There's relatively
little evidence for these claims as of right now.
Not exact matches
Fast's last bit of free trade - betraying intellectual rot is in the
claim that «there is
little, if any,
evidence that the system has made dairy, egg and poultry unaffordable
for the average Canadian.»
Barnett contends that the criticisms of a strong patent - rights system overlook recent empirical
evidence and have overestimated the impact and scope of problems including «patent trolls» (firms that own patents but do not manufacture products), «royalty stacks» (the total demands of multiple intellectual property holders
for remuneration leave too
little revenue left
for the manufacturer), and «patent thickets» (complex and conflicting legal
claims that increase transaction costs
for manufacturers).
I would point out however... that it is you who is
claiming an absolute definition
for the word so, perhaps while you wait
for my «exegetical
evidence», you might provide a
little of your own substantiating your usage of the term?
@ Dale — just one
little flaw in your
claim: there is absolutely no
evidence whatsoever that Jesus was God, or a god, and there is no
evidence that someone named Jesus came back to life after being dead
for three days.
There is
little or no
evidence for much of what she
claims is true — really — the earth was destroyed by water because angels mated with humans?
What's more, all those
claims you hear about milk being crucial
for bones are a
little thin on
evidence.
For example, Thaler and Sunstein's
claims about the benefits of opt - out schemes are belied by
little evidence it increases donations.
But there is
little evidence to support these
claims, so the evolutionary explanation
for the zebras» stripes has remained murky.
If weight lifting is so awesome
for burning calories because you're burning more calories while you're resting (a
claim that is made over and over again with
little clinical
evidence to back it up), how come the resistance training group in this study did so poorly in losing weight?
Though some would
claim otherwise, there is very
little evidence that raw meat offers any measurable health benefits
for our dogs.
According to the ASPCA though, there is
little evidence to support the
claim that these laws make communities safer
for people or other companion animals.
For sure, the technical rebuttals to the specific claims compete with balance of evidence arguments and a little bit of playful trolling for the attention of anyone who actually cares about the detai
For sure, the technical rebuttals to the specific
claims compete with balance of
evidence arguments and a
little bit of playful trolling
for the attention of anyone who actually cares about the detai
for the attention of anyone who actually cares about the details.
Though Pixiq attempted to find document shady connections between Norman and Big Ag they came up short, but did manage to find enough
evidence to support
claims by the largely conservative Tampa Tribune editorial board's that Norman is «a deceptive, self - interested politician who has displayed
little regard
for ethical behavior.»
(The fact that they all are is conclusive
evidence that there is
little or no scope on real planets
for changes in «greenhouse» gasses to have significant temperature effects — even if the process worked just the way the AGW theorists
claim!)
In no other science would their weak correlations and
claims of existence of interdependent cycles based upon
little more than raw periodograms be accepted as rigorous «
evidence»
for their conjectures.
If I had to label myself, I would say I am a lukewarmer - but having grown up in the 1970's with the «Late Great Planet earth» claptrap, along with Howard Ruff, the 1970's ice age, the end of oil (1970's vintage), I have
little to no toerance
for apocalyptic
claims based on
evidence that is not substantially different from noise.
Hoegh - Guldberg's basis
for claiming «
little evidence» was totally irrelevant, if not dishonest.
It's not a long time, but then again, history is moving quickly these days, and its long enough
for us to say that there's
little evidence for this nearly universal
claim.
BC Injury Law And ICBC
Claims Blog Subjective Soft Tissue Injuries And Judicial Scrutiny Last year I criticized the often recited judicial passage stating that «``... the Court should be exceedingly careful when there is
little or no objective
evidence of continuing injury and when complaints of pain persist
for long periods extending beyond the normal or usual recovery...» and pointing out that these comments should no longer be used given Supreme Court of Canada's reasons in FH v. McDougall.
«With the Enterprise Act provisions applying to policies incepted or renewed from 4 May 2017,
claims under such policies are likely to be accompanied by demands
for damages with
little concern about the
evidence in support,» he says.
... petitioner failed to produce
evidence that the
claimed expenses were
for prescribed activity, and he had
little regard
for physician's advice on sexually related matters.
Main findings from the review of caselaw on WSIB adjudication (see also Chart) point to the regular disregard of the treating health professional's medical opinion about whether return to work is safe; the reversal of benefits promised to the most vulnerable injured workers (those with permanent disabilities approaching «lock - in» of benefits); wrongful denial of compensation based on «
little or no
evidence» of pre-existing conditions; and undue targeting of workers with psychological injuries
for denial of
claims and
for surveillance.
As with the Lumia 650, Microsoft's launch patter
for the 950 and 950 XL was somewhat meaningless, as it
claimed that the two devices had been designed «
for the fans», despite
little evidence to support that.