Everything You Need to Know About the Lab Leak

By Pat Fidopiastis

February 7, 2023 Updated: February 7, 2023 

(Iokanan VFX Studios/Shutterstock)

News Analysis

Between 2014 and 2019, U.S. tax dollars were funneled to the Wuhan Institute of Virology via EcoHealth Alliance. Given that U.S. scientists have far more virology expertise than the Chinese, this begs an obvious question: what type of research were U.S. tax dollars paying for in Wuhan, China? Dr. Fauci’s surprising statement in an interview might provide the short answer to this question: “You don’t want to go to Hoboken, NJ or Fairfax, VA to be studying the bat-human interface that might lead to an outbreak, so you go to China.”

Given what we’ve endured for the past three years, Fauci’s “so you go to China” comment suggests that he hadn’t considered the global implications of a highly transmissible coronavirus leaking from a Chinese lab plagued by serious safety issues.

Unwilling to admit that he, EcoHealth Alliance, and their Chinese collaborators, are suspects in one of the largest crimes against humanity, Fauci instead opted to conspire with his boss, Francis Collins, to declare “lab leak” a “destructive conspiracy” that must be “put down.” Sadly, it’s clear that from the beginning, these two distinguished scientists made up their minds about virus origin without evidence from both sides of the debate.

Even worse, renowned scientists that rely on Fauci for their research funding, fearful of sanctions being placed on their life’s work, rallied around the “anti-lab leak” stance. One of the premier scientific journals, Science, whose political bias has become very apparent, attempted to provide legitimacy to Fauci’s position by publishing a paper by authors that claimed “dispositive evidence” that SARS-CoV-2 emerged from an animal at the Wuhan market. This paper allegedly “crushed” the lab-leak hypothesis, despite leaving much room for debate.

The good news is that Big Tech, scientific journals, and most media sources were forced to stop censoring countervailing evidence as it reached critical mass and began spilling over into the public domain. Far from being a “conspiracy,” there is a lot of evidence that strongly suggests SARS-CoV-2 is an engineered virus that spread from a Wuhan virology lab. Before getting into the evidence that SARS-CoV-2 was engineered and leaked from a lab, let’s start a debate around the “dispositive evidence” that SARS-CoV-2 is natural and emerged from the Wuhan market.

The “market origin hypothesis” is based on four debatable premises

The entirety of the “dispositive evidence” for market origin cited by Dr. Fauci and others can be summed up as follows: 1) “Early” cases allegedly lived near the market, 2) “early” SARS-CoV-2 lineages were allegedly associated with the market, 3) wild animals susceptible to COVID-19 were sold at the market, and 4) positive SARS-CoV-2 samples were found in the environment around the market and were allegedly “linked to human cases.” For many reasons, some of which are discussed here, none of this evidence is anywhere near “dispositive.” This is why reviewers forced the authors to remove the phrase “dispositive evidence” as a requirement for publication.

Did “early cases” really live near the market?

The Science paper relied on a joint World Health Organization (WHO)-China report to define “early cases” as those that occurred in December 2019. However, the joint WHO-China report also states: “Based on molecular sequence data, the results suggested that the outbreak may have started sometime in the months before the middle of December 2019.”

This statement seems more in line with other evidence that the pandemic started earlier than December 2019. Urgent communications from the highest levels of the Chinese government circulating at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in November 2019 reported a “complex and grave situation” at the lab. Was this “grave situation” the start of a SARS-CoV-2 “lab leak” unfolding in real-time, weeks before the rest of the world was made aware of the imminent pandemic?

There were also multiple reports from Chinese media and even the venerable Lancet that documented initial cases started before December 2019, as well as lab-based evidence of international spread as early as November 2019. Furthermore, shouldn’t we be alarmed that a group led by Chinese military scientists applied for a COVID-19 vaccine patent in February 2020?

If the first COVID-19 cases really were in December 2019, this means that inexperienced Chinese military researchers somehow managed to produce a COVID-19 vaccine based on traditional, less efficient methodology, in a little over a month. For comparison, it took vaccine giant Pfizer about 9 months to produce their vaccine based on more efficient mRNA methodology. Accurately pinpointing the true start date of the pandemic would allow us to assess how meaningful the “early cases” data are. If countervailing evidence is correct and cases that preceded December 2019 were missed or ignored, then a dataset beginning in December would most likely lead to flawed conclusions about pandemic origin.

