Chinese Culture and Society Megathread

SexyChineseLady

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2016
Messages
351
Likes
101
Country flag
Culturally, the Pool Party in Wuhan was a turning point. It was a signal for the young to take charge and have fun. After this, people started to go back to the cinemas, theme parks, museums, live shows, tourist sites, etc. that make culture move:

 

johnq

Regular Member
Joined
May 30, 2009
Messages
946
Likes
1,988
China’s Forced Sterilization of Uighur Women Is Cultural Genocide

Unknown pills and forced injections.
Those are not fictional horrors from scary movies, but the reality many Uighurs in mass arbitrary internment are faced with today in China.
In Xinjiang, human rights abuses against Uighur women and children abound.
Uighurs, a predominantly Turkic-speaking ethnic minority in Xinjiang, are being seriously repressed by the Chinese government. Since 2017, more than 1 million Muslim minorities, including Uighurs, have been taken to detention without any proper trials.
Detainees are forced to show their loyalty to the Chinese Communist Party and deny their Islamic faith. Forced labor and torture are common.
Uighur women testify to the horrors they have endured, including new reports of forced sterilization. One Uighur woman interviewed by French television said she was constantly injected with a substance during her detention that stopped her periods.
Mihrigul Tursun, another Uighur woman now living in exile in the U.S., first testified before the Congressional Executive Commission on China last November. This month, she raised alarm over forced sterilization again at Amnesty International’s conference in Tokyo.
She had been detained in a re-education camp three separate times and said the officials forced the Uighur women to take unknown drugs and drink some kind of white liquid. Those caused them to lose consciousness and sometimes to lose menstruation.
Some of the Uighur women even died from extreme bleeding.
After coming to the U.S., Tursun underwent a proper medical examination, which confirmed her worst fears. She had in fact been sterilized and would never be able to bear children again.
She added triplets that she had given birth to prior to internment underwent an unknown surgery without any consent during her detention. One of them died, and the other two still have health problems.
While reports of human rights violations in the camps are a dime a dozen, Chinese officials continue to insist that they are just re-educating Uighurs to protect the region from Islamist attacks.
Shohrat Zakir, Xinjiang’s Uighur governor, defended the practices as vocational training for Uighurs by comparing it with boarding schools. But these are no boarding schools.
Uighur repression is one component of the Chinese Communist Party’s “Sinicization” policy. Since Chinese President Xi Jinping took power, the party has sought to make religion conform to the party’s doctrine and Han-ethnicity customs.
The Chinese Communist Party also threatens future generations of Uighurs. Children whose parents are detained in the camps are often sent to state-run orphanages and brainwashed to forget their ethnic roots.
Even if their parents are not detained, Uighur children need to move to inner China and immerse themselves into Han culture under the Chinese government’s “Xinjiang classrooms” policy.
The reports of forced sterilization are leading many to fear complete cultural genocide of the Uighur population.
Genocide is defined in both international law and U.S. law as the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, an ethnic, racial, religious, or political group. According to international law, an attempt to restrict births and forcibly moving children to another group are two methods a country can employ to carry out genocide.
The international community should be alarmed that China is destroying an ethnic minority by infringing on their personal decisions related to family planning and religious freedom.
One of the reasons the U.S. withdrew its funding from the United Nations Population Fund was China’s coercive family-planning policies that restrict the number of children the average Chinese family can have to two.
Driven by concerns that China was using money from the U.N. Population Fund to carry out forced abortions, the Trump administration pulled all U.N. Population Fund funding, as recommended in a Heritage Foundation report.
The U.S. should consider additional steps it can take to respond to the Xinjiang crisis, especially anything that it can do to respond to reports of forced sterilization.
As Tursun mentioned in her testimony, Uighurs “look to the United States as the beacon of hope for the oppressed people around the world.”
Now is the time for the U.S. and the international community to respond to the crisis in Xinjiang with strong resolve.
 

johnq

Regular Member
Joined
May 30, 2009
Messages
946
Likes
1,988
The Comprehensive Timeline of China’s COVID-19 Lies

On today’s menu: a day-by-day, month-by-month breakdown of China’s coronavirus coverup and the irreparable damage it has caused around the globe.

The Timeline of a Viral Ticking Time Bomb


The story of the coronavirus pandemic is still being written. But at this early date, we can see all kinds of moments where different decisions could have lessened the severity of the outbreak we are currently enduring. You have probably heard variations of: “Chinese authorities denied that the virus could be transferred from human to human until it was too late.” What you have probably not heard is how emphatically, loudly, and repeatedly the Chinese government insisted human transmission was impossible, long after doctors in Wuhan had concluded human transmission was ongoing — and how the World Health Organization assented to that conclusion, despite the suspicions of other outside health experts.

Clearly, the U.S. government’s response to this threat was not nearly robust enough, and not enacted anywhere near quickly enough. Most European governments weren’t prepared either. Few governments around the world were or are prepared for the scale of the danger. We can only wonder whether accurate and timely information from China would have altered the way the U.S. government, the American people, and the world prepared for the oncoming danger of infection.

Some point in late 2019: The coronavirus jumps from some animal species to a human being. The best guess at this point is that it happened at a Chinese “wet market.”

December 6: According to a study in The Lancet, the symptom onset date of the first patient identified was “Dec 1, 2019 . . . 5 days after illness onset, his wife, a 53-year-old woman who had no known history of exposure to the market, also presented with pneumonia and was hospitalized in the isolation ward.” In other words, as early as the second week of December, Wuhan doctors were finding cases that indicated the virus was spreading from one human to another.

December 21: Wuhan doctors begin to notice a “cluster of pneumonia cases with an unknown cause.

December 25:
Chinese medical staff in two hospitals in Wuhan are suspected of contracting viral pneumonia and are quarantined. This is additional strong evidence of human-to-human transmission.

Sometime in “Late December”: Wuhan hospitals notice “an exponential increase” in the number of cases that cannot be linked back to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market, according to the New England Journal of Medicine.

December 30: Dr. Li Wenliang sent a message to a group of other doctors warning them about a possible outbreak of an illness that resembled severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), urging them to take protective measures against infection.

December 31:
The Wuhan Municipal Health Commission declares, “The investigation so far has not found any obvious human-to-human transmission and no medical staff infection.” This is the opposite of the belief of the doctors working on patients in Wuhan, and two doctors were already suspected of contracting the virus.

Three weeks after doctors first started noticing the cases, China contacts the World Health Organization.

Tao Lina, a public-health expert and former official with Shanghai’s center for disease control and prevention, tells the South China Morning Post, “I think we are [now] quite capable of killing it in the beginning phase, given China’s disease control system, emergency handling capacity and clinical medicine support.”

January 1: The Wuhan Public Security Bureau issued summons to Dr. Li Wenliang, accusing him of “spreading rumors.” Two days later, at a police station, Dr. Li signed a statement acknowledging his “misdemeanor” and promising not to commit further “unlawful acts.” Seven other people are arrested on similar charges and their fate is unknown.

Also that day, “after several batches of genome sequence results had been returned to hospitals and submitted to health authorities, an employee of one genomics company received a phone call from an official at the Hubei Provincial Health Commission, ordering the company to stop testing samples from Wuhan related to the new disease and destroy all existing samples.”

According to a New York Times study of cellphone data from China, 175,000 people leave Wuhan that day. According to global travel data research firm OAG, 21 countries have direct flights to Wuhan. In the first quarter of 2019 for comparison, 13,267 air passengers traveled from Wuhan, China, to destinations in the United States, or about 4,422 per month. The U.S. government would not bar foreign nationals who had traveled to China from entering the country for another month.

January 2: One study of patients in Wuhan can only connect 27 of 41 infected patients to exposure to the Huanan seafood market — indicating human-to-human transmission away from the market. A report written later that month concludes, “evidence so far indicates human transmission for 2019-nCoV. We are concerned that 2019-nCoV could have acquired the ability for efficient human transmission.”

Also on this day, the Wuhan Institute of Virology completed mapped the genome of the virus. The Chinese government would not announce that breakthrough for another week.

January 3: The Chinese government continued efforts to suppress all information about the virus: “China’s National Health Commission, the nation’s top health authority, ordered institutions not to publish any information related to the unknown disease, and ordered labs to transfer any samples they had to designated testing institutions, or to destroy them.”


Roughly one month after the first cases in Wuhan, the United States government is notified. Robert Redfield, the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, gets initial reports about a new coronavirus from Chinese colleagues, according to Health and Human Services secretary Alex Azar. Azar, who helped manage the response at HHS to earlier SARS and anthrax outbreaks, told his chief of staff to make sure the National Security Council was informed.

Also on this day, the Wuhan Municipal Health Commission released another statement, repeating, “As of now, preliminary investigations have shown no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission and no medical staff infections.

January 4: While Chinese authorities continued to insist that the virus could not spread from one person to another, doctors outside that country weren’t so convinced. The head of the University of Hong Kong’s Centre for Infection, Ho Pak-leung, warned that “the city should implement the strictest possible monitoring system for a mystery new viral pneumonia that has infected dozens of people on the mainland, as it is highly possible that the illness is spreading from human to human.”

January 5: The Wuhan Municipal Health Commission put out a statement with updated numbers of cases but repeated, “preliminary investigations have shown no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission and no medical staff infections.

January 6:
The New York Times publishes its first report about the virus, declaring that “59 people in the central city of Wuhan have been sickened by a pneumonia-like illness.” That first report included these comments:


Wang Linfa, an expert on emerging infectious diseases at the Duke-NUS Medical School in Singapore, said he was frustrated that scientists in China were not allowed to speak to him about the outbreak. Dr. Wang said, however, that he thought the virus was likely not spreading from humans to humans because health workers had not contracted the disease. “We should not go into panic mode,” he said.
Don’t get too mad at Wang Linfa; he was making that assessment based upon the inaccurate information Chinese government was telling the world.

Also that day, the CDC “issued a level 1 travel watch — the lowest of its three levels — for China’s outbreak. It said the cause and the transmission mode aren’t yet known, and it advised travelers to Wuhan to avoid living or dead animals, animal markets, and contact with sick people.”

Also that day, the CDC offered to send a team to China to assist with the investigation. The Chinese government declined, but a WHO team that included two Americans would visit February 16.

January 8: Chinese medical authorities claim to have identified the virus. Those authorities claim and Western media continue to repeat, “there is no evidence that the new virus is readily spread by humans, which would make it particularly dangerous, and it has not been tied to any deaths.”

The official statement from the World Health Organization declares, “Preliminary identification of a novel virus in a short period of time is a notable achievement and demonstrates China’s increased capacity to manage new outbreaks . . . WHO does not recommend any specific measures for travelers. WHO advises against the application of any travel or trade restrictions on China based on the information currently available.”

January 10: After unknowingly treating a patient with the Wuhan coronavirus, Dr. Li Wenliang started coughing and developed a fever. He was hospitalized on January 12. In the following days, Li’s condition deteriorated so badly that he was admitted to the intensive care unit and given oxygen support.

The New York Times quotes the Wuhan City Health Commission’s declaration that “there is no evidence the virus can spread among humans.” Chinese doctors continued to find transmission among family members, contradicting the official statements from the city health commission.

January 11: The Wuhan City Health Commission issues an update declaring, “All 739 close contacts, including 419 medical staff, have undergone medical observation and no related cases have been found . . . No new cases have been detected since January 3, 2020. At present, no medical staff infections have been found, and no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission has been found.” They issue a Q&A sheet later that day reemphasizing that “most of the unexplained viral pneumonia cases in Wuhan this time have a history of exposure to the South China seafood market. No clear evidence of human-to-human transmission has been found.”


Also on this day, political leaders in Hubei province, which includes Wuhan, began their regional meeting. The coronavirus was not mentioned over four days of meetings.

January 13: Authorities in Thailand detected the virus in a 61-year-old Chinese woman who was visiting from Wuhan, the first case outside of China. “Thailand’s Ministry of Public Health, said the woman had not visited the Wuhan seafood market, and had come down with a fever on Jan. 5. However, the doctor said, the woman had visited a different, smaller market in Wuhan, in which live and freshly slaughtered animals were also sold.”

January 14: Wuhan city health authorities release another statement declaring, “Among the close contacts, no related cases were found.” Wuhan doctors have known this was false since early December, from the first victim and his wife, who did not visit the market.

The World Health Organization echoes China’s assessment: “Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) identified in Wuhan, China.

This is five or six weeks after the first evidence of human-to-human transmission in Wuhan.

January 15:
Japan reported its first case of coronavirus. Japan’s Health Ministry said the patient had not visited any seafood markets in China, adding that “it is possible that the patient had close contact with an unknown patient with lung inflammation while in China.”

The Wuhan Municipal Health Commission begins to change its statements, now declaring, “Existing survey results show that clear human-to-human evidence has not been found, and the possibility of limited human-to-human transmission cannot be ruled out, but the risk of continued human-to-human transmission is low.” Recall Wuhan hospitals concluded human-to-human transmission was occurring three weeks earlier. A statement the next day backtracks on the possibility of human transmission, saying only, “Among the close contacts, no related cases were found.

January 17:
The CDC and the Department of Homeland Security’s Customs and Border Protection announce that travelers from Wuhan to the United States will undergo entry screening for symptoms associated with 2019-nCoV at three U.S. airports that receive most of the travelers from Wuhan, China: San Francisco, New York (JFK), and Los Angeles airports.

The Wuhan Municipal Health Commission’s daily update declares, “A total of 763 close contacts have been tracked, 665 medical observations have been lifted, and 98 people are still receiving medical observations. Among the close contacts, no related cases were found.”

January 18: HHS Secretary Azar has his first discussion about the virus with President Trump. Unnamed “senior administration officials” told the Washington Post that “the president interjected to ask about vaping and when flavored vaping products would be back on the market.

Despite the fact that Wuhan doctors know the virus is contagious, city authorities allow 40,000 families to gather and share home-cooked food in a Lunar New Year banquet.

January 19: The Chinese National Health Commission declares the virus “still preventable and controllable.” The World Health Organization updates its statement, declaring, “Not enough is known to draw definitive conclusions about how it is transmitted, the clinical features of the disease, the extent to which it has spread, or its source, which remains unknown.”

January 20: The Wuhan Municipal Health Commission declares for the last time in its daily bulletin, “no related cases were found among the close contacts.


That day, the head of China’s national health commission team investigating the outbreak, confirmed that two cases of infection in China’s Guangdong province had been caused by human-to-human transmission and medical staff had been infected.

Also on this date, the Wuhan Evening News newspaper, the largest newspaper in the city, mentions the virus on the front page for the first time since January 5.

January 21: The CDC announced the first U.S. case of a the coronavirus in a Snohomish County, Wash., resident who returning from China six days earlier.

By this point, millions of people have left Wuhan, carrying the virus all around China and into other countries.

January 22
: WHO director-general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus continued to praise China’s handling of the outbreak. “I was very impressed by the detail and depth of China’s presentation. I also appreciate the cooperation of China’s Minister of Health, who I have spoken with directly during the last few days and weeks. His leadership and the intervention of President Xi and Premier Li have been invaluable, and all the measures they have taken to respond to the outbreak.”

In the preceding days, a WHO delegation conducted a field visit to Wuhan. They concluded, “deployment of the new test kit nationally suggests that human-to-human transmission is taking place in Wuhan.” The delegation reports, “their counterparts agreed close attention should be paid to hand and respiratory hygiene, food safety and avoiding mass gatherings where possible.”

At a meeting of the WHO Emergency Committee, panel members express “divergent views on whether this event constitutes a “Public Health Emergency of International Concern’ or not. At that time, the advice was that the event did not constitute a PHEIC.”


President Trump, in an interview with CNBC at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, declared, “We have it totally under control. It’s one person coming in from China. We have it under control. It’s going to be just fine.

January 23: Chinese authorities announce their first steps for a quarantine of Wuhan. By this point, millions have already visited the city and left it during the Lunar New Year celebrations. Singapore and Vietnam report their first cases, and by now an unknown but significant number of Chinese citizens have traveled abroad as asymptomatic, oblivious carriers.

January 24: Vietnam reports person-to-person transmission, and Japan, South Korea, and the U.S report their second cases. The second case is in Chicago. Within two days, new cases are reported in Los Angeles, Orange County, and Arizona. The virus is in now in several locations in the United States, and the odds of preventing an outbreak are dwindling to zero.

On February 1, Dr. Li Wenliang tested positive for coronavirus. He died from it six days later.
 

johnq

Regular Member
Joined
May 30, 2009
Messages
946
Likes
1,988
I am posting the first part of the report by Chinese virologist Li-Meng Yan which gives evidence of the Covid-19 virus being created in the Chinese laboratory, Wuhan Institute of Virology, so everyone can make up their own minds. I am not including the figures and citations; the full report (in pdf format) with all figures and citations can be accessed via this link:

Unusual Features of the SARS-CoV-2 Genome Suggesting Sophisticated Laboratory Modification Rather Than Natural Evolution and Delineation of Its Probable Synthetic Route

Li-Meng Yan (MD, PhD), Shu Kang (PhD), Jie Guan (PhD), Shanchang Hu (PhD)

Rule of Law Society & Rule of Law Foundation, New York, NY, USA.

Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic caused by the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 has led to over 910,000 deaths worldwide and unprecedented decimation of the global economy. Despite its tremendous impact, the origin of SARS-CoV-2 has remained mysterious and controversial. The natural origin theory, although widely accepted, lacks substantial support. The alternative theory that the virus may have come from a research laboratory is, however, strictly censored on peer-reviewed scientific journals. Nonetheless, SARS-CoV-2 shows biological characteristics that are inconsistent with a naturally occurring, zoonotic virus. In this report, we describe the genomic, structural, medical, and literature evidence, which, when considered together, strongly contradicts the natural origin theory. The evidence shows that SARS-CoV-2 should be a laboratory product created by using bat coronaviruses ZC45 and/or ZXC21 as a template and/or backbone. Building upon the evidence, we further postulate a synthetic route for SARS-CoV-2, demonstrating that the laboratory-creation of this coronavirus is convenient and can be accomplished in approximately six months. Our work emphasizes the need for an independent investigation into the relevant research laboratories. It also argues for a critical look into certain recently published data, which, albeit problematic, was used to support and claim a natural origin of SARS-CoV-2. From a public health perspective, these actions are necessary as knowledge of the origin of SARS-CoV-2 and of how the virus entered the human population are of pivotal importance in the fundamental control of the COVID-19 pandemic as well as in preventing similar, future pandemics.

Introduction

COVID-19 has caused a world-wide pandemic, the scale and severity of which are unprecedented. Despite the tremendous efforts taken by the global community, management and control of thispandemic remains difficult and challenging.

As a coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2 differs significantly from other respiratory and/or zoonotic viruses: it attacks multiple organs; it is capable of undergoing a long period of asymptomatic infection; it is highly transmissible and significantly lethal in high-risk populations; it is well-adapted to humans since the very start of its emergence; it is highly efficient in binding the human ACE2 receptor (hACE2), the affinity of which is greater than that associated with the ACE2 of any other potential host.

The origin of SARS-CoV-2 is still the subject of much debate. A widely cited Nature Medicine publication has claimed that SARS-CoV-2 most likely came from nature. However,the article and its central conclusion are now being challenged by scientists from all over the world. In addition, authors of this Nature Medicine article show signs of conflict of interests, raising further concerns on the credibility of this publication.

The existing scientific publications supporting a natural origin theory rely heavily on a single piece of evidence –a previously discovered bat coronavirus named RaTG13, which shares a 96% nucleotide sequence identity with SARS-CoV-2. However,the existence of RaTG13 in nature and the truthfulnessof its reported sequence are being widely questioned. It is noteworthy that scientific journals have clearly censored any dissenting opinions that suggest a non-natural origin of SARS-CoV-2. Because of this censorship, articles questioning either the natural origin of SARS-CoV-2 or the actual existence of RaTG13, although of high quality scientifically, can only exist as preprints or other non-peer-reviewed articles published on various online platforms. Nonetheless, analyses of these reports have repeatedly pointedto severe problems and a probable fraud associated with the reporting of RaTG13. Therefore, the theory that fabricated scientific data has been published to mislead the world’s efforts in tracing the origin of SARS-CoV-2 has become substantially convincing and is interlocked with the notion that SARS-CoV-2 is of a non-natural origin.

Consistent with this notion, genomic, structural, and literature evidence also suggest a non-natural origin of SARS-CoV-2. In addition, abundant literature indicates that gain-of-function research has long advanced to the stage where viral genomes can be precisely engineered and manipulated to enable the creation of novel coronaviruses possessing unique properties. In this report, we present such evidence and the associated analyses. Part 1 of the report describes the genomic and structural features of SARS-CoV-2, the presence of which could be consistent with the theory that the virus is a product of laboratory modification beyond what could be afforded by simple serial viral passage. Part 2 of the report describes a highly probable pathway for the laboratory creation of SARS-CoV-2, key steps of which are supported by evidence present in the viral genome. Importantly, part 2 should be viewed as a demonstration of how SARS-CoV-2 could be conveniently created in a laboratory in a short period of time using available materials and well-documented techniques. This report is produced by a team of experienced scientists using our combined expertise in virology, molecular biology, structural biology, computational biology, vaccine development, and medicine.

1. Has SARS-CoV-2 been subjected to in vitro manipulation?

We present three lines of evidence to support our contention that laboratory manipulation is part of the history of SARS-CoV-2:

i. The genomic sequence of SARS-CoV-2 is suspiciously similar to that of a bat coronavirus discovered by military laboratories in the Third Military Medical University (Chongqing, China) and the Research Institute for Medicine of Nanjing Command (Nanjing, China).

ii. The receptor-binding motif (RBM) within the Spike protein of SARS-CoV-2, which determines the host specificity of the virus,resembles that of SARS-CoV from the 2003 epidemic in a suspicious manner. Genomic evidence suggests that the RBM has been genetically manipulated.

iii. SARS-CoV-2 contains a unique furin-cleavage site in its Spike protein,which is known to greatly enhance viral infectivity and cell tropism. Yet, this cleavage site is completely absent in this particular class of coronaviruses found in nature. In addition, rare codons associated with this additional sequence suggest the strong possibility that this furin-cleavage site is not the product of natural evolution and could have been inserted into the SARS-CoV-2 genome artificially by techniques other than simple serial passage or multi-strain recombination events inside co-infected tissue cultures or animals.

