Yup, the commenter raised the same points - but in a clearer way. (He even mentioned the matrons!)

This is sounding a lot like a telephone game, to be honest:

• Shaw - “I disagree with Grimm, since I don’t take linguistic evidence into account” →
• Winick - “I’m trying to be succinct here so TL;DR this is a conjecture, not proven stuff” →
• youtuber (dunno his name) - “this is all unsupported assumption!”

Partially off-topic, but Interesting tidbit from the article:

Moreover, a much simpler origin for the Old High German name of Easter has since been proposed: much of Germany was Christianized by Anglo-Saxon priests, who (as Bede tells us) already called Easter by a variant of the name, so they probably just brought the name for Easter with them, where it was adapted by Old High German speakers. [2]

Bede’s hypothesis is clearly false: if Old High German borrowed the word for Easter from Anglo-Saxon dialects, the modern German word Ostern (Easter) wouldn’t start with /o:/, but rather some front unrounded vowel; it would be **Estern /e:/ or similar. That *au → ēa~ēo change you see in Old English is so old that it was certainly present in the speech of the Anglo-Saxon priests, OHG speakers would likely simplify the odd cluster into a simple /e:/ and call it a day.