UPDATE 02. April 2021: Dr. Li-Meng Yan: The WHO Report Which is Based On Empty Evidence is Just A Way For CCP to Tell The World that They Are Innocent And Did Nothing Wrong

UPDATE 31. March 2021: The Wuhan Laboratory Origin of SARS-CoV-2 and the Validity of the Yan Reports Are Further Proved by the Failure of Two Uninvited "Peer Reviews"

UPDATE 30. March 2021: WHO PUBLISHES PURE LIES INSTIGATED BY CHINA + 'Pure whitewash!' WHO savaged after report claims China 'not responsible' for Covid

UPDATE 29. March 2021: WHO Wuhan report leaves question of coronavirus origins unresolved + Five details from the WHO-led report on coronavirus origins

UPDATE 26. February 2021: In Hunt for Covid-19 Origin, Patient Zero Points to Second Wuhan Market, but no proper investigation carried out.

UPDATE 17. February 2021: Second WHO expert leaks the information that China withheld important information from the mission team and that the laboratory origin of the contagion can not be ruled out. 

UPDATE 14. February 2021: Returning experts of the WHO team contradict each other: While the official statement was that they would no longer investigate SARS-CoV-2 as man-made lab-product, returning Australian specialist Dominic Dwyer stated that this origin was not ruled out and would require further studies, especially because China had denied them requested documentation on various issues. "They showed us a couple of examples, but that's not the same as doing all of them, which is standard epidemiological investigation," he told the Wall Street Journal. "So then, you know, the interpretation of that data becomes more limited from our point of view, although the other side might see it as being quite good." The US has urged China to make data available from the earliest stages of the outbreak, saying it has "deep concerns" about the WHO report. And British Foreign Minister Dominic Raab said he shared concerns about the level of access given to the team. Thea Kolsen Fischer, a Danish immunologist who was also part of the WHO team, told  the New York Times that she saw the investigation as "highly geopolitical". Notoriously controversial Dr Peter Daszak tried to further confuse by saying the focus on where the origins that led to Covid-19 might be, could be shifted to South East Asia. In summary: The international community can neither trust China nor the WHO or their "experts", unless they come really clean. Since this most likely is not going to happen by itself, the long overdue Independent International Tribunal has become now absolutely mandatory.

UPDATE 09. February 2021: Covid: WHO team says 'extremely unlikely' virus leaked from lab - HUGE SCANDAL: As envisaged the WHO mission to Wuhan is a sole coverup venture: At today's press conference they stated that they would no longer investigate the hypothesis, which has lots of evidence, that the contagion SARS-Cov-2 came from a laboratory. The statements are so ridiculously tweaked to mean everything and nothing, that it is a slap into the face of the international community, who had still hoped for some tangible findings.

UPDATE 03. February 2021: The WHO's team visited the Wuhan Institute for Virology, which is the administrative building separated from the BSL-4 (P4) laboratories, and could not access the labs. Mainstream media are fed misleading narratives, while journalists near the venue were barred by Chinese security forces from asking the scientists any questions. Their next narrative will most likely only be that "the virus came from animals" which as the very first origin - on a timeline of 10, 100, 1,000 years back - could be possible, but for SARS-CoV-2 such statement would be misleading the public and has already been debunked, because it is an artificial enhancement since several years of the way-back pathogen and has NOT evolved by itself in an animal to then jump onto humans.

UPDATE 01. February 2021: Big Tech allows CCP to gaslight America about the origins of coronavirus

UPDATE 01. February 2021: The World Health Organization-led team investigating the origins of the Covid-19 pandemic visited the Center for Disease Control and Prevention in China's central region of Hubei, where the outbreak emerged in late 2019.The WHO team visited both the Hubei Provincial Center for Disease Control and its Wuhan city office, amid tight Chinese controls on access to information about the virus. The group of experts spent about 4-1/2 hours on its longest site visit, but did not speak to waiting journalists.

UPDATE 31. January 2021: The WHO-assigned experts visited the Huanan seafood market linked to initial infections, and the Baishazhou wholesale food market, where a loudspeaker repeatedly announced that the sale of imported cold chain products was banned at the market.

UPDATE 28. January 2021: 13 WHO assigned "experts" transferred from quarantine centre to hotel for controlled face-to-face meetings with Chinese counterparts. They are confronted with the Latham-Wilson Mojiang Miners Passage (MMP) hypothesis and face an already one year old key challenge: (video below).

UPDATE 27. January 2021: Biden Signs Executive Order To Ban The Term ‘China Virus’

UPDATE 19. January 2021: As Predicted - Belated and flawed W.H.O. COVID-19 mission to China raps up first phase without any new findings + WHO warns of 'catastrophic moral failure' of the inocculation drives + U.S. and China clash at WHO over scientific mission in Wuhan


UPDATE 13. January 2021: After aborted attempt, sensitive WHO mission to study pandemic origins is on its way to China

UPDATE 11. January 2021: Anthony Fauci finally acknowledges that China played significant role in early spread of coronavirus

ICYMI: CORONA UNMASKED: Chinese Intelligence Officer Reveals True Magnitude of China’s Fake Coronavirus Crisis

Fury as China denies entry to WHO experts investigating origins of Covid pandemic as Number 10 calls decision 'disappointing' amid growing suspicions of a cover-up - BOYCOTT CHINA AND STOP BUYING ANY CHINESE GOODS !!!

  • Leaked diplomatic cables reveal that US officials who visited the lab two years ago warned about safety weaknesses and the risks of a new Sars-like epidemic emerging from the site
    Leaked diplomatic cables reveal that US officials who visited the lab two years ago warned about safety weaknesses and the risks of a new Sars-like epidemic emerging from the site. On the left the grey block is the actual P4/BSL-4 Lab with the same size restricted military laboratory underground/
    Tom Tugendhat MP slammed China's 'shameful behaviour' towards the experts
  • And an expert on the regime accused them of hiding key evidence
  • The first outbreak of coronavirus was recorded in Wuhan, China, in late 2019
  • But the country has fiercely maintained it is not the source of the pandemic 

By Luke Andrews and Chris Jewers - 0

Politicians and experts today blasted China for refusing entry to members of a World Health Organization(WHO) team being sent to the country to investigate the origins of the coronavirus pandemic.

Number 10 described the move as 'disappointing', insisting that it was vital the probe happens.

Tory MP and founder of Britain's China Research Group, Tom Tugendhat, accused Beijing of 'shameful behaviour'. He said the failure to investigate 'puts everyone at risk of a repeat, and particularly those who are closest - the Chinese people.'

And Sari Haven, of the Mercator Institute for China Studies think-tank, dismissed the regime's claim that a 'visa issue' led to the team being denied entry. She said: 'Of course the decoy narrative becomes more difficult to maintain when the WHO team is snooping around.'

Even the WHO's chief, in a rare critique of the Beijing regime, warned he was 'very disappointed', especially given the fact that 'two members had already begun their journeys'. 

It comes amid growing suspicions of a cover-up in China, where Covid-19 is thought to have originated at the end of 2019, although its source remains bitterly contested as officials battle to control the narrative.

The first cases of the virus that has brought the world to its knees were identified in Wuhan in late December last year, and linked to a seafood market.

Beijing agreed to allow 10 experts into the country in the summer after many months of negotiations. But today Chinese officials insisted a date for the trip and 'details' of the visit still haven't been arranged. The WHO said it is in contact with Chinese authorities.

Pictured: Workers in protective suits in Wuhan, China, blocking entry to the seafood market. It is believed to have been where the Covid-19 outbreak, that sparked the pandemic, began

Workers in protective suits in Wuhan, China, blocking entry to the seafood market. It is believed to have been where the Covid-19 outbreak, that sparked the pandemic, began [N.B.: It seems that the Daily Mail is geared to push a false narrative!!!]

Tory MP and founder of Britain's China Research Group, Tom Tugendhat, accused Beijing of 'shameful behaviour'And Sari Haven, of the Mercator Institute for China Studies think-tank, dismissed the regime's claim that a 'visa issue' led to the team being denied entry

Tory MP and founder of Britain's China Research Group, Tom Tugendhat, accused Beijing of 'shameful behaviour'. And Sari Haven, of the Mercator Institute for China Studies think-tank, dismissed the regime's claim that a 'visa issue' led to the team being denied entry

The World Health Organization (WHO) has named the 10 scientists it is sending to coronavirus ground zero Wuhan to probe the origins of the disease. It is thought the virus may have jumped into humans at the Wuhan seafood market (pictured)

The World Health Organization (WHO) has named the 10 scientists it is sending to coronavirus ground zero Wuhan to probe the origins of the disease. It was thought the virus may have jumped into humans at the Wuhan seafood market, BUT THAT TURNED OUT TO BE FALSE (pictured)


The killer coronavirus sweeping across the world may have come from bats, scientists have said.

Researchers at the Chinese Academy of Sciences, the People's Liberation Army and Institut Pasteur of Shanghai came to the conclusion.

In a statement, the team said: 'The Wuhan coronavirus' natural host could be bats… but between bats and humans there may be an unknown intermediate.

Tests of the virus, which has yet to be named, have revealed it targets a protein called ACE2 – just like its cousin SARS, the South China Morning Post reported.

Tracing the evolution of the virus, the team of experts found it belonged to betacoronavirus, making it structurally similar to SARS.

Authorities have pointed the blame on food markets in Wuhan, the Chinese city at the centre of the outbreak that scientists are scrambling to contain.

Rodents and bats among other animals are slaughtered and sold in traditional 'wet markets', which tourists flock to see the 'real' side of the country.

A spokesman for the Prime Minister warned China against blocking the vital research team today.

They said: 'As the WHO said yesterday it is disappointing this vital research trip is being held up.

'It's important that the investigation is able to progress without delay and is open, transparent and scientifically rigorous.

'We have said throughout the pandemic it is important that an investigation happens and that remains our position.'

Asked whether China was engaging in a cover-up, the spokesman added: 'There is clearly questions that need to be answered about the origins and spread of the virus.

'Which is why we are supportive of the WHO independent international team of experts who will lead the investigation.' 

The WHO's director of emergencies Michael Ryan said yesterday the problem was visa clearances at the border, but added he hoped it was a 'logistic and bureaucratic issue that can be resolved very quickly'.

Its chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus told a press conference they had arranged for members of the team to start travelling to China this week.

'Today, we learned that Chinese officials have not yet finalised the necessary permissions for the team's arrival in China,' he said in Geneva, Switzerland, yesterday.

'I am very disappointed with this news, given that two members had already begun their journeys and others were not able to travel at the last minute.'

He said they had been 'in contact' with senior Chinese officials, and had 'once again made it clear that the mission is a priority for the WHO'. 

'I have been assured that China is speeding up the internal procedure of the earliest possible deployment. We're eager to get the mission under way as soon as possible,' he added.

Earlier this week Chinese authorities had refused to confirm the exact dates and details of the visit, a sign of the enduring sensitivity of their mission. 

The WHO team has promised to focus on the science, specifically how the coronavirus jumped from animals - believed to be bats - to humans.

'This is not about finding a guilty country or a guilty authority,' Fabian Leendertz from the Robert Koch Institute, Germany's central disease control body who will be among the team to visit, told AFP new agency in late December.

'This is about understanding what happened to avoid that in the future, to reduce the risk.'

But doubt has been cast over what the WHO mission can reasonably expect to achieve and the state pressure they will face, raising fears that the mission will serve to rubber stamp China's official story, not challenge it.

The upcoming visit will not be the first time Covid-19 has brought WHO teams to China. A mission last year looked at the response by authorities rather than the virus origins, with another in the summer laying the groundwork for the upcoming probe.

But this time the WHO will wade into a swamp of competing interests, stuck between accusatory Western nations and a Chinese leadership determined to show that its secretive and hierarchical political system served to stem, not spread, the outbreak.

It is unclear who the experts will be able to meet when they arrive in Wuhan to retrace the initial days and weeks of the pandemic.

Inside China, whistle-blowers have been silenced and citizen journalists jailed, including a 37-year-old woman imprisoned last week for four years over video reports from the city during its prolonged lockdown.

Outside, responsibility for the virus has been weaponized.

From the outset, US President Donald Trump used the virus as political bludgeon against big power rival China.

WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus criticised Beijing

WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus criticised Beijing - really???

He accused Beijing of trying to hide the outbreak of what he dubbed the 'China virus' and repeated unsubstantiated rumours it leaked from a Wuhan lab.

Trump then pulled the US out of the WHO, accusing it of going soft on China, a nation with which he was also engaged in a bitter trade war.

Critics say that blizzard of accusations sought to divert attention from Washington's bungled response to a crisis which has so far killed more than 355,000 Americans.

Without them, said one, 'a lot of these situations that we had in January 2020 would not have played out the way it did.'

'It is the geopolitics that... put the world in this situation,' Ilona Kickbusch, of the Global Health Centre at the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies in Geneva, told AFP.

China has since deftly re-framed its version of events, hailing its 'extraordinary success' in curbing the pandemic within its borders and rebooting its economy.

Beijing now says it will ride to the rescue of poorer nations, promising cheap vaccines and seeding doubt that the virus even originated in China.  


Included in the line up is England's former deputy chief medical officer John Watson

Included in the line up is England's former deputy chief medical officer John Watson

John Watson - Epidemiologist and former deputy chief medical officer 

Peter Daszak - Zoologist and president of the New York-based group, the EcoHealth Alliance (involved in EVENT 201)

Marion Koopmans - Virologist and head of the Erasmus Medical Centre’s Department of Viroscience in Rotterdam

Farag El Moubasher - Infectious disease expert in Qatar’s Ministry of Public Health

Hung Nguyen - From the Animal and Human Health Program at the International Livestock Research Institute, based in Vietnam

Thea Kølsen Fischer - Infectious disease expert at Denmark's University of Copenhagen 

Fabian Leendertz - Epidemiologist at Germany’s Robert Koch Institut 

Dominic Dwyer - Virologist and based at Westmead Hospital in Sydney

Ken Maeda - Veterinary microbiologist at Japan’s National Institute of Infectious Diseases (NIID)

Vladimir Dedkov - Epidemiologist at the Pasteur Institute in Russia

Chinese doctors were recording at least DOUBLE the number of coronavirus cases that Beijing was reporting to the world in February, leaked documents revealed in December 

China under-reported its coronavirus cases and deaths by up to half during the early stages of the pandemic, leaked documents revealed in December.

Beijing has long been accused of under-reporting its coronavirus numbers, but the data gives an idea of the scale of the problem for the first time. 

For example, on February 10 China reported 2,478 new cases of the virus across the entire country - but leaked data shows that, on the same date, Hubei province alone logged 5,918 cases.

Meanwhile on March 7, Hubei was officially reporting a cumulative death toll of 2,986, but documents show it actually stood at 3,456.

The official figures, which were reported across the world, downplayed the severity of the outbreak at a time when world leaders were trying to devise their own response strategies - leaving many unprepared for what was to come.

China was able to use the figures and its authoritarian powers to lock down hard and early, all-but wiping the virus out and meaning its economy has grown this year, while under-prepared western democracies have seen their economies devastated. 

On February 10, China reported a total of 2,478 cases in its daily report, which was published around the world. Leaked documents show the total was 5,918 in Hubei province alone

On February 17, the province of Hubei reported 93 new deaths to the public. In fact, documents show that it was 196

Other discrepancies revealed in the data include February 17, when Hubei officially reported 93 deaths from the virus while the documents show a toll of 196.

On March 7, Hubei officially reported 83 cases, but 115 are recorded in the leaked papers. 

Another report also records the deaths of six health care workers from coronavirus by February 10, which were never publicly disclosed.

Data also suggests that the number of cases recorded in 2019, when the virus first emerged, was 200.

Until now, China has only publicly acknowledged 44 cases in 2019 - which it reported to the WHO as 'a pneumonia of unknown etiology' on January 3.

The documents, comprising 117 pages, were handed to CNN by a whistleblower inside the Hubei Provincial Center for Disease Control and Prevention, which was at the epicentre of the outbreak.

The whistleblower described themselves as 'a patriot' who was 'motivated to expose a truth that had been censored, and honor colleagues who had also spoken out.'

Alongside the true case and death tolls, the documents reveal for the first time that Hubei was in the midst of a major flu epidemic at the time coronavirus struck.

By March 7, Hubei had officially logged 2,986 deaths from the virus, but leaked documents show that toll was actually 3,456

On March 7, Hubei province - where epicentre Wuhan was located - reported 83 new infections to the public. Leaked documents give a figure of 115

The province was reporting up to 20 times the normal number of seasonal flu cases in December 2019, centered in the cities of Yichang and Xianning.

Wuhan, where coronavirus would first emerge, was third worst-affected.

Data also shows that a large number of flu cases, including in Wuhan, were diagnosed as 'unknown cause' - dating a far back as December 2.

Researchers told CNN that it is possible some of these were mis-diagnosed coronavirus cases, but there is no way to know for sure because the data is simply not available.

Dr. Amesh Adalja, at Johns Hopkins University which has been at the forefront of tracking the virus, said: 'They were only testing for what they knew.' 

China claims it has done studies looking for cases of coronavirus in Wuhan before December 2019, but has been unable to find any. 

While there is no suggestion that the outbreaks are linked, the flu epidemic likely left health officials stretched and unprepared for the emergence of a new illness.

The documents also reveal a shambles among China's early testing regime, which contributed to the cases being under-reported.

According to the data, nucleic acid tests which were initially used to diagnose the virus only worked between 30 per cent and 50 per cent of the time.

Documents also reveal Hubei province was in the midst of a flu epidemic when coronavirus emerged, with hospitals under-funded and staff demoralised (file image)

That meant scientists were often forced to use other methods - such as scans of the lungs - to diagnose patients they were sure had the virus, but whose tests kept coming back negative.

But because of the way China's reporting system worked, only those cases which had been confirmed by the test were publicly reported.

All other cases were marked down as 'suspected' or 'clinically diagnosed'.

While bureaucrats would have been aware of both figures, and may have been aware of the problems with testing, they chose only to report cases with a positive test - at least initially.

China did start adding 'clinically diagnosed' cases to its totals in mid-February, but by then the virus had already spread far beyond its own borders. 

Yanzhong Huang, a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations who specilaises in Chinese public health, told CNN: 'It was clear they did make mistakes.

'Not just mistakes that happen when you're dealing with a novel virus, also bureaucratic and politically-motivated errors in how they handled it. 

'These had global consequences.' 

The early testing regime also suffered huge delays, with the average time taken from the onset of disease to diagnosis being 23 days.

That meant China's official daily totals were lagging three weeks behind reality, while at the same time hampering its own ability to respond to the crisis.

Internal documents also show that Hubei health authorities were under-funded and suffering staff motivation issues when the pandemic struck.

And while Beijing boasted that it had massively invested in early-stage detection of infectious diseases in 2003 during the SARS epidemic, in reality the system was slow, under-funded, and weighed down with bureaucracy.

The world must investigate all the mounting evidence Covid leaked from a Wuhan lab

By Ian Birrell for the Mail on Sunday 

It is a year since the world learned of a deadly new respiratory disease stalking the central Chinese city of Wuhan. 

Yet we still know little about how and why the virus spread with such devastating consequences.

 It can almost certainly be traced to bats. But we do not know how this pathogen – having evolved an extraordinary ability to infect, causing such damage to different bodily organs – made the jump into human beings.

At last, a World Health Organisation investigation is under way into the origins of the coronavirus, but it is accused of meekly pandering to China's agenda by recruiting patsy scientists and relying on Beijing's dubious data.

Now there is growing clamour from experts around the world that no stone should be left unturned during this inquiry – and that it must include one key element of a hunt which has all the hallmarks of a thriller novel.

It is a year since the world learned of a deadly new respiratory disease stalking the central Chinese city of Wuhan, writes Ian Birrell.


Chinese virologist Shi Zhengli was dubbed 'Batwoman' at the Wuhan Institute of Virology

Why did China build a virus lab in Wuhan?

Chinese officials decided to build the Wuhan Institute of Virology after the country was ravaged by an outbreak of SARS in 2002 and 2003.

SARS, another kind of coronavirus, killed 775 people and infected more than 8,000 globally in an epidemic that lasted about eight months.

It took the Chinese 15 years to fully complete the project, which cost a total of 300million yuan (£34million). The French helped design the building. 

Its crown jewel is a four-storey lab with the highest biosafety level of P4.

It's the most advanced laboratory of its type in China.

Construction of the lab was finished in 2015 and it officially opened on January 5, 2018, after passing various safety inspections. 

Describing the significance of the P4 lab, China Youth Online billed it as the 'aircraft carrier of China's virology'. The state-run newspaper said it 'is capable of researching the deadliest pathogens'. 

One researcher, Zhou Peng, told state news agency Xinhua in 2018: 'We are proud to say that we are already at the forefront in the field of studying the immunity mechanism of bats, which carry viruses for a long time. 

'Bats carry viruses but are not infected [by them]. [They] provide hope for mankind to study how to fight viruses.'

This centres on a cave filled with bats, a clutch of mysterious deaths, some brilliant scientists carrying out futuristic experiments in a secretive laboratory – and a cover-up of epic proportions that, if proven, would have huge consequences for the Chinese Communist Party and the global practice of science.

So what, precisely, is this theory on the origins of this pandemic?

It must be stated clearly that it is just a theory, albeit one based on crumbs of evidence teased out by a few courageous scientists and some online detectives.

New diseases have emerged throughout human history. Most experts believe Covid to be a 'zoonotic' disease that spilled over naturally from animals to humans. 

They think it was most likely 'amplified' by an intermediate species – similar to how Chinese people's consumption of civet cats sparked the 2002 Sars epidemic.

Yet at the same time, Beijing's actions from the outset – covering up the outbreak, blaming a wild animal market that it has since admitted wasn't at fault, barring outside investigators, burying data and silencing its own experts – have served to fuel suspicions.

Last week, leaked documents exposed how the Chinese government, under orders from President Xi Jinping, is strictly controlling all research into the origins of Covid while promoting fringe theories suggesting it came from outside China.

And it is an uncomfortable coincidence that Wuhan – a city buzzing once again, with busy shops, packed restaurants and many people without masks on the streets celebrating New Year – is home to the world's top coronavirus research unit as well as ground zero to a pandemic from a strange new strain.

The clues start with an abandoned copper mine in Mojiang, a hilly region in Yunnan, southern China, where bats roost in a network of underground caves, cracks and crannies.

Days after three Chinese miners who had been clearing bat droppings inside caves died, Zhengli went to investigate

Two weeks ago, a BBC reporter was prevented from reaching this remote site after being trailed by police for miles along bumpy tracks, then blocked by a lorry and confronted by men at roadblocks saying their job was to stop him.

The previous month, a team of US journalists had also been tailed by plainclothes police who barred their access. 

One research team recently managed to take some samples at the mine, but reportedly had them confiscated.

