Stay tuned... your points are valid and will be covered, although there are clear stationary properties once you do the stats the right way.

I would assert that limiting the training of practioners to methods that completely fail to work is not education dollars well spent.

We know GR is a more accurate description of planetary motion but we still use Newtons Laws to land probes on the Moon because they are sufficiently accurate. The Normal assumption is not, and has never been, sufficiently accurate and it leads to incorrect inferential practices and asset allocations.