China should pay reparations for creating Covid-19!

[Jack D]

"Covid origin: Why the Wuhan lab-leak theory is being taken seriously."

"What is the lab-leak theory?"

"It's a suspicion that the coronavirus may have escaped, accidentally or otherwise, from a laboratory in the central Chinese city of Wuhan where the virus was first recorded.

Its supporters point to the presence of a major biological research facility in the city. The Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) has been studying coronaviruses in bats for over a decade."

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-57268111?xtor=AL-72-[partner]-[yahoo.north.america]-[link]-[news]-[bizdev]-[isapi]

But how do we get China to pay reparations to the rest of of world for creating Covid-19?

How To Make China Pay For COVID-19

"China has been lending billions to African nations, creating the risk of debt traps for them; the United States could encourage them to renege on their debts.  China has foreclosed on assets that indebted developing nations had offered as security for loans (such as the Sri Lankan port of Hambantota); the debtor nations could repossess them.  China has allegedly sent aid to Venezuela and other Latin American countries; Washington could resolve civil wars and political disputes in the hemisphere while protecting them from Chinese efforts to collect. It could agree with European and Asian nations to resist Chinese efforts to pursue compensation when they renege on loans, expropriate ports and other infrastructure, and seize property.

The list of potential responses does not stop there.  Japan is paying for its companies to repatriate their business activities and assets from China.  The United States and its other allies could start to do the same.  Supply chains that currently run through China, say for pharmaceuticals or computer chips, could be re-routed to go through more dependable sources like Ireland or Israel, or other low-cost manufacturers such as Mexico or Vietnam.  National justice ministries could become more vigorous in investigating and prosecuting crimes or other offenses committed by China, including intellectual property theft, bribery, and computer crime.

The attractive element of these measures is that their execution rests in the hands of each sovereign government.  China has placed its assets within our control; it would have to throw itself on the mercies of our courts for their return – a possibility that Congress could eliminate by legislation.  The main criticism of these options rests in tit-for-tat escalation: China could respond by seizing American-owned property within its own borders.  The United States would have the superior legal and moral claim, in that its expropriations serve to settle China’s debt to the world for its deliberate indifference to the coronavirus outbreak.  China’s response would only amount to retaliation for the abrupt seizure of its property abroad.

While China could respond with its own expropriations, they might end up harming China more than the United States.  The Chinese Communist Party depends on rapid economic growth to keep its population satisfied enough to remain in power. Seizure of foreign investment could lead to an end to the free trade and open markets that have made China’s remarkable economic rise possible.  It can seize the factories that assemble iPhones, but it cannot seize the intellectual capital that invents the technology and designs the devices – those remain with the United States and its allies.  If China cannot innovate, which the United States could make all the harder by blocking Chinese students and researchers from Western universities, it will only be left holding factories designed to mass produce cheap goods.  Expropriations could trigger a rapid economic decoupling that could leave China stuck in the mass production forms of the 20th-century economy, while the U.S. and its allies advance toward a more decentralized economy where decentralized enterprises, internet-based services, and 3-D printing can quickly transform intellectual creativity into goods and services. 

To be sure, U.S. expropriations could roil the postwar economic system that Washington has cultivated since the end of World War II, much to its own and the world’s benefit.  Nations might come to doubt the rule of law in the United States and Washington’s strong defense of property rights, which have created the stability and predictability needed for the remarkable economic growth of the last 75 years.  Cancelling Chinese-held U.S. debt could trigger severe disruption in the market for U.S. Treasuries, which could further undermine other financial markets.  The United States would have to deploy political and financial leadership to assure other nations, and the markets, that it will limit these options solely to forcing China to pay for the greatest public health disaster in a century.  It can then set about the work of constructing a new international order that takes  account of the new great power rivalry that may now replace the peaceful U.S. hegemony of the last eight decades."

https://www.hoover.org/research/how-make-china-pay-covid-19

[Dave Hounddriver]

It was speculated on 4 decades ago, that Wuhan China would one day release a deadly virus.  It has been mentioned before but worth repeating

[Old55]

If it's found the virus leaked from the Wuhan lab the ccp must be held accountable. Would it be reparations for damages or should it be seen as a biological attack on the world? Could it be this was a planned calculated attack on the world?

We know from the start WHO and the ccp lied and desperately hid facts. But so far there are few facts implicating the lab. The past weeks more information is slowly coming out. 

Also this week ccp and dictator Xi stopped the failed Wolf Diplomacy program and started a "Friendly China" diplomacy. Coincidence or they know the lies are falling apart?

