What is going on with the CDC (Centers for Disease Control)?

If the CDC is the organization in charge of this mess then I am really scared. Hopefully the grown ups will eventually show up.

They are a big gov’t run entity. This is typical. This is typical for any large bureaucracy gov’t or not.

Wow. The CDC told her it was OK to fly?

The CDC wasn’t able to do a medical exam on this nurse over the phone? Huh.

But she had attended the first guy to come down with Ebola not even a week earlier @filmfann. Every thing in me would scream “No. Don’t take the chance.” This coming Sunday was the release time for their quarantine time.

@filmfann: Read more here:
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/nurse-contracted-ebola-called-cdc-flight-official/story?id=26232809

Good article @jca. Looks like the folks at the airline and the schools have more brains than the CDC. The steps they’re taking are another reason that I don’t think it will become an epidemic here.

I just posted this to another Ebola question:
All cases of human illness or death from Ebola have occurred in Africa (with the exception of several laboratory contamination cases: one in England and two in Russia). One travel-associated case was diagnosed in the United States on September 30, 2014. On October 12, 2014, a healthcare worker at Texas Presbyterian Hospital who provided care for the index patient has tested positive for Ebola. CDC confirms that the healthcare worker is positive for Ebola.

Nevernind cortadicting youself, um, well, Google it.

Maybe the director of the CDC was recruited by the same Bozo that hired the director of the SS?

Wow. It seems peoples’ fear is pretty high right now and willing to make unjustified statements about an entire entity based on the fact that a mistake was made. Does this type of thing ease anxiety? What if we were able to start firing people? Would that help ease the anxiety?

I don’t do tv news, but I can only imagine that the fear-generation industry is working full-time right now. I’m wondering if the amount of anxiety people are experiencing is proportional to the threat.

@hominid, That’s just one hell of a mistake for the CDC to make. Common sense would tell you to play it safe. The LAST thing you would want someone in her situation to do is get on board an airplane until the full time has passed to be sure she wasn’t infected.

The House Subcommittee is holding a hearing on the ebola crisis at this very moment if anyone would like to hear what the CDC director and others have to say.

@Dutchess_III: “That’s just one hell of a mistake for the CDC to make.”

Sure. People make mistakes. I’m just interested in the dynamics of mass anxiety and the leap from a mistake to public panic and completely writing off the CDC.

The whole ebola thing expanding to the US and other countries looks totally planned to me. Of course the CDC wouldn’t admit to anything like that. They’re “professionals”, right?

You’re not serious @snowberry…..?

@ibstubro Here’s another page from the CDC website.

“The person sought medical care at Texas Presbyterian Hospital of Dallas after developing symptoms consistent with Ebola. Based on the person’s travel history and symptoms, CDC recommended testing for Ebola. The medical facility isolated the patient and sent specimens for testing at CDC and at a Texas laboratory. Local public health officials have identified all close contacts of the person for further daily monitoring for 21 days after exposure. He died of Ebola on October 8 and was cremated.”

CDC website

It’s not an airborne virus. This makes it fairly easy to contain, even when mistakes are made. It’s proliferation in West Africa is due more to filthy living conditions than anything else.

I’ll save being indignant and afraid for a real threat.

Not sure. I get the feeling that some, if not all, of them have their heads up their wazoos. I once reported what I thought was an important item about a MRSA infection I had and they blew me off. Said I could only get the infection from another person who had the infection. (THAT didn’t happen!!) I wasn’t asking for their input, only offering my own.

OK, so the CDC messed up. But I don’t see them messing up at this level. I expect to see this again. It’s like the FDA. They claim to be on our side…But they have this huge agenda with big business that’s anything but on our side. Not conspiracy. Just business as usual.

You know in movies where a potential global threat is about to be leaked, the President & his advisors always say the same thing, “if this gets out, mass panic will be the greatest danger”
I rest my case m’lud.

Bureaucracy! Plain and simple. It’s a new unanticipated development confronting a large, unwieldy organization. The disease moves faster than the bumbling organization and some people are going to die. The CDC will catch up. The question boils down to “how many” before the proper protocols are achieved? More worrying to my mind are the implications regarding those regions of the country with anemic regard for funding public health services. I’m not mentioning any names, but you know who you are. Let’s hope we’re not in for a demonstration on how that works out for you.

