[low_tech_love]

I also think the article is wrong, but I disagree with both your points (as scientist myself). Verifiable evidence does not need to be verifiable by some threshold percentage of the population. If that was the case, most math PhD thesis would not be verifiable. Also, writing under a pseudonym is quite understandable given the polemic nature of the topic. If anything, I think we should have more people writing under pseudonyms than less. We could end up with a lot more interesting ideas circulating. The peer review itself must of course be done by trustworthy third parties, but the source of the text need not be.

[lern_too_spel]

The credentials don't matter to experts in the field, but this forum is filled with laypeople. No layperson should accept such an article without expert vetting.

[torstenvl]

No. People can evaluate the evidence for themselves. We do not need authority figures to tell us what to think. This is particularly true when it comes to assessing probabilities, an activity at which most experts have proven hilariously incompetent.

(Musing: What is the probability that a genetics expert's opinion on the probabilities at play would make the discussion less well-informed rather than more well-informed?)

[lern_too_spel]

People are so good at evaluating evidence for themselves that we can't end the pandemic due to antivaxers, and there are millions of people who believe the words of Q.