Evo said:
Your posts were deleted because they contained dangerous health misinformation and parts were pure crackpot, which is why you were told you had to furnish valid studies to back up your crackpot claims.
Your pm's were nonsensical rants.
There you go again with your favourite word ‘crackpot’! How you love to use that word, and how so ironic it is that you do.
What qualifies you to decide what is ‘crackpot’ or not? Is that not the whole point of citing valid sources when we make claims? As I have written before, where is the evidence to support your claims, and the claims of the other posters here? How are your claims and their claims safe and mine dangerous? Let’s see some evidence.
This is a simple case of you having power here over what people see and what they do not see. This is nothing to do with rules; you only use rules when you feel like it, when it suits your agenda and your belief system.
It is easy to claim that something is dangerous, but harder to prove it. I claim that your actions here, your posts, and some of the other outlandish posts in this thread (all of which do not support their wild claims) are in fact dangerous and invalid.
I could find solid evidence to support all that I wrote, even some of the info I heard from academics talking, and who do not refer the listener to particular journals every third word. But should I devote the time to do so? Would that be efficient?
What is this, a general chat section in an informal section of an internet forum or a meeting of policy making academics at the Royal Society? Whatever it is, the double standards are undeniable; the proof is in this thread: You allow what you want and disallow what you do not want. It has nothing to do with citing journals. That is just an excuse you use. It is one rule for some and another rule for others.
How about I repost my two comments stating that they are my opinion? We could then let others decide whether or not it is just and fair to delete my posts, whilst others, which also provide no references, remain.