The reason for such secrecy goes back to the end of April 2012 when a 42-year-old man clearing bat droppings in these underground caverns turned up at a nearby hospital with a bad cough, high fever and struggling to breathe. 

Within a week, five colleagues had similar symptoms. Three later died, one after doctors spent more than 100 days fighting to save his life – yet the two youngest spent less than a week in the hospital and survived. Sound familiar?

We have since learned from a detailed masters thesis, which included medical reports and radiological scans, that these miners suffered a viral pneumonia, attributed to Sars-like coronaviruses originating from horseshoe bats.

One leading US health body pointed out last year that they had 'an illness remarkably similar to Covid-19'. 

Little wonder a prominent vaccine scientist told me: 'This is about as close to a smoking gun as exists.'

Intriguingly, a second thesis three years later also highlighted these cases. 

It was written by a student of Oxford-trained virologist Professor George Gao Fu, who is now head of China's Centre for Disease Control and Prevention, which is leading their response to the pandemic.

So the Chinese authorities must have known about the dead miners. 

Yet they quickly tried to blame the wildlife market in Wuhan as Covid's source, until challenged by respected studies revealed in this newspaper. 

Following the miners' deaths, Shi Zhengli, a Wuhan-based virologist known as Batwoman for her expeditions to gather samples in such caves and a member of the team that traced the origin of Sars to bats, went to investigate.

'The mine shaft stank like hell,' she told Scientific American magazine, explaining how her colleagues spent a year discovering new coronaviruses in samples taken from the blood and faeces of bats. 

The miners, she claimed, died from a fungal infection.

'The mine shaft stank like hell,' she told Scientific American magazine, explaining how her colleagues spent a year discovering new coronaviruses in samples taken from the blood and faeces of bats. The miners, she claimed, died from a fungal infection.

Another expert noted how the miners who died were treated with anti-fungal medications, while those surviving were given other drugs. 

'So in addition to the fact that the cases were more Sars-like than fungal-like, this treatment story argues against a fungal [cause],' he said. 

'It is very odd that Shi Zhengli would assert these cases were fungal.'

Prof Shi examined samples in her Wuhan lab, a few miles from the infamous market. Studies later found the virus in sewage, but it was not detected in animals.

The Wuhan Institute of Virology is the first laboratory with the highest global bio-safety level in China. 

It specialises in the study of bat-borne viruses and is spearheading China's drive to assert itself in bio-technology. 

Leaked diplomatic cables reveal that US officials who visited the lab two years ago warned about safety weaknesses and the risks of a new Sars-like epidemic emerging from the site. 

The institute has carried out experiments on bat coronaviruses since 2015 – including research that can increase their virulence by combining snippets from different strains. 

Some viruses were injected into special 'humanised' mice that had been created for use in labs with human genes, cells or tissues in their bodies.

These controversial experiments artificially force the evolution of viruses so as to boost our understanding of diseases and their transmissibility. 

They help researchers develop new drugs and vaccines.

The Wuhan scientists were working with prominent Western experts and supported financially by the National Institutes of Health, the most important US funding body – although this relationship was ended on safety grounds after being revealed by The Mail on Sunday.

Some scientists argue this type of pathogen research is too risky since it could trigger a pandemic from a new disease. 

As a result, there was a moratorium on such work by the US for four years under the Obama administration.

Other critics have warned that the Wuhan Institute was constructing 'chimeric' coronaviruses – new hybrid micro-organisms that show no sign of human manipulation.

Now the big question is whether they took samples from the coronavirus that killed the Yunnan miners and, back in their laboratory more than 1,000 miles away, created a new virus that somehow leaked out into their own city.

Leaked diplomatic cables reveal that US officials who visited the lab two years ago warned about safety weaknesses and the risks of a new Sars-like epidemic emerging from the site

As leading experts have suggested, it would have been a logical step to create chimeric viruses by combining properties from different samples. 

Many scientific breakthroughs have emerged from such speculative endeavours. 

One medical professor suggested to me that the miners may have died after being exposed to very high doses of coronaviruses while working in deep shafts filled with bats and their droppings. 

But the Wuhan scientists then struggled to prove causality in their lab as their samples were too weak to infect human cells.

'This would have stopped them publishing a major finding of a new Sars-like virus infecting humans. 

The possibility is they might then have tried modifying the virus to make it better able to infect human cells in a bid to establish the missing link.' 

This is, it must be stressed, unproven speculation. 

And it is understandable why China wants to comprehend as much as possible about bat viruses that emerge in their country.

Yet as experts say, there are many unanswered questions centring on Beijing's reluctance to come clean about the miners' cases, viruses and samples held in their labs. 

The Wuhan Institute has even taken key databases offline.

Key to all this is the enigmatic Batwoman, Prof Shi. First, she published a genetic sequence for Sars-Cov-2 – the strain of coronavirus that causes Covid-19 – which, despite close analysis of other novel features, ignored its most surprising characteristic. 

This is 'the furin cleavage site', a mutation not found on similar types of coronavirus that allows its spike protein to bind so effectively to many human cells.


The lab's own safety chief also publicly admitted concerns over flawed security systems

Then, last January, Prof Shi and two colleagues published a paper in Nature that revealed the existence of a virus called RaTG13 that was taken from a horseshoe bat and stored on their premises, the biggest repository of bat coronaviruses in Asia.

This paper, submitted on the same day China admitted to human transmission, caused a stir in the scientific world since it revealed the existence of the closest known relative to Sars-Cov-2 with more than 96 per cent genetic similarity.

It underlined that such diseases occur in nature – yet although closely related, it would have taken RaTG13 several decades to evolve in the wild into Sars-Cov-2 and was too distant to be manipulated in a laboratory.

Other experts wondered why there was so little information about this new strain. One reason soon became clear: the name had been changed from that of another virus called Ra4991 identified in a previous paper – but, unusually, not cited in the Nature piece.

This obscured a direct link to the dead miners, which was only confirmed when Nature sought publication of an 'addendum' following complaints. 

The Wuhan team also admitted it had eight more Sars viruses from the Yunnan mine that have not been disclosed.

Some scientists say these new details raise many fresh issues – including a 20-point critique put on her blog by an Indian microbiologist called Monali Rahalkar.

Many high-profile experts, however, still dismiss the idea of a lab leak as a conspiracy theory.

Yet David Relman, one of the world's leading experts in this field, points out that scientists could easily have combined a 'furin cleavage site' from one viral ancestor with the backbone of Sars-Cov-2 taken from another.

'Alternatively, the complete Sars-Cov-2 sequence could have been recovered from a bat sample and viable virus recreated from a synthetic genome to study it before that virus accidentally escaped,' wrote Relman, professor of microbiology and immunology at Stanford University's medical school, in a recent paper.

The former US government adviser on bio-security told me he raised the issues out of frustration with scientists who seemed discomforted by the idea. 

'This perplexing story does not add up – the possibility of a lab accident cannot be discounted,' he said.

There have also been questions over the apparent disappearance of a young woman researcher who worked in the laboratory. 

It has been suggested she might have been patient zero of this pandemic, although this has been denied by the Chinese authorities.

Even if the miners' link was eliminated, it would not rule out the possibility of an accident causing this pandemic. 

Alina Chan, a molecular biologist at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, said Wuhan scientists have shown in publications that they have sampled hundreds of bats and people living near bat caves in their search for Sars-related viruses.

'Even if the precursor to Sars-Cov-2 was not from these miners or the Mojiang mine, did they find other viruses that are very closely related that we do not yet know about?' she asked.

It sounds like the plot from a science-fiction film: an engineered virus leaking from a high-tech lab to cause global chaos. 

Yet there are plenty of precedents, including two researchers infected with Sars in a Beijing virology lab in 2004.

Studies also show accidents with deadly pathogens are common in labs where people are working with microscopic viruses.

Prof Shi admitted she never expected an outbreak in a city so far from the home of the bats she studied. 

She said her first thought on hearing coronaviruses might be the culprit was to wonder: 'Could they have come from our lab?'

She then frantically rushed back to Wuhan to check her records for any possible mishandling of materials – which proves she believed such a leak was a possibility.

There is also another lab in Wuhan with a lower level of bio-security, 500 yards from the animal market. 

A study posted by two Chinese scientists in February on a site for sharing research – then pulled two days later – enigmatically claimed 605 bats were kept here, describing how some attacked, bled and urinated on a researcher. 

'It is plausible that the virus leaked,' the paper concluded.

Perhaps this theory will unravel as we find out fresh facts. 

Or scientists will uncover an alternative explanation for the path of Covid-19 from bats to humans. 

Equally, it is possible we may never discover the truth about the origins of this virus.

But at this stage the only certainty is that we all do science – and indeed, investigative reporting – a disservice if this idea is discarded without being properly disproved and devoid of evidence.

We owe this to a world dislocated so terribly by this pandemic.



Dr. Li-Meng Yan: The WHO Report Which is Based On Empty Evidence is Just A Way For CCP to Tell The World that They Are Innocent And Did Nothing Wrong

 - 02. April 2021

Abstract: WarRoom—-Dr. Li-Meng Yan: The WHO report which is based on empty evidence is just a way for the CCP to tell the world that they are innocent and did nothing wrong.


wenwuThe 3rd Yan Report is published

Mar. 31

The 3rd Yan Report is published!
The Wuhan Laboratory Origin of SARS-CoV-2 and the Validity of the Yan Reports Are Further Proved by the Failure of Two Uninvited "Peer Reviews"

SOURCE:2021/03/31 Yan’s Twitter

The Wuhan Laboratory Origin of SARS-CoV-2 and the Validity of the Yan Reports Are Further Proved by the Failure of Two Uninvited "Peer Reviews"

By Yan, Li-Meng; Kang, Shu; Guan, Jie; Hu, Shanchang - 31. April 2021

The origin of SARS-CoV-2 is a question that has attracted attention from all over the world. It has been portrayed by some as a great mystery, although the laboratory nature of this virus is evident to people with trained eyes.

The fundamental reason for this current situation is a large-scale, multi-domain, deliberate scientific misinformation. In an effort to defeat this scientific misinformation and expose the true nature of SARS-CoV-2, we have published two scientific reports.

Our first report showed, using substantial evidence and logical analyses, why SARS-CoV-2 must be a laboratory product and how it could be created conveniently by following well-known concepts and established techniques.

Our second report exposed a large-scale, organized scientific fraud, through which the nature of SARS-CoV-2 as an Unrestricted Bioweapon was revealed. Our efforts were immediately met by great resistance. Within ten days of the publication of our first report, two self-claimed “peer reviews” came out to specifically criticize our report.

The first review was published by four scientists from the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security led by Dr. Gigi Gronvall. The second review was published on the MIT Press and produced by a group of four scientists led by Dr. Robert Gallo.

Although we welcome critical reviews of our reports, such reviews have to be honest, logical, evidence-based, and produced by qualified scientists. These two reviews, however, did not meet any of the criteria. Unfortunately, these poor reviews were nonetheless used by the media to defame our reports, label laboratory origin theories as “conspiracy theories”, and further suppress the truth of SARS-CoV-2 origin.

Building on these media reports, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) regime then greatly amplified its own voice and promoted the falsified theory that SARS-CoV-2 must have come from nature. In a continued effort to fight and defeat scientific misinformation, here we provide our point-to-point responses to these reviews.

Part I of the document is our responses to the MIT Press review, and Part II is our responses to the review published by the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security.

We also included an opening statement at the beginning, where we summarized the main events of the Unrestricted Scientific Misinformation, including various cover-ups executed by individuals having close ties with the CCP regime, as well as Dr. Yan’s sustained efforts in exposing the truth of COVID-19. We sincerely hope that this document may help the world recognize the ongoing misinformation campaign and come to the realization that the SARS-CoV-2 virus is an Unrestricted Bioweapon developed by the CCP regime. We believe that this realization is crucial in defeating the COVID-19 pandemic and in protecting the global community from future bioweapon attacks.


Files (2.1 MB)

Name Size
2.1 MB   Download



'Pure whitewash!' WHO savaged after reports claims China 'not responsible' for Covid

LORD RIDLEY unleashed a furious attack on the World Health Organisation following its leaked report that claims China is "not responsible" for Covid.

By TOM HUSSEY - 30. 

WHO's China investigation slammed by Lord Ridley

Matt Ridley's comments on WHO investigation report

Speaking to talkRADIO, biologist and Tory peer Lord Ridley slammed the findings in the leaked WHO report which found  not responsible for Covid. He branded the report "a pure whitewash". He went on to explain how "one paragraph" in the report discussed the Wuhan lab's role in the outbreak before being dismissed. The peer also discussed the alleged heavy role Chinese officials had in influencing the investigation into the origins of the deadly virus.

The furious Tory Peer said: “I’m afraid it's a pure whitewash."

He explained: “Members of the (WHO) investigation were agreed by Chinese authorities, they relied on Chinese scientists work, they didn’t do any work themselves."

He emphasised how WHO officials "were heavily chaperoned" by Chinese state officials and allegedly "did not ask very searching questions while they were there."

He concluded: “So we were expecting a whitewash and a whitewash is what we’ve got”


China has conducted "a pure white wash" in its attempts to cover up the origins of Covid-19 (Image: talkRADIO)


Lord Ridley slammed China's lies (Image: talkRADIO)

The peer said: “We’ve got a report that in 300 pages dismisses in one paragraph as ‘very unlikely’ the idea that the virus leaked out of a laboratory.

"But then spends 20 or 30 pages going into great detail about how 45,000 animals have been tested in China all found negative, yet nonetheless one of them carried the virus to Wuhan.”

He compared the results of the WHO report as producing a report that would suggest "it was not a container ship that blocked the Suez Canal".

Lord Ridley added: "It's that bad."

WHO officials

WHO team member Peter Ben Embarek and other members of the group arrive at Tianhe International Airport to leave Wuhan in China's central Hubei province on February 10, 2021 (Image: Getty Images)

The leaked report on the origins of COVID-19 has concluded it is 'extremely unlikely' that coronavirus, which has killed millions across the world, originated in a lab in China.

Detailing the WHO's findings, the report said there was no evidence that the virus was created in a lab as a number of theories had suggested over the past year.

The document reads: “Although rare, laboratory accidents do happen, and different laboratories around the world are working with bat [coronaviruses].

“When working in particular with virus cultures, but also with animal inoculations or clinical samples, humans could become infected in laboratories with limited biosafety, poor laboratory management practice, or following negligence.”



By VF - 30. March 2021

Four Chinese virologists released a paper Thursday that classifies the new coronavirus as "an unrestricted bioweapon," and claims the pandemic is a result of "unrestricted biowarfare."

The paper's lead author, Li-Meng Yan, made a similar claim to Fox News host Tucker Carlson last month. Yan told Carlson that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) had "intentionally" released the "man-made virus."

Contrary to the findings of the virologists and published in the already widely discredited WHO report on the origin of SARS-CoV-2, the highly paid but clearly corrupted and biased "expert" authors write:

“There is no record of viruses closely related to Sars-CoV-2 in any laboratory before December 2019, or genomes that in combination could provide a Sars-CoV-2 genome… and therefore the risk of accidental culturing Sars-CoV-2 in the [Wuhan] laboratory is extremely low”.

“The Wuhan CDC lab which moved on December 2 2019 reported no disruptions or incidents caused by the move.

“They also reported no storage nor laboratory activities on CoVs or other bat viruses preceding the outbreak”.

These statements officially backed by the WHO under its head Tedros, who himself stands accused of war-crimes and crimes against humanity - already have been clearly proven as a big lie, since:

The idea that China engineered, then released a lab-made coronavirus echoes a statement made by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and President Donald Trump in May.

Yan's earlier, second report doubles down on the theory, accusing scientists from around the world of creating and uploading fake coronavirus sequences from bats and other animals into a genetic data bank. The goal of this effort, according to the paper, is to obscure the "true origin" of the new coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2.

Yan's group already suggested in September that Chinese scientists made the virus using existing bat coronaviruses as a "backbone" or "template."

In their new paper, Yan and her coauthors argue that scientists deposited fake coronavirus sequences in GenBank, a genetic sequence database run by the National Institutes of Health. The effort, they claimed, was "orchestrated by the CCP government" in an attempt to promote the "natural origin theory" — or the idea that virus originated in animals.

Any scientist that subscribed to the "natural origin theory," they added, was either misled by scientific fraud or "colluding with the CCP government."

In an interview with Fox's Carlson on Wednesday, Yan said her second paper was reviewed "by top people in US government" before it was published.

Chinese researchers provide Brief Summary of Evidence of Lab-Made 2019 nCoV

Lots of official news and poor-quality academic articles since December 2019 were talking about wild animals in Huanan seafood market as intermediate host for 2019 nCoV, but they did provide no evidence at all. However, a lab-made 2019 nCoV that was recombined with SARS RBD of S protein (to human ACE2 gene), based on ZS bat-CoV (esp. MG772933.1), going through in vitro and in vivo adaptation and amplification processes in a limited range in the lab, generated an ideal strain (2019 nCoV) with effective RBD, while the other comparable conserved sequence did not change much, or remained even without any change (E protein). The stock virus - kept in culture media at -80 ℃ and slowly thawing it on ice - could be one avenue of the virus being released in the environment better.

Please download PDF to read more details Brief-summary-of-evidence-of-lab

China meanwhile uttered the question: “When will [the US] invite WHO experts to visit the US and to conduct work to trace the source? When will it open the Fort Detrick [laboratory] for international experts to tour?”

Despite all the Chinese lies, this is a valid demand.


ICYMI: Coronavirus Coverup: Why Did China LIE?


WHO Wuhan report leaves question of coronavirus origins unresolved

Cars transporting members of the World Health Organization team arrive at the closed Huanan Seafood wholesale market in Wuhan, China, on Jan. 31. (Hector Retamal/AFP/Getty Images) By Emily Rauhala - 29. March 2021 

A joint World Health Organization-China report on the origins of the coronavirus says it most probably jumped from animals to humans via an intermediate animal host, downplays the possibility it leaked from a lab and suggests next steps in a complex search mired in controversy, according to a copy obtained by The Washington Post.

The report, set to be released Tuesday, offers the most detailed look yet at what happened in Wuhan, China, in late 2019 and early 2020. However, the findings are far from conclusive and will be overshadowed by questions about China’s lack of transparency — and the WHO’s apparent inability to press for more.

The team recommends further study of the possible path of transmission between animals and humans and on transmission through frozen food — a once-fringe theory favored by the Chinese government. It does not recommend additional research on the lab leak hypothesis.

But WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, who was not part of the Wuhan mission, offered somewhat contradictory messaging at a news conference on Monday, saying “all hypotheses are open” and warrant future study.

Given China’s coverup of the outbreak in Wuhan, the WHO’s early praise for the country’s response and the fact that it took a full year to get a joint Chinese-international team on the ground for a brief visit, the critical but challenging search for clues faced skepticism from the start.

Secretary of State Antony Blinken told CNN last week he had concerns about “the methodology and the process,” including “the fact that the government in Beijing apparently helped to write it.”

“I don’t think the global community can have confidence in this report, because of China’s lack of transparency on necessary data sources, as well as the close relationship the team had to have with China,” said Larry Gostin, a professor of global health law at Georgetown University.

“This was an expert panel who worked diligently but were blocked from finding all that it could,” he continued. “As a result, we may never know the origins of the pandemic.”

Questions about Chinese interference will be hard to shake. The terms of reference set out by WHO member states called for a collaboration between Chinese and foreign scientists, not an independent investigation or audit. Much of the data was collected by Chinese scientists ahead of the visit and then analyzed by the joint team.

Among the report’s findings is that the market linked to early cases was not necessarily the source of the virus, as some once believed, but may have been the site of an early outbreak or an accelerator, as a virus that was circulating in December 2019 spread between close-packed stalls.

It notes the earliest reported case, from Dec. 8, did not have any link to the market, but it suggests that mild and asymptomatic cases may have gone undetected. The report, therefore, does not draw a firm conclusion and calls for additional research on the role of that and other markets.

According to the report, 233 Chinese health institutions reviewed 76,253 records of cases of respiratory conditions from October and November 2019, found 92 cases compatible with SARS-Co-V2 but later ruled out each case, concluding significant transmission before December was unlikely.

But the report questions whether the clinical criteria used to select those cases was sufficiently broad and notes that the results were based on serological testing conducted about a year later. It says the possibility of transmission before December 2019 cannot be excluded and recommends a review of methods and additional studies on Chinese blood samples.

The report reiterates the team’s belief that the virus most probably jumped from an animal, potentially a bat or pangolin, to an unknown intermediate animal host, then to humans, but the path of transmission remains a mystery. It recommends additional studies on livestock and farmed wildlife that may be susceptible to SARS-CoV-2, such as cats and mink.

Workers wearing protective gear are seen in the compounds of the Jade Boutique Hotel, where members of the World Health Organization team were in quarantine. (Hector Retamal/AFP/Getty Images) 

The mission concludes it is extremely unlikely the virus accidentally leaked from a lab in Wuhan — a theory many scientists downplay for lack of evidence but that others are not ready to dismiss after a single visit.

The visit to the Wuhan Institute of Virology lasted a few hours, according to scientists on the trip. They got a tour of the facility, heard about the lab’s rigorous safety protocols and were told the lab was not working with viruses close to SARS-CoV-2.

One member of the team said in a post-trip television interview that researchers at the lab were sick in the fall of 2019 — a potentially interesting finding that had been raised by the Trump administration — but then dismissed its relevance and offered little else.

The final report states there was no direct infection of workers but does not go into detail or recommend further research on the topic.

It also notes that three laboratories in Wuhan were working with either coronavirus diagnostics or on isolation and vaccine development. All were “high quality” and “well managed,” it said, but it did not specify if the joint mission saw additional evidence, such as audits, to substantiate the claims.

The report also notes that a Wuhan Center for Disease Control lab moved Dec. 2, 2019 — a new detail — but that it “reported no disruptions or incidents caused by the move.”

The search for the origin of any virus is challenging, but the circumstances surrounding the first known cases of this one made launching a credible investigation particularly tough.

When a novel coronavirus hit Wuhan in late 2019, Chinese officials downplayed the risk, undercounted cases and silenced would-be whistleblowers. Then through the early weeks of the crisis, the WHO amplified some of the official Chinese line, giving a false sense of reassurance and eroding public trust.

Foreign scientists on the trip generally agree the timing and level of access was suboptimal but stressed that they were able to obtain information the world did not have before.

Guards are seen in front of Wuhan Jinyintan Hospital as members of the World Health Organization arrived in Wuhan, China, on Jan. 30. (Hector Retamal/AFP/Getty Images)

Even though the Huanan market had been shut for a year and its contents removed, for instance, seeing the proximity of the stalls and the layout helped, said WHO team member Hung Nguyen-Viet, a Vietnamese expert on livestock and human health.

