Our vision is to produce accurate information about health threats. The biggest problem in Western countries is a constant, unilaterally too acidic diet, which the body is unable to buffer sufficiently, and the entire metabolic system has to work against the acidity. Eventually, the body begins to become inflamed and reaches a persistent inflammatory state without the patient noticing.
The immune system of people who have COVID-19 responds to infection by developing proteins that can attack the virus (antibodies) in their blood.
Tests to detect antibodies in peoples' blood might show whether they currently have COVID-19 or have had it previously.
What is the diagnostic accuracy of antibody tests for the detection of infection with the COVID-19 virus?
Background
COVID-19 is an infectious disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus that spreads easily between people in a similar way to the common cold or ‘flu. Most people with COVID-19 have a mild to moderate respiratory illness, and some may have no symptoms (asymptomatic infection). Others experience severe symptoms and need specialist treatment and intensive care.
The immune system of people who have COVID-19 responds to infection by developing proteins that can attack the virus (antibodies) in their blood. Tests to detect antibodies in peoples' blood might show whether they currently have COVID-19 or have had it previously.
Why are accurate tests important?
Accurate testing allows identification of people who might need treatment, or who need to isolate themselves to prevent the spread of infection. Failure to detect people with COVID-19 when it is present (a false negative result) may delay treatment and risk further spread of infection to others. Incorrect identification of COVID-19 when it is not present (a false positive result) may lead to unnecessary further testing, treatment, and isolation of the person and close contacts. Correct identification of people who have previously had COVID-19 is important in measuring disease spread, assessing the success of public health interventions (like isolation), and potentially in identifying individuals with immunity (should antibodies in the future be shown to indicate immunity).
To identify false negative and false positive results, antibody test results are compared in people known to have COVID-19 and known not to have COVID-19. Study participants are classified as to whether they are known or not known to have COVID-19 based on criteria known as the ‘reference standard’. Many studies use samples taken from the nose and throat to identify people with COVID-19. The samples undergo a test called reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). This testing process can sometimes miss infection (false negative result), but additional tests can identify COVID-19 infection in people with a negative RT-PCR result. These include measuring clinical symptoms, like coughing or high temperature, or ‘imaging’ tests like chest X-rays. People known not to have COVID-19 are sometimes identified from stored blood samples taken before COVID-19 existed, or from patients with respiratory symptoms found to be caused by other diseases.
What did the review study?
The studies looked at three types of antibody, IgA, IgG and IgM. Most tests measure both IgG and IgM, but some measure a single antibody or combinations of the three antibodies.
Levels of antibodies rise and fall at different times after infection. IgG is the last to rise but lasts longest. Levels of antibodies are usually highest a few weeks after infection.
Some antibody tests need specialist laboratory equipment. Others use disposable devices, similar to pregnancy tests. These tests can be used in laboratories or wherever the patient is (point-of-care), in hospital or at home.
We wanted to find out whether antibody tests:
- are accurate enough to diagnose infection in people with or without symptoms of COVID-19, and
- can be used to find out if someone has already had COVID-19.
What did we do?
We looked for studies that measured the accuracy of antibody tests compared with reference standard criteria to detect current or past COVID-19 infection. Studies could assess any antibody test compared with any reference standard. People could be tested in hospital or the community. Studies could test people known to have – or not to have – or be suspected of having COVID-19.
Study characteristics
We found 54 relevant studies. Studies took place in Asia (38), Europe (15), and in both USA and China (1).
Forty-six studies included people who were in hospital with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infection only. Twenty-nine studies compared test results in people with COVID-19 with test results in healthy people or people with other diseases.
Not all studies provided details about participants’ age and gender. Often, we could not tell whether studies were evaluating current or past infection, as few reported whether participants were recovering. We did not find any studies that tested only asymptomatic people.
Main results
Our findings come mainly from 38 studies that provided results based on the time since people first noticed symptoms.
Antibody tests one week after first symptoms only detected 30% of people who had COVID-19. Accuracy increased in week 2 with 70% detected, and was highest in week 3 (more than 90% detected). Little evidence was available after week 3. Tests gave false positive results in 2% of those without COVID-19.
Results from IgG/IgM tests three weeks after symptoms started suggested that if 1000 people had antibody tests, and 50 (5%) of them really had COVID-19 (as we might expect in a national screening survey):
- 58 people would test positive for COVID-19. Of these, 12 people (21%) would not have COVID-19 (false positive result).