Were “early virus lineages” really associated with the market?

In perhaps the clearest evidence of a crime scene coverup, Chinese scientists quietly removed from public databases at least 13 genome sequences representing the earliest SARS-CoV-2 strains. There is no legitimate reason for doing that. Fortunately, the files had been backed up before they were removed, allowing Dr. Jesse Bloom to be the first to retrieve them from Google Cloud and analyze them.

This is proof that the Science paper many claimed to have “crushed” the lab leak was unlikely to be fully representative of the viruses spreading at the start of the pandemic. Adding to the intrigue, one of the authors of the Science paper attempted to intimidate Dr. Bloom so he would not publish his findings. If the evidence for a natural origin of SARS-CoV-2 is so “dispositive,” why would anyone feel the need to censor an expert like Dr. Bloom?

Animals susceptible to COVID-19 were sold at the market but none tested positive

Some of the animals trafficked at the market had been experimentally infected with SARS-CoV-2 in labs or deemed theoretically susceptible based on the presence of compatible receptors. However, the WHO-China Report revealed that none of the 457 samples taken from 188 animals at the market tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. A criticism of these negative results is that the market was “under-sampled.” The SARS-CoV-1 pandemic of 2003–2004 spread around the world causing about 8,000 documented infections, resulting in about 800 deaths. Chinese scientists mobilized immediately and within a few months discovered an identical virus that naturally occurs in palm civet cats that were sold in Chinese markets.

Yet here we are, three years later, thousands of additional animals have been sampled, millions of genomic sequences analyzed, and nothing close to SARS-CoV-2 has yet to be detected in nature. Why is that?

Positive environmental samples found at the market were taken too late to infer virus origin

SARS-CoV-2-positive environmental samples were detected at the market. However, the samples were taken between January and March 2020. By January, the virus had likely been spreading in Wuhan for more than a month, and had already spread internationally, so how much can we deduce from these samples taken from the heavily trafficked market, weeks after the pandemic started? In fact, those responsible for collecting the samples concluded, “The market might have acted as an amplifier due to the high number of visitors every day.”

In other words, infected people most likely entered the crowded market and spread the virus. It’s notable that many of the positive samples came from vendor stalls in which “aquatic products,” seafood, and vegetables were sold. None of these products could be a natural reservoir for SARS-CoV-2. In fact, the WHO-China report concludes that many of the environmental samples reflect “contamination from cases” (i.e., infected people) given how widely distributed the virus was by then.

The following is a review of some of the lab-based and circumstantial evidence supporting “lab leak.” Hopefully, this analysis will lay the foundation for honest, thoughtful discussion, leading to a true understanding of the origin of SARS-CoV-2. If we can’t have honesty, how will we ever minimize the chances of this happening again?

Early strains of SARS-CoV-2 were unnaturally human adapted

The “natural origin” hypothesis contends that SARS-CoV-2 spilled over into humans from an animal in December 2019. A virus that so recently jumped to humans from an animal should not bind to human cells with higher affinity than the animal host it came from. However, at the beginning of the pandemic, Dr. Nikolai Petrovsky’s lab made the startling discovery that the earliest known strains of SARS-CoV-2 were unnaturally human-adapted.

In fact, these strains showed highest affinity for human cell receptors over receptors from bats, pangolins, and about eleven other animals known to harbor coronaviruses. Dr. Petrovsky submitted this important research to a top journal, Nature, in August 2020. In an egregious example of censorship, Nature delayed publishing the paper until June 2021, corresponding to when Dr. Fauci finally admitted that a lab leak could have started the pandemic.

There was financial motivation and established methodology for creating pandemic viruses

A rejected 2018 grant proposal submitted to DARPA that includes EcoHealth Alliance and Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) collaborators gives us enough information to figure out the motivation and methodology that likely created SARS-CoV-2. The primary goal of the grant was to create a “complete inventory” of SARS-like coronaviruses taken from several bat caves in China.

