The Wikipedia page is a hit job. I looked at these supposedly "ad hominem" criticisms. Basically they are about a guy on Twitter ("Health Nerd") and boil down t

The Wikipedia page is a hit job. I looked at these supposedly "ad hominem" criticisms. Basically they are about a guy on Twitter ("Health Nerd") and boil down to these claims: - He calls himself an epidemiologist but is actually a student (no PhD) who has barely published anything. - The guy's criticisms of Ioannidis' work aren't technically valid. - He is a columnist at the "American Council of Science and Health" but doesn't report that as a conflict of interest. Despite this, Ioannidis goes out of his way to say nice things about the tweeter, like "The Twitter account has interesting, smart content with strong advocacy, often supporting worthy causes". This dispute seems fairly typical of the science world. Things are in one moment totally unacceptable and terrible, like "armchair epidemiologists" commenting on things they aren't specialists in, and in the next moment pointing out some rando on Twitter isn't a qualified epidemiologist is "unusual" and an unacceptable ad hominem attack.