1.1 Genomic sequence analysis reveals that ZC45, or a closely related bat coronavirus, should be the backbone used for the creation of SARS-CoV-2

The structure of the ~30,000 nucleotides-long SARS-CoV-2 genome is shown in Figure 1. Searching the NCBI sequence database reveals that, among all known coronaviruses, there were two related bat coronaviruses, ZC45 and ZXC21, that share the highest sequence identity with SARS-CoV-2 (each bat coronavirus is~89% identical to SARS-CoV-2 on the nucleotide level). Similarity between the genome of SARS-CoV-2 and those of representative β coronaviruses is depicted in Figure 1. ZXC21, which is 97% identical to and shares a very similar profile with ZC45, is not shown. Note that the RaTG13 virus is excluded from this analysis given the strong evidence suggesting that its sequence may have been fabricated and the virus does not exist in nature. (A follow-up report, which summarizes the up-to-date evidence proving the spurious nature of RaTG13, will be submitted soon)

When SARS-CoV-2 and ZC45/ZXC21 are compared on the amino acid level, a high sequence identity is observed for most of the proteins. The Nucleocapsid protein is 94% identical. The Membrane protein is 98.6% identical. The S2 portion (2nd half) of the Spike protein is 95% identical. Importantly,the Orf8 protein is 94.2% identical and the E protein is 100% identical.

Orf8 is an accessory protein, the function of which is largely unknown in most coronaviruses, although recent data suggests that Orf8 of SARS-CoV-2 mediates the evasion of host adaptive immunity by down regulating MHC-I24. Normally, Orf8 is poorly conserved in coronaviruses. Sequence blast indicates that, while the Orf8 proteins of ZC45/ZXC21 share a 94.2% identity with SARS-CoV-2 Orf8, no other coronaviruses share more than 58% identity with SARS-CoV-2 on this particular protein. The very high homology here on the normally poorly conserved Orf8 protein is highly unusual.

The coronavirus E protein is a structural protein, which is embedded in and lines the interior of the membrane envelope of the virion. The E protein is tolerant of mutations as evidenced in both SARS (Figure 2A) and related bat coronaviruses (Figure 2B). This tolerance to amino acid mutations of the E protein is further evidenced in the current SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. After only a short two-month spread of the virus since its outbreak in humans, the E proteins in SARS-CoV-2 have already undergone mutational changes. Sequence data obtained during the month of April reveals that mutations have occurred at four different locations in different strains (Figure 2C). Consistent with this finding, sequence blast analysis indicates that, with the exception of SARS-CoV-2, no known coronaviruses share 100% amino acid sequence identity on the E protein with ZC45/ZXC21 (suspicious coronaviruses published after the start of the current pandemic are excluded). Although 100% identity on the E protein has been observed between SARS-CoV and certain SARS-related bat coronaviruses, none of those pairs simultaneously share over 83% identity on the Orf8 protein. Therefore, the 94.2% identity on the Orf8 protein, 100% identity on the E protein, and the overall genomic/amino acid-level resemblance between SARS-CoV-2 and ZC45/ZXC21 are highly unusual. Such evidence, when considered together, is consistent with a hypothesis that the SARS-CoV-2 genome has an origin based on the use of ZC45/ZXC21 as a backbone and/or template for genetic gain-of-function modifications.

Importantly, ZC45 and ZXC21 are bat coronaviruses that were discovered (between July 2015 and February 2017), isolated, and characterized by military research laboratories in the Third Military Medical University (Chongqing, China) and the Research Institute for Medicine of Nanjing Command (Nanjing, China). The data and associated work were published in 2018. Clearly, this backbone/template, which is essential for the creation of SARS-CoV-2, exists in these and other related research laboratories.

What strengthens our contention further is the published RaTG13 virus, the genomic sequence of which is reportedly 96% identical to that of SARS-CoV-2. While suggesting a natural origin of SARS-CoV-2, the RaTG13 virus also diverted the attention of both the scientific field and the general public away from ZC45/ZXC21. In fact, a Chinese BSL-3 lab (the Shanghai Public Health Clinical Centre), which published a Nature article reporting a conflicting close phylogenetic relationship between SARS-CoV-2 and ZC45/ZXC21 rather than with RaTG1335, was quickly shut down for “rectification”. It is believed that the researchers of that laboratory were being punished for having disclosed the SARS-CoV-2—ZC45/ZXC21 connection. On the other hand, substantial evidence has accumulated, pointing to severe problems associated with the reported sequence of RaTG13 as well as questioning the actual existence of this bat virus in nature. A very recent publication also indicated that the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of the RaTG13’s Spike protein could not bind ACE2 of two different types of horseshoe bats (they closely relate to the horseshoe bat R. affinis, RaTG13’s alleged natural host), implicating the inability of RaTG13 to infect horseshoe bats. This finding further substantiates the suspicion that the reported sequence of RaTG13 could have been fabricated as the Spike protein encoded by this sequence does not seem to carry the claimed function. The fact that a virus has been fabricated to shift the attention away from ZC45/ZXC21 speaks for an actual role of ZC45/ZXC21 in the creation of SARS-CoV-2.

1.2 The receptor-binding motif of SARS-CoV-2 Spike cannot be born from nature and should have been created through genetic engineering

The Spike proteins decorate the exterior of the coronavirus particles. They play an important role in infection as they mediate the interaction with host cell receptors and thereby help determine the host range and tissue tropism of the virus. The Spike protein is split into two halves (Figure 3). The front or N-terminal half is named S1, which is fully responsible for binding the host receptor. In both SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2 infections, the host cell receptor is hACE2. Within S1, a segment of around 70 amino acids makes direct contacts with hACE2 and is correspondingly named the receptor-binding motif (RBM)(Figure 3C). In SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2, the RBM fully determines the interaction with hACE2. The C-terminal half of the Spikeprotein is named S2. The main function of S2 includes maintaining trimer formation and, upon successive protease cleavages at the S1/S2 junction and a downstream S2’ position, mediating membrane fusion to enable cellular entry of the virus.

Similar to what is observed for other viral proteins, S2 of SARS-CoV-2 shares a high sequence identity (95%) with S2 of ZC45/ZXC21. In stark contrast, between SARS-CoV-2 and ZC45/ZXC21, the S1 protein, which dictates which host (human or bat) the virus can infect, is much less conserved with the amino acid sequence identity being only 69%.

Figure 4 shows the sequence alignment of the Spike proteins from six β coronaviruses. Two are viruses isolated from the current pandemic (Wuhan-Hu-1, 2019-nCoV_USA-AZ1); two are the suspected template viruses (Bat_CoV_ZC45, Bat_CoV_ZXC21); two are SARS coronaviruses (SARS_GZ02, SARS). The RBM is highlighted in between two orange lines. Clearly, despite the high sequence identity for the overall genomes, the RBM of SARS-CoV-2 differs significantly from those of ZC45 and ZXC21. Intriguingly, the RBM of SARS-CoV-2 resembles, on a great deal, the RBM of SARS Spike. Although this is not an exact “copy and paste”, careful examination of the Spike-hACE2 structures reveals that all residues essential for either hACE2 binding or protein folding (orange sticks in Figure 3C and what is highlighted by red short lines in Figure 4) are “kept”. Most of these essential residues are precisely preserved, including those involved in disulfide bond formation (C467, C474) and electrostatic interactions (R444, E452, R453, D454), which are pivotal for the structural integrity of the RBM (Figure 3C and 4). The few changes within the group of essential residues are almost exclusively hydrophobic “substitutions” (I428 to L, L443 to F, F460 to Y, L472 to F, Y484 to Q), which should not affect either protein folding or the hACE2-interaction. At the same time, majority of the amino acid residues that are non-essential have “mutated” (Figure 4, RBM residues not labeled with short red lines). Judging from this sequence analysis alone, we were convinced early on that not only would the SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein bind hACE2 but also the binding would resemble, precisely, that between the original SARS Spike protein and hACE223. Recent structural work has confirmed our prediction.

As elaborated below, the way that SARS-CoV-2 RBM resembles SARS-CoV RBM and the overall sequence conservation pattern between SARS-CoV-2 and ZC45/ZXC21 are highly unusual. Collectively, this suggests that portions of the SARS-CoV-2 genome have not been derived from natural quasi-species viral particle evolution.

If SARS-CoV-2 does indeed come from natural evolution, its RBM could have only been acquired in one of the two possible routes: 1) an ancient recombination event followed by convergent evolution or 2) a natural recombination event that occurred fairly recently.

In the first scenario, the ancestor of SARS-CoV-2, a ZC45/ZXC21-like bat coronavirus would have recombined and “swapped” its RBM with a coronavirus carrying a relatively “complete” RBM (in reference to SARS). This recombination would result in a novel ZC45/ZXC21-like coronavirus with all the gaps in its RBM “filled”(Figure 4). Subsequently, the virus would have to adapt extensively in its new host, where the ACE2 protein is highly homologous to hACE2. Random mutations across the genome would have to have occurred to eventually shape the RBM to its current form –resembling SARS-CoV RBM in a highly intelligent manner. However, this convergent evolution process would also result in the accumulation of a large amount of mutations in other parts of the genome, rendering the overall sequence identity relatively low. The high sequence identity between SARS-CoV-2 and ZC45/ZXC21 on various proteins (94-100% identity) do not support this scenario and, therefore, clearly indicates that SARS-CoV-2 carrying such an RBM cannot come from a ZC45/ZXC21-like bat coronavirus through this convergent evolutionary route.

In the second scenario, the ZC45/ZXC21-like coronavirus would have to have recently recombined and swapped its RBM with another coronavirus that had successfully adapted to bind an animal ACE2 highly homologous to hACE2. The likelihood of such an event depends, in part, on the general requirements of natural recombination: 1) that the two different viruses share significant sequence similarity; 2) that they must co-infect and be present in the same cell of the same animal; 3) that the recombinant virus would not be cleared by the host or make the host extinct; 4) that the recombinant virus eventually would have to become stable and transmissible within the host species.

In regard to this recent recombination scenario, the animal reservoir could not be bats because the ACE2 proteins in bats are not homologous enough to hACE2 and therefore the adaption would not be able to yield an RBM sequence as seen in SARS-CoV-2. This animal reservoir also could not be humans as the ZC45/ZXC21-like coronavirus would not be able to infect humans. In addition, there has been no evidence of any SARS-CoV-2 or SARS-CoV-2-like virus circulating in the human population prior to late 2019. Intriguingly, according to a recent bioinformatics study, SARS-CoV-2 was well-adapted for humans since the start of the outbreak.

Only one other possibility of natural evolution remains, which is that the ZC45/ZXC21-like virus and a coronavirus containing a SARS-like RBM could have recombined in an intermediate host where the ACE2 protein is homologous to hACE2. Several laboratories have reported that some of the Sunda pangolins smuggled into China from Malaysia carried coronaviruses, the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of which is almost identical to that of SARS-CoV-2. They then went on to suggest that pangolins are the likely intermediate host for SARS-CoV-2. However, recent independent reports have found significant flaws in this data. Furthermore, contrary to these reports, no coronaviruses have been detected in Sunda pangolin samples collected for over a decade in Malaysia and Sabah between 2009 and 2019. A recent study also showed that the RBD, which is shared between SARS-CoV-2 and the reported pangolin coronaviruses, binds to hACE2 ten times stronger than to the pangolin ACE2, further dismissing pangolins as the possible intermediate host. Finally, an in silico study, while echoing the notion that pangolins are not likely an intermediate host, also indicated that none of the animal ACE2 proteins examined in their study exhibited more favorable binding potential to the SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein than hACE2 did. This last study virtually exempted all animals from their suspected roles as an intermediate host, which is consistent with the observation that SARS-CoV-2 was well-adapted for humans from the start of the outbreak. This is significant because these findings collectively suggest that no intermediate host seems to exist for SARS-CoV-2, which at the very least diminishes the possibility of a recombinant event occurring in an intermediate host.

Even if we ignore the above evidence that no proper host exists for the recombination to take place and instead assume that such a host does exist, it is still highly unlikely that such a recombination event could occur in nature.

As we have described above, if natural recombination event is responsible for the appearance of SARS-CoV-2, then the ZC45/ZXC21-like virus and a coronavirus containing a SARS-like RBM would have to recombine in the same cell by swapping the S1/RBM, which is a rare form of recombination. Furthermore, since SARS has occurred only once in human history, it would be at least equally rare for nature to produce a virus that resembles SARS in such an intelligent manner – having an RBM that differs from the SARS RBM only at a few non-essential sites (Figure 4). The possibility that this unique SARS-like coronavirus would reside in the same cell with the ZC45/ZXC21-like ancestor virus and the two viruses would recombine in the “RBM-swapping” fashion is extremely low. Importantly, this, and the other recombination event described below in section 1.3 (even more impossible to occur in nature), would both have to happen to produce a Spike as seen in SARS-CoV-2.

While the above evidence and analyses together appear to disapprove a natural origin of SARS-CoV-2’s RBM, abundant literature shows that gain-of-function research, where the Spike protein of a coronavirus was specifically engineered, has repeatedly led to the successful generation of human-infecting coronaviruses from coronaviruses of non-human origin.

Record also shows that research laboratories, for example, the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), have successfully carried out such studies working with US researchers and also working alone. In addition, the WIV has engaged in decades-long coronavirus surveillance studies and therefore owns the world’s largest collection of coronaviruses. Evidently, the technical barrier is non-existent for the WIV and other related laboratories to carry out and succeed in such Spike/RBM engineering and gain-of-function research.

Strikingly, consistent with the RBM engineering theory, we have identified two unique restriction sites, EcoRI and BstEII, at either end of the RBM of the SARS-CoV-2 genome, respectively (Figure 5A). These two sites, which are popular choices of everyday molecular cloning, do not exist in the rest of this spike gene. This particular setting makes it extremely convenient to swap the RBM within spike, providing a quick way to test different RBMs and the corresponding Spike proteins.

Such EcoRI and BstEII sites do not exist in the spike genes of other β coronaviruses, which strongly indicates that they were unnatural and were specifically introduced into this spike gene of SARS-CoV-2 for the convenience of manipulating the critical RBM. Although ZC45 spike also does not have these two sites (Figure 5B), they can be introduced very easily as described in part 2 of this report.

It is noteworthy that introduction of the EcoRI site here would change the corresponding amino acids from -WNT-to -WNS-(Figure 5AB). As far as we know, all SARS and SARS-like bat coronaviruses exclusively carry a T(threonine) residue at this location. SARS-CoV-2 is the only exception in that this T has mutated to an S (serine), save the suspicious RaTG13 and pangolin coronaviruses published after the outbreak.

Once the restriction sites were successfully introduced, the RBM segment could be swapped conveniently using routine restriction enzyme digestion and ligation. Although alternative cloning techniques may leave no trace of genetic manipulation (Gibson assembly as one example), this old-fashioned approach could be chosen because it offers a great level of convenience in swapping this critical RBM.

Given that RBM fully dictates hACE2-binding and that the SARS RBM-hACE2 binding was fully characterized by high-resolution structures (Figure 3), this RBM-only swap would not be any riskier than the full Spike swap. In fact, the feasibility of this RBM-swap strategy has been proven. In 2008, Dr. Zhengli Shi’s group swapped a SARS RBM into the Spike proteins of several SARS-like bat coronaviruses after introducing a restriction site into a codon-optimized spikegene (Figure 5C). They then validated the binding of the resulted chimeric Spike proteins with hACE2. Furthermore, in a recent publication, the RBM of SARS-CoV-2 was swapped into the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of SARS-CoV, resulting in a chimeric RBD fully functional inbinding hACE2 (Figure 5C). Strikingly, in both cases, the manipulated RBM segments resemble almost exactly the RBM defined by the positions of the EcoRI and BstEII sites (Figure 5C). Although cloning details are lacking in both publications, it is conceivable that the actual restriction sites may vary depending on the spike gene receiving the RBM insertion as well as the convenience in introducing unique restriction site(s) in regions of interest. It is noteworthy that the corresponding author of this recent publication, Dr. Fang Li, has been an active collaborator of Dr. Zhengli Shi since 2010. Dr. Li was the first person in the world to have structurally elucidated the binding between SARS-CoV RBD and hACE2 and has been the leading expert in the structural understanding of Spike-ACE2 interactions. The striking finding of EcoRI and BstEII restriction sites at either end of the SARS-CoV-2 RBM, respectively, and the fact that the same RBM region has been swapped both by Dr. Shi and by her long-term collaborator, respectively, using restriction enzyme digestion methods are unlikely a coincidence. Rather, it is the smoking gun proving that the RBM/Spike of SARS-CoV-2 is a product of genetic manipulation.

Although it may be convenient to copy the exact sequence of SARS RBM, it would be too clear a sign of artificial design and manipulation. The more deceiving approach would be to change a few non-essential residues, while preserving the ones critical for binding. This design could be well-guided by the high-resolution structures (Figure 3). This way, when the overall sequence of the RBM would appear to be more distinct from that of the SARS RBM, the hACE2-binding ability would be well-preserved. We believe that all of the crucial residues (residues labeled with red sticks in Figure 4, which are the same residues shown in sticks in Figure 3C) should have been “kept”. As described earlier, while some should be direct preservation, some should have been switched to residues with similar properties, which would not disrupt hACE2-binding and may even strengthen the association further. Importantly, changes might have been made intentionally at non-essential sites, making it less like a “copy and paste” of the SARS RBM.

1.3 An unusual furin-cleavage site is present in the Spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 and is associated with the augmented virulence of the virus

Another unique motif in the Spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 is a polybasic furin-cleavage site located at the S1/S2 junction (Figure 4, segment in between two green lines). Such a site can be recognized and cleaved by the furin protease. Within the lineage B of β coronaviruses and with the exception of SARS-CoV-2, no viruses contain a furin-cleavage site at the S1/S2 junction (Figure 6). In contrast, furin-cleavage site at this location has been observed in other groups of coronaviruses. Certain selective pressure seems to be in place that prevents the lineage B of β coronaviruses from acquiring or maintaining such a site in nature.

As previously described, during the cell entry process, the Spike protein is first cleaved at the S1/S2 junction. This step, and a subsequent cleavage downstream that exposes the fusion peptide, are both mediated by host proteases. The presence or absence of these proteases in different cell types greatly affects the cell tropism and presumably the pathogenicity of the viral infection. Unlike other proteases, furin protease is widely expressed in many types of cells and is present at multiple cellular and extracellular locations. Importantly, the introduction of a furin-cleavage site at the S1/S2 junction could significantly enhance the infectivity of a virus as well as greatly expand its cell tropism —a phenomenon well-documented in both influenza viruses and other coronaviruses.

If we leave aside the fact that no furin-cleavage site is found in any lineage B β coronavirus in nature and instead assume that this site in SARS-CoV-2 is a result of natural evolution, then only one evolutionary pathway is possible, which is that the furin-cleavage site has to be derived from a homologous recombination event. Specifically, an ancestor β coronavirus containing no furin-cleavage site would have to recombine with a closely related coronavirus that does contain a furin-cleavage site.

However, two facts disfavor this possibility. First, although some coronaviruses from other groups or lineages do contain polybasic furin-cleavage sites, none of them contains the exact polybasic sequence present in SARS-CoV-2 (-PRRAR/SVA-). Second, between SARS-CoV-2 and any coronavirus containing a legitimate furin-cleavage site, the sequence identity on Spike is no more than 40%. Such a low level of sequence identity rules out the possibility of a successful homologous recombination ever occurring between the ancestors of these viruses. Therefore, the furin-cleavage site within the SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein is unlikely to be of natural origin and instead should bea result of laboratory modification.

Consistent with this claim, a close examination of the nucleotide sequence of the furin-cleavage site in SARS-CoV-2 spike has revealed that the two consecutive Arg residues within the inserted sequence(-PRRA-) are both coded by the rare codon CGG (least used codon for Arg in SARS-CoV-2) (Figure 7). In fact, this CGGCGG arrangement is the only instance found in the SARS-CoV-2 genome where this rare codon is used in tandem. This observation strongly suggests that this furin-cleavage site should be a result of genetic engineering. Adding to the suspicion, a FauI restriction site is formulated by the codon choices here, suggesting the possibility that the restriction fragment length polymorphism, a technique that a WIV lab is proficient at, could have been involved. There, the fragmentation pattern resulted from FauI digestion could be used to monitor the preservation of the furin-cleavage site in Spike as this furin-cleavage site is prone to deletions in vitro. Specifically, RT-PCR on the spike gene of the recovered viruses from cell cultures or laboratory animals could be carried out, the product of which would be subjected to FauI digestion. Viruses retaining or losing the furin-cleavage site would then yield distinct patterns, allowing convenient tracking of the virus(es) of interest.

In addition, although no known coronaviruses contain the exact sequence of -PRRAR/SVA-that is present in the SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein, a similar -RRAR/AR-sequence has been observed at the S1/S2 junction of the Spike protein in a rodent coronavirus, AcCoV-JC34, which was published by Dr. Zhengli Shi in 2017. It is evident that the legitimacy of -RRAR- as a functional furin-cleavage site has been known to the WIV experts since 2017.

The evidence collectively suggests that the furin-cleavage site in the SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein may not have come from nature and could be the result of genetic manipulation. The purpose of this manipulation could have been to assess any potential enhancement of the infectivity and pathogenicity of the laboratory-made coronavirus. Indeed, recent studies have confirmed that the furin-cleavage site does confer significant pathogenic advantages to SARS-CoV-2.

1.4 Summary

Evidence presented in this part reveals that certain aspects of the SARS-CoV-2 genome are extremely difficult to reconcile to being a result of natural evolution. The alternative theory we suggest is that the virus may have been created by using ZC45/ZXC21 bat coronavirus(es) as the backbone and/or template. The Spike protein, especially the RBM within it, should have been artificially manipulated, upon which the virus has acquired the ability to bind hACE2 and infect humans. This is supported by the finding of a unique restriction enzyme digestion site at either end of the RBM. An unusual furin-cleavage site may have been introduced and inserted at the S1/S2 junction of the Spike protein, which contributes to the increased virulence and pathogenicity of the virus. These transformations have then staged the SARS-CoV-2 virus to eventually become a highly-transmissible, onset-hidden, lethal, sequelae-unclear, and massively disruptive pathogen.

