It's unfortunate that so much about COVID-19 has been politicized. The truth about many elements of this pandemic I'm sure won't be truly uncovered after at least century has passed, if not more (when most of us will be long gone). From death rates, to infection rates, to effectiveness of masks, to its original source: everything about the virus has become a conversational third rail.

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.)

Mortality rate of like 0.5%, mostly targets asthmatics and old people. Pretty lame engineering if it did come from a lab.