Talk:Mark Purdey: Difference between revisions
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
==Article fixed== |
==Article fixed== |
||
Mark Purdey was an idiot; he did no "research." His "papers" in the crackpot Medical Hypotheses "journal" contain no actual data, other than some specious epidemiological analysis. The remainder of the corpus seems to consist of a lot of scientific-sounding words strung together in various orders. His explanations for BSE are backed up by few, if any citations, and are clearly the work of someone with no understanding of biochemistry. This article would have given the layman the impression that Purdey was a well-respected scholar, but in fact he was a charlatan - a successful charlatan, but a charlatan nonetheless. [[User:Angiotensinogen|Angio]] ([[User talk:Angiotensinogen|talk]]) 08:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC) |
Mark Purdey was an idiot; he did no "research." His "papers" in the crackpot Medical Hypotheses "journal" contain no actual data, other than some specious epidemiological analysis. The remainder of the corpus seems to consist of a lot of scientific-sounding words strung together in various orders. His explanations for BSE are backed up by few, if any citations, and are clearly the work of someone with no understanding of biochemistry. This article would have given the layman the impression that Purdey was a well-respected scholar, but in fact he was a charlatan - a successful charlatan, but a charlatan nonetheless. [[User:Angiotensinogen|Angio]] ([[User talk:Angiotensinogen|talk]]) 08:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC) |
||
Would that be an example of your NPV Angio? Your revisions are childish and laughable ! |
|||
http://www.nature.com/emboj/journal/v19/n6/abs/7592231a.html |
|||
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10051591 |
|||
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090417084124.htm |
|||
http://www.physorg.com/news165161592.html |
|||
These are just the 1st four entries when google is searched for prion protein + copper - are all these people idiotic crackpot charlatans as well ? Seems the idiot you refer to was actually 15 years ahead of your well respected scholars ! [[User:DLM4473]] |
|||
Revision as of 01:47, 18 September 2010
 | Biography Unassessed | ||||||
| |||||||
Nerve gas
As I remember, the nerve gases were developed from the pesticides, not the other way around. It's explained on the organophosphate page. Tim Vickers 23:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Also, the current summary of the mechanism he proposed is wrong. It was not proposed that the change in calcium signaling produced prion proteins, it was thought that the production of prion proteins changed calcium levels and Inositol triphosphate signaling. Tim Vickers 00:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Article fixed
Mark Purdey was an idiot; he did no "research." His "papers" in the crackpot Medical Hypotheses "journal" contain no actual data, other than some specious epidemiological analysis. The remainder of the corpus seems to consist of a lot of scientific-sounding words strung together in various orders. His explanations for BSE are backed up by few, if any citations, and are clearly the work of someone with no understanding of biochemistry. This article would have given the layman the impression that Purdey was a well-respected scholar, but in fact he was a charlatan - a successful charlatan, but a charlatan nonetheless. Angio (talk) 08:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Would that be an example of your NPV Angio? Your revisions are childish and laughable !
http://www.nature.com/emboj/journal/v19/n6/abs/7592231a.html http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10051591 http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090417084124.htm http://www.physorg.com/news165161592.html
These are just the 1st four entries when google is searched for prion protein + copper - are all these people idiotic crackpot charlatans as well ? Seems the idiot you refer to was actually 15 years ahead of your well respected scholars ! User:DLM4473