- Joined
- May 22, 2016
- Messages
- 6,621
- Reaction score
- 10,213
Appeals to authority can be dicey. But what's in the bottle is in the bottle, regardless of who does the testing. That's one of the things we like about science.I gather that his perspective is that tericha is a bit out of his realm, and didn't beat around the bush to tell him so
I'm glad you mentioned that, because it gives me chance to emphasize....the accusation that there isn't any bacteria in this product and here's the test to prove it...
I didn't say that, and it's not my position. If Dr Tim said he put bacteria in the bottles, I'll take his word for it. I haven't demonstrated otherwise (didn't try to) and probably couldn't prove that negative anyway.
I said that the effect of the media without the bacteria is large and easily measured, and the effect of the bacteria apart from the media is undetectable with the same methods.
I also didn't say it doesn't work, or does nothing. I am saying it does a lot, but the effects that can be measured are due to the media, not the bacteria.
Oh, one more thing It's been brought up a couple of times as to contacting Dr Tim with Qs. He answered a series of relevant questions about the WA bacteria in this thread. His answers informed the testing approach.
He was asked for "proof" that it works, and responded that the 'proof' is the results [meaning testable/observable water parameters] So I did some tests.
I think I only have one real question for him, this one.
In the meantime... is there an experiment that you can suggest that would demonstrate the bacteria in a bottle of WA doing something other than what the media in WA does?