Comment by pvg

D'oh, you're right, I got sidetracked reading the Sci Am article he linked and then probably forgot to go back and read the rest of his thing after skimming. But to me, that makes his argument weaker. Either he was naive about this obvious and ostensibly grave risk to his patients, which seems at a minimum reckless. Or he assessed the risk and considered it acceptable, which seems both more charitable and plausible.

As to the name, I don't think we really need a convoluted hypothetical - it's not his first brush with exposure and people have found his full name before. He was lightly pseudonymous and aware of it.