since I already agreed to the possibility of manipulating videos etc.

Good. I'm glad you'll never show a manipulated video as evidence again. I hope this has been educational.

The whole issue is about which sources to trust, and coming up with some meta-analysis of BigPharma not repressing 100% of what ever doesn't win you a single inch of ground: if that study says BigPharma prefers something they produce to something else by 10%, then mms must be... a fraud? Do they even test mms? You're silent about that, so let me guess: they don't.

Whether they test MMS or not is irrelevant. We have a good idea what Big Pharmai is capable of, and it smashes your conspiracy theory to smithereens.

weaving the outcome in up front is a telltale sign of insincerity

Or it's simply summarizing the conclusion? Like, in an abstract?

well, maybe they have no money - ever thought about that?

...all the more reason to use an efficient two-stage test process. You are not responding to this point or the alternate explanation, which is fatal to your conspiracy theory and your greatest piece of evidence for MMS being a miracle cure. Why is that?

Interesting, you're so much into "systematic and meta-analysis"... you also tap into some higher knowledge, don't you?

This is not a response.

you don't have the slightest clue to what or who I am

You are irresponsibly pushing MMS, a bleach solution, as a miracle cure for real-world problems that kill real people, based on trivially flawed deceptive videos exploiting a mistake a first-year stats student could diagnose after the Bayes theorem section of their stats 101 course. I know everything I need to know about you.

Speaking of which: your links don't seem to cover mms... so why are they in your post?

I don't need to test MMS when there is zero evidence of its help and plenty of evidence of its harm. The burden of proof is on MMS proponents to show that drinking poison can be helpful. (This is a burden which has been passed by many therapies such as chemotherapy, incidentally.)

Finally: I never said I was either part of "the solution", nor a "bystander"... so what's the "problem"?

I never said you said that. You are again not responding and evading. That was my summary, and I also explained what the problem was:

No, it's not the best you can do. And this is why I am angry at you and people like you: you are engaged in crappy thinking, you are ignorant, and your ignorance drives out good information.

Should I add rhetoric or careless reading to my above list of what I know about you?