A single line often inverts meaning once you see what it
answers, so neighbouring messages are always shown.
-
Well so much for a "dispassionate science-based discourse."
-
I thought they wanted a debate?!
-
```The goal of Science's Insights section is to be the best place for scientists to talk to each other about science. So,given the importance of this issue and the breadth of expertise and outstanding qualifications of the authors, it wasan easy decision to publish the Letter. The authors acknowledged that demanding transparency from China--whileacknowledging the important role of Chinese researchers in tackling the virus--is a nuanced and important task given the discouraging rise of anti-Asian sentiment over the past 18 months.```
-
This actually makes no sense - if both arguments are "speculative," then why the hell did they publish the Bloomshit, which they just called speculative?
-
2021-05-27 14:26
Robert F. Garry
Yeah - good point Andrew.
-
And to be clear, the Bloomshit letter is speculating that Shi et al are involved in a massive conspiracy and cover-up.
-
That's hilarious. From a journal called "Science".
-
And some cover-up it would need to be. If they had 3 serious cases in the 2nd week of Nov then there would be 10sof less serious cases dating back into October. Lots is the must have known and obviously Shi. That's a lot of peopleto keep quiet, inc. all those their lab results are negative.
-
After the big can of whoopass Amy M unloaded on them last night I think that the Science Editors are likely sitting inthe corner licking their wounds.