Chinese behavior ‘trend to trend’ comes to light: serious questions about the origin of COVID-19

Purchases of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) research kits, which allow scientists to amplify DNA sequences to detect infectious diseases or other genetic material, increased dramatically in the province in 2019, especially in the second half, according to the Australian-American Internet company. 2.0.

Hubei province is home to Wuhan, a Chinese city where the first known cases of the virus have been recorded. The World Health Organization (WHO) reported that its country office in China was informed on December 31, 2019 that cases of pneumonia of unknown origin had been identified in the city.

On January 7, 2020, Chinese authorities identified a new type of coronavirus, the same one that would later become known as SARS-CoV-2 and would cause a disease that is now called COVID-19. Since then, the coronavirus has spread to almost every corner of the world, affecting more than 230 million people. people and almost 4.8 million. died.

Based on the study, Internet 2.0 concluded that “it is highly likely that the pandemic started much earlier than China notified the WHO of COVID-19,” the report said. A cybersecurity company specializing in intelligence and digital forensics has called for further investigations.

However, several medical experts have stated that the Internet 2.0 report does not provide enough information to make such findings. First, PCR assays, which have been widely used for decades, are becoming increasingly popular as they have become the standard method for testing pathogens, says one of the experts. In addition, PCR equipment is widely used in laboratories for the study of many pathogens other than COVID-19, including animal pathogens, and is widespread in modern hospitals and laboratories.

In 2019, China also faced an outbreak of African swine fever that spread throughout the country.

China’s Foreign Ministry has questioned the findings. In response to Bloomberg News, a ministry spokesperson said the findings fell into the same category as other questionable allegations of the origin of the coronavirus, including a “purported document” that looks at traffic at various Wuhan hospitals and looks for “coughs” and ” diarrhea”. until it was concluded that the outbreak in Wuhan started in August 2019.

“The traceability of the virus is a serious scientific problem that scientists must address,” said a ministry spokesman.

The Information Office of the State Council of China has published an information document on the country’s response to COVID-19, which “sets out the country’s efforts to combat the epidemic”, with specific action plans-timelines based on solid facts, “said a spokesman.

“China’s epidemic campaign is open to the world, the situation is clear, the facts are clear at first glance, and it stands the test of time and history,” the spokesman said.

Dr. Amesh Adalja, principal investigator at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, said he did not know why equipment purchases at that time had increased in Hubei province. But he said this did not surprise him too much, as purchases of PCR equipment in general increased, even before March, as it became the “preferred pathogen detection methodology.”

According to Adalja, whose work deals with emerging infectious diseases and pandemic preparedness, the data was not specific enough to skew the conversation about the origins of COVID-19. “I don’t think they are proving anything or denying it,” he said. “They are simply not enough.”

An Australian biochemist, who read the report and asked not to be named because he was not authorized to speak publicly on the matter, said more data was needed to explain the scope of the acquisition. The biochemist, who has extensive experience in PCR and research and immunology applications, said the data showed a sudden and high need for pathogen diagnostic equipment, but added that it only raised additional questions about what equipment was used to perform the tests. .

David Robinson, one of the CEOs of Internet 2.0 and lead author of the paper, said in an interview that the timing of some contracts and procurement agencies supports the idea that Hubei provincial officials will be in charge throughout the second half of 2019.. investigated a new human disease in the first half of the year.

However, he claimed that his company’s conclusions were not “irrefutable evidence”.

“These data do not support any initial conclusions about COVID-19, but in the future some of this data may support conclusions about the origin of the virus,” said Robinson and Robert Potter, the other CEO of the company. – This report also does not indicate the specific onset of the pandemic. The fact that China has gone to great lengths to ensure that compelling evidence is not available means, unfortunately, that we may have to rely on data from third countries. “

Origin of the coronavirus

The origin of the coronavirus has become a subject of heated debate; The United States and its allies accuse Beijing of opposing a more detailed investigation, including allegations that the virus escaped from the Wuhan Biosafety Laboratory, which tested similar coronaviruses. In August, US intelligence officials released a summary of the investigation into the causes of the outbreak, but said they could not reach firm conclusions because China refused to cooperate.

Chinese officials denied obstructing the investigation and vehemently rejected the theory of a virus leak from the Wuhan laboratory. Senior Chinese scientists have argued that the pathogen likely originated in the animal’s body, which passed it on to humans via an intermediate host, a theory that is supported by the wider scientific community.

In an article published in the journal Science in April, researchers concluded that mid-October to mid-November 2019 was the most likely period when COVID-19 was first transmitted to humans in Hubei province. .

Internet 2.0, whose clients include the Australian government, shared its data with government officials in the so-called “five-eyed” countries, a group of countries that share intelligence, including Australia, the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and New Zealand, informs the company and other sources.

Representatives of the intelligence services of those states, when asked about the report, declined to comment.

Robinson, a retired Australian military intelligence official, said the Internet 2.0 report was based on procurement data that is publicly available on Chinese government websites. Data is collected regularly by an aggregation site called bidcenter.com.cn, and Internet 2.0 researchers searched this database for the term PCR.

According to Robinson, in total from 2007 to 2019 By the end of 2006, they had collected 1,716 procurement contracts and then verified and analyzed the data over several months. A control sample was taken from Chinese provinces and cities, and the areas where the most purchases of PCR equipment were recorded were compared with Hubei province to rule out an increase in all of China.

Purchases related to PCR were relatively the same or slightly increased or decreased in most other areas. However, purchases in Beijing increased significantly in 2019, according to a report in which purchases outside of Hubei provinces are not broken down by month.

In Hubei province, in 2014, the cost of PCR equipment began to rise. However, a particularly large jump was recorded in 2019: it increased from 36.7 million during the year. up to 67.36 million yuan.

According to Robinson, the type of Chinese organizations that buy large quantities of PCR equipment changed in 2019 compared to previous years: if previously it was bought mainly for agricultural research and hospital use, now it was largely bought by the prevention and control authorities of PCR. diseases.

In 2019, for example, Wuhan University of Science and Technology was the largest buyer of this equipment in Hubei province. The university owns eight hospitals and has more than 35 teaching practice bases, including 22 general hospitals and 10 centers for disease prevention and control, according to the report.

Robinson pointed to three specific purchases in Hubei province, which he described as “offline,” and suggested that Chinese officials found a new human pathogen in early 2019, before it was announced.

The first purchase was recorded in May 2019, when the China People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Airborne Hospital acquired PCR-related equipment, the only PLA contract in the database, Robinson said.

The second purchase was recorded in September 2019, when the Hungarian District Center for Disease Control and Prevention in the city of Wuhan purchased pathogen detection equipment for the upcoming World Military Games.

The following month, more than 9,000 foreign athletes from more than 100 countries traveled to Wuhan, with many of them later complaining of symptoms similar to COVID-19, The Washington Post reported in June. China later said that US military athletes could have brought the virus from the Fort Detroit complex in Maryland, where the military is conducting biological research, the Post said.

According to the report, the third “off-trend” purchase was recorded in November 2019. The Wuhan Institute of Virology, from which, according to proponents of the laboratory leak theory, the virus originated, bought equipment related to the virus. PCR.

“These results refute current assumptions about when the pandemic started and confirm the appropriateness of further investigation,” the report said.