Page 1 of 8 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 311

Thread: Wuhan Flu

  1. #1
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    1,018
    Mentioned
    20 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Wuhan Flu

    This article was recently taken down from Medium.com.

    The account was suspended this afternoon.

    here is the website: https://medium.com/@siradrianbond/co...1-d6a338eed7c5

    I copy pasted though.

    Decide for yourselves.








    Coronavirus Exposed, Part 1: Communist Coverup, or Pandemic Bioweapon of Mass Destruction?












    The official story about Coronavirus 2019 nCoV is that it “appears to have originated in the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market in Wuhan, a Chinese city about 650 miles south of Beijing that has a population of more than 11 million people.” This tale has been officially reported as early as January 9th by CCP’s state-owned and operated news channel, Xinhuanet, New-type coronavirus causes pneumonia in Wuhan: expert, reported by local Chinese authorities to the US National Library of Medicine database, Outbreak of Pneumonia of Unknown Etiology in Wuhan China: the Mystery and the Miracle and to the International Journal of Infectious Diseases database, The continuing 2019-nCoV epidemic threat of novel coronaviruses to global health — The latest 2019 novel coronavirus outbreak in Wuhan, China.

    Typically not included in most mainstream news stories, however, is the fact that the claimed epicenter of the outbreak is just 8.6 miles from Wuhan Institute of Virology, which houses China’s only P4-Level Biosafety Laboratory capable of storing, studying, or engineering Pathogen Level 4 microbes such as other coronaviruses, Ebola, Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome, SARS, H5N1 influenza virus, Japanese encephalitis, and dengue. Bill Gurtz of the Washington Times reports, “the deadly animal virus epidemic spreading globally may have originated in a Wuhan laboratory linked to China’s covert biological weapons program, according to an Israeli biological warfare expert.” The journalist states that an unnamed U.S. official revealed that false rumors have been circulating for weeks on the Chinese Internet claiming the new coronavirus is “part of a U.S. conspiracy to spread germ weapons” — possibly preparing propaganda outlets to counter future charges the new virus escaped from one of Wuhan’s civilian or defense research laboratories.


    The article refers to statements provided by Dany Shoham, a former Israeli military intelligence officer who holds a doctorate in medical microbiology, and served as a senior analyst with Israeli military intelligence for biological and chemical warfare in the Middle East and worldwide from 1970 to 1991.“Coronaviruses (particularly SARS) have been studied in the Institute and are probably held therein”, Shohan reveals, as has anthrax, adding that “certain laboratories in the Institute have probably been engaged, in terms of research and development, in Chinese [biological weapons]. Work on biological weapons is conducted as part of a dual civilian-military research and is “definitely covert.” Troublingly, even a State Department report issued last year raised suspicions that China has been engaged in covert biological warfare work. “Information indicates that the People’s Republic of China engaged during the reporting period in biological activities with potential dual-use applications, which raises concerns regarding its compliance with the BWC,” the report said, adding that the United States suspects China failed to eliminate its biological warfare program as required by the treaty.


    Thus, it seems rather astute to examine the details of government- and media-disseminated reports in contrast to the background of activity conducted at Wuhan Institute of Virology, as well as look into the specifics of the new coronavirus in comparison with viruses already isolated, identified, stored, studied, and/or engineered at the Institute’s Biosafety Laboratory, in an effort to glean the truth.



    Claims of surprise by Chinese scientists and State officials are arguably inauthentic


    Let’s begin by examining the glaring discrepancies in the official story to the underlying and background reality of coronaviruses, especially in the SARS-scarred land of China. The Sun reports that the current consensus centers on the belief that the origin of the coronavirus outbreak is linked to bat soup sold at the market. However, the article states that experts “had thought the new virus wasn’t capable of causing an epidemic as serious as [previous deadly outbreaks of SARS and Ebola] because its genes were different,” something that simply isn’t true. In 2006, one of China’s preeminent virologists, Professor Zhengli Shi, co-authored the study, Review of Bats and SARS, concluding that “a SARS epidemic may recur in the future and that SARS-like coronaviruses (SL-CoVs) that originate from different reservoir host populations may lead to epidemics at different times or in different regions…. The recent discovery of a group of diverse SL-CoVs in bats support the possibility of these events….”





    <img class="cp t u ew ak" src="https://miro.medium.com/max/1378/1*T2gnm5CPHVPfEx2qgxRXgQ.jpeg" width="689" height="742" role="presentation"/>
    Bowl of hot, delicious bat soup served at Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market in Wuhan, China.


    A concurrent article published in the South China Morning Post on January 22, 2020, entitled Coronavirus weaker than SARS but may share link to bats, Chinese scientists say reports the latest findings on the coronavirus by scientists at China’s Center for Disease Control and Prevention. “The scientists’ findings, published on Tuesday, suggested that the danger posed by the pneumonia-like virus may have been underestimated by the research community.” However, Prof. Zhengli and her co-authors published a study early last year on March 2, 2019 entitled Bat Coronaviruses in China which explicitly warned,

    “During the past two decades, three zoonotic coronaviruses have been identified as the cause of large-scale disease outbreaks⁻Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS), and Swine Acute Diarrhea Syndrome (SADS). SARS and MERS emerged in 2003 and 2012, respectively, and caused a worldwide pandemic that claimed thousands of human lives, while SADS struck the swine industry in 2017. They have common characteristics, such as they are all highly pathogenic to humans or livestock, their agents originated from bats, and two of them originated in China.

    Thus, it is highly likely that future SARS- or MERS-like coronavirus outbreaks will originate from bats, and there is an increased probability that this will occur in China
    . Therefore, the investigation of bat coronaviruses becomes an urgent issue for the detection of early warning signs, which in turn minimizes the impact of such future outbreaks in China” (emphasis added).


    The South China Morning Post article continues with the beguiling assertion, “Previously, most scientists believed the new virus could not cause an epidemic as serious as that of SARS because its genes were quite different. But the new study found that, like SARS, the virus targeted a protein called angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2).” Apparently, the virology scientific community not only failed to heed Prof. Zhengli’s explicit, recent dire warnings about the “high likelihood” that future SARS- or MERS-like coronavirus outbreaks would originate from bats — they also ignored Zhengli’s incredibly pertinent report published ten years ago in July, 2010, Identification of key amino acid residues required for horseshoe bat angiotensin-I converting enzyme 2 to function as a receptor for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus. The study’s abstract can’t be clearer on the immunological risks associated with protein ACE2, with its obvious liability for usurpation by viral agents with a little modified genome sequencing:

    “Angiotensin-I converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) is the receptor for severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) coronavirus (SARS-CoV). A previous study indicated that ACE2 from a horseshoe bat, the host of a highly related SARS-like coronavirus, could not function as a receptor for SARS-CoV. Here, we demonstrate that a 3 aa change from SHE (aa 40–42) to FYQ was sufficient to convert the bat ACE2 into a fully functional receptor for SARS-CoV. We further demonstrate that an ACE2 molecule from a fruit bat, which contains the FYQ motif, was able to support SARS-CoV infection, indicating a potentially much wider host range for SARS-CoV-related viruses among different bat populations.”

    This old but remarkable study concludes that only a minor genome sequence change was required to convert a non-susceptible bat ACE2 protein into a functional receptor for SARS-CoV, something that could easily happen in nature. “Considering that there are more than 60 different horseshoe [bat] species around the world (Flanders et al., 2009; Rossiter et al., 2007), it is possible that one or some of them may serve as the natural reservoir of SARS-CoV and/or its progenitor virus(es).” Why is it that current State virologists are apparently ignorant of these essential discoveries of yesteryear?


    The South China Morning Post article cited above summarizes two primary known facts about the new coronavirus: first, that a “virus found in fruit bats is [the] common ancestor of the two strains [Coronavirus 2019-nCoV and SARS],” and that this “new strain has [an] unusually high ability to bind to a human protein.” And the new study on Coronavirus 2019-nCoV by the joint research team from the Chinese Academy of Sciences, the People’s Liberation Army, and Institut Pasteur of Shanghai indeed found that, like SARS, the virus targeted the ACE2 protein. It’s just as Prof. Zhengli predicated a decade ago: “…the fact that an ACE2 protein from a megabat, the fruit bat Rousettus leschenaultia, can function as a receptor for SARS-CoV would suggest that the host range for SARS-CoV or SL-CoVs may be much wider than originally thought.”


    So what happened — did the virology and surrounding scientific community drop the ball on these well-established findings and warnings, or what? After all, at least as February, 2008, they knew three key facts about ACE2:


    • Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) is caused by the SARS-associated coronavirus (SARS-CoV), which uses ACE2 as its receptor for cell entry. SL-CoVs and SARS-CoVs share identical genome organizations and high sequence identities, with the main exception of the N terminus of the spike protein, known to be responsible for receptor binding in CoVs.
    • Whereas the SL-CoV spike protein was unable to use any of the three ACE2 molecules as its receptor, and the SARS-CoV spike protein failed to center cells expressing the bat ACE2, the chimeric spike protein the study created did gain its ability to center cells via human ACE, and
    • A minimal insert region (amino acids 310 to 518) was found to be sufficient to convert the SL-CoV S from non-ACE2 binding to human ACE2 binding, indicating that the SL-CoV S is largely compatible with SARS-CoV S protein both in structure and in function.


    We know
    they knew these facts way back in 2008 because Prof. Zhengli published the findings of these facts in her report, Difference in Receptor Usage between Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) Coronavirus and SARS-Like Coronavirus of Bat Origin. Therein the scientists concluded, “Knowing the capability of different CoVs to recombine both in the laboratory and in nature, the possibility that SL-CoVs may gain the ability to infect human cells by acquiring spike protein sequences competent for binding to ACE2 or other surface proteins of human cells can be readily envisaged.” Thus, it seems strange and perhaps even disingenuous that the new joint CCP government-joint Coronavirus 2019-nCoV task force is seemingly ignorant about coronavirus targeting the ACE2 protein, apparently pretending it’s only just now discovered this. After all, Zhengli’s 2008 report was quite clear about the role that this ACE2 protein would play in future pandemics: the study “strengthened our belief that ACE2 from certain bat species could be able to support SARS-CoV infection because of the predicted genetic diversity of bat ACE2 variants in different bat species.”



    What is the Wuhan Institute of Virology’s National Biosafety Laboratory, where is it, and why is it pertinent?




    <img class="cp t u ew ak" src="https://miro.medium.com/max/1956/1*PRMo8pk1ESr1XEpL-NS9HQ.png" width="978" height="442" role="presentation"/>
    Wuhan National Biosafety Laboratory, the only P4 lab in China, headquartered at Wuhan Institute of Virology.

    At any rate, the forgoing storyline is the official word on Coronavirus 2019-nCoV, manifesting itself somehow in a seafood market in Wuhan. But what else might be found in Wuhan? After all, Wuhan is the capital city of the Hubei Province, home to some 11 million Chinese citizens. Well, curiously underreported is the fact that China’s first high-level biosafety laboratory is located just 8.6 miles away. “Used to study class four pathogens (P4), which refer to the most virulent viruses that pose a high risk of aerosol-transmitted person-to-person infections,” Wuhan National Biosafety Laboratory is the darling, cutting-edge hi-tech baby of the Wuhan Institute of Virology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, and is the only such lab in China where dangerous, highly communicable viruses such as Ebola, SARS, MERS, H5N1 influenza virus, Japanese encephalitis, dengue, and assorted coronaviruses can be “safely” toyed with.




    <img class="cp t u ew ak" src="https://miro.medium.com/max/3298/1*sYqjTzbqNs9Pw1FQnei7lw.png" width="1649" height="1133" role="presentation"/>
    China’s National Biosafety Laboratory, located at Wuhan Institute of Virology, is only 8.6 miles away from the claimed epicenter of the Coronavirus 2019-nCoV outbreak.

    Do you believe in coincidences?


    What’s odd is that despite completing the decade-long construction and having the official inauguration of this P4 laboratory on January 31, 2015 — announced by the General Office of Hubei Provincial People’s Government, it wasn’t until 2 and 1/2 years later in January 2018, that the Chinese government announced that the lab was actually in operation. And ahead of the lab’s second opening in January 2018, biosafety experts and scientists from the United States expressly warned “that a SARS-like virus could escape,” much in the same way the SARS virus had escaped multiple times from a lab in Beijing.


    UPDATE — JANUARY 29, 2020
    : What’s also odd, and outright suspicious, is that as of January 29, 2020, the location of Wuhan Institute of Virology (where the National Biosafety Laboratory is headquartered) on Google Maps has inexplicably moved since I first viewed it on January 24, 2020 and published this article on January 27, 2020. Its new location is now over twice the distance from the claimed epicenter of the novel coronavirus, Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market. Even its satellite imagery of the original site has been altered as well. Good thing I took screenshots.





    <img class="cp t u ew ak" src="https://miro.medium.com/max/3000/1*6q38dS5RH_NFAYOX4f7yLg.jpeg" width="1500" height="1031" role="presentation"/>
    A Google Map Image captured Jan. 24, 2020 of Huanan Seafood market 8.6 miles distant from Wuhan Institute of Virology, where China’s only Level P4 Biosafety Laboratory is headquartered.




    <img class="cp t u ew ak" src="https://miro.medium.com/max/2996/1*HK6leSAAoxBXhxyRL1msKA.jpeg" width="1498" height="1031" role="presentation"/>
    Another Google Map Image captured Jan. 29, 2020 displaying Wuhan Institute of Virology now strangely moved approximately 15 miles southwest of its original location. What a difference five days make, eh?




    <img class="cp t u ew ak" src="https://miro.medium.com/max/6064/1*EtW82rXvIYnYHGUPfKd6Ww.jpeg" width="3032" height="1031" role="presentation"/>
    Side-by-side comparison of original Google Maps location of Wuhan Institute of Virology, captured by screenshot on Jan. 24, 2020, and its altered location as of Jan. 29, 2020. What’s going on here?




    <img class="cp t u ew ak" src="https://miro.medium.com/max/3924/1*r0YrgdANBeUtAEE1zyk1Og.jpeg" width="1962" height="1134" role="presentation"/>
    A Google Maps Satellite Image captured January 24, 2020, clearly showing the urban Wuhan Institute of Virology situated across the street from the humongous China Earthquake Administration building.




    <img class="cp t u ew ak" src="https://miro.medium.com/max/3924/1*dX9VXf00qlZMigm2L7bQBw.jpeg" width="1962" height="1134" role="presentation"/>
    Another Google Maps Satellite Image captured January 29, 2020, now showing the Wuhan Institute of Virology completely camouflaged in a patch of forest in a rural area 15 miles southwest. What gives, Google?


    Whether Wuhan Institute of Virology actually remains at its original location displayed a few days ago — or has suddenly packed up and is now holed up in the nearby woods like a crouching tiger or hidden dragon — former Israeli military intelligence officer and microbiologist, Dany Shoham, exposes the institute as “one of four Chinese laboratories engaged in some aspects of the biological weapons development.” He adds that although the institute is under the Chinese Academy of Sciences, it has certain laboratories within it that are linked to the Chinese defense establishment. Indeed, the annual State Department report on arms treaty compliance stated last year that China engaged in activities that could support biological warfare. In fact, in 1993, China declared a second facility, the Wuhan Institute of Biological Products — located 21.6 miles away from Wuhan Institute of Virology, and only 9 miles away from Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market — as one of eight biological warfare research facilities covered by the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) which the communist country joined in 1985. “This means the SARS virus is held and propagated there, but it is not a new coronavirus, unless the wild type has been modified, which is not known and cannot be speculated at the moment,” Shoham explains.




    <img class="cp t u ew ak" src="https://miro.medium.com/max/4830/1*zjogLYffM4d5nQsy3-_v1Q.png" width="2415" height="1057" role="presentation"/>
    Wuhan Institute of Biological Products — a known biological warfare research facility — is located just 9 miles from Wuhan Seafood Wholesale Market, the claimed epicenter of the Coronavirus 2019-nCoV outbreak

    Wuhan Institute of Virology is also connected with the recent, major scandal in Canada where two Chinese virologists working at Canada’s only Pathogen Level 4 virology laboratory, the National Microbiology Lab (NML) in Winnipeg were caught stealing and smuggling some of the most deadly viruses on earth, including the Ebola virus, back to China. The suspects — a Chinese couple, virologist Dr. Xiangguo Qui and biologist Dr. Keding Cheng — are now believed to be connected to China’s biological warfare program. Her husband, Dr. Qiu, was head of the Vaccine Development and Antiviral Therapies Section in the Special Pathogens Program at the NML. Dr. Keding Cheng, also affiliated with the NML, specifically the “Science and Technology Core,” is primarily a bacteriologist who shifted to virology. According to ZeroHedge, “the couple is responsible for infiltrating Canada’s NML with many Chinese agents as students from a range of Chinese scientific facilities directly tied to China’s Biological Warfare Program, including the Wuhan Institute of Virology and the Center for Disease Control and Prevention in Chengdu Military Region.


    And guess what one of the stolen viruses was? Yup, coronavirus.

    On May 4, 2013, NML’s Scientific Director Frank Plummer received a shipment of coronavirus from a Dutch virologist, who in turn had received it from an Egyptian virologist treating a Saudi Arabian who contracted it. The Canadian lab grew stocks of the virus, and then experimented upon animals to see what they could infect with it. It is from this stash of reserves that the coronavirus was stolen and smuggled by Dr. Qui, Dr. Cheng, and by alledged Chinese Biological Warfare Program agents recruited from the Wuhan Institute of Virology who were disguised as virology students at the University of Manitoba.

    Similarly, and perhaps connected, is the recent indictment of Charles Lieber, Chair of Harvard University’s Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology. Prosecutors claim he had a contract with Wuhan Institute of Virology. Reports CBS, “It appears China paid Lieber hundreds of thousands of dollars over the years for his involvement with the Chinese entities and for his work on research for Chinese gain,” said U.S. Attorney for Massachusetts Andrew Lelling.” Lieber lied about his links to Wuhan Institute of Virology, report Tonya Alanez and Travis Andersen of the Boston Globe. “Federal authorities said Charles Lieber, a prominent nanoscientist and a prolific inventor and entrepreneur, received hundreds of thousands of dollars from his Chinese connections.” Details about the extent of Lieber’s illicit and illegal conspiracy with the institute have yet to emerge. So this means, significantly, that not only are there Chinese nationals allegedly being recruited from Wuhan Institute of Virology to penetrate foreign P4 biosafety laboratories abroad and smuggle the spoils back home, but it also appears Americans and Canadians may be complicit in aiding the Chinese biowarfare program.

    In short, although there are actually two laboratories in Wuhan linked to the Chinese biowarfare program — only one is certified for coronaviruses and only one is caught in the midst of all the recent international espionage intrigue — the new Pathogen Level 4-rated National Biosafety Laboratory at Wuhan Institute of Virology. And whether this enigmatic facility is a philanthropic, health services-related institute, a covert, biological warfare research installation, or some combination of the two — remains to be officially disclosed. So what on earth could the scientists sequestered at Wuhan National Biosafety Laboratory have been up to in their brand new, state-of-the-art biotech base for two and a half years, if it wasn’t officially in operation? And what have they been doing since their second opening in 2018?





    <img class="cp t u ew ak" src="https://miro.medium.com/max/4000/1*SSMJmBs0vS2CSRoSTJl-sw.jpeg" width="2000" height="1000" role="presentation"/>
    Scientists at Wuhan National Biosafety Laboratory research coronaviruses, Ebola, and other deadly pathogens.

    Well, storing, researching, and experimenting with numerous fulminant disease pathogens, of course. After all, the lab is “preservation center for virus seeds, a fulminant disease pathogen storage facility, a reference laboratory of WHO, a node for disease network, and finally…a core in China’s emerging disease research network.” Basically, in all of China, Wuhan National Biosafety Laboratory is the only place to store and experiment with the most lethal, most virulent, most rapidly-spreading disease pathogens known to humanity. The lab is in “the central region of Central China, with mountains at three directions, convenient transportation and relatively independent environment” [sic]. And convenient it is, as you can play with Ebola, SARS, Hantavirus, and assorted coronaviruses in the morning…and then hop in your car and have some bat soup for lunch at the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market on the other side of the Yangtze River.

    Maybe BYOB — bring your own bat?


