> They also say "Because of the relatively small sample size, we did not make corrections for multiple comparisons.".
Do you think this is somehow a point in their defense? Corrections for multiple comparisons reduce the significance numbers of your results; probably they found that if they corrected for multiple comparisons their p-value was above 0.05 and they wouldn't be able to publish their paper, so they undid it. (Alternatively, they were lazy, so they skipped it).
I was just adding onto why we should be skeptical. I'm assuming this was published because it's hard to find data like this, not because the results were spectacular
Do you think this is somehow a point in their defense? Corrections for multiple comparisons reduce the significance numbers of your results; probably they found that if they corrected for multiple comparisons their p-value was above 0.05 and they wouldn't be able to publish their paper, so they undid it. (Alternatively, they were lazy, so they skipped it).