Here is a response, from Canada's NRC:
A thorough search of NRC’s records has now been completed, and we regret to inform
you that no records responsive to your request were identified
[completely non-committal bureaucratese.]
Please note that in the processing of your request, NRC’s Access to Information and
Privacy (ATIP) Office confir…
A thorough search of NRC’s records has now been completed, and we regret to inform
you that no records responsive to your request were identified
[completely non-committal bureaucratese.]
Please note that in the processing of your request, NRC’s Access to Information and
Privacy (ATIP) Office confirmed that it was not possible to generate a list of publications
as specified within the above-cited text. [Because you phrased it to be impossible to satisfy] Specific details regarding access to publications
by NRC researchers have not been centrally documented by NRC’s Human Health
Therapeutics Research Centre, nor by the Library team responsible for NRC’s electronic collections and journal subscriptions. [and anyway they don't have in their library the publications by their own researchers - so they told you that you were intentionally barking up the wrong tree - like you went to McDonalds and asked for a dictionary] With respect to "not citing a specific study" - that's because you didn't click the link.
Lol, they confessed that they did a thorough search and couldn't find EVEN ONE responsive record. Not one.
It was not an impossible request to satisfy, and they certainly didn't not state that. You are simply making things up. I wonder why.
You made this up too: "they don't have in their library the publications by their own researchers". That is not what the letter says, nor would that make a bit of sense.
They only indicated that they don't have a list of all the studies that NRC researchers have ACCESSED, and I never asked them for one.
They did not indicate in any way that I was barking up the wrong tree. It's the National Research Council, a perfectly appropriate institution to query because if any "virus" science existed, they'd be expected to have it. But they don't.
They confessed they have not a single record. The rest is distraction, which you are capitalizing on to confuse people. Again, I wonder why.
The only link I see from you is a link to a REVIEW, which is not a study (and does not cite any valid scientific studies). Cite a valid, scientific study, if I'm wrong.
And show us where Jessica Rose supposedly called me out.
Here is a response, from Canada's NRC:
A thorough search of NRC’s records has now been completed, and we regret to inform
you that no records responsive to your request were identified
[completely non-committal bureaucratese.]
Please note that in the processing of your request, NRC’s Access to Information and
Privacy (ATIP) Office confirmed that it was not possible to generate a list of publications
as specified within the above-cited text. [Because you phrased it to be impossible to satisfy] Specific details regarding access to publications
by NRC researchers have not been centrally documented by NRC’s Human Health
Therapeutics Research Centre, nor by the Library team responsible for NRC’s electronic collections and journal subscriptions. [and anyway they don't have in their library the publications by their own researchers - so they told you that you were intentionally barking up the wrong tree - like you went to McDonalds and asked for a dictionary] With respect to "not citing a specific study" - that's because you didn't click the link.
Lol, they confessed that they did a thorough search and couldn't find EVEN ONE responsive record. Not one.
It was not an impossible request to satisfy, and they certainly didn't not state that. You are simply making things up. I wonder why.
You made this up too: "they don't have in their library the publications by their own researchers". That is not what the letter says, nor would that make a bit of sense.
They only indicated that they don't have a list of all the studies that NRC researchers have ACCESSED, and I never asked them for one.
They did not indicate in any way that I was barking up the wrong tree. It's the National Research Council, a perfectly appropriate institution to query because if any "virus" science existed, they'd be expected to have it. But they don't.
They confessed they have not a single record. The rest is distraction, which you are capitalizing on to confuse people. Again, I wonder why.
The only link I see from you is a link to a REVIEW, which is not a study (and does not cite any valid scientific studies). Cite a valid, scientific study, if I'm wrong.
And show us where Jessica Rose supposedly called me out.