In interviews, Hung and another expert on the trip, Keith Hamilton of the World Organization for Animal Health, said research on the market pointed to the need for additional investigation in southern China. It is unclear if China will allow foreign scientists to return.

Further questions about Chinese government influence will be raised by the report’s willingness to engage with the theory that the virus spread via frozen food — an idea touted by Chinese officials eager to suggest the pandemic originated outside the country. The report calls for additional research on whether the cold chain may play a role in transmission but casts doubt on the idea that early cases were imported to Wuhan. “This would be extraordinary in 2019 where the virus was not circulating widely,” it reads.

Still, the report ranks introduction through the cold chain as a “possible pathway,” of greater probability than a lab incident, which it describes as “an extremely unlikely pathway.”

Dominic Dwyer, an Australian microbiologist and infectious-disease expert on the mission, stressed that the team did not have the mandate, personnel or time to conduct a formal audit on labs.

“You could do, if so desired, a more detailed forensic examination,” he said. “But that is another whole negotiation and discussion.”

“What stands out starkly is that this is the kind of situation where member states are expecting results from WHO that they have not empowered it to produce,” said Mara Pillinger, a senior associate in global health policy and governance at Georgetown’s O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law. “They needed permission to go in, to conduct research and on the report.”

In general, the foreign scientists on the trip took pains to praise their Chinese counterparts, noting their technical expertise and professionalism. They also acknowledged the limits of working with data collected before they arrived that may or may not be complete.

“At the end of the day,” Hung said, “they show us what they show.”


Adam Taylor contributed to this report.

Politics frustrate WHO mission to search for origins of coronavirus in China


Five details from the WHO-led report on coronavirus origins

By Adam Taylor and  Emily Rauhala - 29. March 2021

An international team backed by the World Health Organization investigating the origins of the coronavirus pandemic will release its findings Tuesday. But the report will disappoint many who expected it to solve perhaps the greatest mystery of the pandemic.

World Health Organization official Peter Ben Embarek leaves in a convoy from the Baishazhou wholesale market during a field visit in Wuhan, China, in late January. (Ng Han Guan/AP)


The 123-page report, which The Washington Post obtained a copy of before its publication, is cautious in its findings and does not reach any firm conclusions about the virus’s origins, despite international anticipation after the team of experts visited Wuhan, China, in January and February.

What did the investigation conclude was the most likely scenario?

A “very likely” scenario was that the virus was passed to humans through an unknown animal, the report concludes, while the widely discussed idea that it leaked from a laboratory in Wuhan is described as “extremely unlikely.” Two other scenarios — that the virus was passed directly from a bat and that it was spread via frozen food — are found to lie in between these two extremes.

The results are likely to frustrate critics of the mission, who have said that it was politicized and — because of pressure from the Chinese government, which has withheld information since the earliest days of the pandemic — did not fairly consider some scenarios.

What did it say about the Huanan market?

Many of the early cases of the novel coronavirus in late 2019 were linked to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market, in a densely populated part of Wuhan. The WHO-led team visited the market in February and analyzed the data on early cases to consider whether they had a link to the market. They failed to reach a firm conclusion about the role of the market, based on available data.

The team found only 28 percent of confirmed early cases had exposure only to the Huanan market, while a further 5 percent had exposure to the market as well as other markets. The report notes the case with the earlier known onset of the coronavirus had “no history of exposure to the Huanan market” and of the early cases, 47 percent had no history of market exposure at all.

However, the report notes that while this may imply the Huanan market was not the original source of the outbreak, many milder cases may have been missed, with those infected not seeking medical attention. “No firm conclusion therefore about the role of the Huanan Market can be drawn,” the authors wrote.

The report also noted there were 92 cases of patients with covid-19-like symptoms in October 2019, two months before any confirmed infection. While the Chinese government has ruled these out as possible covid-19 cases, citing retrospective serological testing, the WHO team stated that levels of antibodies may have faded over the long time frame as tests were performed a year after possible infection.

What animals could have spread the virus to humans?

The closest known relative of SARS-CoV-2 (the scientific name for the coronavirus) has been found in bats in China’s Yunnan province. However, the report notes that as the evolutionary distance between the two viruses is “estimated to be several decades,” another animal might have served as an intermediary in passing the animal to humans.

While the report concludes this is the most likely scenario, there is no direct evidence of what this animal might have been. Highly similar viruses have been found in pangolins, an endangered creature that looks like a cross between an anteater and an armadillo, but there was not stronger evidence that they served as the intermediary host for SARS-CoV-2.

The report notes the “high susceptibility of mink and cats” to the virus discovered during the pandemic suggests other animals could serve as a potential reservoir for SARS-CoV-2.

During a briefing on the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market, the researchers were told no live animals were sold at the market and no animals were butchered on the premises, though some stores sold live fish and amphibians including turtles. Most products were frozen, the report stated, and animal products sold at the market included those from porcupines, bamboo rats, deer and several types of crocodile.

In response to the pandemic, China banned the sale and consumption of wild animals for food in February 2020. However, the trade in wild-animal products for fur and traditional Chinese medicine continues.

The report says more detailed research into what was being sold at the market needs to be performed, as well as research on any stray dogs and cats that may have made their homes near the market. The report notes that a nonaffiliated researcher told them when he visited in 2014 he saw live snakes and raccoon dogs for sale at the market.

Could the virus have spread to Wuhan via frozen food?

Chinese officials have repeatedly suggested the virus might have spread to Wuhan via frozen food. The WHO-backed team investigated this scenario in detail, noting many of the goods sold at the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market were frozen and many prior virus outbreaks have been linked to the foodstuffs.

The report also gives some credence to Chinese claims that the coronavirus has been reintroduced to the country via frozen-food imports in the year since the outbreak began in Wuhan, stating the virus can “persist in conditions found in frozen food, packaging and cold-chain products.” The report says it is “possible” frozen food led to the outbreak in Wuhan in late 2019, with the Huanan market one potential route.

But the report also states that such a scenario would have been “extraordinary” in 2019 unless the virus was already circulating widely in another location and that there is no clear evidence it was. “The probability of a cold-chain contamination with the virus from a reservoir is very low,” the report states.

Could the virus have leaked from a laboratory in Wuhan?

The most controversial mainstream theory about the origin of the coronavirus is that it leaked from a laboratory in Wuhan in the course of scientific research. The theory has some high-profile advocates, including former Centers for Disease Control and Prevention chief Robert Redfield, but many scientists say the idea is politically motivated and not supported by direct evidence.

The WHO-backed team considered the scenario but concluded it was “extremely unlikely” and devoted only a comparatively small space in the final report to the idea of an accidental laboratory leak.

In reaching this conclusion, the report acknowledges that lab leaks do happen and that the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) had collected the coronavirus strain that was most similar to SARS-CoV-2. It also noted that a Wuhan Center for Disease Control lab moved to a location near the Huanan market on Dec. 2, 2019, and that “such moves can be disruptive for the operations of any laboratory.”

However, the report quickly dismisses this idea, stating the laboratories in Wuhan that worked on the virus had good safety records and the Wuhan lab “reported no disruptions or incidents caused by the move” and was not working on bat coronaviruses before the pandemic.

According to the report, Shi Zhengli, a researcher at the WIV who conducts work on bat coronaviruses, said that there had been no infections among staffers during three years of research and that serum samples found no infections among close contacts of staffers. It is not clear whether the team asked for or was offered additional documentation on her claims.


Headshot of Adam Taylor


Adam Taylor writes about foreign affairs for The Washington Post. Originally from London, he studied at the University of Manchester and Columbia University.Follow

Headshot of Emily Rauhala


Emily Rauhala writes about foreign affairs for The Washington Post. She spent a decade as an editor and correspondent in Asia, first for Time magazine and later, from 2015 to 2018, as China correspondent in Beijing for The Post. In 2017, she shared an Overseas Press Club award for a series about the Internet in China.Follow



In Hunt for Covid-19 Origin, Patient Zero Points to Second Wuhan Market

The man with the first confirmed infection of the new coronavirus told the WHO team that his parents had shopped there

Apparently the sworn in narrative of the WHO under heavy influence from China is: Lab Theory ‘Extremely Unlikely’: What WHO Team Learned in Wuhan".

Lab Theory ‘Extremely Unlikely’: What WHO Team Learned in Wuhan

The World Health Organization’s mission to Wuhan said the coronavirus most likely spread naturally to humans through an animal. WSJ’s Jeremy Page reports on what scientists learned during their weekslong investigation. Photo: Thomas Peter/Reuters

By Jeremy Page, Drew Hinshaw and Betsy McKay - 26. February 2021

World Health Organization investigators are seeking information about a second food market in the Chinese city of Wuhan after the first officially confirmed Covid-19 case, dubbed patient zero, told them his parents had shopped there.

Chinese authorities have said since early last year that the first confirmed victim was a Wuhan resident surnamed Chen who fell sick on Dec. 8, 2019, and had no connection to the Huanan seafood market, which was tied to many of the early infections.

That case, and more recent evidence, led a WHO team probing the pandemic’s origins to conclude that the virus might have first jumped from an animal to a human earlier, and elsewhere, and been spreading throughout Wuhan by the time an outbreak at the Huanan market occurred.

The putative patient zero met the WHO investigators during their recent four-week visit to Wuhan, and told them that his parents had visited another local community food market, according to three team members.

The revelation came at the end of the man’s meeting with the WHO investigators and they were unable to identify the market or obtain further details, the team members said. They declined to comment further.


UK says it shares U.S. concerns over WHO COVID-19 mission to China

By Reuters - 14. Fbruary 2021

British foreign minister Dominic Raab said on Sunday he shared concerns about the level of access given to a World Health Organization COVID-19 fact-finding mission to China, echoing criticism from the United States.

The White House on Saturday called on China to make available data from the earliest days of the novel coronavirus outbreak, saying it had “deep concerns” about the way the findings of the WHO’s COVID-19 report were communicated.

Asked about the U.S. reaction, Raab told the BBC: “We do share concerns that they get full cooperation and they get the answers they need, and so we’ll be pushing for it to have full access, get all the data it needs to be able to answer the questions that I think most people want to hear answered around the outbreak.”

In a separate BBC interview, a member of the WHO’s delegation to China said that, while Chinese authorities had not given them all raw data, they had seen a lot of information and discussed analysis of the first cases.

“It would be unusual for them to hand over the raw data, but we looked at a great deal of information in detail in discussion with the Chinese counterparts,” said John Watson, an epidemiologist who travelled to China as part of the WHO team.

On Saturday, Dominic Dwyer, an Australian infectious diseases expert, who is also a member of the team, said China had refused access to all the data requested.

Reporting by William James; Editing by Gareth Jones and Barbara Lewis


Covid: WHO team says 'extremely unlikely' virus leaked from lab

By BBC (*) -  09. February 2021

Peter Ben Embarek, a member of the World Health Organization (WHO) team tasked with investigating the origins of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19), speaks at the WHO-China joint study news conference at a hotel in Wuhan, Hubei province, ChinaPeter Ben Embarek IMAGE COPYRIGHT REUTERS

A team of international experts investigating the origins of Covid-19 have all but dismissed a theory that the virus came from a laboratory.

Peter Ben Embarek, the head of the World Health Organization (WHO) mission, said it was "extremely unlikely" that the virus leaked from a lab in the Chinese city of Wuhan.

He said more work was needed to identify the source of the virus.

The comments came at the conclusion of a joint WHO-China mission.

Wuhan, in China's western Hubei province, is the first place in the world that the virus was detected. Since then, more than 106 million cases and 2.3 million deaths have been reported worldwide.

Dr Embarek told a press conference that the investigation had uncovered new information but had not dramatically changed the picture of the outbreak.

Experts believe the virus is likely to have originated in animals, before spreading to humans, but they are not sure how.

Dr Embarek said work to identify the origins of Covid-19 pointed to a "natural reservoir" in bats, but that it was unlikely that this happened in Wuhan.

The experts said there was "no indication" that the virus was circulating in Wuhan before the first official cases were recorded there in December 2019.

Liang Wannian, an expert with China's Health Commission, said Covid-19 could have been in other regions before it was detected in Wuhan.

It was unlikely that the expert group, in its politically-charged mission, would be able to pinpoint the source of the pandemic in China a year after it began. 

The team say the virus may have jumped from animals to humans, but they don't have the proof yet.

Possible carriers include bats and pangolins, but tests so far have yet to find convincing evidence for this. Another line of investigation is whether the virus could have spread through imported frozen food. The hunt for the origin will continue.


* N.B.: The BBC HEALTH SECTION is financed by the Bill&Melinda Gates Foundation



China opts for the anal swab in search for their 'virus'


Big Tech allows CCP to gaslight America about the origins of coronavirus

By  - 01. February 2021

Image: Big Tech allows CCP to gaslight America about the origins of coronavirus

The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is spreading loads of propaganda about the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) all across social media, and thus far Big Tech is turning a blind eye to it.

In a nutshell, the CCP’s “Pizzagate-caliber, officially endorsed conspiracy theories,” to quote The Daily Bell‘s Ben Bartee, claim that the Chinese virus did not originate at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), and that its release is not the fault of the communist Chinese regime.

Even though there is now overwhelming proof that the CCP not only knew about the virus but had a hand in its creation and release, the regime is rewriting the narrative with the help of social media and the mainstream media.

One of the alternative facts being spread by the CCP with the blessing of corporate media is the hilarious claim that an American cyclist from Ft. Detrick, Md., “imported” the virus into China, causing it to spread and eventually become a global “pandemic.”

[N.B.: The Chinese might have a point there. Not in form of that hilarious cyclist story, but fact is that there was a leakage with discharge at the BSL-4/P4 military bio-warfare lab at Ft. Detrick in June/July 2019 for which it was shut down and shortly thereafter Dr. Anthony Fauchi transferred the specific corona'virus' research (i.a. "gain of function" and enhancement with nano-bots) to the Wuhan BSL-4 lab - and the USA paid for it to continue there. And fact is also that all the "first cases" e.g. in France, Germany, Italy etc. were Chinese patients, who had flown in from China (or were they sent???). Only a proper Nuremberg-style trial with powers will be able to bring light into the whole affair, which holds the entire world in a horrific grip.]

Since that time, Americans have been blamed by the CCP for keeping the communist virus in circulation because some of them do not always wear a mask or “social distance” from other humans at all times.

Wuhan, where the novel coronavirus originated, is now back to “normal,” for the most part. The United States, on the other hand, continues to face draconian lockdown measures, forced mask-wearing and mandatory small business closures.

“For people in Wuhan, witnessing other countries struggling to keep the pandemic under control is bewildering,” Yan is quoted as saying.

“I find it hard to understand why the United States can’t get the pandemic under control despite repeated attempts to roll out social distancing measures or strict lockdowns.”

Coronavirus is a sadomasochistic humiliation ritual by the state against its subjects

As it turns out, the CCP has banned 300 studies from its science databases, including the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC). All of them include research about the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) that the CCP does not want people to know, so they had to be memory-holed.

One of the studies, co-authored by scientist, virologist and whistleblower Li-Meng Yan, addresses the issue of CCP censorship.

“It is noteworthy that scientific journals have clearly censored any dissenting opinions that suggest a non-natural origin of SARS-CoV-28,22,” Li-Meng, who was forced to flee communist China for telling the truth about the regime’s lies, wrote.

“Because of this censorship, articles questioning either the natural origin of SARS-CoV-2 or the actual existence of RaTG13, although of high quality scientifically, can only exist as preprints 5-9,19-21 or other non-peer reviewed articles published on various online platforms.”

Li-Meng made an interview appearance with Fox News‘ Tucker Carlson, explaining what she knows about the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) coverup. Politifact responded with a hit piece decrying Li-Meng’s claims as a “conspiracy theory that has been debunked since the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic.”

Truth be told, the NSFC database scandal has never once been scrutinized, let alone “debunked.” But who are we to let facts get in the way of the corporate media’s pro-CCP agenda?

This agenda is further being propagated by the likes of Anthony Fauci and Bill Gates, who like the rest of the establishment insist that the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) came about as a random mutation in bats.

No preponderance of evidence will make a difference,” Bartee explains about the fix.

They, their peers, and the monied foundations they create fund scientific research and development. They decide what gets published – and what subjects are up for financial backing and institutional support in the first place.”

More stories about the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) can be found at Pandemic.news.

Sources for this article include:

Natural News





13 WHO assigned "experts" transferred from quarantine centre to hotel for controlled face-to-face meetings with Chinese counterparts. 

28. January 2021

They are confronted with:

Covid-19 Virus Origin: The Mojiang Miners

The Wuhan Institute of Virology is in the rear building. The cube with the sealed access tower is the BSL-4/P4 laboratory that has a same size underground section only accessible for military personel with special permissions.

Updated: January 2021; Published: July 2020;
LanguagesDEENShare on: /

Virologist Jonathan Latham and geneticist Allison Wilson have proposed a new hypothesis for the origin of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and the Covid-19 pandemic.

It has been known since February that a bat virus called RaTG13, collected by the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) in 2013, is the closest known relative of SARS-CoV-2.

It has been known since May (to some) that RaTG13, previously known as BtCoV/4991, was found in bat feces in a mineshaft near Mojiang in southwest China, after six miners fell ill with Covid19-like pneumonia and three of them eventually died.

The WIV itself didn’t disclose this link, however. On the contrary, in a March 2020 interview the famous WIV “bat woman” Shi Zhengli falsely claimed “a fungus” had caused the miners’ illness.

It is also known that RaTG13, despite its 96% similarity, cannot be the direct ancestor of SARS-CoV-2, as natural mutations in the environment would have taken at least several decades. But it has been shown computationally that RaTG13 can already infect human lung cells to some extent.

Finally, it is known that the sick Mojiang miners, exhibiting severe Covid19-like pneumonia, were hospitalized for up to four months before being either discharged or dying back in 2012.

Latham and Wilson now propose that the Mojiang miners were originally infected by RaTG13 and/or similar coronaviruses during their up to two week stay in the mineshaft inhaling aerosols from bat feces. RaTG13 then turned into SARS-CoV-2 (or a precursor virus) through mutations and/or recombinations in the lungs of the miners during their up to four month stay in the hospital.

Thus the infected lungs of the miners may have served as a ‘human incubator’ enabling RaTG13 to adapt to both the human ACE2 cell receptor and the human immune system in just four months instead of several decades as would have been expected in a natural (animal) environment.

The Wuhan Institute of Virology in 2012/2013 received tissue and blood samples of the surviving or dead miners that may already have included SARS-CoV-2 (or a precursor). WIV virologists may then have been waiting five more years, until the completion of their BSL-4 (high security) lab in 2017/2018, before beginning to do research on what is now known as SARS-CoV-2.

SARS-CoV-2 may then have escaped, in autumn 2019, from the WIV lab, perhaps through an infected lab worker or animal cadaver, initiating what is now a global coronavirus pandemic.

This, in short, is the Latham-Wilson Mojiang Miners Passage (MMP) hypothesis. It can explain most or all of the unusual properties of SARS-CoV-2, including its very strong binding to human ACE2 cell receptors and its rather low mutation rate, even without having to assume “gain of function” research (i.e. genetic engineering) — although the hypothesis doesn’t exclude this, either.

Archive entries show that the origin of RaTG13 in a Chinese database was changed from “lung fluid” (from the miners) to “bat feces” in July 2020 without any explanation. In addition, the WIV claimed that the RaTG13 sample had “disintegrated” during analyses and was no longer available (and thus no longer verifiable). In autumn 2019, the WIV moreover deleted a genetic database containing information on cross-species bat coronaviruses.

In addition to the WIV, the US military, the US CDC and US universities also did research on SARS-like bat coronaviruses. In 2014, some of the US research was halted and moved to China. A US NGO called “Eco Health Alliance” worked both with the US military and with the Chinese WIV, collecting and investigating SARS-like bat coronaviruses to “prevent the next pandemic”.

Updates (December 2020)

  • According to a leaked Chinese investigation report, the first suspected covid-19 patients were admitted to Wuhan hospitals already in early October of 2019. This coincides with a preceding inspection and review of virus samples at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) in September 2019. On 12 September 2019, the WIV deleted its cross-species viral pathogen database.
  • Researcher Gilles Demaneuf described in detail three SARS-1 lab escapes from Chinese and Taiwanese P3 and P4 high-security labs. Lab escapes happened in other countries, too.
  • The Lancet Covid-19 Commission chose Peter Daszak to lead the SARS-2 virus origin investigation. Daszak is the president of “Eco Health Alliance”, a US Pentagon contractor which collaborated with the WIV on SARS virus research. Although clearly not impartial, Daszak is also a member of the WHO virus origin investigation team.
  • A FOIA request revealed that early scientific letters claiming that a lab origin of SARS-2 was “impossible” were in fact coordinated behind the scenes by EHA president Peter Daszak.
  • Another FOIA request revealed that leading virologists like Ralph Baric were well aware that a lab escape is a very real possibility, but didn’t want to discuss this publicly. In a later interview Baric admitted: “You can engineer a virus without leaving any trace. However, the answers you are looking for can only be found in the archives of the Wuhan laboratory.”
  • In December 2020, a group of BBC journalists tried to visit the Mojiang mine area in China’s south-western province of Yunnan, but was blocked by Chinese police and security forces.

