You underline but mix two different aspects that must be clearly distinguished.What I was trying to express is the fact that most of "these tests" are too unreliable to be credible, especially when they compare with an erroneous reference.
a) So far, these tests are attempts to bring together the maximum of experiments, some of which lead to credibility of the system and others which come to nothing, like everything that is experimental. We could compare this with the development of drugs with successive phases which widen as the previous one has given satisfaction.
b) Make a comparison with a wrong reference, this has no global value since it is case by case and this is probably why the industry (outside business) does not adopt such a diverse means . So it is not a question of error (compared to which reference, moreover?) But of incomprehension of the phenomenon itself.
c) Some experimenters wanted the industry to actually take hold of the problem with all the equipment owned by these manufacturers, which DIY enthusiasts do not have. But it remained a dead letter! we must ask the question of why?
Yes and no ! Those who have experimented, and where this has given complete satisfaction, do not need to be credited with anything, since they see daily that it works.and that discredits the principle as true as it is.
Besides, there are those who discredit willingly the system: either because it was a failure for them, or (and it is more problematic) those who discredit BY PRINCIPLE without any practice, or even having tried (it is the minimum by having an opinion whatever it is).
Clearly we are left with the same situation as with H where those who criticize this medical technique have never tried it or who rely on A having no knowledge and therefore practical experience of the subject.