7 ms·

The minute the PRC government destroyed the evidence, they lost the presumption of innocence. Let's also remember - we're dealing with very smart people who ver

The minute the PRC government destroyed the evidence, they lost the presumption of innocence. Let's also remember - we're dealing with very smart people who very well knew the price they were paying by not cooperating with the international community, and yet that path seemed more attractive than just "coming clean." I wonder what the judicial system would have to say if a murder was committed in my house, and there was evidence that I destroyed the evidence. Also, I don't have an alibi, and have multiple prior felonies. Would that be enough to put me in jail again?

eloff 5y ago
Yes, the cover up and hostility towards the lab leak hypothesis may actually be the strongest evidence for it. Which is to say, not much. But we have no evidence for the natural origin story, and it's a somewhat strange coincidence that the initial outbreak was near a lab studying these very same kinds of viruses. Granted you might put such a lab in places where there are lots of bat viruses to be found, but that's still a much, much larger area than the city of Wuhan. The closest known wild virus came from a source 800 miles away. Draw a circle over a map of China including both Wuhan and that bat cave and you can see that quite clearly. Combine that with the fact that Sars cov1 escaped labs in China to infect researchers not once, but at least twice, and the Bayesian calculation swings heavily to the lab leak hypothesis.
- mikem170 5y ago
  Did you know that there's been evidence pointing to an origin 600 miles south of Wuhan [0], based on sampled early cases and genetic sequencing? [0] https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2020-05-13/scientist-suggests-coronavirus-originated-outside-of-wuhan https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2020-05-...
  - codewench 5y ago
    It's worth noting that the paper this article is based on is somewhat contested. For example "There are several serious flaws with their findings and interpretation." [1] "The authors’ misinterpretation of MJNs fosters misconceptions, inaccuracies, and misrepresentations of fundamental phylogenetic principles."[2] [1] https://www.pnas.org/content/117/23/12522 https://www.pnas.org/content/117/23/12522 [2] https://www.pnas.org/content/117/23/12518 https://www.pnas.org/content/117/23/12518
    - mikem170 5y ago
      Thank you for those links. I appreciate the new inputs. ("Sampling bias and incorrect rooting make phylogenetic network tracing of SARS-COV-2 infections unreliable" and "Median-joining network analysis of SARS-CoV-2 genomes is neither phylogenetic nor evolutionary") Do you think that these conflict with the statement Forster made that "I would be a bit careful about pinpointing a place (of origin), because we don't have many samples from the early phase," he says. "But it seems to me we shouldn't restrict ourselves to Wuhan when looking for the origin." [0]. They did have a variety of samples, enough to throw doubt on where the origin was, right? I brought this up just to point out that it is not a foregone conclusion that Wuhan was the location of the first covid-19 cases in humans. Do you think that is an incorrect statement? [0] https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2020-05-13/scientist-suggests-coronavirus-originated-outside-of-wuhan https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2020-05-...
      - codewench 5y ago
        I believe it's worth continued study, however my understanding is that the Chinese government has been somewhat reluctant to allow these sorts of studies to occur. Personally I'm suspecting an accidental leak of non-engineered (eg, naturally occurring) virus is the most likely cause, if only due to the actions of the CCP. That said, I'm an engineer and have no training in virology or infectious disease studies, so my opinion is basically worthless.
        mikem170 5y ago
        The original article pointed out that the Chinese were sercretive about SARS also, referncing this NYTimes article [0]. It seems like an interesting leap to assume the lab leak is the most likely cause, when there is so much precedent for natural spillover, even antibody sampling which seem to indicate that millions of people per year may be catching various coronaviruses from bats [1], let alone other mammals like civits, pangolins, etc. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/13/weekinreview/china-discovers-secrecy-is-expensive.html https://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/13/weekinreview/china-discov... [1] https://www.vox.com/2020/4/23/21226484/wuhan-lab-coronavirus-china https://www.vox.com/2020/4/23/21226484/wuhan-lab-coronavirus...
- erostrate 5y ago
  Combine that with the sick lab researchers, with the work performed at BSL-2 instead of BSL-4, with the main researcher being a world leading expert on gain of function research, with a WIV database of genomes surprisingly taken offline, with inconsistent sequencing dates reported by WIV researchers, with huge conflicts of interest from several of the main researchers supporting the natural origin theory (Daszak), etc, etc, etc. I'm about 80/20 on a lab leak.
  - runawaybottle 5y ago
    Combine that with reports that WIV worked with live bats, not just samples: https://news.yahoo.com/news/evidence-mounts-wuhan-lab-studied-193700731.html https://news.yahoo.com/news/evidence-mounts-wuhan-lab-studie...
- paulddraper 5y ago
  > may actually be the strongest evidence for it. That, plus the fact that a novel bat coronavirus originated blocks away from a facility...that studied novel bat coronaviruses. How much of a coincidence is even possible? Humor https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSfejgwbDQ8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSfejgwbDQ8
lamontcg 5y ago
A totalitarian state acted like a totalitarian state by not addressing rumors and suppressing them, because it can. You can't judge them like a Western Democracy with a free press and think that they'd just "come clean".
- beerandt 5y ago
  It has nothing to do with ability (it can), and everything to do with reasoning and motive. The government (and party) only acting in their self interest means they'd share and push any explanation that wasn't nefarious. No they don't have to do anything, but an innocent explanation is something they'd benefit from by disclosing.
  - lamontcg 5y ago
    No. By addressing conspiracy theories in an Authoritarian system you give them credence through something more or less like the Streisand effect. If you have information control mechanism like the Great Firewall of China and you do not have a free press, then you can more effectively control your domestic population through information suppression. You don't have to explain anything if nobody talks about it in the first place. You're applying the logic of a democracy with a free press, which assumes people will talk about it. You also probably think that China worries about what you think and that they would care to address your concerns, when the 1.4 Billion Chinese citizens is of much greater concerns to them. This is the same delusion that Western intelligence agencies like the CIA had with Saddam Hussein. Everyone expected that his putting up a fight against the weapons inspectors was a very clear sign that he had something to hide. If he had nothing to hide why not let them in. After the fact we found out he didn't actually have a functioning weapons program. His failure to be open to the weapons inspectors seems deeply weird and irrational from the perspective of a Western Democracy. But he was running a strong-arm totalitarian state. He needed to stand up to the US and the rest of the world for domestic political points. China doesn't care what you think or what the US thinks. China cares what 1.4 billion Chinese think. China can better control what they think by flat-out suppression of information, because they've built those systems of control.

eloff 5y ago

Yes, the cover up and hostility towards the lab leak hypothesis may actually be the strongest evidence for it. Which is to say, not much. But we have no evidence for the natural origin story, and it's a somewhat strange coincidence that the initial outbreak was near a lab studying these very same kinds of viruses. Granted you might put such a lab in places where there are lots of bat viruses to be found, but that's still a much, much larger area than the city of Wuhan. The closest known wild virus came from a source 800 miles away. Draw a circle over a map of China including both Wuhan and that bat cave and you can see that quite clearly. Combine that with the fact that Sars cov1 escaped labs in China to infect researchers not once, but at least twice, and the Bayesian calculation swings heavily to the lab leak hypothesis.

mikem170 5y ago
Did you know that there's been evidence pointing to an origin 600 miles south of Wuhan [0], based on sampled early cases and genetic sequencing? [0] https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2020-05-13/scientist-suggests-coronavirus-originated-outside-of-wuhan https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2020-05-...
- codewench 5y ago
  It's worth noting that the paper this article is based on is somewhat contested. For example "There are several serious flaws with their findings and interpretation." [1] "The authors’ misinterpretation of MJNs fosters misconceptions, inaccuracies, and misrepresentations of fundamental phylogenetic principles."[2] [1] https://www.pnas.org/content/117/23/12522 https://www.pnas.org/content/117/23/12522 [2] https://www.pnas.org/content/117/23/12518 https://www.pnas.org/content/117/23/12518
  - mikem170 5y ago
    Thank you for those links. I appreciate the new inputs. ("Sampling bias and incorrect rooting make phylogenetic network tracing of SARS-COV-2 infections unreliable" and "Median-joining network analysis of SARS-CoV-2 genomes is neither phylogenetic nor evolutionary") Do you think that these conflict with the statement Forster made that "I would be a bit careful about pinpointing a place (of origin), because we don't have many samples from the early phase," he says. "But it seems to me we shouldn't restrict ourselves to Wuhan when looking for the origin." [0]. They did have a variety of samples, enough to throw doubt on where the origin was, right? I brought this up just to point out that it is not a foregone conclusion that Wuhan was the location of the first covid-19 cases in humans. Do you think that is an incorrect statement? [0] https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2020-05-13/scientist-suggests-coronavirus-originated-outside-of-wuhan https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2020-05-...
    - codewench 5y ago
      I believe it's worth continued study, however my understanding is that the Chinese government has been somewhat reluctant to allow these sorts of studies to occur. Personally I'm suspecting an accidental leak of non-engineered (eg, naturally occurring) virus is the most likely cause, if only due to the actions of the CCP. That said, I'm an engineer and have no training in virology or infectious disease studies, so my opinion is basically worthless.
      - mikem170 5y ago
        The original article pointed out that the Chinese were sercretive about SARS also, referncing this NYTimes article [0]. It seems like an interesting leap to assume the lab leak is the most likely cause, when there is so much precedent for natural spillover, even antibody sampling which seem to indicate that millions of people per year may be catching various coronaviruses from bats [1], let alone other mammals like civits, pangolins, etc. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/13/weekinreview/china-discovers-secrecy-is-expensive.html https://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/13/weekinreview/china-discov... [1] https://www.vox.com/2020/4/23/21226484/wuhan-lab-coronavirus-china https://www.vox.com/2020/4/23/21226484/wuhan-lab-coronavirus...
erostrate 5y ago
Combine that with the sick lab researchers, with the work performed at BSL-2 instead of BSL-4, with the main researcher being a world leading expert on gain of function research, with a WIV database of genomes surprisingly taken offline, with inconsistent sequencing dates reported by WIV researchers, with huge conflicts of interest from several of the main researchers supporting the natural origin theory (Daszak), etc, etc, etc. I'm about 80/20 on a lab leak.
- runawaybottle 5y ago
  Combine that with reports that WIV worked with live bats, not just samples: https://news.yahoo.com/news/evidence-mounts-wuhan-lab-studied-193700731.html https://news.yahoo.com/news/evidence-mounts-wuhan-lab-studie...
paulddraper 5y ago
> may actually be the strongest evidence for it. That, plus the fact that a novel bat coronavirus originated blocks away from a facility...that studied novel bat coronaviruses. How much of a coincidence is even possible? Humor https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSfejgwbDQ8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSfejgwbDQ8

lamontcg 5y ago

A totalitarian state acted like a totalitarian state by not addressing rumors and suppressing them, because it can. You can't judge them like a Western Democracy with a free press and think that they'd just "come clean".

beerandt 5y ago
It has nothing to do with ability (it can), and everything to do with reasoning and motive. The government (and party) only acting in their self interest means they'd share and push any explanation that wasn't nefarious. No they don't have to do anything, but an innocent explanation is something they'd benefit from by disclosing.
- lamontcg 5y ago
  No. By addressing conspiracy theories in an Authoritarian system you give them credence through something more or less like the Streisand effect. If you have information control mechanism like the Great Firewall of China and you do not have a free press, then you can more effectively control your domestic population through information suppression. You don't have to explain anything if nobody talks about it in the first place. You're applying the logic of a democracy with a free press, which assumes people will talk about it. You also probably think that China worries about what you think and that they would care to address your concerns, when the 1.4 Billion Chinese citizens is of much greater concerns to them. This is the same delusion that Western intelligence agencies like the CIA had with Saddam Hussein. Everyone expected that his putting up a fight against the weapons inspectors was a very clear sign that he had something to hide. If he had nothing to hide why not let them in. After the fact we found out he didn't actually have a functioning weapons program. His failure to be open to the weapons inspectors seems deeply weird and irrational from the perspective of a Western Democracy. But he was running a strong-arm totalitarian state. He needed to stand up to the US and the rest of the world for domestic political points. China doesn't care what you think or what the US thinks. China cares what 1.4 billion Chinese think. China can better control what they think by flat-out suppression of information, because they've built those systems of control.