To be "2.5x the reference" a "statistically significant" deviation depends exclusively of the errors, including systematics, and I doubt that such has been so strongly constrained, known the abnormal behaviour and growing of cancer tissues in general versus none, not to mention that even if such can be evaluated as a significant deviation it does not imply causation, it can perfectly be consequence of the sample argument before (abnormal grown, which may imply abnormal densities easily) so I am still at a loss of the conclusions...
Mmh... I think that tribal identification is a basic problem (the us vs their conundrum): the danger is obvious, admit this general simplified view to conform the "only two collectives" and judge them by choiced individuals and not by the root ideas and what they bring, if humans cannot overcome this instinct they will remain ants that follow queens for no good reason...
Failed to find a source in English for the rest of the fediverse... but there is a small documental series about one of the robbers that may be available in streaming platforms
The causation was an adendum to the context, the rest apply to the "statistically significant" claim