I'm having trouble finding the supposed issue with the meta analysis[0] cited in this article which finds that by excluding smokers there actualy is a corelatio

I'm having trouble finding the supposed issue with the meta analysis[0] cited in this article which finds that by excluding smokers there actualy is a corelation between obesity and mortality. The auhtor claims this is wrong because "238 of the 239 data sets used by the GBMC were previously known to the senior author" but by the authors own admition "By repeating the MEDLINE search, we identified six eligible data sets that were not included by the GBMC, with two shown as unable to obtain data and the remainder apparently overlooked" and these papers were seemingly published after the meta analyists had created their dataset. That meta-alalysis, by the author's admition, a "highly visible publication" which was "authored by a writing committee of 61 distinguished epidemiologists and included over 500 collaborators" has over 2,000 citations, yet the author's three responses to it in the OP are self citations. Certainly others should find the mistake? Additionaly, not considered by the OP is healthcare cushioning the danger of obesity: >People with obesity experienced a statistically significant twofold increase in average direct healthcare costs per year (EUR 5,934), compared with controls (EUR 2,788) and had statistically significantly higher indirect costs compared to controls[1] If costs were kept the same between obese and normal weight, mortality would almost certainly increase even further. [0] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673616301751 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014067361... [1] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14737167.2022.2053676 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14737167.2022.2...