Do you have anything specific that would refute anything in the report? Simply mounting an ad-hominem attack doesn't add anything to the discussion. It's like

Do you have anything specific that would refute anything in the report? Simply mounting an ad-hominem attack doesn't add anything to the discussion. It's like somebody saying "Tesla cars suck - they explode". And Elon Musk comes out and says, "No they don't, here's the testing/validation we did". And you say "Oh but...but....you work for Tesla. It must be lies!" If there's factual inaccuracies - of course, that's a different story. But you seem to be simply saying, "They must be lying, because that suits my narrative, so I'm not going to bother trying to refute it".