I think you may be forgetting how irrational people are, very much including 'scientists'.
These people are familiar with the component arguments about why blinding is needed in trials with bias. We have discussed Wessell's book before and he says how important blinding is. But when joining various arguments together makes a trial they like look bad they turn round and say it does not apply. So although they are familiar with what is needed to understand, I would say they do not understand the point I was making because they refuse to accept it is valid logic. (that PACE is no good because it is unblinded and has subjective endpoints). In one case a reviewer simply said my statements should be removed from my paper. Another complained that if people believed it then nothing in psychiatry would be believed so it shouldn't be said.
The point I am trying to make, I think, is that although we agree that they refuse to accept the argument for political reasons, I think they do this because they are genuinely incapable of allowing logic to override their mantras of professional dogma within their own heads. To me that means they do not understand, and are unsuitable for doing scientific research.