Frankly Peikert shouldn't respond to such accusations. He should go to the IACR and Dan's department chair and take them up there. Most likely what he will do i

Frankly Peikert shouldn't respond to such accusations. He should go to the IACR and Dan's department chair and take them up there. Most likely what he will do is continue the extensive discussion both parties have had on the PQC mailing list. But of course the general public doesn't read the PQC mailing list: where the actual experts in this area communicate. And Dan knows this. That's why he posted this set of accusations on a blog that has a general audience, knowing full well that Peikert won't be able to defend himself to the same people. When you say "If [Peikert] does not respond, he is being consciously and deliberately deceptive" you captured precisely the problem with writing this post: it makes a bunch of weak, unsupported allegations against Peikert in a forum where most readers can't judge the evidence and Peikert can't respond. It's incredibly dishonest -- and its a matter of public concern, since I believe Dan's post is consistent with a pattern of bullying and intimidation of researchers who criticize his NIST proposals on scientific grounds.