&gt; <i>&quot;I disagree that the number of subjects doesn&#x27;t matter.&quot;</i><p>you&#x27;re asking for people with deeper knowledge than you for their help, and then disagreeing with them?<p>I get it -- you&#x27;re skeptical because of sample size.  But recall that &quot;sample size&quot; isn&#x27;t necessarily the number of test subjects, but the number of measurements, as the comment about Mercury demonstrates.<p>Moreover, a strong signal can be detected even from a small sample size; a coin flipping the same way 11 times in a row could be mere chance, but a roulette wheel hitting the same number 11 times in a row should not happen in the entire history of the universe by mere chance.  It&#x27;s not just the number of measurements, but the significance of each one, that matter for statistical confidence.<p>Sure, you could get an even stronger signal with a larger sample size.  But that doesn&#x27;t mean &quot;a study of 11 people&quot; is <i>necessarily</i> insignificant or too small of a sample.  It might be too small, or it might be enough to have a very high degree of certainty.