I'm offering a severe criticism of the writer, and sticking up for Semmelweis. I'm not sure what you're doing, besides tempting me to use the phrase 'virtue signalling' for the first time ever.
And article merely offered criticism of Semmelweis approach. Why is that disgusting? Is that untruth or he did not ended in that asylum? Should these topics be taboo?
There is really lesson there, you can alienate people enough so they end up not listening to reasonable parts of what you are pushing for.
>"Semmelweis [...] may have been responsible for the deaths of millions"
How does that not strike you as unnecessarily harsh and unwarranted? The statement reeks of viewing history through the modern lens, and the author doubles down on the next sentence suggesting that the scientific community would have somehow opened their eyes if only Semmelweis had either not been born or had been less of an asshole, or something.
"History through modern lens" seems to be a bit out of topic complaint.
The rest of paragraph explains why author thinks he was wrong. It would be interesting to read historical dispute, but your complaint seems to be less about different interpretation of history and more about making criticism of past personalities taboo.
I'm offering a severe criticism of the writer, and sticking up for Semmelweis. I'm not sure what you're doing, besides tempting me to use the phrase 'virtue signalling' for the first time ever.