As a general practitioner working in family medicine I found the article counterproductive as it downplayed the problems of left-handedness, especially the reeducation that is still undertaken in many cases. Old wine in new bottles (for example, do left-handed persons die earlier than others?) does not help to eliminate the taboo associated with the topic of left-handedness and avoid trying to reeducate children to right-handedness, which is still carried out in many cases, because of modeling and imitation behavior, mostly in the form of self training by left-handed children. Terms such as “reeducation” are euphemisms supporting the “most violent attack on the human brain without bloodshed”, according to Ivo-Kurt Cizek. However, my main criticism is of a methodological nature: how was genuine handedness verified in the reported meta-analysis? It is not enough to ask subjects whether they are right-handed or left-handed or to define the writing hand as the criterion for handedness. Rather, handedness needs to be diagnosed by using valid testing methods before useful statistical analyses can be presented. The statistical evaluations therefore do not require detailed discussion, even though this is very tempting and enlightening, because none of the included studies had actual confirmation of handedness. On the other hand, several more recent studies were not cited (for example, those by Kloppel[1], Siebner[2], Sattler or Marquardt[3]). This article does not provide any new insights but cites some outdated studies whose methods were unsatisfactory even at the time they were conducted and whose results are therefore not valid. Most parents, educators, and doctors these days have accepted the fact that the left and right hands are of equal “value”. However, information is still lacking, and children are still being reeducated by means of modeling and imitation behaviors, with subsequent complications.