Thanks for bringing this up on meta.

You are correct to think that outside references are not required. However if you want to add conclusions such as that the product tested by the trial does not work, that requires evidence of such conclusions and dismissing the study is not enough.

Your answer showed that the study was invalid. This implies that we should stick to the null hypothesis that the product does not work, not that we've proven it doesn't work.

Water memory (homeopathy) is as ludicrous a claim as scalar waves but it took the scientific community years of studies to disprove it. We all feel that the claim is "ridiculous", but on skeptics we need to stick to the evidence.

To be clear, this is the reason why I was trying to edit the answer, but I ultimately deleted it also because of the other points I made in the comment, fundamentally that you are debunking the study by making many novel claims yourself. Those require citations.

Thanks for bringing this up on meta.

You are correct to think that outside references are not required. However if you want to add conclusions, such as asserting the product tested by the trial does not work, that requires evidence of such conclusions and dismissing the study is not enough: a bad study doesn't prove anything either way.

For example. "water memory" (homeopathy) is as ludicrous a claim as "scalar waves water", and it took the scientific community years of studies to disprove it! While we all feel that the claim posted is "ridiculous", on skeptics we need to stick to the evidence and limit our conclusion to what is actually proven by evidence.

To be clear, this is the reason why I was initially trying to edit your answer, in the hope that a slight rewording might make it clear that the product is merely unproven to work and not proven not to work, but I ultimately decided to delete it because of the other points I made in the comment under it. Fundamentally that you are debunking the study by making many novel claims yourself. Those require citations, which you haven't provided.

Thanks for bringing this up on meta.

You are correct to think that outside references are not required. However if you want to add conclusions such as that a product does not work, that requires evidence of such conclusions.

Your answer showed that the study was invalid. This implies that we should stick to the null hypothesis that the product does not work, not that we've proven it doesn't work.

Water memory (homeopathy) is as ludicrous a claim as scalar waves but it took the scientific community years of studies to disprove it. We all feel that the claim is "ridiculous", but on skeptics we need to stick to the evidence.

To be clear, this is the reason why I was trying to edit the answer, but I ultimately deleted it also because of the other points I made in the comment, fundamentally that you are debunking the study by making many novel claims yourself. Those require citations.

Thanks for bringing this up on meta.

You are correct to think that outside references are not required. However if you want to add conclusions such as that the product tested by the trial does not work, that requires evidence of such conclusions and dismissing the study is not enough.

Your answer showed that the study was invalid. This implies that we should stick to the null hypothesis that the product does not work, not that we've proven it doesn't work.

Water memory (homeopathy) is as ludicrous a claim as scalar waves but it took the scientific community years of studies to disprove it. We all feel that the claim is "ridiculous", but on skeptics we need to stick to the evidence.

To be clear, this is the reason why I was trying to edit the answer, but I ultimately deleted it also because of the other points I made in the comment, fundamentally that you are debunking the study by making many novel claims yourself. Those require citations.