Phil you do not know the times that you are living
For thy merchants were the great men of the earth; for by thy sorceries (pharmakeia) were all nations deceived.
24 And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth.
Just as the days of Noah so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man. This is the end of the age.
Seek first the Kingdom of God and His Righteousness. The Way the Truth and the Life.
And now, and for quite some time, the FBI declares the lab leak the most likely source of the Covid pandemic which killed millions.
It may be troubling to those who work in labs to recognize that their colleagues could cause such harm.
I agree with your biblical quote, but the issue of who the sorcerers and deceivers are is a point of contention.
We need to see the evidence they are basing this on.
You may need to see evidence, I donât think the âWeâ is accurate.
I am satisfied to let the FBI assess the reams of data and information, especially with a conclusion that appears so very obvious. The source of Covid was:
a lab working on bat viruses headed by a woman nicknamed the âbatladyâ and funded by the Chinese military that is located on the grounds or within a rifle shot of the breakout of Covid. The lab has erased records, silenced discussions, and maintained a lack of cooperation with investigators.
And people who must see the evidence for the FBI assessment yet needed no such evidence to accept lockdowns, loss of freedom, and school closings, etc have acceptance criteria that I find incongruent.
That much is true. Many people donât need to see any evidence in order for them to claim it was a lab leak.
I need evidence.
None of which is positive evidence for a lab leak.
NPR has a nice breakdown. on which of the intelligence agencies Biden asked to comment. There were at least 6 (I think 8).
Interestingly, 4 asserted it came from nature, not lab. Only 2, FBI and Energy, thought from lab, moderately confidently from FBI and weakly from Energy. I find it interesting that there is such a diversity, with the majority in favor of the market. I am interested in their interaction with the CDC, WHO, and NIH. I would be interested in how they deal with the genotypes, etc.
And if it was a lab leak, it doesnât really matter, I think. It could not have been intentional; China generously warned us, and also helped Fauci to change his mind on masks.
Last year or so my daughter asked me, âDad, why did God give us Covid? Why doesnât Jesus take it away?â
I had to answer that I didnât know that God did it, but also that I didnât know the answers!
Iâve asked many people my daughterâs very intelligent question, and gotten a variety of answers. They range from âItâs Adamâs faultâ and âWe deserve much worse,â to pleasant commiseration with both of us!
However by focusing on how to prevent a pandemic in the future by what often does happen, we can learn a lotâand maybe encourage international cooperation.
Hereâs an interesting NPR report on what agencies are learning on how to prevent jumping from nature to humans.
Thanks.
How to prevent the next pandemic virus: Scientists have a new strategy : Goats and Soda : NPR
Given that anyone who said it was a lab leak was called a conspiracy theory crackpot, the kind who believes the moon landing was faked, it is not surprising at all that many chose to say it came from nature.
And given that anyone saying it was a lab leak had their social media or other discussion platforms stamped with warning labels of ridicule, it took courage for the FBI to present their assessment.
The former head of the CDC also supported the lab leak position.
As the NIH funded the lab and the gain of function research, it share culpability in the release and its influence and opinions on the source are tainted.
I may fundamentally disagree with Dr Collings on his theology, I think his theology stinks to be honest, howeverâŚ
For me the issue has never been whether or not we can overcome COVID. The issue is, until a workable solution was found, can our social health care deal with it given the demand it placed on said health care system. The answer to that question is very definitely, it cannot!
So whilst idiots from the herd immunity dig a hole in the sand and put their noggins in it, there is a lit firecracker in their back pocket that will go off whether they chose to accept or deny its existence. Our health care systems needed time to be able to design and develop resources to treat COVID patientsâŚand that lack of time (given the overwhelming influx of hospital patients with COVID) is not something the evolution of herd immunity makes allowances for.
Just because an individual has a phD in front of ones name, does not mean said individual is providing a credible option. What is does suggest is that said individual is able to string arguments together with supporting documentationâŚthat does not automatically mean its the right argument. One thing i know about academia, getting 100% for an essay has nothing to do with right or wrongâŚit has everything to do with referencing, logical argument, and sound literary techniques!
A great example of what i mean is experienced in court rooms every day. Both sides are capable of presenting sound convincing arguments, however, that does not mean both are right. The weight of evidence is of more importance, and in this case, the weight on health care systems is huge.
