Yes, and you found a way to say this very well: "...rather than offering us money to disprove the existence of something which doesn't exist."
The best way to win expensive court case is on a technicality, and that's apparently what Lanka did. It is disgusting that he even had to go to appeal to defend his case.
That ref makes since Lanka structured a bet where he knew he would face an authoritarian (not scientific) judicial process. So of course he would ensure that his requirement would be for a single study, not a mix-mash of studies that would require a brain-washed PhD to interpret.
Steve, we had a tete-a-tete, and I checkmated you with my simpler and superior Fraud Test:
https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/how-to-tell-who-is-telling-you-the/comment/8612591
I still await your response.
Yes, and you found a way to say this very well: "...rather than offering us money to disprove the existence of something which doesn't exist."
The best way to win expensive court case is on a technicality, and that's apparently what Lanka did. It is disgusting that he even had to go to appeal to defend his case.
I read stuff like this:
https://www.docdroid.net/ec00Qob/stefan-lanka-vs-david-bardens-pdf
That ref makes since Lanka structured a bet where he knew he would face an authoritarian (not scientific) judicial process. So of course he would ensure that his requirement would be for a single study, not a mix-mash of studies that would require a brain-washed PhD to interpret.