after a quick, precursory read, I have one thing to say. It seems as if his entire argument is based on a newspaper article about what is almost certainly a scientific paper.
I highly doubt that they would do this testing and not write a paper on it.
Now then, if there is a paper, why not go to it as your source? News articles on science are notorious for being slightly wrong or giving the wrong impression.
Think of the chain where one person whispers into someone's ear, and he passes it on. By the time it reaches the originator, the sentence is nothing like what he originally said. Which is why you go to the most direct source. Ask the originator what he said, not the person five links down the chain, or even two links. Not always possible of course, but it is here.
™ Version 4.2
