What gets you in a spot of bother, I think, is reading what you think your interlocutor says, instead of reading what they actually say. I was, from the start,

What gets you in a spot of bother, I think, is reading what you think your interlocutor says, instead of reading what they actually say. I was, from the start, merely objecting to your amusingly cavalier use of the phrase "obviously not true". I never did claim I take the study in question as gospel, nor did I claim it's blinded, controlled, or randomly sampled, now did I?