they moved the earliest case from right next to the lab to right next to the market.pdf - Daoyu Zhang

Please enable JavaScript to view the full PDF

@humblesci @breakfast_dogs @Biorealism the first ever case China admitted was moved from the lab right to the market. researchgate.net/publication/351711216_An_analysis_of_the_results_of_routine_employee_t esting_for_SARS- like_infections_within_the_WIV_and_other_Wuhan_labs_raises_serious_issues_about_their_vali dity https://researchgate.net/publication/370635299_Greater_than_the_Sum_of_its_Parts_- _Aggregated_Wuhan_COVID- 19_case_data_points_to_the_wrong_side_of_the_Yangtze_River_-_Rixey_-_20230509 Again, This is Jiangxia residence of Accountant Chen. And even China confirm that he was sick with SARS-CoV-2 infection in 08/12/2019. Jiangxia 1st Renmin hospital. Congratulations on China scoring an own goal. https://archive.md/Ea0Kw https://archive.md/1x658 He lived in Shidong right next to the WIV and went to an RT-mart. His residence was forcibly moved into Jianghan like one third of all early Dec19-Jan20 cases in Chinese official reports. youtu.be/8uIVf_o9aXM Also, students stranded in Wuhan also report that they begun receiving warnings about outbreak in November 2019. https://archive.is/Kyr1z “in November there was a major pneumonia outbreak”. https://archive.md/N0hib Even more results on lipkin—it was in fact the primary EID program that messaged with Lipkin, which in case you don’t know, in 15/12/2019 the first sequenced market deliveryman sample wasn’t even in the hospital—and the actual sequencing and assembly would come considerably later. So what made authorities even outside wuhan aware of an outbreak in Wuhan before as big as a fever cluster was reported and before any of them even visit a hospital and an actual diagnosis of unusualness warranting this level of rigor was even released? archive.md/GKdtc as for the market itself the only similarity is that all major superspreading events in 2020-2021 Asia from a human strain occurred on a fish market that is located on a primary choke-point between international travel and population center. They tampered with the data so hard that this act of censorship and data manipulation in and of itself is argument for lab leak and against market. “Neighborhood of the Huanan market” was a criterion for case ascertainment. And massive tampering and censorship of cases leave a sudden 5 times jump in daily case onset counts at 01/01/2020. The point which the market cluster vaporized on non-WMHC data. Realize why they put an 5x jump in Jan 01 of the early cases dataset? And again why the “exponential growth” was much slower? Early cases data was massively tampered with. “The “release time” of Weibo help information was mainly from February 3rd to February 12th”—it mean that the data was accumulating before and it was not specifying onset time of disease or onset time of help. And importantly that time the WIV was not yet suspicious. Again, WA1, the Wuchang cluster lineage, was invisible to the Chinese NNDRS system. https://daoyu15.substack.com/p/study-of-the-usa-wa-1-case-report It behave like a more severe cold and never go above 3 days from pneumonia diagnosis before resolution. And the times they reported does in fact included December times. Ben HU also lied in front of press that he “did not work on live virus” rendering all the WIV claims entirely invalid. Shattering with the WIV claim is the sensitivity of the “test” they sent out. That “test” have never returned a positive result on a human sample. https://archive.md/zUDiF https://archive.md/Pc6gp The data was not “being uploaded” from 03/02/2020 to 12/02/2020. They are accumulated data that was being released from this time. Also, the complete absence of the market cluster with the exception of only two infector reports (but with a lot more than two infector reports in Dec2019) Indicate that these are most likely case reports when they were rejected from the hospital. We are already seeing a spike of Wechat searches in 01/12/2019. Again, why always focus on the wrong part of the report? “Other rescarchers in China working with the same vaccine platform took between three to four months to develop their candidate vaccine.” Is what that matters. It cross-validates https://carterheavyindustries.files.wordpress.com/2020/05/mace-e-pai-covid-19- analysis.pdf the Wechat results. Also, a lot more than 2 infectors were reported in December 2019. This is a “release time” chart as the post title and the from: results indicate it is the time of information release for public from the official handle of the channel, as opposed to the time which the information is posted. This makes it 1: later than the collection date. And 2: subjects to censorship that Chinese social media was already driving in 31/12/2019. That also included the WMHC banning any case reporting