7 ms·

Anyone paying attention at the time had this information. There is an incredible rewriting of history being attempted. There was a lot of sound evidence that co

Anyone paying attention at the time had this information. There is an incredible rewriting of history being attempted. There was a lot of sound evidence that covid started in november or earlier in china and that it leaked from a lab (based on the lockdown and sequestering of lab personnel in december). Any one pointing out those facts in jan/feb/mar was decried as a nut, racist and conspiracy theorist. The earliest random serologic testing in the washington and oregon area plainly showed that covid had been circulating for some time. Somehow people also seem to like to forget that non-covid SARS leaked out of the beijing bio-lab at least twice resulting in deaths: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7096887/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7096887/ Which they attempted to cover up as well.

redis_mlc 5y ago
1) NTD Media and Sky Australia have about 100 hours of video online documenting early corona (2020). (They simply ignored the wokeists.) 2) Bay Area hospitals were not busy in 2020, indicating early herd immunity. That's because 100,000 passengers from China arrived weekly in the US, with half in SFO and LAX. Note that the CCP is again restricting domestic flights because of delta, yet sending flights to the US.
La1n 5y ago
>and that it leaked from a lab (based on the lockdown and sequestering of lab personnel in december). You say "sound evidence" and then name some circumstantial evidence. This is similar types of evidence used for the "Fort Detrick origin" story. It was shut down in August 2019 for safety violations, and the Wuhan military games "could be" how it spread to China.
- thatswrong0 5y ago
  https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/06/the-lab-leak-theory-inside-the-fight-to-uncover-covid-19s-origins https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/06/the-lab-leak-theory-... It's not a conspiracy theory.
  - akvadrako 5y ago
    It's likely true but it's still a conspiracy theory because it involves multiple parties conspiring in secret.
  - sillycross 5y ago
    I skimmed your article but I don't see any "sound evidence" proposed in the article either. The line between "conspiracy theory" and "a theoretically possible hypothesis that can neither be proven nor ruled out" is kind of murky for me, but if you are claiming "there are sound evidence that COVID comes from a lab leak", then you cannot support your argument by only citing "space for reasonable doubts" (which is what your article said).
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - thatswrong0 5y ago
      I didn't say it was "sound evidence", I just said it's not a conspiracy theory..? (If it's not clear, I'm not the OP - maybe try skimming less)
- j_walter 5y ago
  Despite that fact...the seemingly bought and paid for WHO were still claiming in late January that there was no person to person transmission. That stopped the US from doing any sort of checks of any sort and life went on...all the while the virus was spreading all over the country.
  - mikem170 5y ago
    As far as I know at that time they had no proof of person to person transmission. There are many coronaviruses in the wild, across many animal hosts, some can hop from person to person, some cannot. Many/most medical professionals did they same - stuck to the evidence and refused to hypothesize. Why do you say the WHO are bought and paid for? Do you have any real evidence of that?
    - j_walter 5y ago
      China refused to let the WHO in and do actual investigative work. Instead they took China's word for it and repeated whatever they said as fact. China covered up the spread of the disease and instead tried to hide it. The fact that the WHO doesn't recognize Taiwan (like there is no such place) and refused to act on information they had saying there was problems in Wuhan because China won't let them. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/04/17/trumps-false-claim-that-who-said-coronavirus-was-not-communicable/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/04/17/trumps-fa... >That same day, the Taiwan Centers for Disease Control said it sent an email to the WHO regarding rumors of at least “seven cases of atypical pneumonia,” which it said is code in China for “a disease transmitted between humans caused by coronavirus.” Taiwan is not a member of the WHO, and the WHO says the email never mentioned human-to-human transmission. “Public health professionals could discern from this wording that there was a real possibility of human-to-human transmission of the disease,” the Taiwan CDC argues. “However, because at the time there were as yet no cases of the disease in Taiwan, we could not state directly and conclusively that there had been human-to-human transmission.” Apparently, Taiwanese officials had been alerted to Dec. 30 posts in a chat room by a doctor, Li Wenliang, in which he said that seven cases he had been treating resembled severe acute respiratory syndrome, or SARS, a deadly form of coronavirus. Li was reprimanded by the Chinese government for illegally spreading rumors. He later died of covid-19, the disease caused by the novel coronavirus.
Urgo 5y ago
There is a major difference in tracking its origins which pretty much no one disputed was China vs calling it the "China virus" or "Kung Flu". The former is matter of fact and allows for greater discussion of whether it was natural or leaked from a lab. The later can be easily seen and was used towards not only the government of China but also Chinese Americans. Many Asian Americans, including children, were scared for their lives due this. In short, its not racist to say covid19 originated in China or think a lab leak is a likely possibility that needs a much better investigation or even to think that the Chinese government might be covering it up. It is racist to call it the "China virus" or "Kung Flu" and treat people who had absolutely nothing to do with its origins wrongly.
- xtracto 5y ago
  Is it racist to call the Spanish flu the "Spanish Flu"?
  - paulryanrogers 5y ago
    Technically? Either way it's a lazy name since it was traced to the Midwest US. IMO year based names (like the 1918 pandemic) are better still since even if they emerged sooner the undeniable historical impact is likely within a year or so of its recognition.
    - blagie 5y ago
      No. It wasn't. The flu of 1918 was never successfully traced back. There are multiple possible origins (by coincidence, including China). We'll probably never know. https://www.history.com/news/china-epicenter-of-1918-flu-pandemic-historian-says https://www.history.com/news/china-epicenter-of-1918-flu-pan...
      - paulryanrogers 5y ago
        If true then even more reason to use the year of emergence
a0-prw 5y ago
According to a Red Cross study (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33252659/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33252659/), Covid-19 may have been in the US before the first official cases, and if so, it's entirely plausible it was community transmission and not foreign travel. I wonder why this study has not been repeated for blood samples collected before December 2019?
- criticaltinker 5y ago
  Thanks for citing that recent serological study which presents evidence that SARS-CoV-2 was circulating the U.S. as early as 13-16 December 2019 (here's a slightly better link [1]). FWIW here is another reference with similar findings [2], and also a paper (cited in the OP) suggesting infections were massively under-reported early in the pandemic [3]. > By mid-July of 2020, 16.8 million people had an undiagnosed SARS-CoV-2 infection, almost five times the rate of diagnosed infections. [2] > I wonder why this study has not been repeated for blood samples collected before December 2019? Speculating but it's probably because such research is expensive and knowing the exact date of the first infection may not be particularly useful. [1] Serologic Testing of US Blood Donations to Identify Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)–Reactive Antibodies: December 2019–January 2020 https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/72/12/e1004/6012472 https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/72/12/e1004/6012472 [2] Identification of the first COVID-19 infections in the US using a retrospective analysis https://assets.researchsquare.com/files/rs-707353/v1/baa84b87-430c-43af-ac8d-7bff5152207a.pdf https://assets.researchsquare.com/files/rs-707353/v1/baa84b8... [3] Undiagnosed SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity during the first 6 months of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States https://stm.sciencemag.org/content/13/601/eabh3826 https://stm.sciencemag.org/content/13/601/eabh3826

