the ideas in that article have merit, in my opinion, but if/when we share this article with normies, we need to keep in mind that this article is actually a 'letter to the editor' in the 'Reader Comments' section of The Lancet journal. It isn't a peer-reviewed paper that the journal accepted for publication. Still, it's a well-written scholarly letter with very valid points.

Their mistake was to assume the COVID vaccine was designed to vaccinate against the coof rather than population control the human race.

makes sense for a virus with less than one percent fatality rate

It's always been.

Pharma companies will use Relative Risk Reduction when describing efficacy.

However, to truly understand the real benefits you must use Absolute Risk Reduction (or Number Needed to Treat is also a quality metric).

I haven't read the Lancet article linked to but I guarantee that's what's been done here.

Not sure I would call it the Most Prestigious Medical Journal after they published a non peer reviewed study on the negative effect of hydrochloroquine use.