Sunday, July 4, 2021

 

Gentleman Pacman meets Gutter Duterte












Manny Pacquiao's comeback fight is a chance to prove his mettle at 42 -- an age when most boxers have already hung up their gloves -- and score a lucrative payday before a widely expected tilt at the presidency next year TED ALJIBE AFP




A two-year break from boxing has left Philippine legend Manny Pacquiao "hungry" to get back in the ring for what could be the last fight of his storied career -- and a warm-up for a presidential rumble.

The eight-division world champion and beloved national hero will have tens of millions of fans from the boxing-mad archipelago in his corner when he faces American Errol Spence in Las Vegas on August 21.

Pacquiao's comeback fight is a chance to prove his mettle at 42 -- an age when most boxers have already hung up their gloves -- and score a lucrative payday before a widely expected tilt at the presidency next year.


"I'm a politician, all politicians are dreaming for the higher position," the elected senator told AFP in his southern hometown of General Santos, where he is training.

"I'm going to announce (my decision) in the proper time, maybe after the fight."

Pacquiao's star power in a country famed for its celebrity-obsessed politics would put him in a strong position in the presidential race.

But it would not guarantee victory.

A public skirmish between Pacquiao and President Rodrigo Duterte over the latter's handling of the South China Sea dispute with Beijing and official graft could erode support for the boxer.

Duterte -- who is allowed to serve only one term as president -- rivals Pacquiao for the affections of many Filipinos and has even flagged a possible run for the vice presidency in 2022.

Until recently, Pacquiao was a high-profile backer of Duterte and his controversial drug war, which International Criminal Court prosecutors want to investigate for the alleged unlawful killing of possibly tens of thousands of people.#photo1

Pacquiao told AFP he would continue the crackdown, but in a "proper way" that does not abuse "the rights of individuals".

Asked if he would protect the current president from criminal charges if he became leader, he said: "All of us are bound to the law."

Pacquiao would face a formidable opponent if Duterte's daughter, Sara, were to run for the top job.

A recent poll showed the Davao city mayor -- the same position her father held before he took power in 2016 -- with the most voter support, well ahead of Pacquiao and other potential contenders.

But a lot can change between now and the October deadline for candidates to register.

"Right now my expectation is that (Pacquiao) runs, but not as Duterte's chosen successor," said Eurasia Group analyst Peter Mumford.

"But it's the Philippines so it's very unpredictable."

Decisions on whether to retire after the Spence fight or run for the highest office are in God's hands, according to Pacquiao, a father of five.#photo2

Religion looms large in the life of the boxer, who became a devout evangelical Christian about a decade ago after giving up his playboy lifestyle.

He even relies on his faith -- and vitamin C -- to ward off Covid-19 while he considers getting vaccinated against the deadly disease.

"I always keep in trusting God because he's the one who give me the ability to accomplish all those things," he said.

- 'Idol of everyone' -

Pacquiao is deeply admired in the Philippines for his generosity and hauling himself out of poverty to become one of the world's greatest and wealthiest boxers.

Dozens of locals wait outside his gym in downtown General Santos in the hope of catching a glimpse of the rags-to-riches hero -- and receiving some money -- before he climbs into an olive green Hummer to drive back to his manicured compound.#photo3

"Pacquiao is the idol of everyone in this city," said Meme Dipundato, a 40-year-old tricycle driver.

"What I really like about Pacquiao is not his boxing but his act of helping the poor."

But the fighter has stirred controversy since entering politics in 2010 -- first as a congressman and then a more high-profile position in the Senate -- supporting the death penalty and describing gay couples as "worse than animals".

He promises to pull no punches if he were to become president -- starting with sending "hundreds or thousands" of crooked politicians to a purpose-built "mega prison".#photo4

"There are so many problems in this country caused by corruption... there's no economic growth and development, there's no improvement," he said.

- 'I feel so hungry again' -

For now, Pacquiao said his mind was focused on the looming showdown with fellow southpaw Spence, the 31-year-old unbeaten unified welterweight world champion.

Pacquiao, who boasts a 62-7-2 win-loss-draw record, will be fighting for the first time since he beat Keith Thurman in July 2019 for the WBA welterweight title -- which he lost during the coronavirus pandemic due to inactivity.#photo5

He will fly to Los Angeles this month where he will be reunited with veteran trainer Freddie Roach.

In the meantime, he shadow boxes and spars with long-time associate Buboy Fernandez at his Pacman Wild Card Gym.

"I believe 110 percent that Manny is going to win. His stamina is still there," Fernandez told AFP.

Hanging above the ring, along with photos of his bloody fights, are biblical proverbs on the importance of "self-discipline" and faith.

Despite his age and long absence from the ring, Pacquiao said he was undaunted.

"It's good for me to have (a) rest for almost two years," he said.











“Duterte will want to make sure he avoids potential legal action against him after leaving office, so obviously he has a clear interest in making sure that his person is the next president,” said Peter Mumford, Southeast and South Asia practice head at risk consultancy Eurasia Group. “Pacquiao actually could have a shot even without Duterte’s blessing,” he added. “Parties are not that important in Philippine elections -- it’s about individuals.”

A survey released in April from Pulse Asia Research Inc., one of the most credible in the Philippines, found Sara Duterte was the public’s top choice to be the next president. Pacquiao was in a statistical tie for second with Marcos Jr., Manila Mayor Isko Moreno and Senator Grace Poe.



Manny Pacquiao, with Rodrigo Duterte, right, in General Santos, Philippines, in 2017.


Photographer: Jeoffrey Maitem/Getty Images

Back in 2016, when Pacquiao allied with Duterte, he defended the revival of the death penalty for heinous crimes and backed Duterte’s deadly campaign against illegal drugs, which saw thousands of extra-judicial killings. Yet lately the boxer has sought to distinguish himself from the president.


