See, that's your problem. You present untested RESEARCH as unimpeachable, and sanctimoniously sneer at EMPIRICAL DATA which you demean as "gratuitous assertion."
Furthermore, you know no more about the calibration of this meta-analysis than any of us do, yet your conceit makes you duplicitously dismissive against rational skepticism instead of analytically informative.
The difference between you and Art is you have conducted research and Art has not. Thank you for your posting and analysis.