UPDATE 17. June 2021: BREAKING: Chinese Defector's Identity Confirmed, Was Top Counterintelligence Official
UPDATE 30. May 2020: Coronavirus has 3 strains, 2nd mutation is the one first found in Wuhan: Scientists
UPDATE 26. March 2020: The counter-spin: Coronavirus Conspiracy Theory Claims It Began in the U.S.—and Beijing Is Buying It - Chinese officials have endorsed a fringe theory that the virus came from the U.S., which American officials call absurd
UPDATE 17. March 2020: China’s Coronavirus: A Shocking Update. Did The Virus Originate in the US? - Japan, China and Taiwan Reports on the Origin of the Virus
PROLOGUE: This analysis sounds like it's on the right track. The media shouted too loudly about that Wuhan market. We initially suspected a connection with China's only BSL-4 biolab in Wuhan, and at the present stage think that there were actually two initial outbreaks - first in the USA and then in China, which then quickly deteriorated into a deadly bio-warfare ping-pong 'game'.
Did COVID-19 escape Fort Detrick vaccine trial? Evidence that virus originated in US bioweapons lab
Fort Detrick, Maryland, actual source of the 'Wuhan' Flu?
By Larry Romanoff - 11. March 2020
As readers will recall, Japanese and Taiwanese epidemiologists and pharmacologists have determined that the new coronavirus could have originated in the US since that country is the only one known to have all five types - from which all others must have descended. Wuhan in China has only one of those types, rendering it in analogy as a kind of "branch" which cannot exist by itself but must have grown from a "tree".
The Taiwanese physician noted that in August of 2019 the US had a flurry of lung pneumonias or similar, which the Americans blamed on 'vaping' from e-cigarettes, but which, according to the scientist, the symptoms and conditions could not be explained by e-cigarettes. He said he wrote to the US officials telling them he suspected those deaths were likely due to the coronavirus. He claims his warnings were ignored.
Immediately prior to that, the CDC totally shut down the US Military's main bio-lab at Fort Detrick, Maryland, due to an absence of safeguards against pathogen leakages, issuing a complete "cease and desist" order to the military. It was immediately after this event that the 'e-cigarette' epidemic arose.
We also had the Japanese citizens infected in September of 2019, in Hawaii, people who had never been to China, these infections occurring on US soil long before the outbreak in Wuhan but only shortly after the locking down of Fort Detrick.
Then, on Chinese social media, another article appeared, aware of the above but presenting further details. It stated in part that five "foreign" athletes or other personnel visiting Wuhan for the World Military Games (October 18-27, 2019) were hospitalised in Wuhan for an undetermined infection.
The article explains more clearly that the Wuhan version of the virus could have come only from the US because it is what they call a "branch" which could not have been created first because it would have no 'seed'.It would have to have been a new variety spun off the original 'trunk', and that trunk exists only in the US.(1)
There has been much public speculation that the coronavirus had been deliberately transmitted to China but, according to the Chinese article, a less sinister alternative is possible.
If some members of the US team at the World Military Games (18-27 October) had become infected by the virus from an accidental outbreak at Fort Detrick it is possible that, with a long initial incubation period, their symptoms might have been minor, and those individuals could easily have 'toured' the city of Wuhan during their stay, infecting potentially thousands of local residents in various locations, many of whom would later travel to the seafood market from which the virus would spread like wildfire (as it did).
Comment: Yes, although the possibility of a sinister element remains: US troops are routinely vaccinated with god-only-knows-what, some of them as literal guinea pigs for highly experimental 'cutting-edge' behavioural modification vaccines containing genetically modified viruses.
What if one of those trials on select troops at Fort Detrick 'went wrong' in the sense that it produced the opposite result to what was intended (a vaccine-injected virus that was supposed to make the troops more compliant to obeying orders), then the project managers panicked when they realized what it could do if it got out, so they locked down the base temporarily and quarantined the troops.
Unbeknownst to them, however, the quarantine didn't work and the virus spread among US troops, then eventually reached Wuhan, China (among many other places). Only when the Chinese govt noticed its hotspot in Wuhan did they identify the virus, alerting the US bioweapons experts to their nightmare of a GM virus 'in the wild' making people lesscontrollable...
That would account also for the practical impossibility of locating the legendary "patient zero" - which in this case has never been found since there would have been many of them.
Next, Daniel Lucey, an infectious disease expert at Georgetown University in Washington, said in an article in Science Magazine that the first human infection has been confirmed as occurring in November 2019, (not in Wuhan), suggesting the virus originated elsewhere and then spread to the seafood markets. "One group put the origin of the outbreak as early as 18 September 2019."(2) (3)
Wuhan seafood market may not be the source of novel virus spreading globally.
Description of earliest cases suggests the outbreak began elsewhere.
The article states:
"As confirmed cases of a novel virus surge around the world with worrisome speed, all eyes have so far focused on a seafood market in Wuhan, China, as the origin of the outbreak. But a description of the first clinical cases published in The Lancet on Friday challenges that hypothesis."(4) (5)
The paper, written by a group of Chinese researchers from several institutions, offers details about the first 41 hospitalized patients who had confirmed infections with what has been dubbed 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV).
