Yes it is, and I would argue that it sets too low a bar to substantiate Gil’s claim that:
Rather, it merely substantiates that:
The initial message hammered home to us was that the mRNA vaccines were safe and effective, without mention of the risks in each and every mention of the vaccine (regardless of whether mentioning the risks was entirely appropriate in the context).
If Gil had initially made this latter claim (which would be the only one of these claims that this post would substantiate), I think it would be entirely likely that his comment would have been ignored as (i) setting a bar so low you could crawl over, (ii) setting an unreasonable level of expectation on the “health authorities”, and thus (iii) providing no basis for any serious discussion.
To substantiate the former claim, the claim that Gil actually made, I would suggest a higher bar is needed, e.g.:
Quotes, from a reasonably wide range of contexts, showing a reasonably pervasive pattern of failure to mention the risks.
Only two quotes, from the same narrow context (puff pieces about prominent officials getting vaccinated), quite simply does not cut it.