The readers don't need to make any assumptions. Here is the full reply you gave me on February 22:

It depends of what self-reporting the study relies on. First of all, National Weight Registry (NWR) is not a research study--it's just a database--a database with no controls or checks for accuracy or validity.Most diet studies looking at weight loss--even if relying on self-reported food intake--measure participants' weight in person.So the issue of entering false weight data (present for the NWR) is not present for studies that measure weight in person. And it's not just a matter of accuracy. People like to look successful--so there is a tendency for people to falsify weight loss. Also, there is enough corruption in the field that I wouldn't put it past certain activists making multiple false entries to then use the Registry to prove their point. In the end, with there being no controls over the data, it's basically useless.As far as reporting food intake, that is a weakness of diet research. But the potential for diet non-compliance and falsifying food records makes it more difficult for the low-carb arm of a study to show significantly more weight loss vs. a conventional diet. In your bio, you state you are a clinical psychologist--so I assume you've had courses in research methods and statistics and can plainly see why this is the case; if you didn't get such training let me know and I'll explain why.

END OF STEVEN'S REPLY

Here is a summary of the points you made. The readers can decide if "the problem with the NWR is that it is based on self-report" is a reasonable summary of what you wrote:

CONTINJED: