and the anthrax case over at Ace, here and here.
No scientist, am I. I do tend to agree with Ace, that
To suggest that this silly shit constitutes evidence of any sort makes me doubt the strength of the rest of their case. If they're offering this nonsense as evidence, how strong can the rest of their evidence really be?
I always operate on the assumption that no one offers weak "evidence" if they have strong evidence at hand, and if they're offering the weak stuff, well, that must mean they don't have anything much stronger than that.
Which, as he says, makes the rest of the stuff suspect.