Name:   CRD - Subject:   Sans Google Trump likely won the popular vote Date:   8/21/2019 5:11:40 PM

Doe boy, you no more are an articulator of tried and true research methodology than a rhesus monkey.  Don't even try to sound intelligent while attempting to describe shortfalls in a research design.  You could no more define a double blind, randomized, controlled, counterbalanced research method with appropriate cohorts and a null hypothesis than Archie without a google search.  but you sure can copy and paste.  Your 21 out of 95 " statement" was so inaccurate that I would not know even where to start.  Let me offer you some suggestions:

When commenting on subjects you know very little about, don't cut and paste sordid, biased commentary.  It makes you look foolish.

Read his entire testimony, and then offer your own commentary.  I am sure your PhD from Harvard, over 15 written textbooks and over 300 scientific articles will add credibility to your analysis.  

Reveal the data that you have collected since 2016 that would assist in your defense of your position.  For crying out loud, this scholar had his SEME (search engine manipulation effect)  research published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.  You have absoutely NO EARTHLY IDEA, how much scientific scrutiny is applied to a submitted paper in order to get it accepted for publication in that journal. Any yet you label his work:

Junk science?  Wild, statistically invalid speculation?  Again, wild, statistically invalid speculation can be proven with valid statistical application.  Show us that statistical analysis Doe.  No copy and paste allowed.