- 942 people would test negative for COVID-19. Of these, 4 people (0.4%) would actually have COVID-19 (false negative result).
If we tested 1000 healthcare workers (in a high-risk setting) who had had symptoms, and 500 (50%) of them really had COVID-19:
- 464 people would test positive for COVID-19. Of these, 7 people (2%) would not have COVID-19 (false positive result).
- 537 people would test negative for COVID-19. Of these, 43 (8%) would actually have COVID-19 (false negative result).
We did not find convincing differences in accuracy for different types of antibody test.
How reliable were the results of the studies of this review?
Our confidence in the evidence is limited for several reasons. In general, studies were small, did not use the most reliable methods and did not report their results fully. Often, they did not include patients with COVID-19 who may have had a false negative result on PCR, and took their data for people without COVID-19 from records of tests done before COVID-19 arose. This may have affected test accuracy, but it is impossible to identify by how much.
Who do the results of this review apply to?
Most participants were in hospital with COVID-19, so were likely to have more severe disease than people with mild symptoms who were not hospitalised. This means that we don't know how accurate antibody tests are for people with milder disease or no symptoms.
More than half of the studies assessed tests they had developed themselves, most of which are not available to buy. Many studies were published quickly online as ‘preprints’. Preprints do not undergo the normal rigorous checks of published studies, so we are not certain how reliable they are.
As most studies took place in Asia, we don't know whether test results would be similar elsewhere in the world.
What are the implications of this review?
The review shows that antibody tests could have a useful role in detecting if someone has had COVID-19, but the timing of when the tests are used is important. Antibody tests may help to confirm COVID-19 infection in people who have had symptoms for more than two weeks and do not have a RT-PCR test, or have negative RT-PCR test results. The tests are better at detecting COVID-19 in people two or more weeks after their symptoms started, but we do not know how well they work more than five weeks after symptoms started. We do not know how well the tests work for people who have milder disease or no symptoms, because the studies in the review were mainly done in people who were in hospital. In time, we will learn whether having previously had COVID-19 provides individuals with immunity to future infection.
Further research is needed into the use of antibody tests in people recovering from COVID-19 infection, and in people who have experienced mild symptoms or who never experienced symptoms.
How up-to-date is this review?
This review includes evidence published up to 27 April 2020. Because a lot of new research is being published in this field, we will update this review frequently.
Authors' conclusions:
The sensitivity of antibody tests is too low in the first week since symptom onset to have a primary role for the diagnosis of COVID-19, but they may still have a role complementing other testing in individuals presenting later, when RT-PCR tests are negative, or are not done. Antibody tests are likely to have a useful role for detecting previous SARS-CoV-2 infection if used 15 or more days after the onset of symptoms. However, the duration of antibody rises is currently unknown, and we found very little data beyond 35 days post-symptom onset. We are therefore uncertain about the utility of these tests for seroprevalence surveys for public health management purposes. Concerns about high risk of bias and applicability make it likely that the accuracy of tests when used in clinical care will be lower than reported in the included studies. Sensitivity has mainly been evaluated in hospitalised patients, so it is unclear whether the tests are able to detect lower antibody levels likely seen with milder and asymptomatic COVID-19 disease.
The design, execution and reporting of studies of the accuracy of COVID-19 tests requires considerable improvement. Studies must report data on sensitivity disaggregated by time since onset of symptoms. COVID-19-positive cases who are RT-PCR-negative should be included as well as those confirmed RT-PCR, in accordance with the World Health Organization (WHO) and China National Health Commission of the People's Republic of China (CDC) case definitions. We were only able to obtain data from a small proportion of available tests, and action is needed to ensure that all results of test evaluations are available in the public domain to prevent selective reporting. This is a fast-moving field and we plan ongoing updates of this living systematic review.
Our government has many, many ways to withhold truth. It made sure that everyone bought the theory that the seafood market in Wuhan was the problem, but it was a big lie.
SARS-CoV-2 it is a product of genetic engineering and manipulation
Even those inside the hospitals were asked to remain quiet.
Made in China
Dr Li-Meng Yan
Covid-19 virus was developed in Chinese lab, WHO suppressed it: Chinese virologist
Ever since she's claimed that the novel coronavirus has been a result of a man-made laboratory intervention in China, Dr Li-Meng Yan has been in the eye of a storm. Her research paper has been termed 'unscientific' and one 'without evidence' by the Chinese authorities and she's had to flee from her home country of HongKong to take refuge in the US to keep herself alive.
