Thanks - it's a very intresting website by someone who wants to show - in a manner that looks scientific (but excludes significant testing) - all of the alternatives to the COVID19 vaccine, including studies of vitamin C, vitamin D, melatonin &c.

First: this is obviously a well-funded project that aims to look as though it has reliable data, presented in a manner that looks scientific, but:

Second: it does not appropriately reference the studies, the doctors, the locations of the research, the specific tests, the scientific data (other than some initial numbers &c), and:

Third:

Who is @CovidAnalysis? We are PhD researchers, scientists, people who hope to make a contribution, even if it is only very minor. You can find our research in journals like Science and Nature. We have little interest in adding to our publication lists, being in the news, or being on TV (we have done all of these things before but feel there are more important things in life now).

So these people want to remain anonymous? We should merely trust what they write, though they will not reveal the sources for their information or who they are? Moreover, scientists who are serious about their research do not write in generalities like this (we hope to make a contribution; we published in journals, we have done this before but feel there are more important things in life now).

Even if I hated the vaccine, I would not be able to trust any of this. None of their material is appropriately corrobrated, with other data, with tests, with other scientists, with previous research, with logic, with critical thinking, &c.

What's really interesting is that this website exists, that it's obviously well-funded, and that it's going to be used by anti-vaxxers to claim that they have irrefutable scientific proof - because these nice charts look scientific. If I were an anti-vaxxer I would not be convinced, but perhaps that's one mission of the website: only influence anti-vaxxers who will believe disinformation and misinformation. Those who fund the website know that they will not influence well educated people who have backgrounds in science.

One logical problem no one seems to be considering is this:

If the millions of live tests this past year of the vaccine are still not convincing to the anti-vaxxers, why would they turn to untested chemicals for a treatment? (Moreover, isn't COVID19 a hoax to them?) Why not have a consistent argument about so-called dangerous treatments and about COVID19?

Thank you for the link. It's very interesting. I would not have known of it.