> It is very much to the point, addressing the specific claims and methodology of a specific (and apparently somewhat influential) study.

Except, the author doesn't discredit specific claims of the Blue Zones. For example, the Blue Zones might take an area and state there is a higher rate of centurions who are healthy and capable. The counter to that might be the average life span in the region isn't an outlier. In one case you're looking at a targeted subgroup and the other your looking at the population as a whole. One observations doesn't disprove another.

This is just one example. It's why I call the work misleading.

You are using "might" more than once here. I have my opinions too, and FWIW, this looks like motivated reasoning, holding the response to a much higher standard of proof than the original claim.