3. Digging on the Dr. YAN’s Papers
For the excavation of academic papers, one of our brothers in arms has contributed an article and published on our GNEWS. The reason we did it here again is that we deem we have a different angle of excavation from our VOG brothers in arms. We are not here to prove its authenticity and the importance of the woman scientist (It is not necessary). When it comes to the academic interpretation of these two key papers and other papers, we will have righteous scientists to interpret them in the subsequent excavation survey article. It is not the focus of this article. Let's look at these two papers first:
Let’s start with this paper:
Note: Authors with an asterisk mark are corresponding authors. For an explanation of the order of the authors of the paper, please refer to the tweet "Guan Jun's True Father." I won’t elaborate it here.
We list all the authors according to the content of the paper in the order in which they appear in the paper:
Yang Liu, Li-Meng Yan, Lagen Wan, Tian-Xin Xiang, Aiping Le, Jia-Ming Liu, Malik Peiris,*Leo L M Poon, *Wei Zhang。
Read another paper:
Also listed are the names of the authors, and the number after their name is the ranking of each individual in this paper, with 1 being the first author, 1.3 being the equally contributing author 2 is the second author, and ✉ is a corresponding author.
Sin Fun Sia1,3, Li-Meng Yan1,3, Alex W. H. Chin1,3, Kevin Fung2, Ka-Tim Choy1, Alvina Y. L. Wong1,
Prathanporn Kaewpreedee1, Ranawaka A. P. M. Perera1, Leo L. M. Poon1, John M. Nicholls2,
Malik Peiris1 & Hui-Ling Yen1 ✉.
Simplify by removing some information
Sin Fun Sia, Li-Meng Yan, Alex W. H. Chin, Kevin Fung, Ka-Tim Choy, Alvina Y. L. Wong,Prathanporn Kaewpreedee, Ranawaka A. P. M. Perera, Leo L. M. Poon, John M. Nicholls,Malik Peiris , Hui-Ling Yen
Authors are listed as the following:
Thomas H. C. Sit1, Christopher J. Brackman1, Sin Ming Ip1, Karina W. S. Tam1, Pierra Y. T. Law1,
Esther M. W. To1, Veronica Y. T. Yu1, Leslie D. Sims2, Dominic N. C. Tsang3, Daniel K. W. Chu4,
Ranawaka A. P. M. Perera4, Leo L. M. Poon4 & Malik Peiris4,5 ✉
Authors are listed as the following:
Sophie A. Valkenburg1,2*, Nancy H. L. Leung2, Maireid B. Bull1,2, Li-meng Yan2,
Athena P. Y. Li1,2, Leo L. M. Poon2 and Benjamin J. Cowling2
At the same time, pay attention to this line: Several descriptions of the author's source institution have surfaced.
1 HKU Pasteur Research Pole,
The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong,
2 WHO Collaborating Centre for Infectious Disease Epidemiology and Control,
School of Public Health, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong
Based on the above material, we created the following simple statistical table: remove non- HKU authors from the table.
1 HKU Pasteur Research Pole, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong, 2 WHO Collaborating Centre for Infectious Disease Epidemiology and Control, School of Public Health, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong。
Of the four papers listed above, three of them are related to the CCP virus and three of them see Dr. YAN as a co-author. Following the screening, all the authors listed are all from the following two mailing address institutions: 1. HKU Pasteur Research Pole, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong. 2. WHO Collaborating Centre for Infectious Disease Epidemiology and Control, School of Public Health, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong. Before interpreting these two addresses, we have refined the above table based on our previous excavations That is, we try our utmost best to list the author's Chinese name translated and their position in HKU MED/HKU PRP. List the number of occurrences of the name appeared in the paper: we focus on authors and corresponding authors with two or more occurrences.
This condensed table explains:
1. The importance of the beautiful hero scientist in related virus research without the interpretation of any righteous scientists. One of the key research papers on the propagation model has her name. And it is uncommon for researchers to have an MD and PhD at the same time. Most of Pasteur's staff have PhDs. Among the staff of the School of Public Health of the University of Hong Kong, only those who are like Fukuda, Keiji (Dean of the Faculty) have the status of MD and MPH at the same time. One of the famous researchers Guan Yi has the status of MD and PhD. The academic identities of Leo L. M. Poon are of BSc (HKBU), MPhil (CUHK), DPhil (Oxon), FFPH (UK).
According to the beautiful lady scientist and Lude’s program and the live broadcasts of Wengui videos, it is very accurate to verify this logical relationship from the foundation. The hero scientist and Lude broke the news that Malik is Peiris, which is the person from Sri Lanka that DT talked about in the second season. This man has left office and returned to Sri Lanka in early July after the hero scientist successfully fled. Here DT releases some photos of Peiris's resignation farewell dinner, and we hope that he will not be killed by the CCP. In the third season, there is still a lot of information to be exposed from this person. Leo L. M. Poon is Pan Liewen. Hui-Ling Yen's Chinese name is Ye Huiling, and Ranawaka A. P. M. Perera has disappeared from Pasteur's employee list. Of course, this strange Sri Lankan did not appear at Peiris's farewell dinner.
Please pay attention to the job description of these people
Li-Meng Yan：Division of Public Health Laboratory Sciences；
Leo L. M. Poon：Professor and Division Head Public Health Laboratory Sciences；
Ranawaka A. P. M. Perera：Division of Public Health Laboratory Sciences；
Malik Peiris： Chair of Virology Public Health Laboratory Sciences
These statements show the relationship of these people in the laboratory. If Li-Meng Yan is in the laboratory led by Leo LM Poon, then Leo LM Poon must be the supervisor of Li-Meng Yan. The relationship and the order of the names in the thesis paper also proves this. Ranawaka APM Perera should be in the laboratory of Malik Peiris, which means that Malik Peiris is the supervisor of this laboratory, and Malik Peiris is also a big leader of Pasteur. It has been revealed in the second season that he is one of the most important figures during the CCP virus development, and he is also the core figure in the development of the international team of viral biochemical weapons. In other words, the hero scientist's breaking news is definitely not an alarmist’s story but cold hard facts!
This table pretty much reveals a few of the key characters and several important institutions in our Season 3 excavation. That is, the real entry point for our Season 3 excavation is same as Season 2 excavation, which choose Guo Deyin as the entry point. The difference is that this unveiling of the hero scientist will reveal the real secrets that P4 Labs is hiding. It's all so magical again.
Before we analyze the relationship between these institutions, let’s take a look at these pictures of the famous Sri Lankan, Malik, when he left Pasteur in Hong Kong. This mysterious Hong Kong Pasteur Institute that he has served for 14 years may be unveiled because of his departure!
Strangely, three key figures did not appear at Peiris's farewell dinner. One of them was his compatriot Ranawaka A. P. M. Perera, and the other was our beauty scientist. Of course, she could not appear here. The most important person, Kong Lingcheng, the son of Hong Kong Pasteur’s big leader Kong Xiangmian (chairman of the board of directors of Hong Kong Ocean Park), did not come to the farewell dinner either. What does it mean? Maybe they separately prepared a special farewell dinner.
