Virologist whistleblower says COVID-19 was intentionally created in Chinese lab

[OneSheep]

How about an example.

Again, an example

I’m not going to do that here. Off topic.

But I think we have come to an agreement, so let’s stick with that:

Since the virus kills indiscriminately, that means you are not saying that the Chinese leadership released it on purpose.

So, if the Chinese labs created the virus, we agree that their government did not intentionally release the virus, for the virus would indiscriminately kill their own loved ones.

Of course, this does not rule out some deranged lab tech, but at least we have given those authorities the benefit of the doubt in this matter. Yes, Chinese regimes are responsible for killing many of their enemies, but this is a different situation.

 

[JonNC]

I’m not going to do that here. Off topic.

That’s fine.

So, if the Chinese labs created the virus, we agree that their government did not intentionally release the virus, for the virus would indiscriminately kill their own loved ones.

No. We don’t know that. The accusation is there from an otherwise credible source. We should wait for the evidence.

Of course, this does not rule out some deranged lab tech, but at least we have given those authorities the benefit of the doubt in this matter.

Keeping in mind their hideous track record, yes, a presumption of innocence even applies to them.

Yes, Chinese regimes are responsible for killing many of their enemies, but this is a different situation.

Rounding up enemies

Only five years later, when he sensed that revolutionary fervor in China was waning, Mao proclaimed the Cultural Revolution. Gangs of Red Guards – young men and women between 14 and 21 – roamed the cities targeting revisionists and other enemies of the state, especially teachers.
Professors were dressed in grotesque clothes and dunce caps, their faces smeared with ink. They were then forced to get down on all fours and bark like dogs. Some were beaten to death, some even eaten – all for the promulgation of Maoism. A reluctant Mao finally called in the Red Army to put down the marauding Red Guards when they began attacking Communist Party members, but not before 1 million Chinese died.

I’m not seeing a difference.

The Legacy of Mao Zedong is Mass Murder

Can you name the greatest mass murderer of the 20th century? No, it wasn’t Hitler or Stalin. It was Mao Zedong. According to the authoritative “Black Book of Communism,” an estimated 65 million Chinese died as a result of Mao’s repeated, merciless attempts to create a new “socialist” China...

www.heritage.org

Gangs of Red Guards – young men and women between 14 and 21 – roamed the cities

Wow. Sounds familiar

 

[OneSheep]

No. We don’t know that. The accusation is there from an otherwise credible source. We should wait for the evidence

Okay, that makes sense, so allow me to modify:

So, if the Chinese labs created the virus, we agree based on Jesus’ call to charity that we are to first assume that their government did not intentionally release the virus, for the virus would indiscriminately kill their own loved ones and hurt others that they have no intention of hurting.

Does that work?

And by the way, the “camps” used to “re-educate” the Uighurs give evidence that the Chinese government is becoming more civil; Mao’s regime would have just killed them. So perhaps this is a trend, and some limited optimism is called for.

 

[JonNC]

Okay, that makes sense, so allow me to modify:

So, if the Chinese labs created the virus, we agree based on Jesus’ call to charity that we are to first assume that their government did not intentionally release the virus, for the virus would indiscriminately kill their own loved ones and hurt others that they have no intention of hurting.

We don’t assume either. If you assume the Chinese government didn’t do what the scientist claims, then you are saying she is dishonest. You are bearing false witness.
Instead, we make no assumption, but listen to the evidence.

And by the way, the “camps” used to “re-educate” the Uighurs give evidence that the Chinese government is becoming more civil; Mao’s regime would have just killed them. So perhaps this is a trend, and some limited optimism is called for.

So, putting people in concentration camps is improvement.
By comparison, the US, in 100 years, went from slavery to making all institutional racism illegal.
China gets an “atta boy”, and we get riots in the streets.

 

[OneSheep]

So, if the Chinese labs created the virus, we agree based on Jesus’ call to charity that we are to first assume that their government did not intentionally release the virus, for the virus would indiscriminately kill their own loved ones and hurt others that they have no intention of hurtin

We don’t assume either. If you assume the Chinese government didn’t do what the scientist claims, then you are saying she is dishonest. You are bearing false witness.
Instead, we make no assumption, but listen to the evidence.

The witness I am bearing is that she is making claims for which she has provided no proof. Charitable, discerning Christians can make these assumptions for they can give people the benefit of the doubt. The scientist believes she is telling the truth, that is a charitable way of looking at her situation. To take the next step and believe that the Chinese government did an intentional release, based on no evidence, is unwise and uncharitable.

