вЂ¦Unfortunately this was another case of poor scienceвЂ¦ Clearly Wade found it necessary to jettison his editorial knowledge from working at that very journal in order to diminish and dismiss AndersonвЂ™s data, discussions, and conclusions.ДЇurthermore, when Wade tries to tackle AndersonвЂ™s data, he remains firmly in personal attack mode with comments like: These Nature letters represent important scientific reports. Clearly not just an opinion piece.ДЄny science writer knows that a couple of the most important science journals are called Physics Letters A and Physics Letters B. As a prime example, the biggest biological discovery in the 20th century may be Watson and CrickвЂ™s discovery of the double-helical and complementary nature of DNAвЂ™s structure - published in a Nature letter. This has been a long-standing feature of Nature. Letters are short reports of original research focused on an outstanding finding whose importance means that it will be of interest to scientists in other fields. WadeвЂ™s claim that a Nature letter like AndersonвЂ™s is only opinion and not a scientific article is not a small error, but an intentional assault on facts and truth.ДЄ blogВ by Nature lays out the difference between these two formats quite clearly:ДЄrticles are original reports whose conclusions represent a substantial advance in understanding of an important problem and have immediate, far-reaching implications. WadeвЂ™sВ Wikipedia page says that he was an editor at prestigious scientific journals Nature and Science, and therefore clearly knows better. In the first step of WadeвЂ™s assault, he characterizes AndersonвЂ™s Nature letter as вЂњвЂ¦an opinion piece, not a scientific articleвЂ¦вЂќ. Anderson and his team published a Nature lettersВ article early during the pandemic explaining why an engineered origin of the virus was unlikely. Anderson since Wade presses several buttons here. Wade spends much of his essay doling out personal takedowns of some key coronavirus researchers who have communicated scientific observations contrary to his opinions. His essay is exactly that - a dangerous thing.

However, Wade proves the classic trope that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. He has a bachelorвЂ™s degree in biology so he is not completely uneducated. WadeвЂ™s essay shows that his biology knowledge is ankle-deep and packed with major and minor errors and misrepresentations. Wade promises to guide you through the molecular biology of viruses, but his promise is shallow.

Anthony Fauci and Francis Collins and Kristian Anderson and Peter Daszak are among his most prominent targets. Unfortunately, WadeвЂ™s conspiracy theory has already gotten significant press, and is notable mostly for his highly personal attacks on those with divergent views: Drs. Despite WadeвЂ™s journalistic pedigree, close reading of his latest essay on the origins of COVID-19 reveals a poor adherence to reporting standards, investigatory lapses and major biases, and insistent mis-representation or outright falsehoods, leading to erroneous and unsupportable conclusions. The most recent salvoВ of dubious theories comes from Nicholas Wade, a former science writer for Nature and Science and the New York Times. Supporters of Trump clearly have no love of truth as witnessed by how the GOP is treating long-time uber-conservative party leader Liz Cheney. These workers had вЂњsymptoms consistent with both Covid-19 and common seasonal illnessвЂќ.Д¬onspiracy theories of the COVID-19 virus SARS-CoV-2 originating in an accidental lab release being peddled by TrumpвЂ™s former FDA commissioner and the WSJ are not surprising.

intelligence reportвЂќ suggesting that three Chinese researchers at the now-famous Wuhan Institute of Virology were hospitalized in November 2019. The Wall Street Journal, meanwhile, has been busy pushing an вЂњundisclosed U.S. Former FDA head Scott Gottlieb was quoted by CNBCВ on Monday May 24, suggesting there is growing вЂњcircumstantial evidence supporting the theory that the virus could have escaped from a labвЂќ.

Origin 8 chain guide