(The following is a photo of Kong Lingcheng participating in Pasteur's collective activities)
4. Relationships between several institutions and several key figures
Below we will look into the specific meanings and related associations of the names “HKU MED” and “HKU PRP” of the two organizations appearing in this statement.
1 HKU Pasteur Research Pole, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong,
2 WHO Collaborating Centre for Infectious Disease Epidemiology and Control, School of Public Health, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong。
These two are the correspondence addresses of the two institutions, of which Pokfulam refers to a district in Hong Kong, Pok Fu Lam, which is the location of the University of Hong Kong. The queried Wikipedia information is as follows:
Pok Fu Lam (English: Pok Fu Lam or Pokfulam, Yue Pin: bok6*3 fu4*6 lam4[Note 1]) is located in the southern part of Hong Kong Island, one of the suburban parts of Hong Kong Island, usually refers to the north to the southern part of Shawan, South of Motianling and south to Waterfall Bay, most of the private housing estates (such as Zhifu Garden) and villas in Pok Fu Lam near the southern part are the concentrated with middle-to-upper class people in Hong Kong.
Around 1860, Pok Fu Lam was a summer resort for British merchants. There were many villas on the mountainside and the top of the mountain. There were several houses of watchmen on the top of the mountain, and there were flagpoles outdoors. There is a racetrack near Pok Fu Lam (currently Pok Fu Lam Riding Trail School). Every time there are Meng Chun races, many ladies would gather. The Governor also created a park of 100 acres. At that time, the "Fulin Path" of the eight sceneries of old Hong Kong referred to the scenery along Pok Fu Lam Road.
In 1883, the first pond in Hong Kong, the Pok Fu Lam Reservoir, was completed to provide tap water for Hong Kong. The spring water came from Taiping Mountain and was led to the pond by a pipeline. In 1885, the Hong Kong Dairy Company built a pasture near the Pok Fu Lam Village, which is now the site of Fu Garden, today called Pok Fu Lam Ranch, which was the first pasture in Hong Kong.
In 1911, the University of Hong Kong was established in the north of Pok Fu Lam , and an administrative building, teaching building and university dormitory was built near the foothills. As a result, many university staff and students lived in Pok Fu Lam District.
In the 1970s, the Hong Kong Government enacted an administrative measure called " Pokfulam Moratorium", which restricted the development of the area on the grounds that the transportation infrastructure in the area was not perfect, and maintained the pattern of medium and low-density development in Pok Fu Lam.
A HKU Pasteur Research Pole，referred to as HKU PRP，Chinese Name：香港大学巴斯德研究中心。
In the following article that recalls Kong Xiangmian, one of the co-founders of the Pasteur Research Center of the University of Hong Kong, some history was recorded:
In Memorian: Dr James Ziang Mien Kung
It is with great sadness that we announce that Dr James Ziang Mien Kung, our Chairman, passed away peacefully on Sunday, May 9th, 2010 at the age of 82.
We are particularly indebted to Dr Kung for the pivotal role he played in securing a collaborative agreement in 1999 between the Institut Pasteur and the then Faculty of Medicine of the University of Hong Kong (HKU). As a result of his tireless efforts, an agreement to establish the HKU-Pasteur Research Centre (HKU-PRP) was signed that year and the Centre was inaugurated in the year 2000. Dr Kung served as convenor of the HKU-Pasteur Foundation Preparatory Committee and was Chairman of the HKU-PRP. His contribution to our Centre, the Institut Pasteur International Network and our partnership with HKU cannot be fully expressed in words.
Dr Kung was a philanthropist who supported education and the pursuit of knowledge to benefit mankind. For his active role in promoting these values in the community, he received several awards, including an honorary Doctor of Laws degree from the Chinese University of Hong Kong in 1990, an honorary Doctor of Business Administration degree in 1991 from the then Hong Kong Polytechnic, an OBE in 1994, and an honorary Doctor of Laws degree from the University of Hong Kong in 2000. He was also an Honorary Patron of the HKU Foundation. He was made a Grand Officer of the Order of Merit of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg in 1994, and Commander in the Order of Leopold in 1997. In 2003, Dr Kung was awarded a Gold Bauhinia Star for his distinguished services to the Hong Kong community. He had strong ties with the French community in Hong Kong for many years. He was honoured in 2007 as Grand Officer darns L'Ordre National de la Légion d'Honneur. Dr James Kung will be sorely missed and warmly remembered by all those who knew him.
B WHO Collaborating Centre for Infectious Disease Epidemiology and Control, referred to as WHO CCIDEC, Chinese Name：世界传染病流行病学及控制合作中心。
The School of Public Health, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine of The University of Hong Kong has been designated as a WHO Collaborating Centre for Infectious Disease Epidemiology and Control since 10 December 2014. The Centre is headed by Professor Benjamin John Cowling and Dr Seto Wing-hong of the School. The designation of HKU School of Public Health as a WHO CC is the first of such kind at the University.
The HKU School of Public Health has a long and distinguished history in high impact research and public health education. With a view to protecting the public's health in Hong Kong and across our region, the WHO CC looks forward to coordinating research on the control and prevention of infectious diseases and providing local and regional education and training in infectious disease epidemiology and control.
Terms of Reference
(1) In collaboration with WHO, further the work of Infection Prevention and Control
(2) Strengthen capacity for surveillance of Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR)
(3) Emergency Response to Outbreaks of Novel Pathogens
The Centre is governed by a Steering Committee which shall direct the activity of the Centre, monitor progress on projects and deliverables in the work plan, and prepare the yearly progress report for submission to the WHO. The Steering Committee is chaired by the Centre Heads, Professor Benjamin John Cowling and Dr Seto Wing-hong, with members comprising Professor Joseph Sriyal Malik Peiris, Professor Joseph Wu, and any other members as nominated by the Heads.
The general membership of the Centre will comprises faculty members of Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, and by invitation from the Centre Heads.
C HKU SPH School of Public Health, The University of Hong Kong, Chinese Name：香港大学公共卫生学院
Public health has a long established tradition at The University of Hong Kong. It was first introduced into the medical curriculum at the Hong Kong College of Medicine for Chinese (the forerunner of the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Hong Kong), which was established by Sir Patrick Manson1, Sir James Cantlie and Sir Ho Kai in 1887. In 1891, Sun Yat-sen, one of the first students of the Hong Kong College of Medicine for Chinese, sat the professional examination of public health. In 1950, the Department of Social Medicine was established. In 1970, the name was changed to the Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, and to the Department of Community Medicine in 1974.
In 2004, The University of Hong Kong approved the proposal to establish a School of Public Health2, the Public Health Research Centre was established as one of the five research centres in the Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, and Master of Medical Science (Public Health) was transformed into our own postgraduate degree programme - the Master of Public Health. In 2005, the University Research Committee recognized public health as one of nineteen Strategic Research Themes for the University. In 2009, the inauguration of the School of Public Health was officiated by Professor Chen Zhu, Minister of Health r China.
In 2013, the School of Public Health formally incorporated the Department of Community Medicine and the Behavioural Sciences Unit.
In July 2016, the academic and research arms of the Institute of Human Performance were incorporated into the School of Public Health of Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine.
