if real it would have some major implications for the science.
Not really. JR likes to hyperventilate and claim my proposal violates laws of thermodynamics and was proven wrong hundreds of years ago, but he's incorrect on that. What we are seeing are the problems that arise when you don't accurately calculate your error bars. The CF community routinely ignores the fact that the calibration constant is an experimentally determined number. As such it has natural variation in it, and that will impact the variation of anything calculated with it. The size of that variation needs to be checked, which is what I did (apparently for the first time) with my 2002 publication. I found that the impact was much larger than people realized. That's why I wrote the words that Hagelstein quoted in his first few moments of his 2015 'MIT' course on CF, where I said the technique was at its limit of error. It is, the errors from calibration constant variation are of the size of the signals. That means people are 'working in the noise'. Continuing to do so and claiming great success is a classic sign of pathological science.