Check out <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;papers.ssrn.com&#x2F;sol3&#x2F;papers.cfm?abstract_id=2423692" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;papers.ssrn.com&#x2F;sol3&#x2F;papers.cfm?abstract_id=2423692</a><p>&quot;We here report a meta-analysis of 90 experiments from 33 laboratories in 14 countries which yielded an overall effect greater than 6 sigma, z = 6.40, p = 1.2 × 10^-10 with an effect size (Hedges’ g) of 0.09.&quot;<p>Non-fringe scientist Daryl Bem published a very controversial study involving 9 experiments. Replications were encouraged and were done across the world in the years following. With failures and successes, resulting in this meta study.<p>Amount of critics persuaded? Not that many probably.<p>The parallel here is lamenting the lack of an accepted theory or no theory at all and concluding that thereby the results are fraudulent as well as the process involved in deriving the results, by definition.<p>Bystanders often say, well if it&#x27;s true why isn&#x27;t there a peer-reviewed study etc, as if it matters. You can publish papers up the wazoo it won&#x27;t matter.<p><i>If</i> there&#x27;s something special happening, there&#x27;s going to be this period where mainstream science denies or disproves of it, regardless of studies and papers. Especially when gatekeepers have vested into a position of rejecting the idea.<p>As far as LENR is concerned, I can&#x27;t say Rossi inspires confidence, but the fact that many institutions are researching this area tells me there might be something special going on. Many people aren&#x27;t comfortable with the feeling that something might turn out to be false, so they assume it&#x27;s a hoax a priori.