Here is the article you accuse of trying “to destroy the credibility of the two researchers”:
I have read through it, and I cannot find a single sentence criticising the scientific reputation of the researchers. There is, however, criticism of their conclusions in that particular paper; is that what you’re unhappy about?
– “Don’t bother to trot out the ‘Official Narrative’ of how breathtakingly flawed all their work was, they were hounded because of what they exposed”
OK. So no scientific analysis is necessary. Since “Paul is virtually always right”, any contrary position is merely “The Official Narrative” and can be discounted.