The paper is like what, 10+ years old and is still being quoted/studied. The authors of that table are so influential that if you want to apply for a grant to further research the methodology and deviate even a tiny bit from their non-human models, you can kiss goodbye to that grant. Everything goes through them. So no, it is not a crappy paper. And,again, I have already stated that it wasn't the paper in the OP.
Did you mean all valid results must be reproducible or that all results must be reproduced by other groups? There is a significant difference here. If I publish something, and, to the best of my ability, detail every single steps, my paper would still be crap because I had 30 data points and each cost about 5k in, material only, to collect, that is not taken in accounts the practices to perfect the technique. In other words, if the paper is cost prohibitive (in labor or capital) to replicate in other institutions, it is automatically crap? I mean you are a med student I should have experience this but if the procedure calls for a closure of an anastomosis leak to be done within say, 2 minutes (lol), and there are like 3 people in the fields that can do it (with video evidence), 2 of whom are the authors, while the 3rd is not interested in the research so they won't do it, does it mean that such procedure is crap because it cannot be done by the lesser surgeons?
Slightly off-topic, is it also your opinion that any experiment done using the Hadron Collider is crap because there is only 1 in the world and only a few can access it?
I am not asking that to arguing with you. I really want to know. I find this insinuation that Western Blot and surgical cases are similar because they are both "data point" ridiculous.