Viruses / Vaccines 2

mickeyrat

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/doctor-covid-magnets-sherri-tenpenny-sue-taxes-b2556084.html

23scidoo

Ledbetterman10 said:

23scidoo said:

So, he made up..lol..

I figured it was bullshit early on when my Aunt died (not from Covid) and we couldn’t have a funeral at the funeral home down the street from her house, because that’d be just too risky with Covid in the air. But George Floyd got three funerals in three different cities that same month. 

Speaking of Floyd, when there were protests all over following his death, Fauci was asked by some republican congressman if he’d recommend against these protests because they violate his social distancing recommendations. Remember, it was imperative that we “stop the spread.” Of course he refused. In every other instance of American life at the time, he recommended social distancing; stay six feet away from each other. But hundreds of people all beside each other in the streets was fine. 

And i remember also some videos from synagogues in USA where they're packed like sardines..lol..

23scidoo

''The United States did not fund research that created the pathogen. Fauci didn’t lie about the U.S. role in “gain of function” research at the laboratory in Wuhan, China.''..
that's a good one..lol.. 

Go Beavers

23scidoo said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

23scidoo said:

So, he made up..lol..

I figured it was bullshit early on when my Aunt died (not from Covid) and we couldn’t have a funeral at the funeral home down the street from her house, because that’d be just too risky with Covid in the air. But George Floyd got three funerals in three different cities that same month. 

Speaking of Floyd, when there were protests all over following his death, Fauci was asked by some republican congressman if he’d recommend against these protests because they violate his social distancing recommendations. Remember, it was imperative that we “stop the spread.” Of course he refused. In every other instance of American life at the time, he recommended social distancing; stay six feet away from each other. But hundreds of people all beside each other in the streets was fine. 

And i remember also some videos from synagogues in USA where they're packed like sardines..lol..

I’m not sure what the lol is about. The Hasidic community in nyc was hit really hard by Covid. 

mrussel1

23scidoo said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

23scidoo said:

So, he made up..lol..

I figured it was bullshit early on when my Aunt died (not from Covid) and we couldn’t have a funeral at the funeral home down the street from her house, because that’d be just too risky with Covid in the air. But George Floyd got three funerals in three different cities that same month. 

Speaking of Floyd, when there were protests all over following his death, Fauci was asked by some republican congressman if he’d recommend against these protests because they violate his social distancing recommendations. Remember, it was imperative that we “stop the spread.” Of course he refused. In every other instance of American life at the time, he recommended social distancing; stay six feet away from each other. But hundreds of people all beside each other in the streets was fine. 

And i remember also some videos from synagogues in USA where they're packed like sardines..lol..

But not churches?

benjs

Go Beavers said:

23scidoo said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

23scidoo said:

So, he made up..lol..

I figured it was bullshit early on when my Aunt died (not from Covid) and we couldn’t have a funeral at the funeral home down the street from her house, because that’d be just too risky with Covid in the air. But George Floyd got three funerals in three different cities that same month. 

Speaking of Floyd, when there were protests all over following his death, Fauci was asked by some republican congressman if he’d recommend against these protests because they violate his social distancing recommendations. Remember, it was imperative that we “stop the spread.” Of course he refused. In every other instance of American life at the time, he recommended social distancing; stay six feet away from each other. But hundreds of people all beside each other in the streets was fine. 

And i remember also some videos from synagogues in USA where they're packed like sardines..lol..

I’m not sure what the lol is about. The Hasidic community in nyc was hit really hard by Covid. 

I know what the lol is about... arrogance and apathy.

23scidoo

Go Beavers said:

23scidoo said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

23scidoo said:

So, he made up..lol..

I figured it was bullshit early on when my Aunt died (not from Covid) and we couldn’t have a funeral at the funeral home down the street from her house, because that’d be just too risky with Covid in the air. But George Floyd got three funerals in three different cities that same month. 

Speaking of Floyd, when there were protests all over following his death, Fauci was asked by some republican congressman if he’d recommend against these protests because they violate his social distancing recommendations. Remember, it was imperative that we “stop the spread.” Of course he refused. In every other instance of American life at the time, he recommended social distancing; stay six feet away from each other. But hundreds of people all beside each other in the streets was fine. 

And i remember also some videos from synagogues in USA where they're packed like sardines..lol..

I’m not sure what the lol is about. The Hasidic community in nyc was hit really hard by Covid. 

