Flavinkins (@Flavinkins)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/11/17/covid-early-cases-wuhan-china-mystery/ https://archive.ph/Y8M0y Why China provided no line listings or raw data for any of the “174 NNDRS cases”? https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-who-china-idUSKBN2AD090 https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/china-refuses-to-give-who-raw-data-on-early-covid-19-cases-11613150580 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108785028277778999 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108748883348260358 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108741187882775824 The only dot in the WHO dataset where the residential address could be independently audited from media coverage, was moved and was inconsistent with media reports about this case. (It is either in Wuchang or Jiangxia by residence, but was moved to the WCH as the dot “S01” on the WHO report map) In fact, all dots that should have been inside downtown Wuchang, was either moved or removed. You can see dots that were further east and further south, on lower population density and further away from Huanan—but not in the prefecture where the “中部战区总医院”, the WIV or the Wuchang station was within. Not even a single dot was there within 2km radius of the Wuchang station. https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109256201942085712 Both moving the dots and downright removing them by sending cases to a hospital that won’t report to the WMHC/NHC were used to suppress cases within Downtown Wuchang, where the WIV BSL-3 and WIBP dormitories were located. https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109701931477090563 The claim from Worobey that "We fully expect the cases that we don’t sample to come from exactly the same geographic distribution as the ones that we do sample," given the cover-up and manipulation of known case geolocation data, In one of such importance, amid known secrecy, is scandalous. https://archive.ph/6LuXg “湖北省荣军医院” https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364644929_Arrested_Development_The_number_of_Wuhan_cases_of_COVID-19_with_onset_in_2019 Also, unfortunately, the 92 temporally signaled SCMP cases aren’t the same as the 92 searched cases in the WHO report—searched based on clinical diagnosis criterion, 25 of which lacked available samples, NOT included into the “clinically diagnosed” category? Can I see the “clinical review” result of every case? Antibody tests (not given to the WHO) after a year and a half still valid? (Waning) They even get the timeline of the 92 SCMP cases entirely wrong—or more likely used a completely different dataset and did not mention these Cases at all within the WHO report. https://archive.ph/Vt4mQ https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108826503882566575 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108876830805701129 In fact, this is perfectly compatible with other signs of outbreak happening in Wuhan—such as the suspension of all air mail services to Hong Kong as in 15/11/2019. That would be difficult to explain with the “official” 08(11)/12/2019 “HSM-centered” origin and outbreak timeline. https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108890415550666278 And why there were an 5 times jump in daily confirmed and diagnosed cases in 01/01/2020 from even the CDC paper? https://archive.ph/UIBkB (An alternative explanation of the sudden jump in January 01 2020 is that samples that came from before it was ordered to be destroyed, and reports ordered to be either shredded or otherwise kept as state secrets—only those needed for some basic epidemiological and transmission analysis papers were eventually allowed release, only because of the papers involved.) (Note: much of the 174 cases are likely those reports that the CCDC said receiving, but were not openly reported by the WMHC in their outlet, yet. They approves HSM cases for reporting to the NNDRS, but the WMHC daily reports does not seems to include any efforts not specifically conducted by themselves. e.g. cases searched using “试行诊疗方案” and “入排标准” were reported to the NNDRS after approval by “expert consultation”, but were not included into the WMHC “daily reports” because they were not searched by the WMHC themselves). https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108731797608502118 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109169722840473497 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108742419028347251 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109228312723838390 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108714999771410533 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108792493345107073 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108842256051177507 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109058474962594334 As for the “first reports”? It turned out that Wuhan authorities looked only at the Huanan market for EID cases—in fact, the supposed first 3 reported cases (cluster 1, HPHICWM, right between Drosten’s lab in Wuhan and the HSM https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109544738093649842 ) would not be recognized even after being reported to the Jiangan district CDC until the same hospital report 4 HSM cases later, the same day (29/12/2019) as the EID monitoring program at the WCH reported a “SARSr-CoV” (Wuhan-Hu-1, the HSM deliveryman) to the Wuhan Municipal CDC. https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108939607348559500 Retrospective searches were eventually conducted by the CCDC and many cases that were not inside the NNDRS due to lack of a connection to the Huanan market—including cases up to 17/12/2019–were found. The WMHC however simply claim “clinical review reject these cases as compatible with Covid-19” with no justification of how or any detail on the “clinical review” process used. https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109296343974418128 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108876830805701129