Didn't even request his "findings" to be peer reviewed. Or ask the authors to clarify his questions. Just assumes some stuff and hits it out with a catchy headline.
Yeah. The “analysis” hurt my head. There’s lots of extrapolation from a table in someone else’s supplementary results. Maybe there were flaws in the original paper’s statistics (didn’t read it), but that doesn’t imply some implausible and tangentially related theory is correct.
