“For example, post a link to an interview with Dr. Robert Malone, the inventor of mRNA, and you will be canceled.””
Even Dr. Robert Malone admits that he didn’t invent mRNA. With such an egregious error in the beginning, it’s difficult to trust the rest of the article.
https://www.logically.ai/factchecks/library/3aa2eefd
“UPDATE: Malone reached out to Logically, stating that he did not invent the mRNA vaccines, but instead the “vaccine technology platform.” He also presented us with copies of nine patents – none of which showed that he invented the mRNA vaccines. The judgment for the claim has not changed.”
Does this mean that Dr. Malone has absolutely no scientific credibility at all when he expresses his opinion about the mRNA vaccines?
The distinction you point out is not an egregious error, but the kind of blurring of fine distinctions that is common in reporting. The point is that Dr. Malone is an expert on the mRNA science and technology.
Oh please...
Why are you picking nits to justify censorship?