Update: Vidqun, I notice that the Australian National Review webpage you posted a link to looks scientific on the surface. But, then I also noticed that the bottom of the page says the following. "Australian National Review is Australia’s first real free and independent press, one with no editorial control by the elite, but a publication that can generate critical thinkers and critical debate and hold those spreading mistruths and deliberate propaganda in mainstream media to account." Since it is thus biased (at least in my mind) against the mainstream media and since I have found the mainstream media to be very reliable and not lying propaganda, I thus am very suspicious of the the Australian National Review article about the vaccines. Notice that though it said "those spreading mistruths and deliberate propaganda in mainstream media" it said nothing about "those spreading mistruths and deliberate propaganda in non-mainstream media" nor in conservative media. To me that indicates it is biased, despite that it also says 'free and independent press, one with no editorial control by the elite".
We are in a situation where there are news sources which say things which contradict what other news sources say, which it makes hard to decide what to believe. We thus tend to choose those sources whose content is consistent with our existing experiences, beliefs and values. As a result, we likely won't be able to reach consensus/agreement on certain topics. That is disappointing, but that is the way it is - and human society will likely become much ideologically divided over time. When it comes to news content it is like we are living in the wild west time period of the USA, but in regards in 'dueling' words in news, videos, and blogs - instead of gun fights in the wild west. Parts of the internet are wild places fraught with dangerous ideas and dangerous lies being promoted as truths.