While you appear to suggest that reference [1] is a bad thing, or even a slippery slope, there's not really any indication that these consultations had an adverse impact on the quality of the results.

Communication is an incredibly tricky thing. Even when the science is sound, shortsighted approaches at communication can have serious repercussions, even potentially causing deaths (think public health guidance being misinterpreted, misunderstood, or decontextualized, for example).

Being conscious of this doesn't dilute the truth of the message, and being respectful/mindful of others doesn't mean we need to compromise on the science either.

For clarity: this is not a response to any part of your comment other than the reference to the nature article.