For balance, here's Dan Arieli's response (Google-translated from the Hebrew source):

It's ironic that you try to attribute unprofessionalism to me using unprofessional tools. The experiments conducted by Prof. Siniver are not reproductions of experiments I conducted, but rather experiments that are clearly different in many essential differences. A claim for refutation through a completely different experiment is a provocation without a professional basis.

Researchers are required to keep data on studies for 5 years. I do not have data from studies that were carried out 15 years ago or more, and I have no way to find them either. This is not to criticize my work, and any attempt to do so is manipulation of the viewers.

I don't do the research alone. Throughout 30 years of research I had 248 scientific writing partners, among them the most respected researchers in the field. I led 2 labs at MIT and another lab at Duke where hundreds of interns, students and research assistants worked alongside me. You understand that if the claim is that I fabricated studies, you accuse a huge group of academics from dozens of universities in the world, when the only "evidence" for this is that I failed to prove "that I don't have a sister", that is, to provide documentation that I no longer have.

The experiment in which Prof. Amy Droley assisted took place over 15 years ago. I don't know why she remembers the things as she described to you. At first she didn't remember taking part in it at all, and only later did she remember. I and the other two professors who signed off on the study remember the details as they are described in the published article.

In the shredder test we met all MIT conditions. There are many methods to maintain the anonymity of the participants and not just one way as you presented.

There is a difference between academic articles, in which every word and data is carefully chosen, and between a free conversation in front of an audience, in which I convey the main points and do not go into all the details, for the important purpose of making science accessible. Your attempt to "catch" me with one word or another and take it out of context only reflects a desire to slander and nothing else.

Regarding the dentists, these things were said to me and Dr. Janet Schwartz in a face-to-face meeting, by senior company officials, as Dr. Schwartz also confirmed to you. I repeated the things that were said to me in media interviews because they seem important to me. The blog of my institute at Duke University accidentally mixed in an incorrect quote and I asked for it to be corrected.

We recently launched together with Harbor Capital various indices that try to improve the way companies treat their employees and also create value for investors. I forwarded to you the thorough research conducted by one of the best research units in the world, of the investment bank JP Morgan, on the data on which we were based, a study that reached the same conclusions as us.

Prof. Omar Moab holds opinions about many people, but to my understanding he is not an expert in the behavioral sciences and it is not clear why he was specifically invited to give an opinion on my research.

Only once was an error discovered in one of my studies, out of over 150 academic articles. My research partners and I realized that something was wrong with the data, we noticed it and shared the data transparently. I took responsibility for the incident, but I still don't know how it happened.

In my more than 30 years as a scientist, I participated in hundreds of studies, wrote seven books and had the great privilege of helping many organizations improve people's lives. I am proud of my work and contribution.