I'm not trying to "cancel" anyone. I just posted an excerpt from and link to wikipedia, I didn't even provide a judgement. (I also haven't downvoted anyone's comment in this thread because I disagreed with it, not even yours, which perhaps could be called an attempt to 'cancel' the comment...)

I thought he made some good points in the OP, and also some weird points.

I think science as actually practiced is a human endeavor in which at it's best the humans involved try to use systems and procedures to neutralize the inevitable biases and interests of the individual humans involved, but this is a goal that we (at best, and we're not always at our best, including lately) approach asymptotically. I think this understanding is compatible with Ioannidis own framework for understanding science, and he'd largely agree with it. I think this perspective tells us that it's not irrelevant to look at the personal context and interests of someone participating in the discourse with an opinion piece like this (unlike Ioannidis famous "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False", this piece is an opinion piece, not the report of scientific research. It's true that I could have included the context that he's the author of that well-known-on-HN piece too; I did link to the wikipedia article where anyone can read more).

Though the term "cancel" is need the concept is not and has been going on in science since it's very beginning. And if there were ever a good case for it, now is the time. Unfortunately, fame is a powerful protectant against dishonest behavior in science.

See also RA Fisher and his bad analysis of smoking and cancer. Fisher was famous enough that his celebrity overrode his terrible analysis during one of the most crucial questions of his time.

Claim that "this author produced some crappy science under pandemic" is not a cancelling. Especially since it is under article about "scientific norms during pandemic".

Pointing out legitimate flaws in someone's work is not canceling.