Maybe because something like that??..
https://youtu.be/i3l-sLJO4jY?si=pEYYnutj5ebE0DnJ

23scidoo

benjs said:

Go Beavers said:

23scidoo said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

23scidoo said:

So, he made up..lol..

I figured it was bullshit early on when my Aunt died (not from Covid) and we couldn’t have a funeral at the funeral home down the street from her house, because that’d be just too risky with Covid in the air. But George Floyd got three funerals in three different cities that same month. 

Speaking of Floyd, when there were protests all over following his death, Fauci was asked by some republican congressman if he’d recommend against these protests because they violate his social distancing recommendations. Remember, it was imperative that we “stop the spread.” Of course he refused. In every other instance of American life at the time, he recommended social distancing; stay six feet away from each other. But hundreds of people all beside each other in the streets was fine. 

And i remember also some videos from synagogues in USA where they're packed like sardines..lol..

I’m not sure what the lol is about. The Hasidic community in nyc was hit really hard by Covid. 

I know what the lol is about... arrogance and apathy.

You know wrong..

Halifax2TheMax

Buh, buh, buh Dr. Fauci and his ouchies!

Opinion 

 The Checkup With Dr. Wen: In defense of the 6-foot social distancing rule

Anthony Fauci didn’t deserve the abuse he received about the covid pandemic guideline.

Pandemic-era social distancing guidelines have taken a beating this week. Critics have argued passionately that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s recommendation to remain six feet apart was arbitrary, wrong and should never have been implemented.

I disagree. The guidance, like other public health recommendations, wasn’t perfect. But it did help to reduce transmission and was an important point of reference at a time when people needed simple, easy-to-follow guidelines.

Anthony S. Fauci, who during the pandemic was the nation’s top infectious-diseases expert, endured the brunt of the criticism during a bruising congressional hearing on Monday. Questions zeroed in on testimony he gave during a closed-door session in January that the six-foot rule “sort of just appeared” and “wasn’t based on data.” At times, the exchange devolved into personal attacks, with Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) repeatedly refusing to address Fauci as “Dr. Fauci,” saying his medical license “should be revoked” and that he belongs in prison.

Recall that, at the start of the pandemic, SARS-CoV-2 was a novelcoronavirus. Health officials knew little about it and assumed it behaved like other common respiratory viruses. Influenza and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) are among the viruses that are transmitted predominantly via small droplets expelled when someone coughs, sneezes and breathes. These particles can land on someone’s nose, mouth or eyes, or they can be inhaled by those in proximity. They can also land on surfaces and infect people who touch them.

Over time, scientists learned that the covid-19 virus — and especially new variants of the pathogen — was highly contagious. Studies demonstrated that it not only spread via droplets, but also by much smaller aerosol particles. Whereas droplets are heavier and quickly fall to the ground, aerosols can linger and be carried over longer distances.

Public health guidance eventually pivoted toward improving ventilation as an infection control measure, as aerosol experts had long advocated. Today, the science is pretty well settled that covid-19 can be transmitted via both droplets and aerosols.

Critics of the six-foot rule are right in some ways. With aerosol transmission, someone could become infected even if they are further than six feet away. And, as Fauci suggested in his testimony, there have been no randomized-controlled trials looking at six feet of distancing vs., for instance, the World Health Organization’s more lenient recommendation of one meter, which is just over three feet.

But here’s what the six-foot rule got right: Droplet transmission remains one of two dominant routes of spread. A rule that reduces droplet transmission won’t curb all spread, but it can help protect people from the virus.

Moreover, I think Americans understood there wasn’t something magical about the exact distance. Did anyone really believe that being five feet away from others was dangerous while seven feet was safe? Rather, this guidance was based on a common-sense understanding that being in close contact with an infected person is risky.

This understanding is still correct. A large contact-tracing study published last year in Nature found that household contacts accounted for 6 percent of exposures to the covid-19, but 40 percent of transmissions. Most positive cases occurred after at least an hour of exposure, suggesting that prolonged close contact is of highest risk.

Another interesting study examined a cluster of covid cases on a 10-hour commercial flight with 217 passengers and crew. Of the 16 people who ended up testing positive, 12 were seated near the infected person. Seating proximity increased infection risk more than sevenfold.

