You do not understand ad hominem at all.<quoted text>
Every time you post, this is what I see.
Ad hominem logical fallacy
Description: Attacking the person making the argument, rather than the argument itself, when the attack on the person is completely irrelevant to the argument the person is making.
Person 1 is claiming Y.
Person 1 is a moron.
Therefore, Y is not true.
1. To say that I question what you say because you have not provided acceptable evidence is not an adhominem. Failure to provide evidence is not "completely irrelevant to the argument the person is making".
2. Given that Geeze provided evidence (e.g. confusing autoimmunization with immunization) that she/he dies not have enough understanding of science to interpret the reports occasionally cited. Again this is not an adhomimem--Geeze's failure to understand the material is not "completely irrelevant to the argument the person is making".
Medicine is not simply a matter of "common sense" as some posters would have us believe. I don't visit my barber for an appendix operation.