Her family is being "controlled and monitored closely" by the Chinese Communist Party and she's had to cut off all ties with them to protect them. On a Friday evening, as she spoke over a video call from New York the bespectacled scholar and virologist from China Dr Li-Meng Yan looked every bit calm and composed, far removed from the present circumstance she finds herself in.
Dressed in a black skater dress with a microphone plugged into her ears, as she connected for an interview with THE WEEK, the tension and that desperate urge "to chase the truth and bring it in front of the world," was evident from the way she took on questions and answered each one with conviction.
Dr Yan has taken the bold step to go against her peers, colleagues, the government and the society when claiming that the Chinese government covered up the dissemination of information relating to SARS-CoV-2 and that it is a product of genetic engineering and manipulation.
She's even gone against the WHO where her husband is currently employed.
"The truth is important, not me," she says.
Our government has many, many ways to withhold truth. It made sure that everyone bought the theory that the seafood market in Wuhan was the problem, but it was a big lie.
What is your current state of mind like?
From January to now I have been trying to fight lies and bring out the truth. But the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the others including the world Health Organisation (WHO), scientific world and the media are trying their best to suppress me. I don't want to push anyone to trust me. People can verify. But one must see both sides. The thing is I'm happy that more and more people realise that this is a problem. Over the past half year, many people just believed the authorities. They ignored this possibility, this fact that the virus came from the lab and is not a mere natural disaster. Now people started realising it and that's a good thing. They can now find more facts to support their investigation, discuss it, share the ideas. This way the Chinese Communist Party's suppression can be broken down. Also, I'm working on the second scientific report to show the world scientific evidence. I'm also shocked that all the people who i have worked with in the past months have have been lying to the public about the origin of the virus, thereby ignoring the safety of the world at large. Now even when I put my scientific report out, the top experts in the field, lie. And people believe them because they are experts. For example, from the 19th January, Lu De's broadcast channel in Chinese helped me deliver a message that the virus was man made and important people in the government listened to that which went against the Chinese Communist Party.
When the authorities watched the broadcast, they knew someone inside delivered the truth outside so that's why they admitted that there was indeed a transmission going on, it was human to human and that the cases had already tripled, were taking place all over China not only in Wuhan. Just a few hours after the broadcast, the chairman Xi Jinping published the first Chairman statement of 2020 to upgrade the SARS 2 disease at the same level as SARS 1, as a very serious infectious disease. But despite us pushing to help people, this government allowed people to go all over the world, and WHO said that masks do not work, there's no need to be scared, there won't be pandemic, to not impose PHEIC (Public Health Emergency of International Concern) on China, and later also said not to use Hydroxychloroquine. But as per my intelligence and research it was wrong and irresponsible to dismiss HCQ. At present, I'm getting help from the US, from the people who support anti-Chinese communist party, and from leading scientists all over the world, who believe in the fact that the novel coronavirus was indeed manmade. But still the attacks from the Chinese government and its colleagues against me are going strong.
You say that you came to know of the human to human transmission in China as early as December 31. But China and WHO confirm such transmission only on January 20. Why do you think the delay happened?
Initially from December 31st, I was assigned to the WHO H5 reference lab at the Centre of Influenza Research at Hong Kong University (HKU) by my supervisor, Poon, Lit Man Leo (professor and division head at the University of Hong Kong) to track the new, unknown pneumonia happening in Wuhan because they lacked the information through Chinese official channels. At that time I already got confirmed information that sequence is isolated in Wuhan already.
Over 40 cases had happened at that time but they claimed 27. A paper in the New England Journal admitting that they too knew it since December. But then the Chinese government came out with a white paper to impose their versions and make people quiet. From local doctor to CDC (Centre for Diseases Control and Prevention) staff in a way in Hong Kong we are not allowed to know anything unless government tells us or gives the information. Nobody knew what was happening.
Even those inside the hospitals were asked to remain quiet, unaware of the kind of treatment patients were given, what for, and what they were undergoing. It was highly suspicious.
The prime broadcaster from CDC postponed the results. Our government has many, many ways to hold the truth. They made sure everyone bought the theory that the seafood market was the problem and that was all one big lie.
