What's new

US military might have brought coronavirus to Wuhan China

First Case of 2019 Novel Coronavirus in the United States
List of authors.
  • Michelle L. Holshue, M.P.H.,
  • Chas DeBolt, M.P.H.,
  • Scott Lindquist, M.D.,
  • Kathy H. Lofy, M.D.,
  • John Wiesman, Dr.P.H.,
  • Hollianne Bruce, M.P.H.,
  • Christopher Spitters, M.D.,
  • Keith Ericson, P.A.-C.,
  • Sara Wilkerson, M.N.,
  • Ahmet Tural, M.D.,
  • George Diaz, M.D.,
  • Amanda Cohn, M.D.,
  • for the Washington State 2019-nCoV Case Investigation Team*
Summary
An outbreak of novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) that began in Wuhan, China, has spread rapidly, with cases now confirmed in multiple countries. We report the first case of 2019-nCoV infection confirmed in the United States and describe the identification, diagnosis, clinical course, and management of the case, including the patient’s initial mild symptoms at presentation with progression to pneumonia on day 9 of illness. This case highlights the importance of close coordination between clinicians and public health authorities at the local, state, and federal levels, as well as the need for rapid dissemination of clinical information related to the care of patients with this emerging infection.

On December 31, 2019, China reported a cluster of cases of pneumonia in people associated with the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market in Wuhan, Hubei Province.1 On January 7, 2020, Chinese health authorities confirmed that this cluster was associated with a novel coronavirus, 2019-nCoV.2Although cases were originally reported to be associated with exposure to the seafood market in Wuhan, current epidemiologic data indicate that person-to-person transmission of 2019-nCoV is occurring.3-6 As of January 30, 2020, a total of 9976 cases had been reported in at least 21 countries,7 including the first confirmed case of 2019-nCoV infection in the United States, reported on January 20, 2020. Investigations are under way worldwide to better understand transmission dynamics and the spectrum of clinical illness. This report describes the epidemiologic and clinical features of the first case of 2019-nCoV infection confirmed in the United States.

Case Report
On January 19, 2020, a 35-year-old man presented to an urgent care clinic in Snohomish County, Washington, with a 4-day history of cough and subjective fever. On checking into the clinic, the patient put on a mask in the waiting room. After waiting approximately 20 minutes, he was taken into an examination room and underwent evaluation by a provider. He disclosed that he had returned to Washington State on January 15 after traveling to visit family in Wuhan, China. The patient stated that he had seen a health alert from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) about the novel coronavirus outbreak in China and, because of his symptoms and recent travel, decided to see a health care provider.

Figure 1.Posteroanterior and Lateral Chest Radiographs, January 19, 2020 (Illness Day 4).
Apart from a history of hypertriglyceridemia, the patient was an otherwise healthy nonsmoker. The physical examination revealed a body temperature of 37.2°C, blood pressure of 134/87 mm Hg, pulse of 110 beats per minute, respiratory rate of 16 breaths per minute, and oxygen saturation of 96% while the patient was breathing ambient air. Lung auscultation revealed rhonchi, and chest radiography was performed, which was reported as showing no abnormalities (Figure 1). A rapid nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) for influenza A and B was negative. A nasopharyngeal swab specimen was obtained and sent for detection of viral respiratory pathogens by NAAT; this was reported back within 48 hours as negative for all pathogens tested, including influenza A and B, parainfluenza, respiratory syncytial virus, rhinovirus, adenovirus, and four common coronavirus strains known to cause illness in humans (HKU1, NL63, 229E, and OC43).

Given the patient’s travel history, the local and state health departments were immediately notified. Together with the urgent care clinician, the Washington Department of Health notified the CDC Emergency Operations Center. Although the patient reported that he had not spent time at the Huanan seafood market and reported no known contact with ill persons during his travel to China, CDC staff concurred with the need to test the patient for 2019-nCoV on the basis of current CDC “persons under investigation” case definitions.8 Specimens were collected in accordance with CDC guidance and included serum and nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swab specimens. After specimen collection, the patient was discharged to home isolation with active monitoring by the local health department.

