[c3RlcGhlbnI_]

Why? Many of the flaws that jump out at me are not so significant that they would be worthy of concern on their own and I appreciated other people clarifying the group's affiliations(I probably wouldn't have been curious enough to go back and read a bit more otherwise).

Though honestly if this is a scientific study it is very strange that they omitted their methodology entirely(how did they select the data, how did they compare the statistics before and after, how did they account for confounding factors, etc). That is pretty fundamental to this kind of analysis and in its absence I would be hesitant to put much faith in even their weak conclusions.

The graphs themselves are definitely interesting though and I would not at all be surprised if they were on the right track.

[AstralStorm]

If they jump out at you, it should be trivial to argue them, right?

Thus the rule is no real obstruction to dialogue.

Lack of methodology is a valid argument, as opposed to just pointing out the funding. Why not contact them about it? Or perhaps they have used some base sources, which could be made available to make their argument even stronger when exposed.