4 ms·

The obvious solution for this conundrum is that they did study it, but didn't publish it because the screw-up happened and all evidence was promptly destroyed.

by smsm42 4y ago

The obvious solution for this conundrum is that they did study it, but didn't publish it because the screw-up happened and all evidence was promptly destroyed. In a totalitarian state, the secrecy is the default mode. You can get exceptions and publish stuff, sure, but only once you asked and received permission. If you didn't - or in the period between you asking and permission being issued something happened - no evidence will be seen by anybody.

SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
Perfect, then it's unfalsifiable.
- smsm42 4y ago
  Unfortunately, unless whoever destroyed evidence screwed up (happens all the time, security services have enough idiots and slackers), or somebody kept some evidence and then will defect, yes, it is likely we'll never have the proof. That's why they do it.
  - SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - smsm42 4y ago
      Not sure how you made this conclusion... But of course we need to look if there's new evidence - that's what I just said, that there could be new evidence, but if there won't be then we couldn't know for sure.
      - SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
        Because we can now say that there was any evidence we want but the totalitarian state destroyed it. We can now make any argument where the state destroying evidence fills in the gap of the theory.
- lmm 4y ago
  Maybe we should stop supporting the study of dangerous viruses in facilities that don't maintain adequate levels of transparency. Regardless of what actually happened in this case (FWIW I still believe a natural origin was most likely), the Chinese authorities covered up everything to do with the lab and destroyed potential evidence before a proper investigation could take place. In court cases we have a norm that evidence you destroy is treated as evidence against you, for good reason.
  - SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
    I'm not making an argument regarding this instance, but to have a theory that you can't disprove really makes it not a theory and impossible to engage with.
  - lamontcg 4y ago
    > In court cases we have a norm that evidence you destroy is treated as evidence against you, for good reason. Destruction of evidence is considered only evidence of consciousness of guilt and cannot be used to prove guilt alone. The court also has to consider that an innocent person may commit destruction of evidence to avoid wrongful prosecution from situations that look damning.
    - lamontcg 4y ago
      Another point is that in the SARS-CoV-1 outbreak in 2002-2004 the Chinese government acted similarly: > Early in the epidemic, the Chinese government discouraged its press from reporting on SARS, delayed reporting to WHO, and initially did not provide information to Chinese outside Guangdong province, where the disease is believed to have originated.[19] Also, a WHO team that travelled to Beijing was not allowed to visit Guangdong province for several weeks.[20] This resulted in international criticism, which seems to have led to a change in government policy in early April. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002–2004_SARS_outbreak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002–2004_SARS_outbreak There was no BSL4 lab in Guangzhou and they didn't sterilize the market there right away, so in that case they were able to eventually track the virus to its origins--yet the reaction of the Chinese government was basically the same. Americans have a fairly severe problem with assuming that other nations and people's will react with transparency to the US if they have nothing to hide. This is the same problem we saw with Hussein and the way that he tried to block the weapons inspectors and it turned out by his own admission that it was due to him not wanting to appear weak in the view of Iran and Hussein was preoccupied with Iran: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/jul/02/saddam-hussein-fbi-iraq-iran https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/jul/02/saddam-hussein...
- initplus 4y ago
  The circumstances that make the theory unfalsifiable (lack of transparency/controls in Chinese biological research) are the issue here. Due to the lack of transparency we will likely never have definitive proof for the origin one way or the other. At a minimum the US government should not be funding any biological research in places without adequate transparency/controls.
- himinlomax 4y ago
  It's not, because all it would take to falsify it would be to do an exhaustive search of the lab's documentation and a comprehensive interview of lab employees. We can't do it because of the CCP, not because of epistemological reasons.
  - SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
    How would that falsify the theory? If you find no evidence you can just claim that the state destroyed it.
lamontcg 4y ago
The effort required to culture virus like this is fairly large, and it requires them to keep it secret in 2019 before there was any need to keep it secret. Nobody talked about it to collaborators, no sequences were leaked out, etc. They somehow had tighter controls than Apple developing a new iPhone, before they had any reason to.
- smsm42 4y ago
  Again, you think keeping something secret needs a reason. That's not how totalitarian state works. In such state, not keeping something secret needs a reason. Everything else is secret by default. And the standard mode of action on any disaster is to deny it, lie and hide the evidence. It's not special for pandemic, it happens every time. Yes they absolutely have tighter controls than Apple, and the reason is they live in a totalitarian state and Apple doesn't.
  - lamontcg 4y ago
    We know they constructed Chimeras of the WIV1 SARS-1-like virus because they published it: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1517719113 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1517719113 Pretty bad secrecy. We knew WIV1 existed as well because they published it 3 years earlier: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5389864/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5389864/
    - brigandish 4y ago
      How long had they been working on either of those before publishing? You're giving the end points of the research, the person you're replying to is saying the end point wasn't reached, hence it was still secret.
      - slumos 4y ago
        See if you can determine that for yourself by e.g. reading the second paper as far as the first sentence of the second paragraph and then looking at the publication date.

by smsm42 4y ago

SketchySeaBeast 4y ago

Perfect, then it's unfalsifiable.

smsm42 4y ago
Unfortunately, unless whoever destroyed evidence screwed up (happens all the time, security services have enough idiots and slackers), or somebody kept some evidence and then will defect, yes, it is likely we'll never have the proof. That's why they do it.
- SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - smsm42 4y ago
    Not sure how you made this conclusion... But of course we need to look if there's new evidence - that's what I just said, that there could be new evidence, but if there won't be then we couldn't know for sure.
    - SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
      Because we can now say that there was any evidence we want but the totalitarian state destroyed it. We can now make any argument where the state destroying evidence fills in the gap of the theory.
lmm 4y ago
Maybe we should stop supporting the study of dangerous viruses in facilities that don't maintain adequate levels of transparency. Regardless of what actually happened in this case (FWIW I still believe a natural origin was most likely), the Chinese authorities covered up everything to do with the lab and destroyed potential evidence before a proper investigation could take place. In court cases we have a norm that evidence you destroy is treated as evidence against you, for good reason.
- SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
  I'm not making an argument regarding this instance, but to have a theory that you can't disprove really makes it not a theory and impossible to engage with.
- lamontcg 4y ago
  > In court cases we have a norm that evidence you destroy is treated as evidence against you, for good reason. Destruction of evidence is considered only evidence of consciousness of guilt and cannot be used to prove guilt alone. The court also has to consider that an innocent person may commit destruction of evidence to avoid wrongful prosecution from situations that look damning.
  - lamontcg 4y ago
    Another point is that in the SARS-CoV-1 outbreak in 2002-2004 the Chinese government acted similarly: > Early in the epidemic, the Chinese government discouraged its press from reporting on SARS, delayed reporting to WHO, and initially did not provide information to Chinese outside Guangdong province, where the disease is believed to have originated.[19] Also, a WHO team that travelled to Beijing was not allowed to visit Guangdong province for several weeks.[20] This resulted in international criticism, which seems to have led to a change in government policy in early April. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002–2004_SARS_outbreak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002–2004_SARS_outbreak There was no BSL4 lab in Guangzhou and they didn't sterilize the market there right away, so in that case they were able to eventually track the virus to its origins--yet the reaction of the Chinese government was basically the same. Americans have a fairly severe problem with assuming that other nations and people's will react with transparency to the US if they have nothing to hide. This is the same problem we saw with Hussein and the way that he tried to block the weapons inspectors and it turned out by his own admission that it was due to him not wanting to appear weak in the view of Iran and Hussein was preoccupied with Iran: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/jul/02/saddam-hussein-fbi-iraq-iran https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/jul/02/saddam-hussein...
initplus 4y ago
The circumstances that make the theory unfalsifiable (lack of transparency/controls in Chinese biological research) are the issue here. Due to the lack of transparency we will likely never have definitive proof for the origin one way or the other. At a minimum the US government should not be funding any biological research in places without adequate transparency/controls.
himinlomax 4y ago
It's not, because all it would take to falsify it would be to do an exhaustive search of the lab's documentation and a comprehensive interview of lab employees. We can't do it because of the CCP, not because of epistemological reasons.
- SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
  How would that falsify the theory? If you find no evidence you can just claim that the state destroyed it.

lamontcg 4y ago

The effort required to culture virus like this is fairly large, and it requires them to keep it secret in 2019 before there was any need to keep it secret. Nobody talked about it to collaborators, no sequences were leaked out, etc. They somehow had tighter controls than Apple developing a new iPhone, before they had any reason to.

smsm42 4y ago
Again, you think keeping something secret needs a reason. That's not how totalitarian state works. In such state, not keeping something secret needs a reason. Everything else is secret by default. And the standard mode of action on any disaster is to deny it, lie and hide the evidence. It's not special for pandemic, it happens every time. Yes they absolutely have tighter controls than Apple, and the reason is they live in a totalitarian state and Apple doesn't.
- lamontcg 4y ago
  We know they constructed Chimeras of the WIV1 SARS-1-like virus because they published it: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1517719113 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1517719113 Pretty bad secrecy. We knew WIV1 existed as well because they published it 3 years earlier: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5389864/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5389864/
  - brigandish 4y ago
    How long had they been working on either of those before publishing? You're giving the end points of the research, the person you're replying to is saying the end point wasn't reached, hence it was still secret.
    - slumos 4y ago
      See if you can determine that for yourself by e.g. reading the second paper as far as the first sentence of the second paragraph and then looking at the publication date.