Well, so, that’s where the debate begins.
First, I would submit that there is research that’s poor, that doesn’t mean what the researcher believes it to mean, and that people shouldn’t treat scientists and researchers as infallible gods.
As you say, that’s me in that thread - not a doctor - critiquing the research output of a doctor. Likewise, here I am complaining about the IHME prediction model of COVID fatalities (which I believed failed to incorporate lag times between case counts and fatality counts, and to assume a bell curve rather than a fast rise, slow fall curve that epidemiology models usually predict).
And in other threads on other topics, I have debated the merits of research, doubting the quality of their methodology and speculating on confounders, spurious correlations, etc.
How do I know that I’m qualified to do so? Am I always wrong to do this, minus an applicable degree? Can I say that public debate, hopefully populated with experts who can respond to questions and concerns, is a positive activity? Or does that spread doubt and the willingness to doubt science among those who probably shouldn’t do so?
Is there any safe way to choose individual experts to follow? Can I trust Gil Carvalho?
Where are the boundaries of taking in and communicating over raw research?