31 May '18 00:28>
This post is unavailable.
Please refer to our posting guidelines.
The post that was quoted here has been removedThe fraud here, of course, was falsely inflating their revenue numbers by 3 orders of magnitude.
Originally posted by @wildgrassQuite. So, to hold this case against science is just as wilfully stupid as taking my games as evidence that chess is a casual, meaningless game.
The fraud here, of course, was falsely inflating their revenue numbers by 3 orders of magnitude.
As for the science, it was not peer reviewed, it was not independently validated and, despite their claims of developing a device that could accomplish the task, it did not work in any practical way in the clinic. This lab had problems from the very beginning and their investors did not thoroughly inspect or seek validation for the invention.