The problems that scientists have with these studies is that the size of the effect is very small. Validating a finding with a meta-analysis is very weak support--and positive correlational effects are hard to interpret. One should be looking for large significant differences between groups.
Surely not Ray? A 7-10% deviation from "normal" is more than sufficient to tell you the coin is not evenly balanced. Something has to be the cause of this. When a meta-analysis using the same coin test produces a similar result why do you consider this to be "very weak support". Surely it is very strong support?