The variance of the OP's wagers show that he didn't have an advantage. If another person (partner) jumped in the table making substantially higher bets than the OP when the count was in their favor, then their could be collusion. But the total amount wagered adding together the OP and partner(s) would have to be much greater than what they OP was making before the count being in their favor.
Is it realistic that I signed up to play for 45 minutes and colluded with a partner? I think you could see in the hand history that the majority of the time I played completely alone, 2 hands at a time (Seats 6 and 7). Then other players came and went. I'll leave it to someone else to go through the trouble to see if when other people were at the table how my stake size changed but there should be no correlation to that. Also this isnt a brick and mortar joint where you need to operate in teams, anyone could just lurk online and jump in when they want. The only systematic pattern I did was bet slightly more after a run of losses and slightly less after a run of wins.