On January 20, 2020, the CDC confirmed that the patient’s nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabs tested positive for 2019-nCoV by real-time reverse-transcriptase–polymerase-chain-reaction (rRT-PCR) assay. In coordination with CDC subject-matter experts, state and local health officials, emergency medical services, and hospital leadership and staff, the patient was admitted to an airborne-isolation unit at Providence Regional Medical Center for clinical observation, with health care workers following CDC recommendations for contact, droplet, and airborne precautions with eye protection.9

On admission, the patient reported persistent dry cough and a 2-day history of nausea and vomiting; he reported that he had no shortness of breath or chest pain. Vital signs were within normal ranges. On physical examination, the patient was found to have dry mucous membranes. The remainder of the examination was generally unremarkable. After admission, the patient received supportive care, including 2 liters of normal saline and ondansetron for nausea.

Figure 2.Symptoms and Maximum Body Temperatures According to Day of Illness and Day of Hospitalization, January 16 to January 30, 2020.
On days 2 through 5 of hospitalization (days 6 through 9 of illness), the patient’s vital signs remained largely stable, apart from the development of intermittent fevers accompanied by periods of tachycardia (Figure 2). The patient continued to report a nonproductive cough and appeared fatigued. On the afternoon of hospital day 2, the patient passed a loose bowel movement and reported abdominal discomfort. A second episode of loose stool was reported overnight; a sample of this stool was collected for rRT-PCR testing, along with additional respiratory specimens (nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal) and serum. The stool and both respiratory specimens later tested positive by rRT-PCR for 2019-nCoV, whereas the serum remained negative.

Treatment during this time was largely supportive. For symptom management, the patient received, as needed, antipyretic therapy consisting of 650 mg of acetaminophen every 4 hours and 600 mg of ibuprofen every 6 hours. He also received 600 mg of guaifenesin for his continued cough and approximately 6 liters of normal saline over the first 6 days of hospitalization.

Table 1.Clinical Laboratory Results.
The nature of the patient isolation unit permitted only point-of-care laboratory testing initially; complete blood counts and serum chemical studies were available starting on hospital day 3. Laboratory results on hospital days 3 and 5 (illness days 7 and 9) reflected leukopenia, mild thrombocytopenia, and elevated levels of creatine kinase (Table 1). In addition, there were alterations in hepatic function measures: levels of alkaline phosphatase (68 U per liter), alanine aminotransferase (105 U per liter), aspartate aminotransferase (77 U per liter), and lactate dehydrogenase (465 U per liter) were all elevated on day 5 of hospitalization. Given the patient’s recurrent fevers, blood cultures were obtained on day 4; these have shown no growth to date.

Figure 3.Posteroanterior and Lateral Chest Radiographs, January 22, 2020 (Illness Day 7, Hospital Day 3).Figure 4.Posteroanterior Chest Radiograph, January 24, 2020 (Illness Day 9, Hospital Day 5).
A chest radiograph taken on hospital day 3 (illness day 7) was reported as showing no evidence of infiltrates or abnormalities (Figure 3). However, a second chest radiograph from the night of hospital day 5 (illness day 9) showed evidence of pneumonia in the lower lobe of the left lung (Figure 4). These radiographic findings coincided with a change in respiratory status starting on the evening of hospital day 5, when the patient’s oxygen saturation values as measured by pulse oximetry dropped to as low as 90% while he was breathing ambient air. On day 6, the patient was started on supplemental oxygen, delivered by nasal cannula at 2 liters per minute. Given the changing clinical presentation and concern about hospital-acquired pneumonia, treatment with vancomycin (a 1750-mg loading dose followed by 1 g administered intravenously every 8 hours) and cefepime (administered intravenously every 8 hours) was initiated.

