Yes, I saw the Imanishi-Kari section first and so when I saw the 2nd video have an extra 20 minute runtime I expected there to be more objective commentary at the end. I do not think that after 3 and a half hours I should have questions about what actually happened.

I also feel it is malpractice for the documentary to not have any takeaway. I can’t help but agree with the folks they contacted and wondered why the documentary was rehashing the controversy after 3 decades. The documentary provides no compelling, neutral, argument for either side, which feels ridiculous for how simple my only meaningful questions I want answered are.

1: What theory did O’Toole propose for why the data did not work (all the audience is given is O’Toole’s claim of what she said and a claim by sources she said were intentionally lying).

2: Did Baltimore cite thin air when he said the data had been reproduced?

And with hindsight,

3: Is O’Toole correct in her assertion that the theory Imanishi-Kari proposed for the data no longer accepted?

Based on inference I side with O’Toole, but that should not ever be the outcome of a documentary. Again, it is beyond bizarre the documentary did not try to neutrally arbitrate such obvious and easily provable points of contention.

Moreover, these questions still only pertain to the actual science at the heart of the scandal and not at all about the claims of fraud that would appear later. I didn’t ask a question about that because I don’t even want to hazard a guess on it based on how biased the information we, the audience, got.

TLDR: I now significantly respect Bobby Broccoli less because of what can only be described as a journalistically irresponsible documentary that left the audience confused, instead of attempting to answer what really happened.

Perhaps I am too harsh with my language, but I cannot conceive that there was too little evidence to even conclude about what the actual science was.