>>13815694This article was BTFO minutes after it was released. The author misunderstood the studies she used to develop her conclusion.
In one laughable error, she misunderstood "husband not present" to mean unmarried when it actually meant the husband was in the next room. The article is full of these types of errors. There are so many and they're so bad that most concluded that she didn't do it intentionally because no one is that arrogant but rather is simply an idiot who can't understand the papers she reads.
None of that stopped the global media from picking up the story and running with it for a couple of weeks even though the errors were pointed out by /sci/ and others with reading comprehension skills.
