I don’t disagree with the article. There’s almost no content to disagree with. The journalist picked bad experts and provided nothing but character assassination persiflage under the appeal to authority fallacy. This is a top-level publication, so it’s not unreasonable to suggest commonality with the profession.

Why say this? Because I’ve learned that the mendacity of paid experts and journalists goes unchecked when ordinary people say nothing, and quite often the crowd opinion of people with nothing to gain is more trustworthy.