Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Aten34

Science may have proof of psychic abilities

1,186 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

stereologist

Let's find out where the liar and fraud Arturo Herrera has published his lies and scams.

 

Places where he has published his lies.

Journal of Applied Medical Science – a journal by the predatory publisher Scienpress Ltd

https://beallslist.weebly.com/

 

Not peer reviewed.

Central Nervous System Agents in Medicinal Chemistry – a journal by the predatory publisher Bentham Open

https://beallslist.weebly.com/

 

Not peer reviewed.

Natureprecedings – a journal with the following statement.
http://precedings.nature.com/site/help

Quote

Documents on Nature Precedings have not been peer-reviewed and, as such, should not be considered "published" works.

 

Not peer reviewed.

Mitochondrion – he did not publish. He signed up to give a presentation at a symposium and simply gave an overview of what he planned to discuss.

Everywhere we look we see that nothing published by the liar and fraud Arturo Herrera was peer reviewed.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ankhael

@stereologist

Salt and other acids can cause pure water to dissociate, with a chemical reaction.

Edited by Ankhael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ankhael
1 minute ago, stereologist said:

Let's find out where the liar and fraud Arturo Herrera has published his lies and scams.

 

Places where he has published his lies.

Journal of Applied Medical Science – a journal by the predatory publisher Scienpress Ltd

https://beallslist.weebly.com/

 

Not peer reviewed.

Central Nervous System Agents in Medicinal Chemistry – a journal by the predatory publisher Bentham Open

https://beallslist.weebly.com/

 

Not peer reviewed.

Natureprecedings – a journal with the following statement.
http://precedings.nature.com/site/help

 

Not peer reviewed.

Mitochondrion – he did not publish. He signed up to give a presentation at a symposium and simply gave an overview of what he planned to discuss.

Everywhere we look we see that nothing published by the liar and fraud Arturo Herrera was peer reviewed.

 

You forgot Springer which is why his research was listed on Pubmed. You can't say Springer cause they peer reviewed and like I says other scientists like Paul Meredith use references from Springer for Similar works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

Now you are lying again. Do you ever get tired of being a pernicious liar?

Every article by the liar and fraud Arturo Herrera has stated that melanin split water into hydrogen and oxygen.

image.png.dd2cd2ae0d8927903a1de201d1a7ea8e.png

So that is what he writes and yes you have been caught lying.

Your claim of a protonic conductor is a big fat lie. Your suggestions of any ionic compound in water is a big fat lie. That has nothing at all to do with the claims of the liar and fraud Arturo Herrera.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
7 minutes ago, Ankhael said:

@stereologist

Salt and other acids can cause pure water to dissociate, with a chemical reaction.

Unrelated blather by you.

You will never ever know as much as I do because you'd rather move the goal posts and post bald faced lies than learn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
5 minutes ago, Ankhael said:

You forgot Springer which is why his research was listed on Pubmed. You can't say Springer cause they peer reviewed and like I says other scientists like Paul Meredith use references from Springer for Similar works.

As we all have seen I proved that not all of Pubmed is peer reviewed.

Are all entries in PubMed peer reviewed? All I have to do is show one instance and that should end this debate for at least a page or two.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306452217302634

Quote

Predatory open access is a controversial publishing business model that exploits the open-access system by charging publication fees in the absence of transparent editorial services. The credibility of academic publishing is now seriously threatened by predatory journals, whose articles are accorded real citations and thus contaminate the genuine scientific records of legitimate journals.

Quote

However, 14.9–24.7% of them were found to be indexed in PubMed and PubMed Central, which raises concerns on the criteria for inclusion of journals and publishers imposed by these popular databases.

So how did the liar and fraud Arturo Herrera publish. He used predatory journals to publish his lies. And these have found their way into PubMed as stated in this article.

https://jefferson.libguides.com/c.php?g=250298&p=1666251

Quote

2. Is the scholarship peer-reviewed? Predatory journals tend to provide little to no peer review or editorial oversight.

That's a polite way of saying NO.

There are ways around peer review as well since not all journals use peer review.

https://guides.erau.edu/journals

Quote
Scholarly Journals

Although peer-reviewed journals are always scholarly in nature, scholarly journals are not always peer-reviewed.  Scholarly journals are research focused, reporting the results of original research and experimentation. They are heavily cited in the form of either footnotes or bibliographies, and written by, and addressed to, experts in a discipline. However, whereas peer-reviewed journals require a strict "peer-approval" for publishing, a scholarly journal that is not peer-reviewed only requires the approval of an editorial board.

Suspicious articles such as the ones by Arturo Herrera that contain:

  • no experiment
  • no results
  • no method
  • no discussion

would ever be published in a legitimate journal.

