Nevertheless, the consensus among dieticians, physicians, and scientists is that the theory is unsupported by scientific evidence.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]

AFAICT, not one of those seven references involves a journal citation at all; they are all either "we don't think this is credible", or "we need more evidence". (The seventh is a (valid, IMO) critique of D'Adamo's epistemology.)

I notice, however, that your quotation from the Wikipedia page is from a less-informative part of the page, than say, this one:

D'Adamo's Blood Type Diet has met with criticisms for many different reasons,[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] some of which have been addressed publicly by D'Adamo.[9]

And D'Adamo actually provides journal citations backing many of his responses. The strongest argument against him is, "not a lot of clinical evidence", which is quite a bit different than "shown false". (And a critique that could be equally levelled at Seth Roberts.)

Except for the (IMO valid) epistemological critique, the seven "against" references rely on either simple dismissal or attempts to refute points that D'Adamo actually has cites in his favor for.

IOW, you're not providing any new useful information here.