    Once Wuhan Institute of Virology formally put their brand new Cellular Level Biosafety Level 4 Laboratory into operation, we can safely take their word that they followed up on their promise to “conduct research for natural focal viruses including Ebola virus and other emerging viruses, such as researches [sic] on rapid detection system, molecular epidemiology, infectious disease etiology, therapeutic antibody, vaccine and drug evaluation, and assessment on biological risk factors, thus building a biosafety platform in China for emerging and fulminant infectious diseases in terms of isolation and identification of pathogen, building of infection models, vaccine development, biological containment and research on mechanism of interaction between pathogen and the host.” And one thing we know they worked on is the Origin and evolution of pathogenic coronaviruses, pioneered by none other than the enormously qualified, highly-decorated, and widely-respected Professor Zhengli Shi, Senior Scientist and Principal Investigator.



    Who is Professor Zhengli Shi and what is her relevance to Wuhan Institute of Virology and the National Biosafety Laboratory?



    <img class="cp t u ew ak" src="https://miro.medium.com/max/1536/1*jdThKFCS8oQS8_wRDMIjhA.jpeg" width="768" height="768" role="presentation"/>
    Professor Zhengli Shi, Senior Scientist and Principal Investigator of Wuhan National Biosafety Laboratory.

    Do you believe in coincidences?


    Because it just so happens that Prof. Zhengli has been ardently researching and experimenting with coronaviruses for years at Wuhan Institute of Virology — even before ground was broken over a decade ago on the new P4 National Biosafety Laboratory. Interestingly, the scientist seems uniquely perfect for her role — like a “Neo” figure in a laboratory version of The Matrix. In fact, Prof. Zhengli has been Senior Scientist and Principal Investigator of Wuhan Insititute of Virology for the last 20 years, initially starting as a Research Assistant in 1990 before upgrading to Research Scientist in 1993, serving in that role until 1995. Aside from a 5-year leave from 1995 to 2000 to get her PhD at University of Montpellier in France, she’s been at the Institute for an amazing 30 years.


    Notably, starting in 2014, Prof. Zhengli began to win particularly large sums of grant funding for the express purpose of researching and experimenting with coronaviruses — often receiving numerous, overlapping grants for the same time period. What’s just as interesting is where a lot of this funding originated — the US government. On January 6, 2014, Prof. Zhengli received a US$665,000 grant from the National Institute of Health for a study named The Ecology of Bat Coronaviruses and the Risk of Future Coronavirus Emergence (NIAID R01 AI1 10964) and then four days later on January 10, 2014, an additional US$559,500 grant from the United States Agency of International Development for research studied entitled Emerging Pandemic Threats PREDICT 2_China (Project No. AID-OAA-A-14–00102).


    On top of these lucrative American grants she concurrently received similarly significant grants from the National Basic Research program of China, the Chinese Academy of Science, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, and from the Strategic Priority Research Program of Chinese Academy of Sciences totaling over US$2,500,000 for researching interspecies transmission of zoonotic viruses, the identification, genetic evolution and pathogenesis of bat viruses, the genetic variation of pathogens in Africa, the evolution mechanism of the adaptation of bat SARS-related coronaviruses to host receptor molecules, the risk of interspecies infection, genetic evolution and transmission mechanism of important bat-borne viruses, and pathogen biology studies on novel swine coronaviruses.





    <img class="cp t u ew ak" src="https://miro.medium.com/max/3134/1*SoQJAUA5j779cZo23i7ObA.png" width="1567" height="1167" role="presentation"/>
    In just the past five years alone, Prof. Zhengli Shi has almost US$10 million in grants to study coronaviruses.

    We can quite safely conclude that when it comes to interspecies coronaviruses, Professor Zhengli Shi is a bona fide Jedi master. In fact, her Wikipedia page credits her and her colleague, Cui Jie, with the actual discovery that the SARS virus originated in bats. Her noted “Research Interests” on her C.V. include “Discovery of unknown viruses in wild animals especially bats, molecular epidemiology of emerging zoonotic viruses, and interspecies infection mechanism of zoonotic viruses.” Prof. Zhengli appears to be one of the world’s leading bat virologists — and most definitely the leading bat virologist in China. Indeed, her C.V. explicitly states,


    “Prof. Zhengli Shi ’s researches focus on the molecular epidemiology and interspecies infection discovery and characterization of novel viruses in bats and other wildlife. She has gain [sic] rich expertise on pathogen biology of coronaviruses and other emerging viruses of bat origin, virus discovery, virus evolution, and development of diagnostic technologies for emerging viruses. Prof Shi has identified ultimately the animal origin of SARS, by discovering genetically diverse bat SARS related coronaviruses (SARSr CoV), isolating bat SARSr CoVs highly homologous to SARS CoV that are able to the same receptor [sic] as SARS CoV, and revealing the potential recombination origin of SARS CoV. She has discovered a large number of novel viruses from Chinese bat populations, including viruses with potential public health significance.”


    Unsurprisingly, Prof. Zhengli has been featured as a key presenter at over two dozen international virology conferences, the latest being From SARS to SADS: predict of emerging infectious diseases, held at UC Berkeley in the summer of 2018. Her presentations at the next five most recent conferences all relate specifically to the genetic evolution and interspecies infection of bat coronaviruses. A complete list of Prof. Zhengli’s conference presentations may be found in Appendix B.




    <img class="cp t u ew ak" src="https://miro.medium.com/max/2854/1*MMYD4Qul7vV82MKCOWLSVg.png" width="1427" height="789" role="presentation"/>
    Nearly all of Prof. Zhengli’s recent conference presentations relate to bat coronaviruses. Do you believe in coincidences?

    Prof. Zhengli has been or is currently a professional member of the Chinese Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (2000–2016), the Chinese Society for Microbiology (2002-present), the American Society for Microbiology (2007-present), and the Scientific Committee of the DIVERSITAS ecoHEALTH Core Project (2014–2016). She has served on the Editorial Board of Virologica Sinica (2016–2016), on the Editorial Board of Journal of Medical Virology (2015–2017), and on the Editorial Board of Virology (2017–2019). She was Associate Editor of Virology Journal (2016–2018), and Editor-in-Chief of Virologica Sinica (2017–2019). Prof. Zhengli is also the recipient of numerous, prestigious awards and honors, including the Natural Science Award of Hubei Province, China (First Prize and Second Prize), Outstanding Scientist of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, and Outstanding Research Article on Natural Science (Grand Prize and Second Prize).


    OK, but how is Prof. Zhengli relevant to the current new outbreak of Coronavirus 2019-nCoV?




    <img class="cp t u ew ak" src="https://miro.medium.com/max/2400/1*y1lNFgonXNCCrvrKk6sgZA.jpeg" width="1200" height="630" role="presentation"/>
    Coronavirus 2019-nCoV outbreak in Wuhan, China — where the National Biosafety Laboratory is located — causes a massive quarantine of 11 million citizens.

    Chinese scientists, researchers, and doctors examining the emergent 2019-nCoV Coronavirus report that the new viral menace appears to be “a recombinant virus between the bat coronavirus and an origin-unknown coronavirus. The recombination occurred within the viral spike glycoprotein, which recognizes cell surface receptor.” But Prof. Zhengli appears to have worked with recombinant Coronavirus derivations involving viral spike proteins for over a decade at Wuhan Institute of Virology, all the way back to 2006 and up to as recently as December, 2019 — the very month that 2019-nCoV Coronavirus was first reported as having infected visitors at Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market just down the road from her laboratory!




    <img class="cp t u ew ak" src="https://miro.medium.com/max/3062/1*Rz2Qek9MGgMutij6YGnbZg.png" width="1531" height="1112" role="presentation"/>
    The day before the Coronavirus 2019-nCoV outbreak, this report was published. Do you believe in coincidences?

    In fact, on the day before the new coronavirus would find its first victims just 8.6 miles away at the market on December 12, 2019, Prof. Zhengli and her team published the study entitled Molecular mechanism for antibody-dependent enhancement of coronavirus entry on December 11, 2019. The abstract reads,

    “Coronavirus spike protein mediates viral entry into cells by first binding to a receptor on host cell surface and then fusing viral and host membranes. Our study reveals a novel molecular mechanism for antibody-enhanced viral entry and can guide future vaccination and antiviral strategies. This study reveals complex roles of antibodies in viral entry and can guide future vaccine design and antibody-based drug therapy.”

    And immediately after this study was published — literally the following day — the first victims became infected with what would soon be named Coronavirus 2019-nCoV began to get infected…just a few miles away from Prof. Zhengli’s laboratory. And as The Sun reports, victims of the new coronavirus are infected via a strong binding affinity to a human protein called ACE2,” in precisely the identical manner as Prof. Zhengli’s just-discovered “novel molecular mechanism” identified (or engineered) literally weeks if not days before. Do you believe in coincidences?


    Let’s say that’s just a coincidence Prof. Zhengli published a study or two specifically on bat coronaviruses. Have there been others?


    How much time you got?


    The above study, specifically relating to human host cell binding and entry of coronavirus infection, and published the day before the first viral infections were reported at a location adjacent Prof. Zhengli’s laboratory, is far from the only study in which she has directed on the subject. The scientist’s entire virology history is rife with hands-on experience with coronaviruses, with especial attention devoted to understanding their spike protein properties, as related to potentiality of human cell entry and infection. In June 2016’s study, Bat Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome-Like Coronavirus WIV1 Encodes an Extra Accessory Protein, ORFX, Involved in Modulation of the Host Immune Response she writes that what was important was that bats “harbor genetically diverse SARS-like coronaviruses (SL-CoVs), and some of them have the potential for interspecies transmission.” She further states that her team created a “reverse genetics system” that would be helpful for “study of the pathogenesis of this group of viruses and to develop therapeutics for future control of emerging SARS-like infections.”


    In a letter to the editor of SCIENCE CHINA Life Sciences published in November, 2017, entitled Cross-neutralization of SARS coronavirus-specific antibodies against bat SARS-like coronaviruses, Prof. Zhengli warns that severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) is considered to be an emerging zoonotic pathogen crossing species barriers to infect humans, and that the spike protein of the virus’ RNA genome plays a key role in human cellular entry.


    In that same month, the results of a study Prof. Zhengli conducted, Serological evidence of bat SARS-related coronavirus infection in humans, China indicated that some SARSr-CoVs may have high potential to infect human cells, without the necessity for an intermediate host.

    In 2016, one of the Directors at Wuhan Institute of Virology posted the annual Director’s Message, of which the following finding was the top announcement: “The live SARS-like coronavirus SL-CoV-WIV1 has been isolated for the first time from the bat droppings; and such virus has been confirmed to invade the host cells through the ACE2 of human beings, civets and Rhinolophus sinicus. The research result has so far provided the most convincing evidence to the view that Rhinolophus sinicus is the natural host of SARS-CoV (Nature, 2013).” Does this not sound precisely like Coronavirus 2019-nCoV, which invades the host cells through the ACE2 protein? At any rate, since Prof. Zhengli is Senior Scientist and Principal Investigator of both the Emerging Viruses Group and the National Biosafety Laboratory, this is squarely her turf; the current outbreak seems amazingly similar.

    In a study conducted in September of 2015, Two Mutations Were Critical for Bat-to-Human Transmission of Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus, Prof. Zhengli and team successfully achieved viral entry (bat-to-human transmission)of bat coronavirus HKU4 via its spike protein by performing two small mutations. Doing so also helped explain how MERS coronavirus was able to infect humans as well.


    It was in 2015’s study, Isolation and Characterization of a Novel Bat Coronavirus Closely Related to the Direct Progenitor of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus that Prof. Zhengli and team highlighted “the likelihood of future bat coronavirus emergence in humans” by isolating a new bat coronavirus closer to SARS-CoV in genomic sequence, particularly in its spike gene. “Cell entry and susceptibility studies indicated that this virus can…infect animal and human cell lines,” they concluded.


    And in 2010’s Angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) proteins of different bat species confer variable susceptibility to SARS-CoV entry Prof Zhengli and her team of scientists “extended [their] previous study to ACE2 molecules from seven additional bat species and tested their interactions with human SARS-CoV spike protein using both HIV-based pseudotype and live SARS-CoV infection assays.”


    Even earlier in 2010, Prof. Zhengli published, Bat and virus, a keystone study identifying bats “as a natural reservoir of emerging and reemerging infectious pathogens,” emphasizing that an astonishing amount (more than 70, at the time) and genetic diversity of viruses isolated from the bat have been identified in different populations throughout the world. She stresses that many viruses were found in apparently healthy bats, suggesting that bats may have a particularly robust immune system or “antiviral activity against virus infections.”


    In 2009’s Immunogenicity difference between the SARS coronavirus and the bat SARS-like coronavirus spike (S) proteins, Prof. Zhengli and her team concluded “SARS-like coronavirus (SL-CoV) in bats have a similar genomic organization to the human SARS-CoV.” And notably, that this work “provides useful information for future development of differential serologic diagnosis and vaccines for coronaviruses with different S [spike] protein sequences.”


    Prof. Zhengli’s research in 2009’s Differential stepwise evolution of SARS coronavirus functional proteins in different host species produced results that supported the hypothesis that “SARS-CoV originated from bats and that the spill over into civets and humans were more recent events.”


    Moving even further back in time to 2007, Prof. Zhengli worked on Determination and application of immunodominant regions of SARS coronavirus spike and nucleocapsid proteins recognized by sera from different animal species, producing assays that would be a “useful tool to trace the origin and transmission of SARS-CoV and to minimise the risk of animal-to-human transmission.”


    It appears that 2006 was the year Prof. Zhengli first researched recombinant spike proteins along with other distinctive genome sequences resulting from the interaction of bat, palm civet, and human isolates. “Full-length genome sequences of two SARS-like coronaviruses in horseshoe bats and genetic variation analysis.” Basically, she is tremendously versatile and adept in her research whenever she encounters these recombinant spikes proteins in viral interactions.


    Moreover, it’s not just coronaviruses from bats that she and her team have discovered and explored, but also diverse novel viruses/virus antibodies in bats, including adenoviruses, adeno-associated viruses, circoviruses, paramyxoviruses, and filoviruses. In fact, Prof. Zhengli has coauthored over an astounding 130 publications on viral pathogen identification, diagnosis and epidemiology — nearly all of which commandeered at Wuhan Institute of Virology where the National Biosafety Laboratory is located and where she reigns as Head of the Department. In fact, on the World Society for Virology website, Prof. Zhengli’s profile confirms that one of her great contributions was to “uncover genetically diverse SARS-like coronaviruses in bats with her international collaborators and provide unequivocal evidence that bats are natural reservoirs of SARS-CoV.” Thus, her adeptness in the specialized field of bat virology — especially where transmission to humans is concerned — is inarguable.


    Such an expansive personal history of expertise into coronaviruses is not only impressive, but unique, and the bulk of her 30-year career at Wuhan Institute Virology seems to have been dedicated primarily to the examination and exploration of all facets of interspecies (though primarily bat) pathogenic infection of coronaviruses into human host cells. For reference, you can check Appendix A for the sum total of all her published (or otherwise unclassified or declassified) studies at the end of this essay. Prof. Zhengli’s absolute mastery of bat-to-human transmission of viruses via their spike protein binding with human cell receptors is virtually conclusive and unrivalled.


    Unanswered Questions About the Coronavirus 2019-nCoV Outbreak in Wuhan


    In Prof. Zhengli’s March 2019 study, Bat Coronaviruses in China, she proves seemingly prophetic, writing that it was “highly likely that future SARS- or MERS-like coronavirus outbreaks will originate from bats, and there is an increased probability that this will occur in China. Therefore, the investigation of bat coronaviruses becomes an urgent issue for the detection of early warning signs, which in turn minimizes the impact of such future outbreaks in China.” Just nine months later, 2019-nCoV rears its viral head, less than 10 miles from her labatory: how did Prof. Zhengli know?

    The Sun cited a Nature.com report voicing warnings given back in 2017 “that a deadly SARS-like virus could escape from lab [sic] in Wuhan set up to study some of the world’s deadliest diseases.” The worries surrounding Wuhan’s laboratory surfaced almost an entire year before the Chinese government announced its official commencement of operation in January, 2018. And likely with good cause, as the “SARS virus [had] escaped from high-level containment facilities in Beijing multiple times, notes Richard Ebright, a molecular biologist at Rutgers University in Piscataway, New Jersey.” However, the article in The Sun exaggerates the distance from Wuhan’s National Biosafety Laboratory to Huanan Market, erroneously claiming that it’s 20 miles away, instead of 8.6 miles, and also states that Dr. Ebright reportedly said “at this point there’s no reason to harbor suspicious that the facility had anything to do with the outbreak.” Seriously? Does Dr. Ebright believe in coincidences?

    Another new article from The Sun published January 23, 2020, reports a “new study was carried out jointly by the Chinese Academy of Sciences, the People’s Liberation Army and Institut Pasteur of Shanghai, revealing that the coronavirus has a strong binding affinity to a human protein called ACE2.” But Zhengli and her team mates have been aware of the susceptibility of ACE2 to SARS and coronavirus infection for at least the last ten years, publishing their studies with the US National Library of Medicine and with other prominent industry repositories.


    So we are left with the following pressing, unanswered questions about Prof. Zhengli, the Wuhan National Biosafety Laboratory, and the Coronavirus 2019-nCoV outbreak in Wuhan:


