China makes case they’ve been victims of “vicious Covid smears”

Author’s note: This story ended up being longer than I envisioned. However, I like this dispatch, which I think makes many original points that, in my view, are significant. Thanks for reading or skimming it!

***

As noted in my last story, officials in China feel that Western media coverage of origins theories constitute “vicious smears.”

Indeed, on November 7, 2021, China’s U.S. Embassy released a lengthy document which authors say provide the “facts and truth” about known evidence of coronavirus origins. The document also seeks to rebut numerous other points Chinese officials believe have been grossly unfair to their nation.

Since, unsurprisingly, this document, received little or no media attention in America, today I would like to summarize some of the 22 points (“vicious smears”) the Chinese authors summarize in this document.

As noted in my prior story, I agree that many of these points are significant and should have always been a central part of any credible origins investigations. However, I have also highlighted several areas that make me think China, for some reason(s), was also covering up evidence of early spread in their own nation.

In this piece, I also develop several of my own points where I am seeking to investigate the “crime of the century” via the lens of evidence that flows from my early spread hypothesis.

Emphasis added by myself.

The document opens by stating: “Disregarding science and facts, the United States has fabricated lies, and smeared and criticized China.”

“… A growing number of clues, reports and studies have indicated that COVID-19 cases emerged in many places around the world as early as in the second half of 2019. The outbreak in the United States occurred earlier than the officially confirmed cases …”

“…. In January 2021, the WHO global study of origins said that there was no indication of the transmission of the novel coronavirus before December 2019 in Wuhan, adding it was considered unlikely that any substantial transition of SARS-CoV-2 was occurring in Wuhan in October or November 2019.”

My first comment: IMO, this statement, which no doubt accurately reflects the consensus of WHO officials, also calls into question the veracity of this alleged truth-seeking organization as copious evidence of early spread existed in China (see my last story), with even more credible evidence of early cases outside of China.

One analysis from the Chinese Academy of Sciences states: “All of the dates indicated by the data are earlier than Jan. 20, 2020, the officially announced date of the first confirmed case in the United States, showing that COVID-19 pandemic in the United States started to spread around September 2019 (and/or August 2019) with a high confidence probability…”

The Chinese “Rebuttal Paper” cites antibody and waste water studies in the USA, Italy, France and Spain. However, significantly to myself, the paper doesn’t cite any results of antibody studies from archived blood donor supplies in China.

That is, in America, the CDC at least tested two tranches of “archived” Red Cross Blood for antibodies (a study that found 2.04 percent of donors who gave blood in CA, WA and OR Dec. 13-16, 2019 already had antibody evidence of prior Covid infection at the time they gave blood, which means most if not all of these donors had been exposed to this novel virus in November 2019 if not earlier).

As far as I am aware, no retrospective analysis of blood samples collected before December 31, 2019 has ever occurred in China, which, to myself, is a giant Red Flag and suggests a possible conspiracy to conceal evidence of early cases in China.

(It should also be noted that the CDC delayed reporting findings of the “Red Cross Antibody Study” for nine to 12 months and, for some reason, never tested other tranches of stored blood from other time points and more sections of the country).

In point 16 of China’s “Vicious Slander” document, officials seem to address the question of why Chinese officials have yet to test saved samples of blood for antibodies. Per my reading, China is arguing that lawsuit and privacy regulations governing stored blood samples prevent the testing of any such blood for Covid antibodies.

As an aside: Such “privacy” issues - called HIPAA laws/regulations in America - were cited by American researchers in explaining why positive Red Cross blood donors in America were never notified of their positive antibody results, why none of the positive donors were identified by name and why no interviews were done of the blood donors who happened to test positive.

I should also add that my efforts to acquire pertinent data on a variety of Covid issues has been repeatedly thwarted by public health officials, who responded that such information could not be provided to a journalist for “HIIPA reasons.”

(Per Google AI, The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) is a federal law passed in 1996 designed to protect sensitive patient health information from being disclosed without the patient’s consent or knowledge.”)

According to the Chinese government, it was slander that “The Chinese government instructed the destruction of the serum of early cases, making it impossible to determine when the spread of the virus started.”

Quick comment: To myself, this is yet another admission that antibody tests are, in fact, perhaps the only way to identify or “confirm” early cases via a diagnostic test.

