Daniel Engber at Slate reviews the latest attempt to kill the messengers - an article in the Boston Globe by a Harvard biologist. Sounds like the NYT Magazine article by Susan Dominus that I discussed here.
The common threads are (a) the unscientific use of selected anecdotes to paint a picture of "mobs" which an easy Web search will quickly disprove, as Engber did; (b) the citation of a few colorful adjectives as the entire proof of bad behavior, while conveniently ignoring similar language used to denigrate the reformers (again easily found online), a practice known as cherry-picking and widely seen as unscientific; (c) using personal attacks to condemn others of personal attacks; (d) no response to the scientific substance being debated while focusing on personalities.
From the start, the big problem with "power pose" is that its most important scientific claims cannot be replicated. Nothing has changed despite the many thousands of words used to "call off the revolutionaries."