>I submitted the article. I agree that much of the language and style is one-sided and intentional. If I could tone that down, I would.
It certainly crosses a line that makes the article rhetorical at best. It can never convince anyone of anything.
There's so much vitriol that even if there's facts in there to discern, I cant see it through the hyperbole and polarization.
>I submitted it because the outlined logical consequences stood out to me that I hadn’t encountered elsewhere—- the announcement itself, regardless of its underlying merits, opens the path to reduce vaccine access for all.
I dont see any of that there. Maybe it is, but they lose the chance to make these points.
Scientific reference needs to remain objective and seek to maximize the audience.