As readers of the Checkup newsletter know, I often discussed the six-foot rule alongside two other ways to reduce transmission: being outdoors and masking. If the goal is to avoid covid, someone in an indoor crowded area should wear a high-quality mask, but it’s not necessary if they are outdoors or well-spaced from others. The six-foot rule provided a helpful starting point to help people decide what precautions they needed to take.

Don’t get me wrong: I think it’s crucial for lawmakers to discuss whether workplaces and schools needed to impose six-foot separation rules And I would love to have more research on how much mitigation measures such as social distancing and masking reduced transmission. We also need data on their very real harms. Such information is necessary to guide policy decisions moving forward.

But none of this means people were misguided in keeping their distance from potentially infected people. It also does not mean that we should disregard social distancing as a mitigation measure against other contagious diseases. If, for example, the avian flu outbreak progresses to human-to-human transmission, we might need to bring back distancing to reduce droplet exposure.

And it definitely does not mean that Fauci somehow misled the public. Those viewing Monday’s congressional testimony should ignore the partisan noise and focus on the calm responses from the physician-scientist who guided the country through a once-in-a-generation health crisis and continues to serve as the very model of a dedicated public servant.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/06/06/fauci-social-distancing-6-feet-covid-pandemic/

HughFreakingDillon

this is the key point that idiots think is a gotcha, when there obviously has to be an easy defined and understood cutoff:

Moreover, I think Americans understood there wasn’t something magical about the exact distance. Did anyone really believe that being five feet away from others was dangerous while seven feet was safe? Rather, this guidance was based on a common-sense understanding that being in close contact with an infected person is risky.

benjs

HughFreakingDillon said:

this is the key point that idiots think is a gotcha, when there obviously has to be an easy defined and understood cutoff:

Moreover, I think Americans understood there wasn’t something magical about the exact distance. Did anyone really believe that being five feet away from others was dangerous while seven feet was safe? Rather, this guidance was based on a common-sense understanding that being in close contact with an infected person is risky.

It's so incredibly stupid when people can't grasp this. You have a novel infection, you have uncertainty over how it's transmitted but highly contagious - so you establish rules under the assumption that airborne is a possibility as a risk mitigation. Then people say "see? it's government overreach!" Give me a fucking break. 

Edit: ironically, I'd venture to guess that many of these same folks feel the government should ban abortions.

Merkin Baller

benjs said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

this is the key point that idiots think is a gotcha, when there obviously has to be an easy defined and understood cutoff:

Moreover, I think Americans understood there wasn’t something magical about the exact distance. Did anyone really believe that being five feet away from others was dangerous while seven feet was safe? Rather, this guidance was based on a common-sense understanding that being in close contact with an infected person is risky.

It's so incredibly stupid when people can't grasp this. You have a novel infection, you have uncertainty over how it's transmitted but highly contagious - so you establish rules under the assumption that airborne is a possibility as a risk mitigation. Then people say "see? it's government overreach!" Give me a fucking break. 

Edit: ironically, I'd venture to guess that many of these same folks feel the government should ban abortions.

MTG and the rest of MAGA blaming Fauci for a pandemic he did his best to steer the country through is the height of this stupidity. She shouldn't even be allowed in the same room as him, let alone question him. 

Why anyone of any talent or skill would want to serve our government after this bullshit is beyond me. 

Idiocracy here we come. 

Halifax2TheMax

Merkin Baller said:

benjs said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

this is the key point that idiots think is a gotcha, when there obviously has to be an easy defined and understood cutoff:

Moreover, I think Americans understood there wasn’t something magical about the exact distance. Did anyone really believe that being five feet away from others was dangerous while seven feet was safe? Rather, this guidance was based on a common-sense understanding that being in close contact with an infected person is risky.

It's so incredibly stupid when people can't grasp this. You have a novel infection, you have uncertainty over how it's transmitted but highly contagious - so you establish rules under the assumption that airborne is a possibility as a risk mitigation. Then people say "see? it's government overreach!" Give me a fucking break. 

Edit: ironically, I'd venture to guess that many of these same folks feel the government should ban abortions.

MTG and the rest of MAGA blaming Fauci for a pandemic he did his best to steer the country through is the height of this stupidity. She shouldn't even be allowed in the same room as him, let alone question him. 

Why anyone of any talent or skill would want to serve our government after this bullshit is beyond me. 

Idiocracy here we come. 

