In his review of Wuhan: How the Covid-19 Outbreak Spiraled Out of Control, Mr. Ridley accused me of limiting my criticisms in Wuhan to those that "would be deemed acceptable in Beijing." Initially, I dismissed this as baseless speculation, confident that discerning readers would recognize the absurdity of such a claim. I have been encouraged by the strong support from many readers who have expressed their appreciation for my efforts in conducting and publishing this research. However, in his recent tweets, "Dog’s Breakfast" not only echoed Mr. Ridley's speculation but also presented it as evidence of self-censorship on my part. It has become necessary for me to directly address these allegations. My response is driven not only by a need to defend my work but also by a moral obligation to uphold the principles of open and honest academic discourse. The claim that my research in Wuhan was driven by self-censorship is baseless and detracts from the rigorous academic integrity that guided my work. If my aim had been to avoid jeopardizing access to China, it would have been wiser to avoid this contentious topic altogether. However, I chose to tackle it directly and at length and to publish my findings. It is a troubling sign of our times that a baseless claim, when repeated, can gain meme-like influence and undue credibility. I wish to state categorically that these speculations are without merit and detract from the spirit of free inquiry that underpins my research.