/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9921876

Sigh. It's clear that you're an a priori denier who has no interest in a dispassionate discussion, and no interest in delving into the actual data.

Nevertheless, here are some quick refutations of your non-reflective points.

>How does this respond to my point?

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you. Read what you wrote, read my response, see how your point was explicitly addressed by what I wrote.

>There is nothing "well documented" about the example you give. It's one person's vague anecdote.

It was corroborated by the medical staff that was present during the cardiac arrest. Could it be more corroborated? Yes. Does that negate that it was well-corroborated still? No.

>Why would this case not be written up immediately in the medical literature with witness testimony and documentation?

Because of attitudes like yours that make this a non-funded and stigmatized research subject.

If Elon Musk donated a few billions to this research, we would swim in overwhelming evidence a year from now. The issue is funding and ignorance preventing this research from being more thorough and widespread.

>And yet, you blindly accept these cases with zero skepticism and claim they're all well documented when not even the example you chose is!

I presented it in a summarized fashion, that does not mean that it is not well-documented. Which one of us have read the book, again, and which one of us is dismissing it out of hand because it goes against their a priori ideological convictions?

Stop being so religiously certain and actually engage with the actual data.

>No it's not.

Proving the point, being certain despite not having researched it at all. Praise Richard Dawkins indeed.