[pell]

The first paragraph is about misinformation in the digital age. The second paragraph is about the promise of his podcast. The third paragraph sets up the premise that some of the information that is shared on the podcast is possibly incorrect or is based on faulty or inconclusive data. The fourth paragraph contains three sentences referring to the story about his relationships and is the only mention of that in the article at all. Then the article lists at least four examples of faulty information and explains exactly why that information was not credible. Where exactly do you see an "ad hominem" there?