Reviewer of Worobey et al (2022), the market paper, on the way it was pushed as dispositive evidence 'left and right':
“It is always irritating when scientists use their work in this way. Not very scientific to be honest!”.
"My point is simple, that the evidence is not proof, but the hypothesis is plausible, as indeed the lab source is equally plausible. So the paper deserved to be out there for criticism and reflection, but not certainly as some bible on origins."
A perfect example of what Worobey et al does not allow:
"Science is free and people should not be criticised for wanting to explore possibilities and speculate."
"However, recognising that it is not much more than guesswork out of this paper but no better or worse in assumptions than other attempts.."
Another example of dishonest presentation of what the data allow trully one to say, against the objections of 3/4 reviewers:
People still pushing cheap certitudes with such a degree of disrespect for the limitations of the data and for the meaning of peer review, after all the warnings they received, are not true scientists.
They are charlatans trying to enforce a narrative.
Gilles Demaneuf
@gdemaneuf
Pointy Head. Opinions, analyses and views expressed are purely mine and should not in any way be characterised as representing any institution or company.