According to China authors, the “Facts and Truth,” are that “China did not destroy the serum of early cases. The China-WHO joint team on origins tracing has agreed that some serum researches would be conducted once the blood from the Wuhan Blood Center meets the relevant regulatory requirements.”

The paper also states: “A quite small amount of blood was preserved during the period. In accordance with Article 31 of the Measures for the Administration of Blood Stations, the term of preservation of a blood sample shall be two years after the whole blood component blood is used, and it can only be available for use when there is a medical dispute or lawsuit.”

My comment: Apparently, “a search for important truths in the name of advancing science” or investigating the origins of the Pandemic of the Century are not sufficient grounds to over-ride any privacy regulations. (FWIW, five years after this document was released, I’ve still not found any evidence China ever tested archived blood supplies of Chinese citizens for antibodies.)

Regarding the Western media claim that three scientists at the WIV become sick and were hospitalized in November 2019, the authors write:

“China has repeatedly asked the skeptics to reveal the names of these three people in order to make the reports clear, but no one so far has provided a name.” (Note: A story published approximately 19 months later by Public/Racket news, co-written by Matt Taibbi, does name three scientists at the WIV who allegedly (with “100 percent certainty”) became sick in November 2019).

Author’s note: It is significant to me that the Racket/Public story is the only article or paper that, by name, cites (three) Wuhan residents who might have been infected before December 2019.

In contrast, my early spread articles have listed scores of Americans by name who had antibody-confirmed Covid cases in November and December 2019. Hundreds of other Americans had antibody evidence of early Covid but their names were not provided … For example, 106 antibody-positive blood donors who gave blood to the American Red Cross beginning Dec. 13, 2019.

(One of my Covid journalism take-aways is that possible early cases in China matter a great deal, but possible/likely early cases in America don’t matter at all.)

Also, as I have previously reported, state public health agencies were required to collect data on American citizens who tested positive on antibody tests (once those tests became available). However, with a few minor exceptions, no names or figures of antibody-positive possible early cases has ever been released to the public.

That is, America actually has far more known or named individuals who experienced Covid symptoms (and later received a positive antibody test) who experienced these symptoms prior the first confirmed cases in the world.

Since the identify of these individuals is either known, or could easily be ascertained, this means these individuals could have been questioned and their possible early cases have been investigated by the CDC or public health authorities, a simple and common-sense task which, for some reason, never happened.

This is why I continue to insist that a wide-spread conspiracy - in America, other countries and no doubt in China - was implemented to conceal all evidence of early infections from the public. IMO, this conspiracy was perpetrated by officials simply failing to investigate that which they, clearly, do not want to “confirm.”

***

(As my Substack newsletter is currently sinking, I am trying to get as many significant stories out into the life boats while my dispatches might still reach a few human readers. Thanks for sharing!)

Share

Regarding the hospital parking lot satellite photos, China’s rebuttal document simply states: “The relevant reports and studies are very absurd.”

The authors note that six hospital parking lots were full prior to global visitors arriving to the Wuhan World Military Games, which began October 18, 2019.

“It was impossible that the military athletes from all over the world that participated in the games felt nothing,” said one Chinese official.

However, as documented in several stories published by prominent news organizations and summarized in this story by myself, scores of visitors to these Games did report that they had become sick while in Wuhan.

China officials had to be aware of these reports … just like government and military sources in all nations of the world had to be aware of these reports.

However, officials never interviewed any of these sick visitors or, apparently, ever gave any of these individuals antibody tests, which were being administered as early as January 2020.

In fact, many athletes and visitors who reported they became sick in Wuhan were specifically instructed to not talk to the press - yet another giant red flag, suggesting a vast conspiracy to conceal possible evidence of early cases.

In my research, I read two articles (one from the BBC) that fact-checked the parking lot study and, not surprisingly to myself, found it unpersuasive. I also read a couple of articles that reported on the authors’ findings.

A valid critique made by one interviewed source is that authors who performed this analysis should have also examined hospital parking lot photos from other cities in China during the same time periods, not just in Wuhan.

It occurs to me that authors could have also done a similar analysis of hospital parking lots in America in the weeks and months before official Covid to ascertain if American hospitals might have been seeing more patients suffering from ILI (or Covid) symptoms in, say, November or December 2019.

