Before even looking at the article I must ask: is simple counterexample of using data correctly important argument? Or should we consider the whole body of work.

Generally speaking must look the relevance and validity of data and methods used in each case. Even if it's correct it can be collected and used to argue intentionally misleading way. "Using data" is not enough for science.

>The panel found that Dr Carl had put a body of work into the public domain that did not comply with established criteria for research ethics and integrity. In any event, it considered that the poor scholarship of this problematic body of Dr Carl’s work, among other things, meant that it fell outside any protection that might otherwise be claimed for academic freedom of speech.