The twin numbers appear now to be accepted as wrong.
It is just not 2x10^-10.
No defenders.
Seems that you are beginning to clutch at straws to find something that no-one has disputed.
It really doesn't matter a jot if a mathematical calculation to predict the likelihood of engine failure was accurate or not - it's just a figure, not real life. Didn't you know that 100% of statistics are made up? You only need
one engine failure in a single to spoil your day, and that of your passengers, forever.
However highly you personally rate your flying skills and abilities, you might be proved very wrong one day, if it happens to you and you aren't in an ideal situation. Night, IMC, over unknown or hostile terrain? IMC or with no visual references to the ground, or into a wood or lake? Who are you trying to kid that you are going to walk away from that?
You spouted nonsense about no-one having had engine failures on take off or in other critical flight phases. When contributors give you examples, you ignore their entirely valid responses, disappear from the discussion and come up with something else. As you keep showing here, you can keep coming up with "facts" to "prove" in your own mind anything you like, depending on the personal opinion you hold.
Point is, you are completely out of kilter with the opinions and experience of a whole raft of professional pilots who have flown both singles and twins extensively. By your strangely unusual, defensive attitude about your qualifications or experience, it appears you haven't yet done either. So far you have put forward uninformed ignorance, supposition and incorrect understanding of rules, regulations and design concepts.
I'm actually beginning to hope that you are a troll. Because If you really are an instructor, you will probably be teaching your students this guff. If so, let's hope at they are intelligent enough to see past it, for what it is.