I really haven't had a chance to look at the data to come to my own conclusion.
The only thing I will note, is that in any debate where science is involved, there a lot of people that think they understand what constitutes scientific proof, but they actually don't know. There's a specific set of stringent criteria in the scientific world that constitutes proof, that the average person has no earthly idea of, and therefore they come to conclusions that are erroneous.
If you don't understand what the following terms mean, thoroughly understand them, then don't fool yourself - you don't know what you're talking about. You must know what the scientific method is, what statistical validity is, things like p-values, the relationship and difference between correlation and causality, the use of randomized double blind trials, the validity of retrospective studies, the observer effect, etc etc.
If you don't know these things, and many others, then to put it bluntly, you don't know what you're talking about.
