What's this supposed "neutrality" that you're seeking? I didn't get from the article what you're reading into it. To me, the central point of the article is th

What's this supposed "neutrality" that you're seeking? I didn't get from the article what you're reading into it. To me, the central point of the article is this paragraph: > These events highlight three significant scientific issues exposed by the pandemic that need tackling regardless of the origins: a dismal WHO leadership and structure not up to the task of protecting public safety; the collusion of a scientific establishment that sought to shut down debate rather than follow evidence; and the shredding of the reputations of some key journals that failed to promote free debate based on facts. Isn't your comment here exactly doing what the article is lamenting, shutting down debate based on your interpretation of the text?