One more note in regards to the bet. Kusenko failed. He was shown to be wrong, by various means. He did admit that he lost the bet. And Muller was more than gracious in his victory. But Kusenko tried to claim that the lost on a technicality and was still correct, even though all of his demands for specific types of evidence were given to him and his own explanations appear have been mere handwaving, along with some serious errors. Ah well, I used to debate against this too and understand how extremely counterintuitive the idea is.
I have a feeling that Kusenko knows that he is wrong but just cannot figure out why. He was possibly getting pressured by colleagues that understood this to conceded. He did, but not in a manner consistent with the ideals that scientists are supposed to follow.