I see no strong reason to believe a meta-analysis should be any more convincing than a single, large, well-designed study.
Does anyone claim it is? I thought the advantage of a meta-analysis was the cost savings of not having to do a new, large study.
The Big Bang Theory, Episode 402.
Sheldon (the most socially atypical character on a show full of them) plans a program of life-extension so that he will last until the Singularity, which he projects to occur around 2060 and chiefly involve the uploading of human consciousness into machines (his roommate Leonard describes the latter as become a “freakish self-aware robot”. By the end of the episode Sheldon seems to have given up on the plan as too inconvenient/inadvertently dangerous.