3 ms·

I'm sorry, but this feels like conspiracy-theory peddling and FUD. What the linked site calls "evidence", is are at best "hints" or "possible signs". No eviden

by querez 5y ago

I'm sorry, but this feels like conspiracy-theory peddling and FUD. What the linked site calls "evidence", is are at best "hints" or "possible signs". No evidence anywhere. Instead, you have wildly weird texts like section 8.3 ("A Note on Biowarfare") that literally just reads "This document does not make any attempt to link the work done at these laboratories as part of a 'bioweapon' or "bio-warfare" program.". It's completely and utterly disconnected from the rest of the text. Why even bring it up? Just so you can throw the word "bioweapon" out there? Plus, the site always seems to see "causation" whenever there is correlation, and never even stops to admit that there's the possibility they got the chain of causation backwards: if there was a lot of coronavirus-carrying bats in the region wouldn't it make sense to build a research institute there? And publish on all the findings? The site goes on to cite papers and job postings that are exactly the kinds of research (and job postings) you'd expect from a site that focuses on coronavirus related research. Yet the linked site makes it sound ominous, when it is utterly mundane. So one has to ask who actually produced this site to begin with? To quote the page: > "We are an anonymous group of researchers" Very convenient. In other words, no-one with a serious research background could be convinced to put their name on this nonsense.

lumost 5y ago
There doesn't appear to be any regional association with the WIV's research on Bats. WIV studied bats fro all over China and notably isolated the likely center of the 2003 SARS outbreak to a set of bats in Yunnan. The institute was founded in 1956, long before Coronavirus research started in earnest. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wuhan_Institute_of_Virology#SARS-related_coronaviruses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wuhan_Institute_of_Virology#SA...
- bigpumpkin 5y ago
  Wuhan is, however, in the range of Horseshoe Bats. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_horseshoe_bat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_horseshoe_bat So people who suggest that it's far from Yunnan are missing the point.
  - lumost 5y ago
    Considering that the Horshoe Bat range encompasses a band between Portugal and Japan that would make the mongol empire jealous, I fail to see how this changes the point. The probability of Coronavirus emerging within the Horshoe Bat range in the same city as a virology lab is vanishingly small without a further confounding variable.
syshum 5y ago
>>Oh, how convenient. In other words, no-one with a serious research background could be convinced to put their name on this nonsense. Appeals to authority are one of the failings of modern science, The data and facts should stand up to independent review no need for "credentials"
hayst4ck 5y ago
You say the article feels like a conspiracy theory, yet it points to negligence as the likely culprit, which is pretty much the opposite of a conspiracy. You call it FUD (fear uncertainty doubt), but I'm totally uncertain how it would qualify as FUD. There is one obvious conspiracy by the Chinese government to prevent all understanding of the virus. That does fit the definition of what a conspiracy is. > "This document does not make any attempt to link the work done at these laboratories as part of a 'bioweapon' or "bio-warfare" program." This makes perfect sense if you are an American, because in the anti-intellectual Trump era, there was a well circulated rumor that COVID was a Chinese bio-weapon that the CPC figured it could deal with better than Americans because China can weld people's door's shut, and you can't do that in America. This is on par with the widely circulated Chinese rumor that the American military brought it to Wuhan. Obviously both of those are extremely unlikely and very much conspiracy theories. Certainly on the American side our scientists said it's extremely unlikely that COVID was engineered and has none of the markers of bio-engineering very early into covid. This is the article stating that it is not addressing that conspiracy theory, which was very much part of the conversation when it was written over a year ago. > Just so you can throw the word "bioweapon" out there? Out of your own ignorance of the context you are assuming malice. >and never even stops to admit that there's the possibility that the causal reasoning is backwards This is literally the second paragraph in the article, and it was bolded for emphasis: This document does not attempt to provide a concrete conclusion on whether either claim is factually true. Rather, it examines the probability that each claim is true to allow the reader to make his or her own conclusions. While either claim cannot be irrevocably proven true, an attempt has been made to ensure the evidence used to support these claims is as factual as possible. Furthermore, you completely ignored the meat of the article focusing on a couple of weaker and overall not super central points. > Very convenient. In other words, no-one with a serious research background could be convinced to put their name on this nonsense. It's almost like there is an extremely draconian authoritarian ruling government with very deep reach that has a long history of disappearing people it doesn't like or punishing them via connections with people who have power over them that people might be afraid of.
- dang 5y ago
  Please don't take HN threads further into flamewar. The parent took a step in that direction, which is bad, but you've responded by escalating noticeably, which is worse. (It's also not in your interests because it discredits the view you're arguing for, in the eyes of neutral readers.) Please review the site guidelines and stick to the rules. They include: "Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

by querez 5y ago

lumost 5y ago

There doesn't appear to be any regional association with the WIV's research on Bats. WIV studied bats fro all over China and notably isolated the likely center of the 2003 SARS outbreak to a set of bats in Yunnan. The institute was founded in 1956, long before Coronavirus research started in earnest. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wuhan_Institute_of_Virology#SARS-related_coronaviruses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wuhan_Institute_of_Virology#SA...

bigpumpkin 5y ago
Wuhan is, however, in the range of Horseshoe Bats. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_horseshoe_bat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_horseshoe_bat So people who suggest that it's far from Yunnan are missing the point.
- lumost 5y ago
  Considering that the Horshoe Bat range encompasses a band between Portugal and Japan that would make the mongol empire jealous, I fail to see how this changes the point. The probability of Coronavirus emerging within the Horshoe Bat range in the same city as a virology lab is vanishingly small without a further confounding variable.

syshum 5y ago

>>Oh, how convenient. In other words, no-one with a serious research background could be convinced to put their name on this nonsense. Appeals to authority are one of the failings of modern science, The data and facts should stand up to independent review no need for "credentials"

hayst4ck 5y ago

You say the article feels like a conspiracy theory, yet it points to negligence as the likely culprit, which is pretty much the opposite of a conspiracy. You call it FUD (fear uncertainty doubt), but I'm totally uncertain how it would qualify as FUD. There is one obvious conspiracy by the Chinese government to prevent all understanding of the virus. That does fit the definition of what a conspiracy is. > "This document does not make any attempt to link the work done at these laboratories as part of a 'bioweapon' or "bio-warfare" program." This makes perfect sense if you are an American, because in the anti-intellectual Trump era, there was a well circulated rumor that COVID was a Chinese bio-weapon that the CPC figured it could deal with better than Americans because China can weld people's door's shut, and you can't do that in America. This is on par with the widely circulated Chinese rumor that the American military brought it to Wuhan. Obviously both of those are extremely unlikely and very much conspiracy theories. Certainly on the American side our scientists said it's extremely unlikely that COVID was engineered and has none of the markers of bio-engineering very early into covid. This is the article stating that it is not addressing that conspiracy theory, which was very much part of the conversation when it was written over a year ago. > Just so you can throw the word "bioweapon" out there? Out of your own ignorance of the context you are assuming malice. >and never even stops to admit that there's the possibility that the causal reasoning is backwards This is literally the second paragraph in the article, and it was bolded for emphasis: This document does not attempt to provide a concrete conclusion on whether either claim is factually true. Rather, it examines the probability that each claim is true to allow the reader to make his or her own conclusions. While either claim cannot be irrevocably proven true, an attempt has been made to ensure the evidence used to support these claims is as factual as possible. Furthermore, you completely ignored the meat of the article focusing on a couple of weaker and overall not super central points. > Very convenient. In other words, no-one with a serious research background could be convinced to put their name on this nonsense. It's almost like there is an extremely draconian authoritarian ruling government with very deep reach that has a long history of disappearing people it doesn't like or punishing them via connections with people who have power over them that people might be afraid of.

dang 5y ago
Please don't take HN threads further into flamewar. The parent took a step in that direction, which is bad, but you've responded by escalating noticeably, which is worse. (It's also not in your interests because it discredits the view you're arguing for, in the eyes of neutral readers.) Please review the site guidelines and stick to the rules. They include: "Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html