I can't help it if, with respect to Martin's critique of Scott's article, I happen to agree with him.
I have no "role" and am not a sycophant, I'm just interested in the subject.
With respect to your wish to avoid being "sidelined into pointless back and forth chit chat" with me, here's a question for you (posed now for the THIRD time):
How's about you offer a rebuttal to Martin's critique of Scott's article, citing details from said article to support your claims that Scott has made some kind of "game-changing" discovery?
Like others who are following this thread, I suspect that you simply are not able to, hence your ad hominem response.
I look forward to your rebuttal - please don't engage in any "chit chat". Just address the question.