I agree with OP's comment. I don't see how anyone sane would agree with what you believe it implies. Ironically, if we can't talk about how an article like this one will be used by anti-vaxers, we can't meaningfully address how to minimize that harm either.
In either case, what I'd most like to see is a TL;DR / ELI5-level explanation of the article.
Is that based on empirical research, or is it a statement of faith?
Transparency is required so information can be processed completely. You ask for transparency of sourcing, because the statement 'truth counters anti-truth' is foundational.
My personal experience is that it's also the most effective. I see a lot of countering anti-truth with anti-truth, and people can smell the BS there. At that point, they become distrustful and defensive.
For example, before someone lies to an anti-vaxer, it's easy to counter and convince with science and fact. Once someone lies to an anti-vaxer it becomes basically impossible to cross that hump.