You wouldn't get a 'thesis' (ie doctorate) if you hadn't got work out into the community and passed peer review. In some disciplines this doesn't require journal publication but in science its very rare to get a PhD without a published paper. Anita is claiming there's something in the numbers and letters but I bet she wouldn't pass peer review in either history or mathematics.
Obviously I commented "Thesis" because I believe Anita termed her work as a "Thesis" in one of her many posts. Personally I would suggest that a proper PhD thesis would require an "Impartial Investigation" method rather than a set view point. As afterall the basis of philosophy is an overall view is but one perspective, and if that view is of a problem there is therefore many other angles to look at.
To bias from one angle does not a PhD make, to argue from the perspective of angles you don't necessarily agree with can enlighten a person to whether their initial perspective is accurate or whether their arguement is weak.
Lastly of course to generate an unbiased conclusion that attempt to take all angles (if not as many as humanly possible to understand) and create a concensus suggestion, potential a footnote of a persons own reasoning but overall to leave the conclusion open to the actual reader is what to my knowledge makes a Doctor(PhD) a doctor and not a Quack.
Hopefully we'll be in agreement on this, unless of course you want to go with the PhD nemesis position and disagree but that would just prove my point .