integrated
Robin
Yeah, it's like should they not present some actual evidence and a solid counter-argument to refute the claims of scientists they are trying to "blast"?Scientists at war over reliability of Covid lateral flow tests as Government experts blast critics of the 15-minute check after they claimed they were too INACCURATE to be used
The wording of this article is a sign of things to come for those in medical professions that try to stand up to data inaccuracy. Should you present evidence that is counter narrative to the 'plan' then you are 'blasted' by senior scientists as you are a lowly academic.
This is the equivalent of an argument in which the woman says "well you've already made your mind up haven't YOU!"
What specifically are the "factual errors" and "several unsubstantiated allegations and assertions" in the article? I wonder whether they're just nitpicking - perhaps they've jumped on completely irrelevant minutiae and are telling half-truths to invalidate the article. Like, I could say there's a factual error in an article when all they did was get someone's name wrong; it doesn't say anything about the validity of the central claims found in the article.
"They appear to have made up their minds that LFDs (lateral flow device) are dangerous and of no value and therefore should never be used" - this is nothing but an attack on their characters. No substance whatsoever about exactly why they're wrong and what they are wrong about.