That is why the liar and Fraud Arturo Herrera uses open source journals.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ankhael

@stereologist

Here's one of Paul Meredith papers Published on Springer

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1022924203675

5 minutes ago, stereologist said:

As we all have seen I proved that not all of Pubmed is peer reviewed.

Are all entries in PubMed peer reviewed? All I have to do is show one instance and that should end this debate for at least a page or two.

I hope you understand that one instance doesn't prove anything and is still irrelevant to Arturo. Just because there was instance of an article on Pubmed doesn't make Arturo's research non peer reviewed. That's vague stereologist, that's like saying you found one or two bad cops on the police force and department so that make one other cop you trying accuse "bad". Thats not prove, ok that's how your logic sounds. That's not prove that Arturo work has not been peer reviewed. A couple of bad papers on Pubmed doesn't make Paul Meredith papers bad, just because his listed on there too. You see how that sounds, its not prove or evidence stereologist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
3 minutes ago, Ankhael said:

@stereologist

Here's one of Paul Meredith papers Published on Springer

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1022924203675

I hope you understand that one instance doesn't prove anything and is still irrelevant to Arturo. Just because there was instance of an article on Pubmed doesn't make Arturo's research non peer reviewed. That's vague stereologist, that's like saying you found one or two bad cops on the police force and department so that make one other cop you trying accuse "bad". Thats not prove, ok that's how your logic sounds. That's not prove that Arturo work has not been peer reviewed. A couple of bad papers on Pubmed doesn't make Paul Meredith papers bad, just because his listed on there too. You see how that sounds, its not prove or evidence stereologist.

That only shows that one article was peer reviewed. I showed that there are many articles that are NOT peer reviewed.

I PROVED that not a single paper by the liar and fraud Arturo Herrerra was peer reviewed. You analogy is laughably wrong.

Let's get your analogy fixed. You say that all cops are good cops. I say that is not true. All I have to do is show one bad cop.

Let's set this in its proper context. You say all articles in Pubmed are peer reviewed. I say that is not true. All I have to do is show one article that is not peer reviewed.

I showed that many many articles are not peer reviewed. There are roughly 20 journals in the neurosciences that are not peer reviewed. You say a couple? That is another bald faced lie on your part.

The lies and scams of Arturo Herrera have no bearing on Paul Meredith's work. Not sure why you'd think that or suggest that. You simply can't understand even basic ideas it seems.

Let's review the pertinent facts

Are all entries in PubMed peer reviewed? All I have to do is show one instance and that should end this debate for at least a page or two.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306452217302634

Quote

Predatory open access is a controversial publishing business model that exploits the open-access system by charging publication fees in the absence of transparent editorial services. The credibility of academic publishing is now seriously threatened by predatory journals, whose articles are accorded real citations and thus contaminate the genuine scientific records of legitimate journals.

Quote

However, 14.9–24.7% of them were found to be indexed in PubMed and PubMed Central, which raises concerns on the criteria for inclusion of journals and publishers imposed by these popular databases.

So how did the liar and fraud Arturo Herrera publish. He used predatory journals to publish his lies.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ankhael
24 minutes ago, stereologist said:

Suspicious articles such as the ones by Arturo Herrera that contain:

  • no experiment
  • no results
  • no method
  • no discussion

would ever be published in a legitimate journal.

That is why the liar and Fraud Arturo Herrera uses open source journals.

You don't have to have those things to Publish science literature, I've seen plenty of Paul Meredith science literature papers with little none of those things. That is not a rule. If you go to Arturo's publish patents he list some of his methods in those. And plus he could been trying to protect idea especially risking the idea being taking. Like in Paul Meredith patents he list exact materials and extreme details on his regenerative photocatalytic cell. Things he didn't go into in his book probably do to protecting his idea until patent approval. In Biotechnology or anything else you have to be careful especially if you have an patent idea you don't have to necessarily disclose anything especially if you protecting an idea concept.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

Nothing in the article by the real scientist Paul Meredith supports the lies of that fraud Arturo Herrera.

The liar and fraud Arturo Herrera claims that melanin splits water into hydrogen and oxygen.

The papers and research by Paul Meredith do not suggest or support that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
1 minute ago, Ankhael said:

You don't have to have those things to Publish science literature, I've seen plenty of Paul Meredith science literature papers with little none of those things. That is not a rule. If you go to Arturo's publish patents he list some of his methods in those. And plus he could been trying to protect idea especially risking the idea being taking. Like in Paul Meredith patents he list exact materials and extreme details on his regenerative photocatalytic cell. Things he didn't go into in his book probably do to protecting his idea until patent approval. In Biotechnology or anything else you have to be careful especially if you have an patent idea you don't have to necessarily disclose anything especially if you protecting an idea concept.