You said Professor Malik Peiris, a renowned virologist who has been researching emerging viruses at the animal-human interface, knew about the cover up but did nothing. How did you come to know of his involvement and what did he exactly cover up?
I knew him even before I came to that department. I came to the university of Hong Kong in 2012 July and I met my husband there. My husband is also another expert working for WHO for the emerging diseases sphere. He is on the staff of Professor Malik. They both come from Sri Lanka. We both know Malik for over ten years. Malik knows us quite closely and we even stayed at Malik's home.
My supervisor was also on the staff of professor Malik earlier. So everything I discussed with the former, or with my husband is known to Malik immediately and I know it because I get feedback too. You see it's a very small group. So, although he knew everything he didn't act. So basically, I can tell you Dr Tederos and others in leading positions, including MariaVan Kerkhove who is the technical lead at WHOhave very strong connections with Malik.
And so nothing got done.Malik had strong connections with China government. So both, the Chinese and the WHO kept everything under the carpet. CCP insists that Wuhan Hunan seafood market and wild animal are the origin of SARS-CoV-2 from the beginning.
But dont allow scientists to investigate the market and collect samples. They can't even provide any positive sample with suspicious animal hints like hair/shit/DNA. However, they still cleaned the market so that there would be no way for others to find out the evidence.
You said that your lab in the university of Hong Kong also knew it, your supervisor knew about it but nobody said or did anything.
My supervisor insisted that I do this in secret. Apart from the two of us, Malik knew it. But in this secret investigation, my supervisorwarnedme repeatedly that I should be careful because the Chinese government don't want to release these things so he said do not cross the red line and if you have, you will be in trouble. You will disappear. And when I report to him, he would keep silent and during early January to January 16 he even asked me to stop investigation and after that he directly contacted my friend in CDC, saying now I will be in touch with him. You go do your work because it is dangerous. I cannot have you work on this because the government does not want people to know.
You say that the virus is man made and that it can be made in six months. Can you substantiate your claim because scientists world over are saying that your claims are unscientific and lack evidence.
First, scientists who reject the lab origin theory are lying. I take full responsibility. They can sue me if they want. I put my name here but other authors are anonymous because I have to protect them, but they are real and real experts. Of course, I can tell you that the first report before I publish it has been read by many well-known people in the US government including the top experts. I have my contacts and gave it to them for their reviews. There are two theories: One is the nature theory and the other is the theory of lab origins. The existing scientific publications supporting a natural origin theory rely heavily on a previously discovered bat coronavirus named RaTG13, which shares a 96% nucleotide sequence identity with SARS-CoV-2.
However, I contest the existence of RATG13 in nature. Also, we live in a time when viral genomes can be engineered and manipulated to create novel coronaviruses. There has been a highly probable pathway for the laboratory creation of SARS-CoV-2and the evidence is present in the viral genome. Also, let me tell you that as per the natural evolution there may be a chance that the virus comes from animals through an intermediate host and jumps onto humans but that takes a very, very long time and coincidences such as bat meets a suitable intermediate host and bat virus luckily adapts to the new host, etc. Meanwhile, nature origins can also be mimicked in laboratories.
Here, the genomic sequence of SARS-CoV-2 is suspiciously similar to that of a bat coronavirus discovered by military laboratories and the RBM that is, the receptor binding motif within the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 which determines the host specificity of the virus is suspiciously similar to that of SARS-CoV of 2003 and so between these two viruses there is a series of laboratory procedures that have happened. The genomic evidence suggests that the RBM has been genetically manipulated. Also, SARS-CoV-2 contains this unique furin cleavage site at the S1/S2 junction of the lineage B of Beta coronavirus is demonstrated in my report, which is otherwise completely absent in all other coronaviruses that can be found in nature. So then there is every possibility that this furin cleavage site has been inserted by man into the SARS-CoV-2 genome. So all that is needed is a backbone to create the virus and for this particular present novel coronavirus, a bat coronavirus ZC45 and/or ZXC21 come to be the closest backbone or shares the highest sequence identity with SARS-CoV2.
Now, this backbone or template has already been existing with Chinese authorities ever since they were discovered in 2015 by labs in China. Once the template is available, it is just a matter of reconstruction of all the procedure of the virus from the bat coronavirus to the one that targets human beings. I'm also certain that although SARS-CoV-2 is created using Zc45/ZXC21, during its creation, changes must have been introduced to obscure the genetic connection between the two. From the very beginning, the scientific world tried to ignore the man-made lab origin theory. But they cannot explain why the bat coronavirus can travel into human and become much like humans.
