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?<p>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.<p>(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.)