[MikeSid]

I read the entire piece. I found it really silly.

The recitation of the mechanism of the disease is all well and good. I didn't learn anything there.
The author basically takes us through a cellular level description of virus becoming disease. Anyone that understands the upper level science he discusses didn't learn anything new. Anyone that didn't understand it (which is most of his audience) didn't learn anything because it is not well explained to a lay person. The author's point here is disingenuous; it's not really to educate, it's to impress so that the less well reasoned arguments get a pass from the reader.

The location of the furin cleavage site and the likelihood that this is a human engineered virus resulting from gain of function research at Wuhan has been well documented. This is clearly an engineered virus. But the link between funding and gain of function research at Wuhan is a little too tenuous to provide for anything other than a hat rack for a conspiracy theorist.

The Harvard and MIT brain research argument is not well supported and is pure speculation. This is all theory with no real support. His premises may be true, but the conclusions don't logically or necessarily follow.

The result is a lengthy and high level discussion of a virus invading a cell and causing a cytokine storm - all of which was known almost immediately by healthcare professionals - in an effort to lend some sort of scientific credibility to the self-reinforcing delusion that results in the author's conclusion that the virus was a plot to enable mass injection of a poison that will enable a certain few to control the brains of those injected.

Finally, with respect to the discussion of the vaccine, the author states, "They are “leaky” vaccines. This means they remove the evolutionary pressure on the virus to become less lethal."
So the author's principle problem with a mRNA vaccine is that without it, more people would die of the virus and the virus is therefore not incentivized to mutate into less lethal forms so that it can survive longer. One can see why he left this paragraph with a bare conclusion rather than fleshing out what this really means because it's clearly not a well thought out argument against the mRNA vaccine.

Similarly, when faced with critically low o2 saturation, intubation and ventilation is not murdering someone simply because the effect of doing so enhances disease. That's like saying jumping from the Twin Towers to prevent burning to death is suicide. The argument also ignores those who have survived after being on a ventilator, and who would have otherwise died of cerebral hypoxemia.

I did find some value in the discussion of treatment options as opposed to a straight up vaccine campaign. I would hope that treatment research is ongoing and I see no reason why this wouldn't happen concurrently. The argument that there isn't money in treatment doesn't hold water. There's always money in anything for which there is a need - even if it's generic.