I'd like to point out that the first author, Stephanie Seneff, "began publishing controversial papers in low-impact, open access journals on biology and medical topics" with "heated objections from experts in almost every field she's delved into" [1], and that the second author's "Naturopathic Physician" degree is not a very good indicative for experience conducting Immunology (or) medical research.
Yep. Not a single immunologist in authors. The last co-author is Chief Medical Advisor, Truth for Health Foundation, which is a religious antivax nonprofit, I quote directly from their about page:
“We strive to honor God and Jesus Christ in all we do as we conduct business, and to follow Biblical principles exemplified in Jesus’ Healing Ministry throughout the New Testament as we implement health programs for the people we serve.”
I assume you both think the paper's methodology is unimpeachable, since otherwise one of you would have said something about that instead of just making ad hominem attacks.
How is this ad hominem? This is like an article about cardiac health that says that we need to immediately stop administering Aspirin to the entire population written by an OBGYN with a plumber that sells Tylenol as a co-author.
It's an ad hominem because you're saying bad things about the author rather than bad things about the paper. There's a reason that blind reviews for journals exist.
I’m not saying bad things about the author rather that the authors don’t hold proper credentials so the reader should examine it carefully.