zlacker

That is not a correct use of ad hominem. Translated literally, it is "against the person," which is what an ad hominem attack is -- an argument against the bearer of the idea that does not argue against the idea itself.

An argument against the idea was almost presented (anonymous staffers whose quotes cannot be independently verified) but was let down by its conclusion (it falls to the reputation.)

There was nothing in OP's argument that contradicted the claims that were made other than those that go against the reputation of the author, ergo even if they are valid, they are definitely _ad hominem_.

>>bmelto+(OP)
This would be a more interesting rebuttal if the story itself didn't stake the validity of these arguments on the identities of the people making them. Given that it's based in part on an appeal to the authority of, e.g., anonymous NIH scientists (in which group? with what kind of tenure?), pointing out the anonymity of the sources is not at all fallacious.