Update: My daughter is an RN in a local hospital in Texas. She said one of her co-workers basically said the same thing as I did, and that they should have treated the US citizen ebola patients in Africa, rather than bringing it over here, and not only bringing it here, but to multiple cities here. There definitely is something the public isn’t being told.

Also, my daughter is a new hire. she said that her co-workers are upset that their big-chain hospital has NO plan in place should Ebola show up there, certainly none that they’ve been told about anyway.

@snowberry: “There definitely is something the public isn’t being told.”

There are plenty of things that are not expressed to the public. But in this context, what exactly are you insinuating?

@snowberry apparently many here don’t agree with you but I fully agree with you. I also have a grown child who is a nurse and my kid has pretty much said the same thing to me.

If France and England have stopped flights coming from Africa there is no reasonable reason why we still have these flights coming into our country. I’m all for chartered flights and volunteer doctors and nurses going there to help.

Heck, I just heard that the president has already sent 2,000 troops to Africa and just today signed a document to send 2,000 national guards. no soldiers or national guard to patrol our southern border during the invasion last summer and no soldiers or national guard to fight Isis. It is so clear to me where this man is going and what his aim is.

@BeenThereSaidThat: “It is so clear to me where this man is going and what his aim is.”

What are we missing? What’s Obama up to here? You don’t have to be indirect here. You can just string the words together.

That’s the second time I’ve heard that the UK (and now supposedly France, according to you) has stopped flights coming from Africa, but I can’t find any confirmation on that. Do you have a link @BeenThereSaidThat?

I found this tho.

I agree with @hominid! Spit it out!

not having a pissing match with a whole group of people when I am the odd one out. I learned that as a kid.
I also don’t believe every single word that I read on an internet article when the Government is trying to convince everyone that everything is ok.

I promise to just listen. Perhaps you have some compelling evidence that can convince of whatever it is you think Obama is “planning.” If it makes sense, we respect that.

Also, still need a link that says the UK and France have stopped all flights from Africa.

Yep @BeenThereSaidThat If you can’t get the message based on what we’ve already said, never mind. You’re not gonna get it.

I see. So, you two get to be in the know while defensively avoiding being persecuted. The knowledge is too much for the unwashed masses to understand. It must feel heroic in a sense. It’s you two against the ignorant population of dullards.

It’s also very safe. You needn’t even make an assertion or back it up. The smug insinuation is enough to be a radical political act.

If you develop any compassion for us, please fill us in. The suspense is killing me! Thanks.

You cited France and the UK suspending incoming flights from Africa. I’ve asked 3 times now for something that bolsters that. I can’t find a thing. I’ve found where the UK had banned flights INTO Africa for a bit, but not the other way around. Nothing on France. Apparently it isn’t true. Are you still going to continue use that false claim to under gird your assertion that Obama is “up to something?”

Four reasons why a travel ban won’t solve the ebola crisis

If you want to be proactive with threats we really need to worry about, get your flu shot and immunize your children.

I think them bringing the American cases home to America was the right thing to do. It gave someone in the US first hand experience, it improved the likelihood of their survival, it tested the treatment facilities (it’s not like they sent them to Dallas) and protocol successfully, and it gave them guinea pigs that they can use and observe willingly. Now that the Americans have recovered and in America, they can safely do things like draw blood serum to treat other victims.

They pretty well chewed on the director of the CDC today, and he deserved that and more. I believe he should quit or be replaced.

Thanks, @jonsblond, that was on my list of unpopular things to mention. After all, the guy who died here flew here from Belgium.

I read that earlier @jonsblond. A ban would do more harm than good. ” “Even when governments restrict travel and trade, people in affected countries still find a way to move and it is even harder to track them systematically,” he wrote in an op-ed earlier this month.”

Thirty years of reduced funding and lack of support for government research are catching up.

Of course,I imagine some political parties think that Ebola isn’t real (just like climate change). So why put money towards it.

Pressure will grow to restrict the travel of people from Africa. The efficacy of this as a solution will be hotly debated, but the issue will of course probably be settled by the time it’s too late. Whether or not it is already too late is a matter of guessing. The thing that is beyond dispute is that the disease will certainly spread throughout Africa. Who here can imagine the feasibility of a quarantine on the entire continent? The TSA is probably going to acquire an entirely new scope to its primary mission. This is a crisis that the governments of the first world have been entirely too sluggish in facing down. We here will come through this. This country should equate this crisis with the same gravity we assigned the bombing of Pearl Harbor. The sooner we really gear up, the safer we will be. The degree of urgency with which we confront this OVER THERE will determine our expenses in both money and lives long term.

