The "Wuhan Virus" Revisited
How Chinese Health Officials Ignored Toxic Air Pollution and Invented a Deadly Virus
Remember those frightening videos that appeared in January 2020 of people collapsing on the streets in China? Apparently those images had nothing to do with the “deadly new virus” but were promoted as such by social media rumors and media outlets outside China; even Snopes and the WHO—not known for allaying fears of viruses—cast doubt on the idea that they depicted actual cases of the “novel coronavirus.”
One might get the impression that the much-maligned Chinese government was innocent of instigating the misrepresentation of those videos and of fomenting the fear they induced. However, it was after all the Chinese government that declared a national emergency and dressed their first responders in hazmat suits to begin with. Does that speak of a conservative government hesitant to flame fears of a “deadly new virus”? Would any sane government train Covid SWAT teams dressed in said fear-inducing suits to attack civilians suspected of being “infected”?
Would any sane government enforce the strictest lockdowns in the world, even going to such lengths as to lock it’s citizens up inside their apartments?
Certainly I do not mean to blame China for the worldwide panic. Many by now are aware of the “novel coronavirus” pandemic “preparedness” excercise known as Event 201 that took place in October 2019 in NYC, sponsored by none other than the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the WEF. Planning on how to augment panic to the fullest and censor any dissident voices was made. Fewer, perhaps, are aware, that head of the Chinese Center for Disease Control (CCDC) George Gao was the only "non-Westerner" in attendance.
Some of you will think this is more reason to believe that Chinese health officials in cahoots with inscrupulous American funders had plans to release a weaponized virus from the Wuhan Biosecurity Lab. Keep reading.
The purpose of this article, however, is not a deep dive into conspiracy theories. Instead, I just want to call attention to a section of my very first and of my longest articles on Substack from September 2023—an anniversary selection if you will, but an article in it’s own right. That section, reproduced below, focuses on what happened in Wuhan in late December 2019, and how the whole world was led to believe a novel virus was wrecking havoc on people’s respiratory health. I present a much simpler and more easily validated explanation.
Happy reading!
China pollution, an ongoing nightmare
The hazes can be choking and can reduce visibility at noon to a few tens of yards. Fumes belch from factory chimneys, coal-fired power plants, heating systems in apartment blocks, and millions of road vehicles. When the weather traps smog in the streets, city hospital admissions soar and the morgues fill.
— YaleEnvironment360 (2018)
Mark Hertsgaard writing for The Atlantic Monthly on Guangdong Province, where the greatest outbreak of SARS took place in 2003, says,
At least five of the cities with the worst air pollution in the world are in China. Sixty to 90 percent of the rainfall in Guangdong . . . is acid rain. . . people’s lungs and nervous systems are bombarded by an extraordinary volume and variety of deadly poisons. One of every four deaths in China is caused by lung disease.
—cited in Jim West, The SARS Epidemic: Are Viruses Taking the Rap for Industrial Poisons?
In 1995, the author of this article lived in the booming city of Shenzhen that lies sandwiched between Guangdong and Hong Kong, and can attest to the pervasive, asphyxiating pollution in the region.
In many Chinese cities, pollution from sulphurous coal reminiscent of London circa 1952 is combined with choking exhaust from tens of thousands of motor vehicles.
"The unprecedented speed of industrialization and urbanization has combined two eras of pollution."
— How a ‘Toxic Cocktail’ Is Posing a Troubling Health Risk in China’s Cities, YaleEnvironment360
Overwhelmed with pollution, the country's largest cities like Beijing and Shanghai have implemented restrictions that have motivated polluting industries to relocate to lesser known parts of China, such as Wuhan.
Wuhan, December 2019
pneu·mo·nia | \ nu̇-ˈmō-nyə , nyu̇- \
: an acute disease that is marked by inflammation of lung tissue...
— Merriam-Webster
Wuhan is a city of over 11 million residents, China's seventh largest—a"China thoroughfare" located at a central crossroads of the densely populated mideastern part of the country. Called "the Chicago of China," it is among the most polluted cities in the entire world. A joint study published in the WHO bulletin lists Wuhan as one of a handful of Chinese cities with the worst levels of multiple contaminants.
In December of 2019, a number of patients interned in a Wuhan hospital were reported to have atypical pneumonia. In fact, this is not uncommon: 20-30 percent of pneumonia is generally tagged as "atypical." In a country of more than a billion people, and in a polluted city of millions, it is not unusual to find a significant number of people with pneumonia (both "typical" and "atypical") along with other lung conditions of some variety.
