Wow, did not expect such a well written response. I admit I had to read a few times to process all the information you gave. I completely agree with you that the article is misconceiving in a few ways, and your points are certainly valid. For me, the biggest problem in todays publishing and peer review system is that only significant findings are published (for the most part). I think the average layperson loses sight of the fact that many studies are conducted that do not find anything significant and are therefore not published. Even further, studies that seem too far-fetched are oftentimes not even funded in the first place (a completely different problem altogether). I really like your idea of raw data being published. I had never thought of it myself, but it could help move science forward a ton by being able to compare one specific section or group of a study to an separate study which overlaps with the same conditions. Any idea if there is a current effort to make raw data from studies more accessible?