Seems quite reasonable to argue that superficially plausible "debunkings" by people that apparently misunderstood a paper are more harmful to scientific progress than people casually referencing the scientist's names as a meme or insult. (And I say that as someone who didn't think the DK "debunking" argument was totally without merit)

What's more harmful to medicine: a fashionably non-expert contrarian who doesn't understand the appropriate null hypothesis making a superficially plausible statistical argument that actually the trials suggest the drug is harmful to wide acclaim from laymen, or people casually referencing or even being administered the drug without reading the original trial writeups for themselves?