You'd have to do a lot better than just citing a peer-reviewed article as its own evidence of fraud.

Uhh, no.

That's actually the ideal answer.

I also count 7 co-authors on the paper you cite

Since you're so fond of big-names, here's Dr Neil Degrasse Tyson on appeal to authority and argumentam ad numeram in the scientific method.

http://www.cosmosontv.com/

hardly suggesting he is some lone crazy voice.

...as opposed to Copernicus, who was some lone crazy voice.

You like science. Then show me the peer-reviewed article attacking his findings on the grounds you raise.

https://www.annabelleigh.net/messages/602121.htm

...and you can start being a peer as soon as you give up ad numeram/ad populam/appeal to authority as having crap to do with the scientific method.

That would be the first step within the framework of science to resolving this disagreement.

No, simply linking to established, proper sampling methods is sufficient.

If you want even more peer reviewed articles emphasizing the basic underlying sampling technique as a fundamental error invalidating the findings, here...

In the worst cases, nonprobability samples based on extremely biased assumptions about the population can lead to highly inaccurate conclusions, as when findings from studies of sexual minorities in prison and clinical samples were used during the early twentieth century...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK64802/

It itself - unlike GC - is not peer-reviewed, though it likely does match your tendancy of "splitting" into official and non-official sources, which you appear to substitute in meaning for the term "peer review."

The immediate citation, otoh, is peer reviewed.

The basics of sampling are not new to science. Meanwhile, Briere, or Nagayama, or the like had no problems peter-metering actual random sampling from nonclinical communities.

The only possible conclusion is that Cantor chose to break from established sampling methods to quite deliberately use methods which have already been grossly debunked.

That's called "fraud," homie. You can go audit a statistics course at any community college - or just read the existing literature, such as the first link or the critique of early-20th-century frauds - to hear that criticism you pretend "doesn't exist."