SoylentNews

Not touching that bet. You're betting currently around $95k which is way too rich for the matter at hand. That's enough to bribe any normal authority, the organization in question, and their "online panel provider" to falsify evidence.

Second, the paper is strictly an opinion piece with no polling data provided for the alleged study (no citation of any sort, not even the name of the above provider of the poll). It's already in violation of the conditions they outline because there's no way in that paper to verify that the polls (there are at least two described in the paper) are as claimed or even exist in the first place. I think some of the details claimed indicate that there's some sort of real world poll somewhere, but it's interesting how little data there actually is about the poll or who did it.

There are indications of deep problems with the quality of the data. For example (page 27):

However, measuring support for QAnon is more complex than one might think. Whilst 8% of our sample claimed to support QAnon, a number of these “supporters” also claimed in a previous question that they had not actually heard of QAnon, results that echo a recent survey in the US.1 Taking those who claimed to have both heard of QAnon and to support it as a more accurate figure, we get the still considerable figure of 5.7% (3.2% strong support, and 2.5% soft support), although it is unclear what importance these respondents place on that support.

In other words, 30% of the people who allegedly support QAnon have never even heard of the group.

Also from the earlier quoted boilerplate of the poll, we have this key phrase: "using an online panel of respondents". Since QAnon is an online phenomenon, you are polling by one of the key characteristics that will bias the study - online people are vastly more likely to have heard of the theory than people who aren't online. They aren't polling the "British mainstream", they're polling some people who have access to that online panel and then extending their results to a hypothetical British mainstream, but extending across with a key bias of the data.