That's true, but neither did you (or anyone else ever, for that matter) provide support for the idea that MOST scientists do understand statistics. See how easy it is to discard anything you disagree with?

> I am much more prepared to believe that reporters don't understand statistics than scientists.

That's fine, but (a) it doesn't say anything about how bad scientists are with statistics (only that they are slightly better than reporters, which I tend to agree with), and (b) this is an argument from bias/faith/religion/prejudice, not from science or data. You are just as guilty as anyone you criticize. You might be more right or less right, but you* don't have the moral ground. (* general you).

> Still, you have provided an anecdote in support of broad sweeping statements.

What was that statement of yours about learned people digging into science? So now it is not enough for those people to know what they are talking about, they have to do it in a format you approve of.

I can provide tens more valid criticisms. I charge $200-$1000/hour for my line of work, and I'd be happy to take as much to work for you finding them, when I have some free time.

But I'll throw in a freebie: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/ - though I suspect it will stop at most people's "no true scotsman/scientist" filter...