1950-1952 TS Sze Chair, Department of Social Medicine
1952-1957 KC Yeo Chair, Department of Social Medicine
1957-1974 PH Teng Chair, Department of Social Medicine (1957-59)
Chair, Department of Social and Preventive Medicine (1959-74)
1974-1980 MJ Colbourne Head, Department of Community Medicine
1978-1987 J Anderson Head, Behavioural Sciences Unit
1980-1987 JWL Kleevens Head, Department of Community Medicine
1987-2000 AJ Hedley Head, Department of Community Medicine
1987-2013 R Fielding Head, Behavioural Sciences Unit （Professor Fielding, Richard 莊日昶）
2000-2012 TH Lam Head, Department of Community Medicine,（Lam, Tai Hing，）
Director, School of Public Health (2004-2012)
2012-2013 GM Leung Head, Department of Community Medicine,
Acting Director, School of Public Health
2013-2017 JSM Peiris Director, School of Public Health
2017- Keiji Fukuda Director, School of Public Health
List of previous deans
Lam, Tai Hing 林大慶
MBBS, MD(HK), MSc(Occupational Medicine)(Lond), FAFOM RACP, FFPH, FFOM(Lond), Hon.FHKCCM, FHKAM(Community Medicine), FRCP(Edin)
Luo Xuhe Foundation Professorship (Public Health)
Chair Professor of Social Medicine
Professor Lin Daqing graduated from the Faculty of Medicine of the University of Hong Kong with a bachelor's degree in general medicine in 1975. He received a master's degree in medical sociology and occupational medicine from the University of London in 1980 and 1981, respectively, and completed a degree in research medicine at the University of Hong Kong in 1988. Ph.D. Professor Lin served as the dean of the Department of Social Medicine of the University of Hong Kong from 2000 to 2012, and served as the dean of the School of Public Health from August 2009 to June 2013; the head professor of the Department of Social Medicine since 2000; and Dean of the Center of the public health research from 2004 to 2013; in December 2007, he was awarded the title of Li Ka-shing Medical Institute and Luo Xuhe public foundation professor.
Professor Lin is a member of several international and local professional medical colleges including the Australian Vocational Medical College, the British School of Public Health, the London Vocational Medical College, the Hong Kong College of Medicine (Community Medicine) and the Royal Medical College of Edinburgh. Professor Lin served as the Dean of the Hong Kong School of Social Medicine from 1997 to 2001. He also served as the Vice Chairman of the Hong Kong Council on Smoking and Sanitation, and the Co-Chairman of the Review and Appropriation Committee of the Research Bureau of the Health, Welfare and Food Bureau of the Hong Kong SAR Government. Professor Lin was appointed as a Justice of the Peace in July 2005 and was awarded an Honorary Fellow by the Hong Kong Institute of Social Medicine in 2008.
Professor Lin has repeatedly been appointed by the World Health Organization as a short-term consultant, temporary consultant or expert member.
Doctor of Philosophy, Registered Clinical Psychologist of British Psychological Society, Associate Fellow of British Psychological Society
Professor Fielding, Richard莊日昶 哲學博士
Fellow of the Hong Kong Psychological Society, Fellow of the Department of Public Health, Royal College of Physicians
Professor Richard Fielding is a clinical and medical psychologist and a professor of public health medical psychology at the University of Hong Kong (until June 2017). He is devoted to research to improve the recovery progress of patients with heart disease and received a doctorate from the University of Sheffield.
Before joining the University of Hong Kong in 1982, Professor Fielding served as a senior clinical psychologist at the National Health Service for seven years. He was also a lecturer, senior lecturer and professor in the Department of Social Medicine of the University of Hong Kong, and also served as the director of the Behavioral Science Group until 2013 when he was recruited in the newly established School of Public Health.
Professor Fielding made a lot of contributions to the development of clinical medical psychology in the early days, and he continues to innovate in this field. His work in medical psychology focuses on psychological and behavioral adaptation in a wide range of physical health issues, including heart disease, cancer, respiratory disease behaviors, health risk behaviors and chronic pain, as well as life and behaviors in recovery and health care.
Under these circumstances, it is not uncommon to experience significant invasive physical and psychological symptoms, which will eventually disrupt sleep, appetite/weight, physical activity, motivation and/or interest.
Over the years, Professor Fielding has developed comprehensive intervention methods to address these issues, and uses a series of behavioral, cognitive, and physical activity-based techniques to prevent, manage, and overcome stress, and respond to psychological problems related to physical health and lifestyle needs.
Gabriel Matthew Leung, born in November 6, 1972, is a doctor and public health expert in Hong Kong. He has been the 40th Dean of the Li Ka-Shing School of Medicine of the University of Hong Kong since 2013. He is an epidemiology and global health authority. He has participated in the epidemiological research of multiple epidemics, including SARS in 2003, H7N9 in 2013, and new coronavirus disease in 2019. He also worked during the H1N1 pandemic in 2009, and led the anti-epidemic work of the Hong Kong government.
He is also Helen and Francis Zimmern Professor (People's Health) and Chair Professor of Public Health Medicine. He was the last dean of the Department of Social Medicine of the University of Hong Kong (2012-3) and the first deputy director of the Food and Health Bureau of the HKSAR Government (2008 -11) and the fifth director of the Hong Kong Chief Executive's Office (2011-2).
In 2003, when the SARS broke out, Gabriel Liang established the Infectious Disease Epidemiology Research Group of the University of Hong Kong. Under his leadership, he focused on the field investigation and model of direct transmission of respiratory pathogens .
In 2005, Liang went to Harvard University as a Takemi Fellow researcher; in 2006, he returned to the University of Hong Kong as a professor. From 2006 to 2008, he served as the Deputy Dean of the Hong Kong School of Social Medicine and the Superintendent of Public Health Medicine.
Gabriel Liang was born in Hong Kong. He studied at Wah Yan College in Hong Kong and then completed secondary school courses at Stonyhurst College in the United Kingdom and Crissett High School in Canada.
Liang later graduated from the University of Western Ontario School of Medicine, Canada, and completed the family medicine specialty training at the University of Toronto. He obtained a master's degree in public health from Harvard University in 1999, and later obtained a doctorate in medicine from the University of Hong Kong
MBBS, FRCPath, D Phil (Oxon), FHKAM (Path), FRCP, FRS
Tan Huazheng Professorship (Medical Science)
Professor Peiris, clinical and public health virologist, focus on infectious diseases caused by emerging viruses between humans and animals, including influenza, coronavirus (SARS, MERS) and so on. His current research covers the pathogenesis, innate immune response, mode of transmission, ecology and epidemiology of influenza viruses in humans and animals (poultry, swine, wild birds). Professor Peiris’ research revealed the emergence and pathogenesis of the epidemic H1N1 virus and the avian influenza viruses H5N1, H9N2, and H7N9 in 2009. Its collaborative research also provides evidence-based methods for controlling these viruses in poultry and humans. He became a key player in the discovery of a new coronavirus causing SARS in 2003 and its diagnosis and pathogenesis. He is currently studying the newly emerging Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus (MERS).