redis_mlc 5y ago

1) NTD Media and Sky Australia have about 100 hours of video online documenting early corona (2020). (They simply ignored the wokeists.) 2) Bay Area hospitals were not busy in 2020, indicating early herd immunity. That's because 100,000 passengers from China arrived weekly in the US, with half in SFO and LAX. Note that the CCP is again restricting domestic flights because of delta, yet sending flights to the US.

La1n 5y ago

>and that it leaked from a lab (based on the lockdown and sequestering of lab personnel in december). You say "sound evidence" and then name some circumstantial evidence. This is similar types of evidence used for the "Fort Detrick origin" story. It was shut down in August 2019 for safety violations, and the Wuhan military games "could be" how it spread to China.

thatswrong0 5y ago
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/06/the-lab-leak-theory-inside-the-fight-to-uncover-covid-19s-origins https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/06/the-lab-leak-theory-... It's not a conspiracy theory.
- akvadrako 5y ago
  It's likely true but it's still a conspiracy theory because it involves multiple parties conspiring in secret.
- sillycross 5y ago
  I skimmed your article but I don't see any "sound evidence" proposed in the article either. The line between "conspiracy theory" and "a theoretically possible hypothesis that can neither be proven nor ruled out" is kind of murky for me, but if you are claiming "there are sound evidence that COVID comes from a lab leak", then you cannot support your argument by only citing "space for reasonable doubts" (which is what your article said).
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - thatswrong0 5y ago
    I didn't say it was "sound evidence", I just said it's not a conspiracy theory..? (If it's not clear, I'm not the OP - maybe try skimming less)
j_walter 5y ago
Despite that fact...the seemingly bought and paid for WHO were still claiming in late January that there was no person to person transmission. That stopped the US from doing any sort of checks of any sort and life went on...all the while the virus was spreading all over the country.
- mikem170 5y ago
  As far as I know at that time they had no proof of person to person transmission. There are many coronaviruses in the wild, across many animal hosts, some can hop from person to person, some cannot. Many/most medical professionals did they same - stuck to the evidence and refused to hypothesize. Why do you say the WHO are bought and paid for? Do you have any real evidence of that?
  - j_walter 5y ago
    China refused to let the WHO in and do actual investigative work. Instead they took China's word for it and repeated whatever they said as fact. China covered up the spread of the disease and instead tried to hide it. The fact that the WHO doesn't recognize Taiwan (like there is no such place) and refused to act on information they had saying there was problems in Wuhan because China won't let them. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/04/17/trumps-false-claim-that-who-said-coronavirus-was-not-communicable/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/04/17/trumps-fa... >That same day, the Taiwan Centers for Disease Control said it sent an email to the WHO regarding rumors of at least “seven cases of atypical pneumonia,” which it said is code in China for “a disease transmitted between humans caused by coronavirus.” Taiwan is not a member of the WHO, and the WHO says the email never mentioned human-to-human transmission. “Public health professionals could discern from this wording that there was a real possibility of human-to-human transmission of the disease,” the Taiwan CDC argues. “However, because at the time there were as yet no cases of the disease in Taiwan, we could not state directly and conclusively that there had been human-to-human transmission.” Apparently, Taiwanese officials had been alerted to Dec. 30 posts in a chat room by a doctor, Li Wenliang, in which he said that seven cases he had been treating resembled severe acute respiratory syndrome, or SARS, a deadly form of coronavirus. Li was reprimanded by the Chinese government for illegally spreading rumors. He later died of covid-19, the disease caused by the novel coronavirus.

Urgo 5y ago

There is a major difference in tracking its origins which pretty much no one disputed was China vs calling it the "China virus" or "Kung Flu". The former is matter of fact and allows for greater discussion of whether it was natural or leaked from a lab. The later can be easily seen and was used towards not only the government of China but also Chinese Americans. Many Asian Americans, including children, were scared for their lives due this. In short, its not racist to say covid19 originated in China or think a lab leak is a likely possibility that needs a much better investigation or even to think that the Chinese government might be covering it up. It is racist to call it the "China virus" or "Kung Flu" and treat people who had absolutely nothing to do with its origins wrongly.

xtracto 5y ago
Is it racist to call the Spanish flu the "Spanish Flu"?
- paulryanrogers 5y ago
  Technically? Either way it's a lazy name since it was traced to the Midwest US. IMO year based names (like the 1918 pandemic) are better still since even if they emerged sooner the undeniable historical impact is likely within a year or so of its recognition.
  - blagie 5y ago
    No. It wasn't. The flu of 1918 was never successfully traced back. There are multiple possible origins (by coincidence, including China). We'll probably never know. https://www.history.com/news/china-epicenter-of-1918-flu-pandemic-historian-says https://www.history.com/news/china-epicenter-of-1918-flu-pan...
    - paulryanrogers 5y ago
      If true then even more reason to use the year of emergence

a0-prw 5y ago

According to a Red Cross study (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33252659/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33252659/), Covid-19 may have been in the US before the first official cases, and if so, it's entirely plausible it was community transmission and not foreign travel. I wonder why this study has not been repeated for blood samples collected before December 2019?

criticaltinker 5y ago
Thanks for citing that recent serological study which presents evidence that SARS-CoV-2 was circulating the U.S. as early as 13-16 December 2019 (here's a slightly better link [1]). FWIW here is another reference with similar findings [2], and also a paper (cited in the OP) suggesting infections were massively under-reported early in the pandemic [3]. > By mid-July of 2020, 16.8 million people had an undiagnosed SARS-CoV-2 infection, almost five times the rate of diagnosed infections. [2] > I wonder why this study has not been repeated for blood samples collected before December 2019? Speculating but it's probably because such research is expensive and knowing the exact date of the first infection may not be particularly useful. [1] Serologic Testing of US Blood Donations to Identify Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)–Reactive Antibodies: December 2019–January 2020 https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/72/12/e1004/6012472 https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/72/12/e1004/6012472 [2] Identification of the first COVID-19 infections in the US using a retrospective analysis https://assets.researchsquare.com/files/rs-707353/v1/baa84b87-430c-43af-ac8d-7bff5152207a.pdf https://assets.researchsquare.com/files/rs-707353/v1/baa84b8... [3] Undiagnosed SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity during the first 6 months of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States https://stm.sciencemag.org/content/13/601/eabh3826 https://stm.sciencemag.org/content/13/601/eabh3826