Yeah, and with your usual flair.
You started by attempting to redefine what I was talking about--scientists taking baseless crap from the media and interest groups--to mean "suppression," then claimed that these people weren't being stopped from publishing, as though that was the issue. You dragged in the "conspiracy" word--a big favorite around here--knowing I implied no such thing. You wound it up with this non-sequitor, trying to create some kind of equivalence between slander and scientific debate.
As I said back then, people reading the article can decide for themselves if he was treated fairly and objectively or not.
You're good at dancing back and forth really fast, and then flying away leaving a wet stream of insults behind you like a seagull. That isn't debate.