What follows is a streamlined version of the workflow proposed by the researchers: 1) add the spike proteins from these novel bat coronaviruses to a previously characterized SARS-like bat coronavirus core, and insert genetic modifications to spike proteins for enhanced infectivity if necessary, 2) infect “humanized” mice with these lab-made viruses, 3) flag chimeric viruses capable of infecting the mice as potential pandemic strains, and 4) prepare “spike” protein vaccines from these potential pandemic strains and use them to “immunize” bats in caves (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1. Risky research methodology used by EcoHealth Alliance, WIV, and their collaborators to attempt to create bat vaccines. There’s no way of knowing in advance the pandemic potential of unnatural, chimeric SARS-like viruses created in this workflow.

The authors of the DARPA proposal discuss the importance of spike protein cleavage by human enzymes such as furin in the ability of coronaviruses to spread optimally and become pandemic strains. Notably, they proposed to insert “human-specific cleavage sites” (e.g., furin cleavage site, FCS) in spike proteins that lack the functional cleavage sites and then “evaluate growth potential” of the modified viruses in human cells.

They further proposed to modify cleavage sites in highly abundant, low-risk SARS-like viruses taken from Chinese bat caves. These studies are precisely the type of work that could accidentally or intentionally create pandemic viruses. Although the proposal states that chimeric virus work would be done at the University of North Carolina, by Fauci’s own admission, “I can’t guarantee everything that’s going on in the Wuhan lab, we can’t do that.” Furthermore, whenever a proposal this large (i.e., a $14 million request) is submitted, a great deal of the work will have already been done in advance to provide the “proof of concept” needed to sway reviewers.

The unique furin cleavage site in SARS-CoV-2 is evidence of genetic engineering

Many natural coronaviruses contain an FCS, so why is an FCS in SARS-CoV-2 so suspicious? The answer is that the genomes of thousands of coronaviruses from hundreds of different animals have been sequenced, and it’s clear that only distant relatives of SARS-CoV-2 have an FCS (see Fig 1A, Table 1).

The closest known sibling of SARS-CoV-2, a bat coronavirus named RaTG13, at best weakly infects human cells and lacks an FCS. SARS-CoV is another sibling of SARS-CoV-2, and like all the other known siblings, also lacks an FCS. Without an FCS, SARS-CoV-1 spread around the world in 2003–2004 but fizzled out after infecting about 8,000 people. A comparison of the short stretch of amino acids in the spike protein clearly reveals the missing FCS in these SARS-CoV-2 siblings (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2. Comparison of partial spike protein amino acids showing the FCS of SARS-CoV-2 (i.e., “PRRAR”), and the lack of FCS in two of its siblings. Different letters represent unique amino acids. Identical amino acids in all three viruses are highlighted in yellow; dashed lines indicate the missing FCS.

The unique genetic code of the SARS-CoV-2 furin cleavage site is evidence of genetic engineering

In coronaviruses, the blueprint for assembling proteins such as the surface spikes needed for infection lies in their RNA genome. The specific genomic sequence that encodes the short, all-important FCS within the SARS-CoV-2 spike is: CCU CGG CGG GCA CGU. Each three-letter bit of code (i.e., codon) dictates the specific amino acid to be used in building the FCS. Thus, CCU encodes “P” (for proline), CGG encodes “R” (for arginine), GCA encodes “A” (for alanine), and CGU also encodes “R.”

As you can see, there is redundancy in the genetic code (e.g., there are six different codons that a virus can use to encode arginine). The odd feature of the SARS-CoV-2 FCS is the double CGG codons. In fact, CGG is one of the rarest codons in human coronaviruses, yet there just so happens to be two right next to each other in the FCS, one of the most important sequences in the entire 29,903 “letters” making up the SARS-CoV-2 genome.

In fact, these are the only two CGG codons out of the 3,822 “letters” encoding the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, and they are the only instance of a CGG-CGG doublet in any of the closest relatives of SARS-CoV-2. Notably, an arginine-rich FCS enhances the ability of coronaviruses to infect cells. At this point, it should not surprise anyone that CGG codons are the preferred code for genetic engineers who wish to produce an arginine-containing protein in human cells. It’s hard to deny that the CGG-CGG in the SARS-CoV-2 FCS is “smoking gun”-level evidence of genetic tampering.

