4 ms·

> Remember that Google is effectively not operating in China anymore, so their information is bound to be outdated and incomplete. Yes, but the PDF that the GP

> Remember that Google is effectively not operating in China anymore, so their information is bound to be outdated and incomplete. Yes, but the PDF that the GP comment scrounged up online used Google Maps. If you look at Baidu or Bing Maps, you see that the Wuhan CDC has many local offices. It appears to mainly be a community health organization that deals with things like vaccinations and awareness. What you're pointing to is not the central offices of the Wuhan CDC. > are studying live bats No, they're not. All the papers I've seen only discuss samples collected from bats in the countryside, and standard practice is to deactivate any virus in the samples before working with them. Where the research described in the video you show is unclear to me, but it's not taking place in some little satellite community health center across the street from the seafood market. It's really alarming how much of this Internet scavenger-hunting is being passed off as legitimate evidence, by people like "Project Evidence" (or whoever is behind it). People desperately want answers about the virus, and there are political actors taking advantage of that.

gridlockd 7y ago
> Yes, but the PDF that the GP comment scrounged up online used Google Maps. If you look at Baidu or Bing Maps, you see that the Wuhan CDC has many local offices. It appears to mainly be a community health organization that deals with things like vaccinations and awareness. What you're pointing to is not the central offices of the Wuhan CDC. You said they got the location wrong. They didn't, you just failed to find the office at that location. You don't actually know what the WHCDC does, or where it does its work, but you think you know better than the authors of the paper, who have worked in Wuhan. > No, they're not. Yes, they are. Did you even read the paper? They're reporting that hundreds of live bats were hosted at the WHCDC. I haven't seen anyone come out and disprove these claims, so they're most likely not just made up. > All the papers I've seen only discuss samples collected from bats in the countryside, and standard practice is to deactivate any virus in the samples before working with them. "I didn't see it, therefore it does not exist" - your way of reasoning. > It's really alarming how much of this Internet scavenger-hunting is being passed off as legitimate evidence... That paper was authored by researchers familiar with the matter, it's not "internet scavenger hunting". I'm not saying it's "legitimate evidence" either, but your "debunking" is a joke.
- DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
  > You said they got the location wrong. They didn't, you just failed to find the office at that location They used Google Maps, which doesn't actually list that as the location. When you look for the main offices of the Wuhan CDC, on Google Maps, Baidu Maps or Bing Maps, you find a different location several kilometers away. I'll grant that a different map service, Baidu Maps, shows a small satellite community health center at the given location. > Yes, they are. Did you even read the paper? What paper? Nobody has posted any paper yet. All I've seen is a PDF from a website that anyone can upload to, which the authors subsequently deleted because they said they couldn't vouch for its claims. > They're reporting that hundreds of live bats were hosted at the WHCDC. I haven't seen anyone come out and disprove these claims, so they're most likely not just made up. Some random people on the Internet uploaded a PDF, so their claims are probably true? Is this the standard of evidence we've reached? > That paper was authored by researchers familiar with the matter I still don't know what paper you're talking about. Are you talking about the non-peer-reviewed PDF that was uploaded to a site anyone can upload to, and subsequently deleted by the authors?
  - gridlockd 7y ago
    The paper was retracted because, according to the authors, it did not offer "direct proof", but it was properly sourced as to the claims it made regarding the bat studies. Perhaps there has been some pressure from the authorities as well, that would not be unheard of. Is it peer-reviewed and scientifically validated? No. Is it actual evidence that the virus originated in a lab? No. It is simply a collection of facts that support the hypothesis that the virus could have come from a lab. The wildlife market origin is also just a hypothesis, supported by a handful of facts. Yet, it is only the lab escape theory that is so quickly dismissed as a conspiracy theory. Why? As for the political dimension, the actual origin does not really matter. The crimes of the CCP during the original outbreak are a matter of public record, they are not even being denied.
    - DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
      There is no paper. That's a word that implies a certain level of research, expertise and peer review. This is a "document" written up by non-experts, which engages in unfounded speculation with the barest of reasoning. The document even appears to get some basic facts wrong, like the location of the WHCDC lab and the presence (or rather, non-presence) of bats in the lab. It was deleted ("retraction" isn't even really the right word, because we're not talking about a scientific paper) because it was wild speculation. There was not only no "direct proof," there was no piece of compelling evidence that pointed to a lab leak in the first place. It's being dismissed by virologists as a conspiracy theory because it's just that: there's no evidence for it, and if you know anything about zoonosis and actual lab methods in virology, it's a wildly implausible hypothesis. It also requires one to believe that some highly respected scientific figures in virology, like Shi Zhengli, are blatantly lying. It's not being as widely dismissed in the media as it should be, the reason being that a good part of the political class is intent on pushing it. Trump and Pompeo are promoting this theory in order to deflect criticism and turn anger about the US government's disastrous handling of the virus against a foreign enemy. I've started noticing the phrase "CCP" being used more and more among people who are set on demonizing China. I think it's being used for the shock value, and because it taps into long-standing anti-Red sentiment in the US. I'll say this, though: whatever crimes the Chinese government committed, their handling of CoVID-19 turned out to be incomparably better than the US government's handling of the virus. Trump has now said that the deaths that will be caused by opening up are worth it. The Chinese government didn't passively watch as 70,000 of its citizens (increasing every day) died.

gridlockd 7y ago

> Yes, but the PDF that the GP comment scrounged up online used Google Maps. If you look at Baidu or Bing Maps, you see that the Wuhan CDC has many local offices. It appears to mainly be a community health organization that deals with things like vaccinations and awareness. What you're pointing to is not the central offices of the Wuhan CDC. You said they got the location wrong. They didn't, you just failed to find the office at that location. You don't actually know what the WHCDC does, or where it does its work, but you think you know better than the authors of the paper, who have worked in Wuhan. > No, they're not. Yes, they are. Did you even read the paper? They're reporting that hundreds of live bats were hosted at the WHCDC. I haven't seen anyone come out and disprove these claims, so they're most likely not just made up. > All the papers I've seen only discuss samples collected from bats in the countryside, and standard practice is to deactivate any virus in the samples before working with them. "I didn't see it, therefore it does not exist" - your way of reasoning. > It's really alarming how much of this Internet scavenger-hunting is being passed off as legitimate evidence... That paper was authored by researchers familiar with the matter, it's not "internet scavenger hunting". I'm not saying it's "legitimate evidence" either, but your "debunking" is a joke.

DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
> You said they got the location wrong. They didn't, you just failed to find the office at that location They used Google Maps, which doesn't actually list that as the location. When you look for the main offices of the Wuhan CDC, on Google Maps, Baidu Maps or Bing Maps, you find a different location several kilometers away. I'll grant that a different map service, Baidu Maps, shows a small satellite community health center at the given location. > Yes, they are. Did you even read the paper? What paper? Nobody has posted any paper yet. All I've seen is a PDF from a website that anyone can upload to, which the authors subsequently deleted because they said they couldn't vouch for its claims. > They're reporting that hundreds of live bats were hosted at the WHCDC. I haven't seen anyone come out and disprove these claims, so they're most likely not just made up. Some random people on the Internet uploaded a PDF, so their claims are probably true? Is this the standard of evidence we've reached? > That paper was authored by researchers familiar with the matter I still don't know what paper you're talking about. Are you talking about the non-peer-reviewed PDF that was uploaded to a site anyone can upload to, and subsequently deleted by the authors?
- gridlockd 7y ago
  The paper was retracted because, according to the authors, it did not offer "direct proof", but it was properly sourced as to the claims it made regarding the bat studies. Perhaps there has been some pressure from the authorities as well, that would not be unheard of. Is it peer-reviewed and scientifically validated? No. Is it actual evidence that the virus originated in a lab? No. It is simply a collection of facts that support the hypothesis that the virus could have come from a lab. The wildlife market origin is also just a hypothesis, supported by a handful of facts. Yet, it is only the lab escape theory that is so quickly dismissed as a conspiracy theory. Why? As for the political dimension, the actual origin does not really matter. The crimes of the CCP during the original outbreak are a matter of public record, they are not even being denied.
  - DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
    There is no paper. That's a word that implies a certain level of research, expertise and peer review. This is a "document" written up by non-experts, which engages in unfounded speculation with the barest of reasoning. The document even appears to get some basic facts wrong, like the location of the WHCDC lab and the presence (or rather, non-presence) of bats in the lab. It was deleted ("retraction" isn't even really the right word, because we're not talking about a scientific paper) because it was wild speculation. There was not only no "direct proof," there was no piece of compelling evidence that pointed to a lab leak in the first place. It's being dismissed by virologists as a conspiracy theory because it's just that: there's no evidence for it, and if you know anything about zoonosis and actual lab methods in virology, it's a wildly implausible hypothesis. It also requires one to believe that some highly respected scientific figures in virology, like Shi Zhengli, are blatantly lying. It's not being as widely dismissed in the media as it should be, the reason being that a good part of the political class is intent on pushing it. Trump and Pompeo are promoting this theory in order to deflect criticism and turn anger about the US government's disastrous handling of the virus against a foreign enemy. I've started noticing the phrase "CCP" being used more and more among people who are set on demonizing China. I think it's being used for the shock value, and because it taps into long-standing anti-Red sentiment in the US. I'll say this, though: whatever crimes the Chinese government committed, their handling of CoVID-19 turned out to be incomparably better than the US government's handling of the virus. Trump has now said that the deaths that will be caused by opening up are worth it. The Chinese government didn't passively watch as 70,000 of its citizens (increasing every day) died.