One very important fact is also that envelope (E) protein of SARS-CoV-2 and ZC45/ZXC21 virus is 100 percent identical, which never happened among cross-species coronaviruses.
But 'The Proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2,' the paper which was published in Nature, said that the virus was natural and that SARS-CoV-2 is not derived from any previously used virus backbone.
My second report, which is currently under progress will stress on this fact a bit more. The communist party influenced not only the Chinese scientists but also people overseas. Nature origin professor Dr Anderson attacked my report and me in the media saying that my paper is nonsense and that their analysis clearly shows that SARS-CoV-2 is neither a laboratory construct nor a purposefully manipulated virus.
They are misleading people by way of these conceptions.
The SARS-CoV-2 does not like it in nature. That is why for thousands of years it never happened in this type of virus. To engineer and create a human targeting novel coronavirus, one would need to pick a bat coronavirus as the template or the backbone. This is not too much to ask for, because many research labs have been collecting samples of bat coronaviruses over the past two decades.
The actual template could be ZC45 and/or ZXC21 or a close relative of them. Now to get this template bat virus to be converted into a coronavirus that can bind with human ACE2 receptor to infect humans, they would require to use molecular cloning to get the Spike protein to bind to human ACE2.
Also, one would use reverse genetics to assemble the gene fragments of Spike, ORF1b and the rest of the backbone into a CDNA version of the viral genome Then post carrying out the in vitro transcription to obtain the viral RNA genome, and transfection of RNA genome into cells we could have live and infectious viruses with the desired artificial genome. All of this, when considered together is consistent with the hypothesis that the SARS-Cov-2 genome has an origin based on the use of ZC45/ZXC21 as backbone or a template for genetic gain-of-function modifications. Besides, this article 'The Proximal ....' is full of problems. It admitted some of the unusual characters in SARS-CoV-2 genome, like RBD and furin cleavage site in S1/S2. But they intentionally ignore the possibility of man-made origin and Zhoushan bat coronavirus. Instead, they only emphasise on the nature origin theory.
Is it not true that coronaviruses circulate in wild animal populations and that there may be a tendency to spill over into humans?
All I'm saying is that there are other type of coronaviruses for example, MERS. We know MERS jumped from camel to humans, and this is the problem why among humans it has sometimes transmission between human to human but not to this extent or not so highly contagious. This has been going for years and there is also chance for different types of zoonotic passages to jump into humans. But it takes time and also different conditions. For example, Avian Influenza jump from birds to humans. So it is usually just a change in some deeper part by the mutant and it can somehow attack human and the latter may be dead. They have a direct way after that equate with the RBM (Receptor binding Motif) and also equate the furin cleavage site and the evidence they even put the one part called the RdRp which draw your attention from backbone Zhoushan bat coronavirus. If you were to trace back the family tree using the RTRP gene neither does it become very unique nor close to the backbone.
Did you try to report your findings to the authorities in Hong Kong and China and how did they respond?
I didn't report on the virus being man made because I knew I would be killed immediately. I reported the cover-up, the human-to human transmission and there is no intermediate host from mid December to January 17. I kept reporting this. But there was no response. I'm a scientist. After my investigations, intelligence and all the scientific evidence showed me that it exists from the military. But I cannot trust the communist party and I saw what happened in Hong Kong during the protests there so I had to give this out by myself to the world.
So, how long before do you think China knew about the virus and the fact that human to human transmission was happening?
What I can tell you based on my intelligence is that at the earliest it was in December that human-to-human transmission happened. In December, Wuhan already isolated the live sequence of the virus using the sequence from a patient's sample. This is against their claims of all this happening in the middle of January. So from end of December the doctors in Wuhan including the doctor Li Wenliang who told us first that there was a novel coronavirus, even before that already local doctors were told to keep silent. Even as other doctors asked the friends in Wuhan we were asked to keep quiet and wear mask without asking any questions. Everyone's scared. Doctors are scared. Nobody was allowed to talk about it at the time, not even now.
Statements against me from the University of Hong Kong came out when I stepped into the Fox News studio in July. The Chinese Communist Party continues to threaten and monitor my family. My house was ransacked.
Hong Kong University says that you never conducted any research on the human-to-human transmission of the novel coronavirus while you were working there.