Evidently, the possibility that SARS-CoV-2 could have been created through gain-of-function manipulations at the WIV (Wuhan Institute of Virology) is significant and should be investigated thoroughly and independently.
 

johnq

Regular Member
Joined
May 30, 2009
Messages
946
Likes
1,988
Newspaper investigation claims China hoarded face masks in early January

If true this goes to show China knew about human-to-human transmission when denying it to the world
Before the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak was declared a global pandemic, Chinese consulates in Canada and around the world asked Chinese nationals to stockpile as much personal protective equipment (PPE) as possible for hospitals in China, according to an investigation by Canada's Global News.
In an article titled "United Front groups in Canada helped Beijing stockpile coronavirus safety supplies," published on Thursday (April 30), investigative reporter Sam Cooper shared his findings with Jorge Guajardo, Mexico's former ambassador to Beijing, and Canadian lawmaker Erin O'Toole.
Guajardo claimed that China had engaged in a "surreptitious" state-level operation to secure global PPE supply at low prices and did so before the deadly virus had made its way to Western countries, in early March. He said a source in the Mexican supply chain had told him in mid-January that factories were receiving large orders to send N95 respirators to China.
According to O'Toole, China had been hoarding face masks and epidemic safety equipment since Jan. 14, back when Beijing claimed there were no cases of human-to-human transmission. However, O'Toole said the Canadian government did not respond to China's acquisition campaign despite it being well-known among military and emergency service circles.
According to Cooper, while Canada was shipping more than 14,500 kilograms of protective clothing, face masks, goggles, and gloves to China, Chinese community organizations and business groups in Canada bought and shipped at least 90,700 kg of medical supplies to China. He added the stockpiling operation was launched by The United Front Work Department (UFWD) of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), a department in charge of managing potential opposition groups in China and important foreign missions.
Cooper pointed out that China's early suppression of accurate information about the outbreak was the main cause for it becoming a pandemic, a belief shared by international media, including the Associated Press. He said that Beijing's decision to downplay the seriousness of the coronavirus has resulted in millions of individuals infected around the world.
Click to expand...
The Chinese government allowed the virus to spread around the world by allowing international travel while stocking up on masks and PPE for itself. All the while lying to the world through WHO that there is no human-to-human transmission. But the Chinese government knew there was human-to-human transmission because they were buying up masks and personal protective equipment to protect themselves from human-to-human transmission of the Covid-19 virus they created in a lab, they leaked out, and they allowed to spread around the world (by allowing international travel of infected people).
 

johnq

Regular Member
Joined
May 30, 2009
Messages
946
Likes
1,988
Chinese Communist Party Arrests Mother Of Coronavirus Whistleblower Dr. Yan
The mother of Dr. Li-Meng Yan, a Chinese virologist who claims the Chinese Communist Party intentionally manufactured and released COVID-19, has been arrested by the Chinese government.
Dr. Yan, who shared her theories on The National Pulse show and Tucker Carlson Tonight, also released a research paper insisting the coronavirus was “lab modified.”
According to Stephen K. Bannon and Chinese Communist Party dissident Miles Guo, Dr. Yan’s mother has been arrested by Chinese government officials.
Reports from Guo’s media outlet G News detail the circumstances of the arrest, and Guo insists former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani has offered to assist Dr. Yan’s mother.
I am 100 % sure that Dr. Li-Meng Yan stumbled on to the truth about the Chinese government creating the Covid-19 virus in the lab. Otherwise why would the Chinese government arrest her mother? Plus a lot of what she says in her paper makes sense, since it's highly unlikely for several large genetic recombination events (in completely different animals) to take place simultaneously that result in the virus evolving several mutations targeted specifically at infecting human cells. That is not how natural selection and evolution works. And the virus was not in humans long enough to evolve all of these mutations either. But much of the DNA data has already been erased from Chinese labs.
Here is the link to a paper (download in pdf format) written by Chinese virologist whistleblower Li-Meng Yan which shows evidence that the Covid-19 virus is a Chinese military lab-modified virus:
Unusual Features of the SARS-CoV-2 Genome Suggesting Sophisticated Laboratory Modification Rather Than Natural Evolution and Delineation of Its Probable Synthetic Route
 

johnq

Regular Member
Joined
May 30, 2009
Messages
946
Likes
1,988
China’s crackdowns: From Tibet to Inner Mongolia
To understand what’s happening to ethnic minorities in Xinjiang and Inner Mongolia, look to Tibet

by June Cheng

Teachers, students, and parents staged rare protests earlier this month in Inner Mongolia as the government began requiring schools to teach key subjects in Mandarin rather than the Mongolian language. Students will begin taking Chinese language classes one grade earlier and must use new Chinese textbooks for language and literature, morality and law, and history classes.
Fearful the abrupt changes would erode their language and culture, thousands of ethnic Mongols signed online petitions against the new bilingual programs. Students walked out of class, parents pulled their children out of schools, and demonstrators held signs written in flowing Mongolian script outside government buildings and schools.
In response, authorities arrested thousands of protesters and petition-signers, and dispatched heavily armed riot police to protest locations. Officials noted that if parents continued to keep their kids out of school, they would lose their jobs, government subsidies, and the ability to take out bank loans. High school students would be expelled and blocked from taking college entrance exams.
Police went door to door forcing Mongols to sign pledges not to oppose the education program. They detained those who didn’t comply and placed them under police surveillance, according to the Los Angeles Times. Public security bureaus published names and images of protesters, accusing them of “picking quarrels and provoking troubles,” a charge that could lead to five years in prison.
The aggressive move to assimilate Mongols is reminiscent of how the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has treated Tibetans and Uighurs in Xinjiang—the CCP also replaced their minority language education with Mandarin in the past few decades. While Tibet and Xinjiang have long been considered restive regions, Mongols are seen as the “model minority” living in peace with the growing number of Han Chinese in the region.
The crackdown on Uighur culture and language has spread to what international observers call a genocide: The Chinese government has thrown more than a million Uighurs into reeducation camps, pressed them into forced labor, and implemented a campaign of depopulation through forced abortions, forced sterilizations, and even infanticide. The CCP used many of the tactics now seen in Xinjiang first in Tibet: Xinjiang’s Communist Party Secretary Chen Quanguo, who oversaw the oppression in Xinjiang, was previously the party secretary in Tibet.
A recently published book, Eat the Buddha: Life and Death in a Tibetan Town by journalist Barbara Demick, helps explain the CCP’s mindset toward ethnic minorities by profiling the Tibetan community of Ngaba. It’s one of the most difficult places for outsiders to visit, as it is considered the center of the Tibetan resistance, home to the rebellious Kirti Monastery as well as one-third of Tibetan self-immolators.
Told through the personal stories of Ngaba’s residents, the book traces Tibet’s relations with the CCP and the roots of the unrest and distrust that exists today. Chairman Mao Zedong’s Red Army trudged through Ngaba during its Long March in 1934 to escape the Nationalists during the Chinese Civil War. Faced with starvation, they looted monasteries and ate religious statues made of flour and butter, which to Tibetans was equivalent to eating the Buddha.
Once in power, the CCP easily occupied Tibet in 1950 to create the Tibet Autonomous Region, promising to respect Tibetan culture, language, and the Buddhist religion. That quickly broke down as Mao began his disastrous reforms—the redistribution of land, the struggle sessions, the great famine caused by the Great Leap Forward, and the Cultural Revolution.
However badly Han Chinese suffered in those times, Tibetans fared worse as the abuses started earlier and lasted longer, according to Demick. Years before the Cultural Revolution began in 1966, authorities had already destroyed or repurposed monasteries around Ngaba, turning large parts of the population against the CCP as religion was the center of their lives. During the 1950s and ’60s, an estimated 300,000 Tibetans were killed. In 1959, the Dalai Lama and a large number of Tibetans fled to India after a failed uprising.
After Mao died in 1976, the Chinese government provided incentives for Han people to move into Tibet until they outnumbered Tibetans. A new policy in the 1990s criminalized aspects of Tibetan culture and religion including displays of affection for the Dalai Lama.
CCP officials entered monasteries to teach patriotic education and banned boys under 18 from joining. As their rules became increasingly onerous at Kirti Monastery, monks began to push back. In 2008 as China was preparing for the Olympics, a peaceful protest began in Lhasa on March 10, the anniversary of the 1959 uprising. Authorities quickly arrested leaders, leading to more protests around Tibet.
Monks at Kirti joined, and soon crowds were gathered in Ngaba holding pictures of the Dalai Lama over their heads. After a violent crackdown, Kirti was placed under siege. The CCP prevented Tibetans from obtaining passports and leaving China. Then in 2009, the first Kirti monk set himself on fire in protest of Chinese oppression. Police arrested anyone with connections to his death, but more Tibetans in Ngaba and around the region started setting themselves on fire. By 2019, 156 Tibetans had self-immolated, with one-third from Ngaba or the surrounding areas.
The Chinese government prevented outsiders from entering Ngaba, cut off communication to the town, and stationed armored vehicles and police officers all over the town. In a preview of the high-tech police state now seen in Xinjiang, authorities covered Ngaba with surveillance cameras, took complete control over online communication, and police used biometrics to track the town’s residents. Fear blanketed the area: One wrong move could lead to jail time or worse. To write her book, Demick had to sneak into Ngaba and interview people from Ngaba in other areas of Tibet, India, and Nepal.
A new report says in the past two years, China has pushed rural Tibetan laborers into military-style training centers and transferred them to work in low-paying industries like textile manufacturing, construction, and agriculture. Tibetans are also forced to undergo patriotic education to dilute “the negative influence of religion” and were required to undergo vocational training to “strengthen [the Tibetans’] weak work discipline.”
Rights groups note it’s unlikely Tibetans can decline their work placements, which are located in other parts of the Tibet Autonomous Region as well as other provinces in China. According to the website of Tibet’s regional government, more than half a million people underwent training in 2020, making up 15 percent of the region’s population.

While the individual situations in Tibet, Xinjiang, and Inner Mongolia differ in historical context and degree, the government’s attitude of containment-at-any-cost and its reliance on cutting-edge technology to stamp out any form of dissent is part of its “second generation” policy to make ethnic minorities more “Chinese.”
“Our way of life is already wiped out,” Enghebatu Togochog, director of the New York–based exile group Southern Mongolian Human Rights Information Center, told The New York Times. “So what is left is just Mongolian language—it is the only symbol left of Mongolian identity. That’s why Mongolians are rising up and protesting these policies.”
 

johnq

Regular Member
Joined
May 30, 2009
Messages
946
Likes
1,988
COVID-19 was created in the Wuhan laboratory: Professor Giuseppe Tritto

Coronavirus which is killing and infecting people all over the world was created in a Lab in China's Wuhan, such an idea would have been labelled a conspiracy theory until a few weeks ago.

But earlier this week, a Chinese virologist Dr Li-Meng Yan, in an exclusive conversation with WION claimed that the deadly coronavirus was developed in a government laboratory in Wuhan. She also said that Chinese government was aware of the COVID-19 spread.

And now Professor Giuseppe Tritto, an internationally known expert in biotechnology and nanotechnology in his book 'China COVID 19: The chimera that changed the world' has said that he believes the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is behind the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19), leaving little doubt that this viral “chimera” was artificially created as a bioweapon.

Earlier today — we spoke to professor Tritto, he says China has the capability to modify viruses — and develop bioweapons that — the Wuhan institute of virology — didn't follow the global standards for safety for a long time and — Chinese scientists were specifically working on bat coronaviruses — a project that was supervised by the military's top scientist She Zheng-lee.

Professor Tritto raises serious questions about the Wuhan lab it is called Asia’s largest virus bank scientists classify it as a "P-4" facility.

A lab that is supposed to follow the highest level of biosafety precautions, almost all major countries have a lab like this including India.

They follow global standards for safety and — these labs are open to inspection by the world but — not the Wuhan lab China does not follow global rules this facility has a checkered safety record professor Tritto told us — that the Wuhan lab only notified its safety measures last year. In 2019 it's been around since 2014 this lab was conducting studies on bat coronaviruses.

And interestingly, it is headed by china's leading expert on bioweapons-- the PLA's Major General Chen Wei what professor Tritto told us today— is what the world has long feared. He spoke to us from Rome.
Link for interview below:
Gravitas: Global biomedical expert: Virus could have leaked in Wuhan
 

johnq

Regular Member
Joined
May 30, 2009
Messages
946
Likes
1,988
China transferred detained Uighurs to factories used by global brands – report
At least 80,000 Uighurs working under ‘conditions that strongly suggest forced labour’

At least 80,000 Uighurs have been transferred from Xinjiang province, some of them directly from detention centres, to factories across China that make goods for dozens of global brands, according to a report from the Canberra-based Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI).

Using open-source public documents, satellite imagery, and media reports, the institute identified 27 factories in nine Chinese provinces that have used labourers transferred from re-education centres in Xinjiang since 2017 as part of a programme known as “Xinjiang aid”.

In conditions that “strongly suggest forced labour”, the report says, workers live in segregated dormitories, are required to study Mandarin and undergo ideological training. They are frequently subjected to surveillance and barred from observing religious practices. According to government documents analysed by the ASPI, workers are often assigned minders and have limited freedom of movement.

The factories were part of supply chains providing goods for 83 global brands, the report found, including Apple, Nike and Volkswagen among others.

China has come under mounting international scrutiny for its policies toward Uighurs and other Muslim minorities in Xinjiang, where as many as 1.5 million people have been sent to re-education and internment camps.
Beijing, which says these facilities are voluntary vocational training centres, has said in recent months that most “students” of such centres have “graduated” and returned to society.

The report from the ASPI adds to growing evidence that even after being released from the camps, former detainees are still subject to severe controls and in some cases forced labour. The report’s authors said the actual number of those sent to other parts of China as part of the work programme was “likely to be far higher” than 80,000.

“This report exposes a new phase in China’s social re-engineering campaign targeting minority citizens, revealing new evidence that some factories across China are using forced Uighur labour under a state-sponsored labour transfer scheme that is tainting the global supply chain,” the researchers concluded.

Case studies highlighted in the report, titled Uyghurs for Sale, include Qingdao Taekwang Shoes, a factory in eastern China that produces shoes for Nike. The workers were mostly Uighur women from the prefectures of Hotan and Kashgar in southern Xinjiang, and attended night classes whose curriculum was similar to that of the re-education camps.


According to government notices, workers were required to attend the “Pomegranate Seed” night school, named after a policy that aims to make ethnic minorities and the majority Han Chinese ethnic group as close as the seeds of a pomegranate. At the school, workers study Mandarin, sing the Chinese national anthem and receive “patriotic education”. Public security and other government workers were to give daily reports on the “thoughts” of the Uighur workers.

Advertisements for “government-sponsored Uighur labour” have begun to appear more frequently online, according to the researchers. One ad read: “The advantages of Xinjiang workers are: semi-military style management, can withstand hardship, no loss of personnel … minimum order 100 workers!”

The report called on China to allow multinational companies unfettered access to investigate any potential instances of abusive or forced labour in factories in China, and for companies to conduct audits and human rights due-diligence inspections.

“It is vital that, as these problems are addressed, Uighur labourers are not placed in positions of greater harm or, for example, involuntarily transferred back to Xinjiang, where their safety cannot necessarily be guaranteed,” it said.

An Apple spokesman, Josh Rosenstock, told the Washington Post: “Apple is dedicated to ensuring that everyone in our supply chain is treated with the dignity and respect they deserve. We have not seen this report but we work closely with all our suppliers to ensure our high standards are upheld.”

A Volkswagen spokesman told the paper: “None of the mentioned supplier companies are currently a direct supplier of Volkswagen.” He said: “We are committed to our responsibility in all areas of our business where we hold direct authority.”

A Nike spokeswoman told the Post: “We are committed to upholding international labour standards globally,” adding that its suppliers are “strictly prohibited from using any type of prison, forced, bonded or indentured labour”. Kim Jae-min, the chief executive of Taekwang, the QingdaoTaekwang factory’s South Korean parent company, said about 600 Uighurs were among 7,100 workers at the plant, adding that the migrant workers had been brought in to offset local labour shortages.

The above article is proof that just banning products made in Xinjiang, Tibet and other minority areas is not enough. To get around the sanctions, the Chinese government is moving Uyghur, Tibetan and other minority areas' people to other parts of China to work as slaves in factories that make products for big brand name corporations like Nike and Apple. These international corporations are complicit by looking the other way for access to cheap Chinese slave labor. The only way to stop forced slave labor in China is if these big international corporations move all their manufacturing out of China.
 

johnq

Regular Member
Joined
May 30, 2009
Messages
946
Likes
1,988
China: 83 major brands implicated in report on forced labour of ethnic minorities from Xinjiang assigned to factories across provinces; Includes company responses
In March 2020, the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) published a report Uyghurs for sale: ‘Re-education’, forced labour and surveillance beyond Xinjiang, which identified 83 foreign and Chinese companies as allegedly directly or indirectly benefiting from the use of Uyghur workers outside Xinjiang through potentially abusive labour transfer programs.
ASPI estimates at least 80,000 Uyghurs were transferred out of Xinjiang and assigned to factories in a range of supply chains including electronics, textiles, and automotives under a central government policy known as ‘Xinjiang Aid’. The report identified 27 factories in nine Chinese provinces that are using Uyghur labour transferred from Xinjiang since 2017.
ASPI reached out to the 83 brands to confirm their relevant supplier details. Where companies responded before publication, they have included their relevant clarifications in their report.
Business & Human Rights Resource Centre invited Abercrombie & Fitch, adidas, Amazon, BMW, Gap, H&M, Inditex, Marks & Spencer, Nike, North Face, Puma, PVH, Samsung and UNIQLO to respond; their responses are provided. We invited Apple, Esprit, Fila and Victoria's Secret to respond; they did not. We will continue to post further company responses as we receive them.
Further company comments can also be found in the articles linked below.


Chinese simply move the workers out of Xinjiang (to factories in other parts of China) to get around the US government/corporate sanctions. The only solution is to stop all manufacturing in China until the Chinese government stops the genocide, imprisonment and forced labor programs in Xinjiang.
 

johnq

Regular Member
Joined
May 30, 2009
Messages
946
Likes
1,988
Built To Last A BuzzFeed News investigation based on thousands of satellite images reveals a vast, growing infrastructure for long-term detention and incarceration.

China has secretly built scores of massive new prison and internment camps in the past three years, dramatically escalating its campaign against Muslim minorities even as it publicly claimed the detainees had all been set free. The construction of these purpose-built, high-security camps — some capable of housing tens of thousands of people — signals a radical shift away from the country’s previous makeshift use of public buildings, like schools and retirement homes, to a vast and permanent infrastructure for mass detention.
In the most extensive investigation of China’s internment camp system ever done using publicly available satellite images, coupled with dozens of interviews with former detainees, BuzzFeed News identified more than 260 structures built since 2017 and bearing the hallmarks of fortified detention compounds. There is at least one in nearly every county in the far-west region of Xinjiang. During that time, the investigation shows, China has established a sprawling system to detain and incarcerate hundreds of thousands of Uighurs, Kazakhs, and other Muslim minorities, in what is already the largest-scale detention of ethnic and religious minorities since World War II.
These forbidding facilities — including several built or significantly expanded within the last year — are part of the government’s unprecedented campaign of mass detention of more than a million people, which began in late 2016. That year Chen Quanguo, the region’s top official and Communist Party boss, whom the US recently sanctioned over human rights abuses, also put Muslim minorities — more than half the region’s population of about 25 million — under perpetual surveillance via facial recognition cameras, cellphone tracking, checkpoints, and heavy-handed human policing. They are also subject to many other abuses, ranging from sterilization to forced labor.
To detain thousands of people in short order, the government repurposed old schools and other buildings. Then, as the number of detainees swelled, in 2018 the government began building new facilities with far greater security measures and more permanent architectural features, such as heavy concrete walls and guard towers, the BuzzFeed News analysis shows. Prisons often take years to build, but some of these new compounds took less than six months, according to historical satellite data. The government has also added more factories within camp and prison compounds during that time, suggesting the expansion of forced labor within the region. Construction was still ongoing as of this month.
“People are living in horror in these places,” said 49-year-old Zhenishan Berdibek, who was detained in a camp in the Tacheng region for much of 2018. “Some of the younger people were not as tolerant as us — they cried and screamed and shouted.” But Berdibek, a cancer survivor, couldn’t muster the energy. As she watched the younger women get dragged away to solitary confinement, “I lost my hope,” she said. “I wanted to die inside the camp.”
BuzzFeed News identified 268 newly built compounds by cross-referencing blanked-out areas on Baidu Maps — a Google Maps–like tool that’s widely used in China — with images from external satellite data providers. These compounds often contained multiple detention facilities.

This map shows the locations of facilities bearing the hallmarks of prisons and internment camps found in this investigation. Note: Many satellite images in this map are from before 2017, meaning that although you can zoom in, you won’t always be able to see the evidence of possible camps.

Locations identified or corroborated by other sources. Satellite images — perimeter walls and guard towers. Satellite images — walls and barbed wire but no guard towers. Detention Center built before 2017. Likely used for detention in the past but now closed or reduced security.
BuzzFeed News; Source: Analysis of satellite imagery using Google Earth, Planet Labs, and the European Space Agency's Sentinel Hub

Ninety-two of these facilities have been identified or verified as detention centers by other sources, such as government procurement documents, academic research, or, in 19 cases, visits by journalists.
Another 176 facilities have been established by satellite imagery alone. The images frequently show thick walls at the perimeter, and often, barbed wire fencing that creates pens and corridors in the courtyards. Many compounds in the region are walled, but the facilities identified by BuzzFeed News have much heavier fortifications. At 121 of these compounds, they also show guard towers, often built into the perimeter wall.
In response to a detailed list of questions about this article as well as a list of GPS coordinates of facilities identified in this article, the Chinese Consulate in New York said “the issue concerning Xinjiang is by no means about human rights, religion or ethnicity, but about combating violent terrorism and separatism,” adding that it was a “groundless lie” that a million Uighurs have been detained in the region.

“Xinjiang has set up vocational education and training centers in order to root out extreme thoughts, enhance the rule of law awareness through education, improve vocational skills and create employment opportunities for them, so that those affected by extreme and violent ideas can return to society as soon as possible,” the consulate added, saying human rights are protected in the centers and that “trainees have freedom of movement.” But it also compared its program to “compulsory programs for terrorist criminals” it said are taking place in other countries including the US and UK.
China's Foreign Ministry and Baidu did not respond to repeated requests for comment.
The new facilities are scattered across every populated area of the region, and several are large enough to accommodate 10,000 prisoners at a minimum, based on their size and architectural features. (One of the reporters on this story is a licensed architect.)
Unlike early sites, the new facilities appear more permanent and prisonlike, similar in construction to high-security prisons in other parts of China. The most highly fortified compounds offer little space between buildings, tiny concrete-walled yards, heavy masonry construction, and long networks of corridors with cells down either side. Their layouts are cavernous, allowing little natural light to the interior of the buildings. BuzzFeed News could see how rooms were laid out at some high-security facilities by examining historical satellite photos taken as they were being constructed, including photos of buildings without roofs.
With at least tens of thousands of detainees crowded into government buildings repurposed as camps by the end of 2017, the government began building the largest new facilities in the spring of 2018. Several were complete by October 2018, with further facilities built through 2019 and construction of a handful more continuing even now.
The government has said its camps are schools and vocational training centers where detainees are “deradicalized.” The government’s own internal documentation about its policies in Xinjiang has used the term “concentration,” or 集中, to describe “educational schools.”
The government claims that its campaign combats extremism in the region. But most who end up in these facilities are not extremists of any sort.
Downloading WhatsApp, which is banned in China, maintaining ties with family abroad, engaging in prayer, and visiting a foreign website are all offenses for which Muslims have been sent to camps, according to previously leaked documents and interviews with former detainees. Because the government does not consider internment camps to be part of the criminal justice system and none of these behaviors are crimes under Chinese law, no detainees have been formally arrested or charged with a crime, let alone seen a day in court.
The compounds BuzzFeed News identified likely include extrajudicial internment camps — which hold people who are not suspected of any crime — as well as prisons. Both types of facilities have security features that closely resemble each other. Xinjiang’s prison population has grown massively during the government’s campaign: In 2017, the region had 21% of all arrests in China, despite making up less than 2% of the national population — an eightfold increase from the year before, according to a New York Times analysis of government data. Because China’s Communist Party–controlled courts have a more than 99% conviction rate, the overwhelming majority of those arrests likely resulted in convictions.

