I’d be more inclined to take your arguments seriously if you weren’t attempting to mislead. You posted screenshots highlighting “not blinded and randomised”. This strongly suggests, like your statement here, that these were the only reasons for “discarding”. Eventually, under pressure from PPs, you linked to the NICE evidence review that you said you were quoting. This does not say that these were the only shortcomings. Other reasons were “poor quality” (most of them, from my skim) and “high number of participants lost to follow up”. The latter is absolutely crucial. It would be highly incorrect to give weight to such studies.
You say you are a researcher, but you’re not writing in the way that an academically rigorous researcher with good knowledge of research methods does. And an academic researcher who used highlighted, cropped images the way you did, to mislead people into thinking that these comments on those studies were the only ones (not blind / randomised) would lose all their credibility instantly. Even the greenest first year PhD student would know not to do that.