Skip to main content

Further Proof that COVID19 was a Laboratory Escape in China

The most worrying aspect of the COVID19 outbreak is the response of the media to the evidence that COVID was a laboratory escape.

We know the outbreak started in Wuhan.  We know that the two, major Virology Laboratories in Wuhan had assembled large collections of bat viruses.  We know that biosecurity at Chinese virological laborities is poor, there having been four laboratory escapes of the deadly SARS virus from laboratories in Beijing.  We know that biosafety was poor in Wuhan laboratories.  We know that the Chinese authorities covered up the initial outbreak and have been aggressively attacking those who are demanding an investigation. 

The latest paper on the spread of the virus by Quay (2020) has unearthed records in a European database that show that the People's Liberation Army Hospital in Wuhan had coronavirus cases in early December.  The European Biosamples Database in Cambridge UK allows data on the genetic structure of samples to be entered online. The records are stamped automatically with the date of entry.  This is what was found:

Notice that the PLA records have a sample date that is after the creation date of the record (10th December 2019). 

Quay's paper has now been confirmed by the discovery that a People's Liberation Army scientist filed for a patent on a vaccine for COVID in February 2020.

I have cross checked this table and found the data to be correct (See Biosamples Record ).  Intriguingly the record was amended in April to describe the virus as "Wuhan seafood market pneumonia virus" so that the record is consistent with the story being told by China.  Notice that no other records on the database records other than this set from Wuhan have a collection date after the record was entered.  The sequence is always to take the sample and then register it. In fact, as we might expect, the delay for the other records between samples and record entry is 61 days on average. 

The PLA Hospital samples seem to have been entered before they were collected. To explain this Quay (2020) proposes that either the date of collection was falsified to defend the story that China was unaware of human to human transmission until mid-late January 2020 or the samples were part of a "challenge" clinical trial where volunteers are deliberately infected with the virus and a subsequent sample is expected to be taken.

The administrators of the BioSamples database responded to a request Dr Quay for an explanation for the discrepancy in the dates:

Reading between the lines the administrators are simply describing that the record was created on 10th December, someone entered/edited a date of collection of 5th January and added a date of metadata of 30th January. Having created the record they freely amended the dates. Notice that the people who entered the record requested a "sample" accession on 10th December but subsequently edited the sample date to 5th January.  It might be assumed that a "sample accession" record would require a sample date when it was created and this was amended.   Does the BioSamples Database have an archive of what was actually entered on 10th December?

This is all extremely odd.  At best there was a clinical trial underway with a rather strange practice of creating placeholders on 10th December for future results or there was a COVID outbreak in Wuhan in November that was being hushed up in a military (PLA) hospital.  In either case China knew that COVID19 was being transmitted from person to person as early as 10th December and deliberately kept the WHO in the dark until late January.

No doubt Dr Quay will be dismissed in the media as insane, morally dubious, financed by fanatics etc. etc. and his paper will be refused publication anywhere but look for yourself in the  Biosamples Record - the data shows he is correct.  

Quay (2020) also analysed the genetics of the virus and showed that these very early samples were very closely related and most probably represent a single infection event occurring among people living close to each other.  The samples also suggest that this outbreak was possibly the source event of the pandemic. 

Quay (2020) provides a map showing that the PLA military hospital was close to the Wuhan Institute of Virology:

At best the COVID19 pandemic was a lab escape. 

However, we must consider the other possibility, that COVID19 is a bioweapon.  Any country wishing to release a bioweapon designed to create economic and social disruption would be committing suicide if it vaccinated its own people before release.  The only possibility for using a bioweapon would be to allow some domestic infection and then suppress any evidence that the virus was created in a laboratory.  China is very fortunate because the Western Media are easily controlled.


The 2019 Coronavirus Pandemic:    Where Did the 2019 Coronavirus Pandemic Begin and How Did it Spread? The People’s Liberation Army Hospital in Wuhan China and Line 2 of the Wuhan Metro System Are Compelling Answers Author: Steven Carl Quay, MD, PhD


Popular posts from this blog

Practical Idealism by Richard Nicolaus Coudenhove-Kalergi

Coudenhove-Kalergi was a pioneer of European integration. He was the founder and President for 49 years of the Paneuropean Union. His parents were Heinrich von Coudenhove-Kalergi, an Austro-Hungarian diplomat, and Mitsuko Aoyama, the daughter of an oil merchant, antiques-dealer, and huge landowner family in Tokyo. His "Pan-Europa" was published in 1923 and contained a membership form for the Pan-Europa movement. Coudenhove-Kalergi's movement held its first Congress in Vienna in 1926. In 1927 the French Prime Minister, Aristide Briand was elected honorary president.  Personalities attending included: Albert Einstein, Thomas Mann and Sigmund Freud. Figures who later became central to founding the EU, such as Konrad Adenauer became members . His basic idea was that democracy was a transitional stage that leads to rule by a new aristocracy that is largely taken from the Jewish "master race" (Kalergi's terminology). His movement was reviled by Hitler and H

Political Thoughts

Politics is the struggle for power. The fundamental power struggle is between the people of a place and the mobile classes.  Few people would turn their own garden into a motorway or commit their next door neighbours to slave working.  The mobile classes can do these things without conscience because their garden and their neighbours are not fixed. Locality is central to politics because it separates real issues from ideological issues.  Real issues such as being unable to find work, having insufficient money to pay for the basics of life, having poor schooling and healthcare etc. are all local.  If you are mobile you can move to somewhere that has work and good wages, schools and healthcare. If the answer to any problem is to change locality then the problem is not solved, it is avoided for you personally but the problem remains for others.  If politicians must live among those who suffer the results of their political decisions then those decisions must be humane but if they can move

The Report on Racism

The " Report by the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities " has just been published.  The Commissioners were nearly all from BAME backgrounds and have produced a robust and fair Report. The Report identified a class divide in which the cycle of advantage maintains a section of the population in wealth and leaves the large bulk of the population in relative poverty.   The wealthy class is largely white British but the poorer class consists of large numbers of white British and other ethnic groups.  This class divide causes a bias in the crude statistics on disadvantage so that majority, poor white British are labelled as "white supremacists" etc. when it is the small wealthy class that actually creates the disparity that causes this analysis. The most striking finding is that different ethnic groups had very different experiences and outcomes.  Educational outcomes demonstrate this at a glance: Red text added for this article Most ethnic groups had better outcome