He uses the site as list of studies to review, and throughout the article lays out why the site itself is not a reliable source.

The paragraph quoted is making a point about how to effectively present and communicate scientific topics, not ascribing dependability.

Indeed, the entire article is a systematic rebuttal of ivmmeta's claims. Rebuttals are more convincing if you treat the topic in good faith rather than assuming fraud from the outset.

I don't understand how you can see this as "reckless beyond words" when it seems like exactly the sort of systematic analysis that we need more of.

> It shows such a reckless disregard for critical thinking that it is impossible to trust anything that comes after it.

I don't think that paragraph is as complimentary as you do.

I am referring to this bit in particular: "I have no idea who runs it - they’ve very reasonably kept their identity secret"

Right—it's like saying "I don't know who the bank robber was—they've very reasonably kept their identity secret." Sure, it's reasonable for a bank robber to get keep their identity secret, because they're doing something shady.

Yeah, that would be a kind of weird thing to say. Like, that specific phrasing. If you wanted to say that, you would not phrase it like that.

You quoted this, but don't seem to have understood it:

> Putting aside the question of accuracy and grading only on presentation and scale