 

Edited June 6, 2021 by Old55

[Shady]

5 hours ago, Old55 said:

WHO and the ccp lied and desperately hid facts.

They did, but not just them:

Quote

 

The “consensus” that Covid must have an entirely natural origin was established by two early pronouncements, one in The Lancet in February 2020 and the other in Nature Medicine in March 2020. These were op-eds, not scientific papers. Both spoke with certainty about matters which it was impossible to be certain about. Wade writes: “It later turned out that the Lancet letter had been organized and drafted by Peter Daszak, president of the EcoHealth Alliance of New York. Dr Daszak’s organisation funded coronavirus research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. If the SARS2 virus had indeed escaped from research he funded, Dr. Daszak would be potentially culpable. This acute conflict of interest was not declared to the Lancet’s readers. To the contrary, the letter concluded, “We declare no competing interests.”

In the catastrophe of the Covid pandemic, something novel and disturbing comes into view. A peculiar form of intellectual intimidation has become prominent in public life in general, and science has not been spared. The letter in The Lancet stated, “We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that Covid-19 does not have a natural origin.”

The “fact checkers” of PolitiFact used these statements to shut down any discussion of the lab leak hypothesis...they were able to use the magic words “conspiracy theory” to trigger a wider epistemic immune reaction in high-prestige opinion. - https://unherd.com/2021/05/how-scientists-sacrificed-scepticism/

 

Make them all pay for their crimes.

Edited June 6, 2021 by Shady

[scott h]

7 hours ago, Old55 said:

ccp must be held accountable.

Wont make the least bit of difference. Any action by an "international" body will just be ignored by china. Just like the maritime ruling in the South china Sea. 

The ccp hold the "economic" whip hand and they know it. Apply economic sanctions? The ccp will just tell the masses to tighten their belts,,,or go to a reeducation camp.

There are certain advantages to a system of institutional dictatorship 

[Jack D]

4 hours ago, scott h said:

There are certain advantages to a system of institutional dictatorship 

There’s also certain advantages to being a capitalist country. The Chinese could not run their government without the profits that they make from manufacturing and from stealing intellectual property. Tit for tat!

[Old55]

4 hours ago, Jack D said:

There’s also certain advantages to being a capitalist country. The Chinese could not run their government without the profits that they make from manufacturing and from stealing intellectual property. Tit for tat!

Exactly.

The ccp absolutely depends on exports from manufacturing to keep power. What they fear most are when the good People of China will realize they would be better off without the ccp criminal syndicate.  

Edited June 6, 2021 by Old55

[OnMyWay]

21 hours ago, Old55 said:

We know from the start WHO and the ccp lied and desperately hid facts. But so far there are few facts implicating the lab. The past weeks more information is slowly coming out. 

The current president shut down the investigation into the lab theory just a short time ago.  Now he has asked for another to start.  Seems he has new evidence that he will not be able to suppress.

Perhaps it has something to do with the Chinese defector story.

[scott h]

6 hours ago, Old55 said:

What they fear most are when the good People of China will realize they would be better off without the ccp criminal syndicate.

They have not realized it for the last 2500 years. If we really look deeply at the  structure of Chinese society nothing has changed since the time of the emperors. Very small ruling clique at the top and a mass of peasants below them, with a huge army to enforce the Son of Heavens wishes lol. 

[Gator]

10 hours ago, OnMyWay said:

The current president shut down the investigation into the lab theory just a short time ago.  Now he has asked for another to start.  Seems he has new evidence that he will not be able to suppress.

Perhaps it has something to do with the Chinese defector story.

Or he just wants to take the credit as he would be able to say he initiated the investigation and not give any credit to the former President. 

The various scientific reports being released may also have prompted Biden:

From the Wall Street Journal; posted 06/06/2021

https://apple.news/AD_z4Uw5JQgiNW_0ZPv391Q (link might only work if you have an apple news or a WSJ subscription)

 

The Science Suggests a Wuhan Lab Leak

The Covid-19 pathogen has a genetic footprint that has never been observed in a natural coronavirus.

The possibility that the pandemic began with an escape from the Wuhan Institute of Virology is attracting fresh attention. President Biden has asked the national intelligence community to redouble efforts to investigate.

Much of the public discussion has focused on circumstantial evidence: mysterious illnesses in late 2019; the lab’s work intentionally supercharging viruses to increase lethality (known as “gain of function” research). The Chinese Communist Party has been reluctant to release relevant information. Reports based on U.S. intelligence have suggested the lab collaborated on projects with the Chinese military.

