The most worrying thing about your reply is probably the premise that the burden of proof would be on you to prove it materially incorrect, and not on those adv

The most worrying thing about your reply is probably the premise that the burden of proof would be on you to prove it materially incorrect, and not on those advocating policy based on it to prove that it had any scientific value in the first place. If obfuscating code to the point where it could be doing just about anything but it's so difficult to understand that no-one can positively prove it's doing something wrong is a viable strategy, the system is broken a priori.