>Such a paper could have a death toll in the hundreds. That's a rather small death toll compared to the one associated with "Improvements in or relating to the

>Such a paper could have a death toll in the hundreds. That's a rather small death toll compared to the one associated with "Improvements in or relating to the transmutation of chemical elements" by Szilard in 1932. Are you suggesting he should have been excommunicated? >A paper like that should not be published unless it's been replicated multiple times, and even then with profound qualifications front and center indicating precisely which vaccine it applies to, etc. That is ridiculous. At most a statement by the authors in the frontmatter repudiating the relevant conspiracy theories should suffice.