Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TobagoJack who wrote (173838)	6/28/2021 2:10:48 PM
From: sense	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 217620

My take on it... The question asked controls the answer... There's not really am obvious point in asking the question about origin... as it leads no where. So, posing it, now... is mostly a distraction... a delaying action, perhaps... but, it avoids narrowing options by going nowhere important... while allowing sustained engagement in getting there... Among the "no where important" places it might lead to... includes agreements... "we need more transparency" or "we need better oversight of labs" or "labs need to be isolated from population centers better"... etc. It should lead to global agreement on ending gain of function research... which it is stupid to have ever allowed... stupid for China to have allowed... but not uniquely stupid of China. Obviously, it will need to lead to agreement on better controlling containment of dangerous work that scientists try to make easier to conduct by downplaying the risks they impose... and, it should lead to agreement... that the scientists not be allowed to regulate themselves or write their own rules... all of which threatens no one. Given China's continued stonewalling on information from the lab... the question on origins can lead to the singular answer that "there's a stonewall being imposed"... proving a lack of cooperation... which, in the circumstances... others will correctly, if belatedly, be interpreted as a threat. It might also lead to "China shared the information with us, which information will remain confidential"... The legal divisions enabled for that sort of thing exist here already... as process for determining liability has one set of standards applied... while process enabling safety has another... and the boundaries are respected... because truth enabling greater safety is a more important good than blame determining liability... The experience of Covid, one might hope, will slow the roll of morons everywhere who think biowarfare is a good idea... when it is necessarily accompanied by an excess in hubris enabling it, including clearly insufficient safety concern... when reality rules, not by hubris, but by the law of unintended consequences... But, there are opportunities that exists there, in asking the question on origins... if there is cooperation in result... for which there must be something other than a stonewall to enable that deflection into something recognizable as progress... in cooperation on safety... versus conflict over liability, and where that leads. That's why that's the question in focus, now... instead of other, far easier to answer questions that might be asked... the answers to which might prove to have implications that are a lot less able to be deflected or avoided... and that will rapidly become far more controlling of politicians future options ? Lawyers... don't ask questions they don't know the answer to... but seek the answers they know for the sudden impact resulting from the answers when they are provided to others. Politicians do the opposite... asking questions they know will lead nowhere, ponderously... rather than ask questions that might reduce their room for maneuver, or force them into asking questions, or taking actions, they don't want to take ? But, the circumstances define the range in available questions... here leaving only two... origins, and intent... with only one of those having a "no fault" potential interpretation... So, mismanagement of the one potential... answers... and will be interpreted as answering the other... China has a problem with competing interests... between what is critical re the domestic audience, for the thugs to sustain control and justify themselves... and what the result of errors made might be, including easily made errors in choices in cooperation or communication, where the impact will be in the external interpretation... Cooperation on safety... the only obvious no risk opportunity that exists... China made a huge mistake... in February of 2020... How it plays out, from here, is not under China's direct control... but, the question is a door... And, the question asked now... offers a chance to provide an answer... which contains one potential... If the answer is a stone wall... then the other question will be asked... by lawyers not politicians.

To: TobagoJack who wrote (173838)	6/28/2021 10:29:40 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 217620

According to the Aussie lady Danielle Anderson news.yahoo.com [who was a PhD virologist in Wuhan up until covid], she doubts it leaked and doesn't think it was made, either in China or USA, in whole or part. Fauci agrees there was sars etc humanized experimentation and that Team USA was funding it. Fauci also said "rather there than here", in downtown Peoria, the meaning being a mistake would best be Made in China than ooopsed in downtown USA. That was as bad thinking on his part as his initial bung idea and claim, which he subsequently said was lying, that air filtering masks do not help prevent infection. It's obvious that some filtration is better than none, especially where particles of goop are floating in the air. Given normal human motivations, it would be very surprising to me if humanized sars, H5N1, swine flu, HxNy viruses were not being studied because the economic cost of viruses is vast as is now very obvious to pretty well everyone. And that's just with the tame little covid19 variety, let alone a humanized H5N1 which would be cataclysmically catastrophic if on the rampage instead of confined to laboratory. There are also malevolent and stupid people who are the equivalent of the arsonist fireman who sets fires. Or mass murderers who do it for revenge/curiosity/hatred/self-importance/money or to cut down the population to a sensible number [as destermined by them, which they would rate as of great benefit to "Gaia" or some such demented ideology]. Along those lines, I often wondered whether the anti-virus software developers such as the now allegedly deceased McAfee create and release computer viruses so that they can then sell the software to protect people from those computer viruses. I'm certain the idea occurred to them. And money impetus drives all sorts of very bad behaviour. I guess that Covid19 was created by a combination of USA/Canada/Australia/China and maybe some others working on similar things, to study the hazards for humans and possible solutions such as vaccinations, and maybe [because it always happens] to see whether some military use could be made of it. Surely DARPA was working on such things and indeed there is a military laboratory that studies such things. Military labs are not intended to act as commercially successful useful product developers for regular humans. They intend to defeat real or imagined enemies. China would have similar ideas because they can also think of such ideas and do something about it. Meanwhile, the pangolin seems to be not guilty for now even though they didn't have good legal representation. Even bats seem somewhat innocent. My bet is that USA was well-implicated. Maybe even causal. I would not bet my life's savings that some CIA maniac didn't let it loose near the Wuhan lab, thinking that it would cause China a LOT of grief. USA has done lots of really bad things = Helping Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan against Gorby [Gorby was good, Osama and jihad are not] Causing the coup in Kiev and war in Ukraine Causing war/insurrection in Syria Inspired Korean flight over Siberia [shot down by Soviets] Backed IRA, Gerry Adams and terrorists versus Great Britain NATO did not tell Argentina to leave UK along in Falklands Islands Now starting war in Crimea [have not heard of Charge of the Light Brigade] Planning war from Norway with Yank Tanks to Murmansk Hunt for WMDs [which were obviously not going to be there] in Iraq Attacked Syria because jihadists sprayed swimming pool chlorination around Attacking Edward Snowden and Julian Assange Forcing Putin and Russia to sell to China instead of Euroserfs etc Mqurice