other than what they permitted. This date of first vaccine development appears to coincide temporally with https://nationalgeographic.com/science/article/this-globetrotting-doctor-saves-lives-by- diving-into-hot-zones https://archive.md/VXtu9 Callahan and https://archive.is/2021.08.11- 183121/https://www.yourcentralvalley.com/news/california/sacramento-area-company- develops-antibody-test-to-detect-covid-19-in-minutes/ Thermogenesis group which notice of strange new virus and development of antibody test happened. SARS peak 01/12/2019. No remnants of the market cluster was present in these data or any relevant data with a Dec- Jan collection date. archive.md/6LuXg In fact, this kind of discrepancy between Dec19 and Jan20 official released “cases” also reflects itself in the “number of cases per day” data produced by China from papers that essentially underpins the China WHO report. The spatial data show no clustering around the market at all when it is expected that if the Dec19 data is accurate, a continued cluster of infector reports around the market should show in pre-18/01/2020 Weibo data. The temporal curve of case onsets par day was forcibly changed that a 5x sudden increase in daily numbers is seen at 01/01/2020, a single day jump impossible with any epidemiological curve that would fit the rest of the data. This is censorship at work. @gdemaneuf archive.md/Qfu2r https://archive.md/4xbEZ These major discrepancies also give clear hints— both spatial and temporal datasets are entirely different dividing by 01/01/2020. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6884792-MACE-E-PAI-COVID-19-ANALYSIS- Redacted.html Biosafety accident is found even with private intelligence results. Again, the vaccine timeline is very valid. Also, at least three different institutions found the virus in the end of November 2019. You know where the body bags are from? It is “outside the WIV”. Guess who died without being mentioned and was working at the WIV? Killed because of a positive serological test? https://knewz.com/wuhan-covid-experiment-biological-vaccine-china/ https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12205705/Chinese-military-expert-filed-patent- Covid-vaccine-died-mysterious-circumstances.html #7 Dr. Zhou Yusen, a former director of the PLA's AMMS Laboratory of Pathogen and Biosecurity at the Beijing Institute of Microbiology and Epidemiology, filed the world's first patent application for a COVID-19 vaccine in China on February 24, 2020. The curve once accounting for 4/5 of all cases before 01/01/2020 being covered up, extends to 01/12/2019–when there is an large 3 day peak in SARS searches. Even researchers know something was wrong that early. In addition to data being badly tampered with, the 2021 “all of the 92 cases they found before the market outbreak tested negative” claim is statistically impossible. You only do that if you have a lot of positives. It then invalidates the market timeline altogether. Again, there is no such a thing as a “symptom incompatible with Covid-19”. A hard information cut-off at 2021 was used, and neither DEFUSE, nor Csabai et al, nor the exact cause behind the DIA/NCMI or the DOE change of assessment were given. HU lied about working with live virus. Again, we need the exact symptoms, and it is clear that they refuses to release any and all new information that were gathered post 2021–no info on the 2022 changed of assessment for two agencies were given despite the changes themselves being acknowledged. https://web.archive.org/web/20230705200145/http://adeno- news.com/2022/08/09/unique-sars-cov-2-genomes-found-in-antarctic-samples-raises- questions-about-sars-cov-2-origin-lineages/ Also, remember the wordings—“Ground glass opacities and anosmia together prior to a COVID outbreak are pretty darn suggestible of COVID, however, Avril Haines can say that you might get GGOs from CMV pneumonia, and anosmia from seasonal allergies” https://archive.md/zUDiF https://archive.md/Pc6gp https://twitter.com/daoyu15/status/1679510827643322370 The other fact is that the 45000 wet markets especially those Guangdong markets which is the only places you see “Uncontrolled wild animal sales” in 2019, are extremely unlikely to have been completely spared especially the 3 other markets in Wuhan. However there is no evidence that any other spillover happened. Only consistent positive correlation is Homo Sapiens. https://archive.md/HlJ9o https://archive.md/lI04H https://archive.md/A892b https://archive.md/7doR8 https://archive.md/Sokty Sampler suits pants and boots, not raccoon dogs or any other animals. https://archive.md/gkquN https://archive.md/0O2TN https://archive.md/csYBM gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109840694165731221 Here you can divide the <10000 individuals per year in Xiao Xiao (mostly birds, rabbits and hedgehogs which lacked a susceptible