Read the full article by Latham and Wilson:

A Proposed Origin for SARS-CoV-2 and the COVID-19 Pandemic (ISN, July 15, 2020)

See also

  1. Seven year coronavirus trail from mine deaths to a Wuhan lab (London Times, July 2020)
  2. Dr. Fauci Backed Controversial Wuhan Lab with U.S. Dollars for Risky Coronavirus Research(Newsweek, April 2020)
  3. How China’s ‘Bat Woman’ Hunted Down Viruses from SARS to the New Coronavirus (Scientific American, March 2020)
  4. An early article from 2014: A New Killer Virus in China? (Science Magazine, March 2014)
  5. Pentagon biolab discovered MERS and SARS-like coronaviruses in bats (Arms Watch, April 2020)

Scientific Papers

  1. Lab-Made? SARS-CoV-2 Genealogy Through the Lens of Gain-of-Function Research (Deigin, Medium, April 2020)
  2. Might SARS‐CoV‐2 Have Arisen via Serial Passage through an Animal Host or Cell Culture?(Sirotkin and Sirotkin, Bioessays, August 2020)
  3. Did a Review of Samples Collected from a Mineshaft Cause the COVID-19 Pandemic? (Anonymous, Zenodo, September 2020)
  4. Lethal Pneumonia Cases in Mojiang miners (2012) and the mine could provide important clues to the origin of SARS-CoV-2 (Rahalkar and Bahulikar, FPubH, October 2020)
  5. The genetic structure of SARS‐CoV‐2 does not rule out a laboratory origin (Segreto and Deigin, Bioessays, November 2020)


Their challenge is also to proof or disproof this, which is known since a year:

The first documentary movie on CCP virus,

Tracking Down the Origin of the Wuhan Coronavirus

•Premiered Apr 8, 2020


As the world is gripped by the ongoing pandemic, many questions remain about the origin of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) virus—commonly known as the novel coronavirus. Join Epoch Times senior investigative reporter Joshua Philipp as he explores the known facts surrounding the CCP virus and the global pandemic it caused. In his investigation, Philipp explores the scientific data, and interviews top scientists and national security experts. And while the mystery surrounding the virus's origin remains, much is learned about the CCP's cover-up that led to the pandemic and the threat it poses to the world. Editor's note: From the start of the virus outbreak in China, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has not been forthcoming with information about the virus. In the early days of the outbreak, medical professionals who sounded the alarm were reprimanded by police for spreading "rumors." Initially, the CCP said the virus originated at the Huanan Seafood Market, even though it knew patient zero had no connection with the market. Fearing that it might be held accountable for the worldwide pandemic, the CCP shifted its narrative to suggest that the virus originated in the United States and was brought to China by the U.S. military. As a leading voice in covering China for the past 20 years, we understand very well the CCP's deceptive nature and its history of cover-ups. With this outbreak, we saw a case of history repeating itself—in 2003, we exposed the CCP's cover-up of the SARS epidemic in China, far ahead of other media. In this documentary, we present viewers with the known scientific data and facts surrounding the origin of the virus along with experts’ opinions. We don't draw conclusions, but we point out that serious questions remain about the origins of the virus as well as the CCP's handling of the outbreak. Some of our viewers felt the #documentary was taking a position on the origin of the virus, which was not our intent. The documentary has been slightly updated as of April 14 to better reflect our position, which is not to provide a definitive answer, but rather to present the known facts. #virusorigin #wuhan


Sign the Petition to Investigate, Condemn, and Reject the Chinese Communist Party ▶️https://ccpvirustruth.com



A Proposed Origin for SARS-CoV-2 and the COVID-19 Pandemic

By Jonathan Latham, PhD and Allison Wilson, PhD

In all the discussions of the origin of the COVID-19 pandemic, enormous scientific attention has been paid to the molecular character of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, including its novel genome sequence in comparison with its near relatives. In stark contrast, virtually no attention has been paid to the physical provenance of those nearest genetic relatives, its presumptive ancestors, which are two viral sequences named BtCoV/4991 and RaTG13.

This neglect is surprising because their provenance is more than interesting. BtCoV/4991 and RaTG13 were collected from a mineshaft in Yunnan province, China, in 2012/2013 by researchers from the lab of Zheng-li Shi at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV). Very shortly before, in the spring of 2012, six miners working in the mine had contracted a mysterious illness and three of them had died (Wu et al., 2014). The specifics of this mystery disease have been virtually forgotten; however, they are described in a Chinese Master’s thesis written in 2013 by a doctor who supervised their treatment.

We arranged to have this Master’s thesis translated into English. The evidence it contains has led us to reconsider everything we thought we knew about the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic. It has also led us to theorise a plausible route by which an apparently isolated disease outbreak in a mine in 2012 led to a global pandemic in 2019.

The origin of SARS-CoV-2 that we propose below is based on the case histories of these miners and their hospital treatment. This simple theory accounts for all the key features of the novel SARS-CoV-2 virus, including ones that have puzzled virologists since the outbreak began.

The theory can account for the origin of the polybasic furin cleavage site, which is a region of the viral spike protein that makes it susceptible to cleavage by the host enzyme furin and which greatly enhances viral spread in the body. This furin site is novel to SARS-CoV-2 compared to its near relatives (Coutard, et al., 2020). The theory also explains the exceptional affinity of the virus spike protein for human receptors, which has also surprised virologists (Letko et al., 2020Piplani et al, 2020Wrapp et al., 2020Walls et al., 2020). The theory further explains why the virus has barely evolved since the pandemic began, which is also a deeply puzzling aspect of a virus supposedly new to humans (Zhan et al., 2020van Dorp et al., 2020Chaw et al., 2020). Lastly, the theory neatly explains why SARS-CoV-2 targets the lungs, which is unusual for a coronavirus (Huang et al., 2020).

We do not propose a specifically genetically engineered or biowarfare origin for the virus but the theory does propose an essential causative role in the pandemic for scientific research carried out by the laboratory of Zheng-li Shi at the WIV; thus also explaining Wuhan as the location of the epicentre.

Why has the provenance of RaTG13 and BtCoV/4991 been ignored?

The apparent origin of the COVID-19 pandemic is the city of Wuhan in Hubei province, China. Wuhan is also home to the world’s leading research centre for bat coronaviruses. There are two virology labs in the city, both have either collected bat coronaviruses or researched them in the recent past. The Shi lab, which collected BtCoV/4991 and RaTG13, recently received grants to evaluate by experiment the potential for pandemic pathogenicity of the novel bat coronaviruses they collected from the wild.

To add to these suggestive data points, there is a long history of accidents, disease outbreaks, and even pandemics resulting from lab accidents with viruses (Furmanski, 2014Weiss et al., 2015). For these and other reasons, summarised in our article The Case is Building that COVID-19 Had a Lab Origin, we (a virologist and a geneticist) and others have concluded that a lab outbreak is a credible thesis. Certainly, a lab origin has at least as much circumstantial evidence to support it as does any natural zoonotic origin theory (Piplani et al., 2020Segreto and Deigin, 2020Zhan et al., 2020).

The media, normally so enamoured of controversy, has largely declined even to debate the possibility of a laboratory escape. Many news sites have simply labelled it a conspiracy theory.

The principal reason for media dismissals of the lab origin possibility is a review paper in Nature Medicine (Andersen et al., 2020). Although by Jun 29 2020 this review had almost 700 citations it also has major scientific shortcomings. These flaws are worth understanding in their own right but they are also useful background for understanding the implications of the Master’s thesis.

Andersen et al., a critique

The question of the origin of the COVID-19 pandemic is, in outline, simple. There are two incontrovertible facts. One, the disease is caused by a human viral pathogen, SARS-CoV-2, first identified in Wuhan in December 2019 and whose RNA genome sequence is known. Second, all of its nearest known relatives come from bats. Beyond any reasonable doubt SARS-CoV-2 evolved from an ancestral bat virus. The task the Nature Medicine authors set for themselves was to establish the relative merits of each of the various possible routes (lab vs natural) by which a bat coronavirus might have jumped to humans and in the same process have acquired an unusual furin site and a spike protein having very high affinity for the human ACE2 receptor.

When Andersen et al. outline a natural zoonotic pathway they speculate extensively about how the leap might have occurred. In particular they elaborate on a proposed residence in intermediate animals, likely pangolins. For example, “The presence in pangolins of an RBD [Receptor Binding Domain] very similar to that of SARS-CoV-2 means that we can infer that this was probably in the virus that jumped to humans. This leaves the insertion of [a] polybasic cleavage site to occur during human-to-human transmission.” This viral evolution occurred in “Malayan pangolins illegally imported into Guangdong province”. Even with these speculations there are major gaps in this theory. For example, why is the virus so well adapted to humans? Why Wuhan, which is 1,000 Km from Guangdong? (See map).

china province guide
china province guide

The authors provide no such speculations in favour of the lab accident thesis, only speculation against it:

“Finally, the generation of the predicted O-linked glycans is also unlikely to have occurred due to cell-culture passage, as such features suggest the involvement of an immune system.” (italics added).

[Passaging is the deliberate placing of live viruses into cells or organisms to which they are NOT adapted for the purpose of making them adapted, i.e. speeding up their evolution.]

It is also noteworthy that the Andersen authors set a higher hurdle for the lab thesis than the zoonotic thesis. In their account, the lab thesis is required to explain all of the evolution of SARS-CoV-2 from its presumed bat viral ancestor, whereas under their telling of the zoonotic thesis the key step of the addition of the furin site is allowed to happen in humans and is thus effectively unexplained.

A further imbalance is that key information needed to judge the merits of a lab origin theory is missing from their account. As we detailed in our previous article, in their search for SARS-like viruses with zoonotic spillover potential, researchers at the WIV have passaged live bat viruses in monkey and human cells (Wang et al., 2019). They have also performed many recombinant experiments with diverse bat coronaviruses (Ge et al., 2013Menachery et al., 2015Hu et al., 2017). Such experiments have generated international concern over the possible creation of potential pandemic viruses (Lipsitch, 2018). As we showed too, the Shi lab had also won a grant to extend that work to whole live animals. They planned “virus infection experiments across a range of cell cultures from different species and humanized mice” with recombinant bat coronaviruses. Yet Andersen et al did not discuss this research at all, except to say:

“Basic research involving passage of bat SARS-CoV-like coronaviruses in cell culture and/or animal models has been ongoing for many years in biosafety level 2 laboratories across the world”

This statement is fundamentally misleading about the kind of research performed at the Shi lab.

A further important oversight by the Andersen authors concerns the history of lab outbreaks of viral pathogens. They write: “there are documented instances of laboratory escapes of SARS-CoV”. This is a rather matter-of-fact allusion to the fact that since 2003 there have been six documented outbreaks of SARS from labs, not all in China, with some leading to fatalities (Furmanski, 2014).

Andersen et al might have also have noted that two major human pandemics are widely accepted to have been caused by lab outbreaks of viral pathogens, H1N1 in 1977 and Venezuelan Equine Encephalitis (summarised in Furmanski, 2014). Andersen could even have noted that literally hundreds of lab accidents with viruses have resulted in near-misses or very localised outbreaks (summarised by Lynn Klotz and Sam Husseini and also Weiss et al., 2015).

Also unmentioned were instances where a lab outbreak of an experimental or engineered virus has been plausibly theorised but remains uninvestigated. For example, the most coherent explanation for the H1N1 variant ‘swine flu’ pandemic of 2009/10 that resulted in a death toll estimated by some as high as 200,000 (Duggal et al., 2016Simonsen et al. 2013), is that a vaccine was improperly inactivated by its maker (Gibbs et al., 2009). If so, H1N1 emerged from a lab not once but twice.

Given that human and livestock viral outbreaks have frequently come from laboratories and that many scientists have warned of probable lab escapes (Lipsitch and Galvani, 2014), and that the WIV itself has a questionable biosafety record, the Andersen paper is not an even-handed treatment of the possible origins of the COVID-19 virus.

Yet its text expresses some strong opinions: “Our analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus….It is improbable that SARS-CoV-2 emerged through laboratory manipulation of a related SARS-CoV-like coronavirus…..the genetic data irrefutably show that SARS-CoV-2 is not derived from any previously used backbone….the evidence shows that SARS-CoV2 is not a purposefully manipulated virus….we do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is possible.” (Andersen et al., 2020).

It is hard not to conclude that what their paper mostly shows is that Drs. Andersen, Rambaut, Lipkin, Holmes and Garry much prefer the natural zoonotic transfer thesis. Their rhetoric is forthright but the evidence does not support that confidence.

Indeed, since the publication of Andersen et al., important new evidence has emerged that undermines their zoonotic origin theory. On May 26th the Chinese CDC ruled out the Huanan “wet” market in Wuhan as the source of the outbreak. Additionally, new research on pangolins, the favoured intermediate mammal host, suggests they are not a natural reservoir of coronaviruses (Lee et al., 2020; Chan and Zhan, 2020). Furthermore, SARS-CoV-2 was found not to replicate in bat kidney or lung cells (Rhinolophus sinicus), implying that SARS-CoV-2 is not a recently-adapted spill over Chu et al., 2020).

The Mojiang mine and the Master’s thesis

In our own search to resolve the COVID-19 origin question we chose to focus on the provenance of the coronavirus genome sequences BtCoV/4991 and RaTG13, since these are the most closely related sequences to SARS-CoV-2 (98.7% and 96.2% identical respectively). See FIG 1. (reproduced from P. Zhou et al., 2020).

Similarity of Sars-CoV-2 to RaTG13
Similarity of SARS-CoV-2 to RaTG13 (blue line) and other coronaviruses (red, green, pink) (Image from Zhou et al., 2020). The higher the line the more similar the virus.

For comparison, the next closest virus to SARS-CoV-2 is RmYN02 (not shown in Fig 1.) (H. Zhou et al., 2020). RmYN02 has an overall similarity to SARS-CoV-2 of 93.2%, making its evolutionary distance from SARS-CoV-2 almost twice as great.

BtCoV/4991 was first described in 2016. It is a 370 nucleotide virus fragment collected from the Mojiang mine in 2013 by the lab of Zeng-li Shi at the WIV (Ge et al., 2016). BtCoV/4991 is 100% identical in sequence to one segment of RaTG13. RaTG13 is a complete viral genome sequence (almost 30,000 nucleotides) that was only published in 2020, after the pandemic began (P. Zhou et al., 2020).

Despite the confusion created by their different names, in a letter obtained by us Zheng-li Shi confirmed to a virology database that BtCoV/4991 and RaTG13 are both from the same bat faecal sample and the same mine. They are thus sequences from the same virus. In the discussion below we will refer primarily to RaTG13 and specify BtCoV/4991 only as necessary.

These specifics are important because it is these samples and their provenance that we believe are ultimately key to unravelling the mystery of the origins of COVID-19.

The story begins in April 2012 when six workers in that same Mojiang mine fell ill from a mystery illness while removing bat faeces. Three of the six subsequently died.

In a March 2020 interview with Scientific American Zeng-li Shi dismissed the significance of these deaths, claiming the miners died of fungal infections. Indeed, no miners or deaths are mentioned in the paper published by the Shi lab documenting the collection of RaTG13 (Ge et al., 2016).

But Shi’s assessment does not tally with any other contemporaneous accounts of the miners and their illness (Rahalkar and Bahulikar, 2020). As these authors have pointed out, Science magazine wrote up part of the incident in 2014 as A New Killer Virus in China?Science was citing a different team of virologists who found a paramyxovirus in rats from the mine. These virologists told Science they found “no direct relationship between human infection” and their virus. This expedition was later published as the discovery of a new virus called MojV after Mojiang, the locality of the mine (Wu et al., 2014).

What this episode suggests though is that these researchers were looking for a potentially lethal virus and not a lethal fungus. Also searching the Mojiang mine for a virus at around the same time was Canping Huang, the author of a PhD thesis carried out under the supervision of George Gao, the head of the Chinese CDC.

All of this begs the question of why the Shi lab, which has no interest in fungi but a great interest in SARS-like bat coronaviruses, also searched the Mojiang mine for bat viruses on four separate occasions between August 2012 and July 2013, even though the mine is a 1,000 Km from Wuhan (Ge et al., 2016). These collecting trips began while some of the miners were still hospitalised.

Fortunately, a detailed account of the miner’s diagnoses and treatments exists. It is found in a Master’s thesis written in Chinese in May 2013. Its suggestive English title is “The Analysis of 6 Patients with Severe Pneumonia Caused by Unknown viruses“.

The original English version of the abstract implicates a SARS-like coronavirus as the probable causative agent and that the mine “had a lot of bats and bats’ feces”.

The findings of the Master’s thesis

To learn more, especially about the reasonableness of this diagnosis, we arranged to have the whole Master’s thesis translated into English and are here making the translation available. To read it in full see the embedded document below (or download it here).






Page 1 of  66



The six ill miners were admitted to the No. 1. School of Clinical Medicine, Kunming Medical University, in short succession in late April and early May 2012. Kunming is the capital of Yunnan province and 250 Km from Mojiang.

Of the descriptions of the miners and their treatments, which include radiographs and numerous CAT scans, several features stand out:

1) From their admission to the hospital their doctors informed the “medical office” of a potential “outburst of disease” i.e. a potential epidemic outbreak. Thus, the miners were treated for infections and not as if they had inhaled noxious gases or other toxins.

2) The symptoms (on admission) of the six miners were: a) dry cough, b) sputum, c) high fevers, especially shortly before death d) difficulty breathing, e) myalgia (sore limbs). Some patients had hiccoughs and headaches. (See Table 1).

The Syndromes of the six Mojiang Mine patients
The Syndromes of the six Mojiang Mine patients

3) Clinical work established that patients 1-4 had low blood oxygen “for sure it was ARDS” (Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome) and immune damage considered indicative of viral infection. Additionally, a tendency for thrombosis was noted in patients 2 and 4. Symptom severity and mortality were age-related (though from a sample of 6 this must be considered anecdotal).

4) Potential common and rare causes of their symptoms were tested for and mostly eliminated. For patients 3 and 4 these included tests for HIV, Cytomegalovirus, Epstein-Barr Virus (EBV), Japanese encephalitis, haemorrhagic fever, Dengue, Hepatitis B, SARS, and influenza. Of these, only patient 2 tested positive for Hepatitis and EBV.

5) Treatment of the six patients included ventilation (patients 2-4), steroids (all patients), antivirals (all except patient 5), and blood thinners (patients 2 and 4). Antibiotics and antifungal medications were administered to counter what were considered secondary (but significant) co-infections.

6) A small number of remote meetings were held with researchers at other universities. One was with Zhong Nanshan at Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangdong. Zhong is the Chinese hero of the SARS epidemic, a virologist, and arguably the most famous scientist in China.

7) Samples from the miners were later sent to the WIV in Wuhan and to Zhong Nanshan, further confirming that viral disease was strongly suspected. Some miners did test positive for coronavirus (the thesis is unclear on how many).

8) The source of infection was concluded to be Rhinolophus sinicus, a horseshoe bat and the ultimate conclusion of the thesis reads “the unknown virus lead to severe pneumonia could be: The SARS-like-CoV from the Chinese rufous horseshoe bat.” Thus the miners had a coronavirus but it apparently was not SARS itself.

The significance of the Master’s thesis

These findings of the thesis are significant in several ways.

First, in the light of the current coronavirus pandemic it is evident the miners’ symptoms very closely resemble those of COVID-19 (Huang et al, 2020Tay et al., 2020M. Zhou et al., 2020). Anyone presenting with them today would immediately be assumed to have COVID-19. Likewise, many of the treatments given to the miners have become standard for COVID-19 (Tay et al., 2020).

Second, the remote meeting with Zhong Nanshan is significant. It implies that the illnesses of the six miners were of high concern and, second, that a SARS-like coronavirus was considered a likely cause.

Third, the abstract, the conclusions, and the general inferences to be made from the Master’s thesis contradict Zheng-li Shi’s assertion that the miners died from a fungal infection. Fungal infection as a potential primary cause was raised but largely discarded.

Fourth, if a SARS-like coronavirus was the source of their illness the implication is that it could directly infect human cells. This would be unusual for a bat coronavirus (Ge et al., 2013). People do sometimes get ill from bat faeces but the standard explanation is histoplasmosis, a fungal infection and not a virus (McKinsey and McKinsey, 2011Pan et al., 2013).

Fifth, the sampling by the Shi lab found that bat coronaviruses were unusually abundant in the mine (Ge at al., 2016). Among their findings were two betacoronaviruses, one of which was RaTG13 (then known as BtCoV/4991). In the coronavirus world betacoronaviruses are special in that both SARS and MERS, the most deadly of all coronaviruses, are both betacoronaviruses. Thus they are considered to have special pandemic potential, as the concluding sentence of the Shi lab publication which found RaTG13 implied: “special attention should particularly be paid to these lineages of coronaviruses” (Ge at al., 2016). In fact, the Shi and other labs have for years been predicting that bat betacoronaviruses like RaTG13 would go pandemic; so to find RaTG13 where the miners fell ill was a scenario in perfect alignment with their expectations.

The Mojiang miners passaging proposal

How does the Master’s thesis inform the search for a plausible origin of the pandemic?

In our previous article we briefly discussed how the pandemic might have been caused either by a virus collection accident, or through viral passaging, or through genetic engineering and a subsequent lab escape. The genetic engineering possibility deserves attention and is extensively assessed in an important preprint (Segreto and Deigin, 2020).

We do not definitively rule out these possibilities. Indeed it now seems that the Shi lab at the WIV did not forget about RaTG13 but were sequencing its genome in 2017 and 2018. However, we believe that the Master’s thesis indicates a much simpler explanation.

We suggest, first, that inside the miners RaTG13 (or a very similar virus) evolved into SARS-CoV-2, an unusually pathogenic coronavirus highly adapted to humans. Second, that the Shi lab used medical samples taken from the miners and sent to them by Kunming University Hospital for their research. It was this human-adapted virus, now known as SARS-CoV-2­, that escaped from the WIV in 2019.

We refer to this COVID-19 origin hypothesis as the Mojiang Miners Passage (MMP) hypothesis.

Passaging is a standard virological technique for adapting viruses to new species, tissues, or cell types. It is normally done by deliberately infecting a new host species or a new host cell type with a high dose of virus. This initial viral infection would ordinarily die out because the host’s immune system vanquishes the ill-adapted virus. But, in passaging, before it does die out a sample is extracted and transferred to a new identical tissue, where viral infection restarts. Done iteratively, this technique (called “serial passaging” or just “passaging”) intensively selects for viruses adapted to the new host or cell type (Herfst et al., 2012).

At first glance RaTG13 is unlikely to have evolved into SARS-CoV-2 since RaTG13 is approximately 1,200 nucleotides (3.8%) different from SARS-CoV-2. Although RaTG13 is the most closely related virus to SARS-CoV-2, this sequence difference still represents a considerable gap. In a media statement evolutionary virologist Edward Holmes has suggested this gap represents 20-50 years of evolution and others have suggested similar figures.

We agree that ordinary rates of evolution would not allow RaTG13 to evolve into SARS-CoV-2 but we also believe that conditions inside the lungs of the miners were far from ordinary. Five major factors specific to the hospitalised miners favoured a very high rate of evolution inside them.

i) When viruses infect new species they typically undergo a period of very rapid evolution because the selection pressure on the invading pathogen is high. The phenomenon of rapid evolution in new hosts is well attested among corona- and other viruses (Makino et al., 1986Baric et al., 1997Dudas and Rambaut 2016Forni et al., 2017).

ii) Judging by their clinical symptoms such as the CT scans, all the miner’s infections were primarily of the lungs. This localisation likely occurred initially because the miners were exerting themselves and therefore inhaling the disturbed bat guano deeply. As miners, they may already have had damaged lung tissues (patient 3 had suspected pneumoconiosis) and/or particulate matter was present that irritated the tissues and may have facilitated initial viral entry.

In contrast, standard coronavirus infections are confined to the throat and upper respiratory tract. They do not normally reach the lungs (Perlman and Netland, 2009). Lungs are far larger tissues by weight (kilos vs grammes) than the upper respiratory tract. There was therefore likely a much larger quantity of virus inside the miners than would be the case in an ordinary coronavirus infection.