“One day I saw a pregnant woman in shackles. Another woman had a baby in her arms, she was breastfeeding.”

People detained in the camps told BuzzFeed News they were subjected to torture, hunger, overcrowding, solitary confinement, forced birth control, and a range of other abuses. They said they were put through brainwashing programs focusing on Communist Party propaganda and made to speak only in the Chinese language. Some former detainees said they were forced to labor without pay in factories.
The government heavily restricts the movements of independent journalists and researchers in the region, and heavily censors the internet and its own domestic media. Muslim minorities can be punished for posts on social media. But satellite images that are collected from independent providers remain outside the scope of Chinese government censorship.
Other kinds of evidence have also occasionally leaked out. In September, a drone video emerged showing hundreds of blindfolded men with their heads shaven and their arms tied behind their backs, wearing vests that say “Kashgar Detention Center.” Nathan Ruser, a researcher at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute who has done extensive satellite imagery analysis of the detention and prison systems in Xinjiang, said the video shows a prisoner transfer that took place in April 2019 — months after the government first said the system was for vocational training. Previous analyses, including by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute in November 2018, identified several dozen early camps.
“The internment and assimilation program in Xinjiang has the overall logic of colonial genocides in North America, the formalized racism of apartheid, the industrial-scale internment of Germany's concentration camps, and the police-state penetration into everyday life of North Korea,” said Rian Thum, a scholar of the history of Islam in China at the University of Nottingham.
The campaign has done deep damage to many Muslim minority groups — but especially Uighurs, who are by far the most populous ethnic minority group in Xinjiang and do not have ties to any other country. The Chinese government has heavily penalized expressions of Turkic minority culture, from Kazakh- and Uighur-language education to the practice of Islam outside of state-controlled mosques. This, combined with forced sterilizations, has led some critics to say that the campaign qualifies as genocide under international law. The Trump administration is reportedly discussing whether to formally call it a genocide, and a spokesperson for Joe Biden, the Democratic nominee for president, said on Tuesday that Biden supports the label.
“These are peaceful people in concentration camps,” said Abduweli Ayup, a Uighur linguist who was jailed and later exiled from Xinjiang after opening kindergartens that taught Uighur children in their own language. “They are businessmen and scholars and engineers. They are our musicians. They are doctors. They are shopkeepers, restaurant owners, teachers who used Uighur textbooks.
“These are the pillars of our society. Without them, we cannot exist.”

The Chinese flag is seen behind razor wire at a housing compound in Yangisar, south of Kashgar, in China's western Xinjiang region, June 4, 2019.

The position of Muslim minorities, particularly Uighurs, in China has been fraught since the Communist Party came to power in 1949. But conditions deteriorated quickly starting in 2016, when the government implemented a system of heavy-handed surveillance and policing as a means to push Muslims into a growing internment camp system for “transformation through education.” Chen, the region’s party boss, called on officials to “round up everyone who should be rounded up.”
Thousands were. Tursunay Ziyawudun, who was detained in March 2018, was one of them. When she arrived at the camp’s gates, she saw hundreds of people around her removing their jewelry, shoelaces, and belts. They were being “processed,” she said, to enter the camp through a security checkpoint.

Early on, the government remade schools, retirement homes, hospitals, and other public buildings into internment camps. There were other, older detention centers available too — BuzzFeed News identified 47 built before 2017 that have been used to lock people up in the region.
Some detention facilities are geared toward releasing detainees after several months; in others, detainees may be sentenced to prison terms, said Adrian Zenz, a leading researcher on the abuses in Xinjiang. Three former detainees interviewed by BuzzFeed News said they were held for months in detention without any charges against them — far longer than is allowed by law — before they were transferred to internment camps. The detentions picked up speed in 2017, and numbers in the camps quickly swelled until the inmates were living on top of each other.
BuzzFeed News interviewed 28 former detainees from the region, many of whom described being blindfolded and handcuffed, much like the men shown in the video. Many spoke through an interpreter. They are among a tiny minority of former detainees who were released and left the country — but they described a brutal system that they saw growing and changing with their own eyes.
Most recalled being frequently moved from camp to camp — a tactic that many believed was meant to combat overcrowding in the first generation of makeshift facilities. At the beginning of the campaign, hundreds of people were arriving on a daily basis. New batches of detainees always seemed to be coming and going.
Some former detainees described sleeping two to a twin bed, or even sleeping in shifts when there was not enough room to house all the detainees. Almost all said they received meager quantities of rice, steamed buns, and porridge, and little or no meat or other protein.

Orynbek Koksebek, a 40-year-old ethnic Kazakh, was first detained relatively early in the campaign, around the end of 2017. At first, he slept in a room with seven other men, and everyone had a bed to themselves. But within a few months, he began to notice more and more people arriving. “One day I saw a pregnant woman in shackles,” he said. “Another woman had a baby in her arms, she was breastfeeding.”
By February 2018, there were 15 men in his room, he said.
“Some of us had to share blankets or sleep on the floor,” he said. “They told us later that some of us would be given prison sentences or transferred to other camps.”
Camp officials regularly forced detainees to memorize Communist Party propaganda and Chinese characters in classrooms. But some former detainees said their facilities were too crowded for even this — instead, they had to sit on plastic stools next to their beds and stare at textbooks, sitting with their backs perfectly straight while cameras monitored them. Camp guards told them there were too many people to fit in classrooms.
For Koksebek, the claustrophobia was unbearable.
“There was a window in our room, but it was so high I couldn’t see much other than a patch of sky,” he said. “I used to wish I were a bird so I could have the freedom to fly.”






The camp at Shufu, in Xinjiang, seen by satellite on April 26, 2020. BuzzFeed News; Google Maps

On a frigid, overcast morning last December, Shohrat Zakir, the region’s governor and second-most-powerful official, gave a rare press conference at China’s State Council Information Office, located in a closed compound in central Beijing. The office is one of only a handful of government bodies in China that regularly briefs both local and international journalists, and Zakir sat with four other officials at a long podium at the front of the small room. The officials took the opportunity to tout the region’s economic growth and claim China’s campaign against terrorism in Xinjiang has been a success, calling the US government hypocritical for its criticism of China’s human rights abuses. But Zakir was the one who made international headlines.
Of those held in the camps as “trainees,” Zakir painted a rosy picture. They “have all graduated, and have realized stable employment with the government’s help, improved their quality of life, and are enjoying a happy life,” he said.
Even as reporters were scribbling down his remarks, about 2,500 miles away in Xinjiang, construction was wrapping up on a massive high-security compound near the Uighur heartland county of Shufu, just south of a winding river that flows through a countryside dotted by livestock farms. Shufu is small by Chinese standards, with a population of about 300,000 people. It has a main drag with a post office, a lottery ticket vendor, and eateries selling steamed buns and beef noodle soup. The camp was built on farmland less than a 20-minute drive away.
Before workers started construction last March, the land beneath the Shufu site was farmland too, blanketed with green vegetation. By August, workers had built a thick perimeter enclosure, with guard towers looming in the corners and in the center of walls that rise nearly 6 meters, or more than 19 feet, satellite images show. Next came the buildings inside, organized in U-shaped groups, with two five-story structures alongside a two-story one forming the base of the U. By October, two rows of barbed wire fencing appeared on either side of the main concrete-walled compound, its shadow visible in satellite images.
Just outside the walls, on the western side of the compound, two guard buildings were built — distinguished by the narrow walled pathways leading from them up to the wall that would allow guards to access the guard towers and the tops of the walls for patrols. In front of the entrance, a series of buildings provided space for prison offices and police buildings. In total BuzzFeed News estimates that there is room for approximately 10,500 prisoners at this compound — which would help provide a long-term solution to overcrowding.

“I wasn’t happy or sad. I couldn’t feel anything. Even when I was reunited with my relatives in Kazakhstan, they asked me why I didn’t seem happy to see them after so long.”

Ruser reviewed satellite images of the compound and said it was a newly built detention camp. “The vast majority of camps have watchtowers, internal fencing, and a strong external wall entranceway or exit,” he said.
Unlike the old, repurposed camps, new prisons and camps such as this one have higher security, with gates up to four stories tall and thicker walls along their borders, often with further layers of barbed wire on either side of the main walls. These features suggest they are capable of holding much larger groups of people in long-term detention.
The camps can contain not only cells where detainees sleep, but also classrooms, clinics, canteens, stand-alone shower facilities, solitary confinement rooms, police buildings, administrative offices, and small visitor centers, former detainees told BuzzFeed News. Many of the compounds also contain factories, distinguished by their blue, powder-coated metal roofs and steel frames, which are visible in satellite photos taken while they were being constructed. The police buildings, including for guards and administrative personnel, are usually located by the entrances of the compounds.
The locations of these camps and prisons in Xinjiang are not readily available. However, blanked-out portions of maps on China's Baidu make it possible to use satellite imagery to find and analyze them.
Satellite maps, like Google Earth, are made up of a grid of rectangular tiles. On Baidu, the Chinese search giant that has a map service much like Google’s, BuzzFeed News discovered that spaces containing camps, military bases, or other politically sensitive facilities were overlaid with plain light gray tiles. These “mask” tiles appeared upon zooming in on the location. These look different from the darker gray, watermarked tiles that appear when Baidu cannot load something. The “mask” tiles were also present at other locations where camps had been visited and verified by journalists, though they have since been removed.






Dabancheng District, Ürümqi Prefecture
Baidu; Planet Labs






Shule County, Kashgar Prefecture
Baidu; Planet Labs






Gaochang District, Turpan Prefecture
Baidu; Planet Labs

BuzzFeed News identified the compounds using other satellite maps — provided by Google Earth, Planet Labs, and the European Space Agency’s Sentinel Hub — which do not mask those images. For some locations where high-resolution images were not publicly available, Planet Labs used its own satellite to take new pictures, then provided them to BuzzFeed News. Read more here about how this investigation was conducted.
The images showed the facilities being built over a period of months. Details from the images offer a sense of size and scale: Counting the number of windows in building facades, for example, shows how many stories they contain.
Often, these compounds were built next door to an older prison, sharing parking lots, administrative facilities, and police barracks with the older facility, satellite images show.
BuzzFeed News found an additional 50 more compounds that were likely used for internment in the past but have lost some security features, including barbed wire fencing within compounds used to create rectangular pens, closed passages between buildings, and guard towers, with a small number having been demolished.
Ruser and other experts said this does not suggest the Chinese government is pulling back from its campaign. Many of those facilities likely still operate as low-security camps, he said. The far more important trend in Xinjiang, he said, is the government’s increased use of higher-security prisons and detention facilities.
In response to questions, the Chinese Consulate in New York echoed Zakir's December statement.

"All trainees who received courses in standard spoken and written Chinese, understanding of the law, vocational skills, and deradicalization have completed their training, secured stable employment in the society, and are living a normal life," it said.

All of the detainees interviewed by BuzzFeed News were released too long ago to have spent any time in one of the brand-new facilities — many said that before they escaped China for good, they were kept under de facto house or town arrest, unable to venture past the borders of their villages without obtaining permission from a police officer. Many — especially those with less formal education — had no idea what type of facility they were held in or even why they had been detained in the first place. They said they often drew conclusions based on weekly interrogation sessions, where police asked about actions that made them “untrustworthy.”
An older ethnic Kazakh man named Nurlan Kokteubai recognized the camp he was taken to as soon as he arrived in September 2017. Not long before, it had been a middle school.
“My daughter went to that school,” he said. “I had picked her up there before.”

Smile lines appear on Kokteubai’s deeply wrinkled face when he talks about his daughter, who was born in 1992. She later moved to Kazakhstan, where many ethnic Kazakhs from China emigrate because of the Kazakh government’s resettlement policy for people of Kazakh descent. There, she and her husband campaigned relentlessly for Kokteubai’s release in YouTube videos and long letters to human rights groups. He believes his eventual release in March 2018 was due to her campaign. Inside the camp, instead of classrooms where students like his daughter might have studied math or history, Kokteubai saw dorm rooms overcrowded with as many as 40 or 50 men each sleeping on too few bunk beds.
Though the compound itself wasn’t new, it had many updated features, such as high walls and barbed wire around the compound. And the camp was now dotted with CCTV cameras, which a guard told him could film objects as far as 200 meters away.
Another thing that was new: When you entered the gate, a huge red plaque greeted you. “Let’s learn the spirit of the 19th Communist Party Congress,” it said.
Like Kokteubai, several former detainees interviewed by BuzzFeed News said after arriving, they recognized the facilities in which they were held because they had walked or driven past them, or even visited them in their previous incarnations. But these repurposed facilities were never meant to house prisoners and were not big enough to hold all the Muslim minorities the Chinese government intended to detain.
In early 2019, workers started clearing land to expand a camp south of Ürümqi, in a town called Dabancheng, that had become infamous after reporters from BBC and Reuters visited the year before. The camp at Dabancheng was already one of the largest internment facilities in the region, capable in October 2018 of housing up to 32,500 people, according to an architectural analysis by BuzzFeed News. Since the expansion, it is now capable of housing some 10,000 more people. By November of last year another, separate compound had been completed, this one capable of holding a further 10,000 people — for a total capacity of more than 40,000, comparable to the size of the town of Niagara Falls.
"These facilities display characteristics consistent with extrajudicial detention facilities in the Xinjiang region that CSIS has previously analyzed," said Amy Lehr, director of the human rights program at Washington DC-based think tank CSIS after examining the three camps referenced in this article.


Satellite images comparing the size of Dabancheng to Central Park



Dabancheng
District,
Ürümqi, Xinjiang

Planet Labs; Google Maps

The camp at Dabancheng, Ruser said, “is the main catchment camp for Ürümqi. It’s 2 km (1.2 miles) long and was expanded late last year an extra kilometer with a new facility across the road to the west.” By comparison, the camp is about half the length of Central Park.
Kokteubai never found out precisely why he was detained. Because he’s ethnic Kazakh, he was eventually able to settle in Kazakhstan.

On the day he was released, he expected to feel joy, relief, something. Instead he felt nothing at all.
“I wasn’t happy or sad. I couldn’t feel anything,” he said. “Even when I was reunited with my relatives in Kazakhstan, they asked me why I didn’t seem happy to see them after so long.”
“It’s something I can’t explain,” he said. “It’s like my feelings died while I was in there.” ●
 

johnq

Regular Member
Joined
May 30, 2009
Messages
946
Likes
1,988
Here is the link to the newest article by Dr. Li-Meng Yan (download in pdf format) proving that Covid-19 virus is a bioweapon created in a Chinese military lab, and intentionally leaked out to the world:
SARS-CoV-2 Is an Unrestricted Bioweapon: A Truth Revealed through Uncovering a Large-Scale, Organized Scientific Fraud
The entire paper is very long and I will post it later. For now I am only posting the abstract, while the entire article can be downloaded in pdf format from the link above.

SARS-CoV-2 Is an Unrestricted Bioweapon: A Truth Revealed through Uncovering a Large-Scale, Organized Scientific Fraud

Yan, Li-Meng; Kang, Shu; Guan, Jie; Hu, Shanchang

Two possibilities should be considered for the origin of SARS-CoV-2: natural evolution or laboratory creation. In our earlier report titled “Unusual Features of the SARS-CoV-2 Genome Suggesting Sophisticated Laboratory Modification Rather Than Natural Evolution and Delineation of Its Probable Synthetic Route”, we disproved the possibility of SARS-CoV-2 arising naturally through evolution and instead proved that SARS-CoV-2 must have been a product of laboratory modification. Despite this and similar efforts, the laboratory creation theory continues to be downplayed or even diminished. This is fundamentally because the natural origin theory remains supported by several novel coronaviruses published after the start of the outbreak. These viruses (the RaTG13 bat coronavirus, a series of pangolin coronaviruses, and the RmYN02 bat coronavirus) reportedly share high sequence homology with SARS-CoV-2 and have altogether constructed a seemingly plausible pathway for the natural evolution of SARS-CoV-2. Here, however, we use in-depth analyses of the available data and literature to prove that these novel animal coronaviruses do not exist in nature and their sequences have been fabricated. In addition, we also offer our insights on the hypothesis that SARS-CoV-2 may have originated naturally from a coronavirus that infected the Mojiang miners.

Revelation of these virus fabrications renders the natural origin theory unfounded. It also strengthens our earlier assertion that SARS-CoV-2 is a product of laboratory modification, which can be created in approximately six months using a template virus owned by a laboratory of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA). The fact that data fabrications were used to cover up the true origin of SARS-CoV-2 further implicates that the laboratory modification here is beyond simple gain-of-function research.

The scale and the coordinated nature of this scientific fraud signifies the degree of corruption in the fields of academic research and public health. As a result of such corruption, damages have been made both to the reputation of the scientific community and to the well-being of the global community.

Importantly, while SARS-CoV-2 meets the criteria of a bioweapon specified by the PLA, its impact is well beyond what is conceived for a typical bioweapon. In addition, records indicate that the unleashing of this weaponized pathogen should have been intentional rather than accidental. We therefore define SARS-CoV-2 as an Unrestricted Bioweapon and the current pandemic a result of Unrestricted Biowarfare. We further suggest that investigations should be carried out on the suspected government and individuals and the responsible ones be held accountable for this brutal attack on the global community.
 

johnq

Regular Member
Joined
May 30, 2009
Messages
946
Likes
1,988
COVID-19 AN ‘UNRESTRICTED BIOWEAPON’
Li-Meng Yan, A Chinese virologist (MD, PhD) who worked in a WHO reference lab and fled her position at the University of Hong Kong, has published a second co-authored report, alleging that SARS-CoV-2, the virus which causes COVID-19, was not only created in a Wuhan lab, it’s an “unrestricted bioweapon” which was intentionally released.
BY TYLER DURDEN FOR ZERO HEDGE


“We used biological evidence and in-depth analyses to show that SARS-CoV-2 must be a laboratory product, which was created by using a template virus (ZC45/ZXC21) owned by military research laboratories under the control of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) government,” reads the paper.

SARS-CoV2 is a product of laboratory modification, which can be created in approximately six months using a template virus owned by a laboratory of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA). The fact that data fabrications were used to cover up the true origin of SARS-CoV 2 further implicates that the laboratory modification here is beyond simple gain-of-function research.
The scale and the coordinated nature of this scientific fraud signifies the degree of corruption in the fields of academic research and public health.
As a result of such corruption, damages have been made both tot he reputation of the scientific community and to the well-being of the global community.

The report also claims that the RaTG13 virus which Wuhan “Batwoman” Dr. Zhengli Shi and colleagues say they obtained in bat feces in 2013 (and which is 96% identical to SARS-CoV-2), is fraudulent and also man made.

Since its publication, the RaTG13 virus has served as the founding evidence for the theory that SARS-CoV-2 must have a natural origin. However, no live virus or an intact genome of RaTG13 have ever been isolated or recovered. Therefore, the only proof for the “existence” of RaTG13 in nature is its genomic sequence published on GenBank.

The report goes on to say that the RaTG13 genome could easily be fabricated, and that “an entry on GenBank, which in this case is equivalent to the existence of an assembled viral genomic sequence and its associated sequencing reads, is not a definitive proof that this viral genome is correct or real,” and that the process for sequencing DNA itself “leaves room for potential fraud.”

If one intends to fabricate an RNA viral genome on GenBank, he or she could do so by following these steps: create its genomic sequence on a computer, have segments of the genome synthesized based on the sequence, amplify each DNA segment through PCR, and then send the PCR products (may also be mixed with genetic material derived from the alleged host of the virus to mimic an authentic sequencing sample) for sequencing.The resulted raw sequencing reads would be used, together with the created genomic sequence, for establishing an entry on GenBank. Once accomplished, this entry would be accepted as the evidence for the natural existence of the corresponding virus. Clearly, a viral genomic sequence and its GenBank entry can be fabricated if well-planned.



RaTG13 has ‘multiple abnormal features,’ according to the report. For starters, it’s claimed that it was a fecal sample – yet just 1.7% of the raw sequencing reads are bacterial, when fecal swab samples are typically 70-90% bacterial. Second, the genomic sequence for RaTG13 contains segments of non-bat origin, including fox, flying fox, squirrels and other animals.

What’s more, China destroyed all evidence of RaTG13. “No independent verification of the RaTG13 sequence seems possible because, according to Dr. Zhengli Shi,the raw sample has been exhausted and no live virus was ever isolated or recovered. Notably, this information was known to a core circle of virologists early on and apparently accepted by them.”

Meanwhile, another coronavirus which shares a ‘100% nucleotide sequence identity with RaTG13’ – RaBtCoV/4991 – on a ‘short, 440-bp RNA-dependent RNA polymerase gene segment.’

RaBtCoV/4991 was allegedly discovered by Shi and colleagues in 2012 and published in 2016, and colleagues have been asking if it’s the same virus as RaTG13.

Given the 100% identity on this short gene segment between RaBtCoV/4991 and RaTG13,the field has demanded clarification of whether or not these two names refer to the same virus. However,Dr. Shi did not respond to the requestor address this question for months. The answer finally came from Peter Daszak, president of EcoHealth Alliance and long-term collaborator of Shi, who claimed that RaBtCoV/4991 was RaTG1327.

Three suspicious facts

First, it makes no sense that ‘Batwoman’ Shi and her team wouldn’t have conducted whole genome sequencing of RaBtCoV/4991 before 2020, as it was suspected in the deaths of miners who suffered from severe pneumonia after clearing out bat droppings in a Chinese mineshaft.

