The comment gives clear reasoning and makes claims about the contents of the paper that are supported by reading the paper. To call it "non-factual" is simply incorrect. The word "futile" is nonsensical in this context.

You used three different words to complain that the comment critiques the study. There is nothing wrong with such critique in comments here, and indeed a healthy community requires that critique can rise to the top where it's warranted.

> Have you done an experiment lately to show counter proof? Beside claims what else do you have!

This is completely logically irrelevant, and suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of logic. Pointing out that a study is flawed does not require providing evidence for the opposite of the study's conclusion.

> This paper is very positive

A paper being "positive" has nothing whatsoever to do with whether its finding is correct, and it also has nothing whatsoever to do with whether its methodology is valid, and it also has nothing whatsoever to do with whether it accurately reports what was actually observed (i.e. whether any kind of fraud was involved).

> It is in fact (by personal experience)...

It is fundamentally impossible to know those things "by personal experience". That's why studies exist.

You might be right, but this study doesn't show that because it's a genuinely bad study. Someone serious should do a real study on it.