Its not the data, its the conclusions.

Rind was a meta-study; a study of studies.

Drawing conclusions from those studies which confirmed the trauma narrative was not questioned, nor was the data.

Pulling back, cross-correlating and seeing significant statistical confirmation that the trauma narrative is wrong; that it what called the data into question.

And a reanalysis couldn't find a flaw in the work of Rind. So they must question following through on the conclusion ( by terming the positive experiences to be non-abusive ) and they must question the gathering of data done by others and accepted before Rind reanalyzed it.

This is akin to gathering economic data and declaring that you are in the midst of a recovery. "Our data is flawless, our conclusion must be true!"

And then someone else points out a flaw in your math. "You meant to subtract here when you should have added; you are in the midst of a recession."

"No. The President won't allow himself to admit a recession, the data we claimed to be flawless must now be questioned!"

Dante