For example, in my research into ILI outbreaks, I learned that one hospital in New Orleans saw more ILI patients in the month of November 2019 than the same hospital saw the entire six months of the prior flu season. I can’t help but wonder if parking lot satellite photos at this hospital might “confirm” that something different was happening in New Orleans in November 2019.

The China Rebuttal Paper also strongly suggests that a modified virus could have come from the labs of Dr. Ralph Baric at the University of North Carolina.

(In other sections, the paper acknowledges that Baric did collaborate with China scientists on coronavirus research, but states that any “gain of function” work was done exclusively by Baric and/or American scientists).

The Rebuttal Paper correctly notes that China was “the first country to report the Covid-19 epidemic” and “discover(ed) this unidentified pneumonia.”

Here Chinese officials seem to be saying just because their nation was the first to discover and then report a novel pneumonia-causing virus to global health authorities does not necessarily mean any novel coronavirus originated in their country.

Per my speculation or “crime theory,” it seems likely or possible that one or more important figures in China might have worked with U.S. Pandemic plotters to identify alleged “case zeroes” in China and also date the first cases to mid-to-late December 2019 in Wuhan.

A question I posed in earlier stories in this series of articles is how did possible American “plotters” know that a novel coronavirus would eventually be “discovered” and then reported to the world by Chinese officials in Wuhan?

For example, if Wuhan hospital director Zhang Jixian had not reported a novel, pneumonia-causing virus to public health officials in China on December 27, 2019, Covid as we know it would probably have never happened. Thus, the Chinese official(s) who first “discovered” a novel virus is, arguably, the most important person in the entire Covid narrative.

Another question I’ve asked myself is why didn’t anyone else identify and then report a novel, pneumonia-causing coronavirus following the hospitalization of any of the hundreds or thousands of people (in America and around the world) who went to the doctor or a hospital after experiencing ILI/Covid symptoms between mid-2019 and December 2019?

That is, isn’t it possible that medical officials at the aforementioned New Orleans hospital could have also “discovered” a novel coronavirus?

I have found numerous anecdotes of patients who were sick with Covid symptoms before 2020 who report their doctors told them they were stumped as to what was causing their illness. Many citizens also report their symptoms were different than previous bouts with flu, bronchitis or other ILIs they’d previously experienced.

An additional question I’ve posed is how would the “Covid origins narrative” have changed if a novel, pneumonia-causing virus had been “discovered” in America (not China) in, say, October or November 2019?

While hypothetical or an “unknown unknowable,” it seems to me such a finding/revelation would, if nothing else, have rendered moot any significance attached to a lab leak at the WIV, or any outbreak at a Wet Market in December 2019 in Wuhan.

For me, it seems very likely such news would open the door to investigations of a possible lab leak or intentional release in America, especially if early cases happened in the summer or early fall of 2019 - before the traditional cold and flu virus season.

Thus, to myself, it would have been very important to possible “Pandemic Plotters” to make sure no such stories reached the mass population.

(Note: This might have happened anyway with a few stories that noted strange and deadly outbreaks at two Virginia nursing homes in the summer of 2019 and also a modicum of press coverage that was given to a mysterious ‘vaping” illness that had stricken hundreds of people in multiple U.S. states around the same time. While these odd epidemiological events received some press coverage, no public health expert or authority reported a :novel, pneumonia-causing coronavirus” to the WHO like China later did.)

Also, China says unprecedented non-pharmaceutical interventions it initiated “contained the spread of Covid-19 in China, but also bought precious time for the world.”

My comment: With this statement, it seems China might be agreeing that the virus did originate in their country.

In one paragraph, China officials write that their aggressive virus mitigation efforts reduced spread “67-fold and likely prevented 7 million cases” in their nation. Another sentence says the virus “had largely been contained” in China, adding that by February 29, 2020, “over 1.4 million infections and 56,000 deaths outside of Hubei Province might have been avoided by national and provincial public health measures.”

As I wrote in my last dispatch, by the last week in January 2020, China officials said only 25 residents in the entire country had died from confirmed Covid.

Based on the above statement from China officials, I guess readers are supposed to believe that at least 56,000 people would have died in China after January 23-24, when China initiated lockdowns measures that critics have labeled as “draconian.”