Suspicious cut sites in the SARS-CoV-2 genome are evidence of genetic engineering

One method to create chimeric viruses utilizes specialized genome-cutting enzymes called “Endonucleases.” Endonucleases can be used to cut virus genomes in specific places, then the pieces can be strategically recombined to create chimeric viruses. Cut sites are randomly distributed in the genomes of natural viruses, but they can be precisely inserted or removed by scientists to make chimeric viruses in a laboratory. BsmBI and BsaI are two examples of endonucleases that co-authors of the DARPA grant used in previous work to make chimeric coronaviruses.

When present, the distribution of BsmBI and BsaI cut sites in viruses isolated from nature (e.g., SARS-CoV-1) are randomly distributed throughout the genome. Meanwhile, the distribution of cut sites in SARS-CoV-2 appear to be non-random and suggest genetic manipulation in a laboratory (Fig. 3). Curiously, a previous study involving EcoHealth Alliance described the insertion of two BsaI cut sites in a bat coronavirus called “WIV1” (i.e., Wuhan Institute of Virology 1), allowing scientists to make changes to the spike protein (see S9 Fig. Spike substitution strategy).

Two BsaI cut sites can be found in the SARS-CoV-2 genome (Fig. 3) in the same location as BsaI cut sites engineered into WIV1 back in 2017. The astronomical odds of this being coincidence cannot be overstated. According to the authors, “BsaI or BsmBI sites were introduced into the [spike]. Then any spike could be substituted into the genome of [lab engineered WIV1] through this strategy.” The same strategy might have been used in the construction of what would become the SARS-CoV-2 genome.

Fig. 3. Distribution of BsmBI and BsaI cut sites in the genomes of the two pandemic SARS viruses. SARS-CoV-1 is a natural virus with cut sites that are randomly distributed, while distribution of cut sites in the SARS-CoV-2 genome appear to be non-random. The black bar represents the location of the spike gene; the FCS region is highlighted in red. BsaI can be used to cut out and replace most of the SARS-CoV-2 spike, including FCS, to alter virus infectivity.

Strong circumstantial evidence supports the lab-leak hypothesis

Three years into the current pandemic, with thousands of animals sampled and millions of genome sequences analyzed, nothing close to SARS-CoV-2 has been found in nature. In stark contrast to 2003–2004, China’s early response to COVID-19 was “disappearing” scientists and journalists, obfuscation, and deflecting blame for starting the pandemic away from themselves onto everything from the US Army to imported frozen fish. This is exactly the type of behavior you might expect from a guilty party.

No one (except maybe the dishonest Chinese government) has ever denied that the epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic is Wuhan, China. But what are the odds that such an explosive outbreak originated at the Wuhan market? This is just one market out of about 40,000 markets scattered around China, and it happens to be a few miles away from a lab that in 2017 became the first high-security virology lab on the Chinese mainland.

Here, a counterargument is that SARS-CoV-1 was a natural spillover from a market, so there’s precedence. But even the far less transmissible SARS-CoV-1, not long after being brought into the lab for study, eventually “leaked” with fatal consequences.

The origin of SARS-CoV-2 is the most important question of the pandemic, with implications that extend exponentially beyond scoring political points. At the start of the pandemic, even the journal Nature was sounding the alarm about the increasing role China’s military has been playing in secretive biomedical research in China. Yet, three years later all we have is obfuscation from China and Fauci and nothing even close to a natural ancestor of SARS-CoV-2. Throughout the pandemic, people parroted empty phrases like “Follow the science” without really following the science. So, let’s do that, let’s “Ffollow the science” (and the logic), because the genetic and circumstantial evidence for lab leak is impossible for any reasonable person to deny.

