A clue, a clue!!!
In a previous post, I noted a discrepancy between what one provider advertised on his website as a graph showing Ms. Starkweather's data and what Ms. Starkweather actually said in her abstract.
I noted that Ms. Starkweather's abstract claimed virtually miraculous results -- pain dropping from 8 to 1 at weeks one and ten post-treatment -- whereas the graph was considerably more conservative, going from 5 pre-treatment then to 4 and 3 at one and ten weeks.
I smelled a fib!
I emailed the provider and inquired as to whether he could explain this discrepancy. He responded:
"Interesting indeed. Will need to look into it. Got our info from a PPT presentation she gave. Does not match up. Sent from my iPhone"
From a powerpoint presentation? Hmmmmmm...where would she have given a powerpoint presentation? Not at that SNRS meeting, certainly -- would look kind of silly to have your abstract giving one set of data and your presentation graph showing something COMPLETELY DIFFERENT, right?
But he clearly says SHE gave the powerpoint presentation! But WHERE and WHY would she be giving such a presentation? No scientific meeting, certainly! Oh, wait! Might it have been at the "private engagement that Conrad (aka "proof that evolution CAN go in reverse") hosted? Hmmmmmm...dunno, cutting it close, the provider did only just start up but the "engagement" was just three weeks ago.
In any case, it's pretty obvious why Ms. Starkweather "doctored" her data -- oh, ha-ha, I think I just made a little joke -- for the presentation. After all, no one with an IQ greater than a turnip seed would believe the numbers she presented in her abstract! I almost added "except MISTER Marineo" but then realized he's not likely an exception to an IQ greater than a turnip seed!
Hard to say, really -- I do hope the provider will get back to me with further details.