Professor Peiris was responsible for coordinating the "epidemic and influenza control during epidemic" project, which lasted for 8 years and involved multiple disciplines and institutions; recently he also coordinated the research on the theme of "influenza transmission and pathology", all of which were awarded by the University of Hong Kong Funded by the Education Grant Committee. He is also a researcher at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) Influenza Surveillance and Research Center (CEIRS) of the National Institutes of Health. Through the EU Research Framework Program, he has collaborated with European researchers on many occasions. Professor Peiris has co-led the WHO H5 Reference Laboratory at the University of Hong Kong and has participated in several WHO and UN Food and Agriculture Standing Committees and Special Advisory Committees. service.
Professor Peiris was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society of London in 2006; he was awarded the Knight of the Legion of Honor in 2007; he was awarded the Mahathir Science Award in Akademi Sains, Malaysia; and awarded the Silver Bauhinia Star (S.B.S.) in Hong Kong in 2008. In addition, he also serves as a member of the editorial board of the academic journal "Lancet Infectious Diseases" and PLoS Medicine.
Is a Japanese-American medical scientist.
Born in a family of doctors in Tokyo, Japan in 1955, he immigrated to the United States with his parents. He graduated from Oberlin College in 1977, graduated from the University of Vermont in 1983, and later obtained a master's degree in public health from the University of California, Berkeley. In 1996, he became the director of epidemiology at the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In 2005, he served as an official of the World Health Organization. In December 2016, he joined the School of Public Health of the University of Hong Kong as dean and clinical professor. In addition, he is also a visiting professor at Osaka City University.
Here let’s sort out the relationship between A, B, C and D: Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, Hong Kong (HKUMed) is affiliated to the University of Hong Kong (HKU). It is a medical school of HKU. The School of Public Health (SPH) of the University of Hong Kong (HKU Med SPH) is a department under HKUMed, which explains why students from HKUMed department call themselves HKU Med. In fact, they should be HKU Med SPH.
HKUPRP (HKU–Paster Research Pole) and WHO CCIDEC (Collaborating Centre for Infectious Disease Epidemiology and Control) are two research centers under HKU Med SPH, run by HKU in partnership with other institutions.
However, can it be that simple? Let’s round up the above information, make it into a table, chronicle the time of establishment of the four institutions and see what happens:
First of all, let’s take a look at a consequential excavation on P3 Lab of HKU before we interpret on the above table.
This is a H5 Reference Laboratory.
Let’s look at some related data:
To give you a better and fuller picture, we’d like to quote the whole report here:
The Unveiling Ceremony for Collaborating Centre for Infectious Disease Epidemiology and Control and the H5 Reference Laboratory
Sunday, August 16, 2015.
The Unveiling Ceremonies for Collaborating Centre for Infectious Disease Epidemiology and Control and the H5 Reference Laboratory were held by Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, HKU (HKUMed) last Thursday August 13th. Margaret Chan Fung Fu-chun, Director-General of the World Health Organization (WHO), officiated the ceremonies. The events were graced by Dr Constance Chan, Director of Health, Dr SF Leung, Director of Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation, Professor Gabriel Leung, Dean of Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, Professor SY Leung, Associate Dean (Research) of Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine and other guests.
School of Public Health, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, HKU has been designated as a WHO Collaborating Centre for Infectious Disease Epidemiology and Control for four years with effect from 10 December 2014. The Centre is headed by Professor Gabriel Leung, Chair Professor of Public Health Medicine and Dean of Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, and Professor Seto Wing-hong, Honorary Clinical Professor of our School. A WHO Collaborating Centre (WHO CC) is an institution designated by the Director-General of WHO to form part of an international collaborative network set up by WHO in support of its program at the country, intercountry, regional, interregional and global levels. In China and HK SAR, there are a total of 59 and 6 WHO CCs respectively.
The designation of the School of Public Health as a WHO CC is the first of such kind at the University. Professor Gabriel Leung thanked the Director-General of WHO for visiting HKU and said, “HKU School of Public Health has been at the forefront of research in emerging infectious diseases and we look forward to contributing further to the work of the WHO in the control and prevention of communicable diseases and in enhancing global public health.” Professor Leung also extended thanks to Dr Constance Chan and Dr SF Leung for attending the ceremonies and remarked that “After the SARS epidemic in 2003, Government has provided strong support for the development of infectious disease epidemiology research at the University and this signal award of Collaborating Centre status by the WHO is the culmination of this important partnership between HKU and the Food and Health Bureau for the protection of the public’s health in Hong Kong and across the region.” In addition, the Centre of Influenza Research under the School of Public Health is one of the 13 laboratories worldwide designated as a WHO H5 reference laboratory. Its mandate is to provide international reference laboratory services and training on H5 and other animal influenza viruses with zoonotic or pandemic potential, to provide WHO with data and risk assessment relevant to such threats and advice on selection for relevant viruses for pre-pandemic vaccine development. As part of these responsibilities, the HKU H5 Reference Laboratory takes part in the twice- yearly WHO influenza vaccine strain selection meetings. “With our established strengths in the surveillance and characterization of animal influenza viruses with potential to cause human infections, our School is keen to continue assisting the WHO in addressing zoonotic and pandemic public health threats and in promoting the One Health framework to population health,” said Professor Malik Peiris, Co-Director of the WHO H5 Reference Laboratory at HKU and Tam Wah-Ching, Professor in Medical Science, Chair Professor of Virology and Director of School of Public Health.
About WHO Collaborating Centers
WHO CC are institutions such as research institutes, parts of universities or academies, or governmental bodies which are designated by the Director-General to carry out activities in support of the Organization’s programs. Currently there are over 700 WHO collaborating centers in over 80 Member States working with WHO on areas such as nursing, occupational health, communicable diseases, nutrition, mental health, chronic diseases and health technologies.
About WHO H5 Reference Laboratories
In 2004, the WHO H5 Reference Laboratory Network was established, as an ad hoc component of the WHO Global Influenza Surveillance and Response System, in response to the public health needs arising from avian influenza A (H5N1) infection in humans and to assist in influenza pandemic preparedness. At present, there are 13 laboratories worldwide designated as a WHO H5 Reference Laboratories and the laboratory at HKU was one of these founding laboratories.
About the School of Public Health
School of Public Health, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, HKU has a long and distinguished history in public health education and high impact research. With world leading research in infectious diseases as well as on non-communicable diseases of both local and global importance, the School has made significant contributions through its research and advocacy to improve the health of populations and individuals, both locally and globally. The School is a leading research and teaching hub in public health on influenza and other emerging viruses, control of infectious and non-communicable diseases, tobacco control, air pollution, psycho-oncology, behavioral sciences, life-course epidemiology, and health economics, health services planning and management. This work has informed international (e.g. the World Health Organization, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations), national and local public health policies.
(From Left) Professor Benjamin J. Cowling, Professor and Division Head of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, HKU; Dr Constance Chan, Director of Health, HKSAR Government; Professor J. S. Malik Peiris, Tam Wah-Ching Professor in Medical Science, Chair Professor of Virology and Director of the School of Public Health, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, HKU; Dr Margaret Chan, Director-General of World Health Organization; Dr Leung Siu-fai, Director of Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation, HKSAR Government; Professor Gabriel M. Leung, Dean of Medicine and Co-Director of the WHO Collaborating Centre for Infectious Disease Epidemiology and Control, School of Public Health, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, HKU and Professor Seto Wing-hong, Honorary Clinical Professor, School of Public Health and Co-Director of the WHO Collaborating Centre for Infectious Disease Epidemiology and Control, School of Public Health, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, HKU.
