> It also recouped more than the trial's net cost of 72 million euros ($86 million) through [...] and reduced reliance on other social welfare payments,
Which sounds quite a bit like "we spent more on one type of welfare so we ended up spending less on a different type of welfare." Which, okay, good, but I don't think you can say you "recouped" anything.
If you want to criticize my post, it would be best to actually provide the data you're being snarky about. You didn't need any money to start that did you? Why suddenly do you need it now? What a crappy and bad faith attitude.
> it would be best to actually provide the data you're being snarky about.
You mean the study you're complaining about without having read? ... The one that's not even a Google search away, because it's literally linked on the page you're already on?
Not being snarky, just really surprised at the expectation of being spoonfed data that's already right in front of you, and the apparent willingness to complain about things that you haven't even glanced at.
Many people worked hard to do this study. I believe if you want to complain about their methodology then you should probably take the time to actually look at what it was first. Is that snark? Is it snark to ask for payment when people ask you to do research (however basic) for them?
Which sounds quite a bit like "we spent more on one type of welfare so we ended up spending less on a different type of welfare." Which, okay, good, but I don't think you can say you "recouped" anything.