A beter example might have been the lack of funding available to alzheimers researchers not looking into the dominant (and now increasingly shaky) amyloid hypothesis. which to me looks like a genuine case of a "prefered narative" which may have held back progess for a decode or more.

There's an entire media ecosystem for this sort of stuff now.

Step 1. Write a crappy paper or make an otherwise ill supported claim in the scientific community.

Step 2. Scientific community says "hey that work is not good."

Step 3. Run to media outlets that are thirsty for "look at how this community doesn't permit alternative thought" narratives.

Step 4. Pivot into reactionary grifting, rake in patreon cash.

Not sure why you're being downvoted. This exact thing happens in evolution, global warming, and more recently covid.

  Step 1. Write crappy paper
  Step 2. Seek peer review. 
  Step 3. Wait months for peer review
  Step 4. Apply to journals for publish
  Step 5. Wait months for journal publish
  Step 6. Add paper to CV

Most research papers are garbage, and almost completely ignored, unless it can be used as a cite in a similar crappy paper. The major journals aren't going to take your paper unless you already have a reputation, or you're connected to someone with a reputation. They aren't going to take a poorly thought out provocation piece from a nobody, when they are swamped with poorly written garbage from researchers trying to make tenure.

> This feels short on facts high on opinion

Well, it IS the Opinion Page, so don’t expect much. You don’t really need facts if you are just going to blame a vague “Narrative” boogeyman.

It’s a common excuse from people claiming to be censored: “I can’t say this or that because it ‘goes against The Narrative.’” OK, so tell us more about this shadowy narrative that’s hiding around every corner! Is The Narrative in the room with us right now?