    • Why are the Chinese authorities seemingly ignoring the Wuhan Institute Virology’s contemporaneous coronavirus study (culminating in a Dec. 11, 2019 report, published the day before the outbreak) conducted at the Wuhan National Biosafety Laboratory, located just 8.6 miles distant from the claimed epicenter of pandemic origin, Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market? Why is the media not reporting this?
    • Why are most media reports covering the coronavirus still misreporting the source of the virus’ genome sequence as snakes instead of bats?
    • Since the Wuhan Institute of Virology has already isolated live, novel SARS-like Coronavirus SL-CoV-WIV1 from bat droppings in 2016, and such virus has been confirmed to invade the host cells through the ACE2 of human beings just like the new, emergent Coronavirus 2019-nCoV — have the two coronaviruses been compared with each other? Was there a vaccine developed from Coronavirus SL-CoV-WIV1 that can be tested on victims of the latest outbreak? After all, it’s been about four years now.
    • Has any formal investigation been launched into any role the Wuhan Institute of Virology (and specifically, its Classification P4 Biosafety Laboratory) may have played in the pandemic outbreak?
    • Did the new coronavirus penetrate the biosecurity measures of Wuhan National Biosafety Laboratory? Did some bats mount a successful escape?
    • Did any scientists, researchers, professors, observers, students, or other staff persons working at or visiting the Wuhan National Biosafety Laboratory visit the Huanan Seafood Market in the first twelve days of December, 2019?
    • Since the original technology for viral confinement at the Wuhan National Biosafety Laboratory was developed in France, and since most of its actual, functional equipment was imported from France — has the laboratory received ongoing certification inspections from French officials, given its lengthy, ongoing activities using Class 4 pathogens (P4) — the most virulent viruses that pose the highest risk of aerosol-transmitted person-to-person infections? If so, where are the certification test results?
    • Has the Wuhan National Biosafety Laboratory been regularly inspected and audited by Chinese government health officials, especially by Li Bin, minister of the National Health and Family Planning Commission? If so, where are the inspection and audit results?
    • Could there have been either a staff person or visitor who smuggled out the coronavirus from the laboratory? (After all, a Chinese national was just arrested at Harvard University for attempting to smuggle research vials back to China at the same time when the Coronavirus 2019-nCoV outbreak started.)
    • At any time did Prof. Zhengli Shi — who simultaneously currently holds the multiple titles of Senior Scientist and Principal Investigator, Director of the Center for Emerging Infectious Diseases, Director of BSL-3 Labatory, Director of the Committee of Biosafety, Director of Chinese Academy Sciences (CAS) Key Laboratory of Special Pathogens and Biosafety, and Vice Director of BSL-4 Laboratory at Wuhan Institute of Virology, CAS — ever work directly or indirectly for the CCP military services or military intelligence community?
    • Did Prof. Zhengli previously or does she currently co-conduct, coparticipate, collaborate, or collude with CCP military service members or military intelligence members?
    • Do members of the CCP military services or military intelligence contribute or participate in any manner or conduct viral research at the Wuhan National Biosafety Laboratory?
    • Did Prof. Zhengli or any other faculty member at the Wuhan Institute of Virology take possession, either illicitly or officially, of any biological substance, whether pathogen, vaccine, or other biomatter, originating from the United States or Canada?
    • Why did the US National Institute of Health (NIH) grant Prof. Zhengli $665,000 in 2014 to fund her study, The ecology of bat coronaviruses and the risk of future coronavirus emergence? What did the US receive in return?
    • Why did the United States Agency of International Development grant Prof. Zhengli $559,500 to fund her study, Emerging Pandemic Threats PREDICT 2_China? What did the US receive in return?
    • Why did Prof. Zhengli receive funding from U.S. Department of Defense, the U.S. Defense Threat Reduction Agency (the agency which deals specifically with Weapons of Mass Destruction), the U.S. Biological Defense Research Directorate of the Naval Medical Research Center, and the Department of Atomic of the Government of India?
    • What other professional relationships with U.S. defense agencies does Prof. Zhengli have currently, or previously, in any capacity?
    • When Prof. Zhengli received a visa to the United States to present at the Cell Symposium: Emerging and Re-emerging Viruses 2017 conference in Arlington, Virginia, did she visit the Pentagon or meet with Pentagon officials, since it was less than a mile away?
    • When Prof. Zhengli received a visa to the United States to present at the US-China Workshop on Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution of Infectious Diseases conference at UC Berkeley in 2018, did she visit Federal research facility, Lawrence-Berkeley-Livermore Laboratory — in particular, the Department of Energy’s Joint Genome Institute — or meet with government officials, since it was only a mile and a half away?
    • Prof. Zhengli’s C.V. indicates she received a visa to the United States to present at the U.S.-China Dialogue on the Challenges of Emerging Infections, Laboratory Safety and Global Health Security conference on January 17, 2018, in Galveston, Texas. However, such a conference appears to not have existed. For what purpose did she really come to Galveston — perhaps to visit the Galveston National Laboratory, a high security National Biocontainment Laboratory housing several Biosafety Level 4 research laboratories, one of the only 15 biosecurity Level 4 facilities in the United States and the largest one in the world located on an academic campus? Was this apparently imaginary conference merely a ruse for a surreptitious rendezvous?
    • Of Prof. Zhengli’s 130 published scientific studies, 5 of them are not to be found anywhere. Why are they not public? Are they classified?
    • Has Prof. Zhengli (or any other staff, resident or guest scientists, researchers, students, visitors, or others) at the Wuhan National Biosafety Laboratory, or at Wuhan Institute of Virology in general, collaborated, participated with, colluded with, or in any way professionally acted in concert or collusion with, or in any way worked with or for, the World Economic Forum, the U.S. Center for Disease Control, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Pilbright Institute, the European Commission, the World Health Organization, the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, or the John Hopkins Center for Health Security?
    • Prof. Zhengli recently (January 23, 2020) claimed to know very little about the latest epidemic outbreak, including basic biology, animal source, or any specific treatment, and indicated she doesn’t know if ACE2 targeting drugs could treat Coronavirus 2019-nCoV infected victims. How can this be the case, given that she has studied human ACE2/coronavirus interaction for many years — even most recently in her study immediately preceding the outbreak — as reported in Prof. Zhengli’s study published the day immediately preceding the outbreak? “The full-length genes of MERS-CoV spike (GenBank accession number 415 AFS88936.1), SARS-CoV spike (GenBank accession number AFR58742), human DPP4 416 (GenBank accession number NM_001935.3) and human ACE2 (GenBank accession 417 number NM_021804) were synthesized (GenScript Biotech).”
    • Considering Prof. Zhengli is the recipient of millions of dollars in grants and salaries, commands one of the world’s leading, most advanced biosafety laboratories, has performed innumerable research studies into coronaviruses for three decades and counting — what vaccines, to date, has she successfully produced? Has she produced any successful coronavirus vaccines at all? If so, where are they and how have they been publicly administered?


    Summary, conclusion, and just a wee bit of speculation


    The facts presented herein compel an alternative theory as to the origin of the Coronavirus 2019-nCoV outbreak. The truth remains to be formally investigated whether infected viral bio-matter from the National Biosafety Laboratory at Wuhan Institute of Virology — the only lab of its kind in all of China and under expressed safety concerns for almost a year — somehow escaped. And, if so, it also remains to be seen whether such a viral release and subsequent viral infection was accidental or intentional. In any event, the following observations and concerns seem to place considerable suspicion on the laboratory — and its Senior Scientist and Principal Investigator, Prof. Zhengli Shi — and its contemporaneous coronavirus research activity at the exact time of the Coronavirus 2019-nCoV outbreak officially reported at a location conveniently just 8.6 miles distant at Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market, just across the Yangtze River:


    • The National Biosafety Laboratory at Wuhan Institute of Virology is the only high-level P4 facility of its kind in all of China, literally the only place where high contagious and infectious pathogens and diseases such as Ebola, SARS, MERS, and assorted coronaviruses can be “safely” studied, mutated, and engineered.
    • The professional background, experience, and qualifications of the Wuhan National Biosafety Laboratory’s Senior Scientist and Principal Investigator — Professor Zhengli Shi — is nonpareil. She has commandeered, produced and/or co-authored over 130 scientific studies, including dozens of reports specifically on coronaviruses. So specialized and talented is she that the even the United States has granted her over $1 million for her research conducted in China.
    • It cannot be overstated the importance and implication of the short distance between the Wuhan National Biosafety Laboratory and the reported epicenter of Coronavirus 2019-nCoV outbreak — the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market — of only 8.6 miles. With a total area of 3.8 million square miles, and a breadth of about 3,000 miles, these two locations are relatively-speaking right next to each other. Even before the lab’s government-announced formal operational opening, American scientists and biosafety experts had expressed their concerns for the laboratory, especially its proximity to the relatively large population of Wuhan, capital city of Hubei province.
    • At the time of the new coronavirus outbreak, or immediately preceding it, Prof. Zhengli was actively conducting coronavirus experiments and research at the Wuhan National Biosafety Laboratory. Notably, the very next day following the publishing of her coronavirus study on December 11, 2019, the first victims of Coronavirus 2019-nCoV were reported, as confessed by Prof. Zhengli herself in her most recent, latest report, posted online on January 23, 2020: “The epidemic, started from December 12th, 2019, has caused 198 laboratory confirmed infections with three fatal cases by January 20th, 2020.”
    • Most alarming is the apparent, glaring disingenuousness of Prof. Zhengli’s latest report, which is the only public statement since the official Chinese acknowledgement of Coronavirus 2019-nCoV outbreak in Wuhan. On January 23, 2020, she published the report with the allegedly misleading statements:


    “Finally, based on our results, it should be expected and worth to test if ACE2 targeting or SARS-CoV targeting drugs can be used for nCoV-2019 patients. At this stage, we know very little about the virus, including basic biology, animal source or any specific treatment. The almost identical sequences of this virus in different patients imply a probably recent introduction in humans, thus future surveillance on viral mutation and transmission ability and further global research attention are urgently needed.”


    However, other Chinese scientists reported on January 22, 2020, “Results obtained from our analyses suggest that the 2019-nCoV appears to be a recombinant virus between the bat coronavirus and an origin-unknown coronavirus. The recombination occurred within the viral spike glycoprotein, which recognizes cell surface receptor.” Our findings suggest “that homologous recombination within the spike glycoprotein may contribute to cross-species transmission.” Although this other scientific team incorrectly attributes the originating species as reptilian (snake) instead of bats, they at least rapidly identified the coronavirus as a recombinant virus with one of the contributors being a bat coronavirus, and also discerned in what manner the genetic recombination occurred to allow for human infection: in a viral spike protein which recognized the cell surface receptor. But as shown previously, this precise area of coronavirus study involving spike protein and cell surface receptor was the focus of Prof. Zhengli’s contemporaneous December 2019 study published the day before the epidemic started. “Coronavirus spike protein mediates viral entry into cells by first binding to a receptor on host cell surface and then fusing viral and host membranes,” she wrote. Why would she feign ignorance about this?


    Even more concerning, on October 31, 2019, Prof. Zhengli had published a report entitled Filovirus-reactive antibodies in humans and bats in Northeast India imply zoonotic spillover, curiously funded by the U.S. Department of Defense, the U.S. Defense Threat Reduction Agency, the U.S. Biological Defense Research Directorate of the Naval Medical Research Center, and the Department of Atomic Energy of the Government of India, and edited by a microbiologist employed by the U.S. Center for Disease Control.




    <img class="cp t u ew ak" src="https://miro.medium.com/max/1704/1*IQkJ4aadt97_uSsY0HjcuQ.jpeg" width="852" height="849" role="presentation"/>
    U.S. Defense Threat Reduction Agency? Can viruses from bats be used as weapons of mass destruction?

    Of note is the fact that the Defense Threat Reduction Agency is an agency within the U.S. Department of Defense and is the official Combat Support Agency for countering weapons of mass destruction. Why would they be funding this project? Could it be that these coronaviruses with filovirus reactive antibodies are being weaponised? Are they really that dangerous?

    Could they actually be employed as a weapon of mass destruction?
    Well, let’s a take a look at what Prof. Zhengli was studying, filovirus surface glycoproteins:


    Bats are reservoirs for several zoonotic pathogens, including filoviruses. High risk activities at the bat-human interface pose the threat of zoonotic virus transmission. We present evidence for prior exposure of bat harvesters and two resident fruit bat species to filovirus surface glycoproteins. Our results indicate circulation of several filoviruses in bats and the possibility for filovirus transmission from bats to humans. Filoviruses, including ebolaviruses and marburgviruses, are pathogens with epidemic potential. They were previously detected in bats and have caused disease outbreaks in humans with a high case fatality rate. Our findings suggest bats in South Asia act as a reservoir host of a diverse range of filoviruses and filovirus spillover occurs through human exposure to these bats.


    Thus, it’s readily apparent that just from this single project that Prof. Zhengli was quite aware that pathogenic viruses from bats could transmit from bats to humans via filovirus surface glycoproteins, with potentially epidemic consequences. Could our brilliant, pioneering, decorated Senior Scientist and Principal Investigator of the only Level P4 Biosafety Laboratory in China be feigning ignorance presently to deflect discovery of her connections to four major defense agencies and her possible stewardship of a brand-new bioactive weapon of mass destruction? At this point, only speculation is possible…but if we’re going to speculate, let’s take one step more, shall we?


    Could there be a another study previously spearheaded by Prof. Zhengli whose findings may have attracted multiple American defense departments for such a project with epidemic potential? Perhaps we can find the answer in the study, Discovery of Novel Bat Coronaviruses in South China That Use the Same Receptor as Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus, a seemingly important and relevant 2018 project where Prof. Zhengli provided evidence of a Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) “derived from the great evening bat that uses the same host receptor as human MERS-CoV. This virus also provides evidence for a natural recombination event between the bat MERS-related CoV and another bat coronavirus, HKU4” (emphasis added). The purpose of this study was “the prevention and control of the spread of MERS-CoV to humans.” It pertains precisely to the implications presented by the current Coronavirus 2019-nCoV, which were identified by the other group of Chinese scientists as a bat-involved, recombinant virus with a viral spike protein, recognizing cell surface receptor and so able to infect human cells.


    And yet another highly relevant study with the potential to capture the attention of biowarfare officials in United States defense departments is Discovery of a Rich Gene Pool of Bat SARS-related Coronaviruses Provides New Insights Into the Origin of SARS Coronavirus, published in November 2017, where Prof. Zhengli and her colleagues conducted cell entry studies which “demonstrated that three newly identified SARSr-CoVs [SARS-related coronaviruses] with different [spike] protein sequences are all able to use human ACE2 as the receptor, further exhibiting the close relationship between strains in this cave and SARS-CoV. This work provides new insights into the origin and evolution of SARS-CoV and highlights the necessity of preparedness for future emergence of SARS-like diseases” (emphasis added).


    All of the studies cited here appear related and interconnected, and considering the involvement of American defense agencies — in particular, the U.S. Defense Threat Reduction Agency which deals exclusively with matters pertaining to weapons of mass destruction and threat networks — there seems ample reason to be gravely concerned. And that concern remains whether there’s reason to suspect coronaviruses could be used by others as bioweapons of mass destruction, or that rogue, Deep State operatives within our own defense departments — colluding with Communists — are developing or have already developed a bioweapon of mass destruction.



    In conclusion, though admittedly much investigation remains to be performed (especially into the numerous unanswered questions posed in this essay), it seems the likeliest source of origin for Coronavirus 2019-nCoV is the Wuhan National Biosafety Laboratory at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Further, it appears to me that, at best, there may be concerted efforts to conceal the precise nature of the virus, its source, and the parties responsible, or that, at worst, the dissemination of the epidemic coronavirus is intentional. Could the actual RNA genome source, sequencing and recombination of the coronavirus already be known, and could its vaccine have already been developed? Could it already be patented?

    Essentially, is this latest global pandemic threat a Communist cover-up, or a pandemic bioweapon of mass destruction developed by the global Deep State?
    Last edited by timber; 02-05-2020 at 05:04 PM.

