After doing so much work though, why wouldn't you go the extra small few steps to publish? That way the work can be peer reviewed and the Scientific community has a chance to learn from it.
This reeks of unscientific work, exactly what s/he describes the papers to be. While the results are in line with everyone's expectations (hence it getting upvotes despite offering zero proof, people already believed it and like it being confirmed), and so I don't really doubt they did try to reproduce papers and failed, it also isn't a reliable source in the slightest. If they were serious about disproving the papers, they could just have written down the steps, even if it's just a few lines of notes with snapshots of the code for each paper.
Just a list of papers isn't going to help the authors defend themselves, the methodology (if it can be called that) is so vague that the authors would basically be starting a "he said she said" discussion.
OP also claims he does not know what a meta analysis is while doing all the work for a what could be a great meta-analysis.
He also answers evasively when people ask for results or proof.
After trawling through so much peer reviewed work which in their view is utterly broken, I can understand why they'd be despondent/mistrustful of submitting it to a peer review process.