Hi William, thanks for reading and I don't mind to respond to the criticisms- though I don't see the need for the personal digs. In any case, re: #1, As I stated at the start, I respect the scientific method and I owe a lot to it. My issue is not with the paradigm itself- it's with how it's implemented in the following ways, all of which could be resolved or at least improved: 1. slanted publishing and cherry picking of data 2. poor statistical methods or representations of results to slant the impression given 3. metrics that don't always align with the larger goal (e.g. tumor shrinkage as a surrogate marker example) and 4. a biased focus towards drug development rather than fundamental questions.

I have no problem with publishing results and allowing other researchers to debate them- I think that would be a successful outcome. But the reasons for poor reproducibility are not good ones in many cases.

Based on your response, especially your first comment, I feel like you picked straw man arguments to knock down so you could make personal comments. If you have a specific point you disagree with, please do so, but don't attribute arguments to me I didn't make.