.....A few comms on the (lack of) scientific merits of the "Yan Report". It is non-scientific and false - cherry picking data and ignoring data disproving their hypotheses.
— Kristian G. Andersen (@K_G_Andersen) September 16, 2020
It's using technical language that is impossible to decode for non-experts - poppycock dressed up as 'science'. pic.twitter.com/Cnalk8Sjiu