As someone who has critisized some aspects of the first trial,...

As someone who has critisized some aspects of the first trial, mainly for its failure to control or otherwise adequately account for independent variables relating to diet and behavior, let me quickly agre with your suggestion that the current trial should have included larger dosages.

I think that at least a 5 mg dosage should have been included as an additional control to verify the conclusions of the first trial. That is a very worthwhile suggestion.

Here is my question to you: statistics being a mathematically defined and mature discipline, well understood and rigorously applied in every science to analyze experimental data, why is it, do you think, that many who one would assume could see the results as clearly as you do as representing nothing more than statistical noise, have not done so?

I could dig out a plethora of quotations from substantial names who one would think at least as able as you to see the forest as you see it, and yet seem able only to see the trees. Regrettably, I lack the time to do so.

You know as well as I do that the names are there. Are they not competent, then? Or are they in the thrall of the management at Metabolic?