No, though I frequently take breaks from this thread entirely. I generally find it positively demoralizing to be the sole person in a forum arguing one side of a debate. If it weren't so important, I would have stopped long ago.
A paper can claim to be based on the scientific method without actually being based on the scientific method. I just found a paper on this that I find interesting, because it introduces a fictional virus, that is, one that -definitely- doesn't exist, but when "scientific references" are used, it is believed by many anyway. I've only read the abstract, but I think that's enough for my argument here:
