Coronavirus Began Began Months Earlier And Not In Wuhan, Bombshell UK Report Claims


Chinese officials have long claimed the first case od COVID-19 was diagnosed in Wuhan on Dec. 1, blaming a nearby wet market that sells exotic animals as the cause.

Not so, says a bombshell new report by scientists from the University of Cambridge in Britain.

“While coronavirus was previously believed to have originated in a wet market in Wuhan at the end of last year, new research suggests it may have actually came from further south – and began spreading among humans as early as September 2019,” The Sun reported on Friday. The team of researchers published its report in the journal “Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,” which lays out a “network” of infections that calls into question reports from the communist nation.

You Might Like

“The virus may have mutated into its final ‘human-efficient’ form months ago, but stayed inside a bat or other animal or even human for several months without infecting other individuals,” University of Cambridge geneticist Peter Forster said on Thursday.

“Then, it started infecting and spreading among humans between September 13 and December 7, generating the network we present in [the journal] Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences [PNAS].”

Researchers analysed strains of the virus using a phylogenetic network – an algorithm that can map the global movement of organisms through the mutation of their genes.

While trying to pinpoint the exact location of patient zero – the first human case of coronavirus – early signs prompted them to look further south than the city of Wuhan, where infections were first reported in December.

“What we reconstruct in the network is the first significant spread among humans,” Mr Forster said.

TRENDING: Antibody Testing Reveals Coronavirus 50-85 Times More Widespread Than Previously Known and Thus Far Less Dangerous Than Expected

The Sun says that Forster and his colleagues from various institutions analyzed more than 1,000 full genome sequences of the virus and by counting its mutations were able to get closer to pinpointing, when the first human was infected by a strain closest to a virus spread among bats.

Despite rumors that the virus escaped from a lab in Wuhan, Forster said: “If I am pressed for an answer, I would say the original spread started more likely in southern China than in Wuhan. “But proof can only come from analyzing more bats, possibly other potential host animals, and preserved tissue samples in Chinese hospitals stored between September and December.”

The UK report came the same day that Chinese officials dramatically increased the number of deaths. In the Hubei province, where Wuhan, a city of more than 11 million residents, is, China said there were just 1,290 deaths. But on Friday, Beijing raised Wuhan’s coronavirus death toll by nearly 50 percent after weeks of charges that communist party officials were underreporting the numbers.

Now, China is reporting 3,869 deaths.  The number of confirmed cases was also raised dramatically, from 325 to 50,333. That number accounts for two-thirds of China’s total 82,367 announced cases.

“Chinese state media claimed Friday that the reason for the sudden leap was that medical facilities were overwhelmed during the peak of the outbreak and because of that, ‘belated, missed and mistaken reporting occurred,’” Fox News reported on Friday.


  1. Why won’t China let the US inspect the Wuhan lab then?

    That would make is so much easier, no?

    I’m not an expert, but first eliminating the obvious source would be the fastest first step, no?



    Covid-19 a chimaera virus developed in USA at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in 2015, published in Nature Magazine: “…Creation of a chimaera
    The argument is essentially a rerun of the debate over whether to allow lab research that increases the virulence, ease of spread or host range of dangerous pathogens — what is known as ‘gain-of-function’ research. In October 2014, the US government imposed a moratorium on federal funding of such research on the viruses that cause SARS, influenza and MERS (Middle East respiratory syndrome, a deadly disease caused by a virus that sporadically jumps from camels to people).
    The latest study was already under way before the US moratorium began, and the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) allowed it to proceed while it was under review by the agency, says Ralph Baric, an infectious-disease researcher at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, a co-author of the study. The NIH eventually concluded that the work was not so risky as to fall under the moratorium, he says.
    But Wain-Hobson disapproves of the study because, he says, it provides little benefit, and reveals little about the risk that the wild SHC014 virus in bats poses to humans.
    Other experiments in the study show that the virus in wild bats would need to evolve to pose any threat to humans — a change that may never happen, although it cannot be ruled out. Baric and his team reconstructed the wild virus from its genome sequence and found that it grew poorly in human cell cultures and caused no significant disease in mice.
    “The only impact of this work is the creation, in a lab, of a new, non-natural risk,” agrees Richard Ebright, a molecular biologist and biodefence expert at Rutgers University in Piscataway, New Jersey. Both Ebright and Wain-Hobson are long-standing critics of gain-of-function research.
    In their paper, the study authors also concede that funders may think twice about allowing such experiments in the future. “Scientific review panels may deem similar studies building chimeric viruses based on circulating strains too risky to pursue,” they write, adding that discussion is needed as to “whether these types of chimeric virus studies warrant further investigation versus the inherent risks involved”.
    Useful research
    But Baric and others say the research did have benefits. The study findings “move this virus from a candidate emerging pathogen to a clear and present danger”, says Peter Daszak, who co-authored the 2013 paper. Daszak is president of the EcoHealth Alliance, an international network of scientists, headquartered in New York City, that samples viruses from animals and people in emerging-diseases hotspots across the globe.
    Studies testing hybrid viruses in human cell culture and animal models are limited in what they can say about the threat posed by a wild virus, Daszak agrees. But he argues that they can help indicate which pathogens should be prioritized for further research attention.
    Without the experiments, says Baric, the SHC014 virus would still be seen as not a threat. Previously, scientists had believed, on the basis of molecular modelling and other studies, that it should not be able to infect human cells. The latest work shows that the virus has already overcome critical barriers, such as being able to latch onto human receptors and efficiently infect human airway cells, he says. “I don’t think you can ignore that.” He plans to do further studies with the virus in non-human primates, which may yield data more relevant to humans.”

    They then continued the research in China and HERE YOU GO!

  3. Congratulations on your new conspiracy theory!
    I never heard this one before, on behalf of this “Breaking” report,
    please unsubscribe me from any and all future updates.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *