[Goose]

This isn't a "caught up in the excitement" problem.  This is junk science.  Biased sampling followed by improper analysis of already bad data.  This belongs in the trash bin.  I don't even understand why we're arguing about this crap.

Why the trash bin? Don't you believe in actually burning books you don't like? Sorry to be so aggressive here, but I must admit this approach frosts me more than a bit. I understand the criticism of the study. That is valid and good. Let everyone decide for themselves. However, ascribing evil motives and trying to remove the study from view by throwing it in the trash is not acceptable in a free society. Crap is published all the time. However, what is "crap" is often in the eye of the beholder. Criticize, debunk, question all you want. Suppress? Very different issue.

[Goose]

This isn't a "caught up in the excitement" problem.  This is junk science.  Biased sampling followed by improper analysis of already bad data.  This belongs in the trash bin.  I don't even understand why we're arguing about this crap.

Why the trash bin? Don't you believe in actually burning books you don't like? Sorry to be so aggressive here, but I must admit this approach frosts me more than a bit. I understand the criticism of the study. That is valid and good. Let everyone decide for themselves. However, ascribing evil motives and trying to remove the study from view by throwing it in the trash is not acceptable in a free society. Crap is published all the time. However, what is "crap" is often in the eye of the beholder. Criticize, debunk, question all you want. Suppress? Very different issue.