You only dropped your block list for 24 hours on a Sunday. I don't think that's nearly enough time to test it out. Furthermore, sites that are irrelevant that may be on your block list should remain blocked. So if you remove your block list entirely, that's not really a fair comparison test, that in addition to the fact that it's a single Sunday. A test for a week would be more reliable.
Even nitrous conceded that the amount of time he devoted to the test wasn't a definitive amount.
Nitrous' test wasn't an unbiased test either.
So he takes his banned list down for a day and receives a 25% dip in earnings. But he stated that this month already had a variance of about that much:
If he dipped one day by 25% of his top amount, we're talking about his bottom level from the start of the month, which is a thirty bucks difference.
Then he states that many of the MFAs he was blocking weren't even advertising anymore!
So if his banned list was obsolete, what does that tell you about the experiment?
I'm not saying that some ads shouldn't be banned. What I am saying is that these so-called tests are so flawed that any reasonable person would reject them out of hand.