Your second sentence seems like the most promising path to helpful discussion. It sounds like you're saying the Khan preprint is wrong because of an association

Your second sentence seems like the most promising path to helpful discussion. It sounds like you're saying the Khan preprint is wrong because of an association with McCullough, but I don't know the name and it doesn't appear in the study (I haven't listened to the podcast.) I'm sure there's more to what you mean by disagreeing with the mechanism the other user proposed.