>>14354632Given a higher sample size/another randomization, there's nothing telling you that 10% effect you claim exists wouldn't actually become even more statistically insignificant
You can't just magically expect the intervals to shrink without the mean being unimpacted, it's pure speculation and nothing else
You're doing magical thinking at this point my dude
>>14354844'inhibits replication' is meaningless drivel
which molecule, through which protein, at which dosage, for how long.. answer those questions, you're on a science board dipshit, empty platitudes won't save you here
>>14354643that's not a meta-analysis in the slightest asshole
look up the cochrane handbook
then eat a dick
