My post was clearly not pointing out flaws in this specific research. Not sure how you get that impression. I first replied to a comment implying that just bec

My post was clearly not pointing out flaws in this specific research. Not sure how you get that impression. I first replied to a comment implying that just because research is widely publicised it should be accepted at face value, with a counterexample. That was all. Then someone replied to that with the absurd implication I was somehow trying to denounce all of science based on that one example. I corrected them. The only thing I said about this specific research was the following: >>But it's not like the findings are earth shattering given previous research. Therefore I lean towards optimism. If you inferred any other comment on the research than that, the source of that is your imagination, not anything I wrote.