Our study has several limitations worth noting. Although we stated that the number of participants was 972, only 19 patients were actually enrolled in the study. To enhance statistical analysis, we felt it best to round to the nearest 972. Also, participants did not undergo DNA testing, so we cannot confirm that all are human. We suspect, in fact, that three were mannequins and two were Canadian.

When we said we conducted a “double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial,” we actually meant an “observational study.” When we said we conducted an “observational study,” we actually meant a “Google search.”

Our results may not be generalizable to the public at large. They appear, specifically, to apply only to a subgroup comprising nonfemale Homo sapiens. More specifically, our data seem to apply only to a subsubgroup comprising Herman Barnes, sales manager of Chilly & Yummy Frozen Yogurt for the Regional District of Okanagan–Similkameen, British Columbia.

The statistical power of our results was non-enhanced by nonadherence to nonrandomized nonfactors by nonrespondents and nonparticipants. However, underascertainment of underlying uncertainties was unlikely to be underreported, underestimated or understood.

We made several assumptions over the course of our study. Foremost among them, that all individuals involved in conducting this study were medical researchers. It turns out that several coauthors were members of the custodial staff and that at least two were children.

Information obtained from participants was self-reported and therefore subject to recall bias, social desirability bias and other well-known weaknesses. Furthermore, we required all responses to be written in emoticons. As a result, the data are skewed toward hypercuteness and .

The Human Health and Mortality Index (HHMI) scores assigned to participants were based on the Berkszick–Fröundèrbergerš General Well-Being Scale (BFGWBS). This scale does not actually exist, so the HHMI scores have a margin of error ranging from 0% to 100%.

Participants were not tested in any of the following positions: supine, prone, standing, recumbent, dorsal recumbent, left lateral recumbent, anatomic, decubitus, knee-to-chest or lithotomy. All measurements were obtained from patients in the one-armed inverted saucy-parakeet pose.

Lifestyle risk factors — specifically risks associated with the circus-performer lifestyle — likely influenced our results. These risks included lion bites, clown attacks, elephantiedus (getting tied up in an elephant’s trunk, resulting in asphyxiation or minor discomfort), falls from tightropes, binge drinking (of circus liquids), smoking, smoking cotton candy and smoking excessive amounts of cotton candy.

Hmm. So you’re saying our blinding method could use some work?

Image courtesy of Creatas/Thinkstock

Because our study was a single-centre trial, our results lack external validity. However, we conducted our research in a gazebo made from two types of pine. It is well known that data can be trusted when obtained in a double-pine gazebo-controlled trial.

Despite the aforementioned limitations, we believe our findings are reliable and robust. Our study could accurately be described as “ground breaking” and/or “game changing” and/or a “breakthrough.” We believe that no further research is needed in this area.