What was your research focus before you left the university?
I have evidence that I was secretly assigned by my supervisor Prof. Leo Poon. I was doing is for five years in the school of public health at the University of Hong Kong after I get my PhD in mainland China and working in university of Hong Kong for several years, Prof Peiris wanted me to go to that department and work with them. I thought it was a challenge because this is the topmost lab in coronavirus and merging disease in the world. I worked in the areas of virology, immunology, vaccine development. I have my universal influenza vaccine patented and on pending. I've presented papers in topmost conferences of the world. So before i left the University of Hong Kong I initiated several important projects including that on COVID-19. Work on hamsters in COVID-19 has been certified to be excellent by scientists across the community. I have also presented a research paper on infectious diseases which was cited 300 times just within one month of getting published in Lancet Infectious Diseases. The statements from the University of HongKong come out when I stepped into the studio of Fox News in July. At that time they released the part of China's cover up, human to human transmission all of which I had already said way back when the university disregarded it all as being unscientific. I and my family got prosecuted by the government, the CCP threatened, monitored and controlled my family and ransacked through my house and the vice-chancellor of the university of Hong Kong recruit people to dig out information about me and contacted all my friends and contacts and tried slapping a criminal case on me. I cut off all contact with my family since July. They don’t know anything about what I am doing. Nobody stood up for me. Malik left the job immediately when I left Hong Kong. The University too, immediately deleted my HongKong credentials on their website. I took an annual leave of ten days when I left Hong Kong. With the weekend too, it should have lasted until May 11 I left HongKong on 28 April. This way it was easy to escape because i did not have to respond to anyone. But they shut down my portal, called the police and deleted my website. The HKU said my words were without scientific evidence when I told the public about the prosecution from CCP. How could my such an experience be scientific? And Leo Poon never responded to my words in public because he knew I have evidence. So is Malik Peiris. The week before I left, Malik was so excited for the 28 million HKD ($3.2 million) funding from Carrie Lam (HK government) of citizens anti-COVID19 antibodies screening project. But he retired immediately after I escaped.
When did you realise that you were in danger?
I knew I was in danger right from the moment I decided to give the message out. So, right from January to April I was in danger. Lu De helped me to keep everything a secret by himself volunteering to give out the message instead of me. It takes time for the China government to zero in on or target who is doing what. In Mid-April Mr Lu-de had the intelligence that I was in danger and that the government wanted to make me disappear. After that people from the Rule of Law Foundation helped me to escape from Hong Kong to the US.
You are associated with the controversial businessman Guo Wengei and through him Steve Barron. How have they helped you?
From the time I contact until I decide to leave I was only in touch with Mr Lu-dE. He was the one who called the director of the board, at Rule of Law Foundation and Mr XXX was the chairman of the RoLF and RoLS (Rule of Law Society) and my school supports this Foundation. Those at RoFL target Chinese Communist Party's bad things. People who donate money to the foundation support people and their behaviour to reveal the truth as the anti Chinese Communist Party. They helped me to come out with the truth and I will never discredit the support they've extended.
You're a post-doctoral researcher well-versed in the peer review system and its merits. But you still chose to publish your controversial paper on an open access site before having it peer reviewed. Why did you take that decision, especially knowing full well that it could affect the credibility of your paper.
Peer review does not mean that something needs fixing. It is also not an indication for good standards. So many to peer review journals, including Nature, New England Medical Journal, and more also have some negative past to them of faking data or giving out misinformation. Also, for peer reviewing any one journal they have their small group of experts for reviewing it using their expertise. But I said I knew the urgency. The pandemic is on us and we need to act faster. If i go to the peer review, i can tell you with guarantee that those many months and years. Also, i do not have to depend on the credibility of a journal. What I'm saying is fact and the truth. I show it to the world to do peer-review because this is related to us all as one world. And the government was behind my neck so for acting quick I did not indulge in peer reviewed journals.
The World Health Organization gave out wrong and misplaced advisories, even asking people not to wear masks. Its officials came to China several times, yet they never visited the right hospitals and centres which could have helped them get information.
But why did you not engage with the critics/sceptics including prominent virologists?
I did whenever i was presented with an opportunity. Many media do not want to engage objectively with me. Also, I'm busy with the next scientific report. When it comes out, many lies from those prominent scientists will be revealed immediately.
