I do not understand how my thread on French virologist Luc Montagnier is any less factual than many of the threads in GQ. The question was clearly on a rather technical paper and whether I was interpreting it correctly. In fact, thanks to the helpful people with biochemistry experience, it was pretty fairly concluded that my interpretation was correct.
Unfortunately, by relegating this thread on a highly technical subject to IMHO you have more or less guaranteed that no new technical information will come. I know this, because for my first few years on this board I completely avoided anything but GQ, and I suspect people of similar mind do the same.
The fact is, that just because one person decides that no one on this board is qualified to answer the question does not mean that it is a fact. I think that discussing a Nobel Laureats recent controversial work is quite literally only suitable GQ, and the only non-factual opinion contaminating that thread is the person claiming that the thread was non-factual.
If this board suddenly thinks that we should require peer reviewed style discussions in every thread, then we should be certain that this philosophy is strictly enforced in all GQ threads. I personally find this board more useful as a sounding board like drinks with the speaker after a seminar, but it’s n