(From Left) Professor J. S. Malik Peiris, Tam Wah-Ching Professor in Medical Science, Chair Professor of Virology and Director of the School of Public Health, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, HKU; Dr Leung Siu-fai, Director of Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation, HKSAR Government; Dr Margaret Chan, Director-General of World Health Organization; Dr Constance Chan, Director of Health, HKSAR Government; Professor Guan Yi, Daniel CK Yu Professor in Virology of the School of Public Health and Director of Centre of Influenza Research, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, HKU and Professor Gabriel M. Leung, Dean of Medicine and Co-Director of the WHO Collaborating Centre for Infectious Disease Epidemiology and Control, School of Public Health, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, HKU.
Gift presented by Professor Peter Mathieson, President and Vice-Chancellor of the University of Hong Kong at the luncheon hosted in honor of Dr Margaret Chan on 13 August 2015.
An article on GNEWS titled Malik Peiris from Sri Lanka and his colleague Leo POON (https://gnews.org/zh-hans/194829/) revealed something about this laboratory and Malik Peiris.
The WHO H5 Reference Laboratory Network was established in 2004, following the SARS in 2003, as an ad hoc component of the WHO Global Influenza Surveillance and Response System (GISRS), in response to the public health challenges and medical burdens arising from the avian influenza A (H5N1) infection. Up till now, there are 13 designated WHO H5 Reference Laboratories in the world and HKU H5 Reference Laboratory is one of the founding members. Note that this Reference Laboratory was not only set up for H5N1 bird flu. It has extended to all infectious diseases and epidemic viruses and has developed into the core laboratory of WHO CCIDEC.
In other words, H5 reference laboratory is not just a plaque but more of an ad hoc component of the WHO Global Infectious Diseases (such as Influenza) Surveillance and Measure Issuance. The word “reference” suggests WHO is only an agency that issues warnings and coordinates. Whether or not to issue warnings and levels of warnings of global pandemic viruses and infectious diseases depends on the results of surveillance, test and prediction from these laboratories. The most recent and ongoing outbreak and global spread of the CCP virus clearly shows WHO’s lack of research capacity.
Well, let’s analyze the table above based on the information we have just presented to see if there’s any weirdness. Let’s proceed in a chronicle order. It may contain quite some data in the P4 Lab-Season 2:
In 2000, Dr James Ziang Mien KUNG promoted collaboration between HKU and Paster Research Pole of France and facilitated establishment of HKU PRP. The sources of funds of PRP mainly come from Pasteur Foundation Asia controlled by Dr James Ziang Mien KUNG. The current Chairman of Pasteur Foundation Asia is Leo KUNG.
In 2003, when SARS broke out in Beijing, it later spread to Guangdong and Hong Kong. YUAN Guoyong and GUAN Yi, significant contributors to the SARS research, were then both working at HKU Med SPH. YUAN Guoyong was not only in charge of HKU-PRP but also head of the Department of Biological Sciences. For more exciting excavation, refer to Season 2, Excavation Operation, Expose Revolution.
In 2003, P4 Lab project was incepted by CHEN Zhu.
In 2004, the creation of the WHO H5 Reference Laboratories by WHO was built on the brilliant achievements on fighting SARS and SARS coronavirus by Chinese and HK government. This has allowed P3 Lab (Influenza Research Center) controlled by HKU’s YUEN Kwok-yung (also used by PRP) to become one of the founding members of the H5 Reference Laboratories. At the same time, it also paved way for HKUMed SPH’s gaining a dominant discourse in WHO’s epidemiology and virus control and research.
In 2004, in Shanghai, Institut Pasteur of Shanghai, founded by Institut Pasteur, Chinese Academy of Sciences and Shanghai Municipal Government, engages in public health in China, especially infectious diseases, and virus research in particular. Institut Pasteur of Shanghai upholds Institut Pasteur International’s three tenets, i.e. intensified research on high quality, public health and education/training.
On Feb 25, 2005, Li Ka Shing Foundation donated 3 million EUR (more than 30 million HKD) to fund the top research institution in the world, the Institute Pasteur, France. Teamed up with the Joint Influenza Research Center of Shantou University Medical College and Faculty of Medicine, the University of Hong Kong, brilliant contributor to the research of bird flu and the emerging infectious diseases, Institute Pasteur, France has injected new power into the fight against bird flu across the world. A committee consisting of Institut Pasteur, Pasteur Institut of Shanghai, Joint Influenza Research Center and Li Ka-Shing Foundation will be established to supervise plans and promotion efforts as well as to monitor project progress and efficacy. Note that the narration about members of such as a committee, Institut Pasteur, Institut Pasteur of Shanghai, Joint Influenza Research Center and Li Ka-Shing Foundation, have all appeared in our Expose Revolution Excavation Operation, Season 2. The main administrator of the Joint Influenza Research Center was GUAN Yi or the HKUMed team, i.e. Institut Pasteur of Hong Kong.
In 2006, Li Ka-Shing spent 1 billion HKD to integrate HKU related medical institutions, giving birth to Li Ka-Shing Faculty of Medicine, University of Hong Kong. In the meantime, School of Public Health (SPH), HKU was also merged in, becoming one of the five designated research centers.
In 2006, another important figure surfaced in Institut Pasteur of Hong Kong - Malik Peiris FRS, who embraced the H5N1 challenge when the H5 Reference Laboratory Network was being set up in 2004. Hong Kong H5 Reference Laboratory is one of the founding members. Margaret CHAN FUNG Fu-chun, the then Director-General of WHO and Malik Peiris FRS attended the unveiling ceremony.
Malik, once a member of the WHO Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization (SAGE), served in many WHO committees, and represented WHO to investigate the H7N9 avian influenza in China and MERS in Korea and Saudi Arabia.
He was also a researcher at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and Centers of Excellence for Influenza Research and Surveillance (CEIRS). The project aims to address the threat of influenza pandemic. The current supervisor of NIADA is Dr Fauci.
He also serves on the editorial boards of The Lancet Infectious Disease.
In 1981, he earned his DPhil degree in UK. One of the main arguments of his paper is that antibody might work paradoxically by facilitating virus to come into macrophage instead of preventing it.
In 1995, he founded the Clinical and Public Health Virology Lab in
HKU affiliated Queen Mary Hospital.
In 1997, H5N1 infection in humans broke out for the first time in Hong Kong. Professor Peiris’s lab noticed the “cytokine storm,” which was regarded as the main cause for bird flu pathogenesis.
In 2003, his lab separated pathogene from SARS. In June, his lab had already used real-time PRC to diagnose SARS. At that time, Peiris worked in HKU affiliated Queen Mary Hospital.
It was in 2006 when HKUMed was founded and Queen Mary Hospital was merged into HKUMed that Peiris began his career in HKU PRP.
This timeline plus appointment of the dean of HKUMed SPH would speak for more things:
Lam, Tai Hing 2009-2013
GM Leung 2012-2013
JSM Peiris 2013-2017
Keiji Fukuda 2017-
From the list of the deans, three of them, Lam, Tai Hing, JSM Peiris and Keiji Fukuda have the experience and background as WHO officials. In other words, they have significant influence in WHO. And both GM Leung and JSM Peiris are experts on coronavirus.
