Though I do object to this statement:

“A comprehensive meta analysis, by an unbiased organization.”

The social scientist in me rejects the notion of even the most empirical of examinations being unbiased.

Check out Thomas Kuhn, and his study of scientific paradigms, and the subjectivity of science.

Okay, done being contrarian. Nice find. I do agree it’s much better than reading a single study. Though presumably a single study has been peer reviewed by people who should know about all of the studies.

This is much more transparent though, no presumptions, they tell you what the studies are, and defend their assumptions.

I wonder if publicly available meta-analysis is a replacement to the peer review process? Because it is more transparent…