"::All of my points go to arguing about the validity of sources and claims. My responses follow:
 It is not clear to me in any way how this 38-66% reduction is calculated. Can you please clarify?
 According to the definition of Randomised Controlled Trial, the RCTs here do not qualify. I have provided numerous reliable secondary sources showing why this is true.
 Please show me how my claims about statistical insignificance are incorrect. Wikipedia states that news sources are OK. It is not up to you to say that the source is not reliable: Wikipedia's policies dictate that. If you can say that the bogus RCTs and meta-studies are reliable, then the news sources are in too! You can't have your cake and eat it too.
 Please go back and read my bullet points. I never mentioned that the e-letters were a source. My words were ""see citations"".

All I see here are straw man arguments. Please justify your claims with sources. I have provided numerous sources above.   

"