I'm pointing out the irony in the opinion of the original poster.

If you think that counter-arguments are "attacks", then I suppose you are too emotionally invested to have a logical conversation about the material.

As to your point about "luck", you can invoke any mystery force you'd like. The point is that survivorship bias is very real, and by only focusing on positive outcomes ignores all the potentially bad ones.

If I've never used a seatbelt while in a car, and never have been harmed, it doesn't mean that I'll never be injured. It means that for those cumulative trips I was lucky that there wasn't an accident.

But again, it seems this whole topic is just a tempest in a teacup, so if you can't see my point -- that's fine. Reality will intrude eventually with or without my input.