[timr]

> Where else are you going to get a brain imaging study with before and after data on thousands of people?

Why does the size of the study matter so much if the endpoint of the study is absurd, the gathering process was a fishing expedition, and the whole thing is subject to confirmation bias?

Even if you believe that these researchers are finding real signals in these MRI scans (which I don't automatically grant; even they admit that some of the "pathologies" they've identified aren't significant, and they didn't pre-declare the endpoints anyway, so you can't rely on conventional statistical significance thresholds), the fact that they know the outcome for each subject hopelessly poisons the data.

> Denial is quite a river these days.

People have a habit of inventing fictions they believe wholeheartedly in order to ignore a truth they cannot accept.