This seemed mostly fluff and argument from authority to me, with the main substantial counterpoint this: > Gunnveig Grødeland, vaccine researcher at the Univer

This seemed mostly fluff and argument from authority to me, with the main substantial counterpoint this: > Gunnveig Grødeland, vaccine researcher at the University of Oslo, is one of the scientists voicing their disagreement with Sørensen. She explains that what Sørensen referred to as "inserted sequences" can enable the development of a more serious disease, but this is not unusual in nature: "Examples can be found in other viruses including subtypes of influenza (including "bird flu"), HIV, and several human coronaviruses (MERS, OC43, HKU1)." Grødeland also says that Sørensen's paper offered no biological confirmation on the relevance of positively charged patches.