So you start by accusing him of being purposely misleading. He mentions 60 studies (which he didn't cite specifically, but at least offered a link which one co

So you start by accusing him of being purposely misleading. He mentions 60 studies (which he didn't cite specifically, but at least offered a link which one could use to verify his claims). But then you pull a bait-and-switch in your own comment, complaining about just one study, which you completely neglect to cite (so it could be made up, for all we know). You subtly outsource your opinion, trying to lend it an air of objectivity by saying that it "raised some red flags" (after you accused him of using weasel words). You couch the whole comment in an air of faux fairness by writing as if you are some judge called upon to arbitrate a dispute, who just has to rule a certain way because, of course, that's what the evidence requires. And you imply that your unsourced complaint about one study invalidates all such studies, therefore he must be wrong. You accused him of being purposely misleading, but at least he offered a link, and he didn't try to trick people into thinking that a criticism of one thing invalidates other things, which you did. Your whole comment is a textbook example of propaganda techniques. And then you wonder why people don't know what to believe anymore. It's like the whole Internet is a political, psychological battleground for public mindshare, and the truth doesn't matter at all.