Given the Shi group’s consistent interests in studying SARS-like bat coronaviruses and the fact that RaBtCoV/4991 is a SARS-like coronavirus with a possible connection to the deaths of the miners, it is highly unlikely that the Shi group would be content with sequencing only a 440-bp segment of RdRpand not pursue the sequencing of the receptor-binding motif (RBM)-encoding region of the spike gene. In fact, sequencing of the spike gene is routinely attempted by the Shi group once the presence of a SARS-like bat coronavirus is confirmed by the sequencing of the 440-bp RdRpsegment25,32, although the success of such efforts is often hindered by the poor quality of the sample.

“Clearly, the perceivable motivation of the Shi group to study this RaBtCoV/4991 virus and the fact that no genome sequencing of it was done for a period of seven years (2013-2020) are hard to reconcile and explain.

Meanwhile, genomic sequencing of RaTG13 was conducted in 2018.

Second, why did Shi delay publication on RaTG13 until 2020 when it’s got a Spike protein that can bind with human ACE2 receptors?

…if the genomic sequence of RaTG13 had been available since 2018, it is unlikely that this virus, which has a possible connection to miners’ deaths in 2012 and has an alarming SARS-like RBM, would be shelfed for two years without publication. Consistent with this analysis, a recent study indeed proved that the RBD of RaTG13(produced via gene synthesis based on its published sequence) was capable of binding hACE2

Third, there has been no follow-up work on RaTG13 by Shi’s group.

Upon obtaining the genomic sequence of a SARS-like bat coronavirus, the Shi group routinely investigate whether or not the virus is capable of infecting human cells. This pattern of research activities has been shown repeatedly. However, such a pattern is not seen here despite that RaTG13 has an interesting RBM and is allegedly the closest match evolutionarily to SARS-CoV-2

Direct genetic evidence proving RaTG13 is fraudulent

Yan’s group closely examined the sequences of specific spike proteins for relevant viruses – specifically comparing mutations, and found that the spike genes of SARS-CoV-2 and RaTG13 do not contain evidence of natural evolution when compared to other coronaviruses which naturally evolved.

A logical interpretation of this observation is that SARS-CoV-2 and RaTG13 could not relate to each other through natural evolution and at least one must be artificial.If one is a product of natural evolution, then the other one must be not. It is also possible that neither of them exists naturally. If RaTG13 is a real virus that truly exists in nature, then SARS-CoV-2 must be artificial.

More:

It is highly likely that the sequence of the RaTG13 genome was fabricated by lightly modifying the SARS-CoV-2 sequence to achieve an overall 96.2% sequence identity. During this process, much editing must have been done for the RBM region of the S1/spike because the encoded RBM determines the interaction with ACE2 and therefore would be heavily scrutinized by others.

The paper concludes: All fabricated coronaviruses share a 100% amino acid sequence identity on the E protein with ZC45 and ZXC21

Evidence herein clearly indicates that the novel coronaviruses recently published by the CCP-controlled laboratories are all fraudulent and do not exist in nature. One final proof of this conclusion is the fact that all of these viruses share a 100% amino acid sequence identity on the E protein with bat coronaviruses ZC45 and ZXC21, which, as revealed in our earlier report1, should be the template/backbone used for the creation of SARS-CoV-2. Despite its conserved function in the viral replication cycle, the E protein is tolerant and permissive of amino acid mutations. It is therefore impossible for the amino acid sequence of the E protein to remain unchanged when the virus has allegedly crossed species barrier multiple times (between different bat species, from bats to pangolins, and from pangolins to humans). The 100% identity observed here, therefore, further proves that the sequences of these recently published novel coronaviruses have been fabricated.

Unrestricted bioweapon?

Yan notes that while it’s not easy for the public to accept that SARS-CoV-2 is a bioweapon due to its relatively low lethality, it indeed meets the criteria of a bioweapon.

In 2005, Dr. Yang specified the criteria for a pathogen to qualify as a bioweapon:


  1. It is significantly virulent and can cause large scale casualty.
  2. It is highly contagious and transmits easily, often through respiratory routes in the form of aerosols. The most dangerous scenario would be that it allows human-to-human transmission.
  3. It is relatively resistant to environmental changes, can sustain transportation, and is capable of supporting targeted release.
All of the above have been met bySARS-CoV-2: it has taken hundreds of thousands lives, led to numerous hospitalizations, and left many with sequela and various complications; it spreads easily by contact, droplets, and aerosols via respiratory routes and is capable of transmitting from human to human, the latter of which was initially covered up by the CCP government and the WHO and was first revealed by Dr. Li-Meng Yan on January 19th, 2020 on Lude Press; it is temperature-insensitive (unlike seasonal flu) and remains viable for a long period of time on many surfaces and at 4°C (e.g. the ice/water mixture).

What’s more, COVID-19 spreads asymptomatically, which “renders the control of SARS-CoV-2 extremely challenging.”

“In addition, the transmissibility, morbidity, and mortality of SARS-CoV-2 also resulted in panic in the global community, disruption of social orders, and decimation of the world’s economy. The range and destructive power of SARS-CoV-2 are both unprecedented.

“Clearly,SARS-CoV-2 not only meets but also surpasses the standards of a traditional bioweapon. Therefore, it should be defined as an Unrestricted Bioweapon.”
 

johnq

Regular Member
Joined
May 30, 2009
Messages
946
Likes
1,988
What They Saw
Ex-Prisoners Detail The Horrors Of China’s Detention Camps


Maybe the police officers call you first. Or maybe they show up at your workplace and ask your boss if they can talk to you. In all likelihood they will come for you at night, after you’ve gone to bed.
In Nursaule’s case, they turned up at her home just as she was fixing her husband a lunch of fresh noodles and lamb.
For the Uighurs and Kazakhs in China’s far west who have found themselves detained in a sprawling system of internment camps, what happens next is more or less the same. Handcuffed, often with a hood over their heads, they are brought by the hundreds to the tall iron gates.
Thrown into the camps for offenses that range from wearing a beard to having downloaded a banned app, upward of a million people have disappeared into the secretive facilities, according to independent estimates. The government has previously said the camps are meant to provide educational or vocational training to Muslim minorities. Satellite images, such as those revealed in a BuzzFeed News investigation on Thursday, offer bird’s eye hints: guard towers, thick walls, and barbed wire. Yet little is still known about day-to-day life inside.
BuzzFeed News interviewed 28 former detainees from the camps in Xinjiang about their experiences. Most spoke through an interpreter. They are, in many ways, the lucky ones — they escaped the country to tell their tale. All of them said that when they were released, they were made to sign a written agreement not to disclose what happens inside. (None kept copies — most said they were afraid they would be searched at the border when they tried to leave China.) Many declined to use their names because, despite living abroad, they feared reprisals on their families. But they said they wanted to make the world aware of how they were treated.
The stories about what detention is like in Xinjiang are remarkably consistent — from the point of arrest, where people are swept away in police cars, to the days, weeks, and months of abuse, deprivation, and routine humiliation inside the camps, to the moment of release for the very few who get out. They also offer insight into the structure of life inside, from the surveillance tools installed — even in restrooms — to the hierarchy of prisoners, who said they were divided into color-coded uniforms based on their assumed threat to the state. BuzzFeed News could not corroborate all details of their accounts because it is not possible to independently visit camps and prisons in Xinjiang.

“They treated us like livestock. I wanted to cry. I was ashamed, you know, to take off my clothes in front of others.”

Their accounts also give clues into how China’s mass internment policy targeting its Muslim minorities in Xinjiang has evolved, partly in response to international pressure. Those who were detained earlier, particularly in 2017 and early 2018, were more likely to find themselves forced into repurposed government buildings like schoolhouses and retirement homes. Those who were detained later, from late 2018, were more likely to have seen factories being built, or even been forced to labor in them, for no pay but less oppressive detention.
In response to a list of questions for this article, the Chinese Consulate in New York said that "the basic principle of respecting and protecting human rights in accordance with China's Constitution and law is strictly observed in these centers to guarantee that the personal dignity of trainees is inviolable."
"The centers are run as boarding facilities and trainees can go home and ask for leave to tend to personal business. Trainees' right to use their own spoken and written languages is fully protected ... the customs and habits of different ethnic groups are fully respected and protected," the consulate added, saying that "trainees" are given halal food for free and that they can decide whether to "attend legitimate religious activities" when they go home.
China's Foreign Ministry did not respond to several requests for comment.
Nursaule’s husband was watching TV the day she was detained in late 2017 near Tacheng city, she said. She was in the kitchen when there was a sharp knock at the front door. She opened it to find a woman wearing ordinary clothing flanked by two uniformed male police officers, she said. The woman told her she was to be taken for a medical checkup.
At first, Nursaule, a sixtysomething Kazakh woman whose presence is both no-nonsense and grandmotherly, was glad. Her legs had been swollen for a few days, and she had been meaning to go to the doctor to have them looked at.
Nursaule’s stomach began to rumble. The woman seemed kind, so Nursaule asked if she could return to pick her up after she’d eaten lunch. The woman agreed. But then she said something strange.
“She told me to take off my earrings and necklace before going with them, that I shouldn’t take my jewelry where I was going,” Nursaule said. “It was only then that I started to feel afraid.”
After the police left, Nursaule called her grown-up daughter to tell her what happened, hoping she’d have some insight. Her daughter told her not to worry — but something in her tone told Nursaule there was something wrong. She began to cry. She couldn’t eat a bite of her noodles. Many hours later, after the police had interrogated her for hours, she realized that she was starving. But the next meal she would eat would be within the walls of an internment camp.
Like Nursaule, those detained all reported being given a full medical checkup before being taken to the camps. At the clinic, samples of their blood and urine were collected, they said. They also said they sat for interviews with police officers, answering questions on their foreign travel, personal beliefs, and religious practices.
“They asked me, ‘Are you a practicing Muslim?’ ‘Do you pray?’” said Kadyrbek Tampek, a livestock farmer from the Tacheng region, which lies in the north of Xinjiang. “I told them that I have faith, but I don’t pray.” Afterward, the police officers took his phone. Tampek, a soft-spoken 51-year-old man who belongs to Xinjiang’s ethnic Kazakh minority, was first sent to a camp in December 2017 and said he was later forced to work as a security guard.
After a series of blood tests, Nursaule was taken to a separate room at the clinic, where she was asked to sign some documents she couldn’t understand and press all 10 of her fingers on a pad of ink to make fingerprints. Police interrogated her about her past, and afterward, she waited for hours. Finally, past midnight, a Chinese police officer told her she would be taken to “get some education.” Nursaule tried to appeal to the Kazakh officer translating for him — she does not speak Chinese — but he assured her she would only be gone 10 days.
After the medical exam and interview, detainees were taken to camps. Those who had been detained in 2017 and early in 2018 described a chaotic atmosphere when they arrived — often in tandem with dozens or even hundreds of other people, who were lined up for security screenings inside camps protected by huge iron gates. Many said they could not recognize where they were because they had arrived in darkness, or because police placed hoods over their heads. But others said they recognized the buildings, often former schools or retirement homes repurposed into detention centers. When Nursaule arrived, the first thing she saw were the heavy iron doors of the compound, flanked by armed police.

“I recognized those dogs. They looked like the ones the Germans had.”

Once inside, they were told to discard their belongings as well as shoelaces and belts — as is done in prisons to prevent suicide. After a security screening, detainees said they were brought to a separate room to put on camp uniforms, often walking through a passageway covered with netting and flanked by armed guards and their dogs. “I recognized those dogs,” said one former detainee who declined to share his name. He used to watch TV documentaries about World War II, he said. “They looked like the ones the Germans had.”
“We lined up and took off our clothes to put on blue uniforms. There were men and women together in the same room,” said 48-year-old Parida, a Kazakh pharmacist who was detained in February 2018. “They treated us like livestock. I wanted to cry. I was ashamed, you know, to take off my clothes in front of others.”
More than a dozen former detainees confirmed to BuzzFeed News that prisoners were divided into three categories, differentiated by uniform colors. Those in blue, like Parida and the majority of the people interviewed for this article, were considered the least threatening. Often, they were accused of minor transgressions, like downloading banned apps to their phones or having traveled abroad. Imams, religious people, and others considered subversive to the state were placed in the strictest group — and were usually shackled even inside the camp. There was also a mid-level group.

The blue-clad detainees had no interaction with people in the more “dangerous” groups, who were often housed in different sections or floors of buildings, or stayed in separate buildings altogether. But they could sometimes see them through the window, being marched outside the building, often with their hands cuffed. In Chinese, the groups were referred to as “ordinary regulation,” “strong regulation,” and “strict regulation” detainees.
For several women detainees, a deeply traumatic humiliation was having their long hair cut to chin length. Women were also barred from wearing traditional head coverings, as they are in all of Xinjiang.
“I wanted to keep my hair,” said Nursaule. “Keeping long hair, for a Kazakh woman, is very important. I had grown it since I was a little girl, I had never cut it in my life. Hair is the beauty of a woman.”
“I couldn’t believe it,” she said. “They wanted to hack it off.”
After the haircut, putting her hand to the ends of her hair, she cried.

A perimeter fence at the entrance to what is officially known as a vocational skills education center in Dabancheng in Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region, China, Sept. 4, 2018.

From the moment they stepped inside the compounds, privacy was gone. Aside from the overwhelming presence of guards, each room was fitted with two video cameras, all the former detainees interviewed by BuzzFeed News confirmed. Cameras could also be seen in bathrooms, and throughout the building. In some camps, according to more than a dozen former detainees, dorms were outfitted with internal and external doors, one of which required an iris or thumbprint scan for guards to enter. The internal doors sometimes had small windows through which bowls of food could be passed.
Periodically, the detainees were subject to interrogations, where they’d have to repeat again and again the stories of their supposed transgressions — religious practices, foreign travel, and online activities. These sessions were carefully documented by interrogators, they said. And they often resulted in detainees writing “self-criticism.” Those who could not read and write were given a document to sign.
None of the former detainees interviewed by BuzzFeed News said they contemplated escaping — this was not a possibility.
Camp officials would observe the detainees’ behavior during the day using cameras, and communicate with detainees over intercom.
Camps were made up of multiple buildings, including dorms, canteens, shower facilities, administrative buildings, and, in some cases, a building where visitors were hosted. But most detainees said they saw little outside their own dorm room buildings. Detainees who arrived early in the government’s campaign — particularly in 2017 — reported desperately crowded facilities, where people sometimes slept two to a twin bed, and said new arrivals would come all the time.
Dorm rooms were stacked with bunk beds, and each detainee was given a small plastic stool. Several former detainees said that they were forced to study Chinese textbooks while sitting rigidly on the stools. If they moved their hands from their knees or slouched, they’d be yelled at through the intercom.
Detainees said there was a shared bathroom. Showers were infrequent, and always cold.
Some former detainees said there were small clinics within the camps. Nursaule remembered being taken by bus to two local hospitals in 2018. The detainees were chained together, she said.
People were coming and going all the time from the camp where she stayed, she said.

“She told me to take off my earrings and necklace before going with them, that I shouldn’t take my jewelry where I was going. It was only then that I started to feel afraid.”

Surveillance was not limited to cameras and guards. At night, the detainees themselves were forced to stand watch in shifts over other inmates in their own rooms. If anyone in the room acted up — getting into arguments with each other, for example, or speaking Uighur or Kazakh instead of Chinese — those on watch could be punished as well. Usually they were beaten, or, as happened more often to women, put into solitary confinement. Several former detainees said that older men and women could not handle standing for many hours and struggled to keep watch. The atmosphere was so crowded and tense that arguments sometimes broke out among detainees — but these were punished severely.
“They took me down there and beat me,” said one former detainee. “I couldn’t tell you where the room was because they put a hood over my head.”
Nursaule was never beaten, but one day, she got into a squabble with a Uighur woman who was living in the same dorm room. Guards put a sack over her head and took her to the solitary room.
There, it was dark, with only a metal chair and a bucket. Her ankles were shackled together. The room was small, about 10 feet by 10 feet, she said, with a cement floor. There was no window. The lights were kept off, so guards used a flashlight to find her, she said.
After three days had passed by, she was taken back up to the cell.

Residents at the Kashgar city vocational educational training center attend a Chinese lesson during a government-organized visit in Kashgar, Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region, China, Jan. 4, 2019.

The government has said that “students” in the camps receive vocational training, learn the Chinese language, and become “deradicalized.” Former detainees say this means they were brainwashed with Communist Party propaganda and forced to labor for free in factories.
State media reports have emphasized the classroom education that takes place in the camps, claiming that detainees are actually benefiting from their time there. But several former detainees told BuzzFeed News that there were too many people to fit inside the classroom, so instead they were forced to study textbooks while sitting on their plastic stools in their dorm rooms.
Those who did sit through lessons in classrooms described them all similarly. The teacher, at the front of the room, was separated from the detainees by a transparent wall or a set of bars, and he or she taught them Mandarin or about Communist Party dogma. Guards flanked the classroom, and some former detainees said they carried batons and even hit “pupils” when they made mistakes about Chinese characters.
Nearly every former detainee who spoke to BuzzFeed News described being moved from camp to camp, and noted that people always seemed to be coming and going from the buildings where they were being held. Officials did not appear to give reasons for these moves, but several former detainees chalked it up to overcrowding.
Among them was Dina Nurdybai, a 27-year-old Kazakh woman who ran a successful clothing manufacturing business. After being first detained on October 14, 2017, Nurdybai was moved between five different camps — ranging from a compound in a village where horses were raised to a high-security prison.
In the first camp, “it seemed like 50 new people were coming in every night. You could hear the shackles on their legs,” she said.

Dina Nurdybai in her sewing workshop at her home in Almaty, Kazakhstan, Feb. 25.

Nursaule never expected to be released.
“It was dinner time and we were lining up at the door,” she said. “They called my name and another Kazakh woman’s name.” It was December 23, 2018.

She was terrified — she had heard that some detainees were being given prison sentences, and she wondered if she might be among them. China does not consider internment camps like the ones she was sent to be part of the criminal justice system — no one who is sent to a camp is formally arrested or charged with a crime.
Nursaule had heard that prisons — which disproportionately house Uighurs and Kazakhs — could be even worse than internment camps. She whispered to the other woman, “Are we getting prison terms?” The two were taken in handcuffs to a larger room and told to sit on plastic stools. Then an officer undid the handcuffs.
He asked if Nursaule wanted to go to Kazakhstan. She said yes. He then gave her a set of papers to sign, promising never to tell anyone what she had experienced. She signed it, and they allowed her to leave — to live under house arrest until she left for Kazakhstan for good. The day after, her daughter arrived with her clothes.
Nearly all of the former detainees interviewed by BuzzFeed News told a similar story about being asked to sign documents that said they’d never discuss what happened to them. Those who didn’t speak Chinese said they couldn’t even read what they were asked to sign.
Some of them were told the reasons they had been detained, and others said they never got an answer.
“In the end they told me I was detained because I had used ‘illegal software,’” Nurdybai said — WhatsApp.

A giant national flag is displayed on the hillside of the peony valley scenic area in the Tacheng region, in northwest China, May 13, 2019.

Nursaule’s daughter, who is in her late twenties, is a nurse who usually works the night shift at a local hospital in Xinjiang, starting at 6 p.m. Nursaule worries all the time about her — about how hard she works, and whether she might be detained someday too. After Nursaule was eventually released from detention, it was her daughter who cared for her, because her husband had been detained too.

Like for other Muslim minorities, government authorities have taken her daughter’s passport, Nursaule said, so she cannot come to Kazakhstan.
Snow fell softly outside the window as Nursaule spoke about what had happened to her from an acquaintance’s apartment in Almaty, Kazakhstan’s largest city, where a cheery plastic tablecloth printed with cartoon plates of pasta covered the coffee table. Nursaule spoke slowly and carefully in her native Kazakh, with the occasional bitter note creeping into her voice, long after the milky tea on the table had grown cold.
But when she asked that her full name not be used in this article, she began to weep — big, heaving sobs pent up from the pain she carried with her, from talking about things she could hardly bear to remember or relate, even to her husband.
She was thinking about her daughter, she said, and about what could happen if Chinese officials discovered she spoke about her time in the camps. It is the reason that she, like so many former detainees and prisoners, has never spoken publicly about what was done to her.
“I am still afraid of talking about this,” she said. “I can’t stand it anymore. I can’t bear it.”
“It makes me suffer to tell you this,” she said.
“But I feel that I have to tell it.” ●

The only way to stop China from enslaving and torturing these people in concentration camps and making them do forced labor in Chinese factories is to move all manufacturing out of China. Just banning products made in Xinjiang is not enough. The Chinese will simply move the Uyghurs and other minorities to factories in other regions to continue forcing them to work as slaves.
Until international corporations move all manufacturing out of China, the atrocities in such concentration camps will continue. International corporations are complicit in all of this because they look the other way for cheap labor even as the Uyghurs, Tibetans and other minorities are forced to work as slaves.
 

johnq

Regular Member
Joined
May 30, 2009
Messages
946
Likes
1,988
I am posting the newest article by Dr. Li-Meng Yan proving that Covid-19 virus is a bioweapon created in a Chinese military lab, and intentionally leaked out to the world. I am not including the referenced figures and citations (due to format limitations); the full report (in pdf format) with all figures and citations can be accessed via this link:
SARS-CoV-2 Is an Unrestricted Bioweapon: A Truth Revealed through Uncovering a Large-Scale, Organized Scientific Fraud
Li-Meng Yan (MD, PhD), Shu Kang (PhD), Jie Guan (PhD), Shanchang Hu (PhD)
Rule of Law Society & Rule of Law Foundation, New York, NY, USA.

Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract

Two possibilities should be considered for the origin of SARS-CoV-2: natural evolution or laboratory creation. In our earlier report titled “Unusual Features of the SARS-CoV-2 Genome Suggesting Sophisticated Laboratory Modification Rather Than Natural Evolution and Delineation of Its Probable Synthetic Route”, we disproved the possibility of SARS-CoV-2 arising naturally through evolution and instead proved that SARS-CoV-2 must have been a product of laboratory modification. Despite this and similar efforts, the laboratory creation theory continues to be downplayed or even diminished. This is fundamentally because the natural origin theory remains supported by several novel coronaviruses published after the start of the outbreak. These viruses (the RaTG13 bat coronavirus, a series of pangolin coronaviruses, and the RmYN02 bat coronavirus) reportedly share high sequence homology with SARSCoV- 2 and have altogether constructed a seemingly plausible pathway for the natural evolution of SARSCoV-2. Here, however, we use in-depth analyses of the available data and literature to prove that these novel animal coronaviruses do not exist in nature and their sequences have been fabricated. In addition, we also offer our insights on the hypothesis that SARS-CoV-2 may have originated naturally from a coronavirus that infected the Mojiang miners.

