> This article has very poor reasoning. For example, the author states I feel you may have misread the article. The author doesn't "state" the lines you quote

> This article has very poor reasoning. For example, the author states I feel you may have misread the article. The author doesn't "state" the lines you quoted, she quotes someone else (Dr Peter Doshi) who used this line in a presentation as an example of something that deserves further investigation. The part of the quote the author highlighted (a couple lines after) was "There’s something to be curious about. There’s something not adding up." She uses this quote to provoke thought, not to claim that (the unspoken) answer is obvious. > The author attempts to argue against the vaccine I don't think this is the argument she's making. The main thrust of her argument is that adverse side-effects of the vaccine are systematically underreported. While this could be used as part of an argument against the vaccine, she doesn't actually try to make that argument. The closest she comes is in the conclusion, where she says "I believe that for someone of my age and health, I was taking on more risk than reward, especially considering the fact that its efficacy wanes relatively quickly." Whether or not she is right, I'd wager this means she believes that many people (older than her or in poorer health) definitely benefit from the vaccine.