Already there. “Common sense” for way too many is gone. Doesn’t exist. Nothing but misinformation and “doing their own research.” 

benjs

Halifax2TheMax said:

Merkin Baller said:

benjs said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

this is the key point that idiots think is a gotcha, when there obviously has to be an easy defined and understood cutoff:

Moreover, I think Americans understood there wasn’t something magical about the exact distance. Did anyone really believe that being five feet away from others was dangerous while seven feet was safe? Rather, this guidance was based on a common-sense understanding that being in close contact with an infected person is risky.

It's so incredibly stupid when people can't grasp this. You have a novel infection, you have uncertainty over how it's transmitted but highly contagious - so you establish rules under the assumption that airborne is a possibility as a risk mitigation. Then people say "see? it's government overreach!" Give me a fucking break. 

Edit: ironically, I'd venture to guess that many of these same folks feel the government should ban abortions.

MTG and the rest of MAGA blaming Fauci for a pandemic he did his best to steer the country through is the height of this stupidity. She shouldn't even be allowed in the same room as him, let alone question him. 

Why anyone of any talent or skill would want to serve our government after this bullshit is beyond me. 

Idiocracy here we come. 

Already there. “Common sense” for way too many is gone. Doesn’t exist. Nothing but misinformation and “doing their own research.” 

It's actually long past time to retire the expression "common sense". 

23scidoo

Where was your common sense when the told you about the bats and ..oh, accidentally there is a lab near where the study the virus..
check the latest statements from ex cdc director..boom!!!

23scidoo

Merkin Baller said:

benjs said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

this is the key point that idiots think is a gotcha, when there obviously has to be an easy defined and understood cutoff:

Moreover, I think Americans understood there wasn’t something magical about the exact distance. Did anyone really believe that being five feet away from others was dangerous while seven feet was safe? Rather, this guidance was based on a common-sense understanding that being in close contact with an infected person is risky.

It's so incredibly stupid when people can't grasp this. You have a novel infection, you have uncertainty over how it's transmitted but highly contagious - so you establish rules under the assumption that airborne is a possibility as a risk mitigation. Then people say "see? it's government overreach!" Give me a fucking break. 

Edit: ironically, I'd venture to guess that many of these same folks feel the government should ban abortions.

MTG and the rest of MAGA blaming Fauci for a pandemic he did his best to steer the country through is the height of this stupidity. She shouldn't even be allowed in the same room as him, let alone question him. 

Why anyone of any talent or skill would want to serve our government after this bullshit is beyond me. 

Idiocracy here we come. 

He did his best lies, right..idiocracy never left..

mickeyrat

https://apnews.com/article/covid-vaccines-updated-moderna-pfizer-novavax-72c2c5fafc46ccc9f2fd89fcda5d99df   FDA advisers urge targeting JN.1 strain in recipe for fall's COVID vaccines

 

FDA advisers urge targeting JN.1 strain in recipe for fall's COVID vaccines

By LAURAN NEERGAARD

5 Jun 2024

WASHINGTON (AP) — Government advisers Wednesday said it’s time to update the recipe for the COVID-19 vaccines Americans will receive in the fall -- targeting a version of the ever-evolving coronavirus called JN.1.

While COVID-19 cases currently are low, more surges are inevitable and manufacturers need time to brew shots for fall. Moderna, Pfizer and Novavax all have tested doses updated to match the JN.1 variant that became dominant last winter.

But just a few months later, numerous offshoots of JN.1 already are on the rise, prompting Moderna and Pfizer to also test a slightly different vaccine formula targeting what’s now the most common U.S. subtype, called KP.2.

That made for a tough choice as the Food and Drug Administration decides the final recipe. FDA’s advisers voted Wednesday that the next vaccine should come from the JN.1 “lineage” or family. Then FDA vaccine chief Dr. Peter Marks challenged them to be more specific about exactly which variant to target, wondering if KP.2 was a better option.

“If this evolves further in the fall, will we regret not having been a little bit closer?” Marks said, likening the choice to how he always picks the “freshest” milk with the longest expiration date in the grocery store.

But KP.2 isn't likely to still be the biggest threat by fall, the panel responded. Having to make the choice now, they preferred the parent JN.1 variant itself rather than trying to predict which of its descendants was most likely to increase in the coming months.