Comparing a typical coronavirus respiratory tract infection with the extent of infected lungs in the miners from a purely mathematical point of view indicates the potential scale of this quantitative difference. The human aerodigestive tract is approximately 20cm in length and 5cm in circumference, i.e. approximately 100 cm2 in surface area. The surface area of a human lung ranges from 260,000-680,000 cm2 (Hasleton, 1972). The amount of potentially infected tissue in an average lung is therefore approximately 4500-fold greater than that available to a normal coronavirus infection. The amount of virus present in the infected miners, sufficient to hospitalise all of them and kill half of them, was thus proportionately very large.

Evolutionary change is in large part a function of the population size. The lungs of the miners, we suggest, supported a very high viral load leading to proportionately rapid viral evolution.

Furthermore, according to the Master’s thesis, the immune systems of the miners were compromised and remained so even for those discharged. This weakness on the part of the miners may also have encouraged evolution of the virus.

iii) The length of infection experienced by the miners (especially patients 2, 3 and 4) far exceeded that of an ordinary coronavirus infection. From first becoming too sick to work in the mine, patient 2 survived 57 days until he died. Patient 3 survived 120 days after stopping work. Patient 4 survived 117 days and then was discharged as cured. Each had been exposed in the mine for 14 days prior to the onset of severe symptoms; thus each presumably had nascent infections for some time before calling in sick (See Table 2 of the thesis).

In contrast, in ordinary coronavirus infections the viral infection is cleared within about ten to fourteen days after being acquired (Tay et al., 2020). Thus, unlike most sufferers from coronavirus infection, the hospitalised miners had very long-term bouts of disease characterised by a continuous high load of virus. In the cases of patients 3 and 4 their illnesses lasted over 4 months.

iv) Coronaviruses are well known to recombine at very high rates: 10% of all progeny in a cell can be recombinants (Makino et al., 1986Banner and Lai, 1991Dudas and Rambaut, 2016). In normal virus evolution the mutation rate and the selection pressure are the main foci of attention. But in the case of a coronavirus adapting to a new host where many mutations distributed all over the genome are required to fully adapt to the new host, the recombination rate is likely to be highly influential in determining the overall speed of adaptation by the virus population (Baric et al., 1997).

Inside the miners a large tissue was simultaneously infected by a population of poorly-adapted viruses, with each therefore under pressure to adapt. Even if the starting population of virus lacked any diversity, many individual viruses would have acquired mutations independently but only recombination would have allowed these mutations to unite in the same genome. To recombine, viruses must be present in the same cell. In such a situation the particularities of lung tissues become potentially important because the existence of airways (bronchial tubes, etc.) allows partially-adapted viruses from independent viral populations to travel to distal parts of the lung (or even the other lung) and encounter other such partially-adapted viruses and populations. This movement around the lungs would likely have resulted in what amounted to a passaging effect without the need for a researcher to infect new tissues. Indeed, in the Master’s thesis the observation is several times made that areas of the lungs of a specific patient would appear to heal even while other parts of the lungs would become infected.

v) There were also a number of unusual things about the bat coronaviruses in the mine. They were abnormally abundant but also there were many different kinds, often causing co-infections of the bats (Ge et al., 2016). Viral co-infections are often more infectious or more pathogenic (Latham and Wilson, 2007).

As the WIV researchers remarked about the bats in the mine:

“we observed a high rate of co-infection with two coronavirus species and interspecies infection with the same coronavirus species within or across bat families. These phenomena may be owing to the diversity and high density of bat populations in the same cave, facilitating coronavirus intra- and interspecies transmissions, which may result in recombination and acceleration of coronavirus evolution.” (Ge et al., 2016).

The diversity of coronaviruses in the mine suggests that the miners were similarly exposed and that their illness may potentially have begun as co-infections.

Combining these observations, we propose that the miners’ lungs offered an unprecedented opportunity for accelerated evolution of a highly bat-adapted coronavirus into a highly human-adapted coronavirus and that decades of ordinary coronavirus evolution could easily have been condensed into months. However, we acknowledge that these conditions were unique. They and their scale have no exact scientific precedent we can refer to and they would be hard to replicate in a lab; thus it is important to emphasize that our proposal is fully consistent with the underlying principles of viral evolution as understood today.

In support of the MMP theory we also know something about the samples taken from the miners. According to the Master’s thesis, samples were taken from patients for “scientific research” and blood samples (at least) were sent to the WIV.

“In the later stage we worked with Dr. Zhong Nan Shan and did some sampling. The patient* tested positive for serum IgM by the WuHan Institute of Virology. It suggested the existence of virus infection” (p62 in the section “Comprehensive Analysis”.)

(*The original does not specify the number of patients tested.)

The Master’s thesis also states its regret that no samples for research were taken from patients 1 and 2, implying that samples were taken from all the others.

We further know that, on June 27th, 2012, the doctors performed an unexplained thymectomy on patient 4. The thymus is an immune organ that can potentially be removed without greatly harming the patient and it could have contained large quantities of virus. Beyond this the Master’s thesis is unfortunately unclear on the specifics of what sampling was done, for what purpose, and where each particular sample went.

Given the interests of the Shi lab in zoonotic origins of human disease, once such a sample was sent to them, it would have been obvious and straightforward for them to investigate how a virus from bats had managed to infect these miners. Any viruses recoverable from the miners would likely have been viewed by them as a unique natural experiment in human passaging offering unprecedented and otherwise-impossible-to-obtain insights into how bat coronaviruses can adapt to humans.

The logical course of such research would be to sequence viral RNA extracted directly from unfrozen tissue or blood samples and/or to generate live infectious clones for which it would be useful (if not imperative) to amplify the virus by placing it in human cell culture. Either technique could have led to accidental infection of a lab researcher.

Our supposition as to why there was a time lag between sample collection (in 2012/2013) and the COVID-19 outbreak is that the researchers were awaiting BSL-4 lab construction and certification, which was underway in 2013 but delayed until 2018.

We propose that, when frozen samples derived from the miners were eventually opened in the Wuhan lab they were already highly adapted to humans to an extent possibly not anticipated by the researchers. One small mistake or mechanical breakdown could have led directly to the first human infection in late 2019.

Thus, one of the miners, most likely patient 3, or patient 4 (whose thymus was removed), was effectively patient zero of the COVID-19 epidemic. In this scenario, COVID-19 is not an engineered virus; but, equally, if it had not been taken to Wuhan and no further molecular research had been performed or planned for it then the virus would have died out from natural causes, rather than escaped to initiate the COVID-19 pandemic.

Evidence in favour of the MMP proposal

Our proposal is consistent with all the principal undisputed facts concerning SARS-CoV-2 and its origin. The MMP proposal has the additional benefit of reconciling many observations concerning SARS-CoV-2 that have proven difficult to reconcile with any natural zoonotic hypothesis.

For instance, using different approaches, numerous researchers have concluded that the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein has a very high affinity for the human ACE2 receptor (Walls et al., 2020Piplani et al., 2020Shang and Ye et al., 2020Wrapp et al., 2020). Such exceptional affinities, ten to twenty times as great as that of the original SARS virus, do not arise at random, making it very hard to explain in any other way than for the virus to have been strongly selected in the presence of a human ACE2 receptor (Piplani et al., 2020).

In addition to this, a recent report found that the spike of RaTG13 binds the human ACE2 receptor (Shang and Ye et al., 2020). We proposed above that the virus in the mine directly infected humans lung cells. The main determinant of cell infection and species specificity of coronaviruses is initial receptor binding (Perlman and Netland, 2009). Thus RaTG13, unlike most bat coronaviruses, probably can enter and infect human cells, providing biological plausibility to the idea that the miners became infected with a coronavirus resembling RaTG13.

Moreover, the receptor binding domain (RBD) of SARS-CoV-2, which is the region of the spike that physically contacts the human ACE2 receptor, has recently been crystallised to reveal its spatial structure (Shang and Ye et al., 2020). These authors found close structural similarities between the spikes of SARS-CoV-2 and RaTG13 in how they bound the human ACE2 receptor:

“Second, as with SARS-CoV-2, bat RaTG13 RBM [a region of the RBD] contains a similar four-residue motif in the ACE2 binding ridge, supporting the notion that SARS-CoV-2 may have evolved from RaTG13 or a RaTG13-related bat coronavirus (Extended Data Table 3 and Extended Data Fig. 7). Third, the L486F, Y493Q and D501N residue changes from RaTG13 to SARS CoV-2 enhance ACE2 recognition and may have facilitated the bat-to-human transmission of SARS-CoV-2 (Extended Data Table 3 and Extended Data Fig. 7). A lysine-to-asparagine mutation at the 479 position in the SARS-CoV RBD (corresponding to the 493 position in the SARS-CoV-2 RBD) enabled SARS-CoV to infect humans. Fourth, Leu455 contributes favourably to ACE2 recognition, and it is conserved between RaTG13 and SARS CoV-2; its presence in the SARS CoV-2 RBM may be important for the bat-to-human transmission of SARS-CoV-2″ (Shang and Ye et al., 2020). (italics added)

The significance of this molecular similarity is very great. Coronaviruses have evolved a diverse set of molecular solutions to solve the problem of binding ACE2 (Perlman and Netland, 2009Forni et al., 2017). The fact that RaTG13 and SARS CoV-2 share the same solution makes RaTG13 a highly likely direct ancestor of Sars-CoV-2.

A further widely noted feature of SARS-CoV-2 is its furin site (Coutard et al., 2020). This site is absent from RaTG13 and other closely related coronaviruses. The most closely related virus with such a site is the highly lethal MERS (which broke out in 2012). Possession of a furin site enables SARS-CoV-2 (like MERS) to infect lungs and many other body tissues (such as the gastrointestinal tract and neurons), explaining much of its lethality (Hoffman et al., 2020Lamers et al., 2020). However, no convincing explanation for how SARS-CoV-2 acquired this site has yet been offered. Our suggestion is that it arose due to the high selection pressure which existed in the miner’s lungs and which in general worked to ensure that the virus became highly adapted to the lungs. This explanation, which encompasses how SARS-CoV-2 came to target lung tissues in general, is an important aspect of our proposal.

The implication is therefore that the furin site was not acquired by recombination with another coronavirus and simply represents convergent evolution (as suggested by Andersen et al., 2020).

An intriguing alternative possibility is that SARS-CoV-2 acquired its furin site directly from the miner’s lungs. Humans possess an epithelial sodium channel protein called ENaC-a whose furin cleavage site is identical over eight amino acids to SARS-CoV-2 (Anand et al., 2020). ENaC-a protein is present in the same airway epithelial and lung tissues infected by SARS-CoV-2. It is known from plants that positive-stranded RNA viruses recombine readily with host mRNAs (Greene and Allison, 1994Greene and Allison, 1996; Lommel and Xiong, 1991; Borja et al., 2007). The same evidence base is not available for positive-stranded animal RNA viruses, (though see Gorbalenya, 1992) but if plant viruses are a guide then acquisition of its furin site via recombination with the mRNA which encodes ENaC-a by SARS-CoV-2 is a strong possibility.

A further feature of SARS-CoV-2 has been the very limited adaptive evolution of its genome since the pandemic began (Zhan et al., 2020van Dorp et al., 2020Starr et al., 2020). It is a well-established principle that viruses that jump species undergo accelerated evolutionary change in their new host (e.g. Baric et al., 1997). Thus, SARS and MERS (both coronaviruses) underwent rapid and readily detectable adaptation to their new human hosts (Forni et al., 2017Dudas and Rambaut, 2016). Such an adaptation period has not been observed for SARS-CoV-2 even though it has now infected many more individuals than SARS or MERS did. This has even led to suggestions that the SARS-CoV-2 virus had a period of cryptic circulation in humans infections that predated the pandemic (Chaw et al., 2020). The sole mutation consistently observed to accumulate across multiple studies is a D614G substitution in the spike protein (e.g. Korber et al., 2020). The numerically largest analysis of SARS-CoV-2 genomes, however, found no evidence at all for adaptive evolution, even for D614G (van Dorp et al., 2020).

The general observation is therefore that Sars-CoV-2 has remained functionally unchanged or virtually so (except for inconsequential genetic changes) since the pandemic began. This is a very important observation. It implies that SARS-CoV-2 is highly adapted across its whole set of component proteins and not just at the spike (Zhan et al., 2020). That is to say, its evolutionary leap to humans was completed before the 2019 pandemic began.

It is hard to imagine an explanation for this high adaptiveness other than some kind of passaging in a human body (Zhan et al., 2020). Not even passaging in human cells could have achieved such an outcome.

Two examples illustrate this point. In a follow up to Shang and Ye et al., (2020), a similar group of Minnesota researchers identified a distinct strategy by which the spike (S) protein (which contains the receptor bind domain; RBD) of SARS-CoV-2 evades the human immune system (Shang and Wan et al., 2020). This strategy involves more effective hiding of its RBD, but it implies again that the spike and the RBD evolved in tandem and in the presence of the human immune system (i.e. in a human body and not in tissue culture).

The Andersen authors, in their critique of a possible engineered origin for SARS-CoV-2, also stress the need for passaging in whole humans:

“Finally, the generation of the predicted O-linked glycans is also unlikely to have occurred during cell-culture passage, as such features suggest the involvement of an immune system” (Andersen et al., 2020).

The final point that we would like to make is that the principal zoonotic origin thesis is the one proposed by Andersen et al. Apart from being poorly supported this thesis is very complex. It requires two species jumps, at least two recombination events between quite distantly related coronaviruses and the physical transfer of a pangolin (having a coronavirus infection) from outside China (Andersen et al., 2020). Even then it provides no logical explanation of the adaptedness of SARS-CoV-2 across its whole genome or why the virus emerged in Wuhan.

By contrast, our MMP proposal requires only the one species jump, which is documented in the Master’s thesis. Although we do not rule out a possible role for mixed infections in the lungs of the miners, nor the possibility of recombination between closely related variants in those lungs, nor the potential acquisition of the furin site from a host mRNA, only mutation was needed to derive SARS-CoV-2 from RaTG13. Hence our attention earlier to the figure from P. Zhou et al., 2020 showing that RaTG13 is the most closely related virus to SARS-CoV-2 over its entire length. This extended similarity is perfectly consistent with a mutational origin of SARS-CoV-2 from RaTG13.

In short, the MMP theory is a plausible and parsimonious explanation of all the key features of the COVID-19 pandemic and its origin. It accounts for the propensity of SARS-CoV-2 infections to target the lungs; the apparent preadapted nature of the virus; and its transmission from bats in Yunnan to humans in Wuhan.

Further questions

The hypothesis that SARS-CoV-2 evolved in the Mojiang miner’s lungs potentially resolves many scientific questions about the origin of the pandemic. But it raises others having to do with why this information has not come to light hitherto. The most obvious of these concern the actions of the Shi lab at the WIV.

Why did the Shi lab not acknowledge the miners’ deaths in any paper describing samples taken from the mine (Ge et al., 2016 and P. Zhou et al., 2020)? Why in the title of the Ge at al. 2016 paper did the Shi lab call it an “abandoned” mine? When they published the sequence of RaTG13 in Feb. 2020, why did the Shi lab provide a new name (RaTG13) for BtCoV/4991 when they had by then cited BtCoV/4991 twice in publications and once in a genome sequence database and when their sequences were from the same sample and 100% identical (P. Zhou et al., 2020)? If it was just a name change, why no acknowledgement of this in their 2020 paper describing RaTG13 (Bengston, 2020)? These strange and unscientific actions have obscured the origins of the closest viral relatives of SARS-CoV-2, viruses that are suspected to have caused a COVID-like illness in 2012 and which may be key to understanding not just the origin of the COVID-19 pandemic but the future behaviour of SARS-CoV-2.

These are not the only questionable actions associated with the provenance of samples from the mine. There were five scientific publications that very early in the pandemic reported whole genome sequences for SARS-CoV-2 (Chan et al., 2020Chen et al., 2020Wu et al., 2020P. Zhou et al., 2020; Zhu et al., 2020). Despite three of them having experienced viral evolutionary biologists as authors (George Gao, Zheng-li Shi and Edward Holmes) only one of these (Chen et al., 2020) succeeded in identifying the most closely related viral sequence by far: BtCoV/4991 a viral sequence in the possession of the Shi lab at the WIV that differed from SARS-CoV-2 by just 5 nucleotides.

As we noted in our earlier article, the most important of the questions surrounding the origins of SARS-CoV-2 could potentially be resolved by a simple examination of the complete lab notebooks and biosafety records of relevant researchers at the WIV. Now that a credible and testable lab escape hypothesis exists this task becomes potentially much easier. This moment thus represents an opportune one to renew that call for an independent and transparent investigation of the WIV.

In requesting an investigation we are aware that no scientific institution anywhere has made a comparable request. We believe that this failure undermines public trust in a “scientific response” to the pandemic. Instead, the scientific establishment has labeled the lab escape theory a “rumor“, an “unverified theory” and a “conspiracy” when its proper name is a hypothesis. By taking this stance the scientific establishment has given the unambiguous message that scientists who take the possibility of a lab origin seriously are jeopardising their careers. Thus, while countless scientific publications on the pandemic assert in their introductions that a zoonotic origin for SARS-CoV-2 is a matter of fact or near-certainty (and Andersen et al has 860 citations as of July 14th), there is still not one published scientific paper asserting that a lab escape is even a credible hypothesis that deserves investigation.

Anyone who doubts this pressure should read the interview with Birger Sørensen in Norway’s Minerva magazine in which Sørensen discusses the “reluctance” of journals to publish his assessment that the existence of a virus that is “exceptionally well adjusted to infect humans” is “suspicious” and “cannot have evolved naturally”. The source of this reluctance, says Sørensen, is not rationality or scientific evidence. It results from conflicts of interest. This mirrors our experience. To find genuinely critical analysis of COVID-19 origin theories one has to go to Twitter, blog posts, and preprint servers. The malaise runs deep when even scientists start to complain that they don’t trust science.

We nevertheless hope that journalists will investigate some of the conflicts of interest that are keeping scientists and institutions from properly investigating the lab escape hypothesis.


Anand, P., Puranik, A., Aravamudan, M., Venkatakrishnan, A. J., & Soundararajan, V. (2020). SARS-CoV-2 strategically mimics proteolytic activation of human ENaC. Elife9, e58603.

Andersen, K. G., Rambaut, A., Lipkin, W. I., Holmes, E. C., & Garry, R. F. (2020). The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2. Nature medicine26(4), 450-452.

Banner, L. R., & Mc Lai, M. (1991). Random nature of coronavirus RNA recombination in the absence of selection pressure. Virology185(1), 441-445.

Baric, R. S., Yount, B., Hensley, L., Peel, S. A., & Chen, W. A. N. (1997). Episodic evolution mediates interspecies transfer of a murine coronavirus. Journal of virology71(3), 1946-1955.

Becker, Y. (2000). Evolution of viruses by acquisition of cellular RNA or DNA nucleotide sequences and genes: an introduction. Virus Genes21(1-2), 7-12.

Bengston, D. (2020). All journal articles evaluating the origin or epidemiology of SARS-CoV-2 that utilize the RaTG13 bat strain genomics are potentially flawed and should be retracted. OSF Preprinthttps://osf.io/wy89d

Borja, M., Rubio, T., Scholthof, H. B., & Jackson, A. O. (1999). Restoration of wild-type virus by double recombination of tombusvirus mutants with a host transgene. Molecular Plant-Microbe Interactions12(2), 153-162.

Chan, J. F. W., Kok, K. H., Zhu, Z., Chu, H., To, K. K. W., Yuan, S., & Yuen, K. Y. (2020). Genomic characterization of the 2019 novel human-pathogenic coronavirus isolated from a patient with atypical pneumonia after visiting Wuhan. Emerging microbes & infections9(1), 221-236.

Chaw, S. M., Tai, J. H., Chen, S. L., Hsieh, C. H., Chang, S. Y., Yeh, S. H., … & Wang, H. Y. (2020). The origin and underlying driving forces of the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak. Journal of biomedical science27(1), 1-12. 

Chen, L., Liu, W., Zhang, Q., Xu, K., Ye, G., Wu, W., … & Mei, Y. (2020). RNA based mNGS approach identifies a novel human coronavirus from two individual pneumonia cases in 2019 Wuhan outbreak. Emerging microbes & infections9(1), 313-319.

Coutard, B., Valle, C., de Lamballerie, X., Canard, B., Seidah, N. G., & Decroly, E. (2020). The spike glycoprotein of the new coronavirus 2019-nCoV contains a furin-like cleavage site absent in CoV of the same clade. Antiviral research176, 104742.

Dudas, G., & Rambaut, A. (2016). MERS-CoV recombination: implications about the reservoir and potential for adaptation. Virus evolution2(1).

Duggal, A., Pinto, R., Rubenfeld, G., & Fowler, R. A. (2016). Global variability in reported mortality for critical illness during the 2009-10 influenza A (H1N1) pandemic: a systematic review and meta-regression to guide reporting of outcomes during disease outbreaks. PloS one11(5), e0155044.

Forni, D., Cagliani, R., Clerici, M., & Sironi, M. (2017). Molecular evolution of human coronavirus genomes. Trends in microbiology25(1), 35-48.

Furmanski, M. (2014). Laboratory Escapes and “Self-fulfilling prophecy” Epidemics. Report: Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation. PDF available at: https://armscontrolcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Escaped-Viruses-final-2-17-14-copy.pdf

Ge, X. Y., Li, J. L., Yang, X. L., Chmura, A. A., Zhu, G., Epstein, J. H., … & Zhang, Y. J. (2013). Isolation and characterization of a bat SARS-like coronavirus that uses the ACE2 receptor. Nature503(7477), 535-538.

Ge, X. Y., Wang, N., Zhang, W., Hu, B., Li, B., Zhang, Y. Z., … & Wang, B. (2016). Coexistence of multiple coronaviruses in several bat colonies in an abandoned mineshaft. Virologica Sinica31(1), 31-40.

Gibbs, A. J., Armstrong, J. S., & Downie, J. C. (2009). From where did the 2009’swine-origin’influenza A virus (H1N1) emerge?. Virology journal6(1), 207.

Gorbalenya, A. E. (1992). Host-related sequences in RNA viral genomes. In Seminars in Virology (Vol. 3, pp. 359-359). HARCOURT BRACE JOVANOVICH.

Greene, A. E., & Allison, R. F. (1994). Recombination between viral RNA and transgenic plant transcripts. Science263(5152), 1423-1425.

Greene, A. E., & Allison, R. F. (1996). Deletions in the 3′ untranslated region of cowpea chlorotic mottle virus transgene reduce recovery of recombinant viruses in transgenic plants. Virology225(1), 231-234.

Hasleton, P. S. (1972). The internal surface area of the adult human lung. Journal of anatomy112(Pt 3), 391.

Herfst, S., Schrauwen, E. J., Linster, M., Chutinimitkul, S., de Wit, E., Munster, V. J., … & Rimmelzwaan, G. F. (2012). Airborne transmission of influenza A/H5N1 virus between ferrets. science336(6088), 1534-1541.