From the Brownstone Institute

Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-lab-leak_5039551.html

China OKs its first mRNA vaccine, from drugmaker CSPC

 March 22, 202311:01 PM GMT+7

Reuters

Boxes containing the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine are prepared to be shipped at the McKesson distribution center in Olive Branch, Mississippi, U.S. December 20, 2020. Paul Sancya/Pool via REUTERS//File Photo

BEIJING, March 22 (Reuters) - China has approved its first domestically developed mRNA vaccine against COVID-19, CSPC Pharmaceutical Group Ltd (1093.HK) said on Wednesday, a major achievement in a country that has declined to use Western COVID shots to support domestic research.

China, whose home-grown vaccines are seen as less effective than the Moderna (MRNA.O) and Pfizer (PFE.N)-BioNTech (22UAy.DE) mRNA shots, has been racing to develop vaccines using messenger RNA (mRNA) technology since early 2020.

The long-awaited approval comes as infections have fallen sharply across China since it suddenly dropped its strict "zero-COVID" curbs in December, making the sales outlook for the newly approved vaccine moderate.

But it would give China an additional option to tackle future outbreaks and a base for development against newly emerging variants, scientists said.

The news of China's first successful mRNA vaccine did not generate much buzz in domestic social media on Wednesday, as the country has returned to normal and its borders have re-opened.

Its top leaders declared a "decisive victory" over COVID last month.

CSPC said its vaccine trials showed adverse effects were substantially lower in an elderly group compared with an adult group, which could be help China, which has stressed the need to focus on protecting its vulnerable elderly population.

The company said its independently developed mRNA vaccine SYS6006 targets some major Omicron variants and its booster dose showed good neutralization effect against Omicron subvariants BA.5, BF.7, BQ.1.1., XBB.1.5 and CH.1.1. in clinical trials.

In a study of 4,000 participants from Dec. 10 to Jan. 18 when China was experiencing a surge in infections, the vaccine showed efficacy of 85.3% 14 to 28 days after a booster vaccination.

CSPC did not say how many doses it plans to produce. It said the vaccine could be stored at 2 degrees to 8 degrees C (35.6 degrees to 46.4 degrees F) for a long time.

"The group has built a good manufacturing practice-compliant production plant (for the vaccine)," it said in a statement.

"Key raw materials and excipients are produced by the group, which enables independent control in the supply chain and significantly lower production cost."

The firm won emergency approval for clinical trials of the mRNA shot in April last year, around the same time as CanSino, another China-based company that is testing an mRNA Omicron booster shot.

CSPC reported a rise of 8.7% in 2022 net profit on Wednesday, helped by several newly launched generic drugs included in the national drug procurement programme.

Its shares rose as much as 7.7% after the result and news of the approval.

"mRNA vaccines are an important new technology and will play a major role in future to prevent infections," said David Heymann, an infectious disease specialist.

World Health Organization officials have in the past described mRNA vaccines as a "very solid option" for countries including China, particularly for vulnerable populations and for use as boosters.

Heymann said it was now important for CSPC to share its data on the vaccine with the WHO so the U.N. agency can also assess the shot for use in international markets.

Reporting by Bernard Orr and Jennifer Rigby; Editing by Miyoung Kim, Bernadette Baum, Clarence Fernandez and Louise Heavens

https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/china-approves-its-first-mrna-vaccine-domestic-drugmaker-cspc-2023-03-22/

Rise in H3N2 and Covid-19 cases: What is the difference between the two respiratory viruses?

The symptoms are more severe in H3N2 than Covid because most people have received two doses of vaccines of the latter, says expert.

Daphne Clarance

New Delhi,UPDATED: Mar 20, 2023 19:16 IST

 

In Short

·         The strain of influenza B seen in India is Victoria, while in influenza A, H3N2 is very prominent.

·         The typical symptom of the current H3N2 virus is fever, ranging between 101 to 102 degrees Fahrenheit.

·         The treatment for the two viruses also differs in terms of specific symptoms.

By Daphne Clarance: India is witnessing severe cases of the influenza virus, simultaneously with a spike in the incidence of Covid-19. Although the two respiratory viruses have overlapping symptoms, doctors have shared some differences to recognise signs when a person gets influenza or Covid-19.