  2. #2
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    1,018
    Mentioned
    20 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Appendix A: Professor Zhengli Shi’s published scientific papers
    1. Zhou, P., # Fan, H., # Lan, T., # Yang, X-L, Shi, W-F, Zhang, W., Zhu. Y., Zhang, Y-W., Xie, Q-M., Mani, S., Zheng, X-S., Li, B., Li, J-M., Guo, H., Pei, G-Q., An, X-P., Chen J-W., Zhou, L., Mai, K-J., Wu, Z-X., Li, D., Anderson, D.E., Zhang, L-B., Li, S-Y., Mi, Z-Q., He, T-T., Cong, F., Guo, P-J., Huang, R., Luo, Y., Liu, X-L., Chen, J., Huang, Y., Sun, Q., Zhang, X-L-L., Wang, Y-Y., Xing, S-Z., Chen, Y-S., Sun, Y., Li, J., Daszak, P.*, Wang, L-F.*, Shi, Z-L.*, Tong, Y-G.*, Ma, J-Y.* (2018). Fatal swine acute diarrhoea syndrome caused by an HKU2-related coronavirus of bat origin. Nature, 556 (7700): 255–258.
    2. Xie, J.Z., Li, Y., Shen, X., Goh, G., Zhu, Y., Wang, L-F., Cui, J., Shi, Z-L.,* Zhou, P.* (2018). Dampened STING-dependent interferon activation in bats. Cell Host Microbe, 23(3): 297–301 e4.
    3. Li, W., Wang, B., Li, B., Zhang, W., Zhu, Y., Shi, Z. L. & Yang, X. L*. (2018). Genomic Characterization of a novel hepatovirus from great roundleaf bats in China. Virol Sin 33 (1), 108–110.
    4. Luo, C. M., Wang, N., Yang, X. L., Liu, H. Z., Zhang, W., Li, B., Hu, B., Peng, C., Geng, Q. B., Zhu, G. J., Li, F*. & Shi, Z. L*. (2018). Discovery of novel bat coronaviruses in South China that use the same receptor as Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus. J Virol 92 (13). 10.1128/JVI.00116–18.
    5. Luo, Y., Li, B., Jiang, R. D., Hu, B. J., Luo, D. S., Zhu, G. J., Hu, B., Liu, H. Z., Zhang, Y. Z., Yang, X. L. & Shi, Z. L*. (2018). Longitudinal surveillance of betacoronaviruses in fruit bats in Yunnan province, China during 2009–2016. Virol Sin 33 (1), 87–95.
    6. Wang, B., Li, W., Zhou, J. H., Li, B., Zhang, W., Yang, W. H., Pan, H., Wang, L. X., Bock, C. T., Shi, Z. L., Zhang, Y. Z*. & Yang, X. L*. (2018). Chevrier’s field mouse (Apodemus chevrieri) and Pere David’s vole (Eothenomys melanogaster) in China carry orthohepeviruses that form two putative novel genotypes within the species orthohepevirus C. Virol Sin 33 (1), 44–58.
    7. Wang, N., Li, S. Y., Yang, X. L., Huang, H. M., Zhang, Y. J., Guo, H., Luo, C. M., Miller, M., Zhu, G., Chmura, A. A., Hagan, E., Zhou, J. H., Zhang, Y. Z., Wang, L. F., Daszak, P. & Shi, Z. L*. (2018). Serological evidence of bat SARS-related coronavirus infection in humans, China. Virol Sin 33 (1), 104–107.
    8. Hu, B., Zeng, L.P., Yang, X.L., Ge, X.Y., Zhang, W., Li, B., Xie, J.Z., Shen, X.R., Zhang, Y.Z., Wang, N., Luo, D.S., Zheng, X.S., Wang, M.N., Daszak, P., Wang, L.F., Cui, J.*, Shi, Z.L*. (2017). Discovery of a rich gene pool of bat SARS-related coronaviruses provides new insights into the origin of SARS coronavirus. PloS Pathogens 13(11): e1006698.
    9. Waruhiu, C#., Ommeh, S#., Obanda, V., Agwanda, B., Gakuya, F., Ge, X. Y., Yang, X. L., Wu, L. J., Zohaib, A., Hu, B. & Shi, Z. L*. (2017). Molecular detection of viruses in Kenyan bats and discovery of novel astroviruses, caliciviruses and rotaviruses. Virol Sin. 32 (2), 101–114.
    10. Zhang, Q., Zeng, L.P., Zhou, P., Irving, A.T., Li, S., Shi, Z.L.*, Wang, L.F. (2017). IFNAR2-dependent gene expression profile induced by IFN-α in Pteropus alecto bat cells and impact of IFNAR2 knockout on virus infection. PloS One. 12(8):e0182866.
    11. Wang, B., Cai, C.L, Li, B., Zhang, W., Zhu, Y., Chen, W.H., Zhuo, F., Shi, Z.L., Yang,
    X.L.* (2017). Detection and characterization of three zoonotic viruses in wild rodents and shrews from Shenzhen city, China. Virol Sin. 32(4):290–297.
    12. Zeng, L.P., Ge, X.Y., Peng, C., Tai, W.B., Jiang, S.B., Du, L.Y.*, Shi, Z.L.* (2017). Cross-neutralization of SARS coronavirus-specific antibodies against bat SARS-like coronaviruses. Sci China Life Sci. 60(12):1399–1402.
    13. Wang, B., Yang, X. L., Li, W., Zhu, Y., Ge, X. Y., Zhang, L. B., Zhang, Y. Z., Bock, C. T. & Shi, Z. L.* (2017). Detection and genome characterization of four novel bat hepadnaviruses and a hepevirus in China. Virol J. 14:40.
    14. Liang, J., Yang, X.L., Li, B., Liu, Q., Zhang, Q., Liu, H., Kan, H.P., Wong, K.C., Chek, S.N., He, X., Peng, X., Shi, Z.L., Wu, Y.* & Zhang, L.* (2017). Detection of diverse viruses in alimentary specimens of bats in Macau. Virol Sin. 32(3):226–234.
    15. Ge, X.Y., Yang, W.H., Zhou, J.H., Li, B., Zhang, W., Shi, Z.L.* & Zhang, Y.Z.* (2017). Detection of alpha- and betacoronaviruses in rodents from Yunnan, China. Virol J. 14:98.
    16. Waruhiu, C., Ommeh, S., Obanda, V., Agwanda, B., Gakuya, F., Ge, X.Y., Yang, X.L., Wu, L.J., Zohaib, A., Hu. B., Shi, Z.L.* (2017). Molecular detection of viruses in Kenyan bats and discovery of novel astroviruses, caliciviruses and rotaviruses. Virol Sin. 32(2):101–114.
    17. Tan, B., Yang, X. L., Ge, X. Y., Peng, C., Liu, H. Z., Zhang, Y. Z., Zhang, L. B. & Shi, Z. L.* (2017). Novel bat adenoviruses with low G+C content shed new light on the evolution of adenoviruses. J Gen Virol. 98(4):739–748.
    18. Yang, X. L., Zhang, Y. Z., Jiang, R. D., Guo, H., Zhang, W., Li, B., Wang, N., Wang, L., Waruhiu, C., Zhou, J. H., Li, S. Y., Daszak, P., Wang, L. F. & Shi, Z. L.* (2017). Genetically Diverse Filoviruses in Rousettus and Eonycteris spp. Bats, China, 2009 and 2015. Emerg Infect Dis. 23(3):482–486.
    19. Tan, B., Wu, L.J., Yang, X.L., Li, B., Zhang, W., Lei, Y.S., Yang, G.X., Chen, J., Chen, G.,Wang, H.Z., Shi, Z. L.*. (2016). Isolation and characterization of adenoviruses infecting endangered golden snub-nosed monkeys (Rhinopithecus roxellana). Virol J. 13:190
    20. Zeng, L. P., Gao, Y. T., Ge, X. Y., Zhang, Q., Peng, C., Yang, X. L., Tan, B., Chen, J., Chmura, A. A., Daszak, P. & Shi, Z. L*. (2016). Bat Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome-Like Coronavirus WIV1 Encodes an Extra Accessory Protein, ORFX, Involved in Modulation of the Host Immune Response. J Virol 90 (6), 6573–6582.
    21. Tan, B., Yang, X. L., Ge, X. Y., Peng, C., Zhang, Y. Z., Zhang, L. B. & Shi, Z. L*. (2016). Novel bat adenoviruses with an extremely large E3 gene. J Gen Virol., 97, 1625–1635.
    22. Ge, X. Y., Yang, W. H., Pan, H., Zhou, J. H., Han, X., Zhu, G. J., Desmond, J. S., Daszak, P., Shi, Z. L*. & Zhang, Y. Z*. (2016). Fugong virus, a novel hantavirus harbored by the small oriental vole (Eothenomys eleusis) in China. Virol J., 13, 27.
    23. Pan, X., Cao, Z., Yuan, J., Shi, Z., Yuan, X., Lin, L., Xu, Y., Yao, J., Hao, G. & Shen, J. (2016). Isolation and Characterization of a Novel Dicistrovirus Associated with Moralities of the Great Freshwater Prawn, Macrobrachium rosenbergii. Inte J Mol Sci., 17.
    24. Yang, X.-L., Hu, B., Wang, B., Wang, M.-N., Zhang, Q., Zhang, W., Wu, L.-J., Ge, X.-Y., Zhang, Y.-Z., Daszak, P., Wang, L.-F. & Shi, Z.-L*.(2016). Isolation and
    Characterization of a Novel Bat Coronavirus Closely Related to the Direct Progenitor of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus. J Virol., 90, 3253–3256.
    25. Wang, M. N., Zhang, W., Gao, Y. T., Hu, B., Ge, X. Y., Yang, X. L., Zhang, Y. Z. & Shi, Z. L*. (2016). Longitudinal surveillance of SARS-like coronaviruses in bats by quantitative real-time PCR. Virol Sin., 31, 78–80.
    26. Ge, X. Y., Wang, N., Zhang, W., Hu, B., Li, B., Zhang, Y. Z., Zhou, J. H., Luo, C. M., Yang, X. L., Wu, L. J., Wang, B., Zhang, Y., Li, Z. X. & Shi, Z. L*. (2016). Coexistence of multiple coronaviruses in several bat colonies in an abandoned mineshaft. Virol Sin., 31, 31–40.
    27. Hu, B., Ge X., Wang, L. F., Shi, Z*. (2015). Bat origin of human coronaviruses. Virol J., 12(1): 221.
    28. Liang, Y. Z., Wu, L. J., Zhang, Q., Zhou, P., Wang, M. N, Yang, X. L, Ge, X. Y, Wang, L. F, Shi, Z. L*. (2015). Cloning, expression, and antiviral activity of interferon beta from the Chinese microbat, Myotis davidii. Virol Sin., 30(6):425–432.
    29. Yang, X. L., Tan, B., Wang, B., Li, W., Wang, N., Luo, C. M., Wang, M. N., Zhang, W., Li, B., Peng, C., Ge, X. Y., Zhang, L. B.,Shi, Z*.(2015). Isolation and identification of bat viruses closely related to human, porcine, and mink orthoreoviruses. J Gen Virol. 96(12):3525–3531.
    30. Wang MN, Ge XY, Wu YQ, Yang XL, Tan B, Zhang YJ,Shi ZL*. 2015. Genetic diversity and temporal dynamics of phytoplankton viruses in East Lake, china. Virol Sin, 30: 290–300.
    31. Wang Y, Sun Y, Wu A, Xu S, Pan R, Zeng C, Jin X, Ge X, Shi Z, Ahola T, Chen Y, Guo D*. 2015. Coronavirus nsp10/nsp16 methyltransferase can be targeted by nsp10-derived peptide in vitro and in vivo to reduce replication and pathogenesis. J Virol, 89: 8416–8427.
    32. Yang Y, Liu C, Du L, Jiang S, Shi Z, Baric RS, Li F*. 2015. Two mutations were critical for bat-to-human transmission of Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus. J Virol, 89: 9119–9123.
    33. Menachery VD, Yount Jr BL, Debbink K, Agnihothram S, Gralinski LE, Plante JA, Graham RL, Scobey T, Ge X-Y, Donaldson EF, Randell SH, Lanzavecchia A, Marasco WA,Shi Z-L, Baric RS*. 2015. A SARS-like cluster of circulating bat coronaviruses shows potential for human emergence. Nat Med 21:1508–1513.
    34. Mazet JK., Wei Q, Zhao GP, Cummings DT, Desmond JS, Rosenthal JKing CH., Cao WC, Chmura AA, Hagan EA, Zhang SY, Xiao XM, Xu JG, Shi Z, Feng F, Liu XP, Pan WQ, Zhu GJ, Zuo LY & Daszak P. (2015). Joint China-US Call for Employing a Transdisciplinary Approach to Emerging Infectious Diseases. EcoHealth, DOI:10.1007/s10393–015–1060–1.
    35. Hu, B., Chmura, A. A., Li, J., Zhu, G., Desmond, J. S., Zhang, Y., Zhang, W., Epstein, J. H., Daszak, P. & Shi, Z*.(2014). Detection of diverse novel astroviruses from small mammals in China. J Gen Virol 95, 2442–2449.
    36. Ge, X-Y., Li, J-L., Yang, X-L., Chmura, A.A., Zhu, G., Epstein, J.H., Mazet, J.K., Hu, B., Zhang, W., Peng, C., Zhang, Y.J., Luo, C.M., Tan, B., Wang, N., Zhu, Y., Crameri, G., Zhang, S.Y., Wang, L.F., Daszak, P.*, Shi, Z-L*.(2013). Isolation and characterizationof a bat SARS-like coronavirus that uses the ACE2 receptor. Nature, 503(7477):535–538.
    37. Zhang, G#., Cowled, C#., Shi, Z#., Huang, Z#., Bishop-Lilly, K. A#., Fang, X., Wynne, J. W., Xiong, Z., Baker, M. L., Zhao, W., Tachedjian, M., Zhu, Y., Zhou, P., Jiang, X., Ng, J., Yang, L., Wu, L., Xiao, J., Feng, Y., Chen, Y., Sun, X., Zhang, Y., Marsh, G. A., Crameri, G., Broder, C. C., Frey, K. G*., Wang, L. F*. & Wang, J*. (2013). Comparative Analysis of Bat Genomes Provides Insight into the Evolution of Flight and Immunity. Science 339 (6118):456–460.
    38. Wu, L., Zhou, P., Ge, X., Wang, L. F., Baker, M. L. & Shi, Z*. (2013). Deep RNA sequencing reveals complex transcriptional landscape of a bat adenovirus. J Virol 87, 503–511.
    39. Shi, Z. Emerging infectious diseases associated with bat viruses. (2013). Sci China Life Sci. 56: 678–682.
    40. Zhou, P., Han, Z., Wang, L. and Shi, Z*. (2013). Identification of Immunogenic Determinants of the Spike Protein of SARS-like Coronavirus. Virol Sin 28, (2):92–96.
    41. Xia, H., Wang, M., Ge, X., Wu, Y., Yang, X., Zhang, Y., Li, T. and Shi, Z*. (2013). Study of the Dynamics of Microcystis aeruginosa and its Cyanophage in East Lake using quantitative PCR. Virol Sin 28 (5): 309–311.
    42. Ge, X., Wu, Y., Wang, M., Wang, J., Wu, L., Yang, X., Zhang, Y. and Shi, Z*. (2013). Viral Metagenomics Analysis of Planktonic Viruses in East Lake, Wuhan, China. Virol Sin 28 (5): 280–290.
    43. Yuan, J., Zhang, Y., Li, J., Zhang, Y., Wang, L. F. & Shi, Z*. (2012). Serological evidence of ebolavirus infection in bats, China. Virology Journal 9, 236.
    44. Ge, X., Li, Y., Yang, X., Zhang, H., Zhou, P., Zhang, Y. & Shi, Z*. (2012). Metagenomic analysis of viruses from bat fecal samples reveals many novel viruses in insectivorous bats in China. J Virol 86(8):4620–4630.
    45. Yang, X., Zhang, Y., Ge, X., Yuan, J. & Shi, Z*. (2012). A novel totivirus-like virus isolated from bat guano. Arch Virol, 157:1093–1099.
    46. Yuan, J., Su, N., Wang, M., Xie, P., Shi, Z. & Li, L. (2012). Down-regulation of heme oxygenase-1 by SVCV infection. Fish & shellfish immunology 32, 301–306.
    47. Zhou, P., Li, H., Wang, H., Wang, L. F. & Shi, Z*. (2012). Bat severe acute respiratory syndrome-like coronavirus ORF3b homologues display different interferon antagonist activities. J Gen Virol 93, 275–281.
    48. Zhou, P., Cowled, C., Marsh, G. A., Shi, Z., Wang, L. F. and Baker, M. L. (2011). Type III IFN Receptor Expression and Functional Characterisation in the Pteropid Bat, Pteropus alecto. PloS one 6, e25385.
    49. Zhou, P., Cowled, C., Todd, S., Crameri, G., Virtue, E. R., Marsh, G. A., Klein, R., Shi, Z., Wang, L. F. and Baker, M. L. (2011). Type III IFNs in pteropid bats: differential expression patterns provide evidence for distinct roles in antiviral immunity. J Immunol 186:3138–3147.
    50. Ge, X., Li, J., Peng, C., Wu, L., Yang, X., Wu, Y., Zhang, Y. and Shi, Z*. (2011). Genetic diversity of novel circular ssDNA viruses in bats in China. J Gen Virol., 92:2646–2653.
    51. Bai, H., Wang, Y., Li, X., Mao, H., Li, Y., Han, S., Shi, Z. and Chen, X. (2011). Isolation and characterization of a novel alphanodavirus. Virol J 8:311.
    52. Tan, Y. W., and Shi, Z*. (2011). Genotyping of white spot syndrome virus in Chinese cultured shrimp during 1998–1999. Virol Sin 26:123–130.
    53. Xing, Y., and Shi, Z*. (2011). Nucleocapsid protein VP15 of White spot syndrome virus colocalizes with the nucleolar proteins nucleolin and fibrillarin. Can J Microbiol., 57:759–764.
    54. Yuan, J., Marsh, G., Khetawat, D., Broder, C. C., Wang, L. F. and Shi, Z*. (2011). Mutations in the G-H loop region of ephrin-B2 can enhance Nipah virus binding and infection. J Gen Virol 92:2142–2152.
    55. Zhang, Y., Yuan, J., Yang, X., Zhou, J., Yang, W., Peng, C., Zhang, H. L. and Shi, Z*. (2011). A novel hantavirus detected in Yunnan red-backed vole (Eothenomys miletus) in China. J Gen Virol 92:1454–1457.
    56. Zhou B., Y. Li, J. Belser, M. Pearce, M. Schmolke, A. Subba, Z. Shi, S. Zaki, D. Blau, A. Sastre, T. Tumpey, D. Wentworth*. (2011). NS deletions convert the 2009-H1N1 pandemic virus into a live attenuated vaccine. Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses. 5:388–391.
    57. Yu, M., Tachedjian, M., Crameri, G., Shi, Z., and Wang, L. F. (2010). Identification of key amino acid residues required for horseshoe bat angiotensin-I converting enzyme 2 to function as a receptor for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus. J Gen Virol 91(Pt 7), 1708–1712.
    58. Hou, Y., Peng, C., Yu, M., Li,Y., Han, Z., Wang, L-F., Li, F., Shi, Z.* (2010). Bat Angiotensin Converting Enzyme-2 Displays Different Receptor Activity to Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus Entry. Arch Virol., 155, (10 ): 1563–1569.
    59. Li, Y., Ge X., Hon C. C., Zhang H., Zhou P., Zhang Y., Wang L. F. and Shi Z*. (2010). Prevalence and Genetic Diversity of Adeno-Associated Viruses in Bats, China. J Gen Virol. 91(10): 2601–2609.
    60. Zhang Y., Zhang H., Dong X., Yuan J., Zhang H., Yang X., Zhou Peng., Ge X., Li Y., Wang L-F, and Shi Z* (2010). Hantavirus Outbreak Associated with Laboratory Rats in Yunnan, China. Infection, Genetics and Evolution. 10(5): 638–644.
    61. Li, Y., Ge X., Zhang H., Zhou P., Zhu Y., Zhang Y., Yuan J., Wang L-F., Shi Z.* (2010). Host Range, Prevalence and Genetic Diversity of Adenoviruses in Bats. J. Virol. 84 (8):3889–3897.
    62. Yuan, J., Hon,C. C., Li, Y., Wang, D., Xu, G., Zhang, H., Zhou, P., Poon, L. M., Lam, T. T. Leung, F. C. and Shi, Z*. (2010). Intra-species Diversity of SARS-Like Coronaviruses (CoVs) in Rhinolophus sinicus and Its Implications on the Origin of SARS-CoVs in human. J Gen Virol. 91(4):1058–1062.
    63. Liao, M., Cheng, K., Yang, J., Zhao, Y., Shi, Z*. (2010). Assessment of UV-B damage in cyanophage PP. Aquat Microb Ecol 58: 323–328.
    64. Shi,Z. (2010) Bat and virus. Protein Cell 2010, 1(2): 109–114
    65. Hou, Y., P., Han, Z., Zhou, P., Chen, J. and Shi, Z*. (2010). Immunogenicity of the Spike Glycoprotein of Bat SARS-like Coronavirus. Virol Sinica, 25 (1):36–44.
    66. Li, H., Zheng, Z., Zhou, P., Zhang, B., Shi, Z., Hu, Q. and Wang, H. (2010). The cysteine protease domain of porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus non-structural
    protein 2 antagonizes interferon regulatory factor 3 activation. J Gen Virol. 91(12), 2947–2958.
    67. Zhou, B., Li, Y., Belser, J. A., Pearce, M. B., Schmolke, M., Subba, A. X., Shi, Z., Zaki, S. R., Blau, D. M., Garcia-Sastre, A., Tumpey, T. M. & Wentworth, D. E. (2010). NS-based live attenuated H1N1 pandemic vaccines protect mice and ferrets. Vaccine 28, 8015–8025.
    68. Tang, X. C.‚ Li, G.‚ Vasilakis, N.‚ Zhang, Y.‚ Shi, Z.L‚ Zhong, Y.‚ Wang, L.F.‚ Zhang, S. Y. (2009) Differential stepwise evolution of SARS Coronavirus functional proteins in different host species. BMC Evol Biol 9: 52.
    69. Zhou, P., Han, Z., Wang, L.F. and Shi, Z*. (2009) Immunogenicity difference between the SARS coronavirus and the bat SARS-like coronavirus spike (S) proteins. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 387(2), 326–329.
    70. Tan, Y., Xing, Y., Zhang, H., Feng, Y., Zhou, Y. and Shi, Z*. (2009) Molecular detection of three shrimp viruses and genetic variation of white spot syndrome virus in Hainan province, China, in 2007. J Fish Dis, 32: 777–784.
    71. Yuan, J., Li, Y., Zhang, H., Zhou, P., Ke, Z., Zhang, Y. and Shi, Z*. (2009) Indirect enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay based on the nucleocapsid protein of SARS-like coronaviruses. Virol Sinica 24 (2): 146–151.
    72. Li, L., Zhang, H., Zhang C., Shi Z*. (2009) Identification and characterization of nuclear localization signals within the nucleocapsid protein VP15 of White Spot Syndrome Virus. Virol Sinica 24 (1):71–76
    73. Wang, J., Zhang, H. and Shi, Z*. (2008) Expression and assembly mechanism of the capsid proteins of a satellite virus (XSV) associated with Macrobrachium rosenbergii nodavirus. Virol Sinica 23 (1):73–77.
    74. Tang, Y., Shi, Z*. (2008) Proteomic analyses of the shrimp white spot syndrome virus. Virol Sinica 23 (3):157–166.
    75. Bai, B., Hu, Q., Hu, H., Zhou, P., Shi, Z., Meng, J., Huang, Y., Lu, B., Mao, P., Wang, H. (2008) Virus-like particles of SARS-like coronavirus formed by membrane proteins from different origins demonstrate stimulating activity in human dendritic cells. 3(7), e2685.
    76. Li,Y., Wang, J., Hickey, A. C., Zhang, Y., Li, Y., Wu, Y., Zhang, H., Yuan, J., Han, Z., McEachern, J., Broder, C. C., Wang, L. F. and Shi, Z*. (2008) Antibodies to Nipah or Nipah-like viruses in bats, China. Emerg Infect Dis 14(12):1974–1976.
    77. Wang, J., Wang, L-F. and Shi, Z*. (2008) Construction of a non-infectious SARS coronavirus replicon for application in drug screening and analysis of viral protein function. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 374(1):138–142.
    78. Yu, M., Stevens, V., Berry, J. D., Crameri, G., McEachern, J., Tu, C., Shi, Z., Liang, G., Weingart, H., Cardosa, J., Eaton, B. T., Wang, L. F. (2008) Determination and application of immunodominant regions of SARS coronavirus spike and nucleocapsid proteins recognized by sera from different animal species. J Immunol Methods 331(1–2):1–12.
    79. Hon, C. C., Lam, T. Y., Shi, Z., Drummond, A. J., Yip, C. W., Zeng, F., Lam, P. Y. and Leung, F. C.. (2008) Evidence of the recombinant origin of a bat severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-like coronavirus and its implications on the direct ancestor of SARS coronavirus. J Virol 82(4): 1819–1826.
    80. Ren, W., Qu, X., Li, W., Han, Z., Yu, M., Zhang, S., Wang, L. F., Deng, H., Shi, Z*. (2008) Difference in receptor usage between SARS coronavirus and SARS-like coronavirus of bat origin. J Virol 82(4): 1899–1907.
    81. Shi, Z. and Hu, Z. (2008) A review of studies on animal reservoirs of the SARS coronavirus. Virus research 133:74–87.
    82. Cheng, K., Zhao, Y., Du, X., Zhang, Y., Lan, S., Shi, Z*. (2007) Solar radiation-driven decay of cyanophage infectivity, and photoreactivation of the cyanophage by host cyanobacteria. Aquatic Microbial Ecology 48(1): 13–18.
    83. Cui, J., Han, N., Streicker, D., Li, G.., Tang, X., Shi, Z., Hu, Z., Zhao, G., Fontanet, A., Guan, Y., Wang, L., Jones, G., Field, H. E., Daszak, P. and Zhang, S. (2007) Evolutionary relationships among bat coronaviruses and their hosts. Emerg Infect Dis 13(10):1526–1532.
    84. Zhang, C, Yuan, J, Shi, Z*. (2007) Molecular epidemiological investigation of infectious hypodermal and hematopoietic necrosis virus and taura syndrome virus in Penaeus vannamei cultured in China. Virol Sinica 22(5): 380–388.
    85. Gu, W., Yuan, J., Xu, G., Li, L., Liu, N., Zhang, C., Zhang, J. and Shi, Z*. (2007) Production and characterization of monoclonal antibody of shrimp white syndrome virus envelope protein VP28. Virol Sinica 22(1): 21–25.
    86. Wang, L. F., Shi, Z., Zhang, S., Field, H., Daszak, P. and Eaton B. T. (2006) A review of bats and SARS: virus origin and genetic diversity. Emerg Infect Dis 12(12): 1834–1840.
    87. Ren, W., Li, W., Yu, M., Hao, P., Zhang, Y., Zhou, P., Zhang, S., Zhao, G., Zhong, Y., Wang, S., Wang, L. F. and Shi, Z*. (2006) Full genome sequences of two SARS-like coronaviruses in horseshoe bats and genetic variation analysis. J Gen Virol 87(11): 3355–3359.
    88. Zhang, H., Wang, J., Yuan, J., Li, L., Zhang, J., Bonami, J. R. and Shi, Z*. (2006) Quantitative relationship of two viruses (MrNV and XSV) in white tail disease of Macrobrachium rosenbergii de Man. Dis Aquat Org 71(1): 11–17.
    89. Li, L., Yuan, J., Cai, C., Gu, W. and Shi, Z*. Multiple envelope proteins are involved in white spot syndrome virus (WSSV) infection in crayfish. Arch Virol, 2006, 151(7): 1309–1317.
    90. Li, W., Shi Z*., Yu M., Ren W., Smith C., Epstein H. J., Wang H., Crameri G., Hu Z., Zhang H., Zhang J., Mceachern J., Field H., Daszak P., Eaton T.B., Zhang S*., and Wang L. F*. (2005) Bats are natural reservoirs of SARS-like coronaviruses. Science 310(5748): 676–679.
    91. Huang, R., Xie, Y., Zhang, J. and Shi, Z*. (2005) A novel envelope protein involved in white spot syndrome virus infection. J Gen Virol 86 (5): 1357–1361.
    92. Shi, Z., Wang, H., Zhang, J., Xie, Y., Li, L., Chen, X., Edgerton, B. F. and Bonami, J. R. (2005) Response of crayfish, Procambarus clarkii, haemocytes infected by white spot syndrome virus. J Fish Dis 28(3): 151–156.
    93. Bonami, J. R, Shi, Z., Qian, D. and Sri Widada, J. (2005) White tail disease of the giant freshwater prawn, Macrobrachium rosenbergii: separation of the associated virions and characterization of MrNV as a new type of nodavirus. J Fish Dis 28(1): 23–31.
    94. Zhang, S., Shi, Z. and Bonami, J. R. (2004) Purification, characterization and morphology of a freshwater crab reovirus. J Fish Dis 27(12): 687–692.
    95. Sri Widada, J., Richard, V., Shi, Z., Qian, D. and Bonami, J. R. (2004) Dot-blot hybridization and RT-PCR detection of extra small virus (XSV) associated with white tail disease of prawn Macrobrachium rosenbergii. Dis Aquat Org 58(1): 83–87.
    96. Sri Widada, J., Durand, S., Cambournac, I., Qian, D., Shi, Z., Dejonghe, E., Richard, V. and Bonami J. R. (2003) Genome-based detection methods of Macrobrachium rosenbergii nodavirus, a pathogen of the giant freshwater prawn, Macrobrachium rosenbergii dot-blot, in situ hybridization and RT-PCR. J Fish Dis 26(10): 583–590.
    97. Shi, Z., Qian, D., Zhang, J., Cao, Z. and Bonami, J. R. (2004) Isolation, purification and nucleic acid characterization of two viral particles from freshwater prawn Macrobrachium rosenbergii. Chin J Virol 20 (1): 58–61. (English abstract).
    98. Shi, Z., Xie, Y., Tang, X., Sri Widada, J. and Bonami J.R. (2004) Nucleic acid detection and partial sequence analysis of Macrobrachium rosenbergii nodavirus. Chin J Virol 20 (1): 62–66. (English abstract).
    99. Qian, D#., Shi, Z#., Zhang, S., Li, L., Xie, Y. and Bonami, J. R. (2003) Extra small particles (XSP) and nodavirus associated with whitish muscle disease in the giant fresh water prawn Macrobrachium rosenbergii. J Fish Dis, 26 (9): 521–527.
    100.Zhang, S., Bonami, Jean-Robert, Shi, Z*. (2003) cDNA library construction of a Chinese mitten crab reovirus RNA1 and partial sequence analysis of its RNA polymerase gene. Virol Sinica 18(1): 72–75. (English abstract).
    101.Wang, C., Guo, Y., Cheng, K., Zhao, Y. and Shi, Z*. (2003) The correlation of host’s growth stage with enlargement of plaque and absorption rate of cyanophage. Acta Hydrobiol Sinica 27(6): 660–663. (English abstract).
    102.Luo, W., Ju, C., Cheng, K., Zhao, Y. and Shi, Z*. (2003) A backflushing ultrafiltration technique for concentrating cyanophage. Virol Sinica 18(4): 397–400. (English abstract).
    103.Xie, Y., Huang, R. and Shi Z*. (2003) Sequence analysis, cloning and expression of a putative cytokine receptor gene of white spot syndrome virus. Virol Sinica, 18(4): 362–366. (English abstract).
    104.Xie Y., Zhang S., Huang R. and Shi Z*. (2003) A modified technique for purifying white spot syndrome virus. Virol Sinica 18(4): 391–393. (English abstract).
    105.Guo, Y., Cheng, K., Zhao, Y., Wang, J., Wang, C., Shi, Z. and Liu, Y. (2003) The distribution and infectivity of cyanophage and other algae-lysin factor in fresh water. China Environ Science 23(2): 167–170. (English abstract).
    106.Cheng, K., Wang, C., Guo, Y., Shi, Z. and Zhao, Y. (2002) Measurement of lysing cycle and burst size of cyanophage infecting filamentous cyanobacteria (blue-green algae). Virol Sinica 17(4): 374–376. (English abstract).
    107.Shi, Z. and Zhu, H. (2002) Aquatic crustacean viruses — Bacilliform viruses. Virol Sinica 17(3): 282–288. (English abstract).
    108.Zhang, S., Zhang, J., Huang, C., Bonami, J.R. and Shi Z. (2002) Preliminary studies on two types of reo-like viruses from crab Eriocheir sinensis. Virol Sinica 17(3): 264–267. (English abstract).
    109.Zhu H., Shi, Z. and Zhao, Y. (2002) Analysis of one gene from white spot syndrome virus of shrimp. Acta Hydrobiol Sinica 26(5): 560–563. (English abstract).
    110.Corbel, V., Zuprizal, Shi, Z., Huang, C, Arcier, J.M and Bonami, J.R. (2001) Experimental infection of European crustaceans with white spot syndrome virus (WSSV). J Fish Dis 224: 377–382.
    111.Huang, C., Shi, Z., Zhang, L., Xie, Y., Zhang, L., Chen, D. and Wu, Q. (2001). Homology comparison of white spot syndrome baculovirus (WSSV) from Penaeid shrimp. Virol Sinica 16: 81–84. (English abstract).
    112.Shi, Z., Huang C., Zhang J., Chen D. and Bonami J.R. (2000). White spot syndrome virus (WSSV) experimental infection of the freshwater crayfish Cherax quadricarinatus. J. Fish Dis 23: 285–288.
    113.Shi, Z., Durand S. and Bonami J.R. (2000). Screening of DNA polymerase gene from white spot syndrome virus (WSSV) by using degenerated oligonucleotides. Virol Sinica 15: 302–307. (English abstract).
    114.Shi, Z., Huang, C., Chen, D., Durand, S. and Bonami J.R. (1998). Partial cloning of the genome of non-occluded baculovirus from Penaeus chinensis and preparing the probe for detection. Virol Sinica 13: 263–267. (English abstract).
    115.Huang, C., Shi, Z. Zhang, L., Xie, L., Zhang, L., Chen, D. and Wu, Q. (2000). Study of white spot syndrome baculovirus infection process in Penaeus monodon by in situ Hybridization. Chin J Virol 16: 242–246. (English abstract).
    116.Zhao, Y., Shi, Z., Huang, G. and Wang, X. (1999). Blue green algae viruses (cynoaphages). Virol Sinica, 14(2):100–105. (English abstract).
    117.Huang, C., Shi, Z. Zhang, J., Zhang, L., Chen, D. and Bonami, J. R. (1999). Establishment of a model for proliferating white spot syndrome virus in vivo. Virol Sinica 14: 358–363. (English abstract).
    118.Huang, C., Shi, Z., Zhang, L., Wang, B. and Li, H. (1997) Cytopathic changes of Penaeus chinensis infected by two kinds of viruses and immunogold labelling. Virol Sinica 12: 171–177. (English abstract).
    119.Huang, C., Zhang, J., Gao, W. and Shi, Z. (1997) Observation and analysis of histo-and cyto-pathological changes of diseased shrimp with light and electron Microscopy. Virol Sinica 12 (4): 364–370. (English abstract).
    120.Zhao, Y. and Shi, Z. (1996). Virus and virus-like particles of eukaryotic algae. Virol Sinica 11(2): 93–102. (English abstract).
    121.Shi, Z., Xiao, L. and Chen, D. (1996). Immulogical detection of two shrimp viruses. Virol Sinica 11: 365–368. (English abstract).
    122.Shi, Z., Xiao, L., Gao, W. Zhang, L. and Chen d. (1996). Immunological detection of two kinds of viruses from Penaeus chinensis. Virol Sinica 11(4): 368–371. (English abstract).
    123.Xiao, L., Shi, Z., Gao, W., Zhang, L., Chen, D. (1995) Isolation, purification of Penaeus chinensis parvovirus and analysis of its nucleic acid and protein. Virol Sinica 10: 356–361. (English abstract).
    124.Li, Y., Shi, Z. and Chen, D. (1994). A Study on some biochemical characteristics of Nuclear Polyhedrosis virus of Ectropis grisescens Warren. Virol Sinica 9(3): 266–271. (English abstract).
    125.Shi, Z. Zhang, L. and Chen, D. (1992) Immunity studies on the Euproctis pseudoconspersa nuclear polyhedrosis virus. Virol Sinica 7(3): 276–282. (English abstract).
    Appendix B: Professor Zhengli Shi’s Conference Presentations
    Shi, Z. (2018) From SARS to SADS: predict of emerging infectious diseases. US-China Workshop on Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution of Infectious Diseases. University of California, Berkeley, June 27–29, 2018.
    Shi, Z. (2018) Risk assessment of bat coronavirus spillover and prevention strategy. Sino-Germany symposium “Globalization-Challenge and Response for Infectious Diseases” September 5, 2018, Hamburg, Germany.
    Shi, Z. (2018) Coronaviruses associated with human and animal diseases in China-From SARS to SADS. U.S. China Dialogue on the Challenges of Emerging Infections, Laboratory Safety and Global Health Security. January 17, 2018, Galveston, USA.
    Shi, Z. (2017) SARS coronavirus may have originated from frequent recombination events between SARS-related coronaviruses in a single horseshoe bat habitat. Cell Symposia: Emerging and Re-emerging Viruses 2017. October 1–3, Arlington, USA.
    Shi, Z. (2017) Genetic evolution and interspecies infection of bat SARS-like coronavirus. International Advisory Board Meeting and Coronavirus Mini-Symposium for the Theme-based Research Scheme Project on MERS Coronavirus. September 11–12, Hong Kong.
    Shi, Z. (2017) SARS coronavirus may have originated from frequent recombination events between SARS-related coronaviruses in a single horseshoe bat habitat. 27th Annual Meeting of the Society for Virology (Germany). March 22–25, 2017, Marburg, Germany.
    Shi, Z. (2016) Prevalence, animal origins and diagnosis of MERS-CoV. Devising Strategies to Control Emerging Viral Hemorrhagic Fever in Pakistan. November 14–16, 2016, Lahore, Pakistan.
    Shi, Z. (2015) Emerging viral zoonosis in China. Annual meeting of Sino-Germany Society for Medicine. October 2–3, Berlin, Germany.
    Shi, Z. (2015) Bat coronaviruses associated with human diseases. CAS-NAS Workshop on the Challenges of Emerging Infections, Laboratory Safety, and Global Health Security. September 29–30, Beijing, China.
    Shi, Z. (2015) The animal origin of SARS coronavirus; from genome to receptor usage. Annual meeting of Hubei Society for Microbilogy. August 22–23, Enshi, China.
    Shi. Z. (2015) New evidence in support of bat origin of SARS coronavirus. In “workshop on Coronavirus and Arterivirus, Special lecture”, ASV2015, July 5–12, London, Canada.
    Shi, Z. (2015) The animal origin of SARS coronavirus; from genome to receptor usage. The 3rd annual “host pathogen interaction in biodefense and emerging infectious diseases” conference. Feb. 12, Manassas, Virginia.
    Shi, Z et al. (2014) Isolation and identification of bat mammalian orthoreovirus from Chinese bats. The 6th International Symposium on Emerging Viral Diseases. October 29–30, Wuhan, China.
    Shi, Z, et al., (2013) New evidence further supports bats as natural reservoirs of SARS coronavirus. The 5th Wuhan International Symposium on Modern Virology. Oct. 30–31, Wuhan, China.
    Shi, Z. (2013) Bat borne viruses. CSIRO-CAS Biosecurity Workshop. 13–15 June 2013, Cairns, Australia.
    Shi, Z.(2012) Bat viruses detected in China, 31th annual ASV meeting. Jul 21–25, Madison, USA.
    Shi, Z.(2011) Virome in Bat Intestinal Tract, Implication of Important Roles Played by Bats in Ecosystem, XVIth International Union of Microbiological Societies 2. Sep 12–16, Sapporo, Japan.
    Shi, Z. (2010) Novel hantavirus detected in Yunnan Red-backed Vole, Eothenomys miletus. Infectious Disease Genomics and Global Health. Sep 11–15, Hinxton, UK.
    Shi, Z. (2008) Antibodies to Nipah or Nipah-like viruses among bats in mainland China. The 3rd International Symposium on Emerging Viral Diseases. Oct. 26–28, Wuhan, China.
    Shi Z. (2008) Genetic Evolution of SARS coronavirus. The 179th forum of Young Scientists of China Association of Science and Technology. Nov 1–2, Lijiang, China.
    Shi, Z, et al. (2008) The angiotension converting enzymes-2 of bats display different susceptibility to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus. Annual meeting of Hubei Society for Microbiology. June 26–29, Hohhot, China.
    Shi, Z. (2007) Macrobrachium rosenbergii nodavirus (MrNV) and its associated satellite virus. Aquaculture 2007, Feb. 28- Mar. 2, San Antonio, USA.
    Shi, Z. (2007) Functional analysis of structural envelope proteins of white spot syndrome virus (WSSV) and prevalence of WSSV and other shrimp viruses in china — a review. Aquaculture 2007, Feb. 28- Mar. 2, San Antonio, USA.
    Shi, Z. (2007) Evolution on SARS Coronavirus. The First Mexico-China Scientific Cooperation Conference. Aug. 27–29, Mexico City, Mexico.
    Shi, Z. (2006) Bats are natural reservoirs of SARS-like coronaviruses. France- China Medical Symposium. Oct. 23–24, Paris, France.
    Shi, Z. et al. (2006) Genetic diversity of bat SARS-like coronavirus and its interaction with ACE2. The 8th Session of the International Congress « Molecular Epidemiology and Evolutionary Genetics of Infectious Diseases » (MEEGID VIII). Nov. 30 — Dec. 2, Bangkok, Thailand.
    Shi Z. (2006) Biology and molecular genetics of white spot syndrome virus. Society for Invertebrate Pathology 39th Annual Meeting. Aug. 27 to Sept. 1, Wuhan, China.

