It might be reasonably controlled; it might not.

It might be reasonably controlled; it might not. It’s not like PNAS hasn’t published really dubious stuff before. All the major journals have been bitten by peer review failures, sometimes spectacularly; the scientifically literate audience is aware of these.

I recommend avoiding writing misleading descriptions of robust experiments that make them seem dubious. It discourages readers from trusting you or the experiment — which reflects poorly on the experiment.

You’re making a fairly controversial argument (although it’s one I agree with), and it bothers me that it’s being presented in such a sloppy way. Your post will probably do net damage to the popularity of your thesis.

(Yes, somebody could go ahead and read every paper you reference. Why would they, when your post makes them seem flawed — and makes it seem like you don’t recognize those flaws? You’d be better off, at that point, simply posting a list of papers to read and allowing readers to come to their own conclusions!)