Hoffmann, M., Kleine-Weber, H., & Pöhlmann, S. (2020). A multibasic cleavage site in the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 is essential for infection of human lung cells. Molecular Cell.

Hu, B., Zeng, L. P., Yang, X. L., Ge, X. Y., Zhang, W., Li, B., … & Luo, D. S. (2017). Discovery of a rich gene pool of bat SARS-related coronaviruses provides new insights into the origin of SARS coronavirus. PLoS pathogens13(11), e1006698.

Huang, Canping (2016) Novel Virus Discovery in Bat and the Exploration of Receptor of Bat Coronavirus HKU9. PhD thesis (Original in Chinese). National Institute for Viral Disease Control and Prevention, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, June 2016. Accessed on July 15, 2020: https://eng.oversea.cnki.net/kcms/detail/detail.aspx?dbcode=CDFD&QueryID=4&CurRec=1&dbname=CDFDLAST2018&filename=1017118517.nh

Huang, C., Wang, Y., Li, X., Ren, L., Zhao, J., Hu, Y., … & Cheng, Z. (2020). Clinical features of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan, China. The lancet395(10223), 497-506.

Korber, B., Fischer, W., Gnanakaran, S. G., Yoon, H., Theiler, J., Abfalterer, W., … & Partridge, D. G. (2020). Spike mutation pipeline reveals the emergence of a more transmissible form of SARS-CoV-2. bioRxiv.

Lamers, M. M., Beumer, J., van der Vaart, J., Knoops, K., Puschhof, J., Breugem, T. I., … & van Donselaar, E. (2020). SARS-CoV-2 productively infects human gut enterocytes. Science.

Latham, J. R., & Wilson, A. K. (2008). Transcomplementation and synergism in plants: implications for viral transgenes?. Molecular Plant Pathology9(1), 85-103.

Latinne, A., Hu, B., Olival, K. J., Zhu, G., Zhang, L., Li, H., … & Li, B. (2020). Origin and cross-species transmission of bat coronaviruses in China. bioRxiv.

Lee, J., Hughes, T., Lee, M. H., Field, H., Rovie-Ryan, J. J., Sitam, F. T., … & Lasimbang, H. (2020). No evidence of coronaviruses or other potentially zoonotic viruses in Sunda pangolins (Manis javanica) entering the wildlife trade via Malaysia. bioRxiv.

Letko, M., Marzi, A., & Munster, V. (2020). Functional assessment of cell entry and receptor usage for SARS-CoV-2 and other lineage B betacoronaviruses. Nature microbiology5(4), 562-569.

Li, W., Shi, Z., Yu, M., Ren, W., Smith, C., Epstein, J. H., … & Zhang, J. (2005). Bats are natural reservoirs of SARS-like coronaviruses. Science310(5748), 676-679.

Lipsitch, M. (2018). Why Do Exceptionally Dangerous Gain-of-Function Experiments in Influenza?. In Influenza Virus (pp. 589-608). Humana Press, New York, NY.

Lipsitch, M., & Galvani, A. P. (2014). Ethical alternatives to experiments with novel potential pandemic pathogens. PLoS Med11(5), e1001646.

Lommel, A., & Xiong, Z. (1991). Reconstitution of a functional red clover necrotic mosaic virus by recombinational rescue of the cell-to-cell movement gene expressed in a transgenic plant. Journal of Cellular Biochemistry A15, 151.

Lu, R., Zhao, X., Li, J., Niu, P., Yang, B., Wu, H., … & Bi, Y. (2020). Genomic characterisation and epidemiology of 2019 novel coronavirus: implications for virus origins and receptor binding. The Lancet395(10224), 565-574.

Makino, S. H. I. N. J. I., Keck, J. G., Stohlman, S. A., & Lai, M. M. (1986). High-frequency RNA recombination of murine coronaviruses. Journal of Virology57(3), 729-737.

McKinsey, D. S., & McKinsey, J. P. (2011, December). Pulmonary histoplasmosis. In Seminars in respiratory and critical care medicine (Vol. 32, No. 06, pp. 735-744). © Thieme Medical Publishers.

Menachery, V. D., Yount, B. L., Debbink, K., Agnihothram, S., Gralinski, L. E., Plante, J. A., … & Randell, S. H. (2015). A SARS-like cluster of circulating bat coronaviruses shows potential for human emergence. Nature medicine21(12), 1508-1513.

Pan, B., Chen, M., Pan, W., & Liao, W. (2013). Histoplasmosis: a new endemic fungal infection in China? Review and analysis of cases. Mycoses56(3), 212-221.

Perlman, S., & Netland, J. (2009). Coronaviruses post-SARS: update on replication and pathogenesis. Nature reviews microbiology7(6), 439-450.

Piplani, S., Singh, P. K., Winkler, D. A., & Petrovsky, N. (2020). In silico comparison of spike protein-ACE2 binding affinities across species; significance for the possible origin of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.06199.

Rahalkar, M.C.; Bahulikar, R.A. Understanding the Origin of ‘BatCoVRaTG13’, a Virus Closest to SARS-CoV-2. Preprints 2020, 2020050322 https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202005.0322/v2

Segreto, R., & Deigin, Y. Is considering a genetic-manipulation origin for SARS-CoV-2 a conspiracy theory that must be censored?. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Rossana_Segreto/publication/340924249_Is_considering_a_genetic-manipulation_origin_for_SARS-CoV-2_a_conspiracy_theory_that_must_be_censored/links/5ed7c17992851c9c5e74f7dc/Is-considering-a-genetic-manipulation-origin-f

Shang, J., Wan, Y., Luo, C., Ye, G., Geng, Q., Auerbach, A., & Li, F. (2020). Cell entry mechanisms of SARS-CoV-2. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences117(21), 11727-11734.

Shang, J., Ye, G., Shi, K., Wan, Y., Luo, C., Aihara, H., … & Li, F. (2020). Structural basis of receptor recognition by SARS-CoV-2. Nature581(7807), 221-224.

Simonsen, L., Spreeuwenberg, P., Lustig, R., Taylor, R. J., Fleming, D. M., Kroneman, M., … & Paget, W. J. (2013). Global mortality estimates for the 2009 Influenza Pandemic from the GLaMOR project: a modeling study. PLoS Med10(11), e1001558.

Starr, T. N., Greaney, A. J., Hilton, S. K., Crawford, K. H., Navarro, M. J., Bowen, J. E., … & Bloom, J. D. (2020). Deep mutational scanning of SARS-CoV-2 receptor binding domain reveals constraints on folding and ACE2 binding. BioRxiv.

Tay, M. Z., Poh, C. M., Rénia, L., MacAry, P. A., & Ng, L. F. (2020). The trinity of COVID-19: immunity, inflammation and intervention. Nature Reviews Immunology, 1-12.

van Dorp, L., Richard, D., Tan, C. C., Shaw, L. P., Acman, M., & Balloux, F. (2020). No evidence for increased transmissibility from recurrent mutations in SARS-CoV-2. bioRxiv. doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.05.21.108506


Wadman, M., Couzin-Frankel, J., Kaiser, J., & Matacic, C. (2020). A rampage through the body. Science, 368(6489), 356-360.

Walls, A. C., Park, Y. J., Tortorici, M. A., Wall, A., McGuire, A. T., & Veesler, D. (2020). Structure, function, and antigenicity of the SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein. Cell180, 281-292.

Wang, N., Luo, C., Liu, H., Yang, X., Hu, B., Zhang, W., … & Peng, C. (2019). Characterization of a new member of alphacoronavirus with unique genomic features in rhinolophus bats. Viruses11(4), 379.

Weiss, S., Yitzhaki, S., & Shapira, S. C. (2015). Lessons to be Learned from Recent Biosafety Incidents in the United States. The Israel Medical Association Journal: IMAJ17(5), 269-273.

Wrapp, D., Wang, N., Corbett, K. S., Goldsmith, J. A., Hsieh, C. L., Abiona, O., … & McLellan, J. S. (2020). Cryo-EM structure of the 2019-nCoV spike in the prefusion conformation. Science367(6483), 1260-1263.

Wu, Z., Yang, L., Yang, F., Ren, X., Jiang, J., Dong, J., … & Jin, Q. (2014). Novel henipa-like virus, Mojiang paramyxovirus, in rats, China, 2012. Emerging infectious diseases20(6), 1064.

Wu, F., Zhao, S., Yu, B., Chen, Y. M., Wang, W., Song, Z. G., … & Yuan, M. L. (2020). A new coronavirus associated with human respiratory disease in China. Nature579(7798), 265-269.

Xu, Li (2013) The analysis of 6 patients with severe pneumonia caused by unknown viruses. MSc thesis (Original in Chinese). Emergency Department and EICU, The 1st Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University, Kunming. Accessed on July, 15, 2020: https://eng.oversea.cnki.net/Kcms/detail/detail.aspx?filename=1013327523.nh&dbcode=CMFD&dbname=CMF D2014

Zhan, S. H., Deverman, B. E., & Chan, Y. A. (2020). SARS-CoV-2 is well adapted for humans. What does this mean for re-emergence?. bioRxiv. doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.05.01.073262

Zhang, L., Jackson, C. B., Mou, H., Ojha, A., Rangarajan, E. S., Izard, T., … & Choe, H. (2020). The D614G mutation in the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein reduces S1 shedding and increases infectivity. bioRxiv

Zhang, Y. Z., & Holmes, E. C. (2020). A genomic perspective on the origin and emergence of SARS-CoV-2. Cell.

Zhou, H., Chen, X., Hu, T., Li, J., Song, H., Liu, Y., … & Shi, W. (2020). A novel bat coronavirus reveals natural insertions at the S1/S2 cleavage site of the Spike protein and a possible recombinant origin of HCoV-19. bioRxiv.

Zhou, P., Yang, X. L., Wang, X. G., Hu, B., Zhang, L., Zhang, W., … & Chen, H. D. (2020). A pneumonia outbreak associated with a new coronavirus of probable bat origin. nature579(7798), 270-273.

Zhou, M., Zhang, X., & Qu, J. (2020). Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): a clinical update. Frontiers of medicine, 1-10.

Zhu, N., Zhang, D., Wang, W., Li, X., Yang, B., Song, J., … & Niu, P. (2020). A novel coronavirus from patients with pneumonia in China, 2019. New England Journal of Medicine.

If this article was useful to you please consider sharing it with your networks.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email



Biden Signs Executive Order To Ban The Term ‘China Virus’

Policing language AND facts now

Steve Watson - 27. January 2021

Doug Mills-Pool/Getty Images

The latest of Joe Biden’s THIRTY SEVEN executive orders signed in the first week of his presidency states that the term ‘Chinese virus’ or ‘China virus’ is now banned.

Yes, this is real.

The White House website confirms that Biden signed this EO.

CBS News reported ‘Biden to address racism toward Asian Americans during pandemic with executive action’.

The report notes that “The Biden executive order is also expected to direct federal agencies like the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to examine whether there are xenophobic references like “China virus” in any existing policies, directives or government websites published by the Trump administration.”

NBC News lists all the executive actions Biden has instigated thus far, with the last being the ban on the term ‘China Virus’. The report notes that “additionally, the order directed the attorney general to work to prevent discrimination and hate crimes.”

Given that literally anything is now being touted as a ‘hate crime’, that could mean banning or canceling absolutely everyone and everything.

As we noted earlier, Biden admitted back in October that anyone who legislates by executive order should be considered ‘a dictator’.

Biden appears not to know what he is actually signing, and can barely hold the pen:

After managing to stuff the pen in his pants, Biden then babbled on about the wearing of face masks, for which he has already issued multiple executive mandates.

Biden said that a Congressman told him to “kiss my ear, I’m not wearing a mask”.

Source: SUMMIT News

UPDATED LIST of ALL Executive Orders, which Joe Biden signed so far.


As Predicted:

Belated and flawed W.H.O. COVID-19 mission to China raps up first phase without any new finding

See the source image

In this Jan. 27, 2020, file photo, science workers in protective gear - shaddowed by their CCP minder - carry a bag containing a giant Leguan that was reported to have escaped from the Huanan Seafood Market in Wuhan within central China's Hubei Province.(Chinatopix via AP, File)

In their interim report, the panel of so-called "independent" experts - though many or even most of them are not independent at all and have serious conflict of interest - said both China and the WHO should have acted faster during the early stages of the coronavirus outbreak. Well that every schoolchild knows since over one year. For such findings nobody needs "experts".

The document said that Beijing should have acted more forcefully to localise the initial outbreak in the city of Wuhan first detected in late 2019.

The experts also criticised the WHO for only declaring a global emergency on 30 January 2020.

"The global pandemic alert system is not fit for purpose," the report said. "The World Health Organization has been underpowered to do the job."

The panel of experts was led by former New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark and former Liberian President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf.

Just a holiday trip of some girl- and boyscouts to spend some time with their Chinese minders in a hotel room.

Disgusting and dishonest. 

The Wuhan Institute of Virology maintains an extensive archive of genetic sequences of bat coronaviruses built in the wake of the 2003 SARS pandemic, which spread from China to many countries. WHO team members would hope for access to lab logbooks and data, both junior and senior researchers and safety protocols for sample collection, storage and analysis. But that didnt happen.

A general view shows the P4 laboratory at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in Wuhan in China's central Hubei province on April 17.
A general view shows the P4 (BSL-4) high security laboratory at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in Wuhan in China's central Hubei province on April 17, 2020. Below the grey cube is the totally restricted military BSL-4 lab underground.


China has firmly rejected calls for an independent outside investigation. The ruling Communist Party keeps a tight hold on information and is particularly concerned about possible revelations about its handling of the virus that could open it up to international criticism and financial demands.

China stifled independent reports about the outbreak and has published little information on its search for the origins of the virus.

An AP investigation found that the government has strictly controlled all scientific research related to the outbreak and forbids researchers from speaking to the press.

State media continue to play up reports that suggest the virus could have originated elsewhere.

In announcing the experts’ visit, Foreign Ministry spokesperson Zhao Lijian said “the tracing of the virus origin will most likely involve multiple countries and localities."

Meanwhile WHO warns of 'catastrophic moral failure' of the inocculation drives

The world faces a "catastrophic moral failure" because of unequal Covid vaccine policies, the head of the World Health Organization (WHO) has warned.

Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said it was not fair for younger, healthy people in richer nations to get injections before vulnerable people in poorer states.

He said over 39 million vaccine doses had been given in 49 richer states - but one poor nation had only 25 doses.

A woman gets a dose of Sputnik V vaccine in Moscow, Russia. Photo: 18 January 2021

Mass vaccination has already started in several countries, including Russia IMAGE COPYRIGHTREUTERS

So far, China, India, Russia, the UK and the US have all developed Covid vaccines, with others being made by multinational teams - like the American-German Pfizer vaccine.

Almost all of these nations have prioritised distribution to their own populations.

Speaking at a WHO executive board session on Monday, Dr Tedros said, "I need to be blunt: the world is on the brink of a catastrophic moral failure - and the price of this failure will be paid with lives and livelihoods in the world's poorest countries."

Dr Tedros said a "me-first" approach would be self-defeating because it would push up prices and encourage hoarding.

"Ultimately, these actions will only prolong the pandemic, the restrictions needed to contain it, and human and economic suffering," he added.

And the WHO head called for a full commitment to the global vaccine-sharing scheme Covax, which is due to start rolling out next month.

"My challenge to all member states is to ensure that by the time World Health Day arrives on 7 April, Covid-19 vaccines are being administered in every country, as a symbol of hope for overcoming both the pandemic and the inequalities that lie at the root of so many global health challenges," Dr Tedros said.

So far, more than 180 countries have signed up to the Covax initiative, which is supported by the WHO and a group of international vaccine advocacy groups. Its aim is to unite countries into one bloc so they have more power to negotiate with drug companies.

Ninety-two countries - all of them low or middle-income - will have their vaccines paid for by a fund sponsored by donors.

"We have secured two billion doses from five producers, with options of more than one billion more doses, and we aim to start deliveries in February," Dr Tedros said.


U.S. and China clash at WHO over scientific mission in Wuhan

By Stephanie Nebehay -19. January 2021

an aerial view of a city: FILE PHOTO: 1st anniversary of the Wuhan lockdown

1st anniversary of the Wuhan lockdown - © Reuters/THOMAS PETER FILE PHOTO

GENEVA (Reuters) - The United States called on China on Monday to allow an expert team from the World Health Organization (WHO) to interview "care givers, former patients and lab workers" in the central city of Wuhan, drawing a rebuke from Beijing.

The team of WHO-led independent experts trying to determine the origins of the new coronavirus arrived on Jan. 14 in Wuhan where they are holding teleconferences with Chinese counterparts during a two-week quarantine before starting work on the ground.

The United States, which has accused China of hiding the extent of its initial outbreak, has called for a "transparent" WHO-led investigation and criticised the terms of the visit, under which Chinese experts have done the first phase of research.

Garrett Grigsby of the Department of Health and Human Services, who heads the U.S. delegation, said China should share all scientific studies into animal, human and environmental samples taken from a market in Wuhan, where the SARS-CoV-2 virus is believed to have emerged in late 2019.

Comparative analysis of such genetic data would help to "look for overlap and potential sources" of the outbreak that sparked the COVID-19 pandemic, he told the WHO's Executive Board.

"We have a solemn duty to ensure that this critical investigation is credible and is conducted objectively and transparently," said Grigsby, who also referred to virus variants found in Britain, South Africa and Brazil.

Sun Yang, director-general of the health emergency response office of China's National Health Commission, told the board: "The virus origin studies are of a scientific nature. It needs coordination, cooperation. We must stop any political pressure."

Australia's delegation also called for the WHO team to have access to "relevant data, information and key locations".

"There are no guarantees of answers," WHO emergency chief Mike Ryan told reporters last Friday. "It is a difficult task to fully establish the origins and sometimes it can take two or three or four attempts to be able to do that in different settings."

(Additional reporting Emma Farge; Editing by William Maclean and Mark Heinrich)


Independent pandemic review panel critical of China, WHO delays

A blocked entrance to Huanan seafood market, where the coronavirus that can cause COVID-19 is believed to have first surfaced, is seen in Wuhan, Hubei province, China March 30, 2020. Picture taken March 30, 2020. REUTERS/Aly Song/File Photo/File Photo

By Stephanie Nebehay - 19. January 2020

GENEVA (Reuters) - An independent panel said on Monday that Chinese officials could have applied public health measures more forcefully in January to curb the initial COVID-19 outbreak, and criticised the World Health Organization (WHO) for not declaring an international emergency until Jan. 30.

The experts reviewing the global handling of the pandemic, led by former New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark and former Liberian President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, called for reforms to the Geneva-based United Nations agency.Their interim report was published hours after the WHO’s top emergency expert, Mike Ryan, said that global deaths from COVID-19 were expected to top 100,000 per week “very soon”.

“What is clear to the Panel is that public health measures could have been applied more forcefully by local and national health authorities in China in January,” the report said, referring to the initial outbreak of the new disease in the central city of Wuhan, in Hubei province.

As evidence emerged of human-to-human transmission, “in far too many countries, this signal was ignored”, it added.

Specifically, it questioned why the WHO’s Emergency Committee did not meet until the third week of January and did not declare an international emergency until its second meeting on Jan. 30.

“Although the term pandemic is neither used nor defined in the International Health Regulations (2005), its use does serve to focus attention on the gravity of a health event. It was not until 11 March that WHO used the term,” the report said.

“The global pandemic alert system is not fit for purpose”, it said. “The World Health Organization has been underpowered to do the job.”

Under President Donald Trump, the United States has accused the WHO of being “China-centric”, which the agency denies. European countries led by France and Germany have pushed for addressing the WHO’s shortcomings on funding, governance and legal powers.

The panel called for a “global reset” and said that it would make recommendations in a final report to health ministers from the WHO’s 194 member states in May.

Reporting by Stephanie Nebehay; Editing by Josephine Mason and Alex Richardson

A blocked entrance to Huanan seafood market, where the coronavirus that can cause COVID-19 is believed to have first surfaced, is seen in Wuhan, Hubei province, China March 30, 2020. Picture taken March 30, 2020. REUTERS/Aly Song/File Photo/File Photo

GENEVA (Reuters) - An independent panel said on Monday that Chinese officials could have applied public health measures more forcefully in January to curb the initial COVID-19 outbreak, and criticised the World Health Organization (WHO) for not declaring an international emergency until Jan. 30.

The experts reviewing the global handling of the pandemic, led by former New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark and former Liberian President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, called for reforms to the Geneva-based United Nations agency.Their interim report was published hours after the WHO’s top emergency expert, Mike Ryan, said that global deaths from COVID-19 were expected to top 100,000 per week “very soon”.

“What is clear to the Panel is that public health measures could have been applied more forcefully by local and national health authorities in China in January,” the report said, referring to the initial outbreak of the new disease in the central city of Wuhan, in Hubei province.

As evidence emerged of human-to-human transmission, “in far too many countries, this signal was ignored”, it added.

Specifically, it questioned why the WHO’s Emergency Committee did not meet until the third week of January and did not declare an international emergency until its second meeting on Jan. 30.

“Although the term pandemic is neither used nor defined in the International Health Regulations (2005), its use does serve to focus attention on the gravity of a health event. It was not until 11 March that WHO used the term,” the report said.

“The global pandemic alert system is not fit for purpose”, it said. “The World Health Organization has been underpowered to do the job.”

Under President Donald Trump, the United States has accused the WHO of being “China-centric”, which the agency denies. European countries led by France and Germany have pushed for addressing the WHO’s shortcomings on funding, governance and legal powers.

The panel called for a “global reset” and said that it would make recommendations in a final report to health ministers from the WHO’s 194 member states in May.

Reporting by Stephanie Nebehay; Editing by Josephine Mason and Alex Richardson



Image result for Bioweapon WarningBy Venatrix Fulmen - 14. January 2021

Key Issues:

  • The visit is a full one year too late. What could they possibly still "discover"? China had one year to cover up and disguise.

  • This "mission" is not an independent body to thoroughly investigate the questions, which urgently need to be answered.

  • Most of the 10 members of the team have conflicts of interests, but haven't declared them. Peter Daszak for example, works for and represents the so-called 'EcoHealth Alliance', which was deeply involved in EVENT 201 to prepare the plandemic.

  • After arrival, the team members have now to stay for two weeks in their Wuhan hotel quarantine and are only allowed under Chinese supervision to have Zoom meetings with people they want to question.

  • Thereafter, further two weeks are planned for field visits, e.g. to the nearby Wuhan Wet Market, which is closed and boarded up since more than 11 months and where nothing tangible can be found anymore.

  • So far not even a visit of the secretive Wuhan Institute of Virology, its above-earth BSL-4 lab or its underground military BSL-4 lab are planned or permitted.

