So does that mean a re-analysis of the article on re-analysis leads to different conclusions than the original article?! HA!
But I have the sneaking suspicion that this re-analysis won't be published, which is a whole nother kind of selection bias can of worms.
Um, you realize that Nature is a magazine, not a journal right? Yes they have peer review but they have a heavy vested interest in publishing exciting-but-possibly-wrong stuff, which they do all the time.
And if results were simply fabricated, peer review can't always catch that as others have said. Though sometimes it is obvious if someone is suddenly able to do something that others have been trying to do but failed, but they can't show WHY it worked for them and not for anyone else. Sometimes quality professional journals, especially in experimental sciences, will have higher peer review standards in that direction than a headline-oriented magazine like Nature.
You realize that there is effectively no difference between a government-denied chinese hacker and a "non official cover" spy right?
And if they aren't government-employed then this is the completely appropriate action.
In either case, I 'd say its better to get this out in the open where the justice system can work it through rather than just finger pointing. If they're not government-sponsored (as the Chinese claim) then the Chinese should be willing to pony up and extradite them! (The fundamental issue here is really that the line between government and non-government is defined in a very different way in the US and China, both in law and in practice. China is still a single-party rule, which makes it often a matter of semantics what is government and what is not.)
The root problem here is the companies that make the drugs that have known properties are refusing to sell them to the state for use in executions. How it is legal for the companies who sell the drugs to discriminate in this way I don't understand. I know WHY they are doing it... due to pressure from anti-death penalty activists. But how it is legal?
And just to be up-front, I'm actually anti-death-penalty. But forcing state officials to euthanize people in inhumane ways in order to make headlines does not seem... humane.