Circumstantial evidence that the Wuhan connection is not just a coincidence continues to mount. And a new Bayesian analysis puts the odds of a market spillover at no better than one in about 30.
I'm just amazed at the tweet by the editor of Scientific American. HOW could she have written that, and MONTHS after two magisterial pieces of reporting, in Boston Magazine and New York, on the entirely plausible possibility of a lab leak (and maybe Nicholas Wade was already reporting on it, too?) Was it sheer laziness on her part? Stupidity? Intellectual dishonesty? Has she ever recanted?
I'm just amazed at the tweet by the editor of Scientific American. HOW could she have written that, and MONTHS after two magisterial pieces of reporting, in Boston Magazine and New York, on the entirely plausible possibility of a lab leak (and maybe Nicholas Wade was already reporting on it, too?) Was it sheer laziness on her part? Stupidity? Intellectual dishonesty? Has she ever recanted?
Thank you for alerting me to Michael's analysis and its clear introduction here. I'll be sharing both in my weekly news review tomorrow.