In late April, Pacquiao said he wrote a letter to the Chinese ambassador asking him to withdraw his country’s ships in Philippine-claimed parts of the South China Sea, and later described Duterte’s response to the crisis as “lacking.” Pacquiao also sent U.S. President Joe Biden a letter through the embassy requesting to facilitate early delivery of Moderna Inc.’s Covid-19 vaccines.
No ‘Falling Out’

Pacquiao hasn’t yet declared his intention to run in the May elections. Calls to his office weren’t returned. During a speech to the Senate on Wednesday he said the party should focus on the epidemic and power shutdowns in the capital, Manila, rather than politics.

“Let’s stop this attitude. Let’s start politicking when it’s election time. When it’s not election time yet, let’s do our job as public officials first,” Pacquiao said.

Harry Roque, a spokesman for Duterte, dismissed any notion of a rift between the two men. “I don’t think there is a falling out,” he said at a briefing last month. “Until now, the president remains to be a huge fan of Senator Pacquiao in terms of strength and in the field of boxing. Let’s leave it at that.”

Duterte Gets Party’s Push to Stay in Power After Term Ends

On Thursday, he said that Pacquiao is among at least five politicians Duterte is considering supporting in the next elections. He may also decide to back Go, Marcos, Moreno or Sara Duterte, though he still doesn’t want his daughter to run for the top job, Roque said.

Still, some in the party have questioned Pacquiao’s leadership role, leading to the internal spat last week. Raul Lambino, a senior party official, said Pacquiao was never elected as party president even while vowing to support the boxer if he were ever voted in.

The maneuvering will likely continue until candidates must formally file to run in October, according to Edmund Tayao, executive director of the Local Government Development Foundation and a faculty member of the Ateneo School of Government.
















 THE PLUNDERERS ARE BACK ENDORSED BY GUTTER DUTERTE



Ferdinand Marcos, who ruled the Philippines as a dictator from 1972 to 1986, is remembered for the thousands of human rights violations he committed, as well as his massive corruption. Indeed, Marcos holds the dubious title of being the most corrupt Philippine president (a title for which there is unfortunately stiff competition), and has been identified in one study as the second most corrupt government leader in the world, as measured by the value of public assets he stole. The profligacy of Ferdinand Marcos and his wife Imelda—even at a time when the Philippines was spiraling into recession and a debt crisis—was shameless, and symbolized by Imelda’s 2,700 pairs of shoes and extravagant shopping sprees.




Given the magnitude of the corruption and abuses he perpetrated, one would think that Marcos’ place in Philippine history and in Filipinos’ collective memory is already well-settled. But alarmingly, a “revisionist” account of his presidency has recently gained, and continues to gain, wide currency. Many Filipinos are now beginning to consider the notion that Marcos may not really have been so bad—that his “sins” were merely overstated by the victors who wrote post-Marcos history. (Some of these issues are discussed herehere and here, but they are more frequently debated informally in mass and social media platforms.) These revisionist narratives spiked during the 2016 Philippine elections, when Marcos’ son, Ferdinand, Jr. (known as “Bongbong”), ran for, and almost won, the Vice Presidency. During his campaign, Bongbong denied his father’s legacy of corruption and framed his own platform as a revival of Marcos’ supposed “golden age” of peace and progress. Bongbong’s efforts to whitewash his father’s historical record to suit his electoral objectives gained traction, and has even spread to other fronts, like Wikipedia and Facebook. It did not help that President Rodrigo Duterte favorably endorsed the Martial Law declaration that paved the way for Marcos’ dictatorial rule in 1972 (calling it “very good”), and that the Supreme Court, in a recent controversial ruling, allowed the interment of Marcos’ remains in the Libingan ng mga Bayani (“Cemetery of Heroes”).

From a historical perspective, this phenomenon is disturbing in itself; but, if not arrested, this distortion of collective memory about Marcos’ history of corruption would also have dangerous implications for the Philippines’ ongoing and future anticorruption efforts.  



First, a “whitewashed” history of Marcos’ corruption and kleptocracy can serve as a smokescreen for his family members’ own corrupt practices. While the “Marcos” name has been sullied by the dictator’s dismal record, his family members managed to get themselves elected to various public offices on the strength of their still-sizable base of loyalists and supporters. Imelda, Marcos’ wife, is currently a member of the House of Representatives; his daughter, Imee, is the Governor of Ilocos Norte, Marcos’ home province; Bongbong was a Senator before he ran for Vice President. For better or worse, the political careers of Imelda, Imee, and Bongbong are tied to Marcos’ own reputation. If Marcos continues to be perceived as a corrupt leader, his family members will be associated to corruption too. But if Marcos’ image is sanitized through historical revisionism, his family members can use the “vindication” of the “Marcos” name to cover up their own corrupt practices. This is particularly dangerous considering the corruption accusations currently being leveled against the Marcos family members: against Imelda, for her role in setting up bogus Swiss foundations; against Bongbong, for misappropriation of “pork barrel” funds; and against Imee, for undeclared campaign contributions to President Duterte, misappropriation of funds meant for tobacco farmers, and secret bank accounts exposed in the “Panama Papers” leak.
Second, forgetting Marcos’ corruption undermines the still-ongoing work of the institution established to recover his ill-gotten wealth. One of the first official acts of President Corazon Aquino, Marcos’ successor, was to establish the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG), and to task it with the recovery of public assets stolen by Marcos, his family, and his cronies—and to return that wealth to its rightful owners, the Filipino people. Needless to say, the historical basis of the PCGG’s existence is the fact of Marcos’ corruption; if this fact were to be expunged from the nation’s collective memory, the legitimacy of the PCGG will be severely compromised. This, in turn, will seriously undermine the ongoing efforts to recover the rest of the $10 billion worth of Marcos’ ill-gotten wealth, of which only $4 billion have so far been recovered. Now more than ever, continued public support for the PCGG’s efforts is needed. Under President Duterte, who has called Marcos “a hero to many Filipinos,” the PCGG is about to be abolished and absorbed by the Office of the Solicitor General. This move will undoubtedly dilute the PCGG’s historical and symbolic value as a tangible reminder of Marcos’ kleptocracy.
Third, remembering Marcos’ history of corruption is essential to fostering the environment needed for ongoing and future anticorruption efforts to succeed. If Marcos’ image is successfully sanitized by tampering with collective memory, it will send the wrong signal to public officials. It will tell them that corruption ultimately pays, because even if they are caught, they can still hope for some sort of historical vindication for their name and reputation in the future. This dangerous mindset is inimical to the success of any anticorruption effort, which depends heavily on fostering an environment of accountability and justice rather than of impunity. It is also important to continue holding up Marcos’ kleptocracy as a cautionary illustration of how the suppression of democratic values can enable large-scale plunder. When the people are armed with a truthful rendition of Marcos’ history of corruption, they are in a better position to be vigilant against similar acts. They will likewise be more inclined to guard and strengthen democratic institutions and norms, which in turn contribute to building an environment hostile to corruption.



