Has anyone dealt with reporting scam vendors?

Dr.PathRoch said:

The mechanism and the magnitude are separate questions.

Coming at Dr.PathRoch’s question from a different direction. Most of what circulates confidently in this community traces back to one summary of one study, and the qualifier was dropped somewhere in the third retelling.

That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.

Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look. It is a small discipline and it changes what you notice.

Following on from Dr.PathRoch — and this may be the naive question:

What would you measure differently if you were starting again?

DoseLogDan said:

Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look.

Filing a mild objection. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit. I would resist the confidence. Half of what this board was certain about two years ago has since been quietly dropped, and nobody went back to correct the threads.

DoseLogDan said:

Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look.

That is correct as far as it goes, and here is where it stops going. Yes, and the corollary is less popular: if the reasoning holds, it also holds where it produces an answer we do not like.

Correct me if the detail matters more than I have assumed.