No, says BBC journalists. Not quite the same. They have only taken a very short summary of the whole article.
Have you actually read the primary source, which is the scientific article ? The last paragraph before the "Conclusion" chapter is very interesting : it reminds the 5 main limitations (and i'm sure you could find a few more) of the methods. I'm surprised the scientists didn't include some reminder of the limitations in the conclusion.
Besides, the article admits that "most of the dissimilar assertions found by the reviewers failed to demonstrate discordance".
The reason ? Every doctor or internal medicine resident was to find and evaluate what sentences can be taken as "assertions". So basically each one probably had a different opinion on what assertion was worth reporting. At least they recognize this possible bias, which very certainly did occur IMO.
Once again: journalists running to the big lines and not reading the small prints.
However, you shouldn't always trust your doctor on the pills he's prescribing you :
Just because there were more than only "citizen" group shouldn't discourage us from learning from them.
True, slaves, foreigners and female citizens were not permitted to vote. However their organization should be an example to be strongly considered.
If you still plan to make an invasion, @ThornEel, I'm with you and quite willing to give a few suggestions for improvements
Yes, I've given my own translation. You may find a more "english" sentence here.
Now, please explain as to why you find this "stupid" ?