In the earliest case, the patient became ill on 1 December 2019 and had no reported link to the seafood market, the authors report. "No epidemiological link was found between the first patient and later cases", they state. Their data also show that, in total, 13 of the 41 cases had no link to the marketplace. "That's a big number, 13, with no link", says Daniel Lucey...(6)
Comment: Right there, it had to have come from somewhere else.
Earlier reports from Chinese health authorities and the World Health Organization had said the first patient had onset of symptoms on 8 December 2019 - and those reports simply said "most" cases had links to the seafood market, which was closed on 1 January.(7)
"Lucey says if the new data are accurate, the first human infections must have occurred in November 2019 - if not earlier - because there is an incubation time between infection and symptoms surfacing. If so, the virus possibly spread silently between people in Wuhan - and perhaps elsewhere - before the cluster of cases from the city's now-infamous Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market was discovered in late December. "The virus came into that marketplace before it came out of that marketplace", Lucey asserts.
"China must have realized the epidemic did not originate in that Wuhan Huanan seafood market", Lucey told Science Insider.(8)
Kristian Andersen is an evolutionary biologist at the Scripps Research Institute who has analyzed sequences of 2019-nCoV to try to clarify its origin. He said the scenario was "entirely plausible" of infected persons bringing the virus into the seafood market from somewhere outside. According to the Science article,
"Andersen posted his analysis of 27 available genomes of 2019-nCoV on 25 January on a virology research website. It suggests they had a "most recent common ancestor" - meaning a common source - as early as 1 October 2019."(9)
It was interesting that Lucey also noted that MERS was originally believed to have come from a patient in Saudi Arabia in June of 2012, but later and more thorough studies traced it back to an earlier hospital outbreak of unexplained pneumonia in Jordan in April of that year. Lucey said that from stored samples from people who died in Jordan, medical authorities confirmed they had been infected with the MERS virus.(10)
This would provide impetus for caution among the public in accepting the "official standard narrative" that the Western media are always so eager to provide - as they did with SARS, MERS, and ZIKA, all of which 'official narratives' were later proven to have been wrong.
In this case, the Western media flooded their pages for months about the COVID-19 virus originating in the Wuhan seafood market, caused by people eating bats and wild animals. All of this has been proven wrong.
Not only did the virus not originate at the seafood market, it did not originate in Wuhan at all, and it has now been proven that it did not originate in China but was brought to China from another country. Part of the proof of this assertion is that the genome varieties of the virus in Iran and Italy have been sequenced and declared to have no part of the variety that infected China and must, by definition, have originated elsewhere.
It would seem the only possibility for origination would be the US because only that country has the "tree trunk" of all the varieties. And it may therefore be true that the original source of the COVID-19 virus was the US military bio-warfare lab at Fort Detrick. This would not be a surprise, given that the CDC completely shut down Fort Detrick, but also because, as I related in an earlier article, between 2005 and 2012 the US had experienced 1,059 events where pathogens had been either stolen or escaped from American bio-labs during the prior ten years.
Larry Romanoff is a retired management consultant and businessman. He has held senior executive positions in international consulting firms, and owned an international import-export business. He has been a visiting professor at Shanghai's Fudan University, presenting case studies in international affairs to senior EMBA classes. Mr. Romanoff lives in Shanghai and is currently writing a series of ten books generally related to China and the West. He can be contacted at: . He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
Comment: This analysis sounds like it's on the right track. The media shouted too loudly about that Wuhan market. We initially suspected a connection with China's only BSL-4 biolab in Wuhan, and at the present stage think that there were two initial outbreaks - first in the USA and then in China, which then quickly deteriorated into a deadly bio-warfare ping-pong 'game'.
We now know the name of the Chinese defector who has been working with the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) for a few months and what his position within the Chinese military and government was, among other details.
Chinese-language anti-communist media and Twitter are abuzz this week with rumors that a vice minister of State Security, Dong Jingwei (董经纬) defected in mid-February, flying from Hong Kong to the United States with his daughter, Dong Yang.
Dong is, or was, a longtime official in China’s Ministry of State Security (MSS), also known as the Guoanbu. His publicly available background indicates that he was responsible for the Ministry’s counterintelligence efforts in China, i.e., spy-catching, since being promoted to vice minister in April 2018. If the stories are true, Dong would be the highest-level defector in the history of the People’s Republic of China.
RedState’s sources confirmed that the defector is, in fact, Dong, that he was in charge of counterintelligence efforts in China, and that he flew to the United States in mid-February, allegedly to visit his daughter at a university in California. When Dong landed in California he contacted DIA officials and told them about his plans to defect and the information he’d brought with him. Dong then “hid in plain sight” for about two weeks before disappearing into DIA custody.
According to Spy Talk, Dong’s name came up during the Sino-American Summit held in Alaska in March 2021:
In a tweet on Wednesday, Han [Dr. Han Lianchao, a Chinese defector], citing an unnamed source, alleged that China’s foreign minister Wang Yi and Communist Party foreign affairs boss Yang Jiechi demanded that the Americans return Dong and Secretary of State Anthony Blinken refused.
