It's not. It shows that, at best, the author has a huge bias. It also shows that he was previously actively malicious, doing something that is considered disgra

It's not. It shows that, at best, the author has a huge bias. It also shows that he was previously actively malicious, doing something that is considered disgraceful among scientist (misinterpreting the facts to "support" his arguments). Given that knowledge, no editor should print an "opinion" of his without the text of the disclaimer bigger than the opinion itself. Anything else is active misinformation.