I don't think a blogpost full of empty vitriolic arguments is the best rebuttal proving "the content was shit". It just shows this particular blogger had some axe to grind and cannot be taken seriously.
My understanding of the issue is that the content itself was "not shit", but the timing and context in which it was likely to be perceived at the very least, associated it with less palatable implications, which may or may not hold, and are typically borne by counterproductive groups. And there was some evidence that indeed this was how the article was perceived by such groups.
But the article itself, in a completely epistemic sense, was "not shit" at all. It was actually very insightful for anyone interested in the context of the actual science involved.
So this is not as black and white as you suggest, imho, and even if it were in this particular case, the broader issue raised is still important:
If you do science A which is useful for good thing B, but has the potential to be falsely interpreted as bad thing C by bad group D, should we expect an overreaching group E to shadowban/discredit A?
I say no. I would much rather have a proper discussion instead.
Your characterization of the blog post lacks any reference to the blog post.
Here's one:
> Thacker’s main source was a “whistleblower” named Brook Jackson, who had worked at Ventavia for only two weeks. As I described, the allegations were either big nothingburgers that wouldn’t have affected the quality of the data (e.g., not appropriately using sharps containers to dispose of sharps) or were mainly insinuated and implied without actual evidence (e.g., unblinding or even falsifying clinical trial data). The article follows a familiar format for disinformation. Very definitive and serious accusations are leveled very early in the article, followed much later in the article by “facts” that do not actually substantiate such definitive and serious allegations.
My understanding of the issue is that the content itself was "not shit", but the timing and context in which it was likely to be perceived at the very least, associated it with less palatable implications, which may or may not hold, and are typically borne by counterproductive groups. And there was some evidence that indeed this was how the article was perceived by such groups.
But the article itself, in a completely epistemic sense, was "not shit" at all. It was actually very insightful for anyone interested in the context of the actual science involved.
So this is not as black and white as you suggest, imho, and even if it were in this particular case, the broader issue raised is still important:
If you do science A which is useful for good thing B, but has the potential to be falsely interpreted as bad thing C by bad group D, should we expect an overreaching group E to shadowban/discredit A?
I say no. I would much rather have a proper discussion instead.