> Can you imagine the outrage if the author published a paper questioning the effect of smoking on lung cancer, and then wondered if smoking actually reduces your chances for lung cancer? That's what this article is doing.

I don't think the evidence bases are exactly comparable (even acknowledging that the study you've linked to doesn't sound quite as appallingly constructed as the one described by the blog). And people argue about whether recommendations with thin justifications around stuff like diets have counterproductive side effects all the time, especially when the recommendations are pretty drastic.