“Having a vaccine that’s the trunk of the tree rather than the branches makes sense to me,” because it would offer some cross-protection to other subvariants that emerge, said one adviser, Dr. Melinda Wharton of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Health officials have told Americans to expect a yearly update to COVID-19 vaccines, just like they get a new flu shot each fall designed to match as best as possible the currently spreading strains. Even though just about everyone has either been infected or had at least one round of COVID-19 vaccinations, the coronavirus keeps churning out new varieties that can dodge prior immunity -– and protection also wanes over time.

Last fall’s COVID-19 vaccine targeted a completely different section of the coronavirus family tree, and CDC data shows only about 22.5% of adults and 14% of children received it. But even though public concern about COVID-19 has waned, it remains deadlier than the flu, according to a recent analysis of Veterans Affairs hospitalizations this past winter.

Moderna, Pfizer and Novavax all said they could have supplies of JN.1-specific shots ready by fall, although they didn't provide amounts. Like it has in previous years, the CDC will make recommendations on who should receive updated shots and when.

___

The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Science and Educational Media Group. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

mickeyrat

https://apnews.com/article/china-covid-virus-origins-pandemic-lab-leak-bed5ab50dca8e318ab00f60b5911da0c   Toxic: How the search for the origins of COVID-19 turned politically poisonous

 

Toxic: How the search for the origins of COVID-19 turned politically poisonous

By DAKE KANG and MARIA CHENG

22 Apr 2024

BEIJING (AP) — The hunt for the origins of COVID-19 has gone dark in China, the victim of political infighting after a series of stalled and thwarted attempts to find the source of the virus that killed millions and paralyzed the world for months.

The Chinese government froze meaningful domestic and international efforts to trace the virus from the first weeks of the outbreak, despite statements supporting open scientific inquiry, an Associated Press investigation found. That pattern continues to this day, with labs closed, collaborations shattered, foreign scientists forced out and Chinese researchers barred from leaving the country.

The investigation drew on thousands of pages of undisclosed emails and documents and dozens of interviews that showed the freeze began far earlier than previously known and involved political and scientific infighting in China as much as international finger-pointing.

As early as Jan. 6, 2020, health officials in Beijing closed the lab of a Chinese scientist who sequenced the virus and barred researchers from working with him.

Scientists warn the willful blindness over coronavirus’ origins leaves the world vulnerable to another outbreak, potentially undermining pandemic treaty talks coordinated by the World Health Organization set to culminate in May.

At the heart of the question is whether the virus jumped from an animal or came from a laboratory accident. A U.S. intelligence analysis says there is insufficient evidence to prove either theory, but the debate has further tainted relations between the U.S. and China.

Unlike in the U.S., there is virtually no public debate in China about whether the virus came from nature or from a lab leak. In fact, there is little public discussion at all about the source of the disease, first detected in the central city of Wuhan.

Crucial initial efforts were hampered by bureaucrats in Wuhan trying to avoid blame who misled the central government; the central government, which muzzled Chinese scientists and subjected visiting WHO officials to stage-managed tours; and the U.N. health agency itself, which may have compromised early opportunities to gather critical information in hopes that by placating China, scientists could gain more access, according to internal materials obtained by AP.

In a faxed statement, China's Foreign Ministry defended China’s handling of research into the origins, saying the country is open and transparent, shared data and research, and “made the greatest contribution to global origins research.” The National Health Commission, China's top medical authority, said the country “invested huge manpower, material and financial resources” and “has not stopped looking for the origins of the coronavirus.”

It could have played out differently, as shown by the outbreak of SARS, a genetic relative of COVID-19, nearly 20 years ago. China initially hid infections then, but WHO complained swiftly and publicly. Ultimately, Beijing fired officials and made reforms. The U.N. agency soon found SARS likely jumped to humans from civet cats in southern China and international scientists later collaborated with their Chinese counterparts to pin down bats as SARS’ natural reservoir.

But different leaders of both China and WHO, China’s quest for control of its researchers, and global tensions have all led to silence when it comes to searching for COVID-19’s origins. Governments in Asia are pressuring scientists not to look for the virus for fear it could be traced inside their borders.

Even without those complications, experts say identifying how outbreaks begin is incredibly challenging and that it’s rare to know with certainty how some viruses begin spreading.

“It’s disturbing how quickly the search for the origins of (COVID-19) escalated into politics,” said Mark Woolhouse, a University of Edinburgh outbreak expert. “Now this question may never be definitively answered.”

CLOUDS OF SECRECY

Secrecy clouds the beginning of the outbreak. Even the date when Chinese authorities first started searching for the origins is unclear.

