The one YouTube guy discovered the beaded-chain lifting effect, and then it had to be studied to find out what was going on. Obviously that was an easily reproduced experiment.
So with this thing, we must find conclusively the unmeasured heat or ions or whatever and show a repeatable method for such mistakes. That is my opinion about science, of course I probably lost most scientists with my first sentence.
We need to find that kind of explanation for this supposed propulsion.
For this drive, what we have is an experiment that begs a theory. There's something interesting going on, and so far it eludes easy explanations. Quite possibly we'll get an innovation out of it in experimental setup, or best case real, easily verifiable thrust is detected. Chances are there won't be any new physics, but rather a very clever engineering exploit of what was already known (but not properly applied).
Enjoy the failures in science; it means we're actually trimming the dead ends carefully instead of assuming all innovation is low hanging fruit. There's a lot of bunk out there, but there's also tons of neat edge cases to map out!
 A friend's husband works in one of those labs. I forget the mechanism at play (I think it was cavitation), but it was room temperature fusion generating neutrons. It'd never be self sustaining for power, but still incredibly useful.
You are probably referring to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusor
Otherwise, by analogy, on Stack Overflow should we take each new programmer's statements at face value, without seeing their actual code or error messages, unless an experienced programmer has the patience to refute it individually?
It wouldn't fly here if it was an astonishing claim about gcc backed with no specific code or output.
People don't just say 'well multiple teams have written code and gotten output that agrees with what I'm saying.' We need the actual information, not vague reports that a friend of a friend thinks there were test cases.
Likewise, the EmDrive is also being tested. So far it's pretty inconclusive and it looks likely to have a mundane explanation. But testing continues, so what exactly are you complaining about?
Anyway... I started to hear some of that tone, and I guess I assume that there really are some physicists here on HN, and so I posted what I did.