Efforts to make the Filipino people forget Marcos’ history of corruption and abuse should be resisted. At this juncture, it should no longer be a matter of debate that Marcos was a thief. Not only is it in society’s best interest to preserve an accurate chronicle of its history, it is also an anticorruption imperative to keep the lessons of Marcos’ kleptocratic legacy salient and meaningful for succeeding generations. Charting a national course free of corruption will be even more difficult than it already is if this recent tide of pro-Marcos historical revisionism is not decisively turned.






Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte said the family of former dictator Ferdinand Marcos has indicated a willingness to return a still-unspecified amount of money and “a few gold bars” to help ease the government’s expected budget deficit.

Duterte said without elaborating that he was considering designating three people, including a former Supreme Court chief justice, to negotiate with the Marcoses over the return of the assets.

Duterte said the Marcoses’ intention was relayed by a family spokesman, whom he did not identify, and indicated the Marcoses were of the view that the assets to be returned had not been stolen as alleged by political opponents.

“I will accept the explanation, whether or not it is true,” Duterte said in a speech to newly appointed officials.


There was no immediate reaction from the Marcos family, including his wife Imelda, who is currently a member of the House of Representatives.The Marcoses are “ready to open and bring back (assets) including a few gold bars,” Duterte quoted the Marcos family spokesman as saying. “It’s not that big, it’s not Fort Knox, it’s just a few but they said, they’ll return.”

Marcos was ousted in a 1986 “people power” revolt and died in exile in Hawaii three years later without admitting any wrongdoing, including accusations that he and his family amassed an estimated $5 billion to $10 billion while he was in power.

Marcos placed the Philippines under martial rule in 1972, a year before his term was to expire. He padlocked Congress, ordered the arrest of political rivals and left-wing activists and ruled by decree.

A Hawaii court found Marcos liable for human rights violations and awarded $2 billion from his estate to compensate more than 9,000 Filipinos who filed a lawsuit against him for torture, incarceration, extrajudicial killings and disappearances.

Although he rose to power last year on a promise to combat widespread crime and corruption, Duterte has acknowledged that one of Marcos’ daughters, a provincial governor, backed his presidential candidacy. Duterte has noted that his late father, a local politician, was a trusted Cabinet member of Marcos.

In November last year, Duterte approved the burial of the long-dead Marcos at the country’s Heroes’ Cemetery in a secrecy-shrouded ceremony, sparking protests and shocking many democracy advocates and human rights victims.

Burying someone accused of massive rights violations and plunder at the heroes’ cemetery, which is reserved for former presidents, soldiers and national artists, has long been an emotional and divisive issue. Duterte argued that it was Marcos’s right as a president and soldier to be buried at the cemetery, taking a political risk in a country where democracy advocates still celebrate Marcos’s ouster each year.

Monday, June 7, 2021

 



A Made-in-China Pandemic

I believe that China wanted to torpedo the world economy to become the dominant country, read below: It also show in their ruthless actions of burning people near death of covid 19, just to achieve their goals, no matter the obstacles before them. In all the countries around the world where this pandemic exist, the main origin of the virus is from China. 



Two U.S. experts have penned a damning essay saying the genome sequencing of COVID-19 strongly suggests that the virus was manufactured inside a Chinese laboratory.   Dr. Stephen Quay (top right) and Richard Muller (bottom right), a physics professor at the University of California Berkeley, made the claim in The Wall Street Journal on Sunday, amid growing speculation that the coronavirus leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV).  'The most compelling reason to favor the lab leak hypothesis is firmly based in science,' the experts wrote, stating that 'COVID-19 has a genetic footprint that has never been observed in a natural coronavirus.' A graphic (left) shows how the coronavirus' genetic code varies to its closest known relative

Genome sequencing almost certainly proves COVID was deliberately made in a lab, US experts











The COVID-19 pandemic should be a wake-up call for a world that has accepted China’s lengthening shadow over global supply chains for far too long. Only by reducing China’s global economic influence. Now China is spreading lies to deflect world opinion against them.





Two U.S. experts have penned a damning essay saying that science strongly suggests the novel
coronaviruswas manufactured inside a Chinese laboratory.

The claim was made by Drs Stephen Quay, CEO of biopharmaceutical company Atossa Therapeutics Inc, and Richard Muller, a physics professor at the University of
CaliforniaBerkeley, inThe Wall Street Journal on Sunday.

In the op-ed, the men say their proof lies in genome sequencing, or analyzing the DNA, of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19.












