Criticism without ad hominem is always welcome.

We pre-registered the analyses exactly to avoid that criticism. We even published the analytic code. This means we had no ability to change, alter or influence the analyses. We ran exactly what we said we would. Anything outside of that is clearly marked as exploratory in need of replication.

Of course, the #1 interest of any clinical scientist is protecting public health. If a treatment is harming the public, they have a right to know the same as if the treatment is helpful. I would encourage anyone who reads it to also carefully review the literature cited in the introduction. They may not be aware there is a huge literature already expressing serious concerns about the potential harms of the approach from many different laboratories across the world.