Figure 5.Anteroposterior and Lateral Chest Radiographs, January 26, 2020 (Illness Day 10, Hospital Day 6).
On hospital day 6 (illness day 10), a fourth chest radiograph showed basilar streaky opacities in both lungs, a finding consistent with atypical pneumonia (Figure 5), and rales were noted in both lungs on auscultation. Given the radiographic findings, the decision to administer oxygen supplementation, the patient’s ongoing fevers, the persistent positive 2019-nCoV RNA at multiple sites, and published reports of the development of severe pneumonia3,4 at a period consistent with the development of radiographic pneumonia in this patient, clinicians pursued compassionate use of an investigational antiviral therapy. Treatment with intravenous remdesivir (a novel nucleotide analogue prodrug in development10,11) was initiated on the evening of day 7, and no adverse events were observed in association with the infusion. Vancomycin was discontinued on the evening of day 7, and cefepime was discontinued on the following day, after serial negative procalcitonin levels and negative nasal PCR testing for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus.

On hospital day 8 (illness day 12), the patient’s clinical condition improved. Supplemental oxygen was discontinued, and his oxygen saturation values improved to 94 to 96% while he was breathing ambient air. The previous bilateral lower-lobe rales were no longer present. His appetite improved, and he was asymptomatic aside from intermittent dry cough and rhinorrhea. As of January 30, 2020, the patient remains hospitalized. He is afebrile, and all symptoms have resolved with the exception of his cough, which is decreasing in severity.

Methods
SPECIMEN COLLECTION

Clinical specimens for 2019-nCoV diagnostic testing were obtained in accordance with CDC guidelines.12 Nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swab specimens were collected with synthetic fiber swabs; each swab was inserted into a separate sterile tube containing 2 to 3 ml of viral transport medium. Serum was collected in a serum separator tube and then centrifuged in accordance with CDC guidelines. The urine and stool specimens were each collected in sterile specimen containers. Specimens were stored between 2°C and 8°C until ready for shipment to the CDC. Specimens for repeat 2019-nCoV testing were collected on illness days 7, 11, and 12 and included nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabs, serum, and urine and stool samples.

DIAGNOSTIC TESTING FOR 2019-NCOV
Clinical specimens were tested with an rRT-PCR assay that was developed from the publicly released virus sequence. Similar to previous diagnostic assays for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV), it has three nucleocapsid gene targets and a positive control target. A description of this assay13 and sequence information for the rRT-PCR panel primers and probes14 are available on the CDC Laboratory Information website for 2019-nCoV.15

GENETIC SEQUENCING
On January 7, 2020, Chinese researchers shared the full genetic sequence of 2019-nCoV through the National Institutes of Health GenBank database16 and the Global Initiative on Sharing All Influenza Data (GISAID)17 database; a report about the isolation of 2019-nCoV was later published.18 Nucleic acid was extracted from rRT-PCR–positive specimens (oropharyngeal and nasopharyngeal) and used for whole-genome sequencing on both Sanger and next-generation sequencing platforms (Illumina and MinIon). Sequence assembly was completed with the use of Sequencher software, version 5.4.6 (Sanger); minimap software, version 2.17 (MinIon); and freebayes software, version 1.3.1 (MiSeq). Complete genomes were compared with the available 2019-nCoV reference sequence (GenBank accession number NC_045512.2).

Results
SPECIMEN TESTING FOR 2019-NCOV

Table 2.Results of Real-Time Reverse-Transcriptase–Polymerase-Chain-Reaction Testing for the 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV).
The initial respiratory specimens (nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabs) obtained from this patient on day 4 of his illness were positive for 2019-nCoV (Table 2). The low cycle threshold (Ct) values (18 to 20 in nasopharyngeal specimens and 21 to 22 in oropharyngeal specimens) on illness day 4 suggest high levels of virus in these specimens, despite the patient’s initial mild symptom presentation. Both upper respiratory specimens obtained on illness day 7 remained positive for 2019-nCoV, including persistent high levels in a nasopharyngeal swab specimen (Ct values, 23 to 24). Stool obtained on illness day 7 was also positive for 2019-nCoV (Ct values, 36 to 38). Serum specimens for both collection dates were negative for 2019-nCoV. Nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal specimens obtained on illness days 11 and 12 showed a trend toward decreasing levels of virus. The oropharyngeal specimen tested negative for 2019-nCoV on illness day 12. The rRT-PCR results for serum obtained on these dates are still pending.

