[general_re]

Ah, but "experts" defended Piltdown, Kinsey's research, cold fusion, spontaneous generation. "Experts" mocked Pasteur.

You have some evidence that this result is either fraudulent or wrong? Aside from an increasingly improbable series of what-if's, that is...

Essentially, what I am asked to believe is the notion that professionals in their fields are wrong or deceptive far more often than they are right or honest, and thus that this article is wrong or fraudulent - which is, as I have already noted, a fallacy, but there you go. But something makes me think that you yourself don't really believe the original premise to be true - if you do, I'm curious what you do in lieu of visiting a doctor every now and then.

After all, medical experts have, at times, been heard to defend such things as homeopathic remedies, phrenology, Laetrile, and collodial silver, all of which are outright quackery. Obviously, from this, we can apply your logic and see that the entire medical profession is a fraud and a lie. And then we can square the circle, and conclude that your personal doctor is inevitably a fraud, if you like.

Or will you be vaccinating your children anyway? ;)

[farmer18th]

... that professionals in their fields are wrong or deceptive far more often than they are right or honest, and thus that this article is wrong or fraudulent

I didn't claim that, only that the admission of "experts agree" into a dialectic isn't really useful in an attempt to prove assertions beyond a reasonable doubt. If someone tells me that "all the experts are in agreement here," it's reasonable to inquire as to how they came to their conclusions. If those reasons aren't forthcoming, it's also reasonable to conclude that the cloak of "expertise" has been called in to shield further inquiry.