This is so ass-backwards and you're practically twisting yourself over backwards a dozen times to somehow try to argue that this wasn't malicious. He basically poisoned the library, and you're blaming all the people who got poisoned because "they didn't fully inspect the contents of the code".
But you didn't have to go to that restaurant! Don't you do a full health and safety inspection of every restaurant you visit (and of their entire supply chain)?
That last argument sure sounds like an argument from feels rather than facts and logic, I thought the right hated that kind of rhetoric.
The obvious answer is of course that health care is a public service and should not be reliant on charitable organizations, which would be absolutely ridiculous. (Yes reproductive care is health care, arguments made from personal feelings or believes are not a worthy retort against medical scientific consensus)
Please point me to the parts of this method that are good or effective.