We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
The inevitable problem with meta-analyses is that instead of examining something and collecting the data, a meta-analysis examines the data and searches for any kind of correlation, except that they're generally not too picky about comparing apples to apples. Once they find some correlation, they dream up some quasi-plausible explanation as to how they are related.
Some years back, 2 meta-analyses came out concerning lumpectomy/radiation vs mastectomy for breast cancer. The universe of studies considered were the same(I think 11). In one meta-analysis only 2 studies fit the criteria, in the other one all but those 2 made the cut. Funny how the study by lumpectony advocates found that treatment superior, while the mastectomy advocate paper found mastectomy better!