A peer reviewed study (especially when the results are reproduced by another group performing the same experiments and receiving those same results) is the difference between science and anecdote.

The irony is not lost on me that the study itself is of those that rejected completely separate scientific studies, and paid with their lives in doing so.

Sometimes the obvious answer is wrong, but there are plenty of other reasons to run this study. Advocacy is better with real numbers backing it up, there are probably similar circumstances that are less obvious that now warrant a closer look…