I think the article is trying to say that things "we can't conclude from not enough evidence" are not science and therefore should not be part of a medical discussion until they are backed by science.
The article also points out that that using the appearance of science when it is not so, and the spinning of science was not accidental.
I did this same move two years ago. Make a list of critical must have functions. Get a second storage drive like your current one, swap out the old and install Kubuntu. Get those critical apps installed and tested. Create a virtual machine out of your old primary drive. Boot that inside Linux when needed.
This monopoly is one of the best examples of our government being broken by lobbying. This problem is a least 30 years old and nothing has changed in all that time.
I don't think attacking the writer makes your best argument. Can you address the points in the article instead?