Science magazine’s account is riddled with inaccurate and misleading reporting. Start with the verdict. The jury awarded David $500,000 for defamation, $3.2M for interference with contractual relationships in a category explicitly naming MIT et al., and $2.3M for interference with prospective professional relationships. It rejected Knouse’s claims of sexual harassment, hostile workplace and educational environments, and retaliation. These are findings in a court of law, not competing opinions to balance against the losing side’s disappointment. Of the $6M awarded, $5.5M concerned interference with David’s professional relationships. Science obscures the connection to MIT et al. and the administrators whose actions inflicted those losses. Causation was central to what David had to prove. In “but for” legalistic terminology, the losses would not have occurred without the conduct at issue. If David would have suffered the same losses anyway because of a culture survey, an investigation, or anything else independent of Knouse’s conduct, those losses could not be attributed to her interference or her words. Science never examines that implication. MIT et al.’s actions on based Knouse's behavior were how allegations became lost employment, a lost laboratory, and a lost career. Yet Science tells readers the verdict “has no direct impact on the conclusions of Whitehead’s probe.” That framing ignores the causal connection established by the interference and defamation findings and treats the institutional investigation as insulated from the verdict. Science also returns to allegations of a sexualized or “toxic” environment as something David merely denies. Knouse sued him over those allegations. The verdict form explicitly asks whether she proved a sexually hostile workplace or educational environment. The jury answered no to both. Recycling those allegations while giving the losing attorney space to attack the jury’s competence protects the institutional narrative from scrutiny. Allegations retain their authority. The verdict becomes an inconvenient opinion. MIT et al. exercised the power that destroyed David’s career. Science should scrutinize their actions with the same aggression it directed at him. Institutional prestige is not evidence, and “independent investigation” is not a magic phrase that makes the verdict disappear.