China lied about transmission last year, censored the people talking about the virus, punished the doctor who was warning people, refused to allow the WHO team in for over a month, and now still refuses to give data, yet they can conclude the virus didn't come from a lab? How?
(3 votes)
Comments
(Old Spike)
Yes, But Xi wants peace, unity, and equality. Doesn't matter what he does, what he says is so nice.
(Old Spike)
All this seemed to happen as Hong Kong was protesting, and Trump was putting sanctions on Chinese imports. What else?
(Old Spike)
"....yet they can conclude the virus didn't come from a lab..."
They haven't, they concluded it is UNLIKELY, based on the data they have seen, the conclusions drawn from them and on what the missing files are likely to show.
Unlike the alt right favourites like pool and crowder many are so in love with on here, they carry out scientific studies and don't jump to conclusions (same as you did just now) "analysing" extremely watered down (so the public gets the gist) news articles. I.e. their goal is not to politicise the findings.
To get the full picture we would have to read the complete study ourselves and then decide whether or not our bias ("China did it") has been confirmed somewhere. I haven't as I doubt I would completely understand it.
So what they did is asked politely again and now we will have to wait and see whether they get it and if and how the conclusions will change.
Now the question remains. Is the chinese strategy fishy in the sense the raw patient data was "hidden" soas WHO does not find out about a lab virus?
I don't know but, thinking about it, it probably would have been easier to submit falsified data, we are talking only a few thousand data sets and they had a year to prepare that after all......
(Old Spike)
ok how can they conclude it's unlikely without the data they need to make a conclusion? i'm not saying it did come from a lab, i'm wondering how any conclusion can be drawn without the data such a conclusion would be based on.
it seems to make sense that it'd be easier to falsify data, but actually it's more dangerous to do that. one tiny misstep and you're caught in the lie, but by providing no information you're safe because there's nothing that can conflict.
(Old Spike)
I am by no means an expert on this, however, "missing" does not necessarily mean "changing" data. They have the means to judge that, I don't. I have to trust them, though and there is where it stops for many these days, it seems.
Also we have to define what actually is the "raw" data that is missing and is it significant, i.e. is it patient's private records and the WHO has "only" been given a list of a summary of these data....
(Old Spike)
What if they don't have any data at all :) just dint do their homework, now that would be embarrassing
(Old Spike)
I doubt that. Then they would have had to make something up that satisfies the WHO. If that were the case they could have made up the "raw data" without too much effort too....
(Old Spike)
You're a liar. You have aggressively attacked anyone for even raising the hypothesis that this could have leaked from a lab. Your comments have not been based on science but based on bureaucrats who point to science without justification to silence those who want to explore the hypothesis. You are by no means an expert on this but Brett Weinstein is an expert on this and you attack anyone for raising his concern as a trump tard or a pool tard while claiming that Weinstein's science doesn't have a leg to stand on. All this while you simultaneously admit that you're by no means an expert.
(Old Spike)
Sigh......
I haven't.
Weinstein "works" outside the scientific community, whatever he publishes is not down to scrutiny by the peer review process, that is why I don't accept him as a good source of information.
If he actually has groundbreaking findings he should write a paper and submit it via the accepted channels, instead he posts videos for hios fanboys.