RedState’s sources say that Chinese officials did demand that the United States return Dong, but Blinken didn’t exactly refuse; at that time Blinken wasn’t aware that Dong was with the US government, the sources say, and told China that the US didn’t have Dong.
It’s only in the last three to four weeks that anyone outside DIA knew about the defector, according to RedState’s sources. Prior to that time, DIA was vetting the information provided and confronting Langley officials with what they’d learned without divulging the source.
Experts quoted in the Spy Talk piece essentially say that the defection is just a rumor and that rumors happen all the time, but that if it’s true it’s a big deal but “not game-changing.” Based on conversations with sources familiar with the information Dong has already provided and its quantity and reliability, that’s simply not the case. Not only does Dong have detailed information about China’s special weapons systems, the Chinese military’s operation of the Wuhan Institute of Virology and the origins of SARS-CoV-2, and the Chinese government’s assets and sources within the United States; Dong has extremely embarrassing and damaging information about our intelligence community and government officials in the “terabytes of data” he’s provided to the DIA.
Hundreds of Chinese nationals are the subject of a federal probe after law enforcement officials flagged their travel at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Chinese nationals returned to the United States earlier than expected in January 2020, often having modified their travel plans.
The episode is recounted in an internal report that circulated among various national security and law enforcement agencies on June 3. That report surmises that the Chinese students returned to the United States earlier than expected in order to avoid future travel restrictions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.
“The team examined 58,000 inbound Chinese F/J visa holders in the [Passenger Name Record] database and identified 396 individuals whose return travel was [scheduled] after January 2020 but had returned in January 2020,” the report reads.
The Free Beacon reports that U.S. intelligence officials haven’t come to a conclusion about whether or not the students being investigated were spies, but RedState is told that whether or not one wants to use the term “spy,” those students were sent back to the United States with specific information-gathering directives with the purpose of helping Beijing understand the US government’s response to the pandemic at a much deeper level than they could through publicly-available documents. Those students (spies) were charged with reporting back on public policy changes, economic response and damage, impacts on the healthcare system (equipment/hospital bed shortages, etc), supply chain impacts (including how long it took things like semiconductors from China to reach the United States), civil unrest, and more.
In addition, Dong has provided DIA with the following information:
Early pathogenic studies of the virus we now know as SARS-CoV-2
Models of predicted COVID-19 spread and damage to the US and the world
Financial records detailing which exact organizations and governments funded the research on SARS-CoV-2 and other biological warfare research
Names of US citizens who provide intel to China
Names of Chinese spies working in the US or attending US universities
Financial records showing US businessmen and public officials who’ve received money from the Chinese government
Details of meetings US government officials had (perhaps unwittingly) with Chinese spies and members of Russia’s SVR
How the Chinese government gained access to a CIA communications system, leading to the death of dozens of Chinese people who were working with the CIA
Dong also has provided DIA with copies of the contents of the hard drive on Hunter Biden’s laptop, showing the information the Chinese government has about Hunter’s pornography problem and about his (and Joe’s) business dealings with Chinese entities. Some of the files on Dong has provided shine a light on just how it was that the sale of Henniges Automotive (and their stealth technology) to Chinese military manufacturer AVIC Auto was approved.
Again, according to sources, Dong told DIA debriefers that at least a third of Chinese students attending US universities are PLA assets or part of the Thousand Talents Plan and that many of the students are here under pseudonyms. One reason for using pseudonyms is that many of these students are the children of high-ranking military and party leaders.
As we initially reported, DIA has high confidence in the veracity of Dong’s claims. The fact that since our original report, which was pooh-poohed by Langley apologists, the New York Times published a rare interview with Dr. Shi Zhengli (the WIV “Bat Woman”), ABC News has started an “investigation” into COVID-19 origins, and now the actual name of the defector has been published in an anti-Trump, CIA-friendly blog, demonstrates what sources told RedState today: “This defector has the rest of the intelligence community and the LEO community scared sh**less.”
Jennifer Van Laar, RedState's Managing Editor, is an unapologetic California conservative (#ProTip: Do not tell her that it's time to leave the state), sports fanatic, and mom of 3 boys. She's also co-host of Sounds Right With Jen and Scott, and joins The Jen and Don Show on Salem Radio Network's AM 590 The Answer every Thursday for "Spill The Tea Thursday." Follow her work on Facebook and Twitter. Story tips: .
"Stop telling CA conservatives to leave. I'm not moving. I'm saving the state. Join me or get out of the way."
Coronavirus has 3 strains, 2nd mutation is the one first found in Wuhan: Scientists
Muhammed Nafie - Updated:
The strain of coronavirus that appeared in Wuhan, the hardest-hit city in China, might have mutated from an earlier variant of the virus, according to the first genetic analysis of the virus evolution.
Motorists queueing at the United States’ largest COVID testing site, outside the Dodger Stadium in Los Angeles, California. Credit: Ringo Chiu/Zuma Wire COMMENT: For the player on the global joystick this picture certainly made his day (yes we believe the kingpin is a man, who launched and controls this EVIL) to see that he can create such 'NEW ORDER'.
