So basically, you left 8 out of 9 pages of well researched views from multiple experts with opposing views because the first page had the opinion of a person whose views are not scientific.
How very scientific of you to throw out the entire data because 11 percent of it was suspect.
The rest of it came from different experiments and you lost it.
You have thus provied a live example of how the internet shapes thinking - impatience and conditioning to trolling - and you have proved the point the article was trying to make!
No, what it proves is that I have no desire to waste my time reading an article written by somebody who considers somebody like Greenfield an expert.
If it was the alternative - that they were looking at Greenfield's claims and then debunking them - well, there's still no need to waste my time, because I already know she's full of it.