In the wake of Margaret Chan's confirmation as WHO chief, the usual questions about Chinese transparency in matters of epidemic and disease control are being asked. Thus, in the effort to smooth a bath for building Chan's credibility, you'd expect Chinese health authorities to exert an extra measure of diplomacy in addressing any health concerns.

You would, naturally, be a misguided innocent, of course. That's why it was it was interesting read some of the comments made as China's authorities rebut a bird flu study recently published in that known licentious rag and den of unsubstantiated gossip, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. In fact, less you misapprehend the louche and sensational nature of this publication, you should know that the contents of the current issue include such salacious drivel as "Fenestra biogenesis", "Male mosquito antenna hearing" and "Autism-associated gene variant".

Rot, obviously.

The recent study on the emergence of a new avian flu variant was duly rubbished by the Chinese, here in a AP article from CNN.com:

"There is no such new Fujian-like virus variant at all. It is utterly groundless to assert the outbreak of bird flu in Southeast Asian countries was caused by AI (avian influenza) and that there would be a new outbreak wave in the world," Jia Youling, director of the Chinese Agriculture Ministry's veterinary bureau, said in a statement.

"The data cited in the article were unauthentic and the research methodology was not based on science, therefore their arguments were not tenable and totally against the facts," Jia said.

This is exactly the kind of statement that makes my little PR molecules vibrate, because it is such a setup for humiliation. No matter how passionately you disagree with (or have been ordered to disagree with) the findings of a research study, you want to be careful about those categorical denials, like "there is no such new Fujian-like virus". Because you may, conveivably, be proven dead-ass wrong. And that, as we say in the biz, will pretty much cram your cred up your ass.

Dispute the findings. Dispute the methodology. Say that you have certainly been unable to replicate their results, and you can't find any evidence to support their conclusions. But don't say the virus doesn't exist. You may still be proven wrong, but at least you'll avoid the fate of Comical Ali, of "there are no American tanks in Baghdad!" fame, who's disconnection from reality made him an international joke even at a desperately unhumorous time. Not an achievement you want to duplicate.

Further rubbishing of the study can be found here, if you're interested.

Disclosure: Imagethief is not a microbiologist, so he doesn't know much about viruses, except that he doesn't like the ones that get up his nose. He is not qualified to evaluate the methodology, analysis, or statistical treatment of microbiological studies. But he knows a silly quote when he sees one.

See also: EastSouthWestNorth on the same situation.


Original URL: Click here to visit original article
Copyright Imagethief