Ok. I think I figured it out…

- “ebola” and “kenya” (where Obama’s father was born) both have 5 characters. Hmmm…
– If you rearrange the letters of both of these words combined, you get “one by a lake”.
– Chicago, where Obama had worked prior to becoming president, is by a lake.

Therefore, Obama created ebola with the plan of becoming president and allowing it to infect millions in the U.S. with the plan of providing enough room for aliens from Kepler 62e to take over. I’m not sure how I missed this before. It’s so obvious now. Wake up, sheeple!

The director of the CDC suddenly agrees with you, @stanleybmanly. Stating just yesterday that if Ebola spreads to any more African nations that our own (the US’s) healthcare structure will be threatened.

I believe he has finally seen, (or been shown) the light.

New York Times

Right on top of things informing the public and quelling fears with timely, pertinent information.

“Was there a breach in protocol [the nurse messed up] as you initially stated, or was the protocol insufficient [the CDC messed up]?”

I stand corrected. The UK never banned any flights into Africa. British Airways did. Here.

No country is banning flights from Africa.

LOL @hominid!

Now one of the health care workers in Dallas is on a freaking cruise ship. Belize is more on top of situation than the US, refusing the ship permission to dock.

But we have a new Ebola Tzar, apparently a career Democratic political aid with no health care experience. He may be a great man, but a poor choice in my opinion, as a health care background would give more confidence.

Meanwhile, we haven’t had a Surgeon General for a year, because the NRA owns congress and doesn’t like Obama’s nominee. Nobody will blink, so the CDC is doing all the talking, and doing a poor job at that.

Relevant: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/abby-norman/im-a-hazmat-trained-hospi_b_5998486.html

@ibstubro: That’s why I hate politics.

To whoever’s side of whatever debate might be taking place, I found this:
https://www.internationalsos.com/ebola/index.cfm?content_id=435&

I most certainly agree that visas (and thus travel permission) be revoked from those areas that are suffering an outbreak. First you contain, then you work on fixing the contained problem.

As for @snowberry, I read the article you posted, and as a person that had to deal with hazardous substances for five years at my last job, the writer of that article made hazmat PPE sound like something that requires an 8YE (eight year equivalent) degree in. I have worn every piece of PPE he/she mentioned, most often for asbestos (which is airborne unlike ebola), and it isn’t as scary as he/she makes it out to be. I worked for hours in everything she wore except the hood (which is a positive pressure air hood: air is constantly fed into the hood so that it blows out, keeping outside air from circulating in, and it provides oxygen, much like your blood pressure pushes blood out to keep stuff from entering your blood stream when you get cut). Instead I had a full face, cartridge filtered, respirator on. And that was in 100 degree weather in Texas. Ugh, I have to stop. That article is extremely misleading, mostly because of the jargon and building it up to be something it’s not.

@BeenThereSaidThat , I don’t know exactly what you’re trying to indicate about Obama and his regime (both of which I am not in favor of, and I often refer to them as the fourth Reich). But I am guessing that you are contrasting the readiness to send troops to Africa to help them with their problems (our troops endangered for world peace and other country’s problems), but is hesitant or unwilling to send more troops to our own borders to stop illegal immigrants from entering. Again, just a guess, and I concede to your point. I also happen to agree with that particular perspective, since I am against illegal immigration. But I wouldn’t draw conclusions or make assumptions about the president’s motives. Could he be personally concerned about the country his parents are from/reside in? Sure. And could he be pro-mass-immigration into the united states by those less fortunate? Sure. Is it definite that either of these are true, or that it was his motive behind sending the troops? I’d have to answer honestly with a very confident, “I have no idea.”

@hominid “I see. So, you two get to be in the know while defensively avoiding being persecuted. The knowledge is too much for the unwashed masses to understand. It must feel heroic in a sense. It’s you two against the ignorant population of dullards.
It’s also very safe. You needn’t even make an assertion or back it up. The smug insinuation is enough to be a radical political act.”

I would point out that those asking for evidence or the like are putting themselves into a similar empowered and safe position, the, “I will sit and hear your words, and you are burdened with the task of convincing me of that which you desire me to believe,” position.

