Oh, I wouldn't let you get off that easy with posting one of dozens of hokey Wordpress links. I figured you'd try to hide behind the idea that "no one reads the

Oh, I wouldn't let you get off that easy with posting one of dozens of hokey Wordpress links. I figured you'd try to hide behind the idea that "no one reads the articles that show the truth!" or some such nonsense, and here we are. First, you're referring to Marc Girardot who, according to his own bio on the PANDA site as having a "MBA from INSEAD, as well as Ms. in Economics and Business" and no expertise or training in immunology in any way shape or form. PANDA, for the record, self describes as "replacing flawed science with good science and for retrieving liberty and prosperity from the clutches of a dystopian 'new normal'". PANDA and it's members are so biased (and at times, under-qualified as in Marc's case), it's absurd that you are on Hacker News telling people otherwise. But back to the "article" you posted. It begins with an anecdote about a totally real email from a totally real friend regretting taking the vaccine. Shortly after that it features a great table with "data" with no source provided of any kind for the numbers strewn about. Then we see a link to a WSJ opinion column where the authors state that we learn more about the efficacy of medicine as we use it real world scenarios (not against the vaccine, just saying our opinions change over time) and a link to another opinion column published in the BMJ by a group of 27 clinicians, researchers, and consumer advocates who think the FDA should slow down vaccine roll out. Not all that compelling, and definitely not a call to stop vaccination as I'm sure Marc would have liked. Next we see a graph with "credit: Nature" under it and a few sentences in to the next paragraph is a link to a nature article, but no specifics on where the data came from. Again, I guess specifying sources isn't that important! I read the rest but I find Marc to be under-qualified by his own admission and the article to favor pushing an opinion over useful, factual science.