So, I don't agree at all that the paper is wrong. The results are about the virus itself, which would scale up. You seem to be arguing their data was totally wr

So, I don't agree at all that the paper is wrong. The results are about the virus itself, which would scale up. You seem to be arguing their data was totally wrong but haven't explained why, other than it's a month old, although the virus had been around for three months by then. But the core argument here isn't actually about the virus. It's epistemological. You have been arguing for censorship on an exceptionally weak basis and haven't acknowledged that. Every criteria you've put forward for deciding what experts should be allowed to speak is invalid or unusable. That's more relevant than this specific paper, which was simply an example to disprove your position.