Your opening sentence is "yes, that did undermine their credibility with some populations, despite being only 201 people that never had syphilis in that study,

Your opening sentence is "yes, that did undermine their credibility with some populations, despite being only 201 people that never had syphilis in that study, 100 years ago" which misrepresents the number of impacted people, overstates how long ago this was, and is overtly dismissive of what the study did ("despite being only" is dismissive language). Your comment was inaccurate at best, plainly ignored that actual nature of the "experiment", and again was phrased in a way to imply it was an overreaction to stop trusting the medical providers funded by or aligned with the US government. Hence I wrote a comment that said your stated numbers were objectively false (sure there were 200 people who didn't have syphilis, but there were 400 people who did and for whom treatment was actively denied, and doctors who did treat them received complaints, and it killed more than a hundred people, more than half the people your comment claimed were involved). Your "summary" was fundamentally false and acting like my comment was because I "didn't like how a different part was summarized" is questionable.