GENETIC SEQUENCING
The full genome sequences from oropharyngeal and nasopharyngeal specimens were identical to one another and were nearly identical to other available 2019-nCoV sequences. There were only 3 nucleotides and 1 amino acid that differed at open reading frame 8 between this patient’s virus and the 2019-nCoV reference sequence (NC_045512.2). The sequence is available through GenBank (accession number MN985325).16

DISCUSSION
Our report of the first confirmed case of 2019-nCoV in the United States illustrates several aspects of this emerging outbreak that are not yet fully understood, including transmission dynamics and the full spectrum of clinical illness. Our case patient had traveled to Wuhan, China, but reported that he had not visited the wholesale seafood market or health care facilities or had any sick contacts during his stay in Wuhan. Although the source of his 2019-nCoV infection is unknown, evidence of person-to-person transmission has been published. Through January 30, 2020, no secondary cases of 2019-nCoV related to this case have been identified, but monitoring of close contacts continues.19

Detection of 2019-nCoV RNA in specimens from the upper respiratory tract with low Ct values on day 4 and day 7 of illness is suggestive of high viral loads and potential for transmissibility. It is notable that we also detected 2019-nCoV RNA in a stool specimen collected on day 7 of the patient’s illness. Although serum specimens from our case patient were repeatedly negative for 2019-nCoV, viral RNA has been detected in blood in severely ill patients in China.4 However, extrapulmonary detection of viral RNA does not necessarily mean that infectious virus is present, and the clinical significance of the detection of viral RNA outside the respiratory tract is unknown at this time.

Currently, our understanding of the clinical spectrum of 2019-nCoV infection is very limited. Complications such as severe pneumonia, respiratory failure, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), and cardiac injury, including fatal outcomes, have been reported in China.4,18,20 However, it is important to note that these cases were identified on the basis of their pneumonia diagnosis and thus may bias reporting toward more severe outcomes.

Our case patient initially presented with mild cough and low-grade intermittent fevers, without evidence of pneumonia on chest radiography on day 4 of his illness, before having progression to pneumonia by illness day 9. These nonspecific signs and symptoms of mild illness early in the clinical course of 2019-nCoV infection may be indistinguishable clinically from many other common infectious diseases, particularly during the winter respiratory virus season. In addition, the timing of our case patient’s progression to pneumonia on day 9 of illness is consistent with later onset of dyspnea (at a median of 8 days from onset) reported in a recent publication.4 Although a decision to administer remdesivir for compassionate use was based on the case patient’s worsening clinical status, randomized controlled trials are needed to determine the safety and efficacy of remdesivir and any other investigational agents for treatment of patients with 2019-nCoV infection.

We report the clinical features of the first reported patient with 2019-nCoV infection in the United States. Key aspects of this case included the decision made by the patient to seek medical attention after reading public health warnings about the outbreak; recognition of the patient’s recent travel history to Wuhan by local providers, with subsequent coordination among local, state, and federal public health officials; and identification of possible 2019-nCoV infection, which allowed for prompt isolation of the patient and subsequent laboratory confirmation of 2019-nCoV, as well as for admission of the patient for further evaluation and management. This case report highlights the importance of clinicians eliciting a recent history of travel or exposure to sick contacts in any patient presenting for medical care with acute illness symptoms, in order to ensure appropriate identification and prompt isolation of patients who may be at risk for 2019-nCoV infection and to help reduce further transmission. Finally, this report highlights the need to determine the full spectrum and natural history of clinical disease, pathogenesis, and duration of viral shedding associated with 2019-nCoV infection to inform clinical management and public health decision making.

Disclosure forms provided by the authors are available with the full text of this article at NEJM.org.

The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

This article was published on January 31, 2020, at NEJM.org.

We thank the patient; the nurses and clinical staff who are providing care for the patient; staff at the local and state health departments; staff at the Washington State Department of Health Public Health Laboratories and at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Division of Viral Disease Laboratory; CDC staff at the Emergency Operations Center; and members of the 2019-nCoV response teams at the local, state, and national levels.