  3. #3
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    1,018
    Mentioned
    20 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    OOOps, looks like the USA Gov funded Dr Shi last year.....

    1*IQkJ4aadt97_uSsY0HjcuQ.jpg

  4. #4
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    1,018
    Mentioned
    20 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Her research was centered on how viruses from bats could infect people. She worked in Wuhan for the past decade. She has published dozens of studies on this topic. They are cited in the second post. Here is what she published on Dec 11, 2019.
    1*Rz2Qek9MGgMutij6YGnbZg.png
    Last edited by timber; 02-05-2020 at 04:43 PM.

  5. #5
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    1,018
    Mentioned
    20 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Dr Shi has been very busy. Risk Assessment of bat coronavirus spillover and prevention strategy - Sino Germany symposium "Globalization- Challenge and Response For Infectious Diseases" September 5, 2018. She lives and works in Wuhan, China.
    1*MMYD4Qul7vV82MKCOWLSVg.png
    Last edited by timber; 02-05-2020 at 04:44 PM.

  6. #6
    End's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    TIM
    ILI-Ni sp/sx
    Posts
    862
    Mentioned
    135 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    I'm just going to deposit my own sentiments and observations here. For one, I'd bet over half my quite insignificant amount of wealth that this is an escaped bio-weapon. Commies are ironically all about that "rubble for the ruble" like they accuse capitalists of. Lasers, nukes, RKM's, etc. are hella expensive but damn good as despite their cost the "fuck up" is minimal in cost terms. If ya "miss" with those you yourself probably won't feel it. I mean fuck, Chernobyl has only de-inhabited a few hundred square kilometers for the next few centuries. A static few kilometers BTW. This? This is Spanish Flu 2.0 Electric Boogaloo with a far worse starting data set. Bioweapons are hella likely to backfire but that cost/benefit is just so damn good if the RNG goes in your favor you'd be dumb not to roll those dice if you didn't care about that horrifically bad happening that will occur if you just so happen to fail the dice roll.

    They did, now we are living the result. This is China's Chernobyl moment. Only unlike the Ruskies, they didn't wipe out 1-5 percent of the world population when that happened. And to anyone who thinks that 1-5 percent "ain't bad" look up how many people live in an average city near you and then ask what would happen if that percent dropped dead in a horrifically graphic way. Yeah, it ain't the plague that'll kill ya, it's the panic the normies will engage in when that first cast hits the metro area.

    My advice? Stock up on water and a staple grain that keeps at room temp. You can outlast the panic if you do so. Do it now BTW. Before this thing actually goes full Spanish Flu mode in our modern world with 3X the population and several population centers with a density and lack of sanitation that'd make John Snow himself fall to his knees begging God for divine mercy/intervention as that'd be about the only way he'd see it all working out in the end!

  7. #7
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    1,018
    Mentioned
    20 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Oh wow, so my pictures have been disappeared from the16types website.

    Classy.

    But no fear, I re-uploaded them.

