Again, as you say: Sorry, but no. I don't buy it.

You just provided a link to someone claiming a statistic. No citations, no description of methods.

It's certainly less compelling than a paper where at least you can read methods and suspect that selection effects might be an issue, but note that modulo that, the effect is at least there. I agree that the paper's conclusion is suspect.

But applying the same degree of scrutiny here leads one to conclude that this is far from compelling evidence.