Hard to understand what you're saying here, but it sounds to me like you're assuming that no one else has learned proper laboratory procedures. I believe I had it well nailed down by the time I completed my first two undergraduate Chemistry labs 31 years ago. Three science and engineering degrees and 25+ years engineering experience later, I think I got it down to where I can smell a bad procedure from 1000 yards away, while blind folded.
See the above.
Good point on lab consistency. But unfortunately George has yet to give us any details HIS PROCEDURES and the lab he used. Further he has yet to give us any details on the procedures his lab used to generate the data, even though he has been repeatedly asked.
Again, you're assuming George's data is somehow automatically more valid than anyone else's. If you want to BELIEVE that, that's fine. But that isn't how science works. Science is based on repeatable experimental results than can be verified. That's why I've been advocating more than 1 or 2 results. I'd like to see at least 5 test runs with all the data more or less pointing in the same direction before I'd be willing to say we're seeing a significant difference.
If the accumulated data is inconsistent, then maybe we need to look at why. Maybe it's the competence of the labs, or the PC procedure, or even different sampling procedures. But you don't start out automatically assuming Goerge's data is correct and that if everyone elses's doesn't agree, they all must be wrong.
And finally, which I'll be repeating this for the umpteenth time, there's a distinction between a "significance difference" and the "size of the difference" and how that correlates with various cost/benefit models.
