Until it's statistically significant. And if you then ask "well do we wait for 2 sigma or 5 sigma" then you're just playing devil's advocate. Peer-reviewed science isn't perfect but it moves towards better understanding of nature.

Peer-reviewed science isn't perfect. The point I was implying previously is that to many people, this means it can never provide a satisfactory answer, because the unspoken requirement is perfection.

Right but even for life/death science such as in the medical community, drug development, space science, etc., those people who oppose any progress of science will never be satisfied with the current-day process.

Precisely. I've been implying that it's a waste of effort to try to please those people. They cannot be pleased, and there are other uses for those resources.

I'm saying that, as far as I know, X = 0. 2X won't be enough either, and you better work on getting some reasonable evidence that your data is impartial too.