[pabo]

This is very interesting, not just in terms of the controversial statement itself, but also on a meta-level. When should a scientific community exclude a statement from thorough discussion?

I cannot judge how well-founded his arguments are, but I think he's right with the meta-topic: their analysis seems to meet the basic requirements of scientific reasoning, so they deserve an open discussion. Especially because the statement is so controversial.

(He explains that this finding, if true, may have far reaching consequences not just on a political level, but also on how certain virology studies may or may not be conducted in the future.)