As a headline I feel like that's easy to ignore or deride, when it makes a good point which reflects the general consensus in academia and beyond.
Don't. Feed. The. Trolls.
(to me, and I think probably you, "gaslighting" means to create fear, uncertainty, and doubt in other people by making them question their ability to interpret reality through psychological tricks)
This was also a huge loss for charity. The $3M could have helped a lot of people.
As for out there and up a tree, if there are facts, they are always welcome. However much of it often isn't.
I'd say one of the better bits of advice is ...
"Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain
Alice thinks Bob has slighted her honor, so Alice challenges Bob to a duel (to first blood, the death, whatever). Bob looks like a sore loser and coward if he backs down, but on the balancing side, Bob gets to pick the date and method of the duel.
Let's convert this into an academic debate based on the article.
Alice thinks Bob's claims regarding the COVID-19 vaccine are wrong, so she challenges him to a debate so she can prove that COVID-19 does in fact make you get mind control from 5G (or whatever conspiracy theory). Bob can choose not to entertain the motion, and his opponents get to claim they are 'just asking questions'. But if Bob accepts, he gets to stipulate that the debate take place on X date and in Y format, so he can choose to say "in 3 weeks, over written communication" which can help curb Alice's desire to 'win' by throwing around so many claims in such rapid fire fashion, there is no opportunity for Bob to properly address them without looking nit-picky or running out of debate time.
Questioning the covid vaccine because it was not fully tested and the technology has had a history of issues was completely rational.
Quite the unbiased opening... a close relative of a beloved President, son of a former Attorney General and also candidate for President, is dismissed as a 'spoiler'?
And what would his political stances matter in a question of science?
This is not good journalism...
Quite the opposite, to do good journalism you need to avoid[1]. Reality happens to exists, and science journalists shouldn't pretend otherwise by assuming that every single assertion no matter how outlandish has equal probability of being true.
