He got the ball rolling, and is credited as inventor by Nature. We call Thomas Edison the inventor of the lightbulb even though his lightbulb has little to do with modern LED lighting. Similarly, it is not dishonest to call Robert Malone (in Nature's own assessment) the inventor of mRNA technology.

> and is credited as inventor by Nature

Literally nowhere in the quote says that. An important step (if he actually was the main discoverer for those) but not "the inventor". He imagined it (in the same way I can imagine a flying car - but not invent it)

And Nature goes on: "But the path to success was not direct. For many years after Malone’s experiments, which themselves had drawn on the work of other researchers, mRNA was seen as too unstable and expensive to be used as a drug or a vaccine. "

Malone is mainly sour grapes https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/08/robert-m...

The Atlantic article (which I just read) is literally nothing except an attack on his character, everywhere, instead of his claims or perspectives. It just says he was wrong once about something in Israel, but other than that, it leaves his claims wholly unaddressed and uses a cynical tone related to him for everything, because how dare he have different perspective on something he at least helped invent.

I have almost no respect for media that does attacks on character rather than attacks on ideas.

He also claims children don't have strokes, that basically 100% of them are caused by COVID-19 vaccines, even though strokes are among the most common causes of death of children (that's from his JRE interview).

That information kills children as it may make people disregard the obvious symptoms and fatally delay treatment.

Which claims? The claims that Japan used Ivermectin (already proven false)? Or his other claims that have been debunked thoroughly by more serious people?

Thanks for providing your opinion on the article, it's a good gauge on how his fans see things.