And in that tradition I guess I should have expected a dismissive reply using 'generic press release' to describe the Comment that introduces an entire section of Nature Physics.
It's a rare sight, and the contrarian view is necessary, we need red teams so that things don't become too one-sided and people can overcome their biases. I think the inherent structure in academia and in institutions like CERN make it difficult for dissenting voices to be heard, so I'm glad that the view that's going against the grain is getting more attention. In this era of censorship and punishing of whistleblowers I'm surprised she's freely critiquing their core arguments. Although I do see a lot of ad hominem attacks.
In a better forum the original proposal by the particle physics community would have reached the front page and then a version of this blog post could have been a valid comment.
Now it is the other way around and I think that is unfortunate. Why does it happen?
It is both curious and sad to see the outsize attention given to bitter polemicists (and not just in physics).
Please read https://www.nature.com/articles/s41567-020-01054-6 .
Edit: downvotes? let me rephrase: if you care about particle physics then there was no reason to ignore the original proposal. if you care about outrage, on the other hand...