5 ms·

Pneumonia is just a lung infection, so I imagine there's a number of ways you can make a person to unknowingly inhale something. However, it looks way too comp

by smsm42 2y ago

Pneumonia is just a lung infection, so I imagine there's a number of ways you can make a person to unknowingly inhale something. However, it looks way too complicated for a plot. There are many tried and proven methods of getting rid of people. Spooks aren't actually that good in hiding their works - we know about a lot of cases where people were assassinated (of course, we may also not know about many, but I think we have a good sample). Among those, we have a lot of ways it can be done - shootings, stabbings, explosions, poisons, drownings, falling from heights, whatever - but I can't remember any case where a biological agent were used. And thinking about it - biological agents are hard to produce, hard to handle, unstable, unpredictable in use, can't be properly targeted, why would anyone use that instead of dozens of easier and more common methods? So while it does look suspicious on its face, I'd have hard time believing it's an example of an assassination.

RamiAwar 2y ago
kind of the point though
candiodari 2y ago
"Something?". Having them inhale oil or dirt will do it. Pneumonia is usually caused by a bacteria that's just everywhere (though usually on the skin), that's too simple. If it starts growing in your lungs, you can try antibiotics. If that doesn't work, well, nice knowing you. We are surrounded by lethal bacteria. That humans survive depends on the immune system having a 100% success rate preventing bacteria from forming even a small colony in the lungs (and several other places, like the teeth, where infections can rapidly and surprisingly turn deadly) This is why people cough so extremely hard when inhaling solid or liquid stuff in their windpipes. Also this happens all the time. That someone dies from pneumonia is not uncommon (though for oil it's usually someone who manages to spray themselves with aerosolized oil at work). So even if an autopsy found a few specs of dirt in the lungs, and even if they actually trace that to be the cause, that's not extremely suspicious. (Plus why would they check? Obviously with a pneumonia patient you know the cause of death)
matsemann 2y ago
This sounds a bit like the toupee fallacy - you have never seen a good toupee, because the good ones you don't recognize as anything other than normal hair.
prmph 2y ago
> why would anyone use that instead of dozens of easier and more common methods? So that you will think it is not suspicious
generalizations 2y ago
> Spooks aren't actually that good in hiding their works This is pretty similar to the old argument about why mass surveillance is unlikely to be happening - we're just not that good at keeping secrets. Seems like a pretty safe bet that there's good spooks who are good at hiding their works. > we know about a lot of cases where people were assassinated (of course, we may also not know about many, but I think we have a good sample). Among those, we have a lot of ways it can be done Let's not forget about survivorship bias. You only know about the assassinations you know about. You don't know about the assassinations that were successfully kept secret.
- snowwrestler 2y ago
  > This is pretty similar to the old argument about why mass surveillance is unlikely to be happening - we're just not that good at keeping secrets. Not a great example since we know for a fact that mass surveillance is happening. The U.S. Congress just voted to extend and expand it.
  - zarzavat 2y ago
    I believe that was indeed their point. People used to dismiss mass surveillance of the US on its people as a crackpot conspiracy theory, until the full extent of it was revealed by Snowden. Some conspiracy theories turn out to be true. Just a handful though.
    - rootusrootus 2y ago
      By "people" you mean "some people" and there are always some people. For as long as I've been alive the predominant public opinion has been that mass surveillance does take place. We've had evidence for that decades before Snowden got specific about the NSA's abilities.
    - snowwrestler 2y ago
      Snowden is a great example of how hard it is to keep things secret when they are real.
- 2y ago
coldtea 2y ago
>Spooks aren't actually that good in hiding their works That's because it's the failures we learn about. Which could be 90% or 5% of "their works". But never mind the spooks. We are also told "there's no perfect crime". Yet, less than half the murders get solved in the US, for example: https://www.npr.org/2023/04/29/1172775448/people-murder-unsolved-killings-record-high https://www.npr.org/2023/04/29/1172775448/people-murder-unso...
- generalizations 2y ago
  Similar - the average IQ of prison inmates is lower than the general population. Which can be taken to imply that we only catch the dumb ones.
  - epiccoleman 2y ago
    That only really holds if you assume criminal behavior is evenly distributed among the bell curve of IQ, which is is a fairly large assumption!
    - Paul-Craft 2y ago
      Not really. It depends more on how you interpret the phrase "the dumb ones." It's clear that if the IQ distribution of prisoners skews lower than the general population, then we only catch "the dumb ones" with respect to the general population. What isn't necessarily clear is that we only catch "the dumb ones" with respect to the IQ distribution of all criminals. (I don't think we even know or have any good way of determining what the IQ distribution of all criminals even is, do we?) It's just another instance where plain language can fail to be precise.
    - coldtea 2y ago
      You believe that its some inferior genetically people doing the crimes?
- ChrisMarshallNY 2y ago
  The Russians want you to know they did it; just with plausible deniability. They brought back the time-tested art of defenestration.
rising-sky 2y ago
> why would anyone use that instead of dozens of easier and more common methods? Like... head shot in an alley? suffocating them in their sleep? drowning them in a body of water? I think you can probably answer your question yourself if you think about it
ksherlock 2y ago
If you're a spook for an authoritarian government, it's probably better for your work to be somewhat visible to keep the serfs in line.
pazimzadeh 2y ago
> why would anyone use that instead of dozens of easier and more common methods? Ask Suge Knight: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxPTtFv4AkM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxPTtFv4AkM You can assume criminals have gotten better at this type of thing since 1995
ekianjo 2y ago
ricin was used BY the Soviet Union and Russia also used radioactive agents to kill someone not super long ago. And a nerve agent was used to kill someone close to Kim too https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Kim_Jong-nam https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Kim_Jong-na...
Aeolun 2y ago
Isn’t that kind of what they’d have developed COVID for?
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

