You said:
> "I don't know why the HN comments are acting as if this is some kind of research supporting the anti vaxxer claims."
To which I posted a link of a guy who is acting as if this is some kind of research supporting the anti-vaxxer claims. The comments were trying to head off the exact thing that happened. Because those users know the pattern. They know why this was posted. It was posted specifically as "vindication" for anti-vaxxers. Those comments to point out that this study does not in any way vindicate anti-vaxxers are needed and the people who made them were right to make those comments.
Even if this linked OP is just acting, I still find it very repulsive due to my previous experience. I wasn't referring to that comment anyway.
And I understand your reluctance. After the nth time, the eyes sort of glaze over as you get slapped with the same bad faith arguments supported by bad logic and supported by abused statistics.
If you disagree with the summary, maybe address it?
I despise anti-vaxxer lunatics, I still found that comment interesting.
And you are going to critique me for "inferring a lot" while ignoring his comment is not only sprinkled with evidence he's a conclusion looking for justification ("lethal jab-associated myocarditis"), but is nothing but inference itself.
It's not interesting, it's just old.
He is acting like it's support of anti-vaxxer claims. And it is why these articles get shared. Because they contain a very slight, practically negligible affirmation of the smallest portion of their claims. And that, in their eyes, is enough to proclaim victory.