But the most compelling reason to favor the lab leak hypothesis is firmly based in science. In particular, consider the genetic fingerprint of CoV-2, the novel coronavirus responsible for the disease Covid-19. 

In gain-of-function research, a microbiologist can increase the lethality of a coronavirus enormously by splicing a special sequence into its genome at a prime location. Doing this leaves no trace of manipulation. But it alters the virus spike protein, rendering it easier for the virus to inject genetic material into the victim cell. Since 1992 there have been at least 11 separate experiments adding a special sequence to the same location. The end result has always been supercharged viruses.

A genome is a blueprint for the factory of a cell to make proteins. The language is made up of three-letter “words,” 64 in total, that represent the 20 different amino acids. For example, there are six different words for the amino acid arginine, the one that is often used in supercharging viruses. Every cell has a different preference for which word it likes to use most.

In the case of the gain-of-function supercharge, other sequences could have been spliced into this same site. Instead of a CGG-CGG (known as “double CGG”) that tells the protein factory to make two arginine amino acids in a row, you’ll obtain equal lethality by splicing any one of 35 of the other two-word combinations for double arginine. If the insertion takes place naturally, say through recombination, then one of those 35 other sequences is far more likely to appear; CGG is rarely used in the class of coronaviruses that can recombine with CoV-2.

In fact, in the entire class of coronaviruses that includes CoV-2, the CGG-CGG combination has never been found naturally. That means the common method of viruses picking up new skills, called recombination, cannot operate here. A virus simply cannot pick up a sequence from another virus if that sequence isn’t present in any other virus.

Although the double CGG is suppressed naturally, the opposite is true in laboratory work. The insertion sequence of choice is the double CGG. That’s because it is readily available and convenient, and scientists have a great deal of experience inserting it. An additional advantage of the double CGG sequence compared with the other 35 possible choices: It creates a useful beacon that permits the scientists to track the insertion in the laboratory.

Now the damning fact. It was this exact sequence that appears in CoV-2. Proponents of zoonotic origin must explain why the novel coronavirus, when it mutated or recombined, happened to pick its least favorite combination, the double CGG. Why did it replicate the choice the lab’s gain-of-function researchers would have made?

Yes, it could have happened randomly, through mutations. But do you believe that? At the minimum, this fact—that the coronavirus, with all its random possibilities, took the rare and unnatural combination used by human researchers—implies that the leading theory for the origin of the coronavirus must be laboratory escape.

When the lab’s Shi Zhengli and colleagues published a paper in February 2020 with the virus’s partial genome, they omitted any mention of the special sequence that supercharges the virus or the rare double CGG section. Yet the fingerprint is easily identified in the data that accompanied the paper. Was it omitted in the hope that nobody would notice this evidence of the gain-of-function origin?

But in a matter of weeks virologists Bruno Coutard and colleagues published their discovery of the sequence in CoV-2 and its novel supercharged site. Double CGG is there; you only have to look. They comment in their paper that the protein that held it “may provide a gain-of-function” capability to the virus, “for efficient spreading” to humans.

There is additional scientific evidence that points to CoV-2’s gain-of-function origin. The most compelling is the dramatic differences in the genetic diversity of CoV-2, compared with the coronaviruses responsible for SARS and MERS.

Both of those were confirmed to have a natural origin; the viruses evolved rapidly as they spread through the human population, until the most contagious forms dominated. Covid-19 didn’t work that way. It appeared in humans already adapted into an extremely contagious version. No serious viral “improvement” took place until a minor variation occurred many months later in England.

Such early optimization is unprecedented, and it suggests a long period of adaptation that predated its public spread. Science knows of only one way that could be achieved: simulated natural evolution, growing the virus on human cells until the optimum is achieved. That is precisely what is done in gain-of-function research. Mice that are genetically modified to have the same coronavirus receptor as humans, called “humanized mice,” are repeatedly exposed to the virus to encourage adaptation.

The presence of the double CGG sequence is strong evidence of gene splicing, and the absence of diversity in the public outbreak suggests gain-of-function acceleration. The scientific evidence points to the conclusion that the virus was developed in a laboratory.

Dr. Quay is founder of Atossa Therapeutics and author of “Stay Safe: A Physician’s Guide to Survive Coronavirus.” Mr. Muller is an emeritus professor of physics at the University of California Berkeley and a former senior scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

 

 

Edited June 7, 2021 by Gator