Professional disagreement over the pandemic should not be handled with intimidation and ruling techniques

That international scientists like Zach Hensel writing posts in Norwegian newspapers for discrediting my opinions in the debate about the origins of the pandemic, I take as a badge of honour. It's also a big step forward from previous methods. More on that soon.

First briefly on why I disagree with your assertion that the pandemic must have started in the wet market:

• It is only the research of the group Hensel belongs to that concludes that the wet market was the origin of the contagion. A variety second peer-reviewed articles concludes with that Contagion probably arose earlier in the fall.
• The genetic traces from the wet market are at least equally compatible with that the outbreak of infection that came from humans as from animals. No host animal has been found for the virus.
• The data from China are inconclusive, lopsided and Filtered.

That the wet market may have been a spreader of infection, not the origin of the contagion, and that a lab leak is a plausible alternative explanation is a widespread view supported by, among others WHO, several world-leading virologists, The French Academy of Medicine, the professional communities in intelligence services in multiple countries as well as more Norwegian professionals.

The only scientifically sound thing is to keep all the hypotheses open and search objectively for more knowledge -- not to close the door, as Hensel and his co-authors attempt.

Hensel writes that in April he “invited me to participate in debate, but was met with silence.” It's imprecise to say the least: Hensel started sending me emails in which he expressed displeasure that I was criticizing his research. Then he contacted both my employer and my publisher with references that I should remove or change content in my book “The Mystery of Wuhan” as well as withdraw my name from a petition I have signed. At the same time, he complained to the organizer of a meeting on biosecurity in Washington DC that they had invited a “conspiracy theorist” like me.

Hensel's co-author Kristian Andersen has exposed me as a “conspiracy theorist” during a lecture — without me being allowed to defend myself, even though I was sitting in the hall.

I quote the board of the Norwegian Society for Immunology (NSI), which hosted the lecture: “It seems in retrospect unfortunately that the purpose of the lecture was just as much to stop the free debate in Norway around this topic” (The letter from NSI can be read in full in the book).

Professional disagreement should not be handled with intimidation and ruling techniques. I hope everyone concerned with academic freedom of speech understands what is at stake in this case.