Revelation of these virus fabrications renders the natural origin theory unfounded. It also strengthens our earlier assertion that SARS-CoV-2 is a product of laboratory modification, which can be created in approximately six months using a template virus owned by a laboratory of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA). The fact that data fabrications were used to cover up the true origin of SARS-CoV-2 further implicates that the laboratory modification here is beyond simple gain-of-function research.

The scale and the coordinated nature of this scientific fraud signifies the degree of corruption in the fields of academic research and public health. As a result of such corruption, damages have been made both to the reputation of the scientific community and to the well-being of the global community.

Importantly, while SARS-CoV-2 meets the criteria of a bioweapon specified by the PLA, its impact is well beyond what is conceived for a typical bioweapon. In addition, records indicate that the unleashing of this weaponized pathogen should have been intentional rather than accidental. We therefore define SARS-CoV-2 as an Unrestricted Bioweapon and the current pandemic a result of Unrestricted Biowarfare.

We further suggest that investigations should be carried out on the suspected government and individuals and the responsible ones be held accountable for this brutal attack on the global community.

Introduction

SARS-CoV-2 is a novel coronavirus and the causative agent of the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite its tremendous impact, the origin of SARS-CoV-2, however, has been a topic of great controversy. In our first report titled “Unusual Features of the SARS-CoV-2 Genome Suggesting Sophisticated Laboratory Modification Rather Than Natural Evolution and Delineation of Its Probable Synthetic Route”, we used biological evidence and in-depth analyses to show that SARS-CoV-2 must be a laboratory product, which was created by using a template virus (ZC45/ZXC21) owned by military research laboratories under the control of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) government. In addition, resources and expertise are all in place in the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) and related, other CCP-controlled institutions allowing the creation of SARS-CoV-2 in approximately six months.

What have not been fully described in our earlier analyses are details of the novel animal coronaviruses published by the CCP-controlled laboratories after the outbreak1. While no coronaviruses reported prior to 2020 share more than 90% sequence identity with SARS-CoV-2, these recently published, novel animal coronaviruses (the RaTG13 bat coronavirus, a series of pangolin coronaviruses, and the RmYN02 bat coronavirus9) all share over 90% sequence identities with SARS-CoV-2. As a result, these SARS-CoV-2-like viruses have filled an evolutionary gap and served as the founding evidence for the theory that SARS-CoV-2 has a natural origin. In this report, we provide genetic and other analyses, which, when combined with recent findings, prove that these novel animal coronaviruses do not exist in nature and their genomic sequences are results of fabrication.

1. Evidence proving that the RaTG13 virus is fraudulent and does not exist in nature

On February 3rd, 2020, Dr. Zhengli Shi and colleagues published an article in Nature titled “A pneumonia outbreak associated with a new coronavirus of probable bat origin” (manuscript submitted on January 20th), which was one of the first publications to identify SARS-CoV-2 as the pathogen causing the disease now widely known as COVID-19. Also reported in this article was a novel bat coronavirus named RaTG13, the genomic sequence of which was shown to be 96.2% identical to that of SARS-CoV-2. The close evolutionary relationship between RaTG13 and SARS-CoV-2 as suggested by the high sequence identity had led to a conclusion that SARS-CoV-2 has a natural origin. These striking findings have consequently made this article one of the most cited publications in the currently overwhelmed field of coronavirus research. Interestingly, an article published by Dr. Yong-Zhen Zhang and colleagues on the same issue of Nature, which also discovered SARS-CoV-2 as the responsible pathogen for COVID-19, received much less citations. This latter article made no mention of RaTG13. Instead, Zhang and colleagues showed that, evolutionarily, SARS-CoV-2 was closest to two bat coronaviruses, ZC45 and ZXC21, both of which were discovered and characterized by military research laboratories under the control of the CCP government. Immediately after the publication of this article, Dr. Zhang’s laboratory was shut down by the CCP government with no explanations offered.

Since its publication, the RaTG13 virus has served as the founding evidence for the theory that SARSCoV-2 must have a natural origin. However, no live virus or an intact genome of RaTG13 have ever been isolated or recovered. Therefore, the only proof for the “existence” of RaTG13 in nature is its genomic sequence published on GenBank.

1.1 The sequence of RaTG13 uploaded at GenBank can be fabricated

In order to have the sequence of a viral genome successfully uploaded onto GenBank, submitters have to provide both the assembled genomic sequence (text only) and raw sequencing reads. The latter is used for quality control and verification purposes. However, due to the huge amount of work involved in assembling raw reads into complete genomes, no sufficient curation is in place to ensure the correctness or truthfulness of the uploaded viral genomes. Therefore, an entry on GenBank, which in this case is equivalent to the existence of an assembled viral genomic sequence and its associated sequencing reads, is not a definitive proof that this viral genome is correct or real.

Sequencing of a viral RNA genome requires amplifying segments of it using reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR) as the first step. The products of the RT-PCR, which are double-stranded DNA, would subsequently be sent for sequencing. The resulted sequencing reads, each ideally revealing the sequence of a segment of the genome, are then used to assemble the genome of the virus under study (Figure 1A).

Typically, some segments of the genome may not be covered by the initial round of sequencing. Therefore, gap filling will be carried out, where these missing segments will be amplified specifically and the DNA products subsequently sequenced. These steps are repeated until a complete genome can be assembled, ideally with a proper depth to ensure accuracy.

However, this process leaves room for potential fraud. If one intends to fabricate an RNA viral genome on GenBank, he or she could do so by following these steps: create its genomic sequence on a computer, have segments of the genome synthesized based on the sequence, amplify each DNA segment through PCR, and then send the PCR products (may also be mixed with genetic material derived from the alleged host of the virus to mimic an authentic sequencing sample) for sequencing (Figure 1B). The resulted raw sequencing reads would be used, together with the created genomic sequence, for establishing an entry on GenBank. Once accomplished, this entry would be accepted as the evidence for the natural existence of the corresponding virus. Clearly, a viral genomic sequence and its GenBank entry can be fabricated if well-planned.

The complete genomic sequence of RaTG13 was first submitted to GenBank on January 27th, 2020. The raw sequencing reads were made available on February 13th, 2020 (NCBI SRA: SRP249482).

However, the sequencing data for gap filling, which is indispensable in assembling a complete genome, was only made available on May 19th, 2020 (NCBI SRA: SRX8357956). The timing and the reversed order of events here are strange and suspicious.

The raw sequencing reads of RaTG13 have multiple abnormal features. Despite the sample being described as a fecal swab, only 0.7% of the raw sequencing reads are bacterial reads while the bacterial abundance is typically 70~90% when other fecal swab samples were sequenced. In addition, in the identifiable region of certain sequencing reads, a vast majority of reads are eukaryotic sequences, which is also highly unusual in the sequencing of fecal swap-derived samples. Within these eukaryotic reads, 30% of the sequences are of non-bat origin and instead shown to be from many different types of animals including fox, flying fox, squirrels, etc. These abnormal features are significant and indicate that the raw sequencing reads should have been obtained via a route that is different from the normal one (Figure 1).

No independent verification of the RaTG13 sequence seems possible because, according to Dr. Zhengli Shi, the raw sample has been exhausted and no live virus was ever isolated or recovered. Notably, this information was known to a core circle of virologists early on and apparently accepted by them. It was then made public, months later, by Dr. Yanyi Wang, director general of the WIV, in an TV interview on May 23rd, 2020. Dr. Shi also confirmed this publicly in her email interview with Science in July 2020.

However, judging from Shi’s published protocol, exhaustion of the fecal swap sample is highly unlikely. According to this protocol, the fecal swab sample would be mixed with 1 ml of viral transport medium and the supernatant collected. Every 140 ul of the supernatant would then yield 60 ul of extracted RNA. For the subsequent step, RT-PCR, 5 ul of this RNA-containing solution is required per reaction.

Therefore, from one fecal swab sample, at least 80 RT-PCR reactions could be carried out ([1000/140] x 60/5=86). Such an amount is sufficient to support both the initial round of sequencing and the subsequent gap filling PCR. It would be sufficient to also allow reasonable attempts to isolate live viruses, although Dr. Shi claimed that no virus isolation was attempted.

Therefore, the RaTG13 virus and its published sequence are suspicious and show signs of fabrication.

1.2 Other suspicions associated with RaTG13

RaTG13 was reported by Dr. Zhengli Shi from the WIV. Dr. Shi is a fellow of the American Academy of Microbiology and one of the most accomplished Chinese virologists. A peer-reviewed article authored by her and published on the top journal Nature, therefore, brought a great level of comfort for the coronavirus research community in accepting RaTG13 as a true, nature-born bat coronavirus. As a result, RaTG13, upon its timely publication, served as the founding evidence for the natural origin theory of SARS-CoV-2.

However, as revealed in section 1.1, the reported sequence of RaTG13, which is the only proof of the virus’ existence in nature, is problematic and shows signs of fabrication.
Intriguingly, despite the pivotal role of RaTG13 in revealing the origin of SARS-CoV-2, the
information provided for its discovery was surprisingly scarce with key points missing (location and date of sample collection, previous knowledge and publication of this virus, etc):

We then found that a short region of RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp) from a bat coronavirus (BatCoV RaTG13)—which was previously detected in Rhinolophus affinis from Yunnan province—showed high sequence identity to 2019-nCoV. We carried out full-length sequencing on this RNA sample (GISAID accession number EPI_ISL_402131). Simplot analysis showed that 2019-nCoV was highly similar throughout the genome to RaTG13 (Fig. 1c), with an overall genome sequence identity of 96.2%.

Only in the source section of the NCBI entry for RaTG13 (GenBank accession code: MN996532.1), one could find that the original sample was a “fecal swab” collected on “July 24th, 2013”. A closer look at the sequence reveals that RaTG13 shares a 100% nucleotide sequence identity with a bat coronavirus RaBtCoV/4991 on a short, 440-bp RNA-dependent RNA polymerase gene (RdRp) segment.

RaBtCoV/4991 was discovered by Shi and colleagues and published in 2016. As described in the 2016 publication, only a short 440-bp segment of RdRp of the RaBtCoV/4991 virus was sequenced then. Given the 100% identity on this short gene segment between RaBtCoV/4991 and RaTG13, the field has demanded clarification of whether or not these two names refer to the same virus. However, Dr. Shi did not respond to the request or address this question for months. The answer finally came from Peter Daszak, president of EcoHealth Alliance and long-term collaborator of Shi, who claimed that RaBtCoV/4991 was RaTG13.

RaBtCoV/4991 was discovered in the Yunnan province, China. In 2012, six miners suffered from severe pneumonia after clearing out bat droppings in a mineshaft in Mojiang, Yunnan, and three of them died soon afterwards. Although it was initially suspected that a SARS-like bat coronavirus may be responsible for the deaths, no coronavirus was either isolated or detected from the clinical samples. Also, first-hand record indicates failure of biopsy and no attempt of autopsy, which are the gold standards in the diagnosis of coronavirus infections. The pathogen responsible for the miners’ deaths therefore remained an unsolved case. (Detailed analyses of the Mojiang Miner Passage hypothesis, which was based on the miners’ case, are provided in section 1.6.) Despite the failed diagnosis, this unknown pathogen nonetheless triggered immense interests in the virologists in China. Three independent teams, including that of Dr. Shi’s, made a total of six visits to this mineshaft. The Shi group particularly looked for the presence of bat coronaviruses by amplifying and then sequencing a 440-bp RdRp segment, which is a routine procedure the Shi group follows in their surveillance studies. (As shown in section 2.1 of our first report, this RdRp segment is also frequently used for phylogenetic analyses and is an attractive target for antiviral drug discovery, which may have contributed to the design of incorporating a unique RdRp into the genome of SARS-CoV-2.) Out of the many coronaviruses detected, only RaBtCoV/4991 seemed to belong to the group of SARS-related, lineage B β coronaviruses.

The reporting of RaTG13 is suspicious in three aspects.

First, the whole genome sequencing of RaBtCoV/4991 should not have been delayed until 2020. Given the Shi group’s consistent interests in studying SARS-like bat coronaviruses and the fact that RaBtCoV/4991 is a SARS-like coronavirus with a possible connection to the deaths of the miners, it is highly unlikely that the Shi group would be content with sequencing only a 440-bp segment of RdRp and not pursue the sequencing of the receptor-binding motif (RBM)-encoding region of the spike gene. In fact, sequencing of the spike gene is routinely attempted by the Shi group once the presence of a SARS-like bat coronavirus is confirmed by the sequencing of the 440-bp RdRp segment, although the success of such efforts is often hindered by the poor quality of the sample.

As quoted above, in the 2020 Nature publication, Shi and colleagues strongly suggested that the sequencing of the full genome was done in 2020 after they discovered the resemblance between RaTG13 and SARS-CoV-2 on the short RdRp segment4. This, if true, suggests that the quality of the sample should not be poor. Therefore, there is no technical obstacle for the whole genome sequencing of RaBtCoV/4991.

Clearly, the perceivable motivation of the Shi group to study this RaBtCoV/4991 virus and the fact that no genome sequencing of it was done for a period of seven years (2013-2020) are hard to reconcile and explain.

However, an intriguing revelation took place in June 2020. Specifically, filenames of the raw sequencing reads for RaTG13 uploaded on the database were found, which indicate that these sequencing experiments were done in 2017 and 2018. Likely responding to this revelation, in her email interview with Science, Dr. Shi contradicted her own description in the Nature publication and admitted that the sequencing of the full genome of RaTG13 was done in 2018.

Second, RaTG13 has a remarkable RBM as suggested by its reported sequence, and the Shi group have no reason to delay its publication until 2020. The most critical segment of a SARS-like β coronavirus is the RBM in the Spike protein as it is fully responsible for binding the host ACE2 receptor and therefore determines the virus’ potential in infecting humans. The RBM is also the most variable region because it is under strong positive selection when the virus jumps over to a new host. Sequence alignment on this crucial RBM motif reveals that the RaTG13 virus rivals with the most highly regarded bat coronaviruses in terms of resemblance to SARS (Figure 2). RaTG13’s RBM not only is complete in reference to that of SARS but also is outstanding in its preservation of five residues perceived by Dr. Shi as key in binding human ACE2 (hACE2) (Figure 2, residues labeled with red texts). At position 472, RaTG13 is the only bat coronavirus that shares a leucine (L) residue with SARS, while the other four key residues are also largely conserved between the two viruses. Importantly, similar conservation patterns revealed in related bat coronaviruses, Rs3367 and SHC014, had led to their publication in Nature in 2013. Furthermore, viruses with less “attractive” RBM sequences (having large gaps and poor in the preservation of key residues, bottom half of the sequences in Figure 2) were also published by Dr. Shi in other top virology journals between 2013 and 2018. Therefore, if the genomic sequence of RaTG13 had been available since 2018, it is unlikely that this virus, which has a possible connection to miners’ deaths in 2012 and has an alarming SARS-like RBM, would be shelfed for two years without publication. Consistent with this analysis, a recent study indeed proved that the RBD of RaTG13 (produced via gene synthesis based on its published sequence) was capable of binding hACE2.

Third, no follow-up work on RaTG13 has been reported by the Shi group. Upon obtaining the genomic sequence of a SARS-like bat coronavirus, the Shi group routinely investigate whether or not the virus is capable of infecting human cells. This pattern of research activities has been shown repeatedly.

However, such a pattern is not seen here despite that RaTG13 has an interesting RBM and is allegedly the closest match evolutionarily to SARS-CoV-2.

Clearly, these three aspects deviate from normal research activities and logical thinking, which are difficult to reconcile or explain. They should have contributed to the intentional omission of key information in the reporting of RaTG13.

For publications of biological research, it is unethical for authors to change the name of a previously published virus without any notice or description. It is also unethical for authors to not cite their own

publication where they had characterized and reported the same virus. The violations here by Shi and colleagues on the reporting of RaTG13 are especially aggravating as the discovery of RaTG13 was central to uncovering the origin of SARS-CoV-2. By the time of the publication, SARS-CoV-2 had already led to many deaths in the city of Wuhan and had shown an alarming potential of causing a pandemic. In her much-delayed response to Science published on July 31st, 2020, Dr. Shi finally commented on the name change and stated that changing the name to RaTG13 was meant to better reflect the time and location of sample collection (TG = Tongguan; 13 = 2013). However, such an intention does not seem to justify why the previous name of RaBtCoV/4991 was never mentioned in the 2020 article and why they did not cite their own 2016 publication where RaBtCoV/4991 was first reported. Dr. Shi’s recent clarification did not alter the fact that they have violated the reporting norms of biological research.

In summary, a range of suspicions were associated with the reporting of RaTG13, including the violations of scientific publication principles, the inconsistency in the descriptions of the sequencing dates, and the contradiction between the sequencing of its genome in 2018 and the publication of it in 2020 when this virus has a striking RBM and a possible connection to pneumonia-associated deaths. Adding to these suspicions are the exquisite timing of its publication, the problematic nature of its reported sequence and raw sequencing reads, and the claim that no sample is left for independent verification. Collectively, these facts justify and legitimate the concern over the true existence of the RaTG13 virus in nature and the truthfulness of its reported genomic sequence. They also question the claim that the RaBtCoV/4991 virus and RaTG13 are equivalent.

1.3 Genetic evidence proving the fraudulent nature of RaTG13

This evidence was revealed after a close examination of the sequences of specific genes, especially spike, of relevant viruses. Specifically, we compared two viruses for the synonymous and nonsynonymous mutations on each gene, and we did so for two pairs of viruses. The first pair are bat coronaviruses ZC45 and ZXC21. The second pair are SARS-CoV-2 and RaTG13. The rationale for comparing these two pairs with each other is the following. First, ZC45 and ZXC21, each sharing an 89% genomic sequence identity with SARS-CoV-2, are the closest relatives to SARS-CoV-2 and RaTG13.

Second, ZC45 and ZXC21 are 97% identical to each other, while SARS-CoV-2 and RaTG13 are 96% identical. Not only the sequence identity in each case is comparable, but also the high sequence identity indicates that, within each pair, the sequence difference should be a result of random mutations during evolution, which ensures that synonymous and non-synonymous analyses here are appropriate and not complicated by abrupt evolutionary events (e.g. recombination). Indeed, sequence alignment confirms such a scenario – in both cases, the curve is smooth and the high sequence identity is maintained
throughout (Figure 3).

Detailed synonymous (syn, green curve) and non-synonymous (non-syn, red curve) analyses are shown in Figure 4. For each gene, the accumulations of syn and non-syn mutations, respectively, are illustrated when the codons are analyzed in a sequential order. For the spike genes, between ZC45 and ZXC21, the syn/non-syn ratio is 5.5:1 (Figure 4A left, 94 syn mutations and 17 non-syn mutations). Notably, the two curves progress along in a roughly synchronized manner. These features reflect, to a certain extent, the evolutionary traits resulted from random mutations during evolution in this sub-group of lineage B β coronaviruses.

The same analysis on the spike genes of SARS-CoV-2 and RaTG13, however, revealed a different scenario (Figure 4B right). Although the overall syn/non-syn ratio is a similar 5.4:1 (221 syn mutations and 41 non-syn mutations), the synchronization between the two curves is non-existent. In the second half of the sequence, which is over 700 codons (2,100 nucleotides) wide, the non-syn curve stays flat when the syn curve climbs continuously and significantly.

Counting the syn and non-syn mutations of the S2 region (corresponding to residues 684-1273 of the SARS-CoV-2 Spike) reveals that, between ZC45 and ZXC21, there are a total of 27 syn mutations and 5 non-syn mutations, yielding a syn/non-syn ratio of 5.4:1. In contrast, for the same S2 region, between SARS-CoV-2 and RaTG13, there are a total of 88 syn mutations and 2 non-syn mutations, yielding a syn/non-syn ratio of 44:1. The syn/non-syn ratios for S2, whole Spike, and other large viral proteins (Orf1a, Orf1b, and Nucleocapsid) are summarized in Table 1. While the ratios are comparable between the two groups for all other proteins, the ratios for the S2 protein are significantly different.

The detailed syn/non-syn analyses for Orf1a, Orf1b, and N are shown in Figure 4B-D. It is also noteworthy that, similar to that of Spike, the approximate synchronization between two curves is observed for the Orf1a protein in the ZC45 and ZXC21 comparison (Figure 4B left) but not in the SARS-CoV-2 and RaTG13 comparison (Figure 4B right).

The S2 protein maintains trimmer formation of the Spike and, upon successive cleavages to expose the fusion peptide, mediates membrane fusion and cell entry. Although the S2 protein is more conserved evolutionarily than S1, the extremely high purifying pressure on S2 as suggested by the very high syn/nonsyn ratio is abnormal. In fact, Orf1b is known to be the most conserved protein in coronaviruses and yet the syn/non-syn ratio for it is only 10.8:1 when SARS-CoV-2 and RaTG13 are compared, much lower than the ratio of 44:1 observed for S2 (Table 1). Furthermore, since RaTG13 and SARS-CoV-2 infect different species, no high purifying selection on S2 should be expected when these two viruses are compared against each other.

Consistent with the above notion, a syn/non-syn analysis done for the Spike protein of twenty randomly selected SARS-CoV-2 sequences showed that S2 was under positive selection, not purifying selection, during the past eight months of human-to-human transmission (Figure 5). For the twenty SARS-CoV-2 isolates, amino acid mutations are observed at five different locations in S2 (Figure 6). In addition, a recent study analyzing 2,954 genomes of SARS-CoV-2 revealed that mutations have been observed at 25 different locations in the S2 protein41, further proving that amino acid mutations are tolerated in S2 and no high purifying pressure should be observed for S2. Evidently, the syn/non-syn ratio of 44:1 revealed between SARS-CoV-2 and RaTG13 on the S2 region is abnormal (Table 1) and a violation of the principles of natural evolution.

A logical interpretation of this observation is that SARS-CoV-2 and RaTG13 could not relate to each other through natural evolution and at least one must be artificial. If one is a product of natural evolution, then the other one must be not. It is also possible that neither of them exists naturally.

If RaTG13 is a real virus that truly exists in nature, then SARS-CoV-2 must be artificial.

However, the reality is that SARS-CoV-2 is physically present and has first appeared prior to the reporting of RaTG13. This would then lead to the conclusion that RaTG13 is artificial, a scenario consistent with the overwhelming suspicion that this virus does not exist in nature and its sequence has been fabricated.

The remaining possibility is, of course, that both SARS-CoV-2 and RaTG13 are artificial: one has been created physically and the other one exists only in the form of a fabricated sequence.

