3 ms·

It is interesting that a potential accidental leak is now labeled as a "conspiracy theory" by the media outlets, even though China already had two accidentally

• baddox 6y ago
  It’s a conspiracy theory if there isn’t any good evidence. The fact that labs have accidentally leaked pathogens before is not evidence that all future new pathogens are leaked from labs.
  • not_exactly__ 6y ago
    CMilk did a video a week or two ago on what evidence we have so far. I’d say it’s convincing enough; or rather, that within the context of China, there is enough smoke (disappearing lab members, papers removed...etc), lots of CCP efforts to call those rumors, and not much dispelling being done by the government. In all my years in China, if there’s one thing the government there hates, it’s rumors and they will do anything to squash them if they’re actually false (eg providing proof of life if people claim someone is missing vs just saying “I assure you they is alive.”)
    • throwanem 6y ago
      Can we please cite something a little more substantive than random Youtube videos made by people with no apparent familiarity with the fields of endeavor they're trying to report on? I mean, I don't doubt the guy's good intentions, but this is like if I were trying to make a technical argument about the physics of string theory.
      • Wimpzilla 6y ago
        Well, one can easily dig into the sequences database, to find some useful clues: -A lot of chinese papers have been published through the years on the topic, during multiples waves of sample collection over all the chinese mainland. Showing there was/is a notable interest about this pathogen issue. -One can also easily spot which research center were/are the most active on the topic and its related research teams. Wuhan research center is not excluded from the list as some others main big labs. -Each entry sequence in the database is dated with a location, publishing team and associated paper. It is useful for following the pathogen evolution building phylogeny trees. -Aligning a lot of sequences clearly show that this strain is separated from the rest of the others mains strain. The only related sequences are the one released by the chinese team. -The closest related sequences are 2013 year dated and other from 2015/2017/2019, which per se does not provide a lot of information about the real pathogen evolution. -The different gain of function that this pathogen got compared to its predecessors is quite remarkable and hard to overlook. -The overall AT/GC sequence content have also evolved from its predecessors showing rich AT content that is generally related to higher host habit and expression. So yeah, knowing china is not smiley kind shaped, one can still question the research and lab habit as one would do for any other country. A theory based on excessive and unregulated animal sampling could have exacerbated the real cross-transmission issue is as valid as the one about pathogen leaking from the lab or simply by natural evolution. Anyway one can clearly take a moment to question the overall package, along the safety lab practices deployed around the world when dealing with potential pathogens.
        • throwanem 6y ago
          I'd be interested to look at that sequence comparison in more detail. IIRC you can link BLAST results etc. directly from NCBI's site, and I'm sure you can link the sequence accessions to which you refer.
          • Wimpzilla 6y ago
            Looking very carefully and with patience one can find everything on NCBI database. Otherwise there is a big repository of sequence here: http://www.mgc.ac.cn/DBatVir/ http://www.mgc.ac.cn/DBatVir/
    • baddox 6y ago
      But the fact that a government sometimes tries to cover up things does not mean that every claim is true. “They’ve covered stuff up before” just is not sufficient evidence for anything, including, say, Bigfoot.
      • not_exactly__ 6y ago
        We are not judging the validity of the claim from the claim alone. We are doing so from the pattern of behaviors around it by the CCP and how those patterns correlate to priors we’ve seen in the past when they’ve tried to hide the truth.
  • gabaix 6y ago
    Lack of evidence isn’t sufficient to label a theory as conspiracy. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory
  • decebalus1 6y ago
    Cool. Next time a cops investigate someone with priors or with similar MOs we should label them as conspiracy theorists. I find it.. peculiar that giving merit to a theory about the Chinese government trying to cover up a lab accident is labeled or treated the same as other theories about Soros, Clintons, Illuminatis et al. There are data points which point to this. There is proof of doctors disappearing, active government censorship and prior accidents from China. Not to mention the statistical impossibility of their official epidemiological numbers. Why doesn't this merit at least the thought of an investigation? Or a non-zero probability? As someone who grew up in a communist state with a totalitarian government, I lived through 'manufactured realities' way more obscene than what I just described. This is peanuts. It's interesting because whenever something like ^ appears online on reddit or (recently Blind), an army of people appear with one of the following arguments: - I'm trying to deflect from the current US administration's incompetence. This IMO is an orthogonal problem - the NY strains have European origins so why are you talking about China - China was the only country to properly contain the virus - tinfoil hat much?
    • baddox 6y ago
      No, rigorous investigation of possibilities indicated by priors is not conspiracy theory. It’s conspiracy theory when you claim that it’s true without any such investigation or evidence.
  • hubadu 6y ago
    Researchers who warned us years ago about dangers of engineered bat virus leak scenario in an article from Nature Research Journal, should we label them as conspiracy theorists too?
    • baddox 6y ago
      No, that warning is either valid or invalid, based solely on the evidence and explanations provided in that warning.
  • blast 6y ago
    It's not a conspiracy theory if there are significant priors, which this would be, assuming it's true. That's enough to justify taking the idea seriously on first pass, even if it turns out not to have been what happened in this case.