Based on the NPR article you linked this sounds like a normal scientific debate, though? One researcher says that data supports their theory, another says that it doesn't if you look at the data more carefully. I don't see accusations of fraud here, just different interpretation of facts, and a valid challenge to an earlier theory. This is how science is supposed to work, isn't it?

Gino, on the other hand, is accused of outright fraud. Data Colada claims she took real data and changed it to support her theory, or possibly created entirely fake data.