I'm not really swayed either way, as I don't have sufficient data to make a good conclusion (and I need to do further research into it). I'm actually enjoying some of the comments here as they're providing good insight.
If someone insists on speaking with no tangible data, presenting conclusions that clash with occam's razor, then I will be less likely to listen to them going forward.
Once an author has weighed in with their personal interpretation, the only refutations available will be ad hominem. "I'm not calling you a liar, but I can't think of a way to end this sentence."