Blog of Jonathan A. Eisen ( @phylogenomics ), Professor at U.C. Davis.
Um, I'm pretty sure this is a spoof, to highlight the risks of contamination in sample handling for metagenomics. Microscopic sea monkeys - oh, were it really true!
I can reassure you that you are right. Something tells me that Jonathan might have figured this out, too.
Well, it is a satire of sorts. But he did find some unusual sequences in the GOS data. So it is not quite a spoof.
Definitely amusing (would be more so if the humor didn't hit so close to home) and its good to make it clear that data is rarely (if ever?) perfect as I think Jonathan Eisen stated quite eloquently in the source blog. On the positive side, the paper(s) don't claim that any effort was made to remove "suspect" sequences so you get what you get, the good, the bad, and the ugly. Thats the raw data. I trust that the numbers are trivial enough as to not bias any of the conclusions.