Are these all just coincidences?
By now, we have enough reason and logic to believe that CCP has started to deploy and control WHO ever since SARS outbreak in 2003. This was an appalling deployment. The core of the control rests in the HKUMed SPH. To reveal the true face of WHO under CCP’s control would feature our Expose Revolution Excavation Operation Season 3. It can be certain that WHO is a vicious dog fed by CCP. In the ongoing spread of a biochemical virus weaponized war, WHO became a nasty accomplice.
A kind reminder: Don’t forget the key three figures who have American experience and background: GM Leung, JSM Peiris and Keiji Fukuda. Keiji Fukuda is even a true American national.
5. A key photo
At the end of the article, we would like to show you a key photo related to Dr Li-Meng YAN, our respectful heroic woman scientist.
On Jan 21, 2019, Dr Li-Meng YAN received a famed American expert in HKUMed SPH where she worked and had this photo taken.
The caption on the photo goes as follows:
January 21, 2019. Our MPH students had the privilege to meet Prof Barry Bloom from Harvard in an exclusive sharing session. Prof Barry Bloom has been a pioneer in infectious disease research and vaccine science and was Dean of Harvard School of Public Health from 1999 to 2009. He spent over 35 years as principal investigator researching the immune response to tuberculosis in his Harvard lab and his scientific contributions have made him a trusted adviser in public health policy worldwide. We thank Prof Bloom for his generous sharing with our students.
On Mar 19, 2020, this famed Professor Barry Bloom published the transcript of an interview about CCP virus on an American media. The whole interview goes like this:
Coronavirus (COVID-19): Press Conference with Barry Bloom, 03/19/20
You're listening to a press conference from the Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health featuring Barry Bloom, professor of immunology and infectious diseases and former dean of the school. This call was recorded at 2:30 pm Eastern Time on Thursday, March 19.
BARRY BLOOM: Greetings, everyone. My name is Barry Bloom. I'm a professor and the former dean of the Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health. My long-term scientific interest has been global health. My field is immunology of infectious diseases. I'm pleased to be on this call.
Perhaps I have a somewhat unusual perspective, in that I had been invited with a colleague after SARS erupted and China failed to address it adequately. In 2003, was invited by the ministry of health to give advice on what they could have done better. And those lessons have carried through to the present time and seeing the current spread of the new coronavirus around the world and things that every country has to do to be prepared.
So I would look forward to trying to answer your questions. I state in advance there still remains an awful lot uncertain in the scientific world. But I'll do my very best to be helpful.
OPERATOR: And at this time, are we wanting to open the floor for questions? We'll take our first question in the queue.
Q: Hi, Barry. Quick question on the statistics out of China this morning where they're showing no new cases in Wuhan or the surrounding province. Do you have any reason to doubt those numbers? I mean, is the decline we're seeing in China real? And do you have a sense that sort of gives us hope as to a way forward?
BARRY BLOOM: It's a very important and very good question. I think many of us weeks ago were very skeptical of numbers coming out of China, not that we knew they weren't correct. But with the interest in keeping the bad news as minimal as possible, one didn't know to what extent one could trust the numbers.
We had a symposium at the School of Public Health last, I think, Friday. And had videoed in the dean of the medical school at Hong Kong, a former Takemi Fellow and Harvard School of Public Health graduate, who has been the major advisor, both to the government of Hong Kong and a major advisor to the government of China, and also a member of the commission, the WHO commission in China. And having expressed his earlier skepticism was quite confident the numbers we had been getting as of a week ago for at least several weeks prior to that have been quite accurate and were checked and examined carefully by the WHO independent group. So, I'm inclined to believe that if they say there are no cases over a 24-hour period, they're probably telling it right.
Q: And what are the implications of that? Is that a model that we here in the US can follow?
BARRY BLOOM: Well, the dramatic effect in China was to allow the epidemic to get ahead of the ability to respond in a public health way, which is the problem that occurs in all epidemics– in most epidemics. And since the epidemic doubles every week, if you start with 100 cases, in seven weeks you have 65,000 cases. That's hard for people to understand.
But the answer is, here it was clear they knew in late November or early December. But only on the 31st did the world know they had an infectious disease problem. So, I would think from there on they've had to introduce very stringent suppression measures of keeping people from leaving their homes and dealing with social interactions.
The point here being, it worked. The numbers, ultimately, came down. People were enormously inconvenienced. An awful lot of people got sick and died. But the numbers have come down.
There are two questions that arise from your question. The one is, will it stay down? And no one knows. And China, I think, has been lifting the ability of people to go to work restraint. And if it is done gradually and slowly, it is, I think, most likely it will be– there will be bursts of outbreaks, but they will be controllable.
Q: Thank you.
OPERATOR: We'll take our next question in queue.
Q: Yes, thank you. I have two questions about the fine points of symptoms. And I know these are not easy to tackle. But there's a lot of concern out there. So we can shed a little bit of light. If a person feels chest tightness, how can they distinguish that from the COVID-19 symptom of difficulty breathing, versus maybe just being a sign of stress that a lot of us are feeling now? And secondly, if you have a runny nose or some sniffles, should they not worry at all?
BARRY BLOOM: [LAUGHS] Well, let me just establish my credentials. I am not a physician. I'm a researcher and a PhD. So, what I say should be taken with a grain of salt.
But having looked at the case descriptions, both from China and from the first cases written up in the US, a runny nose is not characteristic of this infection. Tightness of the chest, the kind of things that you would expect with stress, is not a characteristic symptom. But really difficulty breathing, heavy breathing, not feeling you're getting enough air in and oxygen is a sign that really you need to see or consult someone in medicine.
This is concurrent with a flu epidemic which we are taking for granted every year that kills an awful lot of people and makes an awful lot sick. So, the challenge is, can one simply by clinical symptoms distinguish the new coronavirus infection from influenza? And my colleagues say that's very different clinically. And that's why we need testing, testing, testing.
Q: Thank you.
OPERATOR: We'll take our next question in queue.
Q: Thank you very much for doing this call. I had a couple of questions. One is that we've seen different estimates of mortality rates around the world for this disease. And the most recent one, I think, was a preprint and then a paper in Nature, I think, today saying that the mortality rate in China was 1.4%, which is lower than previous estimates.
So, I wanted to ask you, first of all, what you think of that– how 1.4% sounds to you as a possible mortality rate for China and for the world overall. And generally, how long do you think it's going to be until we really understand what the death rate is?
BARRY BLOOM: So, I may sound like a broken record that you've heard before. But the case fatality rate depends on two things, one of which is pretty easy to figure out, which is how many people die. In some places, it's not always clear whether they die of this infection, or influenza, or something else. So, there's a certain amount of uncertainty about just counting people who die in a given region in the middle of an epidemic.
The second, and much more difficult, is the rate depends on how many people of those infected actually die. And we have figures from China. And I think everyone would agree that not everybody was tested. So, we actually don't know what the denominator is. And the more people who get tested, usually, the lower the case fatality rate is.
So, if you remember H1N1 in Mexico, the initial reports– case fatality rate were 5% to 10%. And that was mostly because they were looking at people who were sick, very sick, and in hospitals. But as the epidemiology played out retrospectively and one tackled how many people had any medical problem that could be related to an infection with flu, it went down to 0.07%.
