But still, even with full review of the collected data, it calls into question any data "left on the cutting room floor" so to speak. Peer review doesn't accou

But still, even with full review of the collected data, it calls into question any data "left on the cutting room floor" so to speak. Peer review doesn't account for forgery of data. The failure to declare a conflict of interest is pretty suspect. > But the published paper does not disclose that it has given some of the co-authors fees of around £750 each. It may just be the appearance of impropriety, but it REALLY looks bad. I'd say that until there are replicated results, its enough to consider it "likely invalid."