> You’re responding to things the article isn’t saying. It’s a pretty plain and honest article. The facts are genuine and the conclusions have nothing to do with what you wrote here.

I see him as trying to get out ahead of conclusions the author had too much professional integrity to draw but that the internet peanut gallery will draw after speed reading (if that) TFA in search of numbers and then irresponsibly mix and matching those numbers as if such behavior will yield insights.