Unless she says that low numbers *guarantee* multiple winners, how does it go against her claims? As far as I can tell there's a nearly universal belief among people who have paid attention that a lot of people use numbers that have some personal significance, and that often means birthdays. That doesn't guarantee that low numbers will result in one winner, much less multiple winners, but it very definitely means that a winner or multiple winners are more likely than if everybody picked numbers randomly.
As for the results of this drawing, there were about 51 million tickets sold. With odds of about 1 in 5.1 million for 2nd prize we would expect about 10 winners if people played random numbers. Since we know that about 70% of sales are QP's, we know that about 70% of the numbers played were picked randomly, so we can reasonably expect that those 35.7 million tickets should acount for about 7 2nd place winners. If the other 15.3 million tickets also had random numbers we could expect them to account for about 3 more 2nd place winners. There were actually 16 2nd place winners, so that means there were 6 "extra" winners. That could happen from simple probability, but palying non-random numbers is afar beter explanation, and we've seen the same sort of thing happen over and pover again. Even if only 3 of the 6 came from the +/- 30% of tickets that were self picks, that's still twice as many as probability suggests.
I'd generally suggest that putting any faith in what Gail Howard says is a complete waste, but this is one of a few things she gets right.