So the question is was anything faked or misleading? Or did they actually find that this worked? What is it about the study that seems off?
You can’t just point at money and go “See? fake.” That’s caveman shit.
Like, of course the people who make the devices want proof that they work. However can you point to where their money influenced the outcome of the study, beyond facilitating its existence? Was their method of sample selection biased toward successful outcomes? Did they neglect to include other therapies tried in conjunction or other confounding variables? Did they straight up fake any data?
It doesnt matter if they paid for it, if the results end up being true. What I am looking for is criticism of the methods that invalidate the results. Are there any?