There are 36 DNA segments - made up of three-letter 'words' - that viruses use to make an amino acid known as L-arginine.

L-arginine helps make proteins but is also often used in so-called 'gain of function' research, which alters viruses to make them more transmissible and more deadly.

The new virus contains a segment called CGG-CGG, which is considered rare even in experiments in which researchers are trying to manipulate virus.

But even more telling is that this combination has never been found naturally in any other type of coronavirus, including in SARS and MERS, both of which are cousins of the new virus.

'A virus simply cannot pick up a sequence from another virus if that sequence isn't present in any other virus,' Quay and Muller wrote.

'The CGG-CGG combination has never been found naturally. That means the common method of viruses picking up new skills, called recombination, cannot operate here.'

The essay comes after an explosive study last week claimed that Chinese scientists created COVID-19 in the Wuhan lab, then tried to cover their tracks by reverse-engineering versions of the virus to make it look like it evolved naturally from bats.






SARS-CoV-2, which causes Covid, carries all the information needed for it to spread in around 30,000 letters of genetic code, known as RNA. But it is the only coronavirus of its type to carry 12 unique letters that allow its spike protein — which it uses to bind to human cells and infect people — to be activated by a common enzyme called furin, which in turn makes it better at invading neighbouring cells. The top bar shows the section of the 30,000 letters that accounts for the spike protein (purple). The middle purple bar is the spike protein section, with the white line highlighted being the location of the 12 letters: CCUCGGCGGGCA. The bottom bars show how that specific section of the virus differs ever so slightly to RaTG13, the closest known relative of SARS-CoV-2

+8



+8




Dr. Stephen Quay and Richard Muller have penned a damning essay claiming the genome sequencing of COVID-19 strongly suggests that the virus was manufactured inside a Chinese laboratory

+8



COVID-19 has the genome sequencing 'CGG-CGG' - one of 36 sequencing patterns. That combination is commonly used by scientists in gain-of-function research, but is otherwise considered extremely 'rare'. Researchers are pictured inside the Wuhan Institute of Virology in January 2020

Chinese military scientist 'filed a patent for a COVID-19 vaccine BEFORE the virus was declared a global pandemic and worked closely with 'bat woman' at Wuhan institute'


A Chinese military scientist with ties to the United States reportedly filed a patent for a COVID-19 vaccine well before the disease was declared a global pandemic.

Yusen Zhou, who worked for the People's Liberation Army (PLA), lodged the paperwork on behalf of the Chinese political party on February 24 2020, according to
The Australian newspaper.

That date was just five weeks after
Chinafirst confirmed human transmission of thecoronavirus.

Zhou is also said to have 'worked closely' with scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), including Shi Zhengli - the deputy director of the lab who is famous for her research on coronavirus in bats.

Their relationship is likely to strengthen speculation that the virus leaked from the lab and that China was aware that it was spreading between humans long before they alerted the international community.

Zhou mysteriously died less than three months after he filed the patent.
The New York Postclaims his death was only reported in one Chinese media report, despite the fact he was one of the country's most prominent scientists.

Zhou had previously worked on research linked to the US institutions, including the University of Minnesota and the New York Blood Center, the newspaper reported.
In the new essay, Quay and Muller go on to state that those who believe COVID-19 began by being transferred from animals to humans 'must explain why it happened to pick its least favorite combination: CGG-CGG. Why did it replicate the choice the lab's gain-of-function researchers would have made?'

The pair conclude: 'Yes, it could have happened randomly, through mutations. But do you believe that? At the minimum, this fact—that the coronavirus, with all its random possibilities, took the rare and unnatural combination used by human researchers—implies that the leading theory for the origin of the coronavirus must be laboratory escape.'

In recent weeks, many of the world's top scientists have pushed to determine whether the virus was leaked from the WIV.

The lab leak theory was initially dismissed by many in the media and academic communities.

President Joe Biden last week ordered intelligence agencies to launch a probe into whether COVID was man-made after all.

Circumstantial evidence has long raised questions about the Wuhan Institute of Virology, where researchers were known to be conducting experiments on bat coronavirus strains similar to the one responsible for COVID-19.

China insisted early and often that the virus did not leak from the lab, claiming that crossover to humans must have occurred at a 'wet market' in Wuhan that sold live animals.

Perhaps driven by animosity for Donald Trump, who embraced the lab leak theory early on, the mainstream U.S. media and academics heaped scorn on the possibility, calling it an unhinged conspiracy theory.

But new evidence, including reports of three workers at the Wuhan lab who fell seriously ill with COVID-like symptoms in November 2019, has forced a sober reassessment among doubters.

Frustration with China increased this week after Beijing said that it would not participate in any further investigations by the World Health Organization.

Biden rebuked China in his announcement of the new intelligence review, calling on allies to help 'press China to participate in a full, transparent, evidence-based international investigation and to provide access to all relevant data and evidence.'

Meanwhile, the former head of the Food and Drug Administration, Dr Scott Gottlieb, has said Fauci told world leaders in the spring of 2020 that the coronavirus may have escaped from a lab in Wuhan, China.

U.S. researchers around that time still were considering whether the virus came from a lab break, and Fauci told the health leaders gathered that the newly identified strain of the coronavirus 'looked unusual,' according to Gottlieb.

The disclosure from the former FDA chief comes as an increasing number of mainstream scientists and media figures no longer are parroting the line from the Chinese Communist Party that the virus came from a bat.

Even President Joe Biden has ordered government agencies to investigate the possibility that it might have come from a lab.

Now, Gottlieb says Fauci last year at least considered that COVID-19 could have come from a lab - before closing ranks around the idea that it occurred naturally.

Gottlieb, who served under President Donald Trump, said a former senior member of the Trump administration told him at the time of Fauci's 2020 talk. Gottlieb said he'd recently reconfirmed with that person that Fauci had given the talk.

'I think early on, when they looked at the strain, they had suspicions,' Gottlieb recalled Sunday on
CBSFace the Nation, speaking of U.S. scientists. 'And it takes time to do that analysis, and that dispelled some of those suspicions,' he added.



A worker is seen inside the P4 laboratory in Wuhan back in 2017





While China has tried to insist the virus originated elsewhere, academics, politicians and the media have begun to contemplate the possibility it escaped from the WIV - raising suspicions that Chinese officials simply hid evidence of the early spread
Scientists conduct research at the controversial Wuhan virus lab










Covid 'has NO credible natural ancestor' and WAS created by Chinese scientists who then tried to cover their tracks, explosive study claims


An explosive study last week claimed that Chinese scientists created COVID-19 in a Wuhan lab, then tried to cover their tracks by reverse-engineering versions of the virus to make it look like it evolved naturally from bats.

The paper's authors, British Professor Angus Dalgleish and Norwegian scientist Dr. Birger Sørensen, wrote that they have had 'prima facie evidence of retro-engineering in China' for a year - but were ignored by academics and major journals.

Dalgleish is a professor of oncology at St George's University, London, and is best known for his breakthrough creating the first working 'HIV vaccine', to treat diagnosed patients and allow them to go off medication for months.

Sørensen, a virologist, is chair of pharmaceutical company, Immunor, which developed a coronavirus vaccine candidate called Biovacc-19. Dalgleish also has share options in the firm.

The shocking allegations in the study included accusations of 'deliberate destruction, concealment or contamination of data' at Chinese labs, and it noted the silencing and disappearance of scientists in the communist country who spoke out.
And it's also important, Gottlieb said, to look at the virus beyond a scientific perspective: It also needs to be examined from a national security lens, he said.

'A scientific mindset looks at the virus and the virus' behavior and draws a conclusion,' he said.

'A national security assessment looks at that and then looks at the behavior of the Chinese government, the behavior of the lab, other evidence around the lab - including the infections we now know took place - and that changes the overall assessment,' he said.

Although some experts still believe the virus was transmitted from a bat to some other species of animal, then to humans, its origins remain unproven.

It comes after study last week claimed that Chinese scientists created COVID-19.

That paper was authored by Professor Angus Dalgleish, an oncologist at St George's University, London, and Dr Birger Sørensen, a Norwegian virologist and chair of pharmaceutical company Immunor.

The shocking allegations in the study included accusations of 'deliberate destruction, concealment or contamination of data' at Chinese labs, and it noted the silencing and disappearance of scientists in the communist country who spoke out.

The journal article, exclusively obtained by DailyMail.com, is set to make waves among the scientific community, as the majority of experts have until recently staunchly denied the origins of COVID-19 were anything other than a natural infection leaping from animals to humans.

While analyzing COVID-19 samples last year in an attempt to create a vaccine, Dalgleish and Sørensen discovered 'unique fingerprints' in the virus that they say could only have arisen from manipulation in a laboratory.

They said they tried to publish their findings but were rejected by major scientific journals which were at the time resolute that the virus jumped naturally from bats or other animals to humans.

Even when former MI6 chief Sir Richard Dearlove spoke out publicly saying the scientists' theory should be investigated, the idea was dismissed as 'fake news.'









How China’s fake news machine is rewriting the history of Covid-19, even as the pandemic unfolds

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson’s retweet of an article blaming the U.S. for infecting Wuhan with coronavirus went viral, viewed 160 million times within hours. But where did the story come from?







China airport

A traveler wearing a face mask walks past displays showing flight information at Beijing Capital International Airport in Beijing on March 6, 2020. | Mark Schiefelbein/AP Photo


By now, the early history of Covid-19 is well known, if not clear in its details. The virus was first detected somewhere around Wuhan, in Hubei province, then appears to have entered the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market, from where it infected many others. Doctors in Wuhan first noticed the novel coronavirus in December and began exchanging urgent warnings. Local government authorities set out to silence them; some were detained and made to sign documents admitting wrongdoing.


Meanwhile, Wuhan officials went about business as usual, which included a disastrous Lunar New Year banquet attended by about 40,000 families. Soon, many more thousands around Wuhan were infected, with hundreds dead or dying, including ophthalmologist Li Wenliang, who had been punished for trying to raise the alarm. 




Realizing it was in the firing line not just for running the nation that had unleashed the deadly virus on the world but also for ignoring, covering up and denying its spread, China’s Communist Party moved into damage-control mode. This included suggesting it was the United States that was responsible for the virus.


Chinese state media regularly tweet propaganda and what many describe as “fake news”. Global Times has 1.7 million followers on Twitter; China Xinhua News, 12.6 million; People’s Daily, 7.1 million; China Daily, 4.3 million; and China Global Television Network (CGTN), 14 million.


Zhao Lijian, spokesman and deputy director general of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ information department, had 287,000 followers when he tweeted a link to a conspi­racy website alleging the U.S. was responsible for the virus. (Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying had 146,700 followers; the ministry’s “spokesperson” account, used by Geng Shuang, had 61,000; and Hu Xijin, editor-in-chief of Global Times, had 175,000.)


With the outbreak of an epidemic, one of the first jobs of scientists and doctors, even while they fight to save lives, is to identify its source. This is critical in the search for medicines to combat a virus and a vaccine to prevent its spread. 







On January 24, an article written jointly by 29 Chinese medical doctors and scientists was published in The Lancet, one of the world’s leading medical journals. The authors shared their findings from a study of patients who were suspected of having been infected with 2019-nCoV and had been admitted to a Wuhan hospital. The report said that by January 2, 41 of them had been “laboratory-confirmed” as infected with the virus – which causes Covid-19 – and two-thirds of those infected “had been exposed to the Huanan market”.