  8. #8
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    1,018
    Mentioned
    20 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    29.28 KB

    1. China Media Project
    2. Media Beat
    3. THE TRUTH ABOUT “DRAMATIC ACTION”
    4. by Da Shiji (达史纪) | Jan 27, 2020
    5. The Truth About “Dramatic Action”
    6. “As far as I know, trying to contain a city of 11 million people is new to science.” This was how Dr. Gauden Galea, the World Health Organization’s country representative in China, described the situation facing the city of Wuhan when asked late last week for his update on the coronavirus outbreak.
    7. It was clear from Galea’s remarks that the total containment of Wuhan, the city where I have lived for the past few decades, was not a course of action the WHO had recommended. Nor did the organization have any clear view on whether such an action would prove effective in limiting the spread of the disease. “It has not been tried before as a public health measure,” he said, “so we cannot at this stage say it will or will not work.”
    8. I am now one of 11 million people in Wuhan who are living through this grand experiment, a measure that, Galea also said, shows “a very strong public health commitment and a willingness to take dramatic action.” From inside the curtain that now encloses my city, I wish to offer my thoughts on this “dramatic action,” and to judge what we have actually seen and experienced in terms of commitment to public health.
    9. Closing Up the Cities
    10. At 2AM on January 23, authorities in Wuhan suddenly issued the order to close off the city. According to the order, from 10AM that same day, all public buses, subways, ferries, long-distance buses and other transport services would be suspended; the airport and train stations would be shuttered. At this point, the WHO might have had reservations about the necessity and effectiveness of this strategy – but in any case, is was irreversible, and it would soon extend to neighboring cities as well.
    11. In less than two days, up to noon on January 24, a total of 14 cities in Hubei province would be brought into the quarantine zone. These cities, with a population of around 35 million, include: Huanggang (黄冈) and E’zhou (鄂州), were quickly brought under the order for closure. More cities followed: Chibi (赤壁), Xiantao (仙桃), Zhijiang (枝江), Qianjiang (潜江), Xianning (咸宁), Huangshi (黄石), Enshi (恩施)Dangyang (当阳), Jingzhou (荆州), Jingmen (荆门) and Xiaogan (孝感).
    12. This was no longer a city under lockdown, but effectively an entire province under quarantine.
    13. Galea and other foreign experts have expressed a sense of awe about the boldness of the quarantine in Hubei province. Over the weekend, the New York Times quoted Dr. William Schaffner, an expert on infectious disease from Vanderbilt University, as saying that the lockdown is a “public health experiment, the scale of which has not been done before.” Schaffner was clearly astonished: “Logistically, it’s stunning, and it was done so quickly.”
    14. China’s capacity to impress with such grand gestures calls to mind talk of the “Chinese miracle,” often used to describe the performance of the country’s economy over four decades. But is it fair to regard this case of large-scale quarantine also as a “Chinese miracle” in public health?
    15. Shutting People’s Mouths
    16. Everyone must understand, first of all, that this epidemic was allowed to spread for a period of more than forty days before any of the abovementioned cities were closed off, or any decisive action taken. In fact, if we look at the main efforts undertaken by the leadership, and by provincial and city governments in particular, these were focused mostly not on the containment of the epidemic itself, but on the containment and suppression of information about the disease.
    17. The early suppression of news about the epidemic is now fairly common knowledge among Chinese, and many people view this failure to grapple openly with the outbreak as the chief reason why it was later seen as necessary to take the “dramatic action” of closing down my city and many others.
    18. The direct cause of all of this trouble is of course the new coronavirus that has spread now from Wuhan across the globe and has everybody talking. Up to January 24, in Hubei province alone, there were 549 admitted cases of the virus. Among these there have been 24 deaths. But the real numbers are still unknown.
    19. According to reports from Caixin Media, one of China’s leading professional news outlets, the entire situation began on December 8, with the discovery of the first known case of an infected patient in Wuhan, a stall operator from the Huanan Seafood Market. The Huanan Seafood Market is a large-scale wet market, with an area about the size of seven football pitches and more than 1,000 stalls. The market has a constant flow of customers, making it the ideal place for the spread of infectious disease. A seafood market only in name, it sells a wide array of live animals, including hedgehogs, civet cats, peacocks, bamboo rats and other types of wild animals. At this market, the nearly inexhaustible appetite, and insatiable greed and curiosity of Chinese diners is on full display.
    20. The number of infected people rose rapidly, reaching 27 people within a short period of time. Health professionals in Wuhan began suspecting in early December that this was an unknown infectious disease, not unlike the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) that emerged in southern China in 2003. The ghost of SARS seemed to wander Wuhan in December, and rumors spread farther and farther afield of a new disease on the prowl.
    21. China is a society closely monitored by the government, and the shadow of Big Brother is everywhere. Social media in particular are subject to very close surveillance. So when the authorities detected chatter about the re-emergence of SARS, or of a similar unknown outbreak, they took two major steps initially. First, they tried to ensure that this new outbreak remained a secret; second, they put the stability preservation system into effect (启动稳控机制). On December 30, the Wuhan Health Commission (武汉市卫建委) issued an order to hospitals, clinics and other healthcare units strictly prohibiting the release of any information about treatment of this new disease. As late as December 31, the government in Wuhan was still saying publicly that there were no cases of human-to-human transmission, and that no medical personnel had become infected.
    22. Science Versus Politics
    23. The period from December 8 to December 31 was a crucial 23-day period. During this time, scientists in China were not in fact idle, but raced against the clock trying to trace the virus – and their performance was remarkable. Meng Xin (孟昕), a researcher at the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, has since disclosed:
    24. So originally they [NOTE: Meng is referring here to the government] had one ace card in their hand. My colleagues worked hard through the night, and within one week had managed to: successfully isolate the disease, sequence the coronavirus genome (测完了序列), and confirmed the origin of the disease. In less than two weeks, they had developed test reagents and had distributed them to provincial CDCs, and they had reviewed anywhere from dozens to hundreds of specimens from Wuhan (the specific number is still unknown), actions that would earn unanimous praise from international colleagues and the World Health Organization, and that would save precious time in the prevention and control of the epidemic.
    25. Meng is referring here specifically to the actions taken by scientists in Beijing. But Shanghai scientists were not far behind. According to a report in Health News (健康报), the official publication of China’s National Health Commission, the Shanghai Public Health Clinical Center (上海市公共卫生临床中心) had isolated a new strain of coronavirus by January 5, within just 10 days of its receiving samples from patients in Wuhan on December 26, and scientists at the center had obtained the entire genome sequence.
    26. On January 11, on the basis of the latest research developments in Beijing and Shanghai, China officially confirmed that this new coronavirus was the pathogen causing the Wuhan pneumonia epidemic, and it shared the new coronavirus gene sequence information with the WHO.
    27. But while the Chinese authorities informed the World Health Organization about these developments at the earliest opportunity, they did not inform their own people, but instead maintained strict secrecy. This meant no progress was made on prevention and control.
    28. As the researcher Meng Xin put it:
    29. The ace card [provided by scientists] was still played very poorly, because at the first opportunity politics came into play and directed strict confidentiality requirements – this can’t be talked about, that can’t be talked about, we must maintain stability, and so on. So the test reports were locked into the safety deposit box.
    30. Here is how the situation looked from our perspective on the ground as Chinese citizens, and as residents of Wuhan.
    31. On January 12, the Wuhan Municipal Health Construction Commission announced that there were no new cases and no close contacts as of the 11th.
    32. On January 13, the Wuhan Municipal Health Construction Commission announced that there were no new cases and no close contacts as of the 12th.
    33. On January 14, the Wuhan Municipal Health Construction Commission announced that there were no new cases and no close contacts as of the 13th.
    34. On January 15, the Wuhan Municipal Health Construction Commission announced that there were no new cases and no close contacts as of the 14th.
    35. On January 16, the Wuhan Municipal Health Construction Commission announced that there were no new cases and no close contacts as of the 15th.
    36. Politics first. Stability preservation first. In such an environment, science can only sit by and watch. The scientific results could not be clearer, and the authorities likely had a decent grasp of the real situation. But nevertheless they could not speak the truth, and they spared no effort in keeping the outbreak under wraps. Front-line doctors who spoke up about the outbreak were taken in for questioning. Eight Wuhan citizens who dared to post about the outbreak online were summoned by the police and singled out in public announcements through official media in order to terrify the public and force people to remain quiet.
    37. The focus of restrictions was to prevent the truth of human-to-human transmission of the coronavirus from getting out. Wuhan officials continued to emphasize through January 14 that no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission had been found. Later, officials had to admit that there was evidence of what they called “limited human-to-human transmission.” Wang Guangfa (王广发), a member of the expert group from Beijing, came out and stressed that the disease was “preventable and controllable.” In light of these statements, the public remained unaware and unconcerned.
    38. Politics as Usual
    39. Up to January 17, tourism authorities in Wuhan continued to launch the “Spring Festival Culture Benefitting the People Campaign” (春节文化惠民活动), issuing hundreds of thousands of free tickets to attractions in Wuhan in order to encourage tourists from all over the country to come to the area for sightseeing. Through to January 19, Baibuting Garden (武汉市百步亭社区), an area advertised as a model residential community in Wuhan, was still holding a Spring Festival banquet celebration for its 40,000 residents. There was no attempt to stem the flow of people to Wuhan from all over the country and around the world. During what was the most critical phase for controlling the outbreak, Wuhan was essentially an open city owing to the efforts of local officials to keep a lid on the story.
    40. The ignoring of the outbreak by Party and government officials can be seen clearly in the agendas of local officials in Hubei province. On January 11, after the disease was confirmed as a new strain of coronavirus, until January 20, when General Secretary Xi Jinping issued a notice on response and control of the outbreak, Hubei provincial officials and Wuhan city officials had no meetings or events having to do with the coronavirus outbreak.
    41. From January 12-17, these officials were all busy prioritizing the provincial and city-level meetings of the people’s congresses and political consultative conferences, the so-called “two meetings” (两会) – the biggest local political meetings of the year. In all likelihood this is reason why, as outlined above, no new cases of the virus were reported – because a “harmonious” public opinion environment had to be created for the “two meetings.”
    42. On January 18, a Saturday, there were no events scheduled by provincial or city officials, and this was most likely a day of rest. On January 19th, leaders at the provincial and city levels had their respective itineraries, but no officials voiced concern about the outbreak. The provincial Party secretary, Jiang Chaoliang (蒋超良), had three events on his schedule: a meeting with the Yangtze River Water Conservancy Commission; a meeting with retired cadres; and an appearance at a Spring Festival event for the military. His itinerary the next day: a visit with poor families in Daye City. Provincial governor Wang Xiaodong (王晓东) accompanied Jiang Chaoliang on his visits on January 19, and had nothing on his itinerary the next day.
    43. Wuhan Party Secretary Ma Guoqiang (马国强) spent the day on January 19 attending a meeting of the Grass-roots Party Building Review and Appraisal Council. On January 20, he presided over a meeting of the Municipal Standing Committee. But the agenda did not touch on the coronavirus outbreak, focusing instead on language from the central and provincial Party leadership on “remaining true to our original aspiration, keeping firmly to our mission” (不忘初心, 牢记使命), this being a key phrase of Xi Jinping’s to talk about keeping to the path of socialism with Chinese characteristics and pushing for the so-called “great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation.”
    44. The only official who had any event related to the coronavirus outbreak on his agenda was Wuhan’s number two, mayor Zhou Xianwang (周先旺), who on January 20 attended a working meeting of the Epidemic Prevention and Control Command Center (疫情防控指挥部). This was on the same day that Xi Jinping finally issued his official instructions on dealing with the outbreak.
    45. It was only after the conclusion of the provincial and city-level sessions of the “two meetings” that the authorities in Hubei province resumed reporting new disease cases, so that on the night of January 19 the number given suddenly rose to 136 new cases. But even with this dramatic increase from previous numbers, the leadership remained conservative and close-mouthed about the outbreak.
    46. Even on January 21, the day after Xi Jinping’s instructions were conveyed nationwide on January 20, the provincial Party and government leadership went ahead with a grand Spring Festival Banquet in the Hongshan Assembly Hall, with performances from the provincial song and dance troupe. According to Party media reports, preparation for the banquet had top priority for the leadership and the Provincial Department of Culture and Tourism: “Lei Wenjie, the department’s secretary and director, personally reviewed various performance plans, provided guidance for the draft program, and reviewed the compositions and rehearsals for the show in person.” Reports even gave what now seem quite suggestive details, saying that the performers had “overcome a host of difficulties to achieve a perfect performance, including coming from long distances, enduring colds, stuffy noses, and bodily discomfort.”
    47. As the province’s top leader, Secretary Jiang Chaoliang, and Governor Wang Xiaodong (王晓东) sat with row upon row of Party and government officials, they were the very image of peace and calm. But when news of the banquet was posted online, it met with a wave of anger as internet users bitterly criticized them for inaction. One user mocked these officials online with the choice words: “These public servants who need not concern themselves with the virus, reward themselves with flowers in the back courtyard.”
    48. The Voice of Calm
    49. The true turning point came as Zhong Nanshan (钟南山), the well-known Chinese pulmonologist who identified the SARS virus in 2003, paid a visit to Wuhan. On January 18, Zhong received orders in Guangzhou to head urgently to Wuhan. But even though Zhong was an esteemed member of the Chinese Academy of Engineering, and even though he was under urgent orders to become involved in a matter of national concern, his rank was apparently too low to merit special transport arrangements of any kind. Instead, he was forced to take a high-speed train in the evening, fighting against crowds heading home for the Spring Festival. He spent the entire journey settled in a corner of the dining car.
    50. Looking back now, it’s clear that Zhong Nanshan’s orders at the time were not at all about researching the outbreak. As I’ve said, by this point scientists in Beijing and Shanghai had already made critical breakthroughs on that front, identifying and sequencing the pathogen in record time, and developing diagnostic kits. Unfortunately, the efforts of these scientists were largely snuffed out by the black box of Chinese politics.
    51. Zhong Nanshan was brought into the picture because there was no way to really and truly turn the tide without the appearance somehow of a third party with sufficient credibility to break through the paper windows of reporting on the epidemic to that point – someone who could reveal the full nature of the epidemic to the public, and somehow reassure them. As Meng Xin, the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention researcher, wrote: “Nothing could be done to hold back [the truth about the outbreak]. Our best bet was to have Old Dr. Zhong, this great god, come out and reveal something of the real facts of the situation, and try to calm people’s nerves.”
    52. But the authorities still were not prepared to admit the full truth. There was no admission that the outbreak had been concealed, that there had been serious delays in reporting, that a “super-spreader” had infected more than 14 health workers in the city, or that hospitals in Wuhan were suffering shortages of critical resources. Zhong Nanshan simply came out and broke the news that the virus was now spreading from person to person. Beyond that, he said nothing.
    53. And so it was that the seriousness of what was happening in Wuhan broke upon the nation, and my city became a city under lockdown – not out of an overriding concern for public health, but out of a conviction that politics and stability preservation must always come first.
    54. The Ghost City
    55. The quarantine of the city of Wuhan can be read as a sign of desperation at the top of the Party leadership, and at the provincial and city levels it was an unavoidable measure. There has been some talk that the closing off of Wuhan and much of Hubei province came after many other provinces and cities made an urgent request to the central authorities to take more urgent action to control the situation in Hubei and prevent people from Wuhan other cities from traveling all over the country.
    56. Wuhan was the first to announce the closure of the city, but this was not at all done in a decisive way, but rather in a foot-dragging and non-committal way. Nothing whatsoever, to my mind, merits the suggestion from Dr. William Schaffner that, “Logistically, it’s stunning.” One might imagine this action was taken with some form of wartime control logic, but this was not actually the case at all. The order was issued at 2AM on January 23, but was not officially implemented until 10AM, which opened up an eight-hour window in which people who managed to learn of the situation could make a swift exit, taking to the expressways in their private cars.
    57. We can be sure that a substantial number of the people who left the city at this point – some estimates are of as many as one million – were already by this point carriers of the coronavirus. This includes many people who had failed to obtain treatment in the city, and were hoping to find treatment elsewhere. Media have since reported cases of patients from Wuhan being successfully treated and discharged from hospitals in Shanghai, for example, providing a glimpse of what happened in that brief window between the announcement of the quarantine and its actual implementation.
    58. Another aspect of the Wuhan quarantine has been its hasty nature. Even now, after several days of quarantine, no specific plan has been issued, suggesting no preparations were made at all before the announcement. What should be done to settle or assist the estimated one million refugees from Wuhan who made it out before the quarantine was implemented? During the quarantine period, how would food, water and other basic necessities be provided to residents of the city? How would medical personnel at hospitals and clinics be provided with the medicines and other essentials? How would the authorities deal with urgent transportation needs, such as medical staff getting to and from work and patients getting to hospitals for medical treatment? How would law and order be maintained? The government has so far offered no explanation for how these and many other urgent questions are being dealt with.
    59. In the absence of answers, what we have is the shutting off and shutting down of a city, plain and simple. A quarantine that means 11 million people are trapped within their city. No one seems to have considered how public order will be maintained, and how our lives here in Wuhan will be supported.
    60. This is the situation in Wuhan, Hubei’s capital city. We can suppose that the situation is no better, and is possibly worse, in the other cities that have similarly come under quarantine. Of the fourteen cities under facing lockdown, there are so far no exceptions in terms of the announcement of plans or preparations. They are equally in the dark, having become fourteen isolated islands, home to an estimated 35 million helpless citizens.
    61. The results of this are already becoming clear. First, we are seeing a shortage of supplies of essential household goods in Wuhan, and inflation is out of control. The city was closed off early in the morning on January 23, and by noon the price of vegetables had already skyrocketed, some vegetables priced up to hundreds of yuan per half-kilo. By afternoon that same day, many supermarkets in the city had been entirely cleaned out. Fortunately, this is perhaps the one time during the year, with the arrival of the Spring Festival, that Chinese families tend to have reserve supplies at home to prepare for festivities. But if fresh supplies are not made available soon, it’s possible many families will not have enough to eat.
    62. Another major problem right now is that major hospitals and frontline medical staff do not have sufficient supplies of protective equipment as they work overtime to treat a flood of patients. Even the best hospitals in Hubei, such as Tongji Hospital and Xiehe Hospital, cannot escape this basic problem. They have reported that even masks are in short supply.
    63. In some cases, frontline medical personnel were unable to eat their New Year’s Eve meals last Friday, one of the most important meals of the year. This was not because there was no food to eat, but because their protective masks are single-use, and must be changed out any time they are removed, lest they become ineffective. But there were already an insufficient number of masks by the weekend, and so medical personnel didn’t dare remove them. More serious even than the shortage of protective equipment is the fact that many frontline medical personnel are exhausted and on the verge of collapse due to extreme mental and physical strain.
    64. Another issue that has so far not been addressed is the fact that there are roughly one million Wuhan residents who managed to leave the city and who are now essentially refugees without any proper means of finding shelter or care, and who risk being chased down and harassed by local governments and communities out of fear. In some cases, they may present a real risk in spreading the virus. In other cases, they may face brutal treatment as refugees and outcasts.
    65. Wuhan under quarantine has already begun to feel like a ghost city. From New Year’s Eve into New Year’s Day, you couldn’t hear a single firecracker going off. I have lived in this city for decades already, and this is the first time that the Chinese New Year has passed without the sound of fireworks. The entire city is silent. The traffic lanes, usually jammed with vehicles, are empty. All public places are now inaccessible. No one is associating or organizing get togethers. There is no sense of community. No public life. We are all atomized individuals, living in isolation in our own homes, passing the time watching the television, or glued to our mobiles.
    66. In this dead silence, fear spreads. Senior government officials are certainly living in fear. And just how afraid are they? After announcing the closure of the city, they failed to present contingency plans of any kind; and they have failed since to offer up any plans for future action. At a crucial point last Friday, on the eve of the New Year, none of them dared stand with front-line medical personnel in Hubei’s hospitals, or to offer them meals or encouragement of any kind.
    67. They can’t possibly be ignorant of the fact that such signs of leadership are the only way they can offer a thread of confidence to those on the front lines, and to the millions who are trapped in this sad city. And yet, they somehow find it impossible to take such steps. They appear not to have the courage.
    68. And there may be a reason for this. Why? Because there are already concrete examples that deepen their sense of dread. On January 22, Huang Mouhong (黄谋宏), the deputy director of the Hubei Provincial Department of Commerce, was diagnosed with the coronavirus. Before this, there was news that Wang Guangfa, the expert who had flown to Wuhan from Beijing and announced that the disease was “preventable and controllable,” had been confirmed as infected shortly after his return to the capital.
    69. In fact, both the provincial and municipal governments have already effectively been shut down, and to a large extent can be said to now be only caretaker governments (看守政府). These cowardly and incompetent governments obviously cannot take on the necessary responsibility of governing in what has already become essentially a state of war. This leaves the public in a state of deep concern and uncertainty.
    70. On January 22, Zhang Ouya (张欧亚), a journalist for the official Hubei Daily newspaper, clearly at the end of his rope, fairly shouted online: “Wuhan must immediately change out its commanders” (武汉必须当机立断换帅了). For a brief time, this furious call proliferated online. Another meme was rapidly born, like a mutating virus, across social media. The word “coronavirus”, or guānzhuàng bìngdú (冠状病毒), was replaced with the identical-sounding “official virus” (官状病毒), mocking the cowardice and ineffectiveness of the government and of high-level officials.
    71. We may find it hard to suppress a bitter laugh over such an acts of inventive criticism. But such a story cannot have a happy ending in China’s stability-obsessed political environment – where anything can be stopped. Zhang Ouya’s post was quickly expunged. The Party leadership of the Hubei Daily Media Group, Zhang’s employer, wrote a letter of apology to the Municipal Party Committee expressing its “deepest apologies” for Zhang Ouya’s “incorrect remarks.” The group also made clear that it was starting “relevant procedures” to hold Zhang accountable.
    72. At the same time, while carrying on an investigation of Wuhan’s Huanan Seafood Market, where the outbreak originated, Xiao Hui (萧辉), a reporter for Caixin Media, was surrounded and beaten by four security guards. Caixin journalist Wang Heyan (王和岩), one of the finest investigative reporters working in China today, contacted several doctors in Wuhan in order to verify infections among medical staff, but was not allowed to meet with her sources. The Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention has issued an order saying that: “[Medical personnel must not, under any condition, accept media interviews, and must not leak information about the outbreak to the outside. Noone can accept interviews, even if journalists promise anonymity and agree to protect their sources.”
    73. What will tomorrow bring? Here in Wuhan, 11 million of us are waiting — not for dramatic action, but for openness and a real plan of action.
    74. ABOUT THE AUTHOR
    75. Da Shiji (达史纪)
    76. Da Shiji (达史纪)
    77. Da Shiji is the penname of a veteran journalist living in the city of Wuhan.
    78. RELATED POSTS
    79. Zhan Jiang: Can the ACJA Lay Off Journalists?
    80. May 3, 2010
    81. Taizhou kindergarten attack
    82. Apr 29, 2010
    83. A Blogger’s Ten Observations About the Post-Earthquake Mess
    84. May 26, 2008
    85. CMP Logo
    86. The China Media Project is an independent research, fellowship and exchange program in partnership with the Journalism & Media Studies Centre at the University of Hong Kong. The CMP fosters dialogue on key issues in Chinese media and communications, and monitors breaking developments in the field.
    87. PARTNERSHIPS
    88. Journalism and Media Studies Centre, HKU

  9. #9
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    1,018
    Mentioned
    20 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Irrefutable: The coronavirus was engineered by scientists in a lab using well documented genetic engineering vectors that leave behind a “fingerprint”




    Every virology lab in the world that has run a genomic analysis of the coronavirus now knows that the coronavirus was engineered by human scientists. The proof is in the virus itself: The tools for genetic insertion are still present as remnants in the genetic code. Since these unique gene sequences don’t occur by random chance, they’re proof that this virus was engineered by scientists in a lab.
    But the WHO and CDC are covering up this inconvenient fact in order to protect communist China and its biological weapons program, since no government wants the public to know the full truth about how frequently government-run labs experience outbreaks. Decades ago, for example, the U.S. Army ran an Ebola bioweapons lab in the United States, where a monkey infected one of the scientists there. The strain turned out to be infectious only in monkeys, not humans, so the world dodged a bullet, but the U.S. Army “nuked” the entire facility with chemical bombs, killing all the monkeys and wiping out any last remnant of the virus on U.S. soil.

