Talk:BX Protocol

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Dewayne Lee Smith[edit]

I removed this part:

thumb|165px|Mugshot of the purported creator of BX Protocol, "Dr" Dewayne Lee Smith The "inventor" of BX protocol is "Dr" Dewayne Lee Smith. He says he has a Ph.D. in “biological sciences” from “University of Canterbury”[1], which sounds rather similar to “Canterbury University”, which is a degree-mill in the Seychelles[2]. "Dr" Dewayne Lee Smith has been arrested by police in Utah [3], coincidentally where Delta Institute have a clinic, which they try to keep quiet for some reason. However Delta Institute gave away the location of their US clinic by advertising staff-vacancies in the local classifieds [4]

Problems I see with it:

  • It's not clear to me that "Dewayne Lee Smith" and "Duane Smith" are really the same person?
  • I'm not sure if we need to include his mugshot? The source doesn't mention he was convicted, so he could have been simply arrested and set free based on a misunderstanding (I also don't like linking to these bottom feeding mugshot sites, but that's another matter...)
  • There is a real University of Canterbury. That there's also a diploma mill with a similar sounding name doesn't prove he got it from the diploma mill...

Carpetsmoker (talk) 16:48, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

As a graduate and faculty member of Canterbury University, I find your perception of reality instructive.
First of all, Canterbury University is not a degree mill, unless you consider 4 years expeditious. Just because Wikipedia says it is so, doesn't make it true. In fact, examining your recent contribution to Wikipedia about BX;, doesn't make your opposition to BX credible at all. To the contrary, the article elicits support for BX.
Is this the type of mental dexterity that should convince the forum that your academics are somehow superior to our alternative brand of education at Canterbury?
Alternative institutions, like Canterbury, are on the rise, while trust in conventional universities is plummeting.
Attacks on Canterbury
Some in the mainstream academia indoctrinate their students into believing that they are dissident if they do not cling to established thought.
Many Ph.D.'s are procreated when conventional dogma encounters an impressionable mind. Then as they mature, they begin to believe that the outside world is evil and inferior if they do not forfeit their own believes or subjugate their intellectual autonomy to the will of the majority, (that is to say the "establishment" or mainstream research community in this case).
The great majority of universities do not seem to enhance the mental freedom of their students at all, some of whom are psychologically damaged by the experience. I have found that some Universities have a lot in common with mind-control cults. You may laugh, but the practices of such cults are strangely familiar to anyone looking at academia from a safe distance. The four fundamental cult traits of conventional universities are: 1. Behavior Control, 2. Information Control, 3.Thought Control, and 4. Emotional Control. Is this why the testimonials on the BX Website are repulsive?
Academia is broken, has become a meritocracy, and offers little meaningful hope for true enlightenment, and you claim we should be worried that Dr. Smith went to Canterbury instead of Leiden? ASTONISHING!
The “mug shot” claims are an example of how desperate this person is to discredit the organization. The tactic involves joining 1 truth with 1 or 2 fallacies in order to achieve the desired social impact.
2002 and 2013 “Arrest”
The Truth:
Dr. Smith was “ticketed” in 2002 for protesting a beef and poultry contamination. The protest was aimed at a food chain and the USDA. When refusing to leave the property, he was written a ticket and released. This type of misdemeanor required a “mug shot” under plea in abeyance. NO ARREST NO CONVICTION. Dr. Smith offers no apologies and is very proud of his actions in this instance.
In 2013 Dr. Smith was ticketed for target practicing on a gun range that had been the active gun range in the area for nearly 20 years. The new owner of the property requested that police start ticketing people if they came on the land. That is his right and Dr. Smith was more than happy to pay the fine. This was a misdemeanor trespassing charge and again under plea in abeyance, mug shots were required. NO ARREST NO CONVICTION.
The Lie:
Delta’s founders and employees are fraudsters. Delta is a scam. Delta does not provide anything for your money. People that work for Delta are fraudsters. Want proof? Check out these Mug Shots of the shysters in action.
The trickery of Big Pharma Rob is sophisticated. He is obviously an intelligent individual with a talent at distortion and manipulation. He is a liar through and through. Many will decide not to do our protocol as a result of his criminal activities. :That is unfortunate, and also distinguishes him as an evil person that cares little about your health.
The Bio-Science program (PhD.) at Canterbury University requires 92 credits + a 4 year degree. — Unsigned, by: Solvefalse / talk / contribs
Your screed has been noted. And dismissed as it provides no actual factual information.
But I do give you points on the purple prose and the fevered ranting.
Oh, and we're not big pharma.--Castaigne2 (talk) 21:19, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Each time someone points to "this guy was arrested" I can't help but think they are bringing it up because they don't have any valid points to argue against the actual protocol. If you look at the blog on Delta Institute's page, they clarified the reason he was ticketed and confirmed there was no arrest, no conviction. So why was a completely false statement added back to the main page? See (talk) 17:37, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

BX Protocol[edit]

Ingredients - It states on the photo of the bottle the ingredients are " Modified Fructose and activated carbon 1,000,000 X Inactive ingredients Reagent grade water 15 ml and 'Homeopathic formula'" The current photo text states "A bottle of "BX" from Delta Institute. If correctly labelled the bottle only contains water." Teeds01 (talk) 03:36, 12 July 2017 (UTC) Further research could lead some to conclude that there is a real possibility the BX Protocol should not be on this page. The purpose of this website is to analyze and refute pseudoscience and the anti-science movement. By strict definition, sure, it meets some of the criteria outlined on this website. But, after doing some research, it is not entirely clear that the BX Protocol is pseudoscience or part of the anti-science movement. In fact, it seems the BX Protocol is highly scientific. Hell, it is so complex it is understandable why some people cannot comprehend it. Of course that could be the reason it ended up on this page in the first place. But does being complex mean it is pseudoscience or part of the anti-science movement? Not necessarily. One could argue that it is pseudoscience or anti-science because the evidence they present has not been peer-reviewed. Yes, it is true. No peer-reviews have been completed. Still, scientific studies have been conducted, and according to their website, continue to be conducted. But rather than debate whether or not the Delta Institute is conforming to traditional scientific review standards, let’s check out the claims made on this page. The RationalWiki BX Protocol page is not all that impressive. Independent research could lead someone to conclude that the author of the page simply has an axe to grind with the Delta Institute. Why? Who knows? Maybe he contacted them with the hopes it would enlarge his penis but was told they could not take him on as a client since that wasn’t the intended purpose of the BX Protocol.

That said, here are some of the statements I see issues with. Grab a cup of coffee, a soda or an ice cold beer. This might take a while.

BX refers to “Bacillus-X”, a term coined by discredited-scientist and conspiracy-theorist Royal Rife in the 1930’s.
  • Royal Rife is controversial. That is a fact. But this page gives the reader the opportunity to research both sides of his work. There is little scientific and/or factual evidence that exists proving Royal Rife was actually discredited. Dr. Rife had numerous scientists and doctors corroborate his results (Hess, 1996). While his research is controversial, there are reports that suggest Dr. Rife’s work was suppressed by the American Medical Association. Dr. Rife refused to sell his company to Morris Fishbein, editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association (Hess, 1996). If Dr. Rife’s work was discredited, why would legendary opponent of alternative medicine, Morris Fishbein, want to purchase his company? Maybe he didn’t actually consider it alternative medicine until Rife refused to sell him his company? [Hess, D. J. (1996, Dec.) Technology and alternative cancer therapies: an analysis of heterodoxy and constructivism. Medical Anthropology Quarterly. 10(4), 657-674.]
  • Delta Institute identifies the work of multiple credible pioneers in the creation of the BX Protocol including Nobel Prize winner including Otto Heinrick Warburg, Dr. William Frederick Koch, scientist Georges Lakhovsky, Dr. Virginia Livingston-Wheeler, and of course Dr. Royal Raymond Rife. If you have a hard time agreeing that Dr. Rife was credible, fine. But can you really discredit the others? Maybe we should dispute Otto Heinrick Warburg’s findings and demand his Nobel Prize be recalled. Not to mention, if you are going to use one of the videos to cite your reasoning, you may want to watch the whole thing or cite the whole truth, not just pieces to support your point. Visit: and
There is at least one documented case of someone dying because she chose this nonsense over chemotherapy
  • Has the entire world missed a major medical breakthrough? What treatment offers a 100% success rate? The Delta Institute does not claim that all members will be cured. In fact, they provide a video that shows the challenges of health restoration in end-of-life cases. While the member they documented did not recover, the video shows his quality of life was drastically improved during the last month of his life. Visit:
  • This article suggests that if the person would have used chemotherapy as their treatment, they would still be alive. It is a well-known fact that choosing chemotherapy does not guarantee survival (Harrington & Smith, 2008). But the worst part about this statement is the example used. The reference cited was posted in 2012. In 2014, the Facebook page the author used to prove someone died shows this person chose chemotherapy as part of her treatment. Stating she “chose this nonsense over chemotherapy” should probably be fact checked before you use it as the basis of your argument. Sorry, you just invalidated your own argument. [Harrington, S.E. & Smith, T. J. (2008, Jun 11). The role of chemotherapy at the end of life. The Journal of the American Medical Association. 299(22). 2667-2678.]
Before you start treatment you’ve got to sign a release form which has about a dozen Quack Miranda Warning warnings, such as “not intended for the use in the diagnosis of disease or other conditions, or in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease.
  • Isn’t the intent of any release form to provide the member with adequate information to determine if the benefits outweigh the risks? This empowers the consumer to decide for themselves whether or not they would like to participate in the program. Isn’t this similar to informed consent? Sure, some of the lines meet the definition of “Quack Miranda Warnings”. Does it completely discredit them? Nope. It could mean that it is just another legal statement companies have to use to avoid frivolous lawsuits.
This of course doesn’t stop their testimonials from advertising it is a cure for damn near everything.
  • The testimonials appear to document actual member experiences. In fact, many of the testimonials document the experience of users over the course of 12 months or more. This allows the viewer to draw their own conclusion of whether or not the BX Protocol is effective. There is no indication that these people are paid actors or that results aren’t typical. Sadly, they don’t mention enlarging the penis so it’s understandable why that could be a source of disappointment to some.
In the small-print you can also read that none of The Delta Institute employees are licensed physicians”
  • The “Meet the Team” section provides detailed information about employee and council member credentials. According to their Facebook Page, their member affiliates consists of about 25% MD's, about 30% D.O.s and about 20% N.M.D’s. The rest are mixed titles PhD's etc. Their website also shows they treat members from all over the world. Licensing requirements vary from each location. It would be unreasonable to expect staff members to be licensed in all of the locations they serve. In fact, it would be downright impossible. Visit:
They do not offer evidence or research for any claim

Really? Where was the author looking? Let’s not get into a debate over how the research was conducted and whether or not it was peer-reviewed since that wasn’t the claim made. The claim made simply states they offer no research or evidence. That is simply not true.

  • A 90 day study at Utah State University conducted by Patti Champine, M.Sc. provides results on the effect of BX Energy Catalyst on non-small cell carcinoma cell lines. Visit:
  • Practical methods for measuring mitochondrial function have been developed. Some of these methods include open respirometry, crenation studies, and mitochondrial function profiles. Results of clinical studies can be found on the website in Module #2 BX Research (In vivo). Visit:
The entire treatment costs $16,995, paid up front, no refunds.
  • This statement is not entirely true. It is true that once a member is accepted, their membership fee is non-refundable. However, the source cited in this article indicates that the funds are held pending determination of applicants eligibility for membership. In the event the applicant is ineligible for membership, the entire club membership fee is returned to the applicant. If they were just in it to take the members money, why would you have to go through an approval process?

So what is it?[edit]

Mitochondrial disease is indeed a real affliction, and may cause a wide variety of symptoms, but to claim that it's the root cause of most disease is completely unproven and simply ludicrous.
  • It is simply ludicrous to say there is no possibility of a connection between mitochondrial dysfunction and chronic disease. Loss of function in the mitochondria can result in fatigue and other symptoms commonly reported in almost every chronic disease (Nicolson, 2013). While research in this area is ongoing, it would be irresponsible to completely dismiss these claims as ludicrous until proven otherwise. Visit which also has over a hundred references that provide insight on mitochondrial dysfunction, some relating to chronic disease.
For treatment they've got an "energized non-toxic biomolecule created from pure crystalline fructose
  • That is correct. Just because the author doesn’t understand the technology behind the electrostatic charging process, does not mean that the molecule is not scientific. The charged molecule is "charged through electron depletion”, which is a valid scientific construct. Fructose is used as a carrier as it exploits the metabolic pathways of the cell and microorganisms.
  • Again, did the author pay attention to the website? Treatment does not consist of the BX Energy Catalyst alone. Members have the option of receiving a Home-Based Treatment Program or a Hybrid Treatment Program. In addition to the BX Energy Catalyst, home based members receive intensive and effective home-based support 24/7. This includes virtual tools, the ability to contact affiliates, case management, and more. The Hybrid Treatment Program provides all the benefits of the Home-Based Program plus the option of on-site treatment by a trained and certified clinical affiliate. Visit
  • Yes, treating medical conditions with crystalline fructose doesn’t sound logical. Of course comprehending how the BX Energy Catalyst functions is a complex process that is not yet entirely understood. Studies on the BX Energy Catalyst are attempting to understand how the frequency chamber alters the electrostatic energy between the atoms nucleus and the surrounding electronic charge density. This is an area that needs more explanation and research, but it does not mean they are only using sugar water to treat disease. Visit
One page also mentions that it is homeopathic, and in a video ozone therapy is dropped, neither of which has any relation to the explanation above.
  • Did the author actually comprehend what they referenced? The product does not claim to be homeopathic. The source cited states the preparations could be viewed as homeopathic because of dilution factors, but clarifies it is not. Additionally, the video attached to the source cited in this article actually provides evidence the product is not homeopathic. Around 6:41, the video states, “Some people may mistakenly think that this is a homeopathic reaction because the preparation is dilute.”
  • Again, if you are going to use something as your reference, you may want to make sure you actually understand what was being said. Around 1:22 the video identifies other oxidative therapies that employ the use of singlet oxygen such as peroxide and ozone therapies but goes on to explain how the BX protocol is different from these therapies.

So, is the BX Protocol the new paradigm in medicine or a bunch of technobabble with a dash of woo? Can it be said with 100% certainty in accordance with current scientific standards that it meets the criteria established by modern medicine? No. It’s true, it can’t. But what can be said is that based on the information presented by both sides, there isn’t enough evidence to prove it is pseudoscience, technobabble, or woo. So, at the end of the day, this page did nothing but show that more research is needed. It also showed that you have to pay attention to the sources referenced since the author on the page may have taken information out of context. Yes, it’s a Wiki page, what do you expect? Well, you made it to the end of constructive dialogue. Go ahead and grab another beverage of your choice, you earned it.

--IsItFactual? (talk) 17:28, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

It has been discredited repeatedly. Several people are now in jail for defrauding patients, and one for second degree murder after people died. Something that works 100% of the time in a fairly quick fashion is extremely easy to prove correct in any academic hospital in the nation for the last 40+ years, which would make the person who proved it wealthy and internationally famous, yet no one who has sold the product has done so. It's there to make a buck off of people in desperate need...and anyone who does so should be locked up. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 22:03, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
What has been discredited repeatedly and by who? Who is in jail for defrauding patients and who was charged with murder? From what I see, the company does not claim it works 100% of the time (see above), nor has anyone been arrested for fraud or murder. Are you referring to the BX Protocol or something else?--IsItFactual? (talk) 18:38, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
These are all on the wiki page in public view. If you can't answer the first criticisms on the wiki page for the person you are extolling, why bother with this conversation? It's like having a conversation about cars with someone that doesn't know what an internal combustion engine is. No wonder people keep rehashing his crap in new decades to fleece people who think they are really smart...but don't know the basics of what they are going on about. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 14:39, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Wow. . .relax. Perhaps you think I am thick headed, but if you look back at your initial comment, you said "It has been discredited" and then went on to talk about murder. . .I may be slow, but I think it was an honest question. Who the hell were you referring to? If you are referring to the BX Protocol, where is your evidence? I can assume you were referring to Royal Rife when speaking about being discredited, but I wanted to clarify...maybe using the word "it" to respond to a talk page that has many comments isn't the best way to go about creating true understanding. Then, maybe I wouldn't have needed a roadmap to understand your point. On that note, while I understand your viewpoint, a Wiki page doesn't prove it is true. Independent research proves points to me. . .like the fact that he is controversial, not discredited. But hey, we can agree to disagree on that one. As for your babble about murder, you'll have to provide some additional info for this thick headed gal. But hey, thanks for engaging in constructive dialogue. Its been real.--IsItFactual? (talk) 17:58, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Inventor of the BX Protocol, "Dr" Smith, also has a sideline in allegedly therapeutic electronic-devices, which he claims he has developed with assistance from Ex-NASA scientists. In reality the cure-all contraptions he sells,(at inflated prices), are manufactured in China. These devices emit the same Ka-band radio-frequency as a police radar speed gun.
It has been represented that Energenetix buys cheap china technology and then inflates the price. A little research showed that Energenetix does purchase enclosure units from China in the interest of saving money for its clients - wow, how thoughtless of them. However all of the circuitry and research that goes into the “empty box” has originated from research conducted by seasoned engineers and researchers employed by Energenetix or related companies. The technologies are only available to certified affiliates or Delta members. I find it hard to believe people will complain about the cost of Energenetix's equipment, which cost between $4,000-$12,000, yet no one seems to be upset by the fact that X-ray radiation therapy machines cost $3 million each. These machines are far more expensive and their good for is tumor promotion in the periphery. (A study conducted at the UCLA Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center (UJCCC) describes how radiation treatments actually promote malignancy in cancer cells instead of eradication - do some research!)
Further research shows Delta Technologies include more than ka bands. ka band is simply a frequency range covers the frequencies of 26.5–40 GHz. Depending on the amplitute and the use of the pulse cycle. If you are interested on the effect of the ka band on Bacterial Mutagenesis, we recommend searching the literature.
Some of their research is based on the use of X, KU, K, and ka rf bands.
They have developed 8 medical technologies in total covering the following ranges:
  • High Frequency (HF) 3-30 MHz
  • Very High Frequency (VHF) 30-300 MHz
  • Ultra High Frequency (UHF) 300-3000 MHz
  • Ultra Sound: 580 kHz
  • Multi Wave Oscillation (700 hz-300 MHz)
Anyone can review the literature to explore the use of these ranges in bacterial inactivation, gene transcription munipulation, etc.IsItFactual? (talk) 18:46, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

More fevered ranting[edit]


1. You claim that BX is a Cure All?: Their site only list the word “cure” twice with reference to the concept of cure. I can’t find a single claim on their site that suggests that they are claiming that the BX is a “cure all”. It is apparent that they provide support in several pathologies with good success, but your suggestion that they are representing their products or services as a “cure all” is false and blatantly fabricated.

2. You claim that Royal Rife was a discredited scientist? The facts: In 1934, the University of Southern California appointed a Special Medical Research Committee to bring 16 terminal cancer patients from Pasadena County Hospital to Rife's San Diego Laboratory and clinic for treatment. The team included doctors and pathologists assigned to examine the patients, if still alive, in 90 days. After the 3 months of treatment, the Committee concluded that 14 of the patients had been completely cured. The treatment was then adjusted and the remaining 2 also were cured within the next 4 weeks. On November 20, 1931, forty-four of the nation's most respected medical authorities honored Royal Rife with a banquet billed as "The End To All Diseases" at the Pasadena estate of Dr. Milbank Johnson. He was never discredited, unless you consider your type of disinformation “discrediting”.

3. You claim it helps to support several diseases. That is correct.

4. You claim that the only claims missing here are bigger penis and more miles per gallon kilometres to the litre. Actually, there are several cases that mention an improvement with libido and sexual dysfunction. Moreover, the site only discusses effects in a hand full of pathologies.

5. You claim that Dr. Smith received his degree from a degree mill. Upon further examination we find that The Bio-Science program (PhD.) at Canterbury University required 92 credits + a 4 year degree and is considered more rigorous than most programs.

6. You claim that Dr. Smith was arrested. This claim is false. Dr. Smith was “ticketed” in 2002 for protesting a beef and poultry contamination. The protest was aimed at a food chain and the USDA. When refusing to leave the property, he was written a ticket and released. This type of misdemeanor required a “mug shot” under plea in abeyance. NO ARREST NO CONVICTION. Dr. Smith offers no apologies and is very proud of his actions in this instance. In 2013 Dr. Smith was ticketed for target practicing on a gun range that had been the active gun range in the area for nearly 20 years. The new owner of the property requested that police start ticketing people if they came on the land. That is his right and Dr. Smith was more than happy to pay the fine. This was a misdemeanor trespassing charge and again under plea in abeyance, mug shots were required. NO ARREST NO CONVICTION.

7. You claim that Delta has a “secret clinic” in the United States. This is false, although Delta did have a clinic in the United States that relocated to Cancun in 2013. The medical director of that clinic was licensed in the U.S.. Their current clinic is located in the Caribbean and that information is available to registered members upon request. Staff-vacancies in the local classifieds pertain to a different company all together, and have no relationship to the medical end of Delta Institute. — Unsigned, by: Solvefalse / talk / contribs

Oh, boy. For a laugh, I took a look at the 'Canterbury University' website: (special note: real schools and universities in the UK end their URL with, the equivalent of .edu). It's very definitely a diploma mill. What was once a no-account local college in England was apparently bought out by an international consortium, and by way of a legal challenge in Florida (WTF?) is now apparently entirely online with a legal presence in the Seychelles. It even boasts about not being accredited. Accreditation might be voluntary, but that's because degrees conferred by unaccredited institutions are worthless, for good reason. While it's far from perfect, accreditation is the only thing that resembles quality control for higher education. A PhD requiring '92 credits + a 4 year degree' makes no sense - a PhD is a research degree and does not include any taught content, so credits are irrelevant. A full-time PhD is formally 3 years (plus more time spent revising the thesis and passing the viva), a part-time PhD should take at least 6. The description of the 'Bio-Science' program is also hilarious: trying to pass off cloning, fermentation and bioengineering as part of the same course like that makes total sense without further explanation. The 'Alumni Affairs' link just takes you to, I'm not joking, a cafepress shop filled with crap with the fake coat of arms plastered over it. No list of academic staff. I'm pretty sure I could throw together a better attempt at a diploma mill website. Queexchthonic murmurings 23:58, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Glad you like my Rantings

Consider that Canterbury’s approach to specialized training takes into account that not everyone pursuing specialized training wants to limit their career to teaching or research. The main problem I see with traditional Ph.D.’s is that their experience and training is extremely limited. When the entire program is consumed with designing dissertation research, writing, and defense. The person may end up with competence in research, but at the expense of having their experience limited to research and professorship.

