I don't see how it's "just as valid" to mention those extraneous things. Daszak's conflict of interest is directly relevant to the issue being discussed, and the Lancet piece which was distorted by it was a critical moment in the history of the issue.
I think it's important to understand the writer's past history on an analogous subject, as it points to his motivations. I think letting you know he also previously argued about the benefits of global warming "nourishing the oceans", https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/now-heres-the-good-news-o... , points to the type of arguments this person likes to make.
I agree the stuff about his failed bank is irrelevant.
"The type of arguments this person likes to make" seems ad hominem to me. Being wrong about global warming doesn't make him wrong about this unrelated topic.
Also, his coauthor on the current book has impeccable credentials as perhaps the leading honest broker in the field, so these comments feel a bit like looking for a weak flank to attack.
The article you link is a very well written boon review which summarizes the arguments of the book. Ridley's review concludes that the theory that aids was transferred to humans through large-scale experimental vaccinations with vaccines made out of chimp liver is a theory worth further investigation.
This is GOOD SCIENCE. You analyze data and put forward theory. I can't speak to the merits of the theory or the book being reviewed, but why would it discredit Ridley if he reads and reviews critical books and is open to exploring alternative theories?
We live in a world where, at least in some respect, when you are evaluating detailed technical analysis for which you are not an expert, it should be normal and expected to at least attempt to determine the level of expertise and trustworthiness of the source.
For example, I think it is extremely relevant and valid to point out Daszek's clear conflict of interest when he put out his original letter.
In this case, the fact that the writer has promoted other theories (importantly, theories analogous to the one under discussion) I consider completely crackpot certainly makes me look at the data here with a more skeptical eye.
More importantly, there are plenty of other researchers who I consider much more credible who have raised loud alarms about the chance of a lab leak (e.g. Zeynep Tufekci's excellent analysis here, https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/25/opinion/coronavirus-lab.h... ). The fact that I can look at one piece of writing with a more critical eye based on the author's history of insincerity does not mean I discount more credible researchers making similar arguments.
