Sigh, Angie Angie Angie, don't get your panties all up in a bunch here.
First off, I'm not an undergrad. Sorry, I finished grad school years ago. Let me be clear about one thing, though; I really don't care what you think of me. You clearly are having trouble discerning reality from fantasy at this point so your opinion of me is rather moot.
What matters are facts. The fact is that Judy herself admitted to having intentionally misrepresented some data. That is a FACT. I disagree with that action and find it unacceptable (as does most of the scientific community). That is another FACT. That I'm taking part in a witch hunt is your OPINION. I've already said that people should be too quick to come to conclusions on things that are not confirmed facts (like the "RT" on the original slide, or by giving her the benefit of the doubt initially that this was an accident which, by her own admission, I was incorrect in assuming). I held those positions because there was not enough FACTS to support those claims at the time (and IMO still isn't pertaining to the RT issue).
As for cherry picking, you simply seem unable to tell the difference between making a conscious choice to misrepresent data and making a mistake in, say, statistics. No worries, though. In all honestly, your opinion on this is meaningless in the grand scheme of things. It is the scientific community that will pass the final judgement, not you.
Yes Billy, what matters are indeed, facts.
Which you are not presenting.
If you truly were a 'scientist', I would expect you to be accountable under your own name. That you do not use your own name indicates you do not understand the concepts of accountability, especially in terms of science and academia.
All you are doing is throwing rhetorical mud at both Judy Mikovits - and people like myself for challenging you here. Your arguments are fallacious, not based on the facts, you are clearly naive of academic issues. You don't even write with the tentativeness of a true scientist - or indeed, even social scientist.
This mounting evidence indicates we cannot trust you are a 'scientist' at all.
What is funny, is that you have come on here, DESPERATE to try and spread your word, and then you say this:
It is the scientific community that will pass the final judgement, not you.
Anyone who knows about science and its processes knows there can never be a 'final judgement' on scientific issues. I think you need to go and read some Popper and Kuhn, for starters.
Plus- for all your appeals to authority- you are not a scientist! You are a strange, aggy anon on a forum for desperately ill patients and their supporters, pretending to be a scientist. You could be an abbatoir worker on his day off for all I, or anyone knows.
You are a wholly unreliable witness, and cannot be taken seriously.