If the evidence is as clear cut as you present it, why are the relevant studies so ambiguous? If the data is really that stark surely you could present an unbiased and irrefutable paper on how clear the truth is regarding spray.
Actually the evidence that spray is effective is pretty unambiguous. Smith, Hererro, et al's paper is quite well documented. The attemps to debunk it aren't terribly convincing. Bear spray works quite well.
No one denies that firearms also work. Even Hererro states that explicitly in his book. Whether or not spray works better (or worse) than firearms is an entirely different question.
But spray does work. Not long ago we had yet another successful use of spray in Alaska. A fish biologist was jumped suddenly by a bear on Kodiak. Bear had him down, with the guys leg in the bear's mouth. The guy managed to use his spray and the bear ran off. It does work.
If you choose not to rely on spray, that is your choice. I don't much care one way or another what you do. But claiming that spray doen't work, and work well, is [insert
mod prohibited term for male bovine excrement].