The spread of coronavirus by vaccinated persons in groups in indoor spaces is a scientific fact too. So what? The debate is not about that, it's about whether p

The spread of coronavirus by vaccinated persons in groups in indoor spaces is a scientific fact too. So what? The debate is not about that, it's about whether prescribing certain medical procedure by state coercion, and limiting the civil rights of persons who choose not to undergo this procedure is a proper policy and whether the laws of the land allow the government to do that. It's a legitimate debate which has nothing to do with "conspiracies" - you don't need any conspiracies to find reasonable argument on both sides of the debate. If you don't like the side that that particular site is on and disagree with their arguments - fine, but that doesn't mean they are lying about other factual things (they are not). There's a huge distance between disagreeing and refusing to even listen to other side's arguments, and even worse - refusing to listen to anything from somebody that once had an opinion you disagree with - this is no way for a society to function.