Originally Posted by GarfieldJL
He got in trouble for deliberately using bad data to manipulating and misrepresenting data to skew the results, if he did that for one study, what's to say he didn't do it for another.
You know what is to say that he didn't? That fact that nobody has called him on it, and nobody is able to point out where he manipulated bad data and skewed the results in this study. If such bad science had taken place someone would assuredly step in and publish a paper about it since it would be a quick and easy way to gain some notoriety in the scientific community.
You're obviously just going to continue sticking your fingers in your ears and ignoring the actual science that you cannot debate because you either
A) Don't understand it
B) Are aware that you would be unable to refute it and would have to accept it as empirically valid.