So you crank out your dissertation in a year and you think that you’re an expert on a subject only to discover that you really don’t get to learn anything of significance until after you get out of school. Trudging through a pointless PhD that is stuck in theoretical “low gear” is a royal waste of time. Most higher education authorities, other than Canterbury, and a few others, focus on generalist skills. Academia tends to be very generic. This is the reason why institutions like Canterbury tend to produce people that are actually prepared for the workplace. — Unsigned, by: Solvefalse / talk / contribs

Isn't he a little sweetie? What the fuck is he talking about? Pippa (talk) 02:49, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Here's a person who used a diploma from "Canterbury University" in the "workplace", and consequently was found guilty of fraud ... Guvax (talk) 09:27, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
"Most higher education authorities, other than Canterbury, and a few others, focus on generalist skills. Academia tends to be very generic. This is the reason why institutions like Canterbury tend to produce people that are actually prepared for the workplace." Wow. Every day in every way you reveal how little you know about higher education. Research degrees are incredibly specific; the entire point of a PhD is that by the end of it you become the world's foremost authority on one very narrow part of your field. The idea that a diploma mill like that offers a superior alternative is laughable. The idea that a 'write us a cheque, we'll send you a certificate' place better prepares someone for a real world job is like Donald Trump in a lift- wrong on every level. Research, even in industry, requires the skills that are picked up during a PhD or MPhil. Even outside research, the idea that a diploma mill offers better chances than a real institution is silly. Remember- people only turn to places like Canterbury University when they don't have any prospect of getting a real degree to their name. Queexchthonic murmurings 12:11, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Canterbury 'University' also offers courses in astrology. Totally a real university. --JorisEnter (talk) 17:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Repeating the same lie over and over concerning the idea that Dr. Smith received his degree from a diploma mill does not make your statements true. Dr. Smith's requirements from Canterbury were much more rigid than your limited experience at Leiden. Dr. Smith lectures all over the world, and is supported from scientist from Purdue to Baylor, and anyone that has worked with him (like myself) can tell you that he is 10 steps ahead of any other mainstream Ph.D. that I know. And just an FYI: your "dissident suppression" has caused a surge in Delta enrollments as I understand it. Do you think that people are stupid? Talk about "educated derelicts"!
Delta wrote "a surge in Delta enrollments". Delta doth protest too much :¬). Delta wrote "your dissident suppression". (The predictable Galileo Gambit). If you were actually being suppressed your post here about being suppressed would not be visible. Do Delta allow their critics to post messages on their website, or on their YouTubes, or on their Facebook pages ?. No , Delta suppress critical comments : the suppressive boot is on the the other foot. Guvax (talk) 22:00, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
"Dr. [sic] Smith's requirements from Canterbury were much more rigid than your limited experience at Leiden"
Lololol. But seriously, wtf? You got any experience with mah calculus mate?
"he is 10 steps ahead of any other mainstream Ph.D. [sic] that I know".
I guess you don't know many mainstream PhDs then, do you?
"your "dissident suppression" blah blah blah"
Oh come and see the violence inherent in this system! Help! Help! I'm being repressed!
--JorisEnter (talk) 22:06, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Apparently this is related to men's rights?[edit] FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 06:11, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

12th July 2017 Teeds01 wrote[edit]

12th July 2017 Teeds01 wrote "Label clearly states ingredients and not just "water." Added ingredients as listed on label".

BX-Protocol label says "homeopathic" & "1000000X". There's not enough matter in the universe to make a 400X homeopathic dilution, see ... So a "1000000X" homeopathic dilution will most certainly only contain dilutant : so if the label is correct, the BX stuff in the bottle is just water.

12th July 2017 Teeds01 wrote ... "Removed profanities and comparisons of "penius enlargements" - serves no constructive purpose."

Apparently Teeds01 is not aware that the house-style of RationalWiki is "snarky", see ...