(1) Valid point that not everything related to COVID is gonna be published in a peer-reviewed journal in a timely manner. That said, the stuff that really is relevant is being published rather quickly, because (obviously) the journals want those articles and want to get them published as soon as possible. And the fact that he self-published is important in the sense that it informs us that his paper did not go through that peer review process. As you said, that doesn't guarantee that it is garbage, but it doesn't mean that it's not, either.

(2) He is a fake expert, IMO, not just because he is wrong, but because he has been proven wrong and refuses to admit it. Not only that, but he is ridiculing the epidemiologists who are following the closest thing to a scientific consensus that we have at this time. That's not expert behavior, IMO.

(3) Your assertion that some experts were "20-80 times too high" is absolutely incorrect, and I think you know that. I addressed this in my comment above, but it's worth repeating here again: *NOBODY* predicted 2 million deaths in the U.S. The Imperial people plugged their numbers into a formula with numerous different variables, and the most extreme value they found - among *MANY* different values that they calculated - was the 2.2 million deaths figure - which they *CLEARLY* described as "unlikely" in their results. And, again, I think you knew that.