We all do that, since we all consider ourselves to have fairly valid perspectives, and so we are willing to consider others, but they must be sufficiently persuasive. But I am willing to admit that when I do it, I am taking an (if not the) arrogant position. You must convince me, and I will decide whether you have done so or not. Burden of proof is only necessary if you have a personal desire to prove what you know, believe, think, or whatever to a specific audience. I may simply offer the information I have without the slightest concern for convincing you that it is accurate, and I would consider myself ‘doing you a favor’ in doing so. I didn’t have to offer the information that it appears to me that you lack.

I can relate to many who act as @BeenThereSaidThat do. Though some of them refrain from teaching the supporting evidence and understandings out of laziness, some also don’t have the time to explain, and some others still don’t consider it worth their time, especially when met with argumentative attacks against every concept they breach (when people are so defensive, they try to argue any and every idea that even sounds like it might support a contrary judgment or perspective, often appearing to be grasping at straws). I have discovered though, that it’s sometimes difficult to distinguish between what I call a Student (someone desiring to gather information in pursuit of understanding), and someone who is simply arguing (trying to win a perceived competition). After all, both may ask the exact same questions. And here is where many assume the arguer/student’s motives to be one or the other. But then some have well rounded understandings, but aren’t necessarily adept at teaching or explaining, and must rely heavily on the Student’s conscious sincere attempts to understand.

I think in contrast to @BeenThereSaidThat , I am very wordy and ready to convey any and all my thoughts and understandings (much to many’s dismay; go read my responses, they’re all 5 page books), and I am willing to try if the person I am ‘speaking’ to seems a Student to me. I’m guessing you, @BeenThereSaidThat , are under the impression we are not Students, but stuck in our Teacher roles judging the accuracy of your words or assertions from our safe ‘you must convince me’ chairs on high. I would even agree it’s likely they are among us. But I would say that I do try to learn as accurately as possible, other’s perspectives as to enlarge my own (selfishly I might add), but you gave very little for me to even guess on.

I’m sorry if I misinterpreted anything herein… I do that too sometimes… a lot… well every time, but sometimes I get an accurate interpretation to go with it :)

@Singer: “I would point out that those asking for evidence or the like are putting themselves into a similar empowered and safe position, the, “I will sit and hear your words, and you are burdened with the task of convincing me of that which you desire me to believe,” position.

First of all, @BeenThereSaidThat not only didn’t offer any evidence of whatever conspiracy he was insinuating – he didn’t even offer up the conspiracy. Others had to try to fill in the blanks for statements like, “It is so clear to me where this man is going and what his aim is.”. When asked if he could explain what the conspiracy even was, he refused.

Singer: “You must convince me, and I will decide whether you have done so or not. Burden of proof is only necessary if you have a personal desire to prove what you know, believe, think, or whatever to a specific audience. I may simply offer the information I have without the slightest concern for convincing you that it is accurate, and I would consider myself ‘doing you a favor’ in doing so. I didn’t have to offer the information that it appears to me that you lack”

I’m not even sure what you’re saying here, or what you’re attempting to do with the burden of proof. The burden of proof is on the person making a claim. Period.

Years ago, I worked with adults suffering from schizophrenia. One of my clients had been suffering for 20+ years under the delusion that Robert Redford and the FBI were colluding and out to get him. Here’s an example (actual) conversation that was quite common:

me: “Peter, when you say that the FBI and Robert Redford talk to you at night, do they enter your apartment?”

Peter: “Most of the time, no. The FBI implanted a device in my head so they can transmit thoughts.”

me: “Peter, I know that you’re aware that you have a mental illness, right [he was often quite aware of his illness]? Could these voices be a symptom of that illness?”

Peter: “That’s what they’d want you to think.”

me: “But you have had brain scans in the past and no device is there.”

Peter: “The FBI wouldn’t implant a device that could be detected, would they? How gullible are we supposed to be?”

There are near infinite things that we can all choose to believe without evidence. But that’s not how we discern reality from fantasy.

Anyway, if I were to insinuate that, “We all know who @Singer really is and what his intentions are”, you’d likely expect me to explain what I mean by this. If I refused to explain and provide any evidence for my claim, everyone is right to dismiss my claims immediately. Mockery is also in order.

@hominid Yeah, I noticed he offered no real assertion, nor evidence to support the vague statement he did make… um I agree, I guess.