Author Affiliations
From the Epidemic Intelligence Service (M.L.H.), the National Center for Immunizations and Respiratory Diseases (A.C., L.F., A.P.), the Division of Viral Diseases (S.I.G., L.K., S.T., X.L., S. Lindstrom, M.A.P., W.C.W., H.M.B.), the Influenza Division (T.M.U.), and the Division of Preparedness and Emerging Infections (S.K.P.), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta; and the Washington State Department of Health, Shoreline (M.L.H., C.D., S. Lindquist, K.H.L., J.W.), Snohomish Health District (H.B., C.S.), Providence Medical Group (K.E.), and Providence Regional Medical Center (S.W., A.T., G.D.), Everett, and Department of Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle (C.S.) — all in Washington.

Address reprint requests to Ms. Holshue at the Washington State Department of Health Public Health Laboratories, 1610 NE 150th St., Shoreline, WA 98155, or at michelle.holshue@doh.wa.gov.

A full list of the members of the Washington State 2019-nCoV Case Investigation Team is provided in the Supplementary Appendix, available at NEJM.org.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2001191

COVID-19: Further Evidence that the Virus Originated in the US
  • 4ac153d0d29597da4f383899f8471e17
    Larry Romanoff
  • 1 day ago
  • Categories: English
  • Tags: CDC, China, coronavirus, COVID19, United States
It would be useful to read this prior article for background:

China’s Coronavirus: A Shocking Update. Did The Virus Originate in the US?

By Larry Romanoff, March 04, 2020

***

As readers will recall from the earlier article (above), Japanese and Taiwanese epidemiologists and pharmacologists have determined that the new coronavirus almost certainly originated in the US since that country is the only one known to have all five types – from which all others must have descended. Wuhan in China has only one of those types, rendering it in analogy as a kind of “branch” which cannot exist by itself but must have grown from a “tree”.

The Taiwanese physician noted that in August of 2019 the US had a flurry of lung pneumonias or similar, which the Americans blamed on ‘vaping’ from e-cigarettes, but which, according to the scientist, the symptoms and conditions could not be explained by e-cigarettes. He said he wrote to the US officials telling them he suspected those deaths were likely due to the coronavirus. He claims his warnings were ignored.

Immediately prior to that, the CDC totally shut down the US Military’s main bio-lab at Fort Detrick, Maryland, due to an absence of safeguards against pathogen leakages, issuing a complete “cease and desist” order to the military. It was immediately after this event that the ‘e-cigarette’ epidemic arose.



Screenshot from The New York Times August 08, 2019

We also had the Japanese citizens infected in September of 2019, in Hawaii, people who had never been to China, these infections occurring on US soil long before the outbreak in Wuhan but only shortly after the locking down of Fort Detrick.

Then, on Chinese social media, another article appeared, aware of the above but presenting further details. It stated in part that five “foreign” athletes or other personnel visiting Wuhan for the World Military Games (October 18-27, 2019) were hospitalised in Wuhan for an undetermined infection.

The article explains more clearly that the Wuhan version of the virus could have come only from the US because it is what they call a “branch” which could not have been created first because it would have no ‘seed’. It would have to have been a new variety spun off the original ‘trunk’, and that trunk exists only in the US. (1)

There has been much public speculation that the coronavirus had been deliberately transmitted to China but, according to the Chinese article, a less sinister alternative is possible.

If some members of the US team at the World Military Games (18-27 October) had become infected by the virus from an accidental outbreak at Fort Detrick it is possible that, with a long initial incubation period, their symptoms might have been minor, and those individuals could easily have ‘toured’ the city of Wuhan during their stay, infecting potentially thousands of local residents in various locations, many of whom would later travel to the seafood market from which the virus would spread like wildfire (as it did).

That would account also for the practical impossibility of locating the legendary “patient zero” – which in this case has never been found since there would have been many of them.