Researchers at Cambridge University who traced the origins of the pandemic by analyzing 160 genomes from human patients have identified three distinct strains of the deadly pathogen.
Dubbed as A, B and C, the three types have followed different paths throughout the globe, possibly because they have mutated to be more effective at infecting specific populations, researchers said.
In an interview with China Global Television Network (CGTN) on Saturday, Geneticist Dr. Peter Forster, who led the research, said there was no proof that coronavirus originated in Wuhan.
The earliest known strain of the virus, termed by the scientists as "Type A", is commonly detected in the US and Australia. Type A is the ancestral strain and is most closely related to the coronavirus found in bats and pangolins.
The second type ‘B’ - which is most common in East Asia - is derived from ‘A’, and separated by two mutations, while ‘C’ is in turn a mutation of ‘B’.
But interestingly, European nations are currently been hit largely by "Type C," which is not found in mainland China at all.
In fact, type ‘C’ is most common in Hong Kong, Singapore, and South Korea, suggesting that it has spread to Europe from those regions, the researchers said.
“Type A is the original type that would have affected humans. Then it mutated and changed into Type B. This Type B was then the first genome to be picked up in Wuhan, when the disease became apparent,” Dr. Forster said.
“Researchers might be forgiven for thinking at the time that B is the original type, but actually it’s not – it’s Type A, which in Wuhan is only a minority type, but B has become the majority type during the outbreak. That has mutated further into C. Now the C type is not found in the early phase of the outbreak in China. It is found outside, for example it is well represented in Singapore," he added.
PROLOGUE: As the saying goes: "Never believe anything - unless it is officially denied!" - and the denial comes here via Associated Press, a U.S. government outlet.
Coronavirus Conspiracy Theory Claims It Began in the U.S.—and Beijing Is Buying It
Chinese officials have endorsed a fringe theory that the virus came from the U.S., which American officials call absurd
By James T. Areddy - 26. March 2020
SHANGHAI—A Canadian writer has added fuel to a tiff between the U.S. and China over a fringe theory claiming the coronavirus originated in the U.S., an assertion that is widely denounced.
Lawrence Delvin Romanoff, who is in his late 70s, produces essays that generally praise China and criticize the U.S. One essay, published in early March by a Montreal-based website that carries alternative views of events, was heartily endorsed in a tweet by Zhao Lijian, a spokesman for China’s Foreign Ministry who has nearly half a million Twitter followers.
“China’s Coronavirus: A Shocking Update. Did The Virus Originate in the US?” the essay’s headline read. The website that published it, the Center for Research on Globalization, calls itself an independent research and media organization. It didn’t respond to requests for comment.
Mr. Zhao has used the essay as part of Beijing’s effort to reorient the discussion over the coronavirus, suggesting the U.S. military introduced it to China through an international sports competition held in Wuhan, China, last year in which American troops participated.
The essay, which paraphrases other media reports, neither cites fresh evidence nor definitively answers the question in its headline.
MAY 8, 2020 10:09AM
Two Supertypes of Coronavirus: “East Asian” and “European”
The Los Alamos National Laboratory has posted a new study, as reported this week by the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times, that finds that the strain of the novel coronavirus that emerged in Europe and has spread to much of the world is different than the strain of the virus at its origin in China. Those findings are consistent with our research which we posted (in Russian) on April 15, 2020. Although we are not epidemiologists, we are posting our slightly updated analysis below in English in the interest of sharing what may be significant findings with a wider audience. We welcome the scrutiny and consideration of the epidemiology community and hope that our analysis and any corrections or critiques to the below will help advance our knowledge.
From a microbiological point of view, there are several varieties of the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus. But from the epidemiological point of view, the world is dealing with two distinctly different supertypes of the coronavirus – the so called “East Asian” and “European” ones.
1. Microbiological approach
In recent months, microbiologists, virologists, phylogenetics, and specialists in other fields of biological sciences have been carrying out unprecedented work to understand the mutation process of the coronavirus and track down new varieties appearing over time. According to recent data, several thousands of its genetically different variants have already been discovered. Based on genomic data available from the Gisaid initiative database the participants of the international research network nextstrain.org were able to discover 10 basic types of SARS-CoV-2 strains or clades: A1a, A2, A2a, A3, A6, A7, B, B1, B2, B4.
We combine the first six strains, referred to also as clades (A1a, A2, A2a, A3, A6, A7) into one supertype/superclade “A” and the remaining four types (B, B1, B2, B4) – into the supertype/superclade “B”. These two new superclades based on phylogenetic data from Gisaid and nextstrain.org perfectly correspond to “European” and “East Asian” supertypes that we (the authors) define independently from Gisaid and nextstrain.org. As of April 17, 2020, samples of SARS-CoV-2 from the database represent 59 countries.
The most complete database of SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus genomic samples allowed researchers to create, in almost real time, a “portrait” of the evolutionary tree of the coronavirus with distinct features for all 10 basic clades of the SARS-CoV-2.
They have also put them on a geographical map.
There are several parameters in the interaction of coronavirus with humans. Their quantitative values allow one to identify noticeable differences between “East Asian” and “European” supertypes.
