> those details, if they were published at all

They link to the study. These critcisms are a little hard to fathom as information: Is it symbolism of something, the same thing they describe?

> They link to the study.

Yeah—you see, if you click on that link you’ve identified, you’ll find the study itself is paywalled.

I don't like paywalls for science, but that doesn't mean that all that research doesn't exist.

[edit: removed mistaken quotes of and references to another commenter; sorry]

Wait, so is it stupid non-science we should insult? Or is it just a claim that we can't verify without a deep dive into methodology? Hopefully those are two very different things.

I did not and am not taking a stance on the alleged science or non-science because I can’t bloody read it.

EDIT: You are quoting an entirely different user, I never said it wasn’t science. THAT WAS SOMEONE ELSE.

Apologies for thinking you were echoing their point and for making you so angry.

edit: The parent is correct, another user said that. Sorry.