> And they addressed exactly none of the relevant points

Clarification: They addressed exactly none of the points you declare as relevant. You identify as an expert in the field and come across as plausibly such, so certainly I’ll still give your opinion on what’s relevant some weight.

Perhaps the author was constrained by a print publication page size limit of, say, one? Or six? That used to be a thing in the past, where people would publish opinions in industry magazines and there was a length cap set by the editor that forced cutting out the usual academic-rigor levels of detail in order to convey a mindset very briefly. What would make a lovely fifty or hundred page paper in today’s uncapped page size world, would have to be stripped of so much detail — of so much proof — in order to fit into any restrictions at all, that it would be impossible to address all possible or even probable argument in a single sitting.

These are obvious and trivial counters to their points. They should have been addressed.