Very cool, if true

Is the author of "Covid doesn't spread on surfaces" credible?

His other articles all seem to pretty much rely on nitpicking a lot of pedantic points, appealing to status quos, and neglecting to source major claims: "climate change is overblown because the projections are based on pessimistic models"; "a book about deradicalization techniques fails because it takes a clear stance against conspiracy theories"; "not everybody fits the eligibility requirements to get covid boosted and this is somehow a point in and of itself?"; "implicit assumption that morbid obesity is caused by brains that cannot turn off hunger signals, without acknowledgement of cany of the other very legitimate causes"; "covid testing and contact tracing aren't 100% perfect so therefore we should 'return to as normal a life as possible' already and give up on all that stuff."

One thing that stood out to me was that he argues that there's a definitive meaningful difference between how concrete sexual orientation is versus how concrete gender is. He actively endorses the idea that autism or personality disorders are legitimate bases for trans people to be denied the right to informed consent and self-identity.

As for covid not spreading on surfaces? That's true insofar as putting your hand on an object that somebody coughed on isn't going to give you covid. And yet that says nothing about what happens when you subsequently rub your eyes with that same hand. He himself admits that most confirmed covid cases aren't fully traced. He also marvels at the novelty of seeing grown men wash their hands for once early in the pandemic, but then also bases his claims of "sanitization doesn't matter" by presuming that everybody was washing their hands responsibly before the pandemic anyways. While his ultimate points that particles in the air are much more relevant than particles on surfaces, and that ventilation is a much more relevant point of action than surface disinfection, there's something really insidious about only knowing how to make that case by traveling down the most inflammatory, reactionary, click bait-y, technically accurate path.

Surely good faith science journalism strives to inform, as opposed to obfuscate. My impression after reading about 10 of this author's articles is that he consistently starts with some wild claim, then leaps across several more spurious claims and tenuous assumptions in order to ultimately land on something even resembling a point which is not even terribly interesting in the end given that half his points are "I disagree with this word choice."