“I’m not even sure what you’re saying here, or what you’re attempting to do with the burden of proof. The burden of proof is on the person making a claim. Period.”
I should have used quotes, looking back on my own text. The first sentence that you quoted is spoken from the position of the empowered, the rest of it was explanation. Poor clarity on my part.
I understand that such is the conventional application of burden-of-proof. What I was attempting to point out was that I can indeed impart knowledge, belief, or whatever in the form of ‘a claim’, and I only need to concern myself with proving it if and when I so desire you (or whomever) to be convinced. Clearly I can offer you information without care as to whether you know, believe, or even consider its truthfulness. (Do you recall Ripley’s believe it or not TV show? ‘It’s a Ripley’s thing’) Of course you are free to dismiss it as quickly as you like for whatever reason (lack of provided evidence or otherwise).

Maybe an example: I claim here and now that I am 175 cm tall. You could easily doubt this and say I am somehow objectively burdened with proving it. But I don’t care if you believe it or not, so I do not burden myself with proving it to you. I have no expectation of you believing me or considering the information true. I am simply providing it for whatever motive moved me to do so. That motive does not have to be a desire for you to consider it true. I can’t think of any clearer way to explain it. I only burden myself with proof when I desire to prove something to a given audience, and I don’t only make claims when I desire to prove them.

“There are near infinite things that we can all choose to believe without evidence.”
I don’t know which person your statement refers to, the claimant (without evidence believing something), or the judge waiting for the claimant to convince him (believing or not believing at his leisure without evidence). In the first case, I wouldn’t assume that a claim provided without evidence is proof that the claimant has no evidence. I hope you are not assuming that because no evidence was provided, that there is none. If you are assuming that the claimant has no evidence from the start (in the hypothetical), thats the same as making the claim (your claim) that the person has chosen to believe their claim without evidence… I would like to hear your evidence that he had/has no evidence upon which he makes his claim (i.e. how do you know he has no evidence?). From where does this assumption arise? I’m guessing from skepticism for its own sake.

“But that’s not how we discern reality from fantasy.”
I agree with this statement wholly. But if person A doesn’t care if person B discerns their claim as reality, then person A will not likely feel compelled to burden himself with proving it. And just because someone doesn’t prove something, does not mean it is not true, just means it hasn’t been proven to you.

Perhaps that’s how we’re different. When a claim fails to be proven to me, I do not assume it’s false. I simply recognize that I do not know it as true yet, perhaps someday. In fact, that thought process is what spurs me to be a Student and go learn more about it to see if it is indeed true (at least to my standards of proof of course). What evidence I find stands as it stands, but I don’t immediately dismiss the claim. For all I know @BeenThereSaidThat knows something I do not, something that is true, but he cannot, or doesn’t want to, find the time, words, or motivation to provide me the evidence. For all I know, your patient has a microscopic, undetectable by modern means, communication device in his head. It will take serious quantities and/or quality of evidence to convince me it’s true. And if I had to make a decision here and now on it, I would clearly decide in line with delusional paranoia. But when I set about ‘discerning reality from fantasy’, I do not dismiss his claim. It stands against the same standards of proof any other does. It just hasn’t met them yet, and may never.

“Anyway, if I were to insinuate that, “We all know who @Singer really is and what his intentions are”, you’d likely expect me to explain what I mean by this. If I refused to explain and provide any evidence for my claim, everyone is right to dismiss my claims immediately. Mockery is also in order.”
I would ask for an explanation after I laughed. The first thing I do different from you, is assume the claim is true. I already have fair cause to doubt, so it requires no attention. I wouldn’t expect you to explain, I would ask you to with sincere curiosity. If you refused to explain, I would actually do just the opposite. I would strive to figure out how it is indeed true (I’m assuming there would be no indications of sarcasm or humor in the claim).
To me, someone has just provided me the knowledge that they know who I really am, and what my true intentions are. Those are two things I have pondered about myself… I would love another’s insight into the topic of me and my intentions. I think I have them pretty well pegged, but I am most definitely curious. It also sparks my creative side… cool idea… everyone here knowing more about me than I do… what a story basis (I write and draw by the way). Lastly, I would read the words and gather as many understandings of them as possible. Could he mean that everyone knows my real name, location, and adequate history to constitute who I “really” am? I daresay that’s possible, and interesting. Could he mean that everyone here is is well aware that my intentions are to read others’ ideas and offer my own… damn, that’s even arguably likely. Hold on, I might be closing in on what he meant with the words he used. I don’t think I’m there yet though. And I would enjoy studying the entirety of the situation from as many perspectives as I could. In fact, that’s what I did with @BeenThereSaidThat ‘s text, tried to decipher what he meant and how it was true. And you see what I came up with (the Obama sends troops to Africa but not our borders deal). Best I could with what we both agree was very little said.

