Please try to refute the data instead of making ad-hominem attacks.

What if we stick to the content?

Demasi criticizes the (in her opinion) exaggerated statements from public health officials (regarding protection against death), citing the statistical insignificance found in Pfizer/BioNTech's efficacy trial. Later on, she discusses the difference between ARR & RRR and refers to scientific works which deal with its problematic communication. All references are linked.

This text (not the website or person) is, imo, more transparent (not necessarily more correct) than most articles found in leading news outlets.

I totally agree with your premise of the content.

However, imo content without context is only half the picture in this day and age I want to know the source of where content is coming from, especially on this topic.

I felt it relevant to share what I learned about this source upon inspecting the content, that is all.

I do not intend to generalize this content as wrong, controversial or untrustworthy per se. I hope the context allows readers to more accurately form their opinion from the content.

But isn't that exactly what poisoning the well is?

Yup. This kind of thinking is prevalent in politics where leftists disregard right-wind media and vice versa. Both sides have good points worth considering, but they are simply disregarded due to being "the viewpoint of the wrong/evil/whatever side". That's what the political divide is all about, as I see it.