To be honest, this is literally the level of discourse of most Hacker News discussions about healthcare.
I have doctors in the family. The scariest stories of "marketing wankateering" in medicine I hear is from them.
Obviously not. So, where is the line drawn of what professional opinions are or are not trusted?
There's no doubt that "marketing wankateering" happens in all complex domains. Any "Market for Lemons" (i.e. a market with information asymmetry - a domain so complicated or obfuscated that consumers can't understand its fundamentals) will be exploited by charlatans. This is why we have professional (imperfect but functioning) backstops such as medical scientific research and the security/crypto research community.
OP was claiming that not even the professionals on this thread can be trusted to not be "wankateers" for a free/open source library, with no evidence, or even a hint of moderate understanding of the problem domain (i.e. why it's hard to distribute a public key), or desire to learn. Perhaps they were just frustrated with the complexity of the domain, but flaming people trying to help as being "wankateers" is rather fatalist.
Arguing from a position of ignorance when people say something that doesn't make sense to you is literally how anti-vaxxing happens.
Just because arguing from a position of ignorance can sometimes produce outcomes which align with your personal anecdotes doesn't make it an intellectually valid method of discourse.
Anti-vaxxer beliefs aren't caused by people questioning the first medical advice they get from a medical professional when it doesn't sound right to them. Anti-vaxxer beliefs come from either not verifying and going with your gut, or verifying and then ignoring what you've learned.
Doctors are humans and make mistakes sometimes, and your own health is your own responsibility. So is safety of your own application, so you shouldn't plug in someone else's crypto if you don't feel comfortable with it, but instead try to understand the domain as much as you need to start feeling comfortable.
...which is exactly what "arguing from a position of ignorance" means. Once you attempt to verify medical advice (in good faith) you are no longer ignorant.