It's very difficult to prove the null hypothesis - that there is no significant effect from the intervention - which is why it's normal that experiments to try to disprove the null. That febfast one seems better than most I've read, but still basically doesn't show much because of the limitations they mention.
I don't have the resources now to conduct a more robust independent assessment - would you fund it?
Is that why you've switched to personal attacks instead of even trying to find credible evidence? I now wonder whether including a summary from part of the temperance movement was deliberate rather than an innocent mistake!
If my belief is so far wrong, how do they justify the move to "have a little less"? Don't they suspect it will achieve better results than flip-flopping?
Also, I'm a statistician, so I accept that my prior belief may be incorrect.
Hey, nobody's perfect!