It's not science if you ignore data inconvenient to your conclusions
Do you honestly believe that's OK?
Look at Hoffman. He argues a radically different view than most yet wrestles with the issues that are at first glance detrimental to his case. When asked he usually responds and admits those are good reasons to doubt at first glance then goes on to tell you how he can explain it. Barry's standard reply in a similar situation? It's a test Robert. Provide an answer to get your grade on objectivity.
see ya