2. Stages of the epidemic
The current epidemics started with the "East Asian" type of coronavirus. The first official manifestation of the disease was the case registered in Wuhan on December 1, 2019. According to the South China Morning Post that saw the PRC government’s documents, the first one was a 55-year-old patient who fell ill on November 17, 2019.
During the first 57 (or 42) days of the epidemic – from November 17, 2019 (or from December 1, 2019) till January 12, 2020 – cases of coronavirus infection were registered only within China. Therefore, this first period of the spread of infection can be called Chinese.
Between January 13 and February 1, 2020, the virus from Wuhan was detected in another 25 countries – Thailand, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Cambodia, the Philippines, Hong Kong, Singapore, Vietnam, Malaysia, India, Sri Lanka , Nepal, UAE, Australia, Canada, USA, UK, France, Spain, Italy, Germany, Sweden, Finland, and Russia. In other words, during these 20 days, the virus was able to conquer on average 1.3 new countries per day. By the end of this period, 10 East Asian countries accounted for 73.5% of the total number of all cases in the world (without China). Therefore, the second period in the spread of infection can be called East Asian.
On February 1, in a seemingly non-stopping offensive campaign of the coronavirus, a pause suddenly occurred, which lasted almost three weeks – until February 20. After quickly capturing a number of countries, the virus seemed to “fall asleep”. During this almost three-week pause, only two isolated infections occurred (one each – in Belgium and Egypt). This third period can be called a Global pause. During this period, the proportion of East Asian cases of infection in the global total (excluding China) increased to 85.1%, European – decreased from 13.2 to 8.1%.
Global pause in the spread of coronavirus, February 2020
This Global pause in the geographical advancement of coronavirus remarkably coincides with the significant upward shift in the average number of accumulated mutations that happened exactly during the same period in February.
Genomic epidemiology of novel coronavirus - Global subsampling
The pause in the coronavirus attack stopped on February 20. On this day, Iran announced the appearance of the first two patients. Two days later, on February 22, at distances of thousands of kilometers from each other, three epidemic explosions occurred almost simultaneously: in Qom, Iran, in Lombardy, Italy, and in Seattle, USA.
In the following days and weeks, Europe became the main focus of the onset of coronavirus. The European share of the global number of cases (excluding China) increased from 6.4% on February 22 to 55.5% on March 21. Therefore, one can say that on February 20 the fourth period of the epidemic – the European explosion – began, which then quickly turned into a global pandemic.
The enormous duration (by epidemic standards) and the so far unexplained pause in the international spread of the virus that lasted almost three weeks allows one to separate two clusters of explosive epidemic behavior from each other and, therefore, distinguish four main periods of the pandemic:
1) Chinese: November 17, 2019 (December 1, 2019) – January 12, 2020;
2) East Asian explosion: January 13 – February 1, 2020;
3) Global pause: February 2 – 19, 2020;
4) European explosion: since February 20, 2020, quickly turned into a Global pandemic.
3. Changes in geography
Epidemic eruptions that began on February 20-22 in Iran, Italy and the United States marked the beginning of a new period qualitatively different from the previous periods that have been characterized by a relatively "gradual" spread of disease.
First, the number of countries affected by the epidemic has sharply increased. In the 19 days of the Global pause period the number of countries affected by the epidemic increased by only two, in the next 19 days at the stage of the European explosion it increased by 79.
Second, the geographical center of the pandemic has moved from East Asia to Europe. During the 19 days of the Global pause, the share of East Asia in the total number of cases in the world (without China) increased from 72.8 to 83.4%. But during the first 19 days of the European explosion period it fell to 26.5%. At the same time, over the next 19 days of the European explosionstage, the share of Europe in the total number of cases in the world (without China) grew from 8.1 to 42.8%.
4. The speed of spread
During the fourth period of the epidemic – the European explosion – the spread of infection has radically increased. The value of the basic reproductive coefficient (R0), determined according to Chinese data at 2.2, in Europe amounted to 4.0 in the first weeks of the explosion and then reached in some cases 5.7.
During the 19 days of the Global pause from February 1 to February 20, the total number of cases of coronavirus infection in the world (without China) increased 3.4 times (the average growth rate was 6.7% per day). Then, in the next 19 days of European explosion (from 20 February to March 10), it increased 63 times (the average daily growth rate grew to 24.4%).
5. Different behavior of the "old" and "new" types of viruses
The fact that after an almost three weeks’ Global pause, in addition to the “old” version of the coronavirus, its “new” type arrived in Europe, became noticeable in changes of all quantitative characteristics of its interaction with humans. In eight European countries (UK, France, Spain, Italy, Germany, Sweden, Finland, Belgium), in which the first cases of the "East Asian" type of coronavirus were registered before February 4, the spread of infection from February 20-22 has radically accelerated.
In 19 days of the Global pause, the number of cases in Europe increased by 2.1 times, then in the next 19 days of the European explosion – it grew by almost 313 times. At the Global pause stage, the average growth rate of cases in Europe was 4% per day, then in the next 19 days it reached more than 35% per day.
