That's not the right way to increase people's confidence in vaccines. It's not normal for journal board members to resign in protest at a paper even if they believe it has methodological errors, and their argument in this case is especially weak, consisting as it does of:

1. Only virologists and "vaccinologists" may express opinions on the safety of vaccines. This is argument by authority and especially bad given the obvious conflicts of interest both groups have, along with the fact that many virologists were just exposed as engaging in a massive conspiracy and coverup re: lab leaks.

2. A complaint that classifying a post vaccine death as a vaccine-caused death is not OK. Where were these people when COVID deaths were defined as any death at all within 28 days of a positive test, regardless of comorbidities or age? Are they resigning in protest at that? No? If not, why not? Isn't this massive hypocrisy? And wouldn't they be concerned at the risk of inconsistent classification by doctors given the extreme emotions attached to the topic, as evidenced by their own response?

Real scientists would respond to a paper they thought was wrong with another paper explaining why it's wrong. These "scientists" are refusing to do so and demanding retraction on the basis that the paper is being referenced by "anti-vaxxers". In other words, the conclusion itself is considered sufficient grounds for retraction.

How can anyone believe the scientific world is on top of the vaccine safety topic when clearly un-scientific behavior like this is occurring?