I’m not sure there was a misconception in the GP. That author obviously knew what this article/title was in reference to and rejected it with high confidence. T

I’m not sure there was a misconception in the GP. That author obviously knew what this article/title was in reference to and rejected it with high confidence. Too high confidence, in my estimation. So high as to be hubris. His description of the popular narrative and describing it as a “conspiracy theory” puts him into what I would describe as reactionary politics. Hence, my mention that I could likely predict this reactionary stance on mRNA vaccines. Not for sure, but with relatively high confidence. Unorthodox view is one thing, and is defensible. GP’s attitude was more derisive than that. You are right to the extent that my comment didn’t benefit from mention of vaccines. But yours doesn’t benefit from the hyperbole of mortal sin or religious inquisition.