Return-Path: Delivered-To: diana@transocean.com Received: from vps.transocean.com by vps.transocean.com with LMTP id KIU9ASwNalo5RwAAInt2oQ for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2018 09:00:28 -0800 Return-path: Envelope-to: diana@transocean.com Delivery-date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 09:00:28 -0800 Received: from magnetic.grovitydefyer.com ([192.140.23.27]:27807) by vps.transocean.com with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89_1) (envelope-from ) id 1eeksr-0004k7-35 for diana@transocean.com; Thu, 25 Jan 2018 09:00:27 -0800 From: Approved Stem Cell Techniques To: diana@transocean.com Subject: We rebuild your organs and tissue with your own multiplied stem cells MIME-Version: 1 Reply-To: approved.stem.cell.techniques@grovitydefyer.com Message-ID: <91eLccRnQ.nAWI42.yr6vS0YzHx@magnetic.grovitydefyer.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="RGe3bHl7nM01TLOLy1ODEN7Ibm0OHOz02BqPnv0rQUQRVjOD1ihl9yFAurs2oZewzCO78NZTBQp9" Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 12:00:17 -0500 X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.8 X-Spam-Score: 8 X-Spam-Bar: / X-Ham-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "vps.transocean.com", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see root\@localhost for details. Content preview: would consider "scientific evidence"? I'm pretty surprised too, but equally "on the balance of probabilities" is much lower than science will accept. I'm not the other poster, but if you're looking, I'd say papers accepted in a reputable peer reviewed journal would be a good start - I say reputable because there are some scam journals out there - but that's the normal standard for most things. If you want to get more technical about what evidence would be look here https://www.health.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0022/435703/lvl-of-evidence.pdf Plenty of stuff is based on evidence level IV [...] Content analysis details: (0.8 points, 3.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.0 URIBL_BLOCKED ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [URIs: grovitydefyer.com] -0.0 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain -0.0 SPF_HELO_PASS SPF: HELO matches SPF record -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 0.8 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 40 to 60% [score: 0.5002] 0.0 T_REMOTE_IMAGE Message contains an external image X-Spam-Flag: NO --RGe3bHl7nM01TLOLy1ODEN7Ibm0OHOz02BqPnv0rQUQRVjOD1ihl9yFAurs2oZewzCO78NZTBQp9 Content-type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit would consider "scientific evidence"? I'm pretty surprised too, but equally "on the balance of probabilities" is much lower than science will accept. I'm not the other poster, but if you're looking, I'd say papers accepted in a reputable peer reviewed journal would be a good start - I say reputable because there are some scam journals out there - but that's the normal standard for most things. If you want to get more technical about what evidence would be look here https://www.health.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0022/435703/lvl-of-evidence.pdf Plenty of stuff is based on evidence level IV The Future Tech of 2018: http://udhjas.grovitydefyer.com/8yuhsgadtyas8 http://ijdsah.grovitydefyer.com/98udhsagdgroAbgCXNB8111mojzUSTSRW7Y4%2FLYKnkZIYsgMNqCugBujjyRjlIpiABXOYVUUu2nTTU%2BJHXzsdR29JI4wnnnEag%3D%3Dvit --RGe3bHl7nM01TLOLy1ODEN7Ibm0OHOz02BqPnv0rQUQRVjOD1ihl9yFAurs2oZewzCO78NZTBQp9 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit Futuretech

would consider "scientific evidence"? I'm pretty surprised too, but equally "on the balance of probabilities" is much lower than science will accept. I'm not the other poster, but if you're looking, I'd say papers accepted in a reputable peer reviewed journal would be a good start - I say reputable because there are some scam journals out there - but that's the normal standard for most things. If you want to get more technical about what evidence would be look here https://www.health.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0022/435703/lvl-of-evidence.pdf Plenty of stuff is based on evidence level IV
The Future Tech of 2018:

--RGe3bHl7nM01TLOLy1ODEN7Ibm0OHOz02BqPnv0rQUQRVjOD1ihl9yFAurs2oZewzCO78NZTBQp9--