As you can imagine, there are countless blogs out there ranging from Ryan Gosling Disneyland Cats, which was “inspired by Ryan Gosling's belief that Disneyland is harboring an army of cats,” to Selleck Waterfall Sandwich, which exclusively focuses on Tom Selleck, waterfalls and sandwiches, because why not? Most of the blogs out there aren’t reviewed for accuracy content. So you are pretty much relying on the reputations of the author or authors of blog.
This guy's rebuttal is nonsense.
One doesn't need to rely on the reputation of the author of the blog. All the people in the long list of examples is fully documented.
Maybe, but they are in no way comparable to the ones in the Lausanne study McCullough & Polykretis cite.
On the one hand we have athletes under 35 who suffered sudden cardiac death and who’s cases got written up in a medical journal.
On the other hand we have the goodsciencing list which includes any death of people of any age who had any tenuous connection to athletics (an announcer!) and who died from any cause (cancer, strep infection, unknown causes…) and who’s case was found on the internet by some rando and sent to the blog.
Do you think it’s an honest exercise to compare these two data sets and claim deaths of athletes are increasing?