    You can read the full details of that incident in the book The Hot Zone by Richard Preston. We’ve also covered it at NaturalNews.com, where this book description is reprinted:

    In 1989, Reston, VA — one of the most famous U.S. planned communities located about 10 miles from Washington DC — stood at the epicenter of a potential biological disaster. This well-known story was narrated by Richard Preston in a bone chilling account related to the recognition and containment of a devastating tropical filovirus at a monkey facility — the Reston Primate Quarantine Unit.


    That outbreak occurred because Ebola was found to be spreading through the air ducts, confirming that Ebola can spread through the air. This simple fact was vigorously covered up by the entire medical establishment during the Ebola scare in the United States many years later, where the CDC transported an infected patient to a hospital in Dallas, subsequently infecting a nurse who was treated with highly toxic chemicals that caused permanent kidney damage (she later sued the hospital for the damage she suffered).

    The reason this is relevant is because in order to understand the coronavirus situation in China, we must first realize that virology research labs routinely experience lapses in containment. Even the United States has failed to contain deadly viral strains when trying to study them. China’s BSL-4 labs have experienced multiple accidental releases of SARS strains, and this new coronavirus is now confirmed to be an engineered strain that was either used in bioweapons research or vaccine experiments.

    The genomic coding in the virus is not natural, in other words. Just as you would never encounter a snake in the desert that’s writing a book containing words and grammatical structure, the genetic sequences now identified in the coronavirus strain are, without question, proof that human engineers have been tinkering with the strain.

    How to genetically engineer viruses: the pShuttle vector

    One of the tools used to accomplish this genetic engineering is called pShuttle. It’s a genetic tool set that can carry a payload of genes to be inserted into the target virus.
    Researchers engaged in genetic engineering can purchase the pShuttle sequence from online retailers such as AddGenes.org, which sells the sequence for $75, shipped in “bacteria as agar stab.”


    The following map outlines the complete gene sequence of the pShuttle tool:


    The method for using pShuttle is described in a PubMed document entitled, “A simplified system for generating recombinant adenoviruses.”
    The summary of the paper describes, “a strategy that simplifies the generation and production of such viruses.” Here’s how the process works to achieve genetic engineering of viruses:
    A recombinant adenoviral plasmid is generated with a minimum of enzymatic manipulations, using homologous recombination in bacteria rather than in eukaryotic cells. After transfections of such plasmids into a mammalian packaging cell line, viral production is conveniently followed with the aid of green fluorescent protein, encoded by a gene incorporated into the viral backbone. Homogeneous viruses can be obtained from this procedure without plaque purification.


    The paper describes how this approach will, “expedite the process of generating and testing recombinant adenoviruses.”


    During this process, of course, the pShuttle leaves behind unique code, a “fingerprint” of the genetic modification. It is this fingerprint that has now been identified in the coronavirus.
    As revealed by genomics researcher James Lyons-Weiler in this bombshell analysis article, the pShuttle genetic code is found in the coronavirus that’s circulating in the wild.
    This is proof that the virus has been engineered by human scientists.
    “IPAK researchers found a sequence similarity between a pShuttle-SN recombination vector sequence and INS1378,” writes Lyons-Weiler for IPAK:


    Another gene sequence also shows a 92% match with the Spike protein from the SARS coronavirus:


    The process for achieving this was patented by Chinese researchers as shown in this patent link.
    The pShuttle vector was used to insert SARS genes into the coronavirus, a process that makes it deadly to humans. “The very researchers conducting studies on SARS vaccines have cautioned repeatedly against human trials,” warns Lyons-Weiler:
    The disease progression in of 2019-nCoV is consistent with those seen in animals and humans vaccinated against SARS and then challenged with re-infection. Thus, the hypothesis that 2019-nCoV is an experimental vaccine type must be seriously considered.

    He also warns about, “studies that have reported serious immunopathology in animals – rats, ferrets, and monkeys – in which animals vaccinated against coronoviruses tended to have extremely high rates of respiratory failure upon subsequent exposure in the study when challenged with the wild-type coronavirus.”


    He concludes:

    If the Chinese government has been conducting human trials against SARS. MERS, or other coronviruses using recombined viruses, they may have made their citizens far more susceptible to acute respiratory distress syndrome upon infection with 2019-nCoV coronavirus.
    Brighteon.com/a4d2afed-56c6-4602-b6ab-6f777ba4a69a


    Another doctor from Beijing Medical University warns the virus appears to be genetically engineered
    Lyons-Weiler is not alone in his assessment of the genetic engineering origins of the coronavirus. Dr. Yuhong Dong, who holds a doctorate degree in infectious diseases from Beijing University, writes in The Epoch Times:
    Based on recently published scientific papers, this new coronavirus has unprecedented virologic features that suggest genetic engineering may have been involved in its creation. The virus presents with severe clinical features, thus it poses a huge threat to humans. It is imperative for scientists, physicians, and people all over the world, including governments and public health authorities, to make every effort to investigate this mysterious and suspicious virus in order to elucidate its origin and to protect the ultimate future of the human race.
    Dr. Yuhong reminds us that a Jan. 30 science paper published in The Lancet concludes that, “recombination is probably not the reason for emergence of this virus.” In other words, this did not occur through natural mutations in the wild.

    He also points to a Jan. 27th study by five Greek scientists who also concluded the coronavirus has no lineage to other viruses in the “family tree” that’s found in the wild. He writes:

    A Jan. 27 2020, study by 5 Greek scientists analyzed the genetic relationships of 2019-nCoV and found that “the new coronavirus provides a new lineage for almost half of its genome, with no close genetic relationships to other viruses within the subgenus of sarbecovirus,” and has an unusual middle segment never seen before in any coronavirus. All this indicates that 2019-nCoV is a brand-new type of coronavirus. The study’s authors rejected the original hypothesis that 2019-nCoV originated from random natural mutations between different coronaviruses.


    “No bats were sold or found at the Huanan seafood market”
    Dr. Yuhong writes about The Lancet study by authors Roujian Lu et al., from the China Key Laboratory of Biosafety, National Institute for Viral Disease Control and Prevention, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, repeating a quote from that paper:
    First, the outbreak was first reported in late December 2019, when most bat species in Wuhan are hibernating. Second, no bats were sold or found at the Huanan seafood market, whereas various non-aquatic animals (including mammals) were available for purchase. Third, the sequence identity between 2019-nCoV and its close relatives bat-SL-CoVZC45 and bat-SL-CoVZXC21 was less than 90%. Hence, bat-SL-CoVZC45 and bat-SL-CoVZXC21 are not direct ancestors of 2019-nCoV.
    In other words, it isn’t from bats.

    That means the entire mainstream media is lying to us about the real origins of the coronavirus.


    That same paper goes on to underscore the misinformation in the official explanation, stating, “Many of the initially confirmed 2019-nCoV cases—27 of the first 41 in one report, 26 of 47 in another—were connected to the Wuhan market, but up to 45%, including the earliest handful, were not. This raises the possibility that the initial jump into people happened elsewhere.”

    Both Lu (in The Lancet paper linked above) and Lyons-Weiler point to the presence of a SARS binding protein sequence in the coronavirus that allows it to easily infect human cells. As explained in The Epoch Times:

    …despite considerable genetics distance between the Wuhan CoV and the human-infecting SARS-CoV, and the overall low homology of the Wuhan CoV S-protein to that of SARS-CoV, the Wuhan CoV S-protein had several patches of sequences in the receptor binding (RBD) domain with a high homology to that of SARS-CoV. The residues at positions 442, 472, 479, 487, and 491 in SARS-CoV S-protein were reported to be at receptor complex interface and considered critical for cross species and human-to-human transmission of SARS-CoV. So to our surprise, despite replacing four out of five important interface amino acid residues, the Wuhan CoV S-protein was found to have a significant binding affinity to human ACE2. …
    The Wuhan CoV S-protein and SARS-CoV S-protein shared an almost identical 3-D structure in the RBD domain, thus maintaining similar van der Waals and electrostatic properties in the interaction interface. Thus the Wuhan CoV is still able to pose a significant public health risk for human transmission via the S protein–ACE2 binding pathway. (emphasis added)


    As Dr. Yuhong asks, “How could this novel virus be so intelligent as to mutate precisely at selected sites while preserving its binding affinity to the human ACE2 receptor? How did the virus change just four amino acids of the S-protein? Did the virus know how to use Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats (CRISPR) to make sure this would happen?”

    It couldn’t happen by chance, in other words. The coronavirus is not a random mutation in the wild. It was engineered.
    Many other scientists around the world are now investigating the gene sequences found in the coronavirus, and they are increasingly concluding that elements of the virus have been engineered.
    Many of those scientists are being threatened and censored. One paper has so far been forced to be withdrawn and revised, no doubt to remove the key conclusions that point to the genetic engineering origins of the coronavirus, but the proof of its engineering cannot be denied forever.




    Either the coronavirus was genetically engineered, or the science establishment is going to have to throw out the entire field of genomics research and claim it isn’t real
    Eventually, the science establishment is either going to have to conclude that this coronavirus strain was engineered, or that all the laws of genetics science don’t work, and gene sequencing is imaginary (sort of like transgenderism by the “progressive” Left, which has already abandoned biological reality).
    So far they’ve tried to bamboozle the public into believing this is all some sort of accident from Mother Nature, but that has only worked because most of the public doesn’t understand enough science to counter the official propaganda. However, there are more than enough independent scientists around the world to prove that this pandemic strain was engineered by humans. More evidence is coming out each day.
    Interestingly, as this article is going to press, all the official numbers of infections and deaths from coronavirus have been frozen for about 14 hours and counting, almost as if every nation of the world has agreed to stop reporting new numbers. This may be a temporary situation that gets resolved in the next few hours, but it’s highly suspicious. For the last week, we’ve been getting new updates about every 12 hours or sooner, and we’ve never seen the count frozen for this long.
    At the same time, an 11th case of coronavirus has now been confirmed by the CDC in the United States, revealing that infections are continuing to spread in the USA, despite the efforts of the CDC to contain the outbreak.

  10. #10
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    1,018
    Mentioned
    20 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    doctor putting on a pair of protective glasses before entering the isolation ward at a hospital in Wuhan, China on Jan. 30, 2020. (STR/AFP via Getty Images)



    Scientific Puzzles Surrounding the Wuhan Novel Coronavirus

    BY YUHONG DONG February 3, 2020 Updated: February 3, 2020


    Analysis
    The sudden outbreak of the Wuhan Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) has resulted in all of China’s Hubei Province and three major cities in Zhejiang Province being subjected to quarantine. Other nations are anxiously trying to get their people out of China, and restrictions are being placed on flights to China. Because this novel virus has an extremely high transmission speed (high R0) and a high fatality rate, it is posing a significant challenge to public health, not only in China, but around the world.
    There are major gaps in our knowledge of the virus’s origin, duration of human-to-human transmission, and clinical management of those infected based on the current limited information coming from China. Nevertheless, the findings of those scientists who have recently published research papers about this virus are summarized below.

    Lancet Article Reports Wuhan
    Virus Not Likely Caused by Natural Recombination

    Most papers reported that the 2019-nCoV is only 88 percent related to the closest bat coronavirus, only 79 percent to SARS, and just 50 percent to MERS. Professor Roujian Lu from the China Key Laboratory of Biosafety, National Institute for Viral Disease Control and Prevention, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, and his co-authors commented in a Jan. 30 paper in Lancet that “recombination is probably not the reason for emergence of this virus.”

    A Jan. 27 2020, study by 5 Greek scientists analyzed the genetic relationships of 2019-nCoV and found that “the new coronavirus provides a new lineage for almost half of its genome, with no close genetic relationships to other viruses within the subgenus of sarbecovirus,” and has an unusual middle segment never seen before in any coronavirus. All this indicates that 2019-nCoV is a brand new type of coronavirus. The study’s authors rejected the original hypothesis that 2019-nCoV originated from random natural mutations between different coronaviruses. (Paraskevis et al 2020 BioRxiv) The article is a preprint made available through bioRxiv and has not been peer-reviewed.


    <img class="size-large wp-image-3226322" src="https://img.theepochtimes.com/assets/uploads/2020/02/04/Puzzles-of-nCoV-1-1200x696.jpg" alt="Epoch Times Photo" width="640" height="371" /> Puzzles of the Wuhan Novel Coronavirus (Yuhong Dong)

    Very High Genetic Identity in Patients Indicates a Recent Transmission to Humans

    2019-nCoV is an RNA virus. RNA viruses have high natural mutation rates. The Lancet study by Lu et al. states: “As a typical RNA virus, the average evolutionary rate for coronaviruses is roughly 10-4 nucleotide substitutions per site per year, with mutations arising during every replication cycle. It is, therefore, striking that the sequences of 2019-nCoV from different patients described here were almost identical, with greater than 99.9% sequence identity. This finding suggests that 2019-nCoV originated from one source within a very short period and detected relatively rapidly.”


    A Jan. 31 article by Jon Cohen in Science said: “The longer a virus circulates in a human population, the more time it has to develop mutations that differentiate strains in infected people, and given that the 2019-nCoV sequences analyzed to date differ from each other by seven nucleotides at most, this suggests it jumped into humans very recently. But it remains a mystery which animal spread the virus to humans.”


    Bat or Huanan Market Source Is Not the Whole Story

    Prof. Lu et. al. also discussed the natural host of the virus. An early hypothesis had been the virus had passed to humans from bats sold at Wuhan’s Huanan Seafood Market.

    Lu et. al write: “First, the outbreak was first reported in late December 2019, when most bat species in Wuhan are hibernating. Second, no bats were sold or found at the Huanan seafood market, whereas various non-aquatic animals (including mammals) were available for purchase. Third, the sequence identity between 2019-nCoV and its close relatives bat-SL-CoVZC45 and bat-SL-CoVZXC21 was less than 90%. Hence, bat-SL-CoVZC45 and bat-SL-CoVZXC21 are not direct ancestors of 2019-nCoV.”

    The authors point out that while the 2019-nCoV causing the Wuhan outbreak might have initially been hosted by bats, it may have been transmitted to humans via other as yet unknown mechanisms.

    The Science article said: “Huanan marketplace played an early role in spreading 2019-nCoV, but whether it was the origin of the outbreak remains uncertain. Many of the initially confirmed 2019-nCoV cases—27 of the first 41 in one report, 26 of 47 in another—were connected to the Wuhan market, but up to 45%, including the earliest handful, were not. This raises the possibility that the initial jump into people happened elsewhere.”

    Spike Protein Has 4 Precise Mutations Without Impacting Its Affinity for Human Receptor

    Every virus must have a receptor to bind to human cells, can only live inside human cells, and must rely on human cells to replicate. Without these capabilities, viruses found circulating in blood or tissue fluids are easily cleared by the human immune system.
    Viruses enter human cells via specific surface protein channels. The interaction of viral surface proteins binding to human cells is similar with how keys are used to open locks.

    Previous studies have shown there are several receptors that different coronaviruses bind to, such as angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) for SARS-CoV. ACE2 receptors are abundantly present in human tissue, especially along the epithelial linings of lung and small intestines, provide routes of entry into cells for SARS-CoV.
    According to Lu et al.’s Lancet paper, there is a structural similarity between the receptor-binding domains of SARS-CoV and 2019-nCoV. 2019-nCoV spike protein (S-protein) is responsible for binding to cell receptors and is crucial for viral targeting of host tissue. The molecular modelling data by Lu et. al. suggests that, despite the presence of amino acid mutations in the 2019-nCoV receptor-binding domain, 2019-nCoV might use the ACE2 receptor to gain entry into host cells.

    On Jan. 21, 2020, Xintian Xu et al. from Key Laboratory of Molecular Virology and Immunology, Institute Pasteur of Shanghai, Center for Biosafety Mega-Science, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shanghai, China, published a paper entitled “Evolution of the novel coronavirus from the ongoing Wuhan outbreak and modeling of its spike protein for risk of human transmission” in SCIENCE CHINA Life Sciences. This paper provided a more precise analysis of the S-protein of Wuhan 2019-nCoV.


    The S-protein was known to usually have the most variable amino acid sequences compared to other gene domains from coronavirus. However, despite considerable genetics distance between the Wuhan CoV and the human-infecting SARS-CoV, and the overall low homology of the Wuhan CoV S-protein to that of SARS-CoV, the Wuhan CoV S-protein had several patches of sequences in the receptor binding (RBD) domain with a high homology to that of SARS-CoV. The residues at positions 442, 472, 479, 487, and 491 in SARS-CoV S-protein were reported to be at receptor complex interface and considered critical for cross species and human-to-human transmission of SARS-CoV. So to our surprise, despite replacing four out of five important interface amino acid residues, the Wuhan CoV S-protein was found to have a significant binding affinity to human ACE2. The replacing residues at positions 442, 472, 479, and 487 in the Wuhan CoV S-protein did not alter the structural confirmation The Wuhan CoV S-protein and SARS-CoV S-protein shared an almost identical 3-D structure in the RBD domain, thus maintaining similar van der Waals and electrostatic properties in the interaction interface. Thus the Wuhan CoV is still able to pose a significant public health risk for human transmission via the S protein–ACE2 binding pathway.” (emphasis added)


    We know already that the novel 2019-nCoV is a different virus than SARS. It is understood that S-protein is highly variable. It would be no surprise if the genetic sequence, protein structure, and even the function of 2019-nCoV’s S-protein is different than that of the SARS virus. But, how could this novel virus be so intelligent as to mutate precisely at selected sites while preserving its binding affinity to the human ACE2 receptor? How did the virus change just four amino acids of the S-protein? Did the virus know how to use Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats (CRISPR) to make sure this would happen?


    Stunning Finding: S-Protein Insertions From HIV


    On Jan. 27, 2020, Prashant Pradhan et. al. from the Indian institute of Technology published a paper entitled “Uncanny similarity of unique inserts in the 2019-nCoV spike protein to HIV-1 gp120 and Gag,” which is currently being revised. The corresponding author of this paper, Professor Bishwajit Kundu, is specialized in protein genetic and genetic engineering and has published about 41 papers during the past 17 years on PubMed, including high-impact biomedical journals.

    The authors found 4 insertions in the spike glycoprotein (S) which are unique to the 2019-nCoV and are not present in other coronaviruses. “Importantly, amino acid residues in all 4 inserts have identity or similarity to those of HIV-1 gp120 or HIV-1 Gag. Interestingly, despite the inserts being discontinuous on the primary amino acid sequence, 3D-modelling of the 2019-nCoV suggests that they converge to constitute the receptor binding site. The finding of 4 unique inserts in the 2019-nCoV, all of which have identity/similarity to amino acid residues in key structural proteins of HIV-1 is unlikely to be fortuitous in nature.” (emphasis added) author.

    Pradhan et al. added, “To our surprise, these sequence insertions were not only absent in S-protein of SARS but were also not observed in any other member of the Coronaviridae family. This is startling as it is quite unlikely for a virus to have acquired such unique insertions naturally in a short duration of time.”

    “Unexpectedly, all the insertions got aligned with Human immunodeficiency Virus-1 (HIV-1). Further analysis revealed that aligned sequences of HIV-1 with 2019-nCoV were derived from surface glycoprotein gp120 (amino acid sequence positions: 404-409, 462-467, 136-150) and from Gag protein (366-384 amino acid). Gag protein of HIV is involved in host membrane binding, packaging of the virus and for the formation of virus-like particles. Gp120 plays crucial role in recognizing the host cell by binding to the primary receptor CD4. This binding induces structural rearrangements in GP120, creating a high affinity binding site for a chemokine co-receptor like CXCR4 and/or CCR5.”


