[epistasis]

First, the blog post does not rise to calling the initial survey a hoax. So that addition of jstalin's, is well, completely ridiculous and inappropriate.

Second, the blog post is ranty (and many if not most scientists are ranty, in case you hadn't noticed). The associated comment manuscript isn't evidence of a hoax. I'm not surprised it wasn't accepted anywhere. There's no meta-irony in pointing that out.

[om2]

The post seems like strong evidence that the finding of the paper is wrong, or at least not justified by the study performed. "Hoax" taken literally would imply deliberate malfeasance, and that doesn't seem to be proven