If #2 is not equal to or greater than 6, number one cannot be true. I can prove it by induction if you'd like. Nothing beats people who can't do math knocking a guy who can do actuarial science and pass complex probability examinations and what not. Especially one that dismisses a proven scientific method that acknowledges its own limitations in its very definition. So, if you can show where he screwed up the analysis or the flaws in the research besides a non-significant amount of anecdotal exceptions, have at it. Until then, the whole "people using math generalities they don't understand to refute math they don't understand" thing will have to suffice.