Your framing of this as purely political elides the opinion of the large majority of virologists, unless you’re just reducing this to pure politics and believe scientists are systematic liars (in which case why would you take a vaccine they developed? I would guess he believes that conflicts-of-interest are a real thing and that journalists should stop taking taking `the large majority of virologists' on their word on this particular issue and have an an independent investigation by scientists with fewer conficts.

I agree he's right to point out the needs for citations on the many things he has highlighted. I'm not sure he quite meets the criteria for a domain expert for this. His publications don't seem to be about virology or really any significant RNA/DNA fields. Have I missed these? His background in molecular biology obviously gives him a good grounding though. I'm not saying I agree with this article btw, but the references that have been provided do highlight that this type of research was ongoing in Wuhan. As the saying goes "correlation doesn't equal causation" but this does feel a bit swept under the carpet by the media. The article does highlight how we all rely on these figures of scientific authority, but given the small number of them and the niche work they do you could understand why some would be reluctant to come forward against the party line. We see this in my profession when it comes to whistle blowing and the severe action that has been taken against them in the past. Tbh, I regretted posting it soon after I did as I'm not sure Relevant is really a suitable place to try and peg out what is medically correct. The information is far too granular, known to only a select few and being medical related there is never a right answer. If we do successfully democratise access to education in the future this might change. Otherwise it tends to come down to who tenures where and how many PhD etc. someone has. Happily upvoted your comment though as that was a really good spot. 🙏