That blog doesn't read well I'm afraid. First of all, in the title it's something about climate, to then switch to Asthma. (And ctrl-F there is no mention of climate in the original paper.) Then there is some ranting about "activists" to which I will come back in a moment.

Afterwards the post identifies flaws in several studies the meta-analysis did not use correctly. I would at that point expect some intuition what went wrong, instead of just namedropping some method without much further explanation. The style written here, including dropping some studies in the reanalysis smacks of cherry-picking. (Not saying that they did, I didn't do enough work. It is just I don't expect that doing that work is a wise use of my time.)

And finally ranting about "activism." In general the expectation of a asthma research as an activist is, that the activism is motivated (or at least not in conflict) with a deep understanding of asthma.