Prove it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
13 minutes ago, Ankhael said:

@stereologist

Here's one of Paul Meredith papers Published on Springer

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1022924203675

I hope you understand that one instance doesn't prove anything and is still irrelevant to Arturo. Just because there was instance of an article on Pubmed doesn't make Arturo's research non peer reviewed. That's vague stereologist, that's like saying you found one or two bad cops on the police force and department so that make one other cop you trying accuse "bad". Thats not prove, ok that's how your logic sounds. That's not prove that Arturo work has not been peer reviewed. A couple of bad papers on Pubmed doesn't make Paul Meredith papers bad, just because his listed on there too. You see how that sounds, its not prove or evidence stereologist.

LMAO. The article liked to here is not the same Paul Meredith.

What a great blunder! How ridiculous is this thread going to get!

This may come as a surprise to you but there is more than one researcher with the same name. LMAO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ankhael
14 minutes ago, stereologist said:

That only shows that one article was peer reviewed. I showed that there are many articles that are NOT peer reviewed.

I PROVED that not a single paper by the liar and fraud Arturo Herrerra was peer reviewed. You analogy is laughably wrong.

Let's get your analogy fixed. You say that all cops are good cops. I say that is not true. All I have to do is show one bad cop.

Let's set this in its proper context. You say all articles in Pubmed are peer reviewed. I say that is not true. All I have to do is show one article that is not peer reviewed.

I showed that many many articles are not peer reviewed. There are roughly 20 journals in the neurosciences that are not peer reviewed. You say a couple? That is another bald faced lie on your part.

The lies and scams of Arturo Herrera have no bearing on Paul Meredith's work. Not sure why you'd think that or suggest that. You simply can't understand even basic ideas it seems.

Let's review the pertinent facts

Are all entries in PubMed peer reviewed? All I have to do is show one instance and that should end this debate for at least a page or two.

Stereologist I'm going not to deny your findings, they do say what they say, but have you considered dates. For example something that gets Published may have not been peer reviewed at that time of its publication. Some publishers websites will say an article is not peer reviewed but later that status could change if the Author re publishes. But Pubmed list the journal his paper been peer reviewed in, and thats Springer. 

Now I'm not going to sit here and deny those links because I've seen them too but I know that his paper has been peer reviewed by Springer. Whom list the journal it was in.

Edited by Ankhael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ankhael

@stereologist

Another example is, some articles are not listed in actual journals. Some articles you can't even find in a journal, but Pubmed has the Publisher and the Journal. This is part of one of the steps in seeing if an article is peer reviewed but you already know that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
5 minutes ago, Ankhael said:

Stereologist I'm going not to deny your findings, they do say what they say, but have you considered dates. For example something that gets Published may have not been peer reviewed at that time of its publication. Some publishers websites will say an article is not peer reviewed but later that status could change if the Author re publishes. But Pubmed list the journal his paper been peer reviewed in, and thats Springer. 

Now I'm not going to sit here and deny those links because I've seen them too but I know that his paper has been peer reviewed by Springer. Whom list the journal it was in.

No, journals that peer review do so BEFORE publication.

So now you are not going to deny the clear and unequivocal fact that not all listings in PubMed are peer reviewed.

If you want to show that any of the melanin papers by the liar and fraud Arturo Herrera have been peer reviewed go ahead and show it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
5 minutes ago, Ankhael said:

@stereologist

Another example is, some articles are not listed in actual journals. Some articles you can't even find in a journal, but Pubmed has the Publisher and the Journal. This is part of one of the steps in seeing if an article is peer reviewed but you already know that.

What are yoou rambling on about now?

Trying to make excuses as to why you have been dead wrong about PubMed and peer review?

Trying to make excuses as to why the liar and fraud Arturo Herrera is not peer reviewed?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aten34
10 hours ago, stereologist said:

Liars like Ankhael and Aten34 cannot keep their lies straight. They tell a lie and another lie and soon they forget what lies they have told.

Pretty clear they are connected to Arturo Herrara and his pathetic childish lies.

I thought it was odd they each claimed to  have stated something the other stated, but it is much clearer that they are paid by the same master.

Lmao this is gold. Now we getting paid to come on a forum and spread lies..... this is hilarious lol. What's next? Stay tuned to Stereologist paranoia :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aten34
3 minutes ago, stereologist said:

What are yoou rambling on about now?

Trying to make excuses as to why you have been dead wrong about PubMed and peer review?

Trying to make excuses as to why the liar and fraud Arturo Herrera is not peer reviewed?

