A major breakthrough

[Elamarna]

A biological explanatory variable, apparently!

John

As someone who spent his career in the biology/medical field I wish I knew what one was.

I can guess at what Pierre means, but it is not a term I am used to i have to say.


Steve

[David Orsam]

A biological explanatory variable, apparently!

Well apparently not is the latest from Pierre as I understand it!

Perhaps he will tell us what it actually was, if he ever really did have any information at all.

[John G]

John

As someone who spent his career in the biology/medical field I wish I knew what one was.

I can guess at what Pierre means, but it is not a term I am used to i have to say.


Steve

Steve,

I think it's basically just pseudo intellectual/ academic speak, with the objective of attempting to give the post more gravitas. In that respect I'm afraid it fails completely. In fact, it's faux character means I can't even conclude that it represents a triumph of style over substance!

It's like the "historian" epithet he's given to himself. Well, all I can say is that he's the only "historian" that I've come across that doesn't appear to have a single published work to his name.

[Harry D]

Some people enjoy arguing with a fraud. It must stimulate them to, for more than a year now, rebut things continuously. This is the state of Ripperology; nonsense and rebuttals. Promises of genuine knowledge in a very short time have lead to the liar learning enough from his victims to build his own web of lies supported by the unwitting. And so, Ripperology has become victimology and ye unsuspecting unfortunates are split from groin to chest without so much as a whimper of protest. Pathetic.

Mike

Your words will fall on deaf ears, TGM.

[Pierre]

Two simple questions what is the particular medical speciality of your expert.?

Is he/she an expert in neurology? Or similar field?

Secondly I see only one expert asked, I respectfully submit that on medical matters it is always best to have more than a single view.

From my own experience it is often the fact that two medics looking at the same case notes will come to diametrically opposed positions.

It is true that you stated there was a source and now there is not because one expert gives you advice.


To sum up


The claim was initially that the person had a Brian disease which may have affected them. However you would not give details.

Then you refer this unknown source about an undisclosed condition to a equally unknown expert.

The result is there was no disease which affected the person and therefore no source to discuss.

Release the information in the source, redact any names and dates so as to hide the I'd.

Note I say the information; not the name of the source.

Let's others decide on the viability of the hypothesis rather than ONE Unamed and Unknown Expert.

Steve

Hi Steve,

This is a cold case and the sources are historical sources. You can not treat an historical source, or an historical source about a patient, as a patient.

This source is absolutely clear and the evaluation of it is correct.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

Steve,

I think it's basically just pseudo intellectual/ academic speak, with the objective of attempting to give the post more gravitas. In that respect I'm afraid it fails completely. In fact, it's faux character means I can't even conclude that it represents a triumph of style over substance!

It's like the "historian" epithet he's given to himself. Well, all I can say is that he's the only "historian" that I've come across that doesn't appear to have a single published work to his name.

What nonsense. I share what little I am able to share with you and I get this accusation from you, John. Personally I do not care about it, since I know how disappointed you, and many others, are with ripperology.

But when I post some discussion about particular sources, the discussion gets attacked by you, someone who do not understand the case, i.e. a ripperologist disappointed with other ripperologists. That is not helping the case forward.

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

Hi Steve,

This is a cold case and the sources are historical sources. You can not treat an historical source, or an historical source about a patient, as a patient.

This source is absolutely clear and the evaluation of it is correct.

Pierre, did you understand the questions Steve asked you in the post of his that you quoted?

I don't happen to see any answers, which is why I am asking.

[John G]

What nonsense. I share what little I am able to share with you and I get this accusation from you, John. Personally I do not care about it, since I know how disappointed you, and many others, are with ripperology.

But when I post some discussion about particular sources, the discussion gets attacked by you, someone who do not understand the case, i.e. a ripperologist disappointed with other ripperologists. That is not helping the case forward.

Regards, Pierre

And you seriously think you've demonstrated that you do understand the case? Oh dear!

[David Orsam]

But when I post some discussion about particular sources, the discussion gets attacked by you, someone who do not understand the case, i.e. a ripperologist disappointed with other ripperologists. That is not helping the case forward.

Isn't the problem here Pierre that you have not identified the "particular sources" that you have referred to nor told us where you obtained those sources nor what actual information is contained within those sources?

The only thing you've told us in vague terms about "brain disease" turns out to be false.

So please tell me, how is this helping the case forward?

[Pierre]

Pierre, did you understand the questions Steve asked you in the post of his that you quoted?

I don't happen to see any answers, which is why I am asking.

Steve tries to do with historical sources what a patient or doctor does who wants second opinions.

[Pierre]

And you seriously think you've demonstrated that you do understand the case? Oh dear!

No, John, I havenīt yet.

[David Orsam]

Steve tries to do with historical sources what a patient or doctor does who wants second opinions.

I have no idea what that means Pierre.

These are the questions Steve asked you:

what is the particular medical speciality of your expert?

Is he/she an expert in neurology? Or similar field?

Did you understand the questions?

[Pierre]

I have no idea what that means Pierre.

These are the questions Steve asked you:

what is the particular medical speciality of your expert?

Is he/she an expert in neurology? Or similar field?

Did you understand the questions?

It is not a matter of understanding, something which you obviously do not understand.

[David Orsam]

It is not a matter of understanding, something which you obviously do not understand.

Okay, well if you understood the questions, why didn't you answer them?

[Hercule Poirot]

Steve tries to do with historical sources what a patient or doctor does who wants second opinions.

Asking for a second opinion is quite commun regarding historical sources unless a situation is obviously clear like coming up with a conclusions such as 'this is a piece of wood'. In other cases, peer review becomes one of the most important steps of any validation process.

What we are sadly missing here is any form of pre, parallel or post validation!

Respectfully,
Hercule Poirot