> The fact that they’re not ahead is compelling proof that this virus was as new to Chinese medicine as it was to everyone else. I appreciate your argument, bu

> The fact that they’re not ahead is compelling proof that this virus was as new to Chinese medicine as it was to everyone else. I appreciate your argument, but are you sure that they are not ahead? I don't have personal knowledge, but (for example) there was a Reuters article last week with a headline that included that claim "China leads COVID-19 vaccine race": https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-china-vaccine-anal/at-war-time-speed-china-leads-covid-19-vaccine-race-idUSKBN2481NO https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-china-.... If somehow it was proved that they are indeed ahead, would you consider this compelling proof in the opposite direction? I think I'd consider both directions to be weak evidence, but neither to be anything near proof.