You've set the bar for proof really high and you think that makes you safe. Never mind that it's unreasonably high, or that if you take the contents of EPO as a whole there is little problem "triangulating" to arrive at a clear--and damning--picture of M. Since everything is subjective then there isn't really any such thing as evidence and you can believe what you want.

In other words, no amount of evidence will convince you.

No? Am I misrepresenting you? Then I'd be fascinated to know what you would consider evidence against M. (Be careful. Whatever you say, I'll hold you to it.)

You may wish to consider the many, many premies who have found EPO and, in spite of decades of dedication to M, have had no choice but to recognise its truth.

Neville B