Scores for this article.
Percentage of critic and public trust in this article.
Well Sourced2
critic score
public score
critic score
5 reviews
public score
34 reviews
critic score
5 reviews
public score
32 reviews
CRITIC REVIEWS
Well Sourced
February 5, 2020
An interesting look at the hottest topic du jour from an always fascinating site. Well-sourced and well-written written which makes the proposition being proffered all the more considerable. However, the article is ultimately a work of extremely speculative opinion. Nevertheless, the prospective reader would be wise to note the information provided carefully, but with a weather eye, and come to the their own conclusions. When all is said and done a worthwhile read.
February 5, 2020
PUBLIC REVIEWS
Mistake
February 7, 2020
Content of the article aside, the author goes a step too far by doxxing the researcher the article focuses on. Publicly listing their email and phone number without their consent is bad practice.
February 7, 2020
Well Sourced
February 2, 2020
Lots of links to original source material backing up the decidedly non-mainstream claims in this article. History will show whether the theory here bears out, but this article does what investigative journalism is supposed to do: present sourced evidence, regardless of how unpopular it may be
February 2, 2020
Investigative
February 6, 2020
There is some great context explaining the situation in China, and the research conducted there. There is a fair amount of speculation in here, but the author does provide some off the beaten path sources that support his journey through the scenic route. Good read if you want more context about the research conducted in Wuhan.
February 6, 2020