[grandpa]

Using Paul Graham's disagreement hierarchy (http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html), your first paragraph is DH2 (responding to tone), and the rest is DH1 (ad hominem). Do you have any arguments relating to the points being made?

[yock]

The first paragraph correctly points out that the "seven previous studies" are not applicable to the general public, despite the fact that the article attempts to do so. That is not responding to tone, that is responding to content.

The second paragraph rightfully questions the integrity of the author based on past deceptive statements made in a similar capacity. It also points out a legitimate conflict of interest. Neither of these are ad hominem.

[kefka]

I take issue with 'ad hominem'.

If a police officer is found to commit perjury or otherwise tamper with evidence on one case, We the people find just cause with all of their cases.

The same goes for powerful people whom sit on drug panels in a company whilst holding a federal position requiring drugs. Because he held a dire conflict of interest, I do not see how we can trust him.

[thenomad]

Not seeing the tonal disagreement in P1 - that looks like a fairly legit dissection of the assumptions in an argument to me. What phrasing made you feel it was tonal?