I doubt that ad hominem is the best way to debate this topic. The stakes are certainly high, and intellectual freedom is a pillar we all value, but vigorous discussion need not focus on the debater's presumed credentials.
Amazing that the @WSJ allows two individuals who understand nothing about the H5N1 influenza virus experiments to write about them in their publication. Their opinions are uninformed and misguided.https://twitter.com/_colm_/status/1101097323453648898 …
-
-
-
I don't think it's right that questioning credentials=ad hominem.
- Nog 4 antwoorden
Nieuw gesprek -
-
-
Bedankt, Twitter gebruikt dit om je tijdlijn te verbeteren. Ongedaan makenOngedaan maken
-
-
-
"two individuals who understand nothing about the H5N1 influenza virus experiments" It gave my an initial feeling that those two are no more than two ice cream sellers somewhere at Brookings district. Honestly, I felt very very disappointed when knew who they are :(( Why this?
Bedankt, Twitter gebruikt dit om je tijdlijn te verbeteren. Ongedaan makenOngedaan maken
-
-
-
Where is article? WSJ search function not helpful, though I now know that a fast-acting new anti-flu med costs Americans $150 per dose and Japanese $44. Not uninteresting.
Bedankt, Twitter gebruikt dit om je tijdlijn te verbeteren. Ongedaan makenOngedaan maken
-
-
-
Clicks are far more important than facts. Mediocrity is the new standard for journalism.
Bedankt, Twitter gebruikt dit om je tijdlijn te verbeteren. Ongedaan makenOngedaan maken
-
Het laden lijkt wat langer te duren.
Twitter is mogelijk overbelast of ondervindt een tijdelijke onderbreking. Probeer het opnieuw of bekijk de Twitter-status voor meer informatie.