Influenza occurs in two types A and B. Influenza A, which is currently circulating in the country, is of two different types - H1N1 and H3N2. Influenza B comes in two lineages as well - Victoria and Yamagata.

The strain of influenza B seen in India is the Victoria lineage, while in influenza A, the H3N2 is very prominent. H1N1 is doing the rounds as well but with fewer cases of incidence, according to the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR).

According to Dr V Ravi, Virologist and Head of Research and Development, Tata Medical and Diagnostics, New Delhi, the symptoms are more severe in H3N2 than Covid because most people have received two doses of vaccines of the latter, which now has mild ways on influencing.

"The typical symptom of the current H3N2 virus is fever, ranging between 101 to 102 degrees Fahrenheit. A very severe cough is seen while many patients are also experiencing a sore throat or change in voice. The most severe symptom is difficulty breathing," said Dr Ravi.

He added that the fever usually lasts for 4 to 5 days. However, the cough will persist for another week. "This is because the virus affects the windpipe and bronchioles that produce the cough," he said.

The most prominent difference between Covid and H3N2 is that it is more contagious and spreads very fast from human to human because of the nature of the virus, but H3N2, like H1N1, spreads seasonally, usually during the change of season.

"The severity of illnesses, however, is almost equal. H3N2 can also become severe, like pneumonia. In rare cases, a lung transplant might be needed," as per Dr Chinnadurai R, Lead Consultant - Critical Care, Aster RV Hospital, Bangalore.

"I think we are going back to the pre-Covid era in which the H3N2 is dominating," he added.

Dr Chinnadurai said that if a Covid-infected person speaks to someone, in 10 minutes the virus spreads.

"But in H3N2, it is not likely to spread very fast if two people are talking. The possibility may be that we could have better immunity to fight H3N2 because pre-Covid this was part of the seasonal flu," he said.

Dr Tanu Singhal, Consultant, Paediatrics and Infectious Disease, Kokilaben Dhirubhai Ambani Hospital, Mumbai, said that the two viruses are usually transmitted through cough droplets that spread for 1 metre or 3 feet. "That's why the risk of transmission is higher in closed spaces compared to larger spaces," the expert said.

The treatment for the two viruses also differs in terms of specific symptoms. While in H3N2, anti-fever medication is prescribed, for Covid, doctors recommend Covid-specific drugs that are newer in the market.

To diagnose the two viruses, an advanced PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction) test can be taken. However, it is expensive.

"There is an advanced PCR test that tests for all respiratory viruses. In this time, we're not just seeing a spread of Covid or flu but other viruses like Adenovirus and human metapneumovirus(HPV). This advanced PCR test can see all these kinds of viruses. The only problem is that the tests are very expensive, ranging between Rs 5,000 to Rs 10,000," said Dr Singhal

https://www.indiatoday.in/health/story/rise-in-h3n2-and-covid-19-cases-what-is-the-difference-between-the-two-respiratory-viruses-2349165-2023-03-20 

Chinese City Plans Flu Lockdowns as Outbreaks Surge Across the Country; Top Virologist Warns of Next COVID-19 Wave

By Alex Wu

March 12, 2023  Updated: March 13, 2023

Patients are cared for by relatives and medical staff as they are seen on beds set up in the atrium area of a busy hospital in Shanghai on Jan. 13, 2023. (Kevin Frayer/Getty Images)

Fever cases in major cities across China are surging during the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP’s) top Two Sessions annual meeting.

CCP officials said it’s an outbreak of influenza A, as Xi’an, the capital of Shaanxi Province, plans a citywide flu lockdown. However, people are worried about a resurgence of COVID-19, following the massive wave of infections over December 2022 and January that collapsed the country’s medical system and overwhelmed crematoria.

Dr. Zhang Wenhong, China’s top virologist and the director of the Infectious Diseases Department of Huashan Hospital Affiliated with Fudan University in Shanghai, responded to issues of influenza A and COVID-19 resurgence at a press conference during the Two Sessions meeting held in the Great Hall of the People in Beijing on March 10.