If virus spread actually began in Wuhan in early or mid-December 2019 (or months earlier), for some reason the virus wasn’t killing hardly anyone in the early weeks and months it was being transmitted person to person (before the lockdowns) - a deductive reasoning extrapolation I find … curious, nonsensical or not credible.

Also, if lockdowns saved this many lives in China, why didn’t lockdowns in America - for example, in New York City - save similar numbers of lives?

One scary rejoinder to this question would be the take-away many public health officials gleaned from the “China example” - namely, America didn’t lockdown hard enough … like Wuhan did, which is something to think about when public health experts report the next emerging and deadly virus.

In Point 20, Chinese authors write that “the deployment of the intelligence community in origins tracing is itself compelling evidence of the politicization of the the issue.”

My comment: This, IMO, is an astute and valid observation … By, perhaps, Day Two of my investigations and research into possible early Covid cases in America I had concluded that nobody (who mattered) was likely to publish any story I wrote on this topic. This is because I instantly picked up on the “political” implications of my research.

That is, the dates any novel virus began to infect large numbers of people wouldn’t matter if the virus did indeed originate from bats (in China or America) or had “natural origins.”

However, if the virus might have been modified in a tax-payer funded lab by “mad scientists” (to become more infectious) and either escaped or was intentionally released and a giant conspiracy ensued - such a revelation might meet the threshold of a “thermo-nuclear” scandal.

Per my crime hypothesis, it seems clear that the authorized narrative had to be that this virus originated in China, didn’t emerge until latter December 2019, definitely didn’t start in America and virus origins can be traced to infected bats.

Personally, I’m not sure what Fauci knew (or didn’t know) about a possible conspiracy to unleash a “contrived” pandemic on the world.

However, as soon as China officials called the WHO and alerted this agency to the emergence of a pneumonia-causing coronavirus on December 31, 2019, Fauci and a cabal of close colleagues sprung into action in an effort to vilify any person who might be espousing a lab-leak theory.

Here we have an example of the world’s most powerful public health bureaucrat who was not curious about discovering the real origins truth, but instead a leader who was leading a conspiracy to block a genuine search for the truth. By themselves, these actions suggest Fauci knew the truth might turn out to be thermo-nuclear. They also suggest that “Science himself” was terrified of real science being performed.

I find it very interesting, or quite revealing, that Dr. Robert Redfield, the director of the CDC at the time, was not chosen to be a part of the team Fauci organized to concoct the proximal origins cover-up story.

As reported in a prior dispatch, Redfield later told TV anchor Chris Cuomo that he (Redfield) had at least two phone conversations with the person who holds the similar job as Redfield in China’s version of the CDC. According to Redfield, this person, George Gao, told Redfield on New Year’s Eve 2019 that 27 people had become sick with what seemed to be a new virus and they’d all visited the Wuhan Wet Market.

Redfield said this didn’t make sense to him and he asked his counterpart to “look (for cases) outside of the wet market.”

“Two or three days later” the two men spoke again and Mr. Gao told Redfield, “Bob, we have hundreds of cases and it has nothing to do with the wet market.”

This means by January 2nd or 3rd, China’s CDC director had told a key American public health official that the so-called Case Zero “had nothing to do with the wet market.” Presumably, virus spread started earlier.

I believe Redfield has stated he did share details of this conversation with Anthony Fauci, who - not surprisingly - kept Redfield from his cover-up team of esteemed “scientists.”

Almost all parts of the authorized origins narrative deal with whether the first cases in Wuhan can be traced to a Wet Market (supporting a natural spillover theory) or to the WIV (which would suggest a possible lab leak).

However, no early discussions involving people who matter (which would include important corporate journalists who are supposed to investigate all possibilities) seriously addressed the question of when the first cases occurred. It was just accepted as “settled science” that case zero must have been someone who visited this market at some point in December 2019.

“Early Spread” never came up or was seriously considered or discussed.

IMO, this must have been by design.

FWIW, the authorized narrative took hold, worked as planned, and no credible investigation into virus origins has ever occurred.

I also think, somehow, Covid conspirators knew the research and investigative journalism of “contrarian” citizen journalists such as myself would be ignored and/or never reach a mass audience, which must have also been a part of a vast, coordinated Covid conspiracy.

Writer gratuities via Ko-Fi.