I don't know if the but short thesis is well grounded, but this attempt of debunk is certainly very weak. For someone like myself who does research for a living, this debunk is close to offensive.
The author claims that the thesis to be proven wrong is based on false data, and then goes on and on criticizing the data on which the thesis is based without any evidence and questionable assumptions.
The most annoying part is the supposed debunk of point two. The thesis to be debunked is based on data from a website. To debunk the thesis the author reconstruct the findings of the thesis and comes to equal conclusions. But then it is stated that that data is fake and that such results cannot be reproduced with any data from other sources. But in doing so "the debunk" does not provide any reference to the alternative data supposedly used to verify the thesis.
I think the problem is people have already made up their mind. My personal take is that what it is really about with people is whether or not they bought in. Those that didn’t found reasons to be skeptical, and when the bear cycles came in they found confirmation of their conclusions. Everything after was dismissed as irrational markets.
The author claims that the thesis to be proven wrong is based on false data, and then goes on and on criticizing the data on which the thesis is based without any evidence and questionable assumptions.
The most annoying part is the supposed debunk of point two. The thesis to be debunked is based on data from a website. To debunk the thesis the author reconstruct the findings of the thesis and comes to equal conclusions. But then it is stated that that data is fake and that such results cannot be reproduced with any data from other sources. But in doing so "the debunk" does not provide any reference to the alternative data supposedly used to verify the thesis.