Since this paper is making what amounts to a forensic argument, there will inevitably be some "cherry picking" of evidence since much of the available evidence

Since this paper is making what amounts to a forensic argument, there will inevitably be some "cherry picking" of evidence since much of the available evidence is not relevant and will necessarily be omitted. Just because the authors did not present new data from original experiments does not mean this doesn't count as "research"; synthesizing knowledge from across prior research is an important and effective tool for advancing any field. If you want to refute the claims of the paper by arguing that they cherry-picked evidence, you need to provide specific evidence that was omitted from the paper and show how it contradicts their claims. Your other comments on this thread provide only the slightest hint of an argument and do not constitute anything resembling a true refutation. I completely understand if you don't have the time or energy to compose a more thorough argument--after all, this is basically a flame war on an anonymous Internet forum. But if you find another source which presents a properly composed refutation of these claims, I'd appreciate it if you post a link here. I'll also be on the lookout for such arguments and post anything I find.