It's very telling they haven't published or used that data as evidence to back up their claims.
They have been publishing NOD data tbh. There's an issue with that of course, because as has been acknowledged before the NOD is a 'service evaluation' and therefore should need extra ethical approvals to be used as 'research' and some of its offerings have even called themselves 'research' in their respective publications. Plus there is the issue of the REC reference which has been used, including for an adult NOD paper, which refers to a longitudinal paediatric service evaluation.