Details?

 I could type that up and provide zero references.  It's only valuable if you already agree with what this guy typed out and don't want resources to verify his numbers.

 I don't consider what I see around me to be enough information to say millions experience what I do.

 All I am saying is if someone wants to put numbers out there, provide them to me also so I can do the math.  If my math matches your math, then you are onto something.  

 What value is it to say X number of people experience Y problem, but I won't let you see how I got that number?  It's like telling someone how good you are at tuning a carb, telling them what jet size to use but denying them the altitude you were in when you did your testing.

You didnt actually read it, did you?
You saw a lack of links and declared it useless?

 I read the entire thing.  I also read it on April 23rd. I also read Vox, NIH, and the others but with multiple data tables we can't tell which one they are using for this article.

 Lets not pretend you read everything presented on here.


"A week ago that was all cool, because they were using some fancy coding and were gonna set it right later."

 I didn't say it was ok, I actually said the opposite but historically you take a long time to understand when I agree with you.  What I said was the act of disclosing the method publicly in multiple ways, was not a lie.  The method is exactly as described and as such the disclosure is truthful, even if garbage news sources spin it.

 I dismissed the details part.  The article mentions other articles but provides little that can be used to see if their numbers would match anybody else using the same numbers.

 I've never subscribed to the "millions will die" models since every one I have seen doesn't even come close.  But as I described before, I don't typically use mainstream news to get my information.