This is science, not religion. Nothing is owed to any researcher beyond the truth of the matter as supported by the best available evidence to us. Your pastor can request you go easy on him, your research team may not. (Please don't use this as an excuse to be rude.)
This contradicts several reasonably large high quality studies using a low grade substitute for human testing. The burden of proof is on the researchers making a surprising claim in contrast to existing evidence.
Right, likewise the way science works is by publishing studies. Here we have a published peer reviewed study, "versus" a one paragraph anonymous dude trying to discredit the study.
Wake me up when this dude gets a paper accepted in a reputable peer reviewed journal. Then I will read what he has to say and add it to my list of "worthwhile" sources to form my conclusion on Erythritol.
Other than that, online forum comments are just mental candy floss to read while taking my morning caffeine fix.
You say "a one paragraph anonymous dude trying to discredit the study"; I say "pointing out that this study isn't definitive proof that diet sodas are bad for you without a lot more study."
This contradicts several reasonably large high quality studies using a low grade substitute for human testing. The burden of proof is on the researchers making a surprising claim in contrast to existing evidence.