At the same time, in 10 East Asian countries (Thailand, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Cambodia, the Philippines, Hong Kong, Singapore, Vietnam, Malaysia) the spread of infection during the European explosion stage did not occur at such a catastrophic rate as in Europe. Naturally, the spread of coronavirus infection has increased in this region, too, but not as dramatically as in European countries. The number of cases in East Asia increased by 20.5 times, but not 313 times as in Europe.
It should be noted that in Australia and Canada--countries that by most of their social, economic, political, even genetic characteristics are closer to Europe than to East Asia--the increase in the number of infections at the Global pause stage was similar to that of all three regions. But at the European explosion stage, the increase in Australia and Canada was similar only to the East Asian version, and indeed was even slower than in East Asia.
At the Global pause stage, the number of infections has increased:
in East Asia – by 4.1 times,
in Australia and Canada – by 1.8 times,
in Europe – by 2.1 times.
At the European explosion stage, the number of infections has increased:
in East Asia – by 20.5 times,
in Australia and Canada – by 7.7 times,
in Europe – by 312.9 times.
The visible change in the “paradigm” of their response to the epidemic when moving from one stage to another in Australia and Canada did not happen because on February 20-22, 2020, these two societies simultaneously, as if on command, changed their European type-susceptibility to a coronavirus infection to that of the, East Asian type-susceptibility. Obviously, such a change in susceptibility did not occur.
The solution to this riddle might be the following.
At the stage of the East Asian explosion, the East Asian supertype of coronavirus spread to 27 countries of the first wave (25 countries until February 1, plus Belgium and Egypt a few days later).
At the Global pause and a European explosion stages, this supertype of coronavirus continued to dominate in all three regions – in East Asia, Australia, Canada, and Europe.
But at the stage of a Global pause, a new type of coronavirus penetrated Europe and during the ensuing European explosion, it ousted its predecessor. This new type of coronavirus appears to significantly differ from its older relative in many of its quantitative characteristics – rates of spread, incidence, mortality, and lethality. Then this European supertype of coronavirus spread from Europe to some other regions of the world.
6. Quantitative characteristics of the two supertypes of coronavirus
The behavior of two supertypes of coronavirus can be observed in the spread of infection in two large parts of the world – in East Asia and in the rest of the world. The following graph shows 143 countries that simultaneously satisfy two criteria:
1) they registered 100 or more cases of infection;
2) they have at least 28 days since the beginning of the stage of the epidemic explosion.
The horizontal axis on the graphs shows calendar dates, the vertical axis shows the number of cases per 1 million inhabitants.
As can be seen from the graphs above, there is a wide gap in time (from January 31 to February 19) between these two groups of countries – “expanded East Asia” (which includes, in addition to proper East Asian countries, Australia and the UAE as well) and the Rest of the world, separating the start of the epidemic explosion stages in countries of one group from the beginning of the explosion stage in countries of another.
In the countries of "expanded East Asia" (together with Australia and the UAE), the explosion stages began between January 21 and 30.
In the countries of the Rest of the world group the explosion stages began on February 20.
In no country in the world did the explosion stage start between January 31 and February 19.
Why this global pause occurred in the evolution of the epidemic and why it persisted for almost three weeks, remain open questions.
Graphically, the difference in the evolution of morbidity and mortality rates in these two groups of countries can be seen in the following pictures.
Morbidity and Mortality per 1 million population in two groups of countries since the start of explosion
As one can see, the gaps in morbidity and mortality rates per 1 million inhabitants between two groups of countries under the influence of two supertypes of coronavirus is huge. Moreover, it also rises.
The main quantitative indicators of the impact of two supertypes of coronavirus on humans can be summarized in the following table (calculated for 58 countries for which genome data of samples is available and that does not include China).
One can see that the morbidity and mortality rates in the countries with two supertypes of coronavirus markedly differ. On the 28th day of the explosion stage, the European supertype of coronavirus, compared to the East Asian one leads to higher levels in morbidity rate – on average by 11.7 times, in mortality rate – by 19times, in lethality rate – by 64%.
Since each of these groups of countries turns out to be very diverse in composition (because they include countries with different geographical, social, economic, political indicators, with very different populations by their genetical, biological, and medical features, with markedly different government responses to the epidemic), such significant quantitative differences between them can be explained by the nature of the infection itself, by existence of two different supertypes of coronavirus.
It should be emphasized that both supertypes of infection are deadly. But their difference from each other lies in the fact that the second type of infection has significantly higher rates of morbidity, mortality and lethality compared to the first one.
7. Preliminary findings
Several conclusions might be derived from the above considerations.
First, for the society and authorities of each country, it is necessary to correctly identify what type of coronavirus they are faced with.
Second, the social and political reaction to epidemics caused by different types of coronaviruses cannot be the same for each type. Measures that have successfully proven themselves in the fight against a relatively “milder” epidemic may prove to be completely inadequate and unsuitable in resisting a “harsher” epidemic.
Third, a comparison of the effectiveness of public measures and epidemiological outcomes independent of the coronavirus supertype that afflicts the country, makes little sense. It may be like comparing a runny nose with cholera.