The findings appeared to support anecdotal evidence that the source of the virus was the market, which had been closed by city officials on January 1. This had been often repeated by Chinese authorities and reported widely in the global media. The Lancet article gave scientific currency to this narrative.


Then, on February 19, another study – this time published on ChinaXiv.org, an open repository and distribution website used by scientific researchers – suggested the market was likely not ground zero for the virus, but rather that it had been “imported”from outside.


The study was by a team of scientists from several institutions: Xishuangbanna Tropical Botanical Garden of Chinese Academy of Sciences; South China Agricultural University; and the Chinese Institute for Brain Research. It was revised on February 21. Neither version of the study suggested Covid-19 had originated outside China.


But the fake news machine was about to go to work.


On February 23, the People’s Daily’s English-language site reprinted a February 22 Global Times article titled, “Japanese TV report sparks speculations in China that Covid-19 may have originated in US”. The original Global Times article, which is no longer available online, began: “A report from a Japanese TV station that suspected some of the 14,000 Americans died of influenza may have unknowningly [sic] contracted the coronavirus has gone viral on Chinese social media, stoking fears and speculations in China that the novel coronavirus may have originated in the U.S. 


“The report, by TV Asahi Corporation of Japan, suggested that the US government may have failed to grasp how rampant the virus have gone [sic] on the US soil.”


The article continued: “The story sparked various conspiracy theories on [sic] Chinese cyberspace.


“The Military World Games were held in Wuhan in October. ‘Perhaps the US delegates brought the coronavirus to Wuhan, and some mutation occurred to the virus, making it more deadly and contagious, and causing a wide­spread outbreak this year,’ a user posted on China’s Twitter-like Weibo.


“[An] international relations professor at the Shanghai-based Fudan University, noted that global virologists are working to track the origin of the virus, including the intel­ligence agencies. Netizens are encouraged to actively par­take in discussions, but preferrably [sic] in a rational fashion.”


The original Global Times article appears to have been replaced with one about the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s denial of the TV Asahi report.


On March 4, the People’s Daily reprint of this article was used as the basis for a piece published on conspiracy website GlobalResearch.ca, titled “China’s Coronavirus: A Shocking Update. Did The Virus Originate in the US?” It was the first of two articles on the website that would lead to Zhao’s tweet nine days later suggesting the U.S. Army had brought the virus to Wuhan.


The March 4 article begins: “The Western media quickly took the stage and laid out the official narrative for the outbreak of the new coronavirus which appeared to have begun in China, claiming it to have originated with animals at a wet market in Wuhan.” 


This omits a few salient facts: that China’s state-controlled media had also “laid out the official narrative”; that reporters had received that narrative from the Chinese government; and that in the early days of the outbreak, the majority of evidence, including the Lancet article by 29 Chinese doctors, pointed to the Wuhan market.


The Global Research article continues: “In fact the origin was for a long time unknown but it appears likely now, according to Chinese and Japanese reports, that the virus originated elsewhere, from multiple locations, but began to spread widely only after being introduced to the market.


“More to the point, it appears that the virus did not originate in China and, according to reports in Japanese and other media, may have originated in the U.S.”


The article then presents a subheading that inflates “may have originated in the US” to “Chinese Researchers Conclude the Virus Originated Outside of China”. Under­neath, it quotes two reports – a February 22 article in Global Times and a February 23 article in CGTN – both about the ChinaXiv study, which did not suggest the virus originated outside China.


But Global Research wanted readers to draw the conclusion that it did, and so it created some dots to be connected: “Chinese medical authorities – and ‘intelligence agencies’ – then conducted a rapid and wide-ranging search for the origin of the virus, collecting nearly 100 samples of the genome from 12 different countries on 4 continents, identifying all the varieties and mutations. During this research, they determined the virus outbreak had begun much earlier, probably in November, shortly after the Wuhan Military Games.


“They then came to the same independent conclusions as the Japanese researchers – that the virus did not begin in China but was introduced there from the outside.” 


That was not the “conclusion” of the scientists who posted their research on ChinaXiv.


Next, citing a February 27 story on Xinhuanet, Global Research invokes a Chinese national hero, Zhong Nanshan, who led the fight to contain severe acute respiratory syn­drome in 2003. “China’s top respiratory specialist Zhong Nanshan said on January 27 … ‘Though the Covid-19 was first discovered in China, it does not mean that it originated from China’.”


Global Research translates this for its readers: “But that is Chinese for ‘it originated someplace else, in another country’.”


Zhong did not say that. Neither did Xinhuanet. And the “Japanese researchers” Global Research refers to are never identified. The only reference to a Japanese source is: “In February of 2020, the Japanese Asahi news report (print and TV) claimed the coronavirus originated in the US, not in China …”


Global Research offers no link to Asahi, only a link to the February 23 People’s Daily article, which also has no Asahi link but was a reprint of the Global Times story, which appears to have been revised on February 22, and – you guessed it – provides no Asahi link.


An online search for “Asahi news coronavirus originated in the US” from February 1 to 29 reveals no link to any such Asahi article. Neither does a search of the Asahi news website, which returns 688 articles containing the word “coronavirus” through March 4. But not this one.


Global Research also cites the Fudan University quote in Global Times: “[The professor] stated that global virologists ‘including the intelligence agencies’ were tracking the origin of the virus. Also of interest, the Chinese government did not shut the door on this. The news report stated: ‘Netizens are encouraged to actively partake in discussions, but prefer­ably in a rational fashion.’ 






“In China, that is meaningful. If the reports were rubbish, the government would clearly state that, and tell people to not spread false rumours.”