Next, Daniel Lucey, an infectious disease expert at Georgetown University in Washington, said in an article in Science magazine that the first human infection has been confirmed as occurring in November 2019, (not in Wuhan), suggesting the virus originated elsewhere and then spread to the seafood markets. “One group put the origin of the outbreak as early as 18 September 2019.” (2) (3)

Wuhan seafood market may not be source of novel virus spreading globally.

Description of earliest cases suggests outbreak began elsewhere.

The article states:

“As confirmed cases of a novel virus surge around the world with worrisome speed, all eyes have so far focused on a seafood market in Wuhan, China, as the origin of the outbreak. But a description of the first clinical cases published in The Lancet on Friday challenges that hypothesis.” (4) (5)

The paper, written by a large group of Chinese researchers from several institutions, offers details about the first 41 hospitalized patients who had confirmed infections with what has been dubbed 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV).

In the earliest case, the patient became ill on 1 December 2019 and had no reported link to the seafood market, the authors report. “No epidemiological link was found between the first patient and later cases”, they state. Their data also show that, in total, 13 of the 41 cases had no link to the marketplace. “That’s a big number, 13, with no link”, says Daniel Lucey . . . (6)

Earlier reports from Chinese health authorities and the World Health Organization had said the first patient had onset of symptoms on 8 December 2019 – and those reports simply said “most” cases had links to the seafood market, which was closed on 1 January. (7)

“Lucey says if the new data are accurate, the first human infections must have occurred in November 2019 – if not earlier – because there is an incubation time between infection and symptoms surfacing. If so, the virus possibly spread silently between people in Wuhan – and perhaps elsewhere – before the cluster of cases from the city’s now-infamous Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market was discovered in late December. “The virus came into that marketplace before it came out of that marketplace”, Lucey asserts.

“China must have realized the epidemic did not originate in that Wuhan Huanan seafood market”, Lucey told Science Insider. (8)

Kristian Andersen is an evolutionary biologist at the Scripps Research Institute who has analyzed sequences of 2019-nCoV to try to clarify its origin. He said the scenario was “entirely plausible” of infected persons bringing the virus into the seafood market from somewhere outside. According to the Science article,

“Andersen posted his analysis of 27 available genomes of 2019-nCoV on 25 January on a virology research website. It suggests they had a “most recent common ancestor” – meaning a common source – as early as 1 October 2019.” (9)

It was interesting that Lucey also noted that MERS was originally believed to have come from a patient in Saudi Arabia in June of 2012, but later and more thorough studies traced it back to an earlier hospital outbreak of unexplained pneumonia in Jordan in April of that year. Lucey said that from stored samples from people who died in Jordan, medical authorities confirmed they had been infected with the MERS virus. (10)

This would provide impetus for caution among the public in accepting the “official standard narrative” that the Western media are always so eager to provide – as they did with SARS, MERS, and ZIKA, all of which ‘official narratives’ were later proven to have been entirely wrong.

In this case, the Western media flooded their pages for months about the COVID-19 virus originating in the Wuhan seafood market, caused by people eating bats and wild animals. All of this has been proven wrong.

Not only did the virus not originate at the seafood market, it did not originate in Wuhan at all, and it has now been proven that it did not originate in China but was brought to China from another country. Part of the proof of this assertion is that the genome varieties of the virus in Iran and Italy have been sequenced and declared to have no part of the variety that infected China and must, by definition, have originated elsewhere.

It would seem the only possibility for origination is the US because only that country has the “tree trunk” of all the varieties. And it may therefore be true that the original source of the COVID-19 virus was the US military bio-warfare lab at Fort Detrick. This would not be a surprise, given that the CDC completely shut down Fort Detrick, but also because, as I related in an earlier article, between 2005 and 2012 the US had experienced 1,059 events where pathogens had been either stolen or escaped from American bio-labs during the prior ten years – an average of one every three days.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Larry Romanoff is a retired management consultant and businessman. He has held senior executive positions in international consulting firms, and owned an international import-export business. He has been a visiting professor at Shanghai’s Fudan University, presenting case studies in international affairs to senior EMBA classes. Mr. Romanoff lives in Shanghai and is currently writing a series of ten books generally related to China and the West. He can be contacted at: 2186604556@qq.com. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Notes

