My objective in posting was to discover why you people think this way
As one of the non-fans of Hanon, then, let me explain.
Hanon takes a limited view of what is required to play the piano, concentrating on finger "strength" and independence. Not that these are bad things, but there is more to it than that, particularly in more advanced repertoire. If done correctly, the are some additional benefits to his exercises, such as the development of an appreciation of the structure of and relationship between keys. Also good, though often they are not actually approached in such a way as to generate this outcome.
In the context of a more fully rounded approach, the omissions in Hanon (whether strictly his own omissions or those aspects routinely ignored in his deployment) may well be unimportant as they are picked up elsewhere. Without this, Hanon tends to encourage two particularly bad habits of practice: (1) that drilling is the way to achieve all outcomes - ie, if it doesn't work, just keep doing it until it does; and (2) a tendency to focus on the mechanical production of notes without an equal emphasis on musical production of notes. Again, thise outcomes are probably as much to do with the way Hanon is used as Hanon himself, though the fact that he is so routinely used suggests an inherent weakness.
More importantly, even than that, is that extended and largely exclusive drilling of exercises (of which Hanon is one of the more routinely used examples, with Czerny probably running neck and neck) is, for many people, just plain boring. The risk is then not so much that they will turn out to be bad pianists, or injured pianists, but that they will turn out not to be pianists at all.