Quote from AlanI can't believe I'm explaining this again. As I understand it all concerned with all the tests have mutually agreed (and with their department heads in some cases) that more discussion on the web is pointless, since as you have just seen in another thread, it not a place for agreement or clear discussions, but a place that enables perpetual disagreement. This refusal to discuss further has nothing to do with NDA's AFAIK, or anything beyond a feeling that it is a total waste of time. No means no in this case, and perpetual nagging will NOT change that decision.ETA - Your imaginary NDA's and suggestion of bias resulting from that are btw typical of the comments that led to the decision not to engage being taken.
(1) Replying direct to TC would not have been unclear, or public, and would have prevented confusion, had they even half a case. I find it difficult to believe an academic department forbidding academic comment on an academic critique of a paper - even if both paper and critique are not peer-reviewed published?
I'm not saying anyone should change their decision - or that they comment now - just that scientific reports not defended from proper critiques should not be viewed - as many do in this case - as supported by the scientists who originally published the report.