The first publicly known search for the virus took place on Dec. 31, 2019, when Chinese Center for Disease Control scientists visited the Wuhan market where many early COVID-19 cases surfaced.

However, WHO officials heard of an earlier inspection of the market on Dec. 25, 2019, according to a recording of a confidential WHO meeting provided to AP by an attendee. Such a probe has never been mentioned publicly by either Chinese authorities or WHO.

In the recording, WHO’s top animal virus expert, Peter Ben Embarek, mentioned the earlier date, describing it as “an interesting detail.” He told colleagues that officials were “looking at what was on sale in the market, whether all the vendors have licenses (and) if there was any illegal (wildlife) trade happening in the market.”

A colleague asked Ben Embarek, who is no longer with WHO, if that seemed unusual. He responded that “it was not routine,” and that the Chinese “must have had some reason” to investigate the market. “We’ll try to figure out what happened and why they did that.”

Ben Embarek declined to comment. Another WHO staffer at the Geneva meeting in late January 2020 confirmed Ben Embarek’s comments.

The Associated Press could not confirm the search independently. It remains a mystery if it took place, what inspectors discovered, or whether they sampled live animals that might point to how COVID-19 emerged.

A Dec. 25, 2019, inspection would have come when Wuhan authorities were aware of the mysterious disease. The day before, a local doctor sent a sample from an ill market vendor to get sequenced that turned out to contain COVID-19. Chatter about the unknown pneumonia was spreading in Wuhan’s medical circles, according to one doctor and a relative of another who declined to be identified, fearing repercussions.

A scientist in China when the outbreak occurred said they heard of a Dec. 25 inspection from collaborating virologists in the country. They declined to be named out of fear of retribution.

WHO said in an email that it was “not aware” of the Dec. 25 investigation. It is not included in the U.N. health agency’s official COVID-19 timeline.

When China CDC researchers from Beijing arrived on Jan. 1 to collect samples at the market, it had been ordered shut and was already being disinfected, destroying critical information about the virus. Gao Fu, then head of the China CDC, mentioned it to an American collaborator.

“His complaint when I met him was that all the animals were gone,” said Columbia University epidemiologist Ian Lipkin.

Robert Garry, who studies viruses at Tulane University, said a Dec. 25 probe would be “hugely significant,” given what is known about the virus and its spread.

“Being able to swab it directly from the animal itself would be pretty convincing and nobody would be arguing” about the origins of COVID-19, he said.

But perhaps local officials simply feared for their jobs, with memories of firings after the 2003 SARS outbreak still vivid, said Ray Yip, the founding head of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention outpost in China.

“They were trying to save their skin, hide the evidence,” Yip said.

The Wuhan government did not respond to a faxed request for comment.

Another early victim was Zhang Yongzhen, the first scientist to publish a sequence of the virus. A day after he wrote a memo urging health authorities to action, China’s top health official ordered Zhang’s lab closed.

“They used their official power against me and our colleagues,” Zhang wrote in an email provided to AP by Edward Holmes, an Australian virologist.

On Jan. 20, 2020, a WHO delegation arrived in Wuhan for a two-day mission. China did not approve a visit to the market, but they stopped by a China CDC lab to examine infection prevention and control procedures, according to an internal WHO travel report. WHO’s then-China representative, Dr. Gauden Galea, told colleagues in a private meeting that inquiries about COVID-19’s origins went unanswered.

By then, many Chinese were angry at their government. Among Chinese doctors and scientists, the sense grew that Beijing was hunting for someone to blame.

“There are a few cadres who have performed poorly,” Chinese leader Xi Jinping said in unusually harsh comments in February. “Some dare not take responsibility, wait timidly for orders from above, and don’t move without being pushed.”

The government opened investigations into top health officials, according to two former and current China CDC staff and three others familiar with the matter. Health officials were encouraged to report colleagues who mishandled the outbreak to Communist Party disciplinary bodies, according to two of the people.

Some people both inside and outside China speculated about a laboratory leak. Those suspicious included right-wing American politicians, but also researchers close to WHO.

The focus turned to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, a high-level lab that experimented with some of the world’s most dangerous viruses.

In early February 2020, some of the West’s leading scientists, headed by Dr. Jeremy Farrar, then at Britain’s Wellcome Trust, and Dr. Anthony Fauci, then director of the U.S. National Institutes of Health, banded together to assess the origins of the virus in calls, a Slack channel and emails.

