I didn't mention the small studies because, first

I didn't mention the small studies because, first of all, why should I? THEY were not the topic of the post, the claims of Dr. Smith were the topic.

Secondly, I would not give major credence to those studies because there are SERIOUS questions about the cherry-picked "data" from the French con-man doctor who said that about 1/5 of the patients in the study "left" the study. Why did they leave the study? Did they depart through the Pearly Gates? Or did they have such terrible, life-threatening side effects that they had to stop the drug? Either scenario is kind of important, don't you think?
That's a very high proportion to have "left" the study, and getting world-wide publicity from a 24-person "study" with no control group raises a lot of questions. This doctor claims to "write" thousands of papers and articles a year - yet has acknowledged that he puts his name on papers written by others that he HASN'T EVEN READ. Do you really trust the data provided (or really, detailed data NOT provided) from someone like that?

And the Chinese study -- western scientists doing data analysis say that the very small study was flawed in design, and that the analysis of the actual numbers does not support the conclusion that the drug helped.

So, don't try to divert the discussion of exactly WHY Dr. Smith's claims are unsupported by hard facts -- because he's not disclosing them -- by complaining that I did not mention something that wasn't the topic of the original post.