  • It is absolutely not clear, which access the team-members will get to people, institutions or localities.

  • The mission is heavily guarded by the CCP authorities and  24/7 shadowed by the assigned Chinese minders.

  • There is no transparency of the whole process and no independent reporting.

  • Therefore no credibility can be seen for any of their potential 'findings'.

Meanwhile the CCP propagada machinery runs in high gear to maintain that the 'virus' did not originate in China. Well, there actually might be some truth in it, because:

The whole research program on this corona contagion under the Biowarfare Program of DARPA was after the spill at the military BSL-4 lab at Ft. Detrick, U.S.A., in July 2019 sent over to the WIV to be continued there with U.S. funding. Only when Zaosong Zheng, 30, a Chinese national, was arrested on Dec. 10, 2019, at Boston’s Logan International Airport and charged by criminal complaint with attempting to smuggle 21 vials of biological research material to China, the involvement of the USA became clear. On Jan. 21, 2020, Zheng was indicted on one count of smuggling goods from the United States and one count of making false, fictitious or fraudulent statements. He has been detained since Dec. 30, 2019. More importantly, the subsequent arrest and brief detention of Prof. Charles Lieber, former Chairman of Harvard University’s Chemistry and Chemical Biology Department, who is deeply embedded in the research at Ft. Detrick and in Wuhan and is the nano-technology specialist in all this - able to equip pathogens with nano-switches to turn them on and off - had not to stand a public trial so far. 

The French Institute Pasteur - with its high security BSL-4 lab, at least was or still is heavily involved in research cooperation with the WIV and at least co-financed the construction of its buildings and labs. Therefore also from France pathogens will have been given to or exchanged with the WVI to do research forbidden in Europe. In particular, Prof. Dr. Fourtillan has accused the French Institut Pasteur, a private non-profit foundation that specializes in biology, micro-organisms, contagious diseases, and vaccination, of having “fabricated” the SARS-COV-2 virus over several decades and been a party to its “escape” from the Wuhan P4 (BSL-4) lab — unbeknownst to the lab’s Chinese authorities — which was built following an agreement between France and China signed in 2004. Relations between France and China regarding the project cooled over the years as China put its own interests first, but in 2017, France’s then–Interior minister, Bernard Cazeneuve, joined the official opening ceremony of the Wuhan Institute of Virology’s P4 lab, together with Yves Lévy, co-president of the steering committee. Lévy is the husband of Agnès Buzyn, who was France’s health minister when the COVID-19 crisis erupted. On January 24th, the Institut Pasteur in France announced that it had sequenced the genome of 2019-nCoV, which matched the one shared with them by Chinese authorities on January 11th, but both reports are meanwhile disputed. They stated that presumably, the novel coronavirus will be patented by the Chinese, but nobody has so far been able to present a fully sequenced SARS-CoV-2.

The Canadians have a history of largely unexplained relations between the Wuhan National Biosafety Laboratory and the National Microbiology Laboratory in Winnipeg, Manitoba Canada (NML). It has been well reported that both institutions share the same top-level 4 certification assigned to containment facilities in research labs where staff can pursue high-level studies of the most dangerous pathogens known to humankind. It was already a scandal that Biolab-Canada sent such material to China. There is now evidence that they also let at least two unauthorized Chinese agents get away with it. I was reported in detail how Chinese Biowarfare agents working at the Canadian lab in Winnipeg were involved in the smuggling of Coronavirus to Wuhan’s lab from where it is believed to have been leaked. In the explosive interview Dr. Francis Boyle, gave a detailed statement admitting that the 2019 Wuhan Coronavirus is an offensive Biological Warfare Weapon and that the World Health Organization (WHO) already knows about it. The Chinese in Winnipeg were fired, but never publicly prosecuted. The bioweapon programmes of all 'governments' shy the light like the proverbial cats the water (did rather devils and holy water come to your mind?).

Based on their fearful responses to the crisis, it is obvious that there are a growing number of politicians responsible for extended lockdowns and other grave measures - even risking the breakdown of their economies, who are not only entangled in the vaccination and Great Reset agendas, but genuinely know more about the dangers of this bioweapon.

Italy, Germany, Israel, South Africa and several other states have therefore also to come clean on their bioweapons research, which is in summary of the whole situation the obvious reason for the call by a growing number of states like Australia, India or Peru to hold a mandatory Independent International Tribunal on the coronavirus crisis and to bring the guilty to justice.

If humanity ever wants to recover, the tribunal must be held now and missions like that of the WHO to China dismissed for what they are: Smokescreens.

Image result for chinese minders who mission


A good example for paid damage control reporting:

After aborted attempt, sensitive WHO mission to study pandemic origins is on its way to China

By Kai Kupferschmidt - 13. January 2021

A fruit vendor walks past the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market, now closed, on 11 January. The market is one of the sites a 10-member international committee hopes to visit during its stay in Wuhan, China. NICOLAS ASFOURI/AFP via Getty Images

On Monday evening, Peter Daszak drove to John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York City for the second time this year, hoping to fly to Wuhan, China. Daszak, a disease ecologist at the EcoHealth Alliance [Editorial Note: Heavily involved and criticized concerning its role in the plandemic.], is part of an international team charged by the World Health Organization (WHO) with investigating the origins of SARS-CoV-2, which was first discovered in Wuhan.

The previous week he got as far as Doha, Qatar, before the trip began to unravel. With new variants of the coronavirus spreading across the world, China was imposing additional safety requirements for incoming passengers—with no exceptions for invited scientists. “We tried for a day and a half to see if we could fix the bureaucracy,” Daszak says. “I was sleeping on the floor in the VIP lounge: very nice food, but no bed.” He ended up flying home.

China has received intense criticism for not earlier allowing a transparent probe of SARS-CoV-2’s origin, and the aborted attempt to get the mission underway, widely seen as more foot dragging, created another international stir; WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said he was “very disappointed.”

But now, the team is on the move again. Its members are gathering in Singapore this week and may board a plane straight to Wuhan today or tomorrow, where they will have to quarantine, individually, for 14 days. (One member, David Hayman of Massey University in New Zealand, decided to stay home because he could not get a booking in a designated hotel for another compulsory 2-week quarantine upon his return.)

But mission members caution against unrealistic expectations that they may soon find the animal host from which SARS-CoV-2 jumped into humans, or make some other breakthrough discovery. “It’s not like you go there, take samples from 20 bats and a civet cat and then you understand the epidemiology,” says WHO panel member Fabian Leendertz, a wildlife veterinarian at the Robert Koch Institute in Berlin, who is not traveling to China for family reasons but will participate virtually. There is too little time to do actual science on these trips, says Linfa Wang, an emerging disease specialist at Duke-NUS Medical School in Singapore who is not part of the team but took part in a similar for mission for severe acute respiratory syndrome in 2003. Instead, the group will collaborate with Chinese scientists who do the work on the ground. “The mission is to improve the communication and increase exchange,” he says.

The team is working against a tense political background. U.S. President Donald Trump has faulted the Chinese government for failing to contain what he calls “the China virus,” while China is actively spreading unproven claims that the virus originated outside its borders. It took WHO many months to put together the group and agree with China on the terms of the mission. “WHO is jammed between China and the U.S.,” Wang says.

At a press conference on Monday, WHO’s Mike Ryan pleaded with people not to not frame the scientific study of SARS-CoV-2’s emergence in terms of determining guilt. “Understanding the origin of disease is not about finding somebody to blame,” he said. “We are looking for the answers here that may save us in the future, not culprits.” The composition of the group—10 scientists from 10 countries, including Russia, Qatar, and Vietnam—reflects the enormous global impact of COVID-19. “This is so sensitive, they really have to balance it,” Wang says.

Over the past few months, the international experts and their Chinese counterparts have had four virtual meetings, led by WHO epidemiologist Peter Ben Embarek, to sift through existing data, says Marion Koopmans of Erasmus Medical Center in the Netherlands. “What exactly is known? What could have happened? What are potential other sources of information? What has been tested [in China]? If not, what can be tested there? What is still available?” That work will continue while team members are quarantined in Wuhan, she says, but with daily calls instead of weekly. After that, they are hoping to spend 2 weeks visiting various sites in Wuhan and return home before China shuts down for Lunar New Year celebrations in mid-February.

Understanding the origin of disease is not about finding somebody to blame. We are looking for the answers here that may save us in the future, not culprits.

Mike Ryan, World Health Organization

Scientists feel pretty confident that SARS-CoV-2 came from bats, but they don’t know which species. [Editorial Note: False Narrative !!! This story has been debunked over and over again. It is is a lab-made contagion!!!] And the question is whether it jumped straight to humans or via another animal. “The intermediate host is more important than the ultimate origin, because the intermediate host gave the virus to humans,” Wang says.

That’s why one of the stops will be at the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market, where many of the first cases appear to have occurred. Although a Chinese investigation reportedly did not find any animals positive for the virus there, 69 environmental samples were positive, 61 of them from the market’s western wing where wild boar, raccoons, and other mammals were sold. Researchers sequenced three viral genomes from these samples and found them to be virtually identical to those from patients at the time, suggesting these animals may have acted as intermediate hosts.

The mission may also visit the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), which is part of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. Most scientists reject the conspiracy theory that the virus was concocted there, but the WHO team will need to consider the hypothesis that the virus was accidentally released from the lab, says epidemiologist Marc Lipsitch of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health: “Otherwise, the report won’t have done its job.”

Daszak has worked closely with WIV for many years and has shared a $3.1 million grant from the U.S. National Institutes of Health before it was canceled by the Trump administration; some have argued this creates a potential conflict of interest. Daszak agrees the theory of a lab escape needs to be looked at, but there are limits, he says. “Some of the more anti-China rhetoric that’s out there, about, we need to go into the lab and look at the video cameras, this sort of thing, that’s not realistic, that’s not what happens.” (Daszak chairs of a second team of researchers looking at the pandemic’s origins as part of The Lancet COVID-19 Commission. “I’m going to be extremely disciplined on keeping the two separate,” he says.)

Chinese officials have actively promoted the theory that the virus did not originate in their country at all. They have pointed to two studies suggesting the virus was circulating in Italy as early as late November, or even September 2019. But those data have yet to be confirmed. “When we make these claims that kind of go against what most of the evidence is, we really need strong evidence to back up those claims,” says virologist Emma Hodcroft of the University of Basel. (WHO has reached out to both groups and is setting up collaborations to have another lab confirm the results.) But even if the Italian data are correct, that does not mean the virus originated in Europe; it could have come from China earlier than scientists knew.

The WHO panel’s biggest problem will be that the Chinese government carefully chooses what it gets to see, says Alexandra Phelan, a lawyer at Georgetown University who specializes in global health policy. “No matter how hard local and international scientists try,” she says, “the reality is that the Chinese leadership is in an international propaganda battle.” Yanzhong Huang, a senior fellow for global health at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York City, agrees that politics makes it “very challenging to do the work independently, transparently, and thoroughly.” But the transfer of power next week in Washington, D.C., might make things a bit easier, he adds. If President-elect Joe Biden manages to cool down the rhetoric with China, “That could create a more favorable environment for the scientists to do their work.”


Kai Kupferschmidt - is a contributing correspondent for Science magazine based in Berlin, Germany. He is the author of a book about the color blue, published in 2019. Twitter His Sciences COVID-19 reporting is supported by the Pulitzer Center and the Heising-Simons Foundation.


Anthony Fauci finally acknowledges that China played significant role in early spread of coronavirus

By  - 11. January 2021

Image: Anthony Fauci finally acknowledges that China played significant role in early spread of coronavirus

(Natural News) Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), has finally admitted that Communist China played a significant role in the early spread of the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19).

When the initial coronavirus outbreak was spreading in Wuhan in late 2019, Chinese officials were attempting to stifle reports about it, claiming that it wasn’t that infectious and censoring doctors who were attempting to blow the whistle. Fauci himself claims he suspected that the “mysterious pneumonia” coming out of the city was a novel coronavirus.

“Back then, the lack of full appreciation of the seriousness of what we were dealing in, was [due to] a number of reasons,” he said during an interview with Axios. “Some things were absolutely not known by anybody. And, some things were known by the Chinese and they weren’t very transparent about it.”

Many people inside and outside of China “got fooled,” said Fauci. Public health officials outside the communist nation initially believed that the outbreak in Wuhan was similar to the SARS virus and were not aware that the coronavirus was acting very differently.

Fauci accused the Chinese of delaying their reporting on the asymptomatic and person-to-person transmission of the coronavirus. The director also believes that if U.S. health officials were aware of the extent of the spread and the possibility for asymptomatic cases to transmit the coronavirus, they would have changed their guidance on masks, social distancing and contact tracing very early on.

The coronavirus started spreading in China in late 2019. The Chinese Communist Party refused to allow foreign scientists to investigate the situation in Wuhan “for a considerable period,” limiting the ability of the international scientific community to understand where COVID-19 came from and how it was spreading.

When Chinese authorities finally did allow a group of World Health Organization researchers into the country, which included one official from Fauci’s NIAID, they still placed roadblocks for the scientists, such as delaying the approval of their travel authorization.

“You don’t know everything you need to know the first day,” said Fauci. “You get people who are making decisions about their own behavior based on political considerations, as opposed to an objective evaluation of the public health threat.”  (Related: Cover-up: Dr. Anthony Fauci helped approve an effective treatment for coronavirus infections 15 years ago, but is suppressing it today in favor of new high-profit vaccines.)

Learn more about the coronavirus by watching this episode of Brighteon Conversations with Mike Adams, the Health Ranger. In this episode, Mike has a conversation with Dr. Paul Cottrell, who sends a message warning America about the lies being spread regarding coronavirus vaccines, PCR tests and more.

Country to control pandemic by autumn 2021, says Fauci

Fauci predicted that life will not resume for most Americans until as late as fall 2021.

“It’s going to take several months,” he said during an interview on mainstream news outlet MSNBC. “It’s not going to happen in the first few months. If we do it correctly, hopefully, as we get into the end of the summer, the beginning of the fall of 2021, we can start to approach some degree of normality.”

Fauci warned that the timeline he and other public health experts have laid out is contingent upon the country being able to “efficiently, quickly and effectively” implementing a nationwide vaccination program, which he said is lagging far behind schedule.

Furthermore, Fauci believes that people need to rather strictly adhere to “personal mitigation measures,” such as following mask mandates and social distancing regulations.

President Donald Trump has missed his own year-end target to vaccinate 20 million Americans. Only around 12.4 million doses of the vaccine had been delivered before the New Year, and only about 2.7 million people have received two shots of the vaccine.

Fauci said that, according to Gen. Gustave Perna, chief operating officer of Operation Warp Speed – the program to facilitate and accelerate the development and distribution of vaccines – the federal government will only reach its desired pace of vaccination “as we get into the middle of January, February and March.”

“Whenever you have a very large operation – such as trying to vaccinate an entire country with a new vaccine – there will always be bumps in the road and hiccups about that. We hope that that’s what this is a reflection of.”

Fauci has butted heads with Trump over these plans. The president believes that all the federal government has to do is provide the vaccines and that “it is up to the states to administer” them. On the other hand, Fauci believes that, before the situation can progress even further, the federal government needs to provide the states with the resources necessary to implement a proper statewide vaccination program.

“My feeling is – and not everyone would agree with me – is that there has to be a strong relationship between the national approach and the local approach.”

Fauci is arguing that, without the intervention of the federal government, state and local authorities will not be able to implement any kind of massive public health program like an inoculation campaign. “And this is proof positive,” he said.

The scientific community is learning more about the Wuhan coronavirus every day. Read up on the results of the latest research and investigations at Pandemic.news.

Sources include:






WHO virus mission to China in disarray as entry denied

By AFP - 06. January 2021

The WHO team was set to try and track down how the virus first appeared in Wuhan, China The WHO team was set to try and track down how the virus first appeared in Wuhan, China

The WHO team was set to try and track down how the virus first appeared in Wuhan, China NOEL CELIS AFP/File

Geneva (AFP) - An expert mission to China to find the origins of the coronavirus pandemic stumbled before it even began, with the head of the World Health Organization complaining that Beijing was blocking the team from entering the country.

WHO chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said he was "very disappointed" with the last-minute bar on entry, in a rare castigation of Beijing from the UN body.

A 10-strong team was due to arrive in China this week after months of painstaking negotiations.

Beijing is determined to control the origin story of the virus, which has killed more than 1.8 million people so far and laid waste to global economies.

The first cases of the coronavirus were recorded in the central Chinese city of Wuhan in late 2019, prompting accusations of chaotic, secretive handling by Chinese authorities which led to its spread beyond China.

US President Donald Trump called the pandemic the "China virus".

But Beijing has so far resisted pressure for a full independent probe into the early days of the outbreak. Instead, it has seeded doubt as to whether the pandemic even started inside its borders.

The WHO mission was billed as a way to cut through the rancour and seek clear answers on how the virus jumped from animals to humans.

But with some of the team already in transit, Beijing had yet to grant them entry, the WHO chief said.

"Today, we learned that Chinese officials have not yet finalised the necessary permissions for the team's arrivals in China," Tedros told reporters on Tuesday.

"I am very disappointed with this news, given that two members had already begun their journeys and others were not able to travel at the last minute."

He stressed that he had been in contact with senior Chinese officials to make clear "that the mission is a priority for WHO and the international team".

"I have been assured that China is speeding up the internal procedure for the earliest possible deployment," Tedros added.

The mission was hugely sensitive and neither the WHO nor China had until now confirmed when specifically it was due to start.

WHO emergencies director Michael Ryan told Tuesday's briefing that the problem was a lack of visa clearances.

"We trust and we hope that this is just a (logistical) and bureaucratic issue that can be resolved very quickly."

There was no immediate comment from China.

- 'Critical' mission -

"We were all operating on the on the understanding that the team would begin deployment today," he said, adding that two members of the team coming from far away had set off early Tuesday, before it became clear that the necessary approvals had not been received.

He stressed the "absolute critical nature" of the mission, acknowledging that the situation was "frustrating and... disappointing".

The origins of Covid-19 remain bitterly contested, lost in a fog of recriminations and conjecture from the international community -- as well as obfuscation from Chinese authorities determined to keep control of the virus narrative.

Scientists initially believed the virus jumped to humans at a market selling exotic animals for meat in the city of Wuhan.

But experts now think the market may not have been the origin of the outbreak, but rather a place where it was amplified.

It is widely assumed that the virus originally came from bats, but the intermediate animal host that transmitted it between bats and humans remains unknown. [N.B.: By spreading this false narrative, we also can no longer trust AFP that they would report properly and without the French bias.]




CORONA UNMASKED: Chinese Intelligence Officer Reveals True Magnitude of China’s Fake Coronavirus Crisis – 包含中文字符版本

By ROBERT MORNINGSTAR - 13. February 2020

Image result for chinese military intelligence officer



Chinese Intelligence Officer Reveals True Magnitude of China’s Fake “Coronavirus” Crisis

By Pen Name U  u/WuhanvirusDispersal

Edited by  明亮晨星


I am a senior Chinese military intelligence officer and I know the truth about the “coronavirus” outbreak.  It is far worse than the media are telling you.

I am a Chinese citizen in Wuhan who occupies — or perhaps occupied — a high-ranking position in military intelligence.  I am also a member of the Chinese Communist Party. As a senior official near the top of the Party, I have access to a great deal of classified information and I have been involved in many top secret government projects.  I have a doctorate from a leading university in a western country, which is why I am able to write my account in English.

I have information that I believe could lead to the overthrow of my government.  It is also relevant to billions of people outside of China, all of whom are now in existential peril.

It will not surprise you to hear that if my identity were to be revealed, my life would be in grave danger, as would those of my wife and son.  I ask you to respect the fact that I have stripped out of this account all facts that would make it easy to identify me.

By now you will be familiar with the recent outbreak of 2019-nCoV, also known as NCP, or simply “coronavirus”. You will have heard that it originated in Wuhan, an industrial city in China, and that it came from an animal — most likely a bat or a pangolin — that was sold in a wild animal market.  You will have been told that it is an influenza-like illness that can in severe cases cause pneumonia, respiratory failure and death.

Finally, you may have heard that although the disease is highly infectious, it is dangerous only to the elderly or to those who have a compromised immune system.  The official lethality rate is approximately  2% or so.

All of that is a bunch of lies concocted by the Chinese state with the tacit support of the U.S. deep state and its friends in the European Union, Russia and Australia, and spread by the docile media in all of those countries.

Let me start by telling you that the world does not operate the way you think it does. Although countries like the US and China vie for global dominance, that competition is restricted to certain limited areas.

In most ways, the two countries are more interested in cooperation so that they can stop other competing countries from gaining more power.  They also have a shared interest in keeping real power out of the hands of their “ordinary” citizens. To this end, they have many different mechanisms by which they control the overwhelming majority of their media outlets.  The Americans in particular have perfected the art of creating made-up “divisions” between their two main parties which are designed to hide the fact that both serve the same masters.

These same nations also posses technology that is far more advanced than you can imagine and which is kept carefully hidden from public view.  This includes advanced artificial intelligence capable of undermining and deciding any election in the world; biological and chemical agents that can manipulate and control the thinking patterns and behaviours of citizens to terrifying degrees; highly sophisticated manipulation techniques using hypnotic practices entirely unknown to the public; and other things that I will not go into now.


My point is that the great nations do not compete so much as work together. Their principal goal is to shield the true workings of the world from the “uninitiated” public.

Just to give you one example, there aren’t actually any nuclear weapons anywhere in the world.  The U.S. and the Soviet Union scrapped them all in the 1970s, as did their client states.  Everyone realized that those weapons could not be used without destroying the whole world, so there was no need for them; but by pretending that they still had them, the big players were able to keep the non-nuclear powers in line.

Let me return to the virus.

Last year, large-scale anti-government protests erupted in Hong Kong.

The Standing Committee of the Chinese Communist Party considered these to be a grave threat to the integrity and stability of the motherland.  The U.S. government and the EU both knew that the Chinese were secretly working on a biological agent that was supposed to make the protesters docile and obedient.  Without going into detail, I worked on that project.  We tried to develop a sort of spray that could be dispersed from helicopters or drones and that would lead to mental retardation and behavioural change.

Naturally, as Hong Kong is one of the most open and international cities in the world, the Party decided that it was too risky to release the agent in Hong Kong without first testing it.  For this, it needed a great number of human guinea pigs. Two groups were identified for this.

First, we rounded up a large number of so-called “islamic radicals” in Xinjiang Province and took them to what we called “training camps.”

We had already been using these camps for human experimentation for several years, but the Hong Kong protests meant that we redoubled our efforts.  We exposed the inmates to various “alpha” experimental agents.  As these were odourless and invisible, the subjects were not aware that they were taking part in medical trials.

