Ad hominem fallacy. The paper cites 255 previous papers, mostly peer-reviewed. It's worth reading it properly rather than making glib remarks on the basis of lazy browsing.

Here's an interesting discussion of the problem of "cognitive fluency". In brief, if it takes effort to evaluate the evidence properly, there is a tendency to dismiss it. It's easier to reassure ourselves that we already know than to investigate the question properly. A pitfall for the unwary.

https://firstdraftnews.org/latest/the-psychology-of-misinfor...

This is a thoughtless, uncivil and insubstantial remark, in breach of the spirit of HN.

Have you read the welcome page?

"The most important principle on HN, though, is to make thoughtful comments. Thoughtful in both senses: civil and substantial." ...

"What we especially discourage are comments that are empty and negative—comments that are mere name-calling."