(1) https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/CjGWaaDSKTyjWRMyQyGXUA

(2) https://science.sciencemag.org/content/367/6477/492.full

(3) Science; Jon Cohen; Jan. 26, 2020

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/202...-not-be-source-novel-virus-spreading-globally

(4) https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30183-5/fulltext

(5) https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30183-5/fulltext

(6) http://wjw.wuhan.gov.cn/front/web/showDetail/2020011109036

(7) http://wjw.wuhan.gov.cn/front/web/showDetail/2020011509040

(8) https://sciencespeaksblog.org/2020/...-2019-ncov-qa-6-an-evidence-based-hypothesis/

(9) http://virological.org/t/clock-and-tmrca-based-on-27-genomes/347

(10) http://applications.emro.who.int/emhj/v19/Supp1/EMHJ_2013_19_Supp1_S12_S18.pdf

Featured image is from Health.mil
 
.
You are witnessing the end of the American empire. That’s the end game in all the financial crisis, economic crisis, COVID-19 crisis.
 
.
The Concept of Compelling Argument.

Here is an example so u can understand more easily :

Imagine your wife is suspecting you that u cheeted on her after u came home late one night. Now for this situation, let’s suppose it’s wrong assumption and u did nothing. If your spouse already decided that it’s the case, and that she is in a compelling thinking mode.

What can u answer to prouve that you’re not guilty ?

- Wife : « are u cheeting on me ? »

- You : « NO »

- Wife : « that’s what you would say if you were cheating on me ! Every cheeter are the same, you guys are all liars »

And those answer are legitimate.

Then u will show the bill of the restaurant where you spent time with your colleagues, it’s hard evidence of your innocence.

But then she could say « if you were cheating on me, you’d look for a cover, so you’d ask your colleagues for a bill to justify your delay ! This bill is actually a proof that is was all planned ! »

This is called a COMPELLING ARGUMENT. This argument proves your culpability in all circumstances, even if you’re innocent.

If we want to have a good method to find the truth, COMPELLING ARGUMENTS must be rejected.

The Scientific method :HERE ARE THE FACTS ? What conclusion can we draw from that ?

But very often, the reasoning is reversed : HERE IS MY CONCLUSION(Us created the Corona, Pantsir are good AA systems, ECT), « wich facts can i find to make it credible ? »

IF A METHOD ALWAYS ENDS UP TO THE SAME CONCLUSION ? NO MATTER WHAT YOU ARE PRESENTING ? THAT'S A PROBLEM.

It’s the same thing with the Pantsir situation. U show proof day after day it doesn’t matter. They will always find some COMPELLING ARGUMENTS. Ex : « the video ended too quickly, and they will find new shits, ECT ».

Same for your video.





And for last but not the least.

AN EXTRAORDINARY ASSERTION STATED WITHOUT EVIDENCE CAN BE REJECTED WITHOUT EVIDENCE
 
. .
This virus originated in the US before it was in Wuhan.



Even the CDC Director basically admitted the deaths they thought were from influenza previously could actually be deaths from COVID-19.

EVERY country could have people who died of CONVID-19 in the past two months. Even China could have had people in November/December misdiagnosed. Your patient zero could have died in November well before that doctor pointed things out in late December.

but then how the first cluster appeared in Wuhan?

How come US was already having it but the community transfer didnt work the way it happened in Wuhan?

Because he isn't thinking logically. Wuhan hospitals had a caseload of sick patients so huge they had to build hospitals QUICKLY...yet NONE of that needed to be done here. Why aren't our hospitals completely flooded from East to West with (probably by now if it started here back in September/October) MILLIONS of patients?

Look at Italy after only 3 weeks:
https://wgntv.com/news/coronavirus/italy-hits-1000-coronavirus-deaths/
Italy hits 1,000 coronavirus deaths
 
Last edited:
. . . . . . . . . . .
Back
Top Bottom