It is highly likely that the sequence of the RaTG13 genome was fabricated by lightly modifying the SARS-CoV-2 sequence to achieve an overall 96.2% sequence identity. During this process, much editing must have been done for the RBM region of the S1/spike because the encoded RBM determines the interaction with ACE2 and therefore would be heavily scrutinized by others. An RBM too similar to that of SARS-CoV-2 would be troublesome because: 1) RaTG13 could be conceived as a product of gain-of-function research; 2) it would leave no room for an intermediate host and yet such a host is believed to exist as the Spike/RBM needs to first adapt in an environment where the ACE2 receptor is homologous to hACE2. In addition, modifying the sequence of the RBM is also beneficial as RaTG13 would otherwise appear to be able to infect humans as efficiently as SARS-CoV-2 does, escalating the concern of a laboratory leak. To eliminate such concerns, many non-syn mutations were introduced into the RBM region.

Importantly, syn/non-syn analysis is frequently used, often at the ORF/protein level, to characterize the

evolutionary history of a virus. While editing the RBM, the expert(s) carrying out this operation must be conscious of the need to maintain a reasonable syn/non-syn ratio for the whole Spike protein. To achieve so, however, the expert(s) must have then strictly limited the number of non-syn mutations in the S2 half of Spike, which ended up flattening the curve (Figure 4A right).

1.4 The receptor-binding domain (RBD) of RaTG13 does not bind ACE2 of horseshoe bats

Consistent with the above conclusion that RaTG13 does not exist in nature and its sequence was fabricated, a recent study showed that the RBD of RaTG13 could not bind the ACE2 receptors of two different kinds of horseshoe bats, Rhinolophus macrotis and Rhinolophus pusillus. Although the ACE2 receptor of Rhinolophus affinis (the alleged host of RaTG13) was not tested, it is unlikely that ACE2 of R. affinis would differ significantly from those of its close relatives and be able to bind the RaTG13 RBD.

This result therefore implicates that RaTG13 would not be able to infect horseshoe bats, contradicting the claim made by Shi and colleagues that the virus was detected and discovered from horseshoe bats. This is also consistent with the above conclusion that the genomic sequence of RaTG13 is fabricated and presumably computer-edited, which entails that the RBM/RBD suggested by the corresponding gene sequence may not be functional in binding the ACE2 receptor of the claimed host.

1.5 Conclusion and postulation of the fabrication process

In conclusion, the evidence presented both here and from recent literature collectively prove that RaTG13 does not exist in nature and its sequence has been fabricated.
If the RaBtCov/4991 virus is equivalent to RaTG13, then RaBtCoV/4991 must be fraudulent as well.

Apparently, in the actual process of sequence fabrication, the published sequence of the short RdRp segment of RaBtCoV/4991 was completely inherited for RaTG13. This way, they could claim that RaTG13 was RaBtCoV/4991, which, according to the record, was discovered in 2013. If RaTG13 had been described as being discovered right around the time of the COVID-19 outbreak, greater suspicions would result as tracing the evolutionary origin of a zoonotic virus is difficult and usually takes years or
decades. As described in section 2.1 of our earlier report1, the fabrication of RaTG13 should have been planned and executed in coordination with the laboratory creation of SARS-CoV-2.

Such an approach is also safe because, except for the 440-bp RdRp segment, no other sequence information has ever been published for the rest of the RaBtCoV/4991 genome.

It is worth noting that, due to reasons detailed in section 1.2, they still preferred to obscure the history of RaTG13. However, they must have also anticipated that their violations of the publication norms would invite inquiries or requests for clarifications, the number of which, however, should be limited and manageable. RaBtCoV/4991 would then function as an additional layer of security for them in facing such inquiries and/or requests.

Building upon the 440-bp RdRp sequence inherited from RaBtCoV/4991, the rest of the RaTG13 genome was likely fabricated by lightly editing the sequence of SARS-CoV-2. Once the genomic sequence was finalized, DNA fragments could be synthesized individually according to the fabricated and edited sequence and then used as templates for PCR. Amplified DNA would then be mixed with certain raw material to give the sample a natural look (mimicking what is present in an actual RT-PCR, which is done using RNA extracted from fecal swabs as templates). Subsequently, this sample would be sent for sequencing. The resulted raw sequencing reads could then be uploaded together with the made-up genomic sequence onto GenBank to create an entry for the RaTG13 genome.

1.6 The Mojiang Miner Passage (MMP) hypothesis is fatally flawed

Recently, a theory has emerged, which proposed that SARS-CoV-2 was derived from viral passaging in the lungs of the infected Mojiang miners back in 2012. Specifically, authors believe that the RaBtCoV/4991 virus was indeed RaTG13 and was the virus causing pneumonia in the miners in 2012.

While inside the lungs of the miners, the RaTG13 virus had evolved extensively, mimicking a viral passage process, and eventually became SARS-CoV-2. In this process, the RBD of the virus experienced strong positive selection, through which it became optimal in binding hACE2. Furthermore, the furin cleavage site at the S1/2 junction region of Spike had been acquired through recombination between the viral spike gene and the gene encoding the human ENaC protein, which has a furin-cleavage sequence closely resembling that of SARS-CoV-2. The end product of this passage was SARS-CoV-2, which the researchers isolated from the miners’ samples and brought back to the WIV. The authors have named this hypothesis as the Mojiang Miner Passage (MMP) hypothesis.

However, this MMP hypothesis has fatal flaws.

First, the viral pathogen that caused the disease in the miners could not be defined or confirmed.

According to the record, which was well documented in a Master’s Thesis written by the doctor in charge, samples from two patients (throat swabs and blood) were tested at the Center for Disease Control and Prevention of the Chengdu Military Region between May 15th and May 20th, 2012, and yet none of the suspected viruses, including SARS, was detected. Furthermore, the gold standard in the clinical diagnosis of coronavirus-caused pneumonia is biopsy and/or autopsy followed by confirmation by either RT-PCR or isolation of the virus. However, three biopsy tests were attempted but failed. Autopsy tests were requested and yet all turned down by families of the deceased miners. Due to such failure, both the Master’s Thesis and later a PhD Dissertation, which also looked into this issue although in an indirect manner, described the cause of the pneumonia as an unsolved case.

Second, antibody tests done for the miners do not support SARS or SARS-like coronavirus infection.

According to the Master’s Thesis, samples from two miners were tested for antibodies against SARS.

The symptoms onset date for one miner (case 3, passed away) was around April 13th, 2012. The other miner (case 4, had severe symptoms and yet recovered) had symptoms onset around April 16th, 2012.

Antibody tests, which were recommended later by Dr. Nanshan Zhong, were done at the WIV on June 19th, 2012. However, the two samples tested were only positive for IgM. No positive IgG or total antibody were reported. No antibody titer was reported either. Importantly, if the severe pneumonia was caused by coronavirus infections, by the time of the antibody tests on June 19th, 2012, both IgM and IgG/total antibody should be detected. In fact, IgG/total antibody should be much more abundant and easier to detect. On the other hand, IgM tests frequently result in false positives. Therefore, the fact
that only IgM, and no IgG/total antibody, was tested positive suggests that the described results were most likely false positives and the infections should not have been caused by SARS or a SARS-like coronavirus.

It is noteworthy that the later PhD Dissertation showed severe discrepancies with the Master’s Thesis in the descriptions of the same clinical tests:

1. The PhD Dissertation described that samples from four miners (throat swab and blood) were sent to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention of the Chengdu Military Region for nucleic acid tests. However, the Master’s Thesis indicated that samples were only taken from two miners.

2. The PhD Dissertation described samples from four miners were tested for anti-SARS antibodies at the WIV and all were IgG positive. However, the Master’s Thesis indicated that only samples from two miners were tested at the WIV and both were only IgM positive.

Importantly, the Master’s Thesis was written in 2013 in Yunnan by the doctor who was in charge of the six hospitalized miners. The PhD dissertation, however, was written in 2016 in Beijing based only on the clinical record. The author of the Dissertation had no direct involvement in the treatment of the miners or in any of the described tests. It is therefore highly likely that author of the PhD dissertation did not verify the clinical data he presented, which makes this PhD dissertation an unreliable source of information concerning the Mojiang miners’ case.

Third, if SARS-CoV-2 was already present in the miner’s body in 2012, it would have certainly caused an epidemic or even pandemic then. Given the extremely high transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2, it would be impossible for the doctors, nurses, family members of the miners, etc. to have avoided contracting the virus without the protection of proper PPE. If an epidemic indeed happened in 2012, it could not have gone unnoticed given the high transmissibility and lethality (three out of the six pneumonia patients died despite of intense medical care provided for them).

Fourth, as shown in sections 1.1-1.5, RaTG13’s sequence is clearly fabricated and the virus does not exist in nature. The RaBtCoV/4991 virus, which was detected in 2013, is not the RaTG13 virus that is defined by its reported genomic sequence. No complete genomic sequence of RaBtCoV/4991 has ever been reported likely due to the poor quality of the sample, which happens often as the RNA genome decays easily. It is highly likely that no high homology is shared between the actual RaBtCoV/4991 virus and SARS-CoV-2. This judgement is based on the fact that no viruses reported prior to 2020 share more than 90% sequence identity with SARS-CoV-2 despite the extensive surveillance studies of coronaviruses for the past two decades. Therefore, even if RaBtCoV/4991 was the pathogen responsible for the pneumonia of the miners, the theory that it has evolved in a single person’s lung into SARS-CoV-2 is far beyond being reasonable.

Fifth, it is impossible for the Spike protein of the virus to obtain a unique furin-cleavage site at the S1/S2 junction through recombination with the gene encoding the ENaC protein of the host cell (ENaC carries a furin cleavage site closely resembling the one seen in SARS-CoV-2). This is because recombination requires a significant level of sequence similarity between the two participating genes and yet no such similarity is present between coronavirus Spike and human ENaC. The molecular basis for recombination is non-existent. (Although recombination between ENaC and coronavirus Spike is impossible, it is suspicious that a viral protein and a host protein would share the same sequence for their furin-cleavage sites. It is possible, though, that the sequence of the furin-cleavage site in ENaC, which is known since 1997, could have been used in the design of the furin-cleavage site in the Spike of SARSCoV-2. Such a design may be considered sophisticated as ENaC co-expresses with ACE2 in many different types of cells.)

Sixth, if SARS-CoV-2 has indeed evolved from RaBtCoV/4991 in the miner’s lungs, it would look, from every aspect, like a naturally occurring virus. In that case, there would be no need to commit sequence fabrication for RaTG13 and for the other novel coronaviruses (parts 2 and 3) to falsify a natural origin for SARS-CoV-2.

Finally, as revealed in our earlier report, evidence exists in the genome of SARS-CoV-2, indicating that genetic manipulation is part of the history of SARS-CoV-2.

2. Evidence proving that recently published pangolin coronaviruses are fraudulent and do not exist in nature

While RaTG13 was reported to share a high sequence identity with SARS-CoV-2 and thereby hinted a natural origin of SARS-CoV-2, significant questions remained unanswered:

• No intermediate host has been found although one was believed to exist and function as the reservoir of the virus before it spilled over to humans.

• Despite the overall genomic resemblance of the two viruses, the RBD (particularly the RBM within it) of RaTG13 differs significantly from that of SARS-CoV-2. The evolutionary origin of the SARS-CoV-2 RBD, which is optimal in binding hACE2, remained unclear.

• A critical furin-cleavage site, which is present at the S1/S2 junction of SARS-CoV-2 Spike and responsible for the enhanced viral infectivity and pathogenicity, is absent in RaTG13 (as well as in all known lineage B β coronaviruses). The evolutionary origin of this furin-cleavage site also remained mysterious.

Not long after these questions emerged, several laboratories published novel coronaviruses allegedly found in Malayan pangolins that were smuggled from Malaysia and confiscated by the Chinese custom. Although these novel coronaviruses share relatively lower overall sequence identities (~90%) with SARS-CoV-2 in comparison to RaTG13 (96.2% identical to SARS-CoV-2), the RBD of the pangolin coronaviruses resembles greatly the SARS-CoV-2 RBD (97.4% identical). In the most critical RBM
region, all amino acids except one are identical between the pangolin coronaviruses and SARS-CoV-2.

These observations led the authors to conclude 1) that pangolins are the likely intermediate host for the zoonotic transfer of SARS-CoV-2 and 2) that a RaTG13-like ancestor coronavirus might have acquired the RBD from a pangolin coronavirus through recombination to eventually become SARS-CoV-2.

Here, in part 2 of the report, we describe literature evidence and provide genetic analyses to prove that these novel pangolin coronaviruses are results of fabrication.

2.1 A single batch of pangolin samples were used in all studies and the deposited sequencing data showed heavy contamination and signs of fabrication

In October 2019, a team formed by three researchers from two institutions (Guangdong Institute of Applied Biological Resources and Guangzhou Zoo) reported, for the first time, the detection of coronavirus infections in pangolins that were allegedly smuggled from Malaysia and confiscated in the Guangdong province in March 2019. Twenty-one pangolin samples were sequenced and five were positive for coronavirus infections (Table 2: lung 2, 7, 8, 9, and 11), although Sendai virus infection was also reported. However, neither the sequences of the coronaviruses nor raw sequencing data were made available to the public for a period of three months. The raw data (NCBI BioProject PRJNA573298) was finally released on January 22nd, 2020 after the COVID-19 outbreak started, while the article submission date was September 30th, 2019 and the publication date was October 24th, 2019.

Between March and May 2020, four seemingly independent studies were published, all of which reported novel pangolin coronaviruses and their assembled genomic sequences. However, after a closer look, we found that all four studies derived viral sequences from the same set of pangolin samples first reported in the October 2019 publication, which has been confirmed by a recent article.

In one study, Liu et al. (the same authors of the October 2019 publication) re-assembled the genome of a pangolin coronavirus by pooling two samples from the original 2019 study and one sample obtained from another Malayan pangolin rescued in July 2019. However, although the authors stated that the more recent raw sequencing data had been deposited at the NCBI database, we could not find this data using the accession number (2312773) provided. The same difficulty has been reported by others. Therefore, it cannot be verified whether the July 2019 dataset truly exists and has contributed to the assembly of the reported genome.

In two other studies, Lam et al. and Zhang et al. each re-assembled the genome of a pangolin coronavirus using only the published dataset from the October 2019 study. Lam et al. also reported detection of coronaviruses from smuggled Malayan pangolins that were confiscated in the Guangxi province, although these viruses showed lower sequence identities to SARS-CoV-2 both at the whole genome level (~86%) and in the critical RBD region. It is noteworthy that this study was done as a collaboration between Dr. Yi Guan’s group from the University of Hong Kong and Dr. Wuchun Cao’s group from the Academy of Military Medical Sciences (AMMS), Beijing, China. Somehow, all authors affiliated with the AMMS were excluded from the list of authors when the article was first submitted, although their names eventually appeared in the final version of the publication.

In the fourth study, Xiao et al. claimed to have examined tissue samples kept from diseased pangolins and obtained raw sequencing data for the subsequent assembly. However, they did not describe how the samples were acquired. In their Extended Data Table 3, they listed the metagenome sequencing data used in the study, which, surprisingly, do not match with the actual data that they uploaded in the database (Table 2). Samples M1, M5, M6, M10, and Z1 can be found in the data they deposited, but not M2, M3, M4, and M8. Furthermore, Xiao et al. apparently were inconsistent with the reporting of these raw sequencing reads. For samples M1, M6, pangolin3, and pangolin5, they counted paired ends numbers, which reflect the actual number of sequenced DNA fragments in the library. For the rest of samples, the authors counted reads numbers instead (In Illumina sequencing, there are two reads per fragment). For samples M2, M3, M4, and M8 in this latter group, when the reads numbers were converted to paired ends numbers (divided by 2), they each match perfectly with lung07, lung02, lung08, and lung11, respectively, from the October 2019 study (Table 2). Clearly, Xiao et al. used the data published in a previous study but failed to disclose this necessary information in their publication. In fact, they intentionally presented the “number of reads” in a different format to presumably make readers overlook the fact that the same sequencing dataset was used.

It is noteworthy that the study by Xiao et al. was also done in collaboration with the AMMS. Prior to the publication of the manuscript, this work was first publicized in a press conference. As revealed in this conference, four principle investigators contributed to the work and one of them was Dr. Ruifu Yang from the AMMS. However, like what happened to Dr. Cao and his AMMS colleagues in the Lam et al. study, Dr. Yang’s name was excluded in the submitted manuscript of Xiao et al. Yet, unlike the other case, the AMMS researcher’s name did not re-appear in the final publication. It is also noteworthy that the two AMMS principle investigators here, Dr. Yang and Dr. Cao, are long-term collaborators and most of their collaborative work concerned genetic analyses of SARS-CoV.

Among the four studies, only two assembled complete genomes by performing gap filling using PCR.

However, neither group made their gap filling sequences available, rendering independent verification impossible. Notably, the delayed publishing of raw sequencing reads long after the publication of genomic sequences has occurred in the reporting of RaTG13 as well.

Adding to the above problems was the poor quality of the raw sequencing data, which has been described recently. We also analyzed the composition of the sequencing reads of the deposited libraries. By performing taxonomy analysis on the NCBI SRA database, we also found that samples from Liu et al. that are positive for coronavirus reads are all positive for reads that map to human genome (Table 2). In great contrast, the rest of the samples, which are negative for viral reads, also have no human reads detected. The same correlation is found in data presented by Xiao et al. Although samples M5 (pangolin 6) and M6 (pangolin2) are negative for human reads, these two samples have very few viral reads, which would hardly contribute to the viral genome assembly. Clearly, the human contamination should not be due to sample handling as none of the coronavirus-negative samples, which must have been handled similarly, contain such contamination. The consistent co-existence of viral reads and human reads are highly suspicious.

These observations raise red flags not only on the credibility of the assembled sequences but also on the authenticity of these novel pangolin coronaviruses. It is also noteworthy that the manuscript submission dates for all four studies were between February 7th and February 18th, suggesting that their publications might have been coordinated.

2.2 No coronavirus was detected in an extensive surveillance study of Malayan pangolins

While these SARS-CoV-2-like pangolin coronaviruses were described as being detected in smuggled Malayan pangolins, a recent study strongly refuted the presence of such pangolin coronaviruses in nature.

A team led by Dr. Daszak examined 334 pangolin samples, which were collected in Malaysia and Sabah from August 2009 to March 2019. Surprisingly, no coronaviridae, or any of the other families of viruses (filoviridae, flaviviridae, orthomyxoviridae, and paramyxoviridae), were detected in any of these samples.

This is in stark contrast with the October 2019 publication where both coronavirus infection and Sendai virus infection were reportedly detected in the smuggled Malayan pangolins, which eventually led to the discovery and publication of the novel pangolin coronaviruses. The finding of Lee et al. adds significantly to the existing suspicions and substantiates the possibility that these pangolin coronaviruses do not exist in nature and their sequences could have been fabricated.

2.3 The RBD of the reported pangolin coronaviruses binds poorly to pangolin ACE2

If pangolin coronaviruses truly exist and have recently spilled over to infect humans, their Spike protein, especially the RBD within Spike, should bind to pangolin ACE2 (pACE2) more efficiently than to hACE2.

However, recent findings have contradicted this theory. In an in silico study, Piplani et al. calculated, following homology structural modeling, the binding energies involved in the association between SARSCoV-2 Spike and ACE2 from either human or various animals. Interestingly, the most favorable interaction that SARS-CoV-2 Spike makes was shown to be with hACE2, but not with ACE2 from pangolin or any other suspected intermediate host. Furthermore, another study revealed, using a robust in vitro binding assay, that the RBD of SARS-CoV-2 binds much tighter (greater than 9-fold) to hACE2 than to pACE2. Although the RBD of the pangolin coronaviruses is not 100% identical to that of SARSCoV-2, the RBMs of the two viruses, which is the most essential segment responsible for ACE2 interactions, differ only by one amino acid. Therefore, the poor binding efficiency observed between the RBD of SARS-CoV-2 and pACE2 infers that the RBD of the reported pangolin coronaviruses must bind to pACE2 fairly inefficiently. Indeed, a very recent study confirmed the case: the RBD of the pangolin coronavirus binds pACE2 ten-fold weaker than to hACE2. These observations once again refute the claim that pangolins are the probable intermediate host for SARS-CoV-2. More importantly, the latter two studies strongly suggest that these viruses might not be able to establish infections in pangolins, which adds significantly to the suspicion that the published sequences of the pangolin coronaviruses may have been fabricated and these viruses do not exist in nature.

2.4 Genetic evidence proving the fraudulent nature of the pangolin coronaviruses

Evolutionarily, within the coronavirus genome, the RBD of Spike is under the strongest positive selection as it needs to adapt for binding a new receptor whenever the virus crosses the species barrier and enters a new host. In lineage B β coronaviruses, the most essential segment for receptor recognition is the RBM, which fully determines the binding with ACE2. Strikingly, when the RBM sequence of the pangolin virus MP789 is compared to that of SARS-CoV-2, no positive selection is observed (Figure 7A). Instead, the analysis revealed very strong purifying selection with 24 syn mutations and only one non-syn mutation.

In contrast, when two related bat coronaviruses, BM48-31 and BtKY72, are compared in a similar manner, strong positive selection is observed as expected (Figure 7B). Here, while there are 25 syn mutations, which is comparable to that between MP789 and SARS-CoV-2, the number of non-syn mutations is 30 (Figure 7B). Evidently, the species difference between pangolin and human is greater than that between the hosts of BM48-31 and BtKY72, which are two different species of bats. Therefore, greater positive selection should be expected between MP789 and SARS-CoV-2 than that between BM48-31 and BtKY72. The strong purifying selection observed between MP789 and SARS-CoV-2 is, therefore, contradictory to the principles of natural evolution.

We further looked at the syn and non-syn mutations for the RBM in coronaviruses infecting the same species. Here, we compared the closely related coronaviruses ZC45 and ZXC21, which infect the same species of bats, on their RBM segments (Figure 7C). Here, twelve synonymous mutations and three nonsynonymous mutations are observed, yielding a syn/non-syn ratio of 4:1. Such a value likely represents the approximate upper limit for the purifying selection in the RBM that such coronaviruses could possibly experience (Table 3). In addition, no purifying selection is observed in the RBM for the randomly selected twenty SARS-CoV-2 sequences (Figure 5, codon range 437-507).

Therefore, the extremely high syn/non-syn ratio (24:1) observed between MP789 RBM and
SARSCoV-2 RBM indicates that at least one of the two viruses is artificial.

We believe that, to falsify the natural existence of the unique RBD/RBM of SARS-CoV-2, the amino acid sequence of the pangolin coronavirus RBD/RBM had been fabricated to closely resemble that of SARS-CoV-2. At the same time, the expert(s) carrying out this operation also wanted to create an appropriate level of divergence between the pangolin virus and SARS-CoV-2 at the nucleotide level and thereby introduced a significant amount of syn mutations in the RBM. The abnormality revealed in Figure 7A and Table 3 likely resulted from these fraudulent operations.

