Well, in no way I want to criticize your tests, but my perception is that on a scientific forum like this we should state as facts only things that have been proven by independent parties in a scientific manner.
-) there is routinely no such thing as "proven by independent parties in a scientific manner" wrt published experimental results. You seem to overestimate what the peer review process is intented and able to do. If you are interested i can cite some literature about what editors of journals expect from their reviewers and i could further provide some studies related to the quality of published studies.Their findings don´t deliver corrobation for the assumption that there exists a process of "proven by independent parties...."
-) ask yourself if you take your own assertion (cited above) seriously. Again it isn´t meant offensive just as a description of an often seen routine, as humans tend to accept information that suits their own beliefs and like to question informations (for any reason available) that doesn´t fit.
See for example your like for the post #249. Does it meet your demand for "proven by independent ........" ?
Edit: let me again emphasize that we deal only with probabilities that might (or might not be) attributed to hypothesises - so no proofs are possible - and let me restate that there exists something like the "replication crisis in science" .