You are correct, it was my mistake. The medium article (posted elsewhere and often in response to this) counters several of the points and is reasonably cited. However, I noticed that there are few responses to #1 (the medium author writes "I’ll leave that to someone else" and I haven't found anyone else take that up).

I'll grant that I had a kneejerk reaction of "that can't be accurate" and assumed there must be lots of literature to back me up, but it isn't easy to find it. Personally I neither support nor oppose this manifesto, but I think given the very expectable backlash and damage potential, drawing such concrete conclusions without stronger grounds was a bit too risque to be considered scientific.