Similar syn/non-syn analyses on the overall spike further revealed the fraudulent nature of these novel pangolin coronaviruses. Here we compared two representative pangolin coronaviruses MP789 (a Guangdong isolate) and P4L (a Guangxi isolate) as genomic sequences within each group of isolates share very high sequence identities. As shown in Figure 8A, similar to the abnormal pattern observed between RaTG13 and SARS-CoV-2 (Figure 4A right), syn and non-syn curves exhibit drastically different trajectories and the non-syn curve abruptly flattens in the S2 half of the sequence.

For comparison, we also analyzed the spike genes of two SARS-like bat coronaviruses, BM48-31 and BtKY72. The two pangolin coronaviruses, MP789 and P4L, are 85.2% identical on the overall genome, while bat coronaviruses BM48-31 and BtKY72 are 82.4% identical. The comparison here is therefore appropriate. Analysis of the two bat viruses show that the two curves grow naturally in a relatively concerted manner with no excessive flattening of the red curve observed (Figure 8B).

Counting the number of syn and non-syn mutations in each pair of comparisons further illustrated the unnatural characteristics associated with the pangolin coronaviruses (Table 4). While the S2 protein is not expected to be more conserved than Orf1b, the syn/non-syn ratio for S2 observed in the comparison between MP789 and P4L is abnormally high (207 syn mutations and 9 non-syn mutations; syn/non-syn = 23:1), which is far exceeding what is observed for Orf1b (7.6:1).

As the two bat coronaviruses here were discovered in nature independently by research groups outside of China, the features displayed in Figure 8B likely represent the approximate evolutionary trait of two coronaviruses at this level of overall divergence. According to the logic described earlier, the great contrast between Figure 8A and 8B and the abnormal syn/non-syn ratio of 23:1 (Table 4) further prove that, between MP789 and P4L, at least one is artificial, although we believe both groups of pangolin coronaviruses represented by MP789 and P4L, respectively, are non-natural and fabricated.

2.5. Summary and discussion

A single source of samples was used for all studies (some spuriously independent7) reporting novel pangolin coronaviruses. The formats of sequencing reads were manipulated with a clear intention to hide the fact that the same dataset was used in different studies. The raw sequencing data is missing for certain critical pieces, poor in quality, and suspicious in terms of the amounts and types of contaminations present.

The RBD encoded by the reported sequence of pangolin coronaviruses could not bind pACE2 efficiently.

As revealed by syn/non-syn analyses, sequences of the RBM and S2 regions of these pangolin coronaviruses exhibit features that are inconsistent with natural evolution. Finally, no coronavirus was detected in a large, decade-long surveillance study of Malayan pangolins. These observations and evidence converge to prove that these recently reported pangolin coronaviruses do not exist in nature and their sequences must have been fabricated.

It is noteworthy that the abnormal syn/non-syn feature revealed for S2 in the comparison between MB789 and P4L (Figure 8A) resembles greatly that exhibited by the comparison between RaTG13 and SARS-CoV-2 (Figure 4A right). Judging based on this reoccurring pattern, we believe that the sequence fabrications in both cases (RaTG13 and pangolin coronaviruses) were most likely carried out by the same person or group, whose misconception of the spike gene evolution persisted in multiple such practices and resulted in the unnatural look of the syn/non-syn curves and numbers (Figure 4, Table 1, Figure 8, and Table 4).

3. Evidence revealing the fraudulent nature of the novel bat coronavirus RmYN02

While the publications of the fabricated pangolin coronaviruses might have seemingly fulfilled the scientific quests for an intermediate host for the zoonosis of SARS-CoV-2 as well as for an evolutionary origin of its RBD, it had remained suspicious and unexplainable how SARS-CoV-2 could have acquired the furin-cleavage site (-PRRAR/VS-) at the S1/2 junction through natural evolution. It is evident that, although furin-cleavage site has been found in certain other lineages of coronaviruses at the S1/2 junction, lineage B β coronaviruses clearly lack the ability to develop this motif at this location naturally.

In early June, another novel bat coronavirus, RmYN02, was reported9, which shares a 93.3% sequence identity with SARS-CoV-2 and appears to be the second closest bat coronavirus to SARS-CoV-2 (the closest is allegedly RaTG13). This finding adds yet another member to the rapidly growing sub-lineage of SARS-CoV-2-like coronaviruses (Figure 9), which has been completely vacant and practically nonexistent prior to the current pandemic. In addition, importantly, RmYN02 carries a unique sequence -PAA at the S1/S2 junction, which remotely resembles the inserted -PRRA- sequence at the same location in the SARS-CoV-2 Spike. Despite the fact that -PAA- in RmYN02 only partially resembles the -PRRA insertion in SARS-CoV-2 and does not appear to be an actual insertion if properly aligned, the authors nonetheless claimed that the natural occurrence of -PAA- in RmYN02 proves that the -PRRA- sequence could very likely be acquired and “inserted” into the same location in SARS-CoV-2 genome through natural evolution.

The fact that a poor alignment was used to make a disproportional, strong argument for an evolutionary origin of the furin-cleavage site, which appeared to be the last missing piece of the puzzle, is suspicious.

Furthermore, despite the significance of the spike sequence of RmYN02 in supporting the central conclusion of the publication, the raw sequencing reads for spike has not been made available although the authors stated otherwise in the article. This is yet another repeat of the pattern that has been exhibited in the reporting of both RaTG13 and pangolin coronaviruses, where the genomic sequence would be published first and the raw sequencing reads would not be made available months afterwards.

Given that the CCP-controlled laboratories have repeatedly engaged in fabrication of coronaviruses to feed the missing pieces for the puzzle, the above suspicion opens up the possibility that the RmYN02 virus could have been fabricated as well. Judging from the fact that its sequence identity to SARS-CoV-2 (93.3%) is lower than that between RaTG13 and SARS-CoV-2 (96.2%), we suspected that the sequence of RmYN02 might have been fabricated by modifying the sequence of RaTG13. Such an approach could easily ensure that the evolutionary distance between RmYN02 and SARS-CoV-2 is greater than that between RaTG13 and SARS-CoV-2. It also ensures that RmYN02 and RaTG13 would appear to be evolutionarily close, consistent with the claim that they both infect bats although of different species.

We therefore compared the spike genes of RmYN02 and RaTG13 on the quantity and distribution of syn and non-syn mutations. The severe divergence at the S1 portion between the two viral sequences did not allow the S1 sequences to be properly codon-aligned. Therefore, only the S2 half was analyzed (Figure 10). For the beginning 200 codons of S2, both types of mutations accumulate steadily and gradually.

However, for the final 378 codons, once again, the non-syn curve flattens and the concerted growth of the two curves has disappeared. In this region, there are 57 syn mutations and only one non-syn mutation. The syn/non-syn ratio of 57:1 for a region as wide as 378 codons (1,344 nucleotides) is severely inconsistent with what is observed naturally (Figure 4A left and Figure 8B).

Logically, between RaTG13 and RmYN02, at least one must be artificial. Here, however, we are convinced that both viruses are artificial. As shown in part 1, the sequence of RaTG13 must have been fabricated. Therefore, the fact that the last 378 codons of RmYN02’s S2 are identical, with the exception of one, to that of RaTG13 proves that the RmYN02 sequence must be artificial as well. This also proves our earlier suspicion that the RaTG13 sequence should have been used as the template for the fabrication of the RmYN02 sequence. RaTG13 was published in late January, while RmYN02 was published in early June (manuscript submitted in April). Therefore, enough time is in between for the sequence fabrication to be carried out.

While introducing nucleotide changes to create the apparent divergence between the two viruses, the expert(s) may have overly restricted amino acid changes in this part of Spike. Again, the abrupt change of trajectory of the non-syn curve and its excessive flattening later in the sequence likely reflect their overestimation of the purifying selection pressure on S2. The fact that this abnormal pattern has been observed in all three cases (Figure 4A right, 8A, and 10) reiterates the point raised in section 2.5 that all sequence fabrications may have been carried out by the same person or group.

4. Final discussion and remarks

4.1 All fabricated coronaviruses share a 100% amino acid sequence identity on the E protein with ZC45 and ZXC21


Evidence herein clearly indicates that the novel coronaviruses recently published by the CCP controlled laboratories are all fraudulent and do not exist in nature. One final proof of this conclusion is the fact that all of these viruses share a 100% amino acid sequence identity on the E protein with bat coronaviruses ZC45 and ZXC21, which, as revealed in our earlier report1, should be the template/backbone used for the creation of SARS-CoV-2 (Figure 11). Despite its conserved function in the viral replication cycle, the E protein is tolerant and permissive of amino acid mutations. It is therefore impossible for the amino acid sequence of the E protein to remain unchanged when the virus has allegedly crossed species barrier multiple times (between different bat species, from bats to pangolins, and from pangolins to humans). The 100% identity observed here, therefore, further proves that the sequences of these recently published novel coronaviruses have been fabricated.

A main goal of these fabrications was to obscure the connection between SARS-CoV-2 and ZC45/ZXC21. Therefore, from their perspective, the fabricated viruses should resemble SARS-CoV-2 more than ZC45 and ZXC21 do. Because ZC45 and ZXC21 already share a 100% identity with SARSCoV-2 on the E protein, the fabricated viruses therefore were made to adopt this sequence completely as well.

4.2 Important implications of this large-scale, organized scientific fraud

If SARS-CoV-2 is of a natural origin, no fabrications would be needed to suggest so. The current report, therefore, corroborates our earlier report and further proves that SARS-CoV-2 is a laboratory product.

As revealed, the creation of SARS-CoV-2 is convenient by following established concepts and techniques, some of which (for example, restriction enzyme digestion) are considered classic and yet still preferred widely including by experts of the field. A key component of the creation, the template virus ZC45/ZXC21, is owned by military research laboratories.

Importantly, as revealed here, multiple research laboratories and institutions have engaged in the fabrication and cover-up. It is clear that this was an operation orchestrated by the CCP government.

In addition, raw sequencing reads for RaTG13, which were integral parts of the fabrication, were obtained in 2017 and 2018. Furthermore, manuscript reporting the falsified coronavirus infections of Malayan pangolins was submitted for publication in September 2019. Evidently, the cover-up had been planned and initiated before the COVID-19 outbreak. Therefore, the unleashing of the virus must be a planned execution rather than an accident.

4.3 SARS-CoV-2 is an Unrestricted Bioweapon

Although it is not easy for the public to accept SARS-CoV-2 as a bioweapon due to its relatively low lethality, this virus indeed meets the criteria of a bioweapon as described by Dr. Ruifu Yang. Aside from his appointment in the AMMS, Dr. Yang is also a key member of China’s National and Military Bioterrorism Response Consultant Group and had participated in the investigation of the Iraqi bioweapon program as a member of the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) in 1998. In 2005, Dr. Yang specified the criteria for a pathogen to qualify as a bioweapon:

1. It is significantly virulent and can cause large scale casualty.

2. It is highly contagious and transmits easily, often through respiratory routes in the form of aerosols.
The most dangerous scenario would be that it allows human-to-human transmission.

3. It is relatively resistant to environmental changes, can sustain transportation, and is capable of supporting targeted release.

All of the above have been met by SARS-CoV-2: it has taken hundreds of thousands lives, led to numerous hospitalizations, and left many with sequela and various complications; it spreads easily by contact, droplets, and aerosols via respiratory routes and is capable of transmitting from human to human, the latter of which was initially covered up by the CCP government and the WHO and was first revealed by Dr. Li-Meng Yan on January 19th, 2020 on Lude Press; it is temperature-insensitive (unlike seasonal flu) and remains viable for a long period of time on many surfaces and at 4°C (e.g. the ice/water mixture).

Adding to the above properties is its high rate of asymptomatic transmission, which renders the control of SARS-CoV-2 extremely challenging. In addition, the transmissibility, morbidity, and mortality of SARS-CoV-2 also resulted in panic in the global community, disruption of social orders, and decimation of the world’s economy. The range and destructive power of SARS-CoV-2 are both unprecedented.

Clearly, SARS-CoV-2 not only meets but also surpasses the standards of a traditional bioweapon.

Therefore, it should be defined as an Unrestricted Bioweapon.

4.4 The current pandemic is an attack on humanity

The scientific evidence and records indicate that the current pandemic is not a result of accidental release of a gain-of-function product but a planned attack using an Unrestricted Bioweapon. The current pandemic therefore should be correspondingly considered as a result of Unrestricted Biowarfare.

Under such circumstances, the infected population are being used, unconsciously, as the vectors of the disease to facilitate the spread of the infection. The first victims of the attack were the Chinese people, especially those in the city of Wuhan. At the initial stage, the hidden spread in Wuhan could have also served another purpose: the final verification of the bioweapon’s functionality, an important aspect of which is the human-to-human transmission efficiency. Upon the success of this last step, targeted release of the pathogen might have been enabled.

Given the global presence of SARS-CoV-2 and the likelihood of its long-term persistence, it is appropriate to say that this attack was on the humanity as a whole and has put its fate at risk.

4.5 Actions need to be taken to combat the current pandemic and save the future of humanity

Given the CCP’s role here, it is of paramount importance that the CCP is held accountable for its actions.

In addition, the world needs to find out what other variants of SARS-CoV-2 exist in the CCP-controlled laboratories, whether or not SARS-CoV-2 or its variant(s) are still being actively released, whether or not re-infection of SARS-CoV-2 leads to worsened outcomes due to inefficient immunity and/or antibody dependent enhancement (ADE), and whether other weaponized pathogens are owned by the CCP as a result of their excessive, state-stimulated efforts in collecting novel animal pathogens and studying their potentials in zoonosis.

It is also of paramount importance that all the hidden knowledge of SARS-CoV-2 be brought out as soon as possible. As illustrated in our earlier report, although a template virus was used, the creation of SARS-CoV-2 must have involved introducing changes to the template sequence through DNA synthesis (steps 1 and 4 in part 2 of our earlier report)1. Such a practice can be safely guided by multi-sequence alignment of available SARS and SARS-like coronavirus sequences. The process of this practice has been illustrated, and both syn mutations and amino acid (non-syn) mutations at variable positions/regions would be introduced. From the perspective of the responsible scientists, these changes are necessary because, otherwise, the engineered nature of the virus and its connection to its template would be evident.

However, importantly, the introduced changes might have also altered the functions of the various viral components, which could be either by design or unintended. Nonetheless, it remains to be answered whether or how the introduced changes might be responsible for the various lasting complications that many COVID-19 patients experience and what barriers these changes might pose to the development of effective vaccines and other antiviral therapeutics. It is reasonable to believe that the responsible laboratories under the control of the CCP have been engaged in this research for a long period of time and therefore keep in possession a considerable amount of concealed knowledge of SARS-CoV-2. Some of the knowledge may provide answers to questions that need to be addressed urgently in the global combat against COVID-19. Such hidden knowledge ought to be made available to the world immediately.

What also need to be held accountable are the individuals and groups within certain organizations and institutions in the fields of public health and academic research, who knowingly and collaboratively facilitated the CCP’s misinformation campaign and misled the world. On January 18th and 19th, 2020, Dr. Li-Meng Yan, then anonymously, first revealed that SARS-CoV-2 is of a laboratory origin.

Immediately afterwards, on January 20th, Dr. Zhengli Shi submitted her manuscript to Nature and reported the first fabricated virus, RaTG13. Since then, many virus fabrications have taken place and all of them were published as peer-reviewed articles on top scientific journals. Subsequently, based on such reports, influential opinion articles promoting the natural origin theory have then been published by prominent scientists and international organizations on such and other high-profile platforms.

In contrast to the rigorous promotion of the natural origin theory, strict censorship has been placed by these and other journals on manuscripts discussing a possible laboratory origin of SARS-CoV-2. Our earlier report, which was one of such manuscripts and published as a preprint article, also faced unfounded criticisms dressed as unbiased peer reviews from two groups of scientists led by Drs. Robert Gallo and Nancy Connell, respectively (our point-to-point responses are being prepared and will be published soon). As a result of this collaborative efforts, the public has been largely removed from the truth about COVID-19 and SARS-CoV-2, which has led to misjudgments, delayed actions, and greater sufferings of the global community. It is imperative to investigate the scientists, laboratories, institutions, and relevant collaborators responsible for the creation of SARS-CoV-2 and for the fabrications/cover-up.

It is also imperative to investigate the relevant individuals in the WHO, at the relevant scientific journals, in the relevant funding agencies, and in other relevant bodies, which have facilitated the creation of SARSCoV-2 and the scientific cover-up of its true origin while under full awareness of the nature of these operations. Finally, it also needs to be investigated which ones of the scientists engaged in the promotion of the natural origin theory were purely misled by the scientific fraud and which ones were colluding with the CCP government.

The time has come that the world faces the truth of COVID-19 and takes actions to save the future of humanity.

Acknowledgements

We thank Daoyu Zhang for sharing with us the observation of abnormal distribution of nonsynonymous mutations between RaTG13 Spike and SARS-CoV-2. We thank Francisco de Asis for revealing the filenames of the raw sequencing reads for RaTG13. We also thank other individuals, including anonymous scientists, for uncovering various facts associated with the origin of SARS-CoV-2.
 

johnq

Regular Member
Joined
May 30, 2009
Messages
946
Likes
1,988
Dr. Li-Meng Yan reveals China’s fake science and the COVID-19 cover-up
WION
Washington
Oct 09, 2020, 05.27 PM(IST)
Written By: Lawrence Sellin

Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Chinese Communist Party supported by some Western scientists and a politically-motivated media have desperately tried to convince the world that the COVID-19 virus originated as a bat beta-coronavirus which underwent a natural mutation process and was then acquired by humans after exposure to infected animals.

Undoubtedly, such subterfuge is meant to protect certain vested interests, including the potentially devastating political and economic consequences for China, global corporate and private investment in China and a negative effect on scientific collaboration and research funding of major Western research laboratories.

In her first article, “Unusual Features of the SARS-CoV-2 Genome Suggesting Sophisticated Laboratory Modification Rather Than Natural Evolution and Delineation of Its Probable Synthetic Route,” Chinese scientist and whistleblower, Dr. Li-Meng Yan presented the biological evidence demonstrating that the COVID-19 virus was made in a laboratory.

Now, Dr. Yan has published her second scientific article “SARS-CoV-2 Is an Unrestricted Bioweapon: A Truth Revealed through Uncovering a Large-Scale, Organized Scientific Fraud,” which describes the extraordinary lengths the Chinese Communist Party has gone to cover-up the true laboratory origin of the COVID-19 virus in order to escape responsibility for the pandemic.

For months after the start of the outbreak, China flooded the scientific literature with subtle and sometimes not so subtle messages supporting its narrative that COVID-19 is a naturally-occurring disease that “jumped” from animals to humans in the Wuhan seafood market.

After endless media reports and scientific studies, the theory that the Wuhan seafood market was the source for animal–human COVID-19 transmission was totally discredited, even by the Chinese Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

On February 3, 2020, “batwoman” Dr. Zheng-Li Shi of the Wuhan Institute of Virology published an article suggesting that COVID-19 originated in bats and a bat coronavirus named RaTG13 was shown to be 96.2% identical to the COVID-19 virus, thus supporting the naturally-occurring theory.

Since then, literally hundreds of scientific articles have used RaTG13 as a basis for investigating the natural origin of the COVID-19 pandemic, despite the fact that RaTG13 exists only on paper because no live virus or intact genome of RaTG13 have ever been isolated or recovered.
Dr. Yan and her colleagues now make multiple arguments indicating that RaTG13 is a fabricated virus.

One way to determine if a virus is related to or evolved from another virus, in this case, RaTG13 and the COVID-19 virus, is to compare the synonymous and non-synonymous mutations in the genetic code.

The DNA genetic code, which is composed of combinations of the nucleotides guanine, adenine, cytosine and thymine (G, A, C and T), determines the structure of proteins. It does so through groups of three nucleotides called codons that correspond to specific amino acids, the building blocks of proteins, and that code is redundant.

For example, the amino acid arginine can be produced by codons CGT, CGA, CTC or CGG, meaning the third nucleotide in the codon is redundant or interchangeable and will still code for arginine. Any change in the first or second nucleotide will produce a different amino acid.

So, a viral genetic code can mutate, but still produce the same amino acid or a “synonymous” outcome. A mutation in the first or second nucleotide in a codon will result in different amino acid, a “non-synonymous” outcome.

In the absence of a major natural or artificial recombinant event, viruses that are naturally related or evolve from each other, as claimed for RaTG13 and the COVID-19 virus, have roughly standard ratios comparing synonymous and non-synonymous mutations.

Dr. Yan’s data show that when the ratios of synonymous and non-synonymous mutations between a critical segment of the RaTG13 and COVID-19 viruses are compared, the result “is abnormal and a violation of the principles of natural evolution.”

The interpretation is that RaTG13 and the COVID-19 virus could not be related to each other through natural evolution and that RaTG13 is a likely fabrication.

In addition, a reconstructed RaTG13 receptor binding domain does not bind to the angiotensin converting enzyme-2 receptors in two species of horseshoe bats, implying that RaTG13 could not exist in a bat population from which it would mutate and infect humans, completely undermining the naturally-occurring theory.

Dr. Yan also questions the accuracy of China’s pangolin (scaly anteater) coronavirus data upon which dozens of scientific studies examining potential natural coronavirus recombination events are based.

In early June, another novel bat coronavirus, RmYN02, which shares a 93.3% sequence similarity to the COVID-19 virus, was identified and used to support the Communist Chinese Party’s argument that the pandemic was a natural outbreak.

In that weak attempt to buttress the naturally-occurring theory, the Chinese authors of the RmYN02 article claim that a proline-alanine-alanine (PAA) amino acid insertion represents an ancestor to the proline-arginine-arginine-alanine (PRRA) furin polybasic cleavage site found in the COVID-19 virus, but not found in any other related bat coronavirus.

The presence of the furin polybasic cleavage site is a marker for genetic manipulation and, therefore, countering that fact would be an important objective of the Chinese Communist Party's propaganda machine.

The RmYN02 hypothesis disintegrates under scrutiny because the PAA sequence is chemically neutral, not basic and it could not cleave anything.

RmYN02 does not even possess the arginine-serine (R-S) cleavage point found in the COVID-19 virus and all related coronaviruses and the published RmYH02 sequence seems to be out of alignment.

Dr. Yan’s second scientific article adds one more nail in the coffin of China’s false theory that the COVID-19 pandemic was naturally-occurring.
 

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top