Growing social media concern in China throughout the month of December about a possible "new outbreak" centered in Wuhan at least partially reflected lingering fears concerning possible reemergence of a SARS-like respiratory virus after the highly dramatized 2003 epidemic. Given the chronic pollution and respiratory trouble plaguing China, these rumors may have been without real merit: social media is not known for objectivity. On the other hand, there may have been a very real new threat—i.e. new levels of indoor and outdoor air pollution toxicity from fracked fuel coupled with EMF toxicity from 10,000 newly installed 5G towers.
Pneumonia is designated atypical whenever tests have been done and the bacteria or other organisms typically blamed for causing the condition are not found. Often atypical pneumonias are blamed on other microorganisms, but the medical establishment's near-exclusive blaming of microorganisms for such conditions is disingenuous. Many if not all microorganisms that are claimed to be harmful pathogens are found in the sick and healthy alike. When some are found more frequently in certain disease conditions, it does not demonstrate cause any more than finding vultures near a dead animal proves the vultures caused the death. Certain microorganisms, such as many if not all varieties of bacteria and fungi, provide a necessary and vital function—that of decomposing already dead or dying matter, just as one sees everywhere in nature! Bacteria are used industrially to break down human waste. They are opportunistic scavengers and janitors.
Little publicized is the fact that microorganisms are pleomorphic—morphing and obtaining different form and function according to the environment in which they are found. The science of pleomorphism is as old as germ theory, thoroughly demonstrated by the French physician and microbiologist Antoine Bechamp in the late 1800s—whose groundbreaking work on fermentation Pasteur merely plagiarized and distorted—and confirmed and further described by several generations of scientists to follow... to the present day!
Moreover, as Stefan Lanka has pointed out, noninfectious causes of pneumonia are often suppressed—doctors and the public kept in ignorance—even though they are described in the scientific literature:
There are actually several causes of atypical pneumonia which are not “infectious”...
Causes include the breathing in of poisonous fumes, solvents, and other chemical products...
He goes on to enumerate a number of other documented noninfectious causes of pneumonia. Especially relevant to the high number of deaths that would later occur in nursing homes is the following:
In older people there are known causes for hypostatic pneumonia; this happens because of water accumulation (oedema) from prolonged bed rest, [or] heart or kidney weaknesses, which can lead to a lack of air and blood to the lungs as a direct consequence of their inflammation.
Many medications, particularly those that would be used in high doses for "Covid" or (allegedly) to prevent Covid-related anxiety, can affect either the heart or kidneys, or both, as well as the lungs.
Though Lanka mentions "poisonous fumes ... and other chemical products," for whatever reason he neglects to call attention to air pollution which often contains both of these, as well as harmful particulate matter. (Several years ago, my mother was diagnosed with pneumonia from exposure to pesticide drift from adjacent croplands).
Air pollution is of special concern in such highly polluted places as burgeoning Chinese cities; both poisonous fumes and particulate matter are a source of irritation and inflammation of the lungs.
According to stoppneumonia.org:
Air pollution is the leading risk factor for death from pneumonia. An estimated 30% (749,200) of all pneumonia deaths in 2019 were attributable to air pollution according to the GBD. Of all causes of air pollution, it is particulate matter measuring less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter – less than a 30th of the diameter of a human hair – that causes the largest burden of disease. This “PM2.5” is emitted both outdoors and indoors, from vehicles, coal-burning power plants, industrial activities, waste burning, farming practices, and household cooking and heating using coal, charcoal, wood, agricultural residue, animal dung, and kerosene.
The article also asserts that:
The estimated 2.5 million pneumonia deaths that occurred in 2019 will rise massively in 2020 after COVID-19 deaths are included. No other infection causes so many deaths, according to the Global Burden of Disease (GBD).
When a team of virologists and epidemiologists from Beijing arrived in Wuhan on December 31, 2019 to provide support amidst the growing social media alarm, their analysis of the situation included no toxicological survey. As typical bacteria were not found in the pneumonia patients, they immediately set to work to find a virus.
Fan Wu et al. who published a month later one of the two seminal studies from Wuhan, make the following curious admission in their Methods section:
No statistical methods were used to predetermine sample size. The experiments were not randomized and the investigators were not blinded to allocation during experiments and outcome assessment.