He said the next wave of COVID-19 infections may soon arrive. According to Zhang, the COVID-19 pandemic in China reached its peak of infections at the end of December 2022, and the antibodies acquired by the infected will gradually decline after five to six months. He warned that attention needs to be paid to the pathogenicity of the virus and vulnerable groups in preparation for the next wave of COVID-19.

He also said the next round of infections won’t be as uniform as the previous one and that there will be differences among regions.

He said the country is “fully prepared” and that the next wave won’t have as major an impact as the previous.

Patients on wheelchairs and people in the emergency department of a hospital in Beijing on Jan. 3, 2023. (Jade Gao/AFP via Getty Images)

Since late February, many elementary and middle schools across the country have reported students with high fevers and have suspended classes, and some have even closed. Authorities said the fevers were caused by influenza A.

However, the public isn’t convinced.

Mr. Zhao, a resident of Zhumadian city in Henan Province, told The Epoch Times on March 9: “The flu is rampant. A large number of elderly people died in our local area due to the COVID-19 epidemic around the New Year. This time, the influenza A virus has started to kill people in batches, people of all age groups. My aunt is 62 years old and passed away at the end of February.

“We all suspect that they have changed the name from COVID-19. People who have died recently may have been infected with COVID-19 because my aunt died after her lungs turned white. During the funeral, I saw that the crematorium was running 24 hours a day, with too many corpses to burn.”

On March 8, Xi’an’s municipal government posted on its official website a notice for a possible citywide lockdown for a flu outbreak.

“When necessary, in outbreak and endemic areas, schools, workplaces, and businesses will be suspended; public places will be closed; and crowd gathering will be restricted or prohibited,” the notice reads.

Flu Outbreaks Across China

Beijing city government’s official newspaper “Beijing Daily” reported on March 8 that flu outbreaks in Beijing have recently been on the rise and that flu infections have increased in schools and nursery institutions.

A viral video shows that Beijing Children’s Hospital was packed with sick children and their parents on March 7.

When The Epoch Times contacted Beijing Children’s Hospital on March 9, the doctor said there are currently many children with a fever who need to get in line for treatment. The hospital also requires that patients wear N95 masks all the time during their hospital visits.

A Beijing resident using the pseudonym He Yunlin told The Epoch Times on March 9 that the flu in Beijing is quite serious among adults. Several friends of his all got the flu a few days ago, and they’re experiencing fevers reaching 102 degrees Fahrenheit. The situation in other districts of Beijing is similar.

People line up outside a fever clinic at a hospital in the morning in Beijing on Dec. 11, 2022. (Kevin Frayer/Getty Images)

Hong Kong media outlet Ming Pao reported on March 9 that the fever clinics of Beijing hospitals have become crowded.

Ms. Wang, who works in a hotel in Liangmaqiao, arrived at the hospital at 2 p.m. on March 8 and found that the number for the morning visit was more than 400, and it was not until 3:30 p.m. that the patient with an afternoon visit number could start to be treated.

Wang wanted to go to other hospitals, but she heard that there were long lines in other hospitals, too.

On March 9, Hu Yang, deputy chief physician of the Department of Respiratory Medicine at Shanghai Pulmonary Hospital, posted an article on social media, saying that “influenza A is running rampant, and some colleagues, family members, and patients around have been infected and showing symptoms.”

Doctors from the emergency department of Shanghai Children’s Hospital confirmed to The Epoch Times on March 9 that many children with fevers came to the hospital for treatment.

Parents in Puxian district in Shanghai told The Epoch Times that the schoolteacher asked them to take their children home on March 7 because of influenza A, saying that “many children had fever and diarrhea.” Schools in other districts of Shanghai also asked parents to take their children home for similar reasons.

According to Ming Pao, a middle school student in Shandong Province who went to Beijing for medical treatment for a viral throat infection said nearly half of the students at her school have been infected. An outpatient doctor of a children’s hospital in Hebei Province told the media that among the patients he sees every day, there are about 60 people with fever, and more than half of them are diagnosed with influenza A.

