It's not mentioned anywhere on SSC AFAIK. I wrote this post because it's absent in the rationality sphere. GiveWell's treatise is quite pathetic honestly, but I won't be posting a critique of it because (1) it would shoot down a high quality organisation and may do more harm then good and (2) it would be an effortful undertaking that I would prefer to publish under a more reputable pseudonym.

Finally, even if the EA-movement is wrong about de-worming, there are other interventions that EA tends to support. Your post isn't very convincing right now because it doesn't mention that fact at all.

That's very obvious though. Deworming consistutures roughly half the suggested charities of most EA orgs, so I think it's fair to say methodological issues reflect on the whole movement.

Do you think that all interventions popular among EAs are on as shaky a ground as de-worming (or worse)? No, but all of GiveWell's top 4 are, for various reasons I have discussed elsewhere. I am more convinced by the case for MIRI and some lower prioritised GiveWell charities but again, beyond the scope of my time atm.