 

I see now that denying Arturo is your only defense in this debate even after we stop talking about him. You can't oppose the information coming from Meredith huh...so you keep bringing him up even after we retracted and omitted him from the discussion. Smh you obsessed with Arturo or something? We ain't talking about him anymore. We Agree to disagree lol. Leave it at that 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ankhael
5 minutes ago, stereologist said:

What are yoou rambling on about now?

Trying to make excuses as to why you have been dead wrong about PubMed and peer review?

Trying to make excuses as to why the liar and fraud Arturo Herrera is not peer reviewed?

 

Like I said, you have no prove from any other researchers saying he's wrong. You analogy is like accusing a cop he's bad because there a couple of bad cops on the same force sorry man but it doesn't work that way come with someone from the scientific community then I'll consider. Other than that I proved you with Meredith research too about melanin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
7 minutes ago, Aten34 said:

Lmao this is gold. Now we getting paid to come on a forum and spread lies..... this is hilarious lol. What's next? Stay tuned to Stereologist paranoia :lol:

So why are a persistent liar?

Do you have any plans to stop telling repeated lies?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ankhael
1 minute ago, Aten34 said:

I see now that denying Arturo is your only defense in this debate even after we stop talking about him. You can't oppose the information coming from Meredith huh...so you keep bringing him up even after we retracted and omitted him from the discussion. Smh you obsessed with Arturo or something? We ain't talking about him anymore. We Agree to disagree lol. Leave it at that 

His prove is that he found a couple site where his article isn't peer reviewed, which is a status buts its peer reviewed on Pubmed.

And his other prove is calling him out because he found source of bad articles on Pubmed so that makes his bad. That's not prove, it's accusing a cop of being bad because there was a bad cop on the same force. It doesn't make it so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ankhael

@stereologist

You gonna have to approach the Arturo debate with some other researchers conflict of interest. Someone in the scientific community that can prove his wrong. Because there plenty of other researchers show similar findings on melanin, that's alot support. You haven't provided any scientific literature saying otherwise. Just like how Meredith research proved Mcginness original model on melanin to wrong. That's what kind research you have to provide. You can't win this debate without no other scientists saying otherwise plus his list in Pubmed and MEDLINE AND OTHERS WHOM HAVE SIMILAR RESEARCH. YOU have nothing else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
3 minutes ago, Aten34 said:

I see now that denying Arturo is your only defense in this debate even after we stop talking about him. You can't oppose the information coming from Meredith huh...so you keep bringing him up even after we retracted and omitted him from the discussion. Smh you obsessed with Arturo or something? We ain't talking about him anymore. We Agree to disagree lol. Leave it at that 

Apparently you want to deny that all you do is lie.

I have shown that everything claimed in this thread by you is dead wrong:

  1. I proved that diet does not affect body pH.
  2. I proved that humans do not emit radio waves.
  3. I proved Qi is not electrcity.
  4. I proved you wrong when you claimed all things were electrical in nature including space and time.
  5. I proved that PubMed contains articles that are not peer reviewed.
  6. I have proved no one supports the water splitting claims of the liar and fraud Arturo Herrera.
  7. I proved that the liar Arturo Herrera has been disproved by science
  8. I proved that humans do not emit EM that can penetrate walls
  9. I pointed out how you repeatedly lied about the MIT article.

That's a very short list

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
12 minutes ago, Ankhael said:

Like I said, you have no prove from any other researchers saying he's wrong. You analogy is like accusing a cop he's bad because there a couple of bad cops on the same force sorry man but it doesn't work that way come with someone from the scientific community then I'll consider. Other than that I proved you with Meredith research too about melanin.

Your incompetent ramblings are funny.

All I needed to prove is that one article was not peer reviewed to disprove the repeated lie by you that PubMed articles are all peer reviewed.

So I did and I showed that in the neurosciences alone there are many journals, not just articles, but many journals that are not peer reviewed.

 

Since this is so difficult for you to understand I will have to show you again.

Quote

2. Is the scholarship peer-reviewed? Predatory journals tend to provide little to no peer review or editorial oversight.

That's a polite way of saying NO.

There are ways around peer review as well since not all journals use peer review.

https://guides.erau.edu/journals

Quote
Scholarly Journals

Although peer-reviewed journals are always scholarly in nature, scholarly journals are not always peer-reviewed.  Scholarly journals are research focused, reporting the results of original research and experimentation. They are heavily cited in the form of either footnotes or bibliographies, and written by, and addressed to, experts in a discipline. However, whereas peer-reviewed journals require a strict "peer-approval" for publishing, a scholarly journal that is not peer-reviewed only requires the approval of an editorial board.

Suspicious articles such as the ones by Arturo Herrera that contain:

  • no experiment
  • no results
  • no method
  • no discussion

would ever be published in a legitimate journal.

That is why the liar and Fraud Arturo Herrera uses open source journals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.