So, the case fatality rate really depends on knowing the denominator. And without testing a very wide range of people, both symptomatic and asymptomatic, we tend always to get a higher number, which is the most frightening number. For the modeling studies, people that I've looked at– I'm modeling at about 1%. And it may drop down quite dramatically if we actually knew how many people were infected and not sick at all.
Q: Thank you very much. I wonder if I could ask you another question sort of following up on something you said a little bit earlier about, there would be bursts of outbreaks. I sort of wonder how you see things playing out globally. I mean, we've got many areas of this country and the world kind of locked down or semi-locked down. And until we have either an adequate treatment or a vaccine we're going to risk– assuming that the virus is not going to be eliminated at this point, what do you think will have to be done until that point?
I mean, if you take your foot off the gas and let people go back to work and run around and mill around, and you have possible outbreaks, you may start more spread, even around the world. So, what do you see happening or having to be done until we've reached the point where we really can stop it and prevent it?
BARRY BLOOM: I think you've asked a key question. And this is different from many other epidemics, not least because this is a really virulent strain of coronavirus. And it is one that we have had no prior experience to. So as bad as flu is, flu comes around every year. More or less everybody has had a flu at some time and has some immunological imprints that may help us make a response, that may not keep us totally from being sick, but at least protects us to some degree every year against flu. We are totally naive to this infectious disease.
And the only way to become protected is either to be vaccinated– and we have no vaccine– or to have become infected and hope that even a low-level infection will generate a protective immune response. And we will be protected for some period of time. So, we're in the first round, since nobody has been protected against this in the past, of being a globally highly susceptible population. And the question really is– and for this, China has been the laboratory for understanding this disease– what happens as they gradually reduce the restraints on people working, going back to the factories, moving around within cities, and moving out of Hubei and around other parts of China?
So, we know there are– while there were 60,000 cases in Wuhan, places like Guangzhou and Shanghai that had people that had, previous to that, come into their towns with infections, were able to keep the numbers down to the hundreds. So, knowing what's coming and moving quickly– speed is of the essence. Getting the tools which we, regrettably, don't still have in the states– to identify everybody and test their contacts. We have the potential– perhaps not as draconian as shutting down the entire province in China of 60 million people. But we have the potential as was done in Korea, for example, of having huge amounts of testing, finding who's positive, even if they're not sick, and isolating them. Because even if you're not sick, if you're infected and transmit, everybody's going to transmit between 2 and 2.5 new people. And that number continues exponentially to double.
So, the answer is we would know better what to expect if we actually knew how many people in this country and in each region was infected. And the question is, how long can we sustain being tightly constrained as we are in the States, with the proviso that is really hard for people, and certainly me, to understand– every state sets its own rules, not the federal government. So, if Boston is closed down in Massachusetts, someone in Wheeling, West Virginia doesn't have to be. And we're going to have a great difficulty in predicting for the country what happens.
And that leads to the final long-winded answer to your question. China's biggest problem right now is importing cases that are flying in from other countries. They've really done a job at bringing their own epidemic to low level. They're, I believe, expecting there will be bursts of outbreaks. But they're going to be getting new imports from people who are healthy when they get on the plane, and two or three days later turn out to have this virus. I think they're tooled up to deal with that.
But within the United States, if there are outbreaks we are not currently unable to move by car or truck or plane to any other part of the country. We will have to put out many fires– hopefully small– once we have enough of the diagnostic tools to be able to know who has this infection and whom not.
OPERATOR: We'll take our next question in queue.
Q: Hi, thanks for doing this call. Can you speak a little bit about seasonality. What are the chances– I know this is brand new. But what are the chances that this coronavirus will act like other ones and transmission might dissipate a bit in the summer months? And what does that mean for the health system in terms of potentially buying time for doctors and hospitals to catch up? Thanks.
BARRY BLOOM: It, too, is a wonderful question. And the answer is nobody knows for sure. I think that's a clear cut and certain answer. Nobody knows how this particular viral strain will respond.
There are some studies in comparisons of the infection in northern China versus Hong Kong, although it's wintertime there as well. And there doesn't seem to be a huge temperature and humidity change between those two parts. But that's probably not fair, because it's all wintertime. We know from massive studies of influenza, it doesn't do well in high humidity and high heat. We also know people tend to be walking around outdoors more in the summertime than in the wintertime, and how to factor all of those into what could be predicted.
And then, finally, I think our epidemiologists tend to believe that we overrate the effect of summertime and warm weather on SARS in 2003. We forget the massive public health efforts that were used to test people in Canada and in many countries around the world that really put major public health pressures against spread of the virus. It wasn't just temperature.
So, if I had to guess, it is, from what I read from the pre-publications, likely to go down a bit, because it doesn't like high humidity and temperature, likely not to go away, and likely to come back at some level as we spread this out, possibly as the weather cools in the fall. But nobody really knows.
OPERATOR: We'll take our next question in queue.
Q: Hi. Thank you for doing the call. And thank you for taking my question. There's been a lot of discussion about how younger people are sort of being dismissive of the social distancing requirements or requests that have been put in place in many places. Yesterday, the CDC released some numbers suggesting that as many as one in five younger adults end up being sick enough to be hospitalized as a result of the coronavirus. And also, obviously, they could transmit it to older adults as well. So, I'm wondering if you could just comment on the general risk to younger adults and also why it's important for them to comply with social distancing and other public health steps in order to prevent transmission. Thank you.
BARRY BLOOM: Again, a wonderful question. I saw the CDC report this morning. And it's troubling at a couple levels in terms of formulating an intelligible answer. Under-20s were a very low percentage in China of people that had severe infection. And appears to be the same in Italy. And the question, then, is why it would be so high in the United States when it wasn't seen in countries that had, at the moment, a probably greater level of infection.
I don't know the answer. I don't know of anyone yet who does. I'm sure CDC is looking at it. But it may also have to do with the criteria for admission to a hospital. We are much more likely to have people taken to a hospital for symptoms that are not overwhelmingly serious than in the middle of an epidemic where screening in so-called– let's say in Shanghai, or Korea, or China, where they have special hospitals with people with fevers or possible symptoms that prevented them from getting into a hospital that had to provide acute respiratory care.
So, it may be partially deciding on who has to go to a hospital in the US that would go to a fever clinic or some other facility elsewhere, such that the numbers are not suggestive that one in five of all adolescents are likely to get serious respiratory infections. One doesn't know. I can't think of a biological or medical reason.
Having said that, the answer to your question is if 20-year-olds believe– in China, Italy, Korea, or here– they're invulnerable to this infection, we know that there are 20-year-olds who've died in every one of those places. And they are not invulnerable any more than anyone else to this infection.
OPERATOR: We'll take our next question in queue.
Q: Thank you. I'd like to ask a sort of provincial Massachusetts question.
So, we heard from Governor Charlie Baker today that they think they can do 3,500 tests a day starting early next week. And it feels like there is this kind of race going on between– can we ramp up our testing, and get enough protective equipment out there, and get people distanced enough so that the virus will go blooey here. Or will we not– as Governor Baker said, he's trying to get ahead enough so that he can be proactive enough to head off the virus.
