Didn't say they weren't true, just that the fact that it is true has no significance. Even if it is true, what does it prove? That's like saying that the number of letter Es on a particular age are exactly equal to the page number and furthermore, the title of that chapter also begins with the letter E. Doesn't even prove that the author intended it to be that way, or even that he was aware of it, though Allah is perfect in his knowledge.
Some of the ones I looked at, (I didn't look at all of them) were shoddy because they ignored or did not count different forms of the same word. I would have to go back and check for the exact reference, but I remember in one place they counted all occurrences of the word Wahid, meaning the One unless it had a tanween of Fatha at the end, where in writing you add an unpronounced alif at the end to indicate the Fatha tanween, because they didn't use Harakaat in those times (like the unpronounced E at the end of like). The point is that they did not count those occurrences because it threw their count off. So, shoddy reasoning, overlooking of pertinent information and in the final case, mistranslation of the bee thing.
