She advocates to „Limit spread of [scientific] misinformation on social media“ [1] yet uses social media to attack published and peer reviewed science (the gold standard used by fact checkers).
She calls attention to instances of fraud that have made it through peer review and publication. Are you saying that is somehow comparable to spreading "misinformation" on social media?
Published research is not perfect; tons of crap gets through peer review. Every scientist knows this. Peer reviewed science may be more reliable than other forms of information, but treating it as settled and unquestionable is foolish and, in fact, unscientific.
My problem is her call for censorship of misinformation.
Currently institutional judgment on misinformation relies on fact checkers, that in best case turn to published research, which is not perfect as you pointed out.
Depending on the zeitgeist in the future she calls for, she may be censored herself.
An expansion of that point in your original message might have been better received. The way it was phrased read like you yourself held the opinion that she was using social media to spread lies.
Published research is not perfect; tons of crap gets through peer review. Every scientist knows this. Peer reviewed science may be more reliable than other forms of information, but treating it as settled and unquestionable is foolish and, in fact, unscientific.