I don't think you get how science works (or, at least, should work): if conclusion D depends on A, B and C, and a peer-reviewed paper comes out saying A is wrong with an evidenced argument then you have to refute that argument to still hold to D. It doesn't matter how many people have said what A says, not least because things that other people haven't pointed out before are preferentially published*. It's not a numbers game, it rests on logic which itself depends on evidence and one new piece of evidence can sink an entire ship.I'm not going to get dragged any further into discussing thus guy, since it's obviously a complete waste of time, but I will say that it's absolutely typical that you've latched onto one guy who says what you want to hear and have decided his ideas are gospel truth, precisely because he's a dissenting voice. The fact that the medical establishment is virtually unanimous in agreeing that covid-19 vaccines represent a net benefit is, for you, proof that they're wrong, because for you 'the establishment' is always wrong by definition.
It's the same pathology that underlies everything from 9/11 Trutherism to climate denialism to Holocaust revisionism to the Flat Earth movement.
Obv your stats skills and critical thinking are not up to the job so you've wheeled out Godwin's Law.
*So in your simpleton model of mainstream vs 'dissenters' maximally creative paradigm-shifting science would be maximally ignorable as nobody would agree with anything newly published.