Given the extensive, well-documented SAEs and unacceptably high harm-to-reward ratio, we urge governments to endorse a global moratorium on the modified mRNA products until all relevant questions pertaining to causality, residual DNA, and aberrant protein production are answered.

This kind of editorializing has no place in a research publication - definitely not in the abstract if anywhere at all. Save it for the "Open letter to x" publication. This paper reads like half research pub., half op-ed, which is a bad look. Research papers are just the facts, ma'am, with a nod to shortcomings and future studies. That would carry much more weight here.

I'm not saying their data are wrong or bad, but you can't just lay your biases out there like that if you want to be taken seriously. I mean unless you're publishing a gender studies paper or whatever.

I see it all-too-often in "research papers" these days, which kinda gets to the heart of the issue. Science is no longer about discovery and advancement of human understanding of the world. It has become a cudgel to be wielded by the political bodies; facts and good research are a distant second if they're considered at all.