What's new

US military might have brought coronavirus to Wuhan China

LOL what a misleading title, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman is pulling this out of his a$$ on twitter, It's not official, He's doing this to promote conspiracy theory. It would be official if Xi Jinping goes on TV and tells the world that we have evidence that shows the SARS-CoV-2 virus originated from US not China.
 
when money is concerned, the beans r finally let out of the bag:


Under Questioning, CDC Director Agrees To Provide Free Testing for COVID-19, Regardless Of Insurance
While testifying before Congress, CDC chief Dr. Robert Redfield confirmed his agency will pay for COVID-19 testing on people without insurance.


What have we learnt so far?

China is amazing in propaganda internally with Demigod Xi lording over the sheeple of China. But suck big time and amateurish when doing propaganda outside China.
 
LOL what a misleading title, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman is pulling this out of his a$$ on twitter, It's not official, He's doing this to promote conspiracy theory. It would be official if Xi Jinping goes on TV and tells the world that we have evidence that shows the SARS-CoV-2 virus originated from US not China.
Your statement is ridiculous. He's the deputy director of the Foreign Ministry.

Also the 'official' point is not about whether the virus did originate from the US or not- it's about the Chinese stance that the virus may have originated there.

If Its a conspiracy theory, the Americans won't be summoning the Chinese ambassador for a meeting over it , n I douBT that the US government would be so stupid as u to summon the ambassador over every conspiracy theory on the internet

What have we learnt so far?

China is amazing in propaganda internally with Demigod Xi lording over the sheeple of China. But suck big time and amateurish when doing propaganda outside China.
What I have learned is the Chinese r pushing back american propaganda on the Western-centric internet this time round.
 
Last edited:
Your statement is ridiculous. He's the deputy directors of the Foreign Ministry.

Also the 'official' point is not about whether the virus did originate from the US or not- it's about the Chinese stance that the virus may have originated there.

If Its a conspiracy theory, the Americans won't be summoning the Chinese ambassador for a meeting over it , n I douBT that the US government would be so stupid as u to summon the ambassador over every conspiracy theory on the internet


What I have learned is the Chinese r pushing back american propaganda on the Western-centric internet this time round.

Sorry man. I don’t see any supporting hard proof from foreign ministry to back up it’s claim.

You do realise this is not the first time pandemic category disease has emanated from 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
What has this text wall got to do with the topic at hand?

Sorry man. I don’t see any supporting hard proof from foreign ministry to back up it’s claim.

You do realise this is not the first time pandemic category disease has emanated from China

The point is is that's their stance, not whether they have evidence that the virus indeed originated from the US.

U r free to disagree with their stance
 
The Coronavirus started in Tuvalu and then was transmitted to Wuhan China !!
The above statement is just to make the point that some other country can be accused when China is clearly the source of the virus. Propaganda and fake news will not wash the truth that the Wuhan Labs are the source of the virus that escaped due to the negligence of the Chinese scientists.
 
What has this text wall got to do with the topic at hand?
The "text wall" is the most credible scientific information available about the USA patient zero who is directly attributable to a Wuhan origin. The Chinese patient zero is not know to the outside world because China does not now, and may never, offer such scientific documents as the above "text wall" about the first Chinese patient. Still, it is widely reported in Chinese media that Chinese patient zero presented in Wuhan in mid-November, 2019. Most likely origin of the virus is animal to human transfer in Wuhan or it escaped from the Wuhan National Biosafety Laboratory of the Chinese Academy of Sciences.
 
Not just a consipracy theory anymore. This time round, it's an official statement from Chinese Foreign Ministry:



US military may have brought coronavirus to Wuhan, says China in war of words with US

BEIJING (REUTERS) - A spokesman for China's Foreign Ministry suggested on Thursday (March 12) that the US military might have brought the coronavirus to the Chinese city of Wuhan, which has been hardest hit by the outbreak, doubling down on a war of words with Washington.

China has taken great offence at comments by US officials accusing it of being slow to react to the virus, first detected in Wuhan late last year, and of not being sufficiently transparent.

On Wednesday, US National Security Adviser Robert O'Brien said the speed of China's reaction to the emergence of the coronavirus had probably cost the world two months when it could have been preparing for the outbreak.

In a strongly worded tweet, written in English on his verified Twitter account, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian said it was the United States that lacked transparency.