by smsm42 2y ago

RamiAwar 2y ago

kind of the point though

candiodari 2y ago

"Something?". Having them inhale oil or dirt will do it. Pneumonia is usually caused by a bacteria that's just everywhere (though usually on the skin), that's too simple. If it starts growing in your lungs, you can try antibiotics. If that doesn't work, well, nice knowing you. We are surrounded by lethal bacteria. That humans survive depends on the immune system having a 100% success rate preventing bacteria from forming even a small colony in the lungs (and several other places, like the teeth, where infections can rapidly and surprisingly turn deadly) This is why people cough so extremely hard when inhaling solid or liquid stuff in their windpipes. Also this happens all the time. That someone dies from pneumonia is not uncommon (though for oil it's usually someone who manages to spray themselves with aerosolized oil at work). So even if an autopsy found a few specs of dirt in the lungs, and even if they actually trace that to be the cause, that's not extremely suspicious. (Plus why would they check? Obviously with a pneumonia patient you know the cause of death)

matsemann 2y ago

This sounds a bit like the toupee fallacy - you have never seen a good toupee, because the good ones you don't recognize as anything other than normal hair.

prmph 2y ago

> why would anyone use that instead of dozens of easier and more common methods? So that you will think it is not suspicious

generalizations 2y ago

> Spooks aren't actually that good in hiding their works This is pretty similar to the old argument about why mass surveillance is unlikely to be happening - we're just not that good at keeping secrets. Seems like a pretty safe bet that there's good spooks who are good at hiding their works. > we know about a lot of cases where people were assassinated (of course, we may also not know about many, but I think we have a good sample). Among those, we have a lot of ways it can be done Let's not forget about survivorship bias. You only know about the assassinations you know about. You don't know about the assassinations that were successfully kept secret.

snowwrestler 2y ago
> This is pretty similar to the old argument about why mass surveillance is unlikely to be happening - we're just not that good at keeping secrets. Not a great example since we know for a fact that mass surveillance is happening. The U.S. Congress just voted to extend and expand it.
- zarzavat 2y ago
  I believe that was indeed their point. People used to dismiss mass surveillance of the US on its people as a crackpot conspiracy theory, until the full extent of it was revealed by Snowden. Some conspiracy theories turn out to be true. Just a handful though.
  - rootusrootus 2y ago
    By "people" you mean "some people" and there are always some people. For as long as I've been alive the predominant public opinion has been that mass surveillance does take place. We've had evidence for that decades before Snowden got specific about the NSA's abilities.
  - snowwrestler 2y ago
    Snowden is a great example of how hard it is to keep things secret when they are real.
2y ago

coldtea 2y ago

>Spooks aren't actually that good in hiding their works That's because it's the failures we learn about. Which could be 90% or 5% of "their works". But never mind the spooks. We are also told "there's no perfect crime". Yet, less than half the murders get solved in the US, for example: https://www.npr.org/2023/04/29/1172775448/people-murder-unsolved-killings-record-high https://www.npr.org/2023/04/29/1172775448/people-murder-unso...

generalizations 2y ago
Similar - the average IQ of prison inmates is lower than the general population. Which can be taken to imply that we only catch the dumb ones.
- epiccoleman 2y ago
  That only really holds if you assume criminal behavior is evenly distributed among the bell curve of IQ, which is is a fairly large assumption!
  - Paul-Craft 2y ago
    Not really. It depends more on how you interpret the phrase "the dumb ones." It's clear that if the IQ distribution of prisoners skews lower than the general population, then we only catch "the dumb ones" with respect to the general population. What isn't necessarily clear is that we only catch "the dumb ones" with respect to the IQ distribution of all criminals. (I don't think we even know or have any good way of determining what the IQ distribution of all criminals even is, do we?) It's just another instance where plain language can fail to be precise.
  - coldtea 2y ago
    You believe that its some inferior genetically people doing the crimes?
ChrisMarshallNY 2y ago
The Russians want you to know they did it; just with plausible deniability. They brought back the time-tested art of defenestration.

rising-sky 2y ago

> why would anyone use that instead of dozens of easier and more common methods? Like... head shot in an alley? suffocating them in their sleep? drowning them in a body of water? I think you can probably answer your question yourself if you think about it

ksherlock 2y ago

If you're a spook for an authoritarian government, it's probably better for your work to be somewhat visible to keep the serfs in line.

pazimzadeh 2y ago

> why would anyone use that instead of dozens of easier and more common methods? Ask Suge Knight: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxPTtFv4AkM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxPTtFv4AkM You can assume criminals have gotten better at this type of thing since 1995

ekianjo 2y ago

ricin was used BY the Soviet Union and Russia also used radioactive agents to kill someone not super long ago. And a nerve agent was used to kill someone close to Kim too https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Kim_Jong-nam https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Kim_Jong-na...

Aeolun 2y ago

Isn’t that kind of what they’d have developed COVID for?

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]