The base rate in medicine is around 10% of studies being fraudulent [0]. That is roughly the rate that Scott came to in the article ("We’ve gone from 29 studies to 11, getting rid of 18 along the way. For the record, we eliminated 2/19 for fraud").
It might be that the list is riddled with fraud, but it isn't obviously so. I'm comfortable with many of the studies having methodological errors - that is why it is called "low quality evidence" instead of "high quality evidence" - and I assume the base rate for badly done studies is quite high.
It might be that the list is riddled with fraud, but it isn't obviously so. I'm comfortable with many of the studies having methodological errors - that is why it is called "low quality evidence" instead of "high quality evidence" - and I assume the base rate for badly done studies is quite high.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis#In_medicine