I quote the following from your Wikipedia referenceâŚ
At the time, COVID-19 vaccines were considered to be months away from general availability.[4] The document presumed that the disease burden of mass infection could be tolerated, that any infection would confer long term sterilizing immunity, and it made no mention of physical distancing, masks, contact tracing,[7] or long COVID, which has left patients with debilitating symptoms months after the initial infection.[8][9]
The World Health Organization (WHO) and numerous academic and public-health bodies have stated that the strategy is dangerous and lacks a sound scientific basis.[10][11] They say that it would be challenging to shield all those who are medically vulnerable, leading to a large number of avoidable deaths among both older people and younger people with pre-existing health conditions.[12][13]
The authors say that, instead of protecting everyone, the focus should instead be on âshieldingâ those most at risk, with few mandatory restrictions placed on the remainder of the population.[19] Stanford epidemiologist Yvonne Maldonado said that 40% of Americans have an elevated risk of dying from COVID-19, so this would require keeping the 40% of people with known risk factors away from the 60% of people without known risk factors.[20] In practice, such shielding is impossible to achieve.[3]
Dr Collins, in your efforts to demolish this madness, good on you mate!
I am well versed in the science and the forces at play.
Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
This is the dawn of Christ.
We forgive as Christ has forgiven us.
I agree with you.
Be on your guard; stand firm in the faith; be courageous; be strong. 14 Do everything in love.
Christ is the Way, the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father but by Christ.
Amen on this. It is amazing how much emotional blackmail those of us who love freedom had to endure. When it doesnât fit the narrative irrefutable evidence is needed. When it does fit the narrative, magically we are told to just trust the authorities.
Vinnie
When did any government mandate any public health measure on the grounds that it had secret information about the pandemic that it wasnât going to reveal?
First: Who, precisely, was claiming that the idea that Covid came from a lab leak was a âfantasy worldâ?
Second: Even if they did, a world in which Fauci and Collins can pull strings and silently control a bunch of researchers to support their nefarious scheme is far less plausible than the idea that Covid came from a lab leak.
Covid coming from a lab leak only requires a relatively simple slip-up or mistake. Fauci and Collins silently pulling strings to silently control a bunch of researchers to support their nefarious scheme would require masses and masses of coordination that would be difficult to pull off and even more difficult to keep under wraps.
The reason why the lab leak hypothesis isnât given much credence isnât because itâs implausible, but because it is competing with an alternative explanation that is far, far, far more likely. Wet markets are a breeding ground for all sorts of nasties and unpleasantries like that.
As for the idea that the virus was genetically engineered or weaponised, I would be very surprised if you found that kind of research going on in laboratories in the middle of busy cities. It would be far more likely to be happening in secret government installations out in the middle of nowhere. Youâre thinking of the Chinese equivalent of Area 51.
The fantasy world comment is evident from a review of the censorship on the topic. When I mentioned it on this forum, I was told by a moderator that the lab leak scenario was akin to believing the moon landing was faked and that I was just stroking my ego by believing that I had some special knowledge.
When people control grants they have a great deal of power. And when people funded a lab and gain of function research, they have incentive.
The US FBI, the former head of the CDC, and the US Department of Energy disagree with you on the plausibility of a lab leak.
What did you say, @jammycakes?
Weâve been through that. Disagreeing with you is not âcensorship.â And you mischaracterized JammyCakes as well as others to say they considered a lab leak implausible when in fact they consider it plausible, just less likely.
I did not say that I was censored, Phil. Yet moving my post from public to private could be considered censorship.
But many were censored.
Many, many were censored and treated like kooks.
Now they are vindicated.
Absolutely.
Back to the topic of what does it mean to graciously disagree, as I am sure we could trade barbs forever, I would think that it is important not to make false inferences and assertions, and to be try to speak from data, being aware of the tendency towards confirmation bias. It is important to accept that what you say may be wrong. I am sure all sides are guilty as charged. It would be interesting to chart out the early assertions and comments made in the first year of the pandemic, and see where they stand now that we know more. Is anyone aware of an unbiased source who has done that in an objective fashion?
âLet your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.â -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.