I gotta wrap it up. I know I have another two screens of stuff to explain. I’ll just leave the ‘Provision of information is always a courtesy (and I always appreciate it), be it an unproven claim or otherwise,’ until some other time.

I would say that everyone has the freedom to dismiss your claim, but the judgment of its ‘rightness’ I’ll leave to those that like making them.

Mockery is always in order :) I mock scientific facts all the time, let alone unproven claims :) Hell, I mock everything, even this absurdly redundant and lengthy reply :)

@Sinqer—way tl;dr

@BeenThereSaidThat: “I would like to hear your evidence that he had/has no evidence upon which he makes his claim (i.e. how do you know he has no evidence?). From where does this assumption arise? I’m guessing from skepticism for its own sake.”

This statement again is confusing the burden of proof. Obama is on his way to your house right now, and he’s bringing donuts. Clear off your kitchen table. Now, I fold my arms.

It’s theoretically possible that Obama just bought the donuts and will be at your house shortly. But at what point do you accept the claim? What evidence is necessary for you to accept it? You’re certainly not going to clear off your kitchen table just because I said it. And it’s rather exceptional claim, so you’re going to need more evidence than if I was just claiming that I am 6’1” tall.

Yes, I am a skeptic. If you aren’t, we’ll likely be able to find some common ground here. But I appreciate your lengthy response above. It makes it clear where our disagreement really is – it’s on the methodology that is best suited to figure out what is true and what isn’t.

And because you mention “proving” things to be true, I’ll add that my beliefs are provisional. Nothing is 100% certain. I’m always open to new evidence. But until a reasonable amount of evidence is provided, I do not accept a claim. Note that this is not the same as saying that the claim is false. That would be a claim itself, and require evidence. For example, I do not believe in a god or gods because there is no evidence to support the god claim. But that does not mean that I believe that a god does not exist. There is a big difference.

Anyway, welcome to fluther @Sinqer – and sorry about the username misspelling.

@elbanditoroso Sorry about the length there :)

@hominid

“Obama is on his way to your house right now, and he’s bringing donuts. Clear off your kitchen table. Now, I fold my arms.”
See? You did it! You’ve made a claim without care as to whether I believe it or not, and offered no evidence. You have refrained from burdening yourself with proving it. All I was saying is that people can do that, and they do it because they don’t care whether you ‘accept’ it or not. @BeenThereSaidThat folded his arms and walked away.

Clearing off the table is decision of action (and the action decided on). I think I mentioned it. Until I have to make a decision (like clearing off my table for Obama’s visit) I most certainly consider the claim possibly true, just as you pointed out. But just like making a decision about your patient, I would require more quantity or quality of evidence before I would consider it true (Obama, the conspiracy)... I think this qualifies as your ‘not accepting’ the claim. But I can’t say that I don’t accept the claim as possibly true, since I do… the ‘accept’ word is a bit fuzzy to me.
What constitutes ‘accepting the claim’?
Hmm, I’ll try this: I accept the claim as possibly true until proven impossible, but will make a decision based on the evidence at hand at the time of the decision (treat the claim as false in your examples), all the while continuing to accept the claim as possibly true and trying to find the evidence that proves it. I will forever be on the lookout for supporting evidence of even absurd claims.

”...Note that this is not the same as saying that the claim is false. That would be a claim itself, and require evidence.”
The above is the same as the below:
”...thats the same as making the claim (your claim) that the person has chosen to believe their claim without evidence… I would like to hear your evidence that he had/has no evidence upon which he makes his claim (i.e. how do you know he has no evidence?). From where does this assumption arise?...”

Which makes me wonder how you got this:
“This statement again is confusing the burden of proof.”
seeing as it was an explanation of the exact same thing.

Does anyone else see what I am missing? I have to be missing something. At this point it looks to me that we agree on 80% of what we’re saying… uh, what’s the 20%? Is it just the methodology? If that’s it, ROCK OUT!
Yeah, we got this! What’s next!? :)