Instead, we make no assumption, but listen to the evidence.

It is charitable and part of our faith to assume that all of what God has created is good, and that all people have Love within.

Can we at least agree on that?

CCC 27:The desire for God is written in the human heart, because man is created by God and for God; and God never ceases to draw man to himself. Only in God will he find the truth and happiness he never stops searching for.

The dignity of man rests above all on the fact that he is called to communion with God. This invitation to converse with God is addressed to man as soon as he comes into being. For if man exists it is because God has created him through love, and through love continues to hold him in existence.
Above all - Charity

CCC 25 To conclude this Prologue, it is fitting to recall this pastoral principle stated by the Roman Catechism :

The whole concern of doctrine and its teaching must be directed to the love that never ends. Whether something is proposed for belief, for hope or for action, the love of our Lord must always be made accessible, so that anyone can see that all the works of perfect Christian virtue spring from love and have no other objective than to arrive at love.

 

[MikeInVA]

Mao’s regime would have just killed them.

I’d rather be lined up against a wall and shot than have my organs harvested while I was still alive, which is at least part of what is going on in those camps.

 

[JonNC]

The witness I am bearing is that she is making claims for which she has provided no proof.

Yet. She has provided no proof yet. Charity demands that she be given the chance to provide evidence.

Charitable, discerning Christians can make these assumptions for they can give people the benefit of the doubt.

Correct, with the caveat I provided.

The scientist believes she is telling the truth, that is a charitable way of looking at her situation.

Correct, without drawing a quick conclusion about the Chinese government, despite the heinous track record.

To take the next step and believe that the Chinese government did an intentional release, based on no evidence, is unwise and uncharitable.

Not without evidence, we shouldn’t. Not yet. Not without evidence.

It is charitable and part of our faith to assume that all of what God has created is good, and that all people have Love within.

No argument. We also know that we live in a fallen word,

 

[Cathoholic]

LeafByNiggle fallaciously changing my premise . . .

Thank you for your professional opinion on the likelihood of Sars-Cov2 being deliberately engineered.

I said nothing about her being accurate or not.

Right now I am only at the stage where I am considering what she said.

She risked her life to share this with you.

This began long before Bannon was around I am sure (Bannon doesn’t travel through China looking for political dissidents to fund. The suggestion of that is not persuasive).

She deserves a hearing.

With the way she is being cut off, it makes me even more likely to believe her.

Now can you tell me, in your professional opinion, how one could go about selecting a sequence of C, T, A, a G that will result in a very infectious virus (as opposed to an avocado).

You are very funny LeafByNiggle.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

She risked her life to share this with you.

That is also speculation.

She deserves a hearing.

Why?

With the way she is being cut off…

She is not being “cut off”. She is being ignored. Big difference.

Now can you tell me, in your professional opinion, how one could go about selecting a sequence of C, T, A, a G that will result in a very infectious virus (as opposed to an avocado).

The reason for my comment was this:

You went into great detail on how any given sequence of C, T, A, G could be engineered and there being no way to tell the difference between that and the same sequence arising naturally. But your hypothetical example glosses over the fact that there is no known technology for predicting the characteristics of a life form from the sequence. All known forms of genetic engineering rely on copying portions of existing life forms that have been identified with certain traits. This is the basis of CRISPR. However the SARS/Cov-2 virus sequence has been analyzed and it does not appear to be composed of combinations of known sequences. The geneticists who analyzed this months ago concluded that this virus was new, and not a combination of known sequences. That would imply that either the virus arose through natural mutation, or that it was the result of an advanced genetics technology that is unimaginable by today’s science - the ability to know in advance what characteristics the virus would have with a novel sequence of C, T, A, and G, which is next to impossible. That is why I asked how would anyone even know what sequence of C, T, A, and G to use to achieve a desired effect.

 

[Dovekin]

Here’s how scientists know the coronavirus came from bats and wasn’t made in a lab

The evidence suggests the novel coronavirus evolved naturally.

theconversation.com

 

[Cathoholic]

Dovekin’s article . . .

The genome of SARS-CoV-2 is similar to that of other bat coronaviruses, as well as those of pangolins, all of which have a similar overall genomic architecture.

This is meaningless if what was modified had a similar overall genomic architecture to begin with.
(In other words it could have been both. It could have had sequencing changes upon viruses which already possess such similarities.)