I hear Mr. Holiday Inn can help you.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: tanstaafl

LOL, now you attack the process.

LOL, now you deflect instead of address the points made.

Your reliance on the peer reviewed scam is duly noted, and ridiculed.

a reply to: tanstaafl

Your 'points' are citing people who have issues with the method, not the actual report I listed. Nice try though.

Let me know when you have something counter to the peer reviewed article other than internet crankery.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: tanstaafl

Your 'points' are citing people who have issues with the method, not the actual report I listed. Nice try though.

Let me know when you have something counter to the peer reviewed article other than internet crankery.

Hilarious...

By all means, continue to wallow in your ignorance...

originally posted by: tanstaafl
By all means, continue to wallow in your ignorance...

It's actually yours we're being doused by.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: tanstaafl
It's actually yours we're being doused by.

Sure, whatever you say.

originally posted by: tanstaafl
Sure, whatever you say.

I know, you even agreed earlier.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: M5xaz
a reply to: Sookiechacha
Well, if I was raised by a crazy mother like you, I would probably be turned off women forever...

Rotflmao!!!

Star for that one, thanks, needed an early morning guffaw! Good thing I was between cups of coffee...