In view of the above, the effectiveness of certain anti-epidemic measures should be analyzed within the same group of countries hit by a particular supertype of coronavirus. Since most European countries and the north-eastern part of the United States have been harshly hit by the so-called “European” supertype of coronavirus (superclade “A”), it makes sense to evaluate the effectiveness of anti-epidemic measures in them in comparison first of all with each other.
Natalya Pivovarova is director of the Institute of Economic Analysis in Moscow.
China’s Coronavirus: A Shocking Update. Did The Virus Originate in the US?
Japan, China and Taiwan Reports on the Origin of the Virus
17 March، 2020
The Western media quickly took the stage and laid out the official narrative for the outbreak of the new coronavirus which appeared to have begun in China, claiming it to have originated with animals at a wet market in Wuhan.
In fact the origin was for a long time unknown but it appears likely now, according to Chinese and Japanese reports, that the virus originated elsewhere, from multiple locations, but began to spread widely only after being introduced to the market.
More to the point, it appears that the virus did not originate in China and, according to reports in Japanese and other media, may have originated in the US.
Chinese Researchers Conclude the Virus Originated Outside of China.
After collecting samples of the genome in China, medical researchers first conclusively demonstrated that the virus did not originate at the seafood market but had multiple unidentified sources, after which it was exposed to the seafood market from where it spread everywhere. (1) (2) (3)
According to the Global Times:
A new study by Chinese researchers indicates the novel coronavirus may have begun human-to-human transmission in late November from a place other than the Huanan seafood market in Wuhan.
The study published on ChinaXiv, a Chinese open repository for scientific researchers, reveals the new coronavirus was introduced to the seafood market from another location(s), and then spread rapidly from the market due to the large number of close contacts. The findings were the result of analyses of the genome data, sources of infection, and the route of spread of variations of the novel coronavirus collected throughout China.
The study believes that patient(s) zero transmitted the virus to workers or sellers at the Huanan seafood market, the crowded market easily facilitating further transmission of the virus to buyers, which caused a wider spread in early December 2019. (Global Times, February 22, 2020, emphasis added (2)
Chinese medical authorities – and “intelligence agencies” – then conducted a rapid and wide-ranging search for the origin of the virus, collecting nearly 100 samples of the genome from 12 different countries on 4 continents, identifying all the varieties and mutations. During this research, they determined the virus outbreak had begun much earlier, probably in November, shortly after the Wuhan Military Games.
They then came to the same independent conclusions as the Japanese researchers – that the virus did not begin in China but was introduced there from the outside.
China’s top respiratory specialist Zhong Nanshan said on January 27
“Though the COVID-19 was first discovered in China, it does not mean that it originated from China”
“But that is Chinese for “it originated someplace else, in another country”. (4)
This of course raises questions as to the actual location of origin. If the authorities pursued their analysis through 100 genome samples from 12 countries, they must have had a compelling reason to be searching for the original source outside China. This would explain why there was such difficulty in locating and identifying a ‘patient zero’.
Japan’s Media: The Coronavirus May Have Originated in the US
In February of 2020, the Japanese Asahi news report (print and TV) claimed the coronavirus originated in the US, not in China, and that some (or many) of the 14,000 American deaths attributed to influenza may have in fact have resulted from the coronavirus. (5)
A report from a Japanese TV station disclosing a suspicion that some of those Americans may have unknowningly contracted the coronavirus has gone viral on Chinese social media, stoking fears and speculations in China that the novel coronavirus may have originated in the US.
The report, by TV Asahi Corporation of Japan, suggested that the US government may have failed to grasp how rampant the virus has gone on US soil.
However, it is unknown whether Americans who have already died of the influenza had contracted the coronavirus, as reported by TV Asahi. (People’s Daily, English, February 23, 2020, emphasis added)
On February 14, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) said they will begin to test individuals with influenza-like-illness for the novel coronavirus at public health labs in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, Chicago, and New York City.
The TV Asahi network presented scientific documentation for their claims, raising the issue that no one would know the cause of death because the US either neglected to test or failed to release the results. Japan avoided the questions of natural vs. man-made and accidental vs. deliberate, simply stating that the virus outbreak may first have occurred in the US. The Western Internet appears to have been scrubbed of this information, but the Chinese media still reference it.
These claims stirred up a hornet’s nest not only in Japan but in China, immediately going viral on Chinese social media, especially since the Military World Games were held in Wuhan in October, and it had already been widely discussed that the virus could have been transmitted at that time – from a foreign source.
“Perhaps the US delegates brought the coronavirus to Wuhan, and some mutation occurred to the virus, making it more deadly and contagious, and causing a widespread outbreak this year.” (People’s Daily, February 23, 2020) (1)
China – Western China Bashing – vs. Western Biowarfare?
Shen Yi, an international relations professor at Shanghai’s Fudan University, stated that global virologists “including the intelligence agencies” were tracking the origin of the virus. Also of interest, the Chinese government did not shut the door on this. The news report stated:
“Netizens are encouraged to actively partake in discussions, but preferably in a rational fashion.”
In China, that is meaningful. If the reports were rubbish, the government would clearly state that, and tell people to not spread false rumors.
