Speaking of data, Davisite, would you be so kind to indulge me...

Speaking of data, Davisite, would you be so kind to indulge me in one question on the first graph you critiqued.

I am not a scientist per se, but I work in data science for my day job.

You were not impressed by the p-level employed in that graph (which was 0.05). In every experiment/sample I have run the p-level is set before the data is analysed. Because of this the conclusion can be reached that the result is "siginificant" or not. Not just or marginal, it is statistically significant or it isn't.

Do you think the p-level should have been different? If so, why? and what similar trials have been run where a lower p-level figure have been employed.

Finally, in that first set of results, the correlation of results from day 40 - 82 look to be almost linear (text book to the affirmative). What negatives do you see impacting that data?