ACE2) with the amount listed in the pdf file, which have more than 95000000 animals in the fur industry alone. You gets less than 1/10000. The conditional probability of market spillover https://twitter.com/daoyu15/status/1679487877842087938 Given that there were no other spillovers at all especially in the central distribution hub of all wildlife trade in China and the main location which animals are eaten, where any farm in Yunnan large enough to sell to Wuhan sell the bulk of their products to, is extremely low. SARS-CoV-1 emerged in rural Shunde of Guangdong in 2002. http://archive.md/e3615 http://archive.md/vWjZl lower R0, didn’t require a major city. http://archive.md/yyX0Z http://archive.md/iw1Pz http://archive.md/4rVph http://archive.md/DChUL gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109883975094801876 As on “wildlife trade is now a lot more covert”…… well the farming outputs were still mainly being transported to Guangdong, and in fact, to the exact markets in Foshan. gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/110664507499863971 And all those pictures of “live wildlife sales”? Guangdong and Guangxi in case of 2019. Only video online in 2019 depicting actual wild animals for sale in China on Youtube. It is Guangxi. Only other provably dated video from BBC, depicting large market in Qingyuan, Guangdong. In fact, Guangdong is also the first stop for any animal smuggling operation originating in Vietnam or other parts of the Golden Triangle—hence the absence of a primary spillover there further rule out spillover through the wildlife supply chain in China. Any infections there should reproduce the 2002-2003 epidemiological pattern—it should happen at Guangdong and most likely centered in Guangdong. https://archive.md/nyR0q This is considered not expected even by “experts in the domain”. Sampler contamination http://archive.md/NeybM http://archive.md/2PM9Y http://archive.md/RirQ7 http://archive.md/ETjzS http://archive.md/CTP3i http://archive.md/BWZJL and cross- contamination. http://archive.md/LJzSO http://archive.md/VNr75 Never an infected vendor or animal. archive.md/LJzSO https://archive.md/T2u0S https://archive.md/JSQvc there is neither evidence of an infected animal in these “wildlife stalls” nor https://archive.md/4rVph https://archive.md/yyX0Z https://archive.md/DChUL there is any evidence that raccoon dogs can be infected At all in a natural setting. https://archive.md/Sokty sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867422001945 not only internationally, these 2 papers traced back to the exact farms (Shandong and Hebei) and trappers that supplied all the raccoon dogs in the HSM. They are all negative. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35769892/ http://archive.md/yyX0Z http://archive.md/iw1Pz http://archive.md/4rVph http://archive.md/DChUL http://archive.md/CTP3i http://archive.md/ETjzS http://archive.md/BWZJL The rules: must be contacted by a sampler. =positive. http://archive.md/NeybM http://archive.md/2PM9Y http://archive.md/RirQ7 Must not be frequently handled by a vendor. =negative. https://archive.md/FskYn Most of their samplers and cleanup workers are volunteers that have no training at all on scene preservation or aseptic techniques (other than simple beiefing) and have no capacity to take proper caution not to contaminate the objects themselves before samples are taken. https://archive.md/0O2TN All of the positive salples in the market itself can be ultimately traced back a contaminated suit, boot and pant surfaces of the samplers—these are mostly volunteers that have experience in neither scene preservation or aseptic techniques, contaminating surfaces and sample tubes Whereever they go and whereever they focus sample. http://archive.md/LJzSO http://archive.md/4cCHG Boots on surfaces in a crammed stall=PCR+/NGS+, suit on Sample tube lips in an awkward location=PCR-/NGS+. NGS is extremely prone to cross-contamination and in-lab contamination, http://archive.md/0O2TN http://archive.md/vlAgp Every step in the library preparation process. An absence of lineage reads mean that it can not be ruled out that the same infected sampler dropping A20 in 31/12/2019 (which was a sampling effort together with untested Jiangwei members of unknown infection status, focusing on human cases stalls) http://archive.md/FskYn http://archive.md/CTP3i also contaminated the wildlife stalls when focused sampling efforts begun in Jan 12. Contamination of PPE would primarily be during suit-up and most positive samples out of all samples would be at the stall that had seen most samplers sampling it and trampling through it directly after entry. http://archive.md/rSaO9 http://archive.md/ef2JW After this indecent, confirmation bias caused by a false positive sample being found where snakes were sold, drove repeated sampling in the stall (negative in 