Taiwan Virologist Suggests the Coronavirus Originated in the US
Then, Taiwan ran a TV news program on February,27,(click here to access video (Chinese), that presented diagrams and flow charts suggesting the coronavirus originated in the US. (6
Below is a rough translation, summary and analysis of selected content of that newscast. (see map below)
The man in the video is a top virologist and pharmacologist who performed a long and detailed search for the source of the virus. He spends the first part of the video explaining the various haplotypes (varieties, if you will), and explains how they are related to each other, how one must have come before another, and how one type derived from another. He explains this is merely elementary science and nothing to do with geopolitical issues, describing how, just as with numbers in order, 3 must always follow 2.
One of his main points is that the type infecting Taiwan exists only in Australia and the US and, since Taiwan was not infected by Australians, the infection in Taiwan could have come only from the US.
The basic logic is that the geographical location with the greatest diversity of virus strains must be the original source because a single strain cannot emerge from nothing. He demonstrated that only the US has all the five known strains of the virus (while Wuhan and most of China have only one, as do Taiwan and South Korea, Thailand and Vietnam, Singapore, and England, Belgium and Germany), constituting a thesis that the haplotypes in other nations may have originated in the US.
Korea and Taiwan have a different haplotype of the virus than China, perhaps more infective but much less deadly, which would account for a death rate only 1/3 that of China.
Neither Iran nor Italy were included in the above tests, but both countries have now deciphered the locally prevalent genome and have declared them of different varieties from those in China, which means they did not originate in China but were of necessity introduced from another source. It is worth noting that the variety in Italy has approximately the same fatality rate as that of China, three times as great as other nations, while the haplotype in Iran appears to be the deadliest with a fatality rate of between 10% and 25%. (7) (8) (9)
Due to the enormous amount of Western media coverage focused on China, much of the world believes the coronavirus spread to all other nations from China, but this now appears to have been proven wrong. With about 50 nations scattered throughout the world having identified at least one case at the time of writing, it would be very interesting to examine virus samples from each of those nations to determine their location of origin and the worldwide sources and patterns of spread.
The Virologist further stated that the US has recently had more than 200 “pulmonary fibrosis” cases that resulted in death due to patients’ inability to breathe, but whose conditions and symptoms could not be explained by pulmonary fibrosis. He said he wrote articles informing the US health authorities to consider seriously those deaths as resulting from the coronavirus, but they responded by blaming the deaths on e-cigarettes, then silenced further discussion. …
The Taiwanese doctor then stated the virus outbreak began earlier than assumed, saying, “We must look to September of 2019”.
He stated the case in September of 2019 where some Japanese traveled to Hawaii and returned home infected, people who had never been to China. This was two months prior to the infections in China and just after the CDC suddenly and totally shut down the Fort Detrick bio-weapons lab claiming the facilities were insufficient to prevent loss of pathogens. (10) (11)
He said he personally investigated those cases very carefully (as did the Japanese virologists who came to the same conclusion).. This might indicate the coronavirus had already spread in the US but where the symptoms were being officially attributed to other diseases, and thus possibly masked.
The prominent Chinese news website Huanqiu related one case in the US where a woman’s relative was told by physicians he died of the flu, but where the death certificate listed the coronavirus as the cause of death. On February 26, ABC News affiliate KJCT8 News Network reported that a woman recently told the media that her sister died on from coronavirus infection. Montrose, Colorado resident Almeta Stone said, “They (the medical staff) kept us informed that it was the flu, and when I got the death certificate, there was a coronavirus in the cause of death.” (12)
We cannot ascertain the number of such cases in the US but since the CDC apparently has no reliable test kits and is conducting little or no testing for the virus, there may be others.
Just for information
In the past two years (during the trade war) China has suffered several pandemics:
February 15, 2018: H7N4 bird flu. Sickened at least 1,600 people in China and killed more than 600. Many chickens killed. China needs to purchase US poultry products.
June, 2018: H7N9 bird flu. Many chickens killed. China needs to purchase US poultry products.
August, 2018: outbreak of African swine flu. Same strain as Russia, from Georgia. Millions of pigs killed. China needs to purchase US pork products.
May 24, 2019: massive infestation of armyworms in 14 province-level regions in China, which destroy most food crops. Quickly spread to more than 8,500 hectares of China’s grain production. They produce astonishing numbers of eggs. China needs to purchase US agricultural products – corn, soybeans.
December, 2019: Coronavirus appearance puts China’s economy on hold.
January, 2020: China is hit by a “highly pathogenic” strain of bird flu in Hunan province. Many chickens died, many others killed. China needs to purchase US poultry products.
The standard adage is that bad luck happens in threes, not sixes.
Larry Romanoff is a retired management consultant and businessman. He has held senior executive positions in international consulting firms, and owned an international import-export business. He has been a visiting professor at Shanghai’s Fudan University, presenting case studies in international affairs to senior EMBA classes. Mr. Romanoff lives in Shanghai and is currently writing a series of ten books generally related to China and the West. He can be contacted at: 218
(9) Coronavirus has Mutated, Iran attacked by a Different Strain from Wuhan