They drafted a paper suggesting a natural evolution, but even among themselves, they could not agree on the likeliest scenario. Some were alarmed by features they thought might indicate tinkering.

“There have (been) suggestions that the virus escaped from the Wuhan lab,” Holmes, the Australian virologist, who believed the virus originated in nature, wrote in a Feb. 7, 2020, email. “I do a lot of work in China, and I can (assure) you that a lot of people there believe they are being lied to.”

American scientists close to researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology warned counterparts there to prepare.

James LeDuc, head of a Texas lab, emailed his Wuhan colleague on Feb. 9, 2020, saying he’d already been approached by U.S. officials. “Clearly addressing this will be essential, with any kind of documentation you might have,” he wrote.

The Chinese government was conducting its own secret investigation into the Wuhan Institute. Gao, the then-head of the China CDC, and another Chinese health expert revealed its existence in interviews months and years later. Both said the investigation found no evidence of wrongdoing, which Holmes, the Australian virologist, also heard from another contact in China. But Gao said even he hadn't seen further details, and some experts suspect they may never be released.

WHO started negotiations with China for a further visit with the virus origins in mind, but it was China’s Foreign Ministry that decided the terms.

Scientists were sidelined and politicians took control. China refused a visa for Ben Embarek, then WHO’s top animal virus expert. The itinerary dropped nearly all items linked to an origins search, according to draft agendas for the trip obtained by the AP. And Gao, the then-head of the China CDC who is also a respected scientist tasked with investigating the origins, was left off the schedule.

Instead, Liang Wannian, a politician in the Communist Party hierarchy, took charge of the international delegation. Liang is an epidemiologist close to top Chinese officials and China's Foreign Ministry who is widely seen as pushing the party line, not science-backed policies, according to nine people familiar with the situation who declined to be identified to speak on a sensitive subject.

Liang ruled in favor of shutting the Wuhan market at the beginning of the outbreak, according to a Chinese media interview with a top China CDC official that was later deleted. Significantly, it was Liang who promoted an implausible theory that the virus came from contaminated frozen food imported into China. Liang did not respond to an emailed request for comment.

Most of the WHO delegation was not allowed to go to Wuhan, which was under lockdown. The few who did learned little. They again had no access to the Wuhan Institute of Virology or the wildlife market and obtained only scant details about China CDC efforts to trace the coronavirus there.

On the train, Liang lobbied the visiting WHO scientists to praise China’s health response in their public report. Dr. Bruce Aylward, a senior adviser to WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, saw it as the “best way to meet China’s need for a strong assessment of its response.”

The new section was so flattering that colleagues emailed Aylward to suggest he “dial it back a bit.”

“It is remarkable how much knowledge about a new virus has been gained in such a short time,” read the final report, which was reviewed by China’s top health official before it went to Tedros.

As criticism of China grew, the Chinese government deflected blame. Instead of firing health officials, they declared their virus response a success and closed investigations into the officials with few job losses.

“There were no real reforms, because doing reforms means admitting fault,” said a public health expert in contact with Chinese health officials who asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the matter.

In late February 2020, the internationally respected doctor Zhong Nanshan appeared at a news conference and said that “the epidemic first appeared in China, but it did not necessarily originate in China.”

Days later, Chinese leader Xi ordered new controls on virus research. A leaked directive from China’s Publicity Department ordered media not to report on the virus origins without permission, and a public WeChat account reposted an essay claiming the U.S. military created COVID-19 at a Fort Detrick lab and spread it to China during a 2019 athletic competition in Wuhan. Days later, a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson repeated the accusation.

The false claims enraged U.S. President Donald Trump, who began publicly blaming China for the outbreak, calling COVID-19 “the China virus” and the “kung-flu.”

Chinese officials told WHO that blood tests on lab workers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology were negative, suggesting COVID-19 wasn’t the result of a lab accident there. But when WHO pressed for an independent audit, Chinese officials balked and demanded WHO investigate the U.S. and other countries as well.

continues...

HughFreakingDillon

23scidoo said:

Where was your common sense when the told you about the bats and ..oh, accidentally there is a lab near where the study the virus..
check the latest statements from ex cdc director..boom!!!

google "zoonotic diseases". you're welcome. 

23scidoo

ΟΜG!!..you still believe this..