Hi, I downvoted your post. I think `dang hit the nail on the head in re: why I didn't reply (don't really want to argue since arguing on this topic has occupied more of my recent HN activity than I really like; and I'm busy doing other things).
I certainly don't think your original post violated HN policy by any means, but that isn't the threshold for downvoting on HN as far as I understand.
I downvoted because the material in question isn't inline with how the majority of us are thinking about this disease. It creates a false controversy. To be fair, much of what he's describing is the pathophysiology of diffuse alveolar damage (the correlate of ARDS), but simultaneously he's saying it's not ARDS. Even in this video he seemingly felt compelled to walk back his high altitude pulmonary edema comments from a prior video.
I am not going to be replying further in this thread, but since things got off the rails a bit and my downvote was a part of that, I did want to try to explain my views of the content.