Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the research is bad, how is it "too negative" to point it out? Should we pretend it's good in order to be "less negative"?
This is common. Journals will even refuse to publish things for being "too negative": “In October 2006, Potti and Nevins described in Nature Medicine how examining the sensitivity of cell lines to particular drugs could predict patients’ responses to cancer therapies for a range of cancers. [...] We had difficulties pretty early on,” Baggerly says. He and Coombes say they found errors in the 2006 paper, including gen…
Thanks for both comments, as I mentioned in other comment I am curious if it can be fitbit for mind tomorrow :)