It's interesting to hear from someone who liked shoes and then went back, so I looked at your article with interest.

Interesting take on the "weight on feet is more important than weight on back" thing, i.e., that the study was done on a treadmill and that "When going uphill on a treadmill, the pack does not move while the boots do."
I never thought about study details much, as for me it just seemed obvious that foot weight is a bigger deal --- you LIFT those boots with every step. I'm not trying to change your mind here, just expressing surprise that this was challenged. I wonder how difficult it would be to set up a study that more cleanly simulated an actual trail experience? And ideally with a more reasonable percentage of body weight represented by the pack (40% is way high for I suspect most people these days).

In listing and acknowledging the downsides of boots, you give just two: heavier, and blister-causing. I'd add that when they get wet, they take much longer to dry. My intimate experience with combat boots is over 30 years old, so not relevant to the modern version, but it's hard to believe the comment "they are said to dry in half an hour". It would be interesting to see a source for that claim, along with details (how wet, how dry in half an hour, what method of drying was used, that sort of thing). I still have a set of jungle boots from that era --- little drains on the lower sides, canvas uppers, boots designed to dry out faster. I just have a real hard time with the half an hour comment, as it generally takes me a bit longer than that to walk dry my much more breathable light shoes, even in favorable conditions.

I'd suggest that you add some more clear motivation for making the switch. You said "It was not until I started wearing boots that my feet became completely comfortable."
Since I think that most shoe wearers find shoes more comfortable than boots, it would be interesting to know just why you find boots more comfortable. Could this just be more about your particular feet and the shoes you've tried than anything about boots vs. shoes?? Is there a psychological component, i.e., "my feet feel more protected wrapped up in so much hard boiled leather"? I'm asking because I honestly don't understand this. I don't carry camp shoes as my shoes are plenty comfortable at the end of the day. My own experience and from observing many others, it's such a relief at breaks or the end of the day for boot-wearers to get the danged things off.

In terms of getting blisters, you say:
"Many get blisters in boots. The latter probably fail to break the boots in properly or they have the wrong kind of boots for their foot."
That's certainly one reason for boot-induced blisters, and a clear knock against them, but my personal guess is that it's more about the sauna-like microclimate created inside waterproof boots. Light non-gortex shoes breathe in a way that boots just can't.

Hmm, apologies, I didn't set out to be argumentative or anything like that here, and perhaps your intention for this article is something to which my comments don't well apply --- I'm not sure who your target audience is.
To be clear, I think that there might be folks who are better served by some sort of boot. Less experienced folks in bad/cold/snowy weather perhaps. People with particularly weak ankles. Certainly mountain climbers. Folks that find boots more economic in the long run (don't wear out as fast).

I just suggest that you make more clear in the article just why a person might select boots over shoes, as I really can't imagine ever wanting to go back.