I thought Gino claimed that Data Colada didn’t include all the seemingly strange data points their methods revealed and that when one considers all such data points, Data Colada’s accusation seems unsupported. That’s not superficial, logically. So unless someone clearly explains how Gino’s analysis errs, the burden of proof shifts, no?
(Ironically, I didn’t see an argument for the claim that Gino’s objections rely on peripheral and not central routes.)