01/01/2020) where a sample tube was accidentally rubbed against in 12/01/2020. The site itself was never positive any more while artifacts were being brought in. The infected sampler of WCDC eventually exposed himself when they decided to bleach the toilets, leaving behind a final batch of lineage reads-free “positive samples” that contained no other mammalian DNA other than Homo Sapiens. https://twitter.com/daoyu15/status/1693327601430052951 NGS is an extremely contamination-prone process which mean that you need to control its results via qPCR. PCR is also the way to discover uncovered regions from sequencing samples. http://archive.md/LJzSO http://archive.md/4cCHG importantly, that “cart” tested negative by PCR and most likely caused by cross-contamination. Homo Sapiens is in every sample. And contained a lot more than 1 in 213 million reads. http://archive.md/JSQvc http://archive.md/csYBM Location and time: the NCMI are not allowed to disclose any new information on any side of the debate post 2021–Blinken COI. Csabai et al data was not included, nor was DEFUSE or NCMI results. https://web.archive.org/web/20230705200145/http://adeno- news.com/2022/08/09/unique-sars-cov-2-genomes-found-in-antarctic-samples-raises- questions-about-sars-cov-2-origin-lineages/ Animal: raccoon dogs are not susceptible to natural infections by SARS-CoV-2. http://archive.md/LJzSO http://archive.md/T2u0S http://archive.md/JSQvc https://archive.md/csYBM there is neither evidence of an infected animal in these “wildlife stalls” nor http://archive.md/4rVph http://archive.md/yyX0Z http://archive.md/DChUL there is any evidence that raccoon dogs can be infected. Time: By the time the sampling have arrived, The only infected object at the market is sampler suits and boots. all of the positive samples in the market stalls http://archive.md/NeybM http://archive.md/CTP3i http://archive.md/ETjzS http://archive.md/BWZJL http://archive.md/KLkHS http://archive.md/RirQ7 Came from Sampler Contamination and cross-contamination. http://archive.md/LJzSO http://archive.md/VNr75 However, Never from an infected vendor or animal. https://archive.md/YGDiK https://archive.md/4cCHG Animal: http://archive.md/0O2TN Not even freuling themselves managed to infect raccoon dogs in a second time, or other labs anywhere else in the world. Freuling et al have never been replicated anywhere else in the world. http://archive.md/DChUL http://archive.md/4rVph http://archive.md/yyX0Z Despite surveillance in Europe and Japan, zero naturally infected raccoon dogs have been found anywhere in the world. http://archive.md/iw1Pz All HSM suppliers are traced and were negative. https://archive.md/0O2TN Location: http://archive.md/rSaO9 http://archive.md/gvHfw In both Jan 01 and Jan 12, the stall with most positive samples out of all samples is the stall closest to the toilets. http://archive.md/rj1pV http://archive.md/FskYn Incompetent samplers trampling through toilets, infected WCDC workers dropping their PPE that contained no wildlife DNA inside. There is zero evidence of an infected animal in the market. http://archive.md/Sokty http://archive.md/csYBM In fact, not even objects directly handled, used most frequently or nearest to infected vendors were positive—even in their stalls only objects trampled or rubbed against by samplers were positive. No original RNA except for the Toilets remained in the market at Jan01-Jan12 or later sampling. Not in Jan01, and especially not in Jan12 . http://archive.md/lI04H http://archive.md/A892b http://archive.md/7doR8 Go to W6- 29-33 itself, and you will find all correlation with other animals have completely broken down. http://archive.md/FyMAF Time: In fact, this fact alone disproved your place and time argument—China intentionally hid earlier cases https://www.researchgate.net/publication/370635299_Greater_than_the_Sum_of_its_Parts_- _Aggregated_Wuhan_COVID- 19_case_data_points_to_the_wrong_side_of_the_Yangtze_River_-_Rixey_-_20230509 and screwed up by faking a serological test that is statistically impossible during the cover-up effort. Animal: Again, neither of your “animal host” species was in positive correlation with SARs-CoV-2 reads. No positive correlation=not infected. http://archive.md/LJzSO http://archive.md/4cCHG Cross-contamination and process(sample tube lip)-linked contamination, ultimately all derived from toilet area contamination of the samplers, is what all the Q* samples had. Even same correlation series between SARS-CoV-2 and human. Also, Huanan is The largest wet market for seafood in central China. But one of the smallest wet markets for wild animals even for Central China—even satellite Cities just on the border of Wuhan have more illegal wildlife sales than Huanan. Let alone other cities in Hubei. Let alone Guangdong/Guangxi. Yet none of them were infected. https://twitter.com/daoyu15/status/1693397416186433933