My latest post deleted on IHUB, in response to fac
Post# of 30028
Quote:
The less than optimal results of the rat model are used when it supports someone's agenda. When the rat model results are very positive, they are dismissed as not relevant because they are not human test results, as with the claims regarding MANF testing in the rat model for PD. You know... the "MJFF firmly supports the notion of alpha-syn" and "since we know what causes PD" crap.
Also, parts of Jason Napadano's analysis are used when it supports the agenda. When it does not, Jason is labeled a company paid shill to try to discredit his analysis, although no evidence exists that Jason has ever been paid or sponsored by the company.
Some critics want us to believe the Amarantus management and their expert advisory team are proceeding down a path of scientific quackery and misguided knowledge of biochemistry and central nervous system diseases... yeah, right. What a crock!
If we compare the resumés and professional accomplishments of the management team and advisors vs. that of their critics, it's clear which group would be evaluated as more credible. That's not a personal attack. That's simply the truth.
One of the moderators on that board needs to change their signature to more accurately reflect reality. I suggest this:
The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, or a narcissistic discussion board moderator may delete it, but in the end, there it is.
Amarantus Bioscience Holdings (AMBS) Stock Research Links
– Windbag Duckbill