Any question answered...

I started with the question "how effective is osteopathy" - then reviewed the available (meta) evidence, and formed a view. That's not cherry picking - that's science.

That's not evidence either, is it. That's flaky post-hoc reasoning.

For some curious reason, you claim to know how I would act, and yet you don't know me at all. My opinion is formed on the basis of the available evidence.

The quality of your argument does precious little to boost your credibility.

Dude, I don't give a shit what you think of osteopathy, I really don't. And if I never see you as a patient, then so much the better.

You're on here claiming you reviewed meta evidence, etc - yet all you've done so far is link to a badly written nhs choices webpage, nothing else.

Where is this evidence that you speak of?