Without actual numbers nothing was refuted in the article either. The original article is trying to say that the 7% of revenues numbers could be wrong by point

Without actual numbers nothing was refuted in the article either. The original article is trying to say that the 7% of revenues numbers could be wrong by pointing out some flaws in the data collection. But since it doesn't have its own numbers to counter with then the whole thing is a bunch of handwaving. Its strange to call someone out for "not refuting" an article which doesn't actually refute anything itself. Its like asking someone to prove a negative.