Virologist David Robertson from the University of Glasgow shows that SARS-CoV-2 and its closest known ancestor, a virus called RATG13 has been circulating in Bat populations for decades.
In my second paper I will tell you that the RATG13 is fabricated. And also my intelligence says that this virus never existed. While suggesting a natural origin for SARS-CoV-2, the RATG13 virus diverted the attention of both the scientific community and the public at large away from ZC45/ ZXC21. One of the publications also indicated that the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of the RATG13's spike protein could not bind ACE2 of two different types of Horseshoe bats implicating the inability of RaTG13 to infect horseshoe bats. This further substantiates the suspicion that the reported sequence of RaTG13 could have been fabricated as the spike protein does not seem to carry the said function.
What's the way forward from here?
I'm right here in the US working on my second research paper. I can't wait to prove the lies that have surrounded the natural origin theory of the novel coronavirus.
The Trump administration froze funds to WHO. Is that the right policy?
Yes. The WHO gave out wrong and misplaced advisories, including that of not wearing masks, etc. They came to China several times yet they never visited the right hospitals and centres which could have helped get information. Unless we have the truth, we will not have the solutions.
Some say your research may be politically motivated.
This is nothing to do with politics. It is about the truth. And if I don't tell the truth now, i won't be able to tell it ever. Because it is happening and I can see it.
Did you have any previous run-ins with the government?
None at all. I have been a very respected, awarded scientist. Before all of this, we got along well..my supervisor, my peers. It has been a sort of dictatorship but we were used to with that life. I enjoyed my work and we also a lot of happy moments.
Are you living in fear right now?
Not fear. I know that the CCP is targeting me. They are following me everywhere. They even knew of my previous apartment in New York when i had just landed here hence I had to change my apartment immediately after. But as of now I am under protection. Also, I don’t think the CCP will win against me.
It seems that the Rule of Law Society connects with the Falun Gong religious cult. And that it is trying to spread the idea of artificial origins of SARS-CoV-2 as part of their anti China campaign. Do you think so? That is very naive. This is a legal organisation. You are free to make your judgement.
Do you feel targeted by the scientific community across the world? Yes, they are targeting me. I can be killed any moment by the government. But I still want more and more people to talk about the origin of this virus and know the truth. Because this is not about me. It is about the truth.
Will you go back to HKU? No never. I won't take the flight to HK ever again. They will arrest me if I go there ever.
You once said that you discovered a cover-up operation in Wuhan? From December 31 to 3rd Jan Wuhan government already knew more than 40 cases were there but claimed 27, said there was no human to human transmission . THE CCP agreed that the discovered the sequence on January 10 and they uploaded it to the NIH database think-tank which is a big database for the sequences of pathogens. The first time they uploaded a wrong one. The genome is a fingerprint. But two days later on January 13 the first overseas case happened in Thailand. that made the govt realise that people overseas also had the chance to know the sequence.
Version 1 can’t be analysed to be closed to Zhoushan bat coronavirus because of unusual errors inside. Later, the repealed version 1 came out ...The notes shows they had updated that sequence in database. On January 14, version 2 came out. They removed or repealed the version 1 that time. Three days later, they extended the nucleotides with a long sequence and called it version 3. From 1 to 2 to 3 you can compare the similarity to Zhoushan bat coronavirus. So that repealed version 1 had gotten back again after I released the information and they said they had updated it to the version 3.
Is the Chinese state influencing studies on the Wuhan virus all over the world?
Yes absolutely. They strictly are in control of the clinical samples. Even in Hong Kong you cannot get the clinical sample. So for example i want to do antibody screening for some in area next to Wuhan , the government will not allow it. When i said we want to do asymptomatic study in China, the CCP party secretary of Guangzhou and head of Guangzhou CDC took the samples away. So, they, including the CDC director, are manipulating and controlling the studies. 33 environmental samples were collected by the state in Wuhan but no outside experts were there. They said they got already got he samples from the wet food market, cleaned it and shut it down.
Why don't any other scientists come in support of you?
They do. But the ones who do are not in China. There are three Chinese scientists in the US. Scientists from across the world have been supporting me via emails and texts and Twitter. But my social media profiles have been taken down and I'm not allowed to connect with anyone on these platforms.
How is life right now?
Life right now is protected, safe and very hectic. I have been attacked twice already. But I have to do my next set of investigations, collaborate with people and live a simple, hardworking life right now.
