That report wasn't conducted scientifically, tessa.
Where are the accounts of the subjects being randomly selected from a representative sample of all ages, genders, species and ethnic origins, political affiliations and newspaper preferences? Were those administering the dose aware of who was getting which strength, thus potentially having an unconsciuos bias in their interpretation of results?
Where does it mention whether any control subjects were deprived of any of this powerful medication entirely (and whether there are plans to add it to the list of NGS-approved medication so that everyone can benefit from it, carefully prescribed and monitored, of course)?
Where is the blow-by-blow description of how the chemicals were measured, mixed and administered? Come to that, how were they administered at all? Orally? Intravenously? Rectally? Nasally?
A far better study is the one by Fudgit and Quack, who showed incontrovertibly that they got better results by rubbing a mixture of paraffin, beeswax, and mayonnaise (Hellman's) over the entire body of 1,684 subjects than by administering this orally to 1,625 carefully matched volunteers. 83% of the cutaneous subjects survived, against 27% of the oral ones. There were no cases of beri-beri, dengue fever or athletes foot in any of the surviving subjects. Those who did not survive were not examined due to the over-enthusism of one assistant who summoned a funeral director before informing the principle researcher.