Like probably many people here, I enjoy Money Matters, and so enjoy any sensible discussion of it, especially if it might lead to more Money Matters-like conten

Like probably many people here, I enjoy Money Matters, and so enjoy any sensible discussion of it, especially if it might lead to more Money Matters-like content in my life—but an elaborate explanation after the fact of why a circumstance that has so far only happened once, could only have happened the way it did, starts to sound to me a bit like over-fitting theory to limited observation. As others have observed, for example, if Derek Lowe can be discounted, then surely other exceptions can also be discounted, so that the thesis becomes true by defining counterexamples out of existence.