[trompetenaccoun]

You mean the sort of third parties that let a paper slip through the cracks which peers contacted by Science.org claim should have never been published because of the glaring errors it contains?

What evidence do you have that anyone has actually looked into those data? In what context? You're simply repeating his claim but there isn't evidence the data was ever scrutinized. In research you're shown other people's data all the time - that doesn't mean that people actually look into it.