I am not speculating. It is a FACT that he is not giving out the data that any researcher would release, if they were not trying to obfuscate the truth. It would be foolish to "take [Smith] at his word." Why would anyone just believe something that isn't based on actual data?
Here is the example that proves he is hiding data:
He says that none of his patients who were on the drug FOR FIVE DAYS OR MORE had to be intubated. What about the other patients, who had the treatment for 1-4 days?
He did NOT say that NONE of his patients had to be intubated. Had that been the case, he certainly would have said that.
Instead, he cherry-picked a statistic that would fool people who were not thinking critically, into an assumption that none of his patients were intubated. But that is not what he said, and it is likely that it is not the case -- rather, some of his patients probably were intubated, or he would have said "no patients were intubated."
When someone does not release all the data, it is a FACT that they are concealing data. QED.
And you say that "Even if Dr. Smith presents all the data you want, you could still question its validity..." Your implication is that no matter what he said, I would not believe it. THAT IS UNTRUE. It is not unreasonable to expect someone to present data that backs up their assertions. If someone presents data in good faith, I will accept that. When someone does NOT present data and is clearly weaseling around the data that he is withholding, it is a FACT that the data cannot be taken at face value -- because we don't even know what the data are.
Do not mischaracterize my pointing out that Dr. Smith is withholding data as being my mere "speculation." It is not. It is FACT.
An honest scientist presents data. When someone refuses to do that, and presents cherry-picked data in a misleading fashion, that person's conclusions are NOT supported by facts. In reality, that person's claims are suspect.
Here is the example that proves he is hiding data:
He says that none of his patients who were on the drug FOR FIVE DAYS OR MORE had to be intubated. What about the other patients, who had the treatment for 1-4 days?
He did NOT say that NONE of his patients had to be intubated. Had that been the case, he certainly would have said that.
Instead, he cherry-picked a statistic that would fool people who were not thinking critically, into an assumption that none of his patients were intubated. But that is not what he said, and it is likely that it is not the case -- rather, some of his patients probably were intubated, or he would have said "no patients were intubated."
When someone does not release all the data, it is a FACT that they are concealing data. QED.
And you say that "Even if Dr. Smith presents all the data you want, you could still question its validity..." Your implication is that no matter what he said, I would not believe it. THAT IS UNTRUE. It is not unreasonable to expect someone to present data that backs up their assertions. If someone presents data in good faith, I will accept that. When someone does NOT present data and is clearly weaseling around the data that he is withholding, it is a FACT that the data cannot be taken at face value -- because we don't even know what the data are.
Do not mischaracterize my pointing out that Dr. Smith is withholding data as being my mere "speculation." It is not. It is FACT.
An honest scientist presents data. When someone refuses to do that, and presents cherry-picked data in a misleading fashion, that person's conclusions are NOT supported by facts. In reality, that person's claims are suspect.
3
