> Fella has read the article Their argument doesn't show that at all though, they make an argument against an age bias when the article explicitly says age is

> Fella has read the article Their argument doesn't show that at all though, they make an argument against an age bias when the article explicitly says age is being controlled for. > Figure 1 suggests that we'd probably expect to see an outlier or two in that mess just through chance, we're expecting a few p<0.01. That's a valid point, and a much better criticism than the one I'm calling out. That doesn't redeem the original comment though.