In applying the gold standard you cannot ignore all those pieces of evidence, no matter how small they may appear to you, that contradict your theory.
Those have to have special attention paid to them in order that your theory can incorporate or explain the difference. If you can't explain certain results with your theory, such as red stones, then there is something lacking in your theory and it should be modified. Or if there are competing theories that explain it equally well or better.
What evidence did you accept that convinced you red stones (and other colors) are from certain antibiotics?
If you were in a court of law and the opposing attorney asked the judge for more evidence from you to substantiate what you claim about red stones, do you think that the judge would view getting more evidence as a diversionary tactic?
Definitions for those who find it useful:
divert......to turn aside
............to alter the direction of-as in to divert the direction of a river-
............to draw off
............to amuse or entertain