The final piece of “evidence” in Global Research’s March 4 article is headed “Taiwan Virologist Suggests the Coronavirus Originated in the US”, and includes an embedded video of a Taiwan television show, identified as This! Is Not News, and a screenshot of a man with a pointer giving a colourful lecture about the origins of the virus. “The man in the video is a top virologist and pharmacologist who performed a long and detailed search for the source of the virus,” claims the article.


Except the man in the video – whom the report does not name – is not a virologist at all. He is a politician from the pro-Beijing New Party and a member of the Taipei City Council, who, before entering politics full time in 2002, was a pharmacology professor.


The clip opens with an introduction from a man in a crew cut, who talks about China and Russia and Georgian defectors carrying American biowarfare secrets, and mosquitoes and bats developed by the U.S. for diabolical purposes. As he talks, tabloid-sized purple characters scroll along the bottom of the screen, punctuated with question marks and exclamation marks, and the one English acronym every conspiracy theorist worldwide knows: “CIA!”


Capping his performance is a 1981 analysis purported to have been carried out by the U.S. Army that showed the attraction of “entomological warfare” to the U.S. military and American taxpayers: 50 per cent of a city of 1.2 million people could be wiped out at a per-corpse cost of 29 cents.


Up next, “the man in the video”notes that, while the man with the crew cut had been talking in terms of Cold War-style geopolitics where everybody fears and loathes everybody else, he is there solely to discuss science. Then he waves a pointer with a plastic yellow index finger at its tip, indicating diagrams of multicoloured circles. As the most complex diagram arrives on screen, he reassures the show’s hostess, “The next slide will make it very clear.” 


Such was Global Research’s Taiwan “expert evidence”. Undaunted, the article continues: “The Taiwanese doctor then stated the virus outbreak began earlier than assumed, saying, ‘We must look to September of 2019’.


“He stated the case in September of 2019 where some Japanese travelled to Hawaii and returned home infected, people who had never been to China. This was two months prior to the infections in China and just after the CDC suddenly and totally shut down the Fort Detrick bio-weapons lab claiming the facilities were insufficient to prevent loss of pathogens.”


The introduction of the U.S. Army’s Fort Detrick bio-weapons lab is a solid piece of conspiracy theory crafts­manship. The “man in the video” had not mentioned Fort Detrick – Global Research did, in an apparent attempt to tie the Taiwanese “virologist’s” Japanese travellers who visited Hawaii in September to a U.S. Army bioweapons lab.


The Fort Detrick facility had not been “suddenly and totally shut down” – it ceased research in mid-July (and not in September). And how one of the most contagious viruses in history travelled from Maryland to Hawaii over a six- to eight-week period, leaving no trail of illness and death, goes unexamined by Global Research.


For good measure, the article closes by listing six outbreaks in 2018, 2019 and 2020 of “pandemics” that “sickened” and “killed” people, chickens and pigs in China. Each includes notes such as, “China needs to purchase U.S. agricultural products,” suggesting that as part of the trade war, the U.S. has been unleashing pathogens in the mainland for more than two years in order to make China buy American.


In summary, the March 4 article invokes mainland hero Zhong, the “Japanese” and the “Taiwanese” – two American allies with no reason to lie – and adds the “CIA” and a leaky U.S. bioweapons research lab for spice. All independent and none really confirming the others while appearing to come close. Perhaps most impressive of all, the author produced almost 2,000 America-bashing words, and not one of them was “Trump”. 


On March 5, without citing the Global Research March 4 piece or any of the underlying Chinese media articles, Zhao tweeted: “Confirmed cases of #COVID19 were first found in China, but its origin is not necessarily in China. We are still tracing the origin.”


On March 11, Global Research published a follow-up: “COVID-19: Further Evidence that the Virus Originated in the US”.


The story begins by recapping the March 4 article, upgrading the never-found Japanese Asahi broadcasters and the “man in the video” to “Japanese and Taiwanese epidemiologists and pharmacologists [who] have deter­mined that the new coronavirus could have originated in the US”. The “man in the video” was now also a “physician” and a “scientist”.


Recalling his attempt to place the first Covid-19 case in the U.S., Global Research again points out, “immediately prior to that, the CDC totally shut down the U.S. 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”.


As evidence, Global Research had posted a screenshot of an August 5 New York Times headline, “Deadly Germ Research Is Shut Down at Army Lab Over Safety Concerns; Problems with disposal of dangerous materials led the government to suspend research at the military’s leading biodefence centre”.


In fact, the New York Times article had not stated the centre had been “totally shut down”. It had reported that 900 people worked at the facility and, “Although many projects are on hold, [a facility spokeswoman] said scien­tists and other employees are continuing to work, just not on select agents”. Both The New York Times and a local newspaper that first reported the cessation of the research noted that no pathogens had escaped the facility. 






Global Research’s March 11 story continues: “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.”


That other article is a blog on Chinese social media, identified only by a QR code, that began: “Because there have been so many American dogs recently, in consider­ation for my account’s safety, [I must write] ‘some country’ or ‘M Country’ [when referring to America].”


The blog entry, which appeared to be a work in progress and is no longer online, recycled much of Global Research’s March 4 article, adding screenshots of local news stories about U.S. military personnel in Wuhan for the October military games who were hospitalized.


According to Global Research: “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.”


So there it was. A post on “Chinese social media” about “‘foreign’ athletes or other personnel visiting Wuhan for the World Military Games” in October completed the conspiracy’s journey. The fake news world had rewritten the origin of Covid-19: it was not due to a catastrophic natural occurrence somewhere in or around Wuhan, as the world’s scientists believed, but to a bio­weapon brought to Wuhan by the U.S. Army. 