    It is well known that CD4 cells are essential to human immunity and are the direct targets of the Human Immunodeficiency Virus or HIV. HIV attaches to CD4 cells, enters and infects them. The virus then turns each infected CD4 cell into a factory creating more HIV virus until eventually all CD4 cells are destroyed. People infected with HIV lose their immunity or defense system which is like a country losing the function of its army.


    If we take a closer look at the 4 insertions of the S-protein in figure 3 (from Pradhan et. al. 2020 bioRxiv), they are all located on the binding surface of the protein, seemly designed to be able to bind to target cell receptor sites. Natural accidental mutation would be randomly distributed across the whole length of the S-protein. It is highly unlikely that all of these insertions would coincidentally be manifested on the binding site of the S-protein.


    The article by Pradhan et. al. is a preprint made available through bioRxiv and has not been peer-reviewed.
    bioRxiv reports: “This paper has been withdrawn by its authors. They intend to revise it in response to comments received from the research community on their technical approach and their interpretation of the results. If you have any questions, please contact the corresponding author.”

    <img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-3225407" src="https://img.theepochtimes.com/assets/uploads/2020/02/03/Figure-3.jpg" alt="Epoch Times Photo" width="1195" height="814" />Clinical Evidence: Patients Have Cytokine Storm with Progressive Decline in Blood Lymphocytes
    Are Pradhan et. al.’s findings right or wrong? If correct, the virus should be able to invade human CD4 T cells and result in corresponding clinical features. A paper published in The Lancet on Jan. 24, 2020 by Professor Chaolin Huang from Jin Yin-tan Hospital, Wuhan, China, et. al., reviewing “Clinical features of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan, China” supports Pradhan et. al’s conclusions.
    Huang analyzed 41 hospital patients admitted with laboratory-confirmed 2019-nCoV infection as of Jan. 2, 2020. “Only 27 (66%) of 41 patients had been exposed to Huanan seafood market. Common symptoms at onset of illness were fever (98%), cough (76%), and myalgia or fatigue (44%); less common symptoms were sputum production (28%), headache (8%), haemoptysis (5%), and diarrhoea (3%). Dyspnoea developed in 55% (median time from illness onset to dyspnoea 8·0 days). 63% had lymphopenia. All 41 patients had pneumonia with abnormal findings on chest CT. Complications included acute respiratory distress syndrome (29%), RNAaemia (15%), acute cardiac injury (12%) and secondary infection (10%). 32% patients were admitted to an ICU and six (15%) died. Compared with non-ICU patients, ICU patients had higher plasma levels of IL2, IL7, IL10, GSCF, IP10, MCP1, MIP1A, and TNFα. The 2019-nCoV infection caused clusters of severe respiratory illness similar to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus and was associated with ICU admission and high mortality.”

    Although low white blood cell counts are common in viral infections, it is surprising that 63 percent of all infected patients and 85 percent of those admitted to the ICU had lymphopenia with lymphocyte counts <1·0 × 109/L. In a study on SARS published March 2004 by C.M. Chu et. al. in the journal Thorax, the mean lymphocyte count was often reported as normal.


    On Jan. 22, 2020, two clinical guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of Wuhan 2019-nCoV were posted on China websites. One is “Quick Guide for the Diagnosis and Treatment of New Coronavirus Pneumonia” authored by the expert group of Tongji Hospital, and the other is “Instructions for Handling 2019 New Coronavirus” from the Wuhan Union Hospital of Tongji Medical College of Huazhong University of Science and Technology. The first guideline clearly points out a “progressive lymphocyte reduction” while the second guideline highlights “the importance of monitoring the absolute value of lymphocytes.” (emphasis added)

    Therefore, the observed lymphocyte reduction must be of clinical significance in a certain proportion of patients. CD4 positive T lymphocytes constitute a major fraction of all lymphocytes. Although not a routine test for patients with coronavirus infection, perhaps monitoring CD4 cell counts would be helpful in 2019-nCoV patients.

    Another clinical feature of patients infected with 2019-nCoV is the high levels of serum cytokines and chemokines, which is defined as a cytokine storm (Huang et al 2020 Lancet). This is consistent with the observation from Pradhan et al. that the 2019-nCoV S-protein inducing structural rearrangements in GP120, creating a high affinity binding site for a chemokine co-receptor such as CXCR4 and/or CCR5. It is well known that activating T cell surface receptors can cause a cytokine storm. Cytokine storms have potential to create significant damage to organs and bodily tissues. If a cytokine storm occurs in the lungs, for example, immune cells such as macrophages and fluid may trigger tissue damage that results in acute respiratory distress and possible death.

    The United States Centers for Disease Control stated: “There is no specific antiviral treatment recommended for 2019-nCoV infection.” But, there are a few case reports of Wuhan 2019-nCoV patients benefiting from empiric treatment with anti-HIV drugs such as lopinavir. More such detailed clinical experience needs to be shared.


    Conclusion

    There are many scientific questions regarding this novel virus. Based on recently published scientific papers, this new coronavirus has unprecedented virologic features that suggest genetic engineering may have been involved in its creation. The virus presents with severe clinical features, which make it a significant threat. It is imperative for scientists, physicians, and people all over the world, including governments and public health authorities, to make every effort to investigate this mysterious and suspicious virus in order to elucidate its origin and to better enable populations in China and around the world to respond.

    Yuhong Dong holds a M.D. from Beijing Medical University and a doctorate in infectious diseases from Beijing University. Dong has 17 years of working experience in viral infectious disease clinical treatment and antiviral drug research. Dong worked as a doctor in the First Affiliated Hospital of Beijing Medical University and then later as a Medical Scientific Expert specialized in antiviral drug clinical research in Novartis R&D. She currently works as a Chief Scientific Officer in a Swiss Biotech company.

    References

    1. Lu R, Zhao X, Li J, et al. Genomic characterisation and epidemiology of 2019 novel coronavirus: implications for virus origins and receptor binding. The Lancet 2020. Online Full Text
    2. Paraskevis D., Kostaki E.G., Magiorkinis G., et al. Full-genome evolutionary analysis of the novel corona virus (2019-nCoV) rejects the hypothesis of emergence as a result of a recent recombination event. bioRxiv 2020.01.26.920249. Online Full Text
    3. Huang C, Wang Y, Li X, et al. Clinical features of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan, China. The Lancet, 2020. Online Full Text
    4. Cohen Jon. Mining coronavirus genomes for clues to the outbreak’s origins. Science 2020. Online Full Text
    5. Pradhan P, Pandey AK, Mishra A, et al. Uncanny similarity of unique inserts in the 2019-nCoV spike protein to HIV-1 gp120 and Gag. bioRxiv 2020.01.30.927871. Online Full Text
    6. Xu X, Chen P, Wang J, et al. Evolution of the novel coronavirus from the ongoing Wuhan outbreak and modeling of its spike protein for risk of human transmission, In Journal of SCIENCE CHINA Life Sciences. 2020 Online Full Text
    7. Chu CM, Cheng VC, Hung IF, et al. HKU/UCH SARS Study Group. Role of lopinavir/ritonavir in the treatment of SARS: initial virological and clinical findings. Thorax. 2004 Mar;59(3):252-6. Online Full Text
    8. US CDC: Interim Clinical Guidance for Management of Patients with Confirmed 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Infection https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019...-patients.html

  11. #11
    Muddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    2,777
    Mentioned
    148 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    5x less deadly then SARS, meh. Remember that around 36,000 people die a year from the flu in the US alone. People need to calm their titties.

  12. #12
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    1,018
    Mentioned
    20 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default


  13. #13
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    1,018
    Mentioned
    20 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    At least some American politicians and Military ranking officers are discussing where the virus really came from (The P4 Wuhan Lab) as well as preparing for it to hit service members.


  14. #14
    Aramas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    United States
    TIM
    EII-Ne
    Posts
    1,456
    Mentioned
    95 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Muddy View Post
    5x less deadly then SARS, meh. Remember that around 36,000 people die a year from the flu in the US alone. People need to calm their titties.
    It might be less deadly, but its ability to infect is much higher than SARS. So the total death count has become higher as a result. I read a news article recently that suggested that the virus might be an aerosol virus. That makes it very easy for the virus to spread. On average, each person with the new coronavirus will infect 2-3 more. SARS individuals infected less than one person on average for each person with the virus. It's a big difference. An R0 of more than one means the virus spreads at an exponential rate.

    So while the mortality rate might be lower than SARS, it can be more deadly overall. The Spanish Flu only had a mortality rate of around 2.5%, and it killed millions of people. The mortality rate for flu is generally around 0.4% if I'm not mistaken, or maybe even less.

    The CCP would not be locking down entire cities containing millions of people if the threat from the coronavirus were less than that of an average flu. It just simply would not happen.

  15. #15
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    1,018
    Mentioned
    20 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Dr Li.

    He was the Doctor who told the Chinese community he had found a strange virus in some patients.

    He was the Wuflu whistle blower. He was 34 years old. He was arrested for spreading information and sounding the alarm. He was forced to publicly apologize for his indiscretion. He caught wuflu himself while treating people at his hospital. He was a healthy middle age man.

    He is now dead. He died of wuflu.

    So what is it? Either wuflu does kill healthy 34 y/o men, or it only kills the sick and frail and elderly.

    You can't have it both ways.

    He may have been killed by authorities to silence him.

    Because if he died of wuflu, this counter indicates the intelligence that it only kills old and weak. Clearly it kills healthy men. So, the authorities want people to think that wuflu kills healthy men, even if it does not.

  16. #16
    End's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    TIM
    ILI-Ni sp/sx
    Posts
    862
    Mentioned
    135 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by timber View Post
    Dr Li.

    He was the Doctor who told the Chinese community he had found a strange virus in some patients.

    He was the Wuflu whistle blower. He was 34 years old. He was arrested for spreading information and sounding the alarm. He was forced to publicly apologize for his indiscretion. He caught wuflu himself while treating people at his hospital. He was a healthy middle age man.

    He is now dead. He died of wuflu.

    So what is it? Either wuflu does kill healthy 34 y/o men, or it only kills the sick and frail and elderly.

    You can't have it both ways.

    He may have been killed by authorities to silence him.

    Because if he died of wuflu, this counter indicates the intelligence that it only kills old and weak. Clearly it kills healthy men. So, the authorities want people to think that wuflu kills healthy men, even if it does not.
    He got iced by the authorities because his existence was most thoroughly inconvenient to the Communist Party that knows exactly how badly it has fucked up. They know what they did (i.e. authorized, funded, and supported the development of a bioweapon that ticks all the boxes any ILI who fully understands that "War" isn't really about killing your quote unquote "enemy" in droves would want to tick). Knows on top of that how history tends to unfold, ironically, because one term for it is the "dynastic cycle" because of, dun dun dun duuuun, their own fucking history that they never ever seem to learn from (much like the rest of the world but the extent of their records and how contiguous their "civilization" is/has been really leaves them absolutely no excuse even if compared to that titan of Civ, the "eternal city" that was "Rome" of all things) tells them exactly what happens next.

    Maybe the others found themselves in similar situations. Too late, of course, to do anything about it given the factors in play at their time. Maybe that one Emperor figured it out but simply couldn't do what needed to be done to prevent the wheel of history from turning. Then there was that one Deposed Emperor who was the only one who managed to live to see the next one's coronation. Known for his absolutely obscene and downright offensive level of decadence, he ran and hid in a Buddhist Monastery. Chinese Saint Augustine. If only because he knew nobody in their right mind (from his perspective) would ever suspect such a thing would be possible and he apparently valued living more than... well all of that when posed the question by what amounted to his god. A "no fap ever again" challenge posed to record holder for most of those in a day. And he managed to pull it off. Hehehe, and people say us ILI's are stereotypical fedora tipping Atheists by and large.

    I'd actually like to meet those idiots IRL. Bet I could show em' the light of Christ. Text is such a limiting form of communication after all.
    Last edited by End; 02-13-2020 at 07:38 AM.

  17. #17
    aster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Indiana
    TIM
    EII 946 so/sp
    Posts
    783
    Mentioned
    320 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Personally, I’m preparing for the worst.

    I read a book about the Spanish flu a few years ago. Scared the crap out of me. I’m following this closely.
    Tumblr

    “Sweatpants are a sign of defeat. You lost control of your life so you bought some sweatpants.”
    ~Karl

  18. #18
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    1,018
    Mentioned
    20 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    This guy makes quality vids.

    China Uncensored w chris chappel



    start here


    lii?

    Last edited by timber; 02-25-2020 at 04:01 AM.

  19. #19

  20. #20
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    1,018
    Mentioned
    20 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Mohammad Ali Ramazani Dastak was an Iranian politician who was elected to the Iranian Parliament in the 2020 election. He also fought in the Iran–Iraq War. He died on February 29, 2020 due to influenza.

  21. #21
    End's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    TIM
    ILI-Ni sp/sx
    Posts
    862
    Mentioned
    135 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by timber View Post
    This guy makes quality vids.

    China Uncensored w chris chappel



    start here


    lii?

    I can one up all that:

    That stream and the ones that preceded it/the ones to come will outdo most any other in regards to hard facts and data. For an internet comedian, he makes a damn good reporter. Pretty sure he's a gamma as well. His sense of humor is on point at least .

  22. #22
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    1,018
    Mentioned
    20 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I find China uncensored more insightful as he actually speaks Mandarin and has been reporting on them for years, as well as going there himself.

    Learned lots about China recently.

    The guy you posted is good though because it's someone actually talking about it instead of dooming or ignoring.

    Refer to my first post. It is a well researched article about Wuhan Virology Center and the woman and team responsible.

    Many do not know this but a Chinese couple were arrested for espionage last year in Canada for stealing viruses and research from a P4 laboratory in Winnipeg. They were the main players in the team that discovered and created the Ebola vaccine of which they were given the order of Canada. Long way to go from being lauded to being charge with espionage and treason.

    The evidence is often always right in front of you all you have to do is look with naked eyes.

    ACE2 receptors was altered with HIV genes. This was even published by the Chinese, through the Wuhan Virology Institute. The articles discussing this have been heavy censored and removed from the entire internet. Something is interested in denying people basic information.

    I'm just trying to get people to discuss this in their own lives.

    I don't subscribe to incel and or Kali yuga type thinking, nor do I think any of this is a good thing. People that think like that have damaged ego conception s of root level reality.

    Two years ago I got a gut feeling something was coming.

  23. #23
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    1,018
    Mentioned
    20 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Koreana Jones

    Brings raw footage and unreported news from around the globe.

    Has avoided the youtube censors.

    He doesn't hash tag coronavirus you can only find his stuff through his username.


  24. #24
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    1,018
    Mentioned
    20 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Raw footage form Iran

    Clinic burned down. Unconfirmed burials outside of people's homes. Footage of night time burials (unclear what is goin on in clip)


  25. #25
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    1,018
    Mentioned
    20 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    RIP to the young male nurses in Iran who died of coronavirus this week.

  26. #26
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    1,018
    Mentioned
    20 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Videos of people collapsed as they were walking in the streets in Iran. Video of small child, maybe 8 stumbling beside some cars as he tries to keep standing.

    Same thing as was seen in China.

  27. #27
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    1,018
    Mentioned
    20 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    RIP to the medical personal who died after catching virus in Iran's prisons as they helped sick prisoners.

  28. #28
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    1,018
    Mentioned
    20 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Video of hundreds of corpses in black body bags in a Iranian hospital warehouse.

  29. #29
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    1,018
    Mentioned
    20 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The first time I've ever gone on twitter....

    #iran #coronavirus

    together.

    warning: nsfw.

  30. #30
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    1,018
    Mentioned
    20 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Koreana Jones1 day ago (edited)

    Its too much. Youtube just decided to kill my channel. Before uploading the video named “china finally crossed the line” the view was okay.


    ..........



    An american corporation is actively suppressing legitimate information. The reach of the CCP is strong. Trying to withhold information and the truth does not suppress fears. Fear grows in a vacume. There is a reason that free speech is a human right and the younger generations need to remember that. Things are about to get really bad. Viral damage to lung tissue has shown to be permanent. People are being reinfected after they clear the virus. There is good information out there, but our media and internet corporations are actively trying to remove it to maintain order and stability. This is not a normal flu. People are falling down in Respiratory arrest in the streets of Iran. There are videos you can find, but you won't find them in the google-verse. I wouldn't even be talking about this topic if I did not, based on evidence, think there is something very bad occurring.

  31. #31
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    1,018
    Mentioned
    20 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Real medical imaging of lung coronaviral damage that the media is not showing people:



    Better watch the video before its removed by youtube. Yes, they are doing that.

  32. #32
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    1,018
    Mentioned
    20 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    To those in the general populace and media who are confident enough to make a bold statement that there are more serious things to worry about... this lady said exactly what most of us who are awake are thinking: "MERS, SARS, Swine flu...even a really bad flu season...I've never seen countries go on lockdown, losing billions of dollars by the day, giant aerosol cannons disinfecting the streets, doors to people's homes being welded shut so they cannot leave, cell phones confiscated, medical personal in full on hazmat suits contracting the disease, tests, showing negative only to be sincerely positive weeks later, unknown infectious and incubation periods, conflicting data on how long it actually lives on surfaces, contracted thru airborne or plumbing... you can go ahead and not worry" --------


    It is now known that this virus is not only presenting with upper respiratory issues, but gastric and cardio issues. Patients are wrongfully being assessed for upper respiratory only, patients who are presenting with diarrhea and vomiting, or cardiac issues are not. This virus affects the ace inhibitor receptor causing strokes and heart attacks as well as multiple organ failure. The people who are standing up one minute and falling dead the next are suffering a massive stroke or heart attack. This virus isn't even remotely close to being over. China is not being forthcoming with the truth. NO media are!


  33. #33
    Humanist Beautiful sky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    EII land
    TIM
    EII INFj
    Posts
    25,014
    Mentioned
    611 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)

    Default

    Stay away from bats
    -
    Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
    Enneagram 2w1sw(1w9) helps others to live up to their own standards of what a good person is and is very behind the scenes in the process.
    Tritype 1-2-6 stacking sp/sx


    I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE

    Best description of functions:
    http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html

  34. #34
    Tireless Rebutter Socionics Is Not A Cult's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    57
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I guess I shall have to stop going to my nocturnal haunts, even though it seems to be humans as ever who are the real spreaders of disease. Let's demonize Ozzy Osbourne instead. He might even enjoy it.
    Last edited by Socionics Is Not A Cult; 03-04-2020 at 05:16 PM.

  35. #35
    Humanist and Actor Christian Bale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    105
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Humans and bats form a natural synergy with each other, each covering the other's deficiencies. More research should be done on an affordable hybridization process. This will minimize the ascendance of similar viruses in the future.

  36. #36
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    1,018
    Mentioned
    20 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beautiful sky View Post
    Stay away from bats
    Stay away from CCP scientists who splice HIV with coronavirus in a low security laboratory in a busy metropolis, yes, got it.

  37. #37
    Humanist Beautiful sky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    EII land
    TIM
    EII INFj
    Posts
    25,014
    Mentioned
    611 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by timber View Post
    Stay away from CCP scientists who splice HIV with coronavirus in a low security laboratory in a busy metropolis, yes, got it.
    -
    Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
    Enneagram 2w1sw(1w9) helps others to live up to their own standards of what a good person is and is very behind the scenes in the process.
    Tritype 1-2-6 stacking sp/sx


    I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE

    Best description of functions:
    http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html

  38. #38
    Humanist Beautiful sky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    EII land
    TIM
    EII INFj
    Posts
    25,014
    Mentioned
    611 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)

    Default

    It’s here is LA :/
    -
    Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
    Enneagram 2w1sw(1w9) helps others to live up to their own standards of what a good person is and is very behind the scenes in the process.
    Tritype 1-2-6 stacking sp/sx


    I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE

    Best description of functions:
    http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html

  39. #39
    Tireless Rebutter Socionics Is Not A Cult's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    57
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The mortality rate from the virus in China is now reaching one in five hundred thousand. Now is the time to panic.

  40. #40
    Moou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    USA
    TIM
    ESI-Fi 9
    Posts
    110
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Idc

Page 1 of 8 12345 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •