Doesn't matter the point stil stands unchallenged: you cannot generally use study count to judge consensus, and especially you can't use it if you're not correc

Doesn't matter the point stil stands unchallenged: you cannot generally use study count to judge consensus, and especially you can't use it if you're not correcting for the forcing effect of grants application. Today more than ever since a lot of these studies are just p-value hacking ran off collected data and no theory behind to validate. And if you apply such meta analysis to flat earther I still expect the results to be consistent, given 0 grants are given to study the opposite, if you run the result/grant meta-analysis, you'll get both that the research is biased (high correlation between grant and results) and that the overall result/grant ratio is skewed againt the flat earth theory from the studies that were granted from flat earthers and failed to demonstrate the hypothesis.