At the end of its March 11 article, Global Research returned to January, citing two articles in Science magazine for further “evidence” of its conspiracy – neither of which states the origin of the virus was, as Global Research puts it, “Not in Wuhan” – tying a bow around the package Zhao would soon forward to hundreds of thousands, who would forward it to hundreds of millions.


On the morning of March 13, Zhao tweeted links to the Global Research articles: “This article is very much important to each and every one of us. Please read and retweet it. COVID-19: Further Evidence that the Virus Originated in the US. It would be useful to read this prior article for background: China’s Coronavirus: A Shocking Update. Did The Virus …”


Followed by: “Just take a few minutes to read one more article. This is so astonishing that it changed many things I used to believe in. Please retweet to let more people know about it. China’s Coronavirus: A Shocking Update. Did The Virus Originate in the US? – Global Research: The Western media quickly laid out the official narrative for the outbreak of COVID-19 which appeared to have begun in China …”


By late afternoon, the South China Morning Post reported that the hashtag topic “Zhao Lijian sent out five consecutive tweets questioning the US” had been viewed more than 4.7 million times on Weibo. Twelve hours later, The New York Times reported it had been viewed more than 160 million times.


Zhao’s Twitter followers have increased from 287,000 to more than 500,000. Media worldwide carried stories about his tweets, putting them in front of millions more readers, most of whom would never have seen them on Twitter or Weibo. Fake virus news had gone viral.


In October, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence noted in the first line of its report on Russia’s use of social media to meddle in the 2016 presidential election, that “information warfare [is] designed to spread disinformation and societal division”. Zhao’s tweets accomplished both. The disinformation was obvious. Critical thinking in abeyance, plenty of people will believe a claim that the U.S. Army planted Covid-19 in Wuhan; even more will want it to be true.


When President Donald Trump, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and others began fighting back by loudly and repeatedly calling Covid-19 “the Chinese virus”, social division in the U.S. grew, if that is possible. The media accused Trump of being racist and xenophobic, and inciting more of the same towards Chinese-Americans. This only caused Trump to say it louder and more often.


One wonders how much longer Washington will conti­nue fighting the information war against Beijing with one arm tied behind its back. Chinese media enjoy free run of the U.S., including on Twitter. The U.S. has no such freedom in China.


Not a few pundits in these past few weeks have predicted Covid-19 will end globalisation, or even “life as we know it”. That seems unlikely, given the short-term nature of people’s memories and how profitable “life as we know it” has been for so many. But given the mischief Zhao’s tweets caused, Beijing’s days on Twitter might be numbered.













NEW DELHI – The new COVID-19 coronavirus has spread to more than 100 countries – bringing social disruption, economic damage, sickness, and death – largely because authorities in China, where it emerged, initially suppressed information about it. And yet China is now acting as if its decision not to limit exports of active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) and medical supplies – of which it is the dominant global supplier – was a principled and generous act worthy of the world’s gratitude.

















When the first clinical evidence of a deadly new virus emerged in Wuhan, Chinese authorities failed to warn the public for weeks and harassed, reprimanded, and detained those who did. This approach is no surprise: China has a long history of “killing” the messenger. Its leaders covered up severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), another coronavirus, for over a month after it emerged in 2002, and held the doctor who blew the whistle in military custody for 45 days. SARS ultimately affected


more than 8,000 people in 26 countries.






This time around, the Communist Party of China’s proclivity for secrecy was reinforced by President Xi Jinping’s eagerness to be perceived as an in-control strongman, backed by a fortified CPC. But, as with the SARS epidemic, China’s leaders could keep it under wraps for only so long. Once Wuhan-linked COVID-19 cases were detected in Thailand and South Korea


, they had little choice but to acknowledge the epidemic. 






About two weeks after Xi rejected scientists’ recommendation to declare a state of emergency, the government announced heavy-handed containment measures, including putting millions on lockdown. But it was too late: many thousands of Chinese were already infected with COVID-19, and the virus was rapidly spreading internationally. US National Security Adviser Robert O’Brien has said


that China’s initial cover-up “probably cost the world community two months to respond,” exacerbating the global outbreak. 






Beyond the escalating global health emergency, which has already killed thousands


, the pandemic has disrupted normal trade and travel, forced many school closures, roiled the international financial system, and sunk global stock markets. With oil prices plunging, a global recession appears imminent. 






None of this would have happened had China responded quickly to evidence of the deadly new virus by warning the public and implementing containment measures. Indeed, Taiwan and Vietnam have shown the difference a proactive response can make.1 






Taiwan, learning from its experience with SARS, instituted


preventive measures, including flight inspections, before China’s leaders had even acknowledged the outbreak. Likewise, Vietnam quickly halted flights from China and closed all schools. Both responses recognized the need for transparency, including updates on the number and location of infections and public advisories on how to guard against COVID-19. 






Thanks to their governments’ policies, both Taiwan and Vietnam – which normally receive huge numbers of travelers from China daily – have kept total cases under 50. Neighbors that were slower to implement similar measures, such as Japan and South Korea, have been hit much harder. 






If any other country had triggered such a far-reaching, deadly, and above all preventable crisis, it would now be a global pariah. But China, with its tremendous economic clout, has largely escaped censure. Nonetheless, it will take considerable effort for Xi’s regime to restore its standing at home and abroad. 






Perhaps that is why China’s leaders are publicly congratulating themselves for not limiting exports of medical supplies and APIs used to make medicines, vitamins, and vaccines. If China decided to ban such exports to the United States, the state-run news agency Xinhua recently noted



The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the costs of Xi’s increasing authoritarianism. It should be a wake-up call for political and business leaders who have accepted China’s lengthening shadow over global supply chains for far too long. Only by loosening China’s grip on global supply networks – beginning with the pharmaceutical sector – can the world be kept safe from the country’s political pathologies.