> The only interpretation I see is that the author has a set of sources they trust that produce "analysis" that the author sees as reliable. Their opponent in t

> The only interpretation I see is that the author has a set of sources they trust that produce "analysis" that the author sees as reliable. Their opponent in the argument has exactly the same same thing but from sources that the author does not trust. That certainly is a pickle. I don't personally know him and am not speaking for him, of course, but my understanding (based on following him for years) is repeatable analysis. Start e.g. from publicly available CDC data, and show that your results follow from them, or at the very least do not contradict them. Much of the time, if you try to do that, it is either impossible or a lot of unspecified assumption (some of which are often ridiculous) come to light. And to his credit, he has published his own covid models with data sources before; I started following him when he was no. 5 or so on the Netflix prize leaderboard, and he was doing it publicly (which of course meant everyone could include his ideas in their model, which promptly kicked him out of the top ten shortly after).