I did read all of what you wrote. It's like two sentences.
I know that you mentioned Theora, but you imply that the same case is applicable with VP8. You said "The same article could be applied to the Theora v. H264 tests...", i.e., Theora and VP8 both demonstrate an advantage due to unfair testing and not real-world improvements. Nobody knows that because nobody has been able to test VP8 independently thus far.
Your post implies that the author claimed the test results were not representative of the codec's true performance. The author made no such implication; he only noted that there is no unbiased verification or corroboration of those results.
I know that you mentioned Theora, but you imply that the same case is applicable with VP8. You said "The same article could be applied to the Theora v. H264 tests...", i.e., Theora and VP8 both demonstrate an advantage due to unfair testing and not real-world improvements. Nobody knows that because nobody has been able to test VP8 independently thus far.
Your post implies that the author claimed the test results were not representative of the codec's true performance. The author made no such implication; he only noted that there is no unbiased verification or corroboration of those results.