Your points are valid, but I hear a whine of credentialism there. Since I'm not only his doorknob but an advocate as well, allow the contrary viewpoint. Specialist knowledge is helpful but often not available at all, or suspect if it is (e.g. conflicts of interest.) To cite what should be an obvious example: two years ago, a layman curious about the then-experimental mRNA "vaccines" and he could have deduced the following with only a little investigation: The targeted virus was of a type against which no successful vaccine had ever been developed. That alone argued against success of the present "Warp Speed" projects. Secondly, and most importantly, mRNA research had been around for two decades and had NEVER shown very promising results in either animal or human trials. Right there were several red flags. Of course there were many more. In sum, an informed layman would have said "hell no" to the proposed vaccines. You'll note that all this information was readily available two years ago, even before the pandemic if anyone had sought it out. No advanced knowledge of medicine, pathology or genetics required.

Don't need [to be] a weather man to know which way the wind blows, observed Dylan.