>So far most of the emphasis has been on the spike protein and its cleavage mechanisms. This is something that bothers me about science, why has most of the em

>So far most of the emphasis has been on the spike protein and its cleavage mechanisms. This is something that bothers me about science, why has most of the emphasis been on the spike protein? Has that prevented many researchers from looking for other mechanisms that increase infectiousness? Maybe not in this case, but it seems really difficult to tell what science believes are facts and what are assumptions. I think that if you could identify all the assumptions in science and test them you would find rich material for groundbreaking research. One assumption that seems to be universal is that old science is correct, that it has "stood the test of time", except that often nobody tested it and a lot of it is turning out to be wrong. Those old folk had a tendency to make things up and no one at the time checked them on it because they were an authority unto themselves. I'd like to see any statements that are assumptions specifically highlighted in research papers. There is a little of this in security research papers but not in other research as far as I can tell. How might it be possible to tell how much of "what is true" is actually based on assumptions? Maybe a semantic mining of research papers using an AI could identify assumptions and list them as interesting areas for further testing and research? To start with any statement that doesn't have a citation is a candidate for being an assumption. Also statements like "it is well known" without a citation. Maybe a dependency of logic upon an unsupported statement could be used to find assumptions.