Any story that drenches it's premise in hyperbole like this can be immediately discounted in my view, as there's an almost zero chance that I'm reading a dispassionate objective overview of established facts. The article reads like random gutter journalism.
> But it’s not true. Indeed, it’s nonsense from start to finish. Jones isn’t a martyr; she’s a myth-peddler. She isn’t a scientist; she’s a fabulist. She’s not a whistleblower; she’s a good old-fashioned confidence trickster.
> But it’s not true. Indeed, it’s nonsense from start to finish. Jones isn’t a martyr; she’s a myth-peddler. She isn’t a scientist; she’s a fabulist. She’s not a whistleblower; she’s a good old-fashioned confidence trickster.