Yes, you have already been shown by others why your meta-study, which predates the study the article I linked to discusses, is both faulty and doesn’t make the argument you think it makes.
You should be aware that when new information replaces old information in science, you should defer to the new information. You are doing the opposite.
Removed by mod
Yes, you have already been shown by others why your meta-study, which predates the study the article I linked to discusses, is both faulty and doesn’t make the argument you think it makes.
You should be aware that when new information replaces old information in science, you should defer to the new information. You are doing the opposite.