Physicist Steve Hsu claims it's very misleading in not discussing extensive empirical research that has falsified the key claims, and links to a lengthy rebuttal.
I made it halfway through the comments thinking this post was about the gravitational constant.
It seems to me that it's fine to attack an existing model; however, you should then present an alternative model that does a better job empirically. I don't think the latter has been accomplished.
I found this post very interesting
It's about statistics, causal inference, and 'g'.