1) again with the JAMA peer reviewers are incompetent and not up to the job, then the link to the biased and in multiple respects full of false information critique by extremely conflicted peers as EDITORIAL. I would not be surprised if that article was not drafted for them and their names simply added as is so often the case with commercial competitors and editorials.
2) no, no journals support anything you say generally. There is no such thing as “double dosing” and the notion it was post hoc is literally and flatly misinformation. An Editorial by 2 doctors is at best their opinions. The journal they posted in gave them too much leeway and likely fact checked using Adam Feuerstein’s article, which has false details relating to changes being “post hoc”.
3) Dr. Bosch is not the author of the article, he is a co-author and it is likely other than making comments, or providing information when requested that he played very little part in drafting it since the purpose of such articles is that they come from the doctors who actually participated. Further none of those doctors would sign onto anything false, and such a conspiracy is ludicrous with 70 eminent doctors signing from top universities, some independently then having their universities or they themselves affirming what was found, the most recent ones the doctors at Brown University.
The persistence of these low grade claims is interesting but simply not compelling in any way if anyone looks at the mountain of evidence to the contrary.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
