Guidelines in Describing Misinfo Spokesmen

I need some perspective, maybe advice. I'm a mild-mannered retired academic bringing up a new version of an anti-misinformation website (with lots of science on ionizing radiation and epidemiology, among others) in which the credentials of some of the main misinfo players are specified. My rationale is that you cannot fight it without naming the spokesmen, ideally to put readers on high alert. But this attitude may be naive or self-righteous.

I perceive an attack on their credentials as distinct from an ad hominem attack; their actual claims are disputed elsewhere on the site.

I have quoted remarks they have made (always with citations to origins), then followed up with an opinion [my professional career involved teaching and using quantum mechanics]

“In my search to make sense out of radiation physics and quantum mechanics I became convinced that the same thing {obfuscatory terminology} was being done by nuclear scientists to keep the rest of us in the dark.”

Injecting quantum mechanics into the issues of Rocky Flats is the action of a pompous ass who had 30 years to do his homework and did not.

So the questions I have is: (i) is expressing an opinion too heavy handed, when the bald statements might suffice,

(ii)in fighting misinformation, where is the line between revealing embarrassing credentials and quotes from their spokespeople and maintaining professional credibility and gravitas of the website and myself?