So what was the "sample size"? A single "suspect case" presenting with "acute onset of fever" along with "cough and chest tightness."
(The other official study, Na Zhu et al., didn't do much better. They studied a total of four "patients with pneumonia of unknown cause." Why did they choose to study only four when according to the ECDC there were at least 27 patients hospitalized with pneumonia in Wuhan by the time the team arrived from Beijing, and 7 in critical condition?)
Fan Wu's team analysed a crude sample of bronchial-alluvial lavage fluid (BALF) taken upon admission of the patient in a Wuhan hospital and came up with tens of millions of amino acid reads of unknown provenance. From these they created over a million contigs—longer sequences invented by computer pasting short reads together—and decided the longest contig consisting of around 30,000 nucleotide pairs belonged to a new SARS-like virus!
Did you notice anything strange about this process? Even centrifuged culture supernatant, gradient-density purified to the alleged density of viruses, contains billions of nucleic acid molecules, the vast majority of which can be found belonging to humans and ubiquitous bacteria. But Fan Wu et al. performed no centrifuging, no filtering, no purification, and yet they claimed to have "found" and described a new virus.
Drs. Bailey and Smith describe this in greater detail:
It is important to note that the samples sent for sequencing were not physically isolated viruses but crude samples containing millions of unique genetic fragments from the patient himself, innumerable microbes, even from the air the patient had breathed on the way to the hospital. Over 56.5 million reads were produced from this genetic “soup” and pieced together to create 384,096 contigs (long genetic sequences) on Megahit, and 1.32 million contigs on Trinity [computer assembly platforms]. Perhaps with a predisposition to prove their unproven canard that there is “the ongoing ability of viral spill-over from animal to cause severe disease in humans”, Fan Wu et al. chose the longest (30,474 nucleotides), which, they claimed, had a nucleotide identity of 89.1% with the in silico bat coronavirus genome (SL-CoVZC45) invented in 2018. Thus, a “genome” that was as close genetically as a human is to an Abyssinian house cat became the template used for primer design for the RT-PCR method to supposedly detect a virus that had not been shown to exist. Subsequently, it was decided that the genome needed a cut and paste, perhaps to make it look even closer to the 29,802 nucleotides of the bat model SL-CoVZC45 and it was reduced to 29,875 nucleotides in the next version on GenBank. But the artists weren’t finished with their creation and a third and final model was drawn with a completely different terminal sequence featuring 23 consecutive adenine bases, which, hey presto, looked more like the bat model that featured 26 consecutive adenine bases on its tail. It is unclear how the virologists knew which “genome” to choose when all of the options were hypothetical computer constructs.
—Dr Mark Bailey and Dr John Bevan-Smith, The COVID-19 Fraud & War on Humanity (2021). References omitted.
The hypothetical sequence the virologists' computers created out of thin air would be entered into the world database, and ALL virologists claiming to sequence SARS-COV-2 or its morbidly terrifying "deadly variants" would use it for their template (i.e. as a “reference virus” for “genome construction” or PCR primer selection). PCR tests for the "virus" would test for nothing more than one or two very short snippets of the in silico sequence.
Note that it is this same freely-invented sequence that is claimed by some as proof that "SARS-COV-2" is a man-made virus created in a lab via gain-of-funtion experiments. The lab-leak hypothesis sustains and markedly augments fear of viruses, fear of contact with others and personal disempowerment. It strengthens belief in contagion propaganda and provides further distraction from the very real hazards of toxic exposures.)
On January 1, 2020, researchers at Charité Hospital in Berlin including professors Corman and Drosten began developing a PCR assay (test) based on social media rumors from China of a respiratory disease outbreak and on suspicion that it could be caused by a new SARS-like virus. There were no patients or patient samples in Berlin, and not even a single official report from China. And there were as yet no invented, hypothetical sequences of an alleged new virus.
Extracted from:
Tobin Owl is an independent researcher/writer. Over the past three years he’s conducted in-depth investigation focusing on the history of modern medicine, medical science and the environment. Articles written previous to his move to Substack can be found on his website, cryfortheearth.mystrikingly.com
What gets me is that there's still apologists for the equally insane responses of Russia and China... Even after we knew it was a "flu" in terms of ifr rates.
Many morons think that Russia and China are fighting the West, but they went along with the west when it comes to Big pharma and authoritarian power.
not a virus a poisonous injection