U.S.-based current affairs commentator Tang Jingyuan, who has a medical science background, told The Epoch Times: “The symptoms of influenza A and COVID-19 do have many similarities and overlaps. It is difficult to accurately distinguish them based on the symptoms alone. But for the CCP, because high-level leaders have publicly declared that they have achieved a ‘victory in combating COVID-19’ and created a ‘miracle’ in the fight against it, etc., if COVID-19 resurges in China, it will deal a heavy blow to the credibility of the CCP. Therefore, the CCP has every motive to claim that a COVID-19 outbreak is a flu outbreak.”

Xiao Lusheng and Yi Ru contributed to this report.

 

https://www.theepochtimes.com/chinese-city-plans-flu-lockdowns-as-outbreaks-surge-across-the-country-top-virologist-warns-of-next-covid-19-wave_5117410.html

China Continues to Block US Probe Into Origins of COVID-19, Lawmakers Say

By Katabella Roberts

March 6, 2023  Updated: March 6, 2023 

Laboratory technicians wearing personal protective equipment working on samples to be tested for COVID-19 at the Fire Eye laboratory, a COVID-19 testing facility, in Wuhan, Hubei Province, China, on Aug. 4, 2021. (STR/AFP via Getty Images)

The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) continues to hamper U.S. efforts to determine the origin of COVID-19, according to Reps. Jim Himes (D-Conn.) and Mike Turner (R-Ohio).

The lawmakers made the comments during an appearance on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that aired on March 5, when Himes noted that it “may be forever” before Washington knows exactly where the virus originated from.

“We have so few facts because the Chinese regime has obfuscated,” said Himes, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee.

The interview follows reports last month that the Department of Energy (DOE) had allegedly concluded in a classified document sent to the White House that a lab leak was the likely cause of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Wall Street Journal reported on the classified document on Feb. 26 and intelligence officials told the publication that there’s “low confidence” in the conclusion, meaning that there isn’t absolute certainty in the lab leak theory.

Turner, the Intelligence Committee’s chairman, noted during the NBC interview that there has been no official comment from the DOE confirming or denying the alleged classified document.

‘No Direct Evidence’

“But let’s assume that they did,” Turner said. “In all of this, because there’s no direct evidence, we don’t have China admitting it, we don’t have [the] Wuhan lab handing these things over, all this is being assessed by looking at other aspects of the release.”

Wuhan, the capital of China’s Hubei Province, is home to multiple laboratories, including the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV). COVID-19 was first identified in an outbreak in the city in December 2019.

While some U.S. intelligence officials have said that the virus that causes COVID-19 might have come from the Wuhan lab, others have argued that it has a natural origin.

In February, FBI Director Christopher Wray confirmed that the bureau assessed that the origin of the virus was likely a “lab incident” in Wuhan.

“The FBI has for quite some time now assessed that the origin of the pandemic are [sic] most likely a potential lab incident in Wuhan,” Wray told Fox News. “Work related to this continues, and there are not a whole lot [of] details that are unclassified.”

Wray, like Himes and Turner, also noted that the Chinese regime has been “doing its best to try to thwart and obfuscate” U.S. and other foreign nations’ efforts to probe COVID-19’s origins.

Debate Over COVID-19 Origins

However, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence has said that it “was most likely caused by natural exposure to an animal infected with it or a close progenitor virus—a virus that probably would be more than 99 percent similar to SARS-CoV-2.”

The Chinese regime has long dismissed the possibility of a lab leak and has accused Washington of “disregarding science,” fabricating lies, and engaging in a smear campaign against Beijing.

Yet the CCP also hasn’t allowed an independent investigation of the WIV.

That’s despite a fact sheet released by the U.S. State Department on Jan. 15 stating that several researchers at the facility fell ill with symptoms similar to those caused by COVID-19 in the autumn of 2019. The same fact sheet also noted that the WIV has worked on secret projects with the Chinese military, including classified animal experiments since at least early 2017.

“We have so few facts that inevitably different agencies are going to arrive at different conclusions,” Himes said during the NBC interview. “And when an agency slightly adjusts its interpretation as the Department of Energy may have done, that doesn’t mean that all of a sudden the government has a firm view. It may be forever before we actually know exactly what happened.”

https://www.theepochtimes.com/china-continues-to-block-us-probe-into-origins-of-covid-19-lawmakers-say_5101780.html