I'm sure you will place me in this category but really I'm trying to help you out. Observation and coincidence prove nothing though it makes a strong anecdotal case for those looking for a simple answer. Surely you would want to be seen as an expert with the knowledge to back up a claim like this but it ...... doesn't come off like that because the claims are lacking credibility.
Consider that the post quoted doesn't say if you have seen in your shop 60 Goldwings total, 60 Goldwings with low oil pressure, 60 Goldwings out of xxx and of these then 60 failed low oil pressure, these 60 all had aftermarket filter always from day one [ well OEM at first then aftermarket since yesterday, since 3K ago, 10K ago, 25K ago, 50K ago], and of these all 60 [never, maybe, always, sometimes, well the first owner did but owners 2 & 3 never did] had the [5w30, 5w40, 10w30, 10w40, 15w40, 20w50, dino, synblend, synthetic] changed on time while 25% changed every [3K, 4K, 5K, 8K, 12K, when they felt like it, never] and the other 75%.......
Fact is there are so many variables at work it's not possible to equate low oil pressure with the brand of filter on the bike when it came to you. I had a hard time with Statistics in college but I did learn you can't draw conclusions from anecdotal observations.
Your last sentence is an inescapable truth. A favorite expression of an economics professor I studied under is in its Latin origin: "post hoc ergo propter hoc". Post hoc is a fallacy because correlation does not equal causation. ... The Latin expression post hoc, ergo propter hoc can be translated literally as "after this, therefore because of this." The concept can also be called faulty causation, the fallacy of false cause, arguing from succession alone or assumed causation.