by TD 15 Replies latest jw friends
@Hairtrigger,
I appreciate you having the honesty to withdraw your mistaken comment.
General hint: if any message is received with a request to forward it to as many people as possible, it's likely useless or not true. It should be standard operating procedure for everyone to first verify of the information is true or not before forwarding/reposting.
Anders Andersen
It wasn’t my comment that’s why I prefaced it. Something made me double check and I found it was fake news. This message was sent to me two months ago. I didn’t think much of it then. Just posted it here because it seemed relevant. Then found out otherwise.
I always do . Just a lapse on my part this once.
What a bunch of bologna!
The truth about the origin of the virus will eventually be quite obvious of course, except to the cospiromaniacs out there.
The podcast below from Bret Weinstein is a bit long winded, but worthwhile, along with the original article by Yuri Deigin, where he explains his reasons for doubting the official explanation of a wet market origin for the virus, after initially attempting to provide support the official narrative.
The details of the origin of the new coronavirus are beginning to take shape.
In 2013 there were reports in China of a pneumonia type illness that had struck a group of miners in Yunnan Province. Shi Zhengli and other experts from the Wuhan viral research institute travelled hundreds of miles to Yunnan to investigate the new illness. They determined that the miners had been infected with a coronavirus from local bats, but that the virus was not transmissible between humans. They took samples of the new coronavirus back to the Wuhan laboratory to research. Part of this research included determining whether the virus could be altered to become transmissible between humans. This research was ongoing in 2019 when the virus somehow escaped the highest security protocols of the research institute and infected first probably a member of staff, then family members, then the wider community. Because the virus had been selected for transmissibility it encountered none of the inherent obstacles that have proved self-limiting in the earlier naturally occurring coronaviruses SARS and MERS. A decision was taken, either by the scientists themselves, or under instruction from the Chinese government to obscure the research origins of the virus and instead blame a local outbreak emanating from the Wuhan wet market. In order to do this the scientists employed various tactics such as renaming the particular aspects of the virus that they were researching in 2019 so that this research was not easily connected with either the 2013 expedition to Yunnan province, or the new coronavirus outbreak in Wuhan.
If this is a true account, then the laboratory origins of the virus have various troubling implications. Firstly its emergence from “gain of function” research would explain why the virus is highly adaptive to different species and to different types of cells within the body. This makes the resulting disease display a large range of symptoms and various forms of damage to different parts of the body. It also raises questions about long term health effects, including reports of male infertility, reemergence of dormant disease, and repeated infection. It calls into question the desirability of ongoing research of this nature given the risks. The adaptability of the virus may mean the current optimism about the viability of vaccine development is misplaced. It raises awareness that malign individuals could replicate this scenario with some technical knowledge and fairly modest financial resources. It may also have geopolitical implications of course, if it is confirmed that China has deliberately obscured the origin of the virus at a time when determining its inherent characteristics was urgent and relevant to our response.
One thing that is still legal to do, for now at least, is to boycott Chinese products to the extent possible. If you must get Chinese products, at least get stuff that is as good as you can find and afford, so you will in the long run spend less on those products. Especially boycott Chinese junk. In the long run, you will save money and help the environment. If you are from Europe or the Americas, buy either American or European stuff. I would rather, at this point, get stuff made in Japan, New Zealand, or Germany that is of higher quality, even at double cost, than buying Chinese junk.
While you are at it, I would boycott China's biggest trade partner--Walmart. Even if you still get something made in China, hurting walmart is going to sting China as well. Get better made products at independent small and mid-size businesses made by small or mid-size companies. Imported from Germany or Switzerland usually means better quality than from China. And, if you get something from a store that is more interested in top quality at full price than cheap junk, even if it still comes from China, you are going to end up spending less on Chinese merchandise in the long run. And you will get better products while you are at it, keeping much trash out of the landfill while you are at it.
And take care of what you already have. If you can make something last longer by properly taking care of it, you also cut how much you spend on Chinese junk. Even if you can't get it down to zero, it is helping. Plus you save money and help keep stuff out of the landfills.
Thanks for the additional links, AA. I've found Google translate to be below horrible with anything more than short declarative sentences, but I understand the gist of the two articles.