Image result for uighurs in china

Escape from Xinjiang:  Muslim Uighurs Speak of China Persecution


The resulting high rates of cancer, premature dementia, suicidal depression and death by organ failure could easily be suppressed, as the camps are located in very remote parts of our motherland.

Once the initial experiments had yielded a “beta” agent, it was transported to Hubei Province, where it was deployed in a special military testing facility outside the city of Wuhan.  This was not even a particularly well-kept secret: the existence of this facility has been reported in international news.  Even the fact that it is located close to the wild animal market is a known fact.

By then our President had already introduced a “social credit” system that allowed us to identify disloyal, counter-revolutionary and bourgeois elements in our society.  Using the social credit scores — which are taken from online activity, electronic shopping behaviour and reports from informers in civil society — we selected some of the worst offenders.  These included human rights lawyers and activists, Christians, homosexuals, artists, intellectuals, people who speak foreign languages, and other undesirables.

Once these troublemakers had been collected and placed in the testing facility, we exposed them to the Agent, which is biochemical in nature and spread in an invisible aerosol, akin to certain viruses.  Initial results were encouraging, as we saw significant cognitive decline and reduction in higher mental processing facilities.  Essentially, our undesirables were becoming mildly mentally disabled, which is precisely the effect we wanted to produce in order to pacify the restive population of Hong Kong.

Image result for hong kong riots

Unfortunately, it quickly became apparent that the Agent also had other effects. About one week after the retardation set in, our subjects developed major anxiety and panic attacks.  Eventually they developed symptoms akin to those of paranoid schizophrenics.  At that point, their bodies rapidly deteriorated.  They developed massive internal bleeding; the walls of their arteries dissolved; they bled out of their eyes and orifices, and their tissue disintegrated.

To put it in a more direct Western manner, they started to melt.

Death usually occurred through multiple organ failure.  This was preceded by at least five days of severe agony which could not be alleviated by painkillers.  It was at this time that I first violated our protocol: one subject, an elderly lady who had published defamatory cartoons of our President, begged me for death with such insistence that I took pity and shot her.  I was reprimanded, but fortunately the complaint was dropped when I agreed to reimburse the cost of the bullet. I swore to myself never again to show such unnecessary emotion.

We decided that our Agent was unusable.  It was far too destructive for our purposes.  We wanted the population of Hong Kong to submit to us; we did not want to exterminate it.

Image result for hong kong riots

Naturally, our American friends had by then taken an interest in our work and asked us for a sample for their own research and testing purposes.  They hinted that they wished to use it to resolve certain difficulties in Venezuela.  Normally we would have agreed, as we maintain friendly relations with the CIA, but given the extremely toxic nature of the Agent, we declined.

This, as it turned out, was a grave mistake.  The CIA was convinced that we had developed something very powerful and wanted to keep it to ourselves.  They offered a great deal of money to one of our researchers.

Foolishly, he agreed to sell them a specimen.  We found out just in time for the handover and tried to stop it from happening.  In the ensuing shoot-out — don’t bother to look for it in the news, it was never reported anywhere — several dozen people were killed.

More importantly, however, the Agent escaped!

The shoot-out took place at the wild animal market, which has been reported as the location of the “animal-to-human” transmission that started the outbreak.  But, of course, there was no such transmission; it was just the location where the CIA was supposed to receive the sealed vial containing the Agent.  The vial shattered when it was dropped by the traitor who had agreed to sell it to the Americans.

By now I understand you will be sceptical.  If I really am who I say I am, why would I be sharing this information on the internet?

Let me assure you that I am no friend of the Western system of governance. I love my motherland and I am loyal to the Communist Party.  It has lifted hundreds of millions of my compatriots out of squalor and poverty.  However, I am also a human being and I have a conscience.

Most importantly, I have a wife and a son.

Once we realised that the Agent had escaped and would start to spread, we swiftly put all of Wuhan into lockdown. I was one of those tasked to manage the fallout of the contamination.

Of course, we could not keep such a huge undertaking secret, so we decided to order our state media to report that a “coronavirus” had broken out in Wuhan.

In reality, of course, there is no “coronavirus”. It was all made up.

It was one of my colleagues who came up with the genius idea of pretending that people with the common flu suffered from the coronavirus. This allowed us to hide the true nature of the disease. Let me explain.

It is currently flu season in China. When we realised that we could no longer control the spread of the Agent, we sent our men to all the hospitals and instructed all doctors to diagnose every case of the common flu as “coronavirus”. We came up with a new name — 2019-nCoV — and handed out “factsheets” that described a made-up illness.

The result of this decision was that tens of thousands of individuals who were simply suffering from a cold or flu were now diagnosed as having a mysterious coronavirus that, although infectious, was not often lethal.  While this frightened the public, it allowed us to push the narrative that the disease was not that deadly; it also gave us time to prepare for the catastrophe that was sure to come by imposing a lockdown on Wuhan and other cities in Hubei Province.

You have not heard this in the news — and given the size of Wuhan, with its population of 11 million, it is not known even to many of the residents — but within days thousands upon thousands were infected and before long they suffered the agonising deaths that I have already described.

Within a week, there were so many corpses that we did not know what to do with them, so we ordered the surviving social credit prisoners to drive the bodies into the countryside and bury them in mass graves.

But it was very difficult to keep this activity secret, and we could not even keep up as there were so many corpses.People’s Daily, China


Full-front disinfection work has started in #Wuhan, an effort to contain the spread of #coronavirus

Embedded video


We planted a story that five million residents had “fled” Wuhan.  In reality, of course, many of those people had died from the Agent.

I was working around the clock helping to orchestrate this cover-up.  When I think back to my actions now, I feel great shame.  At the time I still believed that I was fighting for my motherland and that the rule of the Party was right and just. But deep down, I had already begun to have doubts.

My faith in the Party was shaken even more deeply when I learnt what had happened to Dr Li Wenliang.

Li Wenliang: Doctor who warned about coronavirus outbreak dies after being infected by virus

Whistleblower who was confronted by police becomes latest victim of deadly outbreak


Dr Li Wenliang was one of the few doctors who refused falsely to diagnose flu patients with the “coronavirus”.  As a punishment, he was sent to help transport dead bodies to mass graves.  The expectation was that he would be infected with the Agent and die an agonising death, but to our great surprise, he did not contract the illness.https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z_8LnnHMeG4?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&autohide=2&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=transparent

You have of course read that he died of “coronavirus.”  You have been misinformed.  A sergeant of the People’s Armed Police injected him with a mixture of heroin and mercury that caused his lungs to deflate.

When I found out about this I became unsure whether or not I was doing the right thing.  While I believe that it is appropriate for a government to rule with a severe hand, I do not think that it was right to kill Dr Li.  He was a compassionate and kind man and he cared about his patients; how can our motherland not benefit from having such a doctor?

I shared my concerns with my wife, but she convinced me that I should not say anything to my superiors.  She said that it was too dangerous; that they valued loyalty above everything else; and that I would only find trouble if I admitted to my doubts about their practices.  She also pointed out that we benefited from priority medical treatment.  As senior officials, we received regular supplies of the highly-sophisticated hazmat masks that are the only known technology that can prevent infection.   She implored me to think of our son, who is still small.  If I spoke out and were caught, our lives would be at risk.

Around the same time, it became clear that the Agent was entirely beyond our control.  It was spreading like wildfire throughout Hubei Province and beyond, infecting tens of millions and causing them all to die.

I understand that what I just said is difficult to believe, because you have been told that there have been only about 50,000 infections, and far fewer deaths.

But these are the influenza infections that have been falsely passed off as the non-existent “coronavirus.”  The Agent is far, far more contagious than that, and its fatality rate, unlike the “coronavirus”, is not 2%.

No, its fatality rate is 100%.  Nobody recovers from it.  Everybody who contracts it dies.

And a lot of people are contracting it.

Hubei Province lies in ruins. The various travel restrictions and lockdowns that have been imposed were not created to stop the spread of the Agent — none of them can stop it, not embargoes, not face masks or hand sanitiser — but to stop the survivors from seeing the catastrophe with their own eyes.

Drones are being used to heard people toward -containment centers.


I am part of the greatest cover-up in human history: the hiding of the deaths of tens of millions. Very soon, Hubei Province will be no more than a giant mortuary, and the truth will come out.

For me, the turning point came when the Party told yet another lie, and that lie was too dreadful even for me to accept.

You may have heard that China built a new hospital, called Huoshenshan Hospital, in Wuhan, in order to provide additional quarantine and isolation facilities for infected patients.  You may have heard that they built it in only ten days.

That too is a lie.

Sure, they did build something in six days.  But it was not a “hospital. ”  The true nature of the building was considered “top secret.”

Initially, I was naive enough to believe that the Party was demonstrating its compassion and care for the people.  But then my superiors sent me to Huoshenshan.

I was shown around the installation by a military police officer called Corporal Meng (this is not his real name).  It was there that I saw the truth.

As I have mentioned, the only way to protect oneself from the Agent is by wearing a special protective mask that is entirely unlike those available commercially. Even medical professionals do not have access to it.  It is available only to biomedical warfare researchers and it contains extremely advanced technology.

These masks need to be kept at a particular temperature to offer full protection, and lose their effectiveness very quickly.  As I have also already said, one of the benefits of my position was that both my family and I had access to regular supplies, which is why were safe when compared to civilians, doctors and even lower-level government officials, all of whom wore utterly ineffective surgical masks in the misguided belief that they would protect them.

And so, wearing this special equipment, I went to Huoshenshan with Corporal Meng.

Whatever you want to call that place, it is not a hospital.

Sure, the entrance looks like a hospital and in the ward at the front of the complex, there are what appear to be normal medical beds.  There, thousands of infected patients lie, all of them in the early stages of the disease.  I walked along those long, white corridors next to Corporal Meng, his angular face dispassionate in his military fatigues, and saw hundreds upon hundreds of identical hospital beds on which squirmed the terrified and diseased inhabitants of Wuhan.  Their cries and pleas haunt me in the long nights in which I now am unable to sleep.

But this was merely the beginning.  Eventually the Corporal took me to the rear of this front section.  There, locked metal gates led to what he called the “middle section”.  The patients in the front are unaware of its existence.  It is there that the more advanced cases are kept, in what most closely resembles a mental asylum.

Immediately upon entering this part of Huoshenshan, I was struck by the dim lighting and stench of vomit and human waste.  Here the unfortunates roamed freely, their minds gradually disintegrating in endless panic attacks and psychotic episodes.  Here too there were no more doctors, merely gorilla-faced men in black uniforms who belonged to some secret branch of the military police I had never heard of.

They appeared to have been selected for their cruelty, for they beat and degraded the patients in the most sadistic manner.  Many of the inmates had regressed to childlike states and lay on the floor weeping like infants and begging for compassion that they did not receive.

There was cruel pleasure in the eyes of these thugs as they brutalised the unfortunates.  They beat them with batons, sprayed pepper spray into their eyes and kicked them with their steel-capped boots.  As I was from military intelligence, the guards did not even attempt to hide their activities.  They even invited me to join; in every way, they treated me as one of them.

Yes, one of them.  I stood in the grey staff bathroom of Huoshenshan and looked into a cheap mirror and asked myself — is this really what you are? Are you really like them?

But the violence was not merely an expression of sadism, for the poor inmates were not there to be cared for.

They were there to work.

There was one more set of doors, and beyond them lay what the Corporal called the “Core.”  And it was there that I saw it — piles and piles of dead bodies, stacked on top of one another all the way to the ceiling.  There were men, women and children, elderlies and toddlers, rich and poor, beautiful and misshapen, proud and humble.

They were all of them dead.  Our Agent made no distinction between any of them.

I gasped when the Corporal led me to the Core.  I cannot count how many there were, but it was many, many thousands.  And in the midst of the piles of corpses was a kind of path, and I heard a roaring sound in the distance.  The miserable patients from the middle section picked up the dead and carried and dragged them away into the dark, even as the guards beat them with truncheons.

It took me a little while before I grasped what was happening.  I simply could not believe what lay at the end of that path in the Core.

It was an enormous furnace, with great fires roaring within.

One by one, their minds destroyed and their bodies twisted, the dying men and women carried the corpses to the furnace and cast them inside in a doomed attempt to hide the dreadful truth.  I saw several of them collapse from exhaustion only for their lifeless bodies to be added to the mountains of corpses on both sides.  In a seemingly endless line they went, their emaciated bodies clad in grey overalls, their backs bent under the weight of their dreadful cargo.  Many howled and groaned in terror and their voices joined in a sorrowful cacophony that lingered over the roar of the fires.

In deep shock, I stared at the boundless horror before me.  Beside me stood Corporal Meng, his freshly-shaved face as emotionless as before.  When I turned to face him, he looked at me.  His mouth smiled, but his eyes did not.

“We use the energy to operate Huoshenshan,” he said. “We save the state considerable resources in this way.  And look,” — he waved at the gallery of the dead — “there are so many of them here.  You could almost describe it as renewable energy.”  He laughed and waved his hand in a strangely camp gesture.

I stood speechless and stared at the infernal scenes before me.  Men in black uniforms screamed like daemons at the wretches who were disposing of the corpses for them.  They stripped the dead of anything that had value — jewellery, cash, expensive clothing — and tossed these items onto an enormous pile next to the furnace.  When I asked the Corporal what would be done with the items, they said that they would be used to pay for the “healthcare expenses” incurred by the patients’ stay in Huoshenshan.

I vomited in the toilet.  When I flushed and came out of the stall, Corporal Meng stood by the door and looked at me.  His face was as blank as before, but in his eyes I thought I registered a very faint trace of contempt.  You are ten years my senior, the look said, but you are soft.

I thanked him for his service and went home.

When I arrived, I saw that I had received hundreds of updates on the encrypted device the Party uses to communicate to insiders.  The news were unimaginably grim.  The State Legal and Economic Commission had allocated funds for the construction of dozens of facilities like Huoshenshan all throughout China.

The Agent had spread not only to every single province of the motherland, but to most other nations in the world. Fortunately, we had agreements in place with other governments — they agreed to pretend that the infections were due to a coronavirus.  They were just as worried as we were that a panic might break out in their countries.  The Americans, in particular, were terrified that the S&P 500 might decline.  This, they said, would be unacceptable in an election year, so we could count on their full support.

Of course the World Health Organisation also helped us.  For a long time, the only issue with the WHO has been that we have been locked in a contest with the Americans about who bribes them more.  They released all sorts of sophisticated misinformation about having decoded the DNA of the so-called coronavirus.  All this has allowed us to stave off a global panic.

For now.

Yet the situation was worsening with astonishing speed.  I am reluctant to reveal too much on this point, as it would make it too easy for my enemies to identify me, but we quickly began to implement measures to protect our most senior leaders.  If you look at the world news, you will see that Xi Jinping, our President, disappeared for approximately one week after the outbreak, before being seen again with the leader of Cambodia.

You should know that the person who met the Cambodian leader was not President Xi.  It was a body double who had, for many years, been trained to look and sound just like our President.  President Xi is of course not careless enough to risk his own death.  He is safely ensconced in a secret bunker underneath Zhongnanhai, the headquarters of the Party in Beijing.

Nor was he the only leader who is in hiding.  In fact, I can assure you that over half of all senior Party members are currently being imitated by trained actors who are following instructions given to them via special implants.

Do you really think that our Prime Minister would risk his life by going to Wuhan?

All of this means that our government has become utterly paralysed and the functions of the state have been taken over by the military.

It became clear to me that our efforts were pointless.  Yes, the lockdowns, travel bans and targeted assassinations of rebellious journalists allowed us to hide the true situation in Wuhan; but I knew that this would not last.

Once the mass deaths begin in the rest of the world — in our estimation, this should happen within the next week or so — everyone will know the truth.  It will become clear that we cannot protect ourselves from the Agent.

Surgical masks, hand sanitiser, gloves — nothing can stop it.  Nothing except the special hazmat masks, but those cannot be produced in anything like sufficient quantities.  You, an ordinary person, will never even receive one, let alone a sufficient number to see you through the coming holocaust.

For those of you reading this, therefore, all I can suggest is that you keep your loved ones close to you.  Hug them, tell them what they mean to you.  Enjoy the time you have left with them.  It is not typical in Chinese culture to express one’s feelings in this way, but I have learnt the importance of such gestures.

I promised my wife that I would show this document to her before I posted it.

Yet I broke my word.

I hear her weep in loud, hoarse sobs in the bedroom, and the keyboard of my laptop is wet with my own tears.  Not long ago, we received results of the regular tests that are part of our “priority medical treatment”, and we learnt that my son had been infected with the Agent.

The military police that has supplied me with the special protective mask had been giving expired and ineffective masks to my son, masks that senior officials had already worn and then discarded when they ceased to protect them.   My own masks, on the other hand, had always been of the necessary quality.

I suppose they decided that my son was of lower priority than me. I suppose my son could not help them with their cover-up.

We had long ago decided that we would be different — we would be honest with him, always.  And so when he asked us, we told him the truth. We told him that he was very sick.  He asked more, and we told him he would not get better.

He continued asking, and we told him that he would die.  He is very small, but he was old enough to understand.

His terrified wails will haunt me for the rest of my miserable days in this world.

Let them come.  Let them do with me as they will. I no longer care.

By u/Wuhanvirusthrowaway


Editor’s Postscript

Here is the True Face of Communism.

The videolinked below shows scenes from Wuhan, China, and graphically supports all the assertions made by the anonymous Chinese Military Intelligence Officer presented above.

The viewer should “Cut to the chase” at the 54 minute Time Mark to see what’s really going on in Red China, emphasis on “Red” as in “bloody China.”These scenes show the ruthlessness of the Chinese Police conducting forced detainment of people suspected of having the Corona Flu.enforcing. Even pets are being thrown out of windows on rumors that pets are spreading the disease (not true).This video also shows clear evidence of intentional contamination and spreading of disease as seen in the elevator with Chinese operatives spitting on tissue and smearing it on elevator buttons, as well as, people spitting in food containers and into food service centers.The following video images reveal the real face of Chinese Communism, which has become today the worst “Death Cult” ever known in the long history of Mankind.





Go to the 54 minute Time Mark to get a glimpse of

“Hell on Earth”

(Censored and removed on GooTube and Fascistbook: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOOe5XI4JS0&feature=share&fbclid=IwAR1cet–90EKIMbT0dN3WmXVWSLPRe24qwVgIK369u4tE0O63AdyjOczfPk)



Republished on BITCHUTE February 13th, 2020.


This hour of unedited footage from Wuhan and affected cities, filmed by citizens, shows the reality of the Coronavirus/nCoV/COVID19 outbreak and government response. Some of the worst aspects of human nature are documented for the purposes of awareness and preparation. The footage increases in intensity from start to finish and there are no trigger warnings. This is not the flu.

Director TUIT
Producer ARES
DP & Audio Chinese Citizens
Catering Telegram app
Screenwriter TUIT
Editor TUIT
Date of Production: 2020-02-11
Join Us: https://is.gd/yVBNFC

A Harvard Professor, The DOD & NIH, A Chinese Spy, 21 Stolen Vials Of “Biological Research”, & Nanoscience

A Harvard Professor, The DOD & NIH, A Chinese Spy, 21 Stolen Vials Of “Biological Research”, & Nanoscience

Here are some dots in desperate need of connecting, even if the DOJ says it’s all “separate”. Oh yeah, and they tie into the Wuhan University of Technology…

From the DOJ:

Harvard University Professor and Two Chinese Nationals Charged in Three Separate China Related Cases
The Department of Justice announced today that the Chair of Harvard University’s Chemistry and Chemical Biology Department and two Chinese nationals have been charged in connection with aiding the People’s Republic of China.

Dr. Charles Lieber, 60, Chair of the Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology at Harvard University, was arrested this morning and charged by criminal complaint with one count of making a materially false, fictitious and fraudulent statement. Lieber will appear this afternoon before Magistrate Judge Marianne B. Bowler in federal court in Boston, Massachusetts.

Yanqing Ye, 29, a Chinese national, was charged in an indictment today with one count each of visa fraud, making false statements, acting as an agent of a foreign government and conspiracy. Ye is currently in China.

Zaosong Zheng, 30, a Chinese national, was arrested on Dec. 10, 2019, at Boston’s Logan International Airport and charged by criminal complaint with attempting to smuggle 21 vials of biological research to China. On Jan. 21, 2020, Zheng was indicted on one count of smuggling goods from the United States and one count of making false, fictitious or fraudulent statements. He has been detained since Dec. 30, 2019.




Edited byRobert D. Morningstar


Image result for chinese military intelligence officer



u / Wuhanvirusthrowaway




我是中国军事情报高级官员,我知道“冠状病毒”爆发的真相。 这比媒体告诉你的要糟糕得多。我是武汉的中国公民, 在军事情报领域担任高级职位。我也是中国共产党的成员。作为接近党的最高层的高级 官员,我可以获得大量的机密信息,并且参与了许多最高机密的政府项目。 我拥有西方国家一流大学的博士学位,这就是为什么

我能够用英语写我的帐户的原因。 我掌握的信息可能会导致我的政府被推翻。这也与中国境外数十亿人息息相关, 他们现在都面临着生存的危险。 听到我的身份被揭露,我的生命和我妻子和儿子的生命将面临极大的危险, 这不会让你感到惊讶。我要求您尊重我已经从该帐户中删除所有易于识别我的事实。 到目前为止,您将熟悉最近爆发的2019-nCoV(也称为NCP)或简称为“冠状病毒”。 您会听说它起源于中国的工业城市武汉,并且来自一种在野生动物市场上出售的动物 -最有可能是蝙蝠或穿山甲。 您会被告知这是一种类似于流感的疾病,在严重的情况下会导致肺炎,呼吸衰竭和死亡。 最后,您可能已经听说,尽管该疾病具有很高的传染性,但仅对老年人或免疫系统受损 的人才有危险。官方的致死率约为2%左右。 所有这些都是中国国家在美国深层国家及其在欧盟,俄罗斯和澳大利亚的朋友的默契支 持下炮制的一堆谎言,并由温顺的媒体在所有这些国家传播。


比赛仅限于某些特定区域。在大多数方面,两国对合作更感兴趣,因此它们可以阻止其 他竞争国家获得更大的权力。他们也有共同的利益,就是将真正的权力掌握在“普通”公 民的手中。为此,他们拥有许多不同的机制来控制绝大多数媒体。尤其是美国人, 已经完善了在两个主要政党之间建立人为“分工”的艺术,这是为了掩盖双方都担任同 一大师的事实。 这些国家/地区还拥有比您想像的要先进得多的技术, 并且应谨慎地将其隐藏在公众视野之外。 这包括能够破坏和决定世界上任何选举的先进人工智能; 可以操纵和控制公民思维方式和行为的恐怖程度的生物和化学制剂; 使用完全不为公众所知的催眠方法的高度复杂的操纵技术; 和其他我现在不会讨论的事情。















April 2021
1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30