In general, science should always be reproducible because it is not based on the views of a single person, organization, or select group but on experimentation over several years by multiple people and groups.
However, the expressed view in the article (link) refers to fake science, which will always be irreproducible. Therefore, any reproducibility numbers provided in the article should also be fake because they are reported based on fake science practices.
For example, authorities and pharmacopeias claim to establish the quality of the products (such as tablets and capsules) based on “pharmaceutical science.”
It should be evident that there is no such thing as “pharmaceutical science.” It is a distorted, more like fraudulent, version of chemistry based on imaginary or fictional assumptions and principles; hence by definition, its data and results should not be reproducible or trusted.
The product quality claims have been based on the authorities’ narratives (called standards or guidance), such as FDA, USP, etc.
In this regard, one of the main tests is the drug dissolution test – a chemistry/chemical test. It evaluates the drug release from the products.
The test has never been validated to determine the dissolution of any product. It is highly unpredictable and irrelevant – shown repeatedly. The test reproducibility is that if a product shows a drug release/dissolution at 30 minutes between 55 and 100%, the product is considered of quality. Often, the test even does not provide results within this range.
Now is the PCR “test,” again a chemistry/chemical test, never been validated. Variability or reproducibility is poor and has to be. It is not a science-based test.
Both pharmaceutical and medical science mutually support each other (peer reviews), describing false chemistry and its principles.
Hence, science is not irreproducible, but fake (pharmaceutical and medical) sciences are.
For further details, please follow the link