Looking at some of the provided links in the article damages the credibility of the article. Some of them are clear misrepresentations of the links. A couple o

Looking at some of the provided links in the article damages the credibility of the article. Some of them are clear misrepresentations of the links. A couple of examples are: > an active state/media campaign against early treatment of a disease This contains a link to an article with a headline of "FDA asks people to stop taking animal dewormer to treat COVID-19". It is fine if the author disagrees with the FDA decision on the effectiveness of the treatment but this is not what they say about the link. > It is the fact that these vaccines, whatever their efficacy in other areas, do not prevent transmission of the virus. This links to an article about a study which found that vaccinated people who catch the virus are equally likely to infect other people as unvaccinated people who catch the virus. Reading further in the article it states "a fully vaccinated contact has a 25% chance of catching the virus from an infected household member while an unvaccinated contact has a 38% chance of becoming infected". So the overall effect of the vaccine clearly does reduce transmission by reducing the chance of being infected, and without being infected you cannot pass on the virus. This makes it feel like the author is more interested in pushing an agenda than representing things in an accurate way.