If we can't publicly scrutinize people who have great sway in the industry, what does that say about us as a research community?

The fact that I argued why I found it bogus based on well established principles, and I get shitted on by people who by all means have provided nothing to this conversation and except suppressing criticism or throwing ad-hominems should tell all about the quality of discourse.

Dismissing criticism, not by arguments, but by the mere name of the person does a disservice to everyone.

If the research can't stand on its own, independent of the author, then it is not good research.