[foodlock]

I'm directly addressing your claims, not arguing a point you didn't make.

You said:

> Because they set an unrealistic bar by excluding all research which wasn't double blind,

To which I replied with a BBC News article quoting Cass, which refutes this falsehood. While noting that you could also confirm this yourself by actually reading the publications you're so misinformed about.

The problem is that you'd rather listen to liars like Erin Reed and Alejandra Caraballo, who have apparently made it their mission to sow as much disinformation about the Review as they possibly can, and those who amplify their mendacious nonsense.

I mean, all you've been doing in this thread is further spreading their lies, and then doubling down when proven wrong. Are you really so in the thrall of these prevaricators?

[chownie]

Uninterested in a sockpuppet's views, sorry. If you're serious come back on your main and we'll discuss without all the creative attempts you've made to answer sentence A while ignoring sentence B.

[foodlock]

You've know you've been called out on your bullshit and are attempting to deflect. That's fine, you can do that if you want. But there's really no point in continuing any sort of exchange with you on this, because it's very clear that you'd rather spread lies than discuss facts.