"When did patient zero begin in US? How many people are infected? What are the names of the hospitals? It might be US army who brought the epidemic to Wuhan. Be transparent! Make public your data! US owe us an explanation!" Zhao wrote.

Zhao, an avid and often combative Twitter user, did not offer any evidence for his suggestion that the US military might be to blame for the outbreak in China.

Earlier on Thursday, his fellow ministry spokesman Geng Shuang criticised US officials for "immoral and irresponsible" comments that blamed Beijing's response to the coronavirus for worsening the global impact of the pandemic.

Asked about O'Brien's comments, Geng told a daily news briefing in Beijing that such remarks by US officials would not help US epidemic efforts.

China's efforts to slow the spread had bought the world time to prepare against the epidemic, he added.

"We wish that a few officials in the US would at this time concentrate their energy on responding to the virus and promoting cooperation, and not on shifting the blame to China."

FIRM MEASURES
The coronavirus emerged in December in Wuhan and surrounding Hubei province, where around two-thirds of global cases so far have been recorded. But in recent weeks the vast majority of new cases have been outside China.

The Chinese authorities credit firm measures they took in January and February, including a near total shutdown of Hubei, for preventing outbreaks in other Chinese cities on the scale of Wuhan and slowing the spread abroad.

The administration of US President Donald Trump has pointed to a decision to limit air travel from China at the end of January to fend off criticism that it responded too slowly to the disease. Critics say Trump played down the disease in public and the federal government was slow to roll out tests.

"Unfortunately, rather than using best practices, this outbreak in Wuhan was covered up," Trump's national security advisor O'Brien said during a think-tank appearance on Wednesday.

"It probably cost the world community two months to respond," during which "we could have dramatically curtailed what happened both in China and what's now happening across the world", he said.

More than 119,100 people have been infected by the novel coronavirus across the world and 4,298 have died, the vast majority in China, according to a Reuters tally. The United States has 975 cases and 30 people have died.

"We have done a good job responding to it but ... the way that this started out in China, and the way it was handled from the outset, was not right," said O'Brien.


"Just imagine that back in the 1970s or 80s you had claimed that the Crypto was a CIA front. You’d have been dismissed as a ‘crank conspiracy theorist, ’and/or ‘totally paranoid‘ by the gatekeepers of that time. But the rumours were true. Once again a ‘conspiracy theory’ has turned out to be not as barmy as once depicted. Truth again proved to be stranger than fiction."
https://www.rt.com/op-ed/480735-crypto-cia-spy-op-huawei/

It's highly likely that US empire created coronavirus.
 
"Just imagine that back in the 1970s or 80s you had claimed that the Crypto was a CIA front. You’d have been dismissed as a ‘crank conspiracy theorist, ’and/or ‘totally paranoid‘ by the gatekeepers of that time. But the rumours were true. Once again a ‘conspiracy theory’ has turned out to be not as barmy as once depicted. Truth again proved to be stranger than fiction."
https://www.rt.com/op-ed/480735-crypto-cia-spy-op-huawei/

It's highly likely that US empire created coronavirus.

US criminals thought they could destroy China with the coronavirus but it backfired spectacularly and it’s now destroying the US and Europe.
 
US criminals thought they could destroy China with the coronavirus but it backfired spectacularly and it’s now destroying the US and Europe.

US terrorists have long history of using biological weapons. They gave smallpox infected blankets to Native Americans to kill them. US terrorists also killed bisons to starve Native Americans. US regime also used other means to kill civilians around the world. US empire used nuclear weapons to kill civilians in Japan and depleted uranium to kill civilians in Iraq.
US terrorists stopped publicly burning people alive only in 1940s when Japanese newspapers wrote about this happening in the so called USA.
Be wary and stay strong China.
 
The Coronavirus started in Tuvalu and then was transmitted to Wuhan China !!
The above statement is just to make the point that some other country can be accused when China is clearly the source of the virus. Propaganda and fake news will not wash the truth that the Wuhan Labs are the source of the virus that escaped due to the negligence of the Chinese scientists.
Let's wait and see. Agent orange, does it ring a bell? The tuskergee experiment? China is just saying we don't know the origin of the virus, but it exploded in Wuhan. Could the US plant a virus and infect some weird animal? Who knows? Then blame the chinks for eating weird shit?
 
Sorry man. I don’t see any supporting hard proof from foreign ministry to back up it’s claim.

You do realise this is not the first time pandemic category disease has emanated from China
There is hard proof, you missed it.
 
Back
Top Bottom