I feel like I hear this kind of objection a lot, but it frustrates me because it feels like a misunderstanding of how evidence works; results don't have to be consistent in order to be interpretable as evidence.
the astrology people got into this a lot, like saying well your results depends on so much like who's interpreting it and your personal life, it's not gonna be consistent
and I'm like it doesn't have to be consistent, I dont need a r=1 to change my mind here