How are you seeing this picture, this race now, at this point? And what are the prospects?
BARRY BLOOM: I think we're behind the curve. And if the major hospitals in Boston who've been begging for tests for the last three weeks or longer haven't been able to test, we have no idea what's going on in this state. The tests will begin. They will be hopefully aggregated, so we'll know on a daily basis how big that curve goes. It will not be particularly epidemiologically meaningful, because we'll be measuring what we can test for, not what's really out there.
So, it'll take a while before we can get systematic testing, which should be– if you want to draw the curve how bad things are, you want to know, how many people are today getting their first infection? How many people today are getting their first admission to a hospital? Those are figures that will let us think about how things are going.
So again, I take Korea as the best case, but also Singapore and Hong Kong. When they had a few dozen cases, they were testing everybody they found– all but eight contacts in the whole place of Singapore. That's extraordinary it could be done. But they were testing vast numbers of people, not just those in acute respiratory distress, but anybody that they thought would be a contact.
And we're in a position of hoping to have enough tests to know whether someone with acute respiratory symptoms has flu or has the new coronavirus. And we won't get a sense of how many people are walking around able to transmit it until we have more drive-through test facilities and more people who can identify cases and contacts and have them self-quarantined.
So, we're behind the curve. And the numbers may go up quickly. They may be scary. But in fact, we're measuring what's already been there for several weeks, not what we need to know, which is whether the curve is bending or not.
OPERATOR: We'll take our next question in queue. Please go ahead.
Q: Hi, Dr. Bloom. Thank you so much for doing this talk. You mentioned earlier that your area of expertise is more research and not medical. And one of my questions mainly medical, but I'll ask it anyway to see if you have a take on it. But a lot of our readers are asking us about ibuprofen and anti-inflammatory medications, and that it increases the risk of complications in those infected with the virus. Do you have a take on that? And particularly, what is it about these medications that is of any concern in the medical community?
BARRY BLOOM: I really can't answer that. I've seen the reports on both sides of the ibuprofen. You know, they're not cures of anything. So, in terms of affecting the course of the infection in general, they're not going to make much of a difference. I think the common drug that people are now interested in doing a systematic testing of is the hydroxychloroquine, which has shown in SARS and MERS some beneficial effects. And any beneficial effect without severe side effects is better than doing nothing.
My big hope, to answer an earlier question that is related to yours, is it's going to take a year to a year and a half at the earliest before we know whether the vaccines that are being tested are likely to be safe. And that's a non-trivial question, because vaccines go into healthy people. Drugs go into sick people. So, you have a little bit more of a cost-benefit difference. We can't make healthy people sick with a vaccine that hasn't been shown to be safe. And that's the reason vaccines will take so long.
There are some new drugs. There are lots of people working on this, repurposed drugs that have been approved for other purposes– remdesivir that seemed to work on one case of MERS. I would think that's the quickest thing that could prevent people from the severest outcomes of the disease. But we know that transmission, or the number of viral particles, is greater at the earliest stage of disease. And the later stages of disease probably occur when the immune response is fighting the virus and lessening the number of particles, but also ravaging the body with an overreaction to the virus and the antigens that they release.
So, the immune system is complicated. And something that prevents people from being severely ill or dying is wonderful– unlikely to affect the outcome of the epidemic, unless it could be used very early on.
OPERATOR: Our next question. Please go ahead.
Q: Barry, thanks for doing this. It's really helpful. I want to go fact screen. You mentioned at the very beginning that you, in fact, had met with the minister of health in China after SARS to discuss what they could have done better. At that point in time, they had temporarily shut down their wildlife markets. They did that temporarily in February 2020. And then they banned it.
My specific question is, when you talked to them back in 2003, did they talk about the policy of shutting down any of the wildlife markets?
BARRY BLOOM: They knew that they were a possible source of transmission. They knew that they had to shut them down for a period of time. And my understanding is both with changes of health personnel in the ministry and many revisions to the political system since then– the live markets are seen as something part of a cultural tradition and politically difficult to make go away. Everybody that I know of for many years has been saying they're enormously dangerous for transmission of zoonoses from one animal to another animal species, and also into transmission into humans.
I don't know why they haven't shut them down permanently. It's the same issue with people proposing to reduce the coal industry in the United States. It's part of a cultural tradition that's very hard to deal with by orders from on high.
OPERATOR: We'll take our next question. Please go ahead.
Q: Hi, thank you so much for this. Looking at this week's Imperial College London report, it suggests that the best strategy is interventions aimed at suppression. That includes social distancing and K quarantine, household quarantine. But the model predicts that even if you have effective suppression, it's going to be followed by a big spike in cases in the fall.
I know we've touched on this a little bit. It offers the suggestion that intermittent social distancing is one way to deal with that. So, I want to sort of come back to this possibility of cases rising again in the fall. Can you talk about the danger of a spike happening, even if we do have successful suppression of the spread? And do you think that they're suggestion that intermittent social distancing is something that could work to help flatten, I guess, the secondary curve at this point.
BARRY BLOOM: It's a profoundly important question. And let me just emphasize that no one really knows that this virus will survive the summer and come back in the fall. In the beginning, the analogy was made with influenza that goes away in the fall. SARS went away in the fall. Maybe this will go away in the fall.
There is no evidential basis for that. So, everybody, including the model makers, are speculating. But they are awfully thoughtful in how they have thought about their models.
The problem is that no one other than those who've recovered from infection are likely to be immune. Which means that if it does persist in the fall, if it's reintroduced, even if we could get rid of it by the summer, and new cases are occurring elsewhere in the world in travelers who come back to the States or visit the States, there is always going to be a possibility of continued bursts and outbreaks in the fall.
And the question then, do you have to deal with them– how do you deal with them? And I think the sense, as the New York Times editorial by Zeke Emanuel and his colleagues said today, it's like going downhill on a snowy, icy road. If you put your foot on the brakes, you will crash. If you don't put your foot on the brakes, you will crash. So, what one does is pump the brake in a kind of responsive way to see where you are at the current time.
I think that's the model that the Imperial Group is saying. If it comes back, it will come back at a lower level than it started, because not everybody will be susceptible. And if you have to clamp it down for a bit and you have testing to see how extensive the number of sensitive people are to become infected, you'll have a guideline and something to measure whether things are getting from the 100 level to the 1,000 level, from the 1,000 level to the 5,000 level. And you have to introduce different constraints or suppression measures, depending on how easy it is to find a few contacts in one town in Minnesota. Or you have to shut down a whole state that seems to be problematic or reduce contacts in other ways.
So, I think the key to every decision making in policy depends on testing and having really smart people model the course of the epidemic in real time, not just by analogy to China.
OPERATOR: Next question.
Q: Hi. Thanks for taking my question. I guess it's kind of two parts. One, how long do you think the sorts of social distancing measures that are in place now in the US will have to be in place to prevent a surge in cases that overwhelm our health care capacity? And if we're sort of successful in the interim, do you think that it's possible that we could go back to a time where all we really needed to keep outbreaks from spreading is sort of widespread testing, and then isolating cases as they pop up, and tracing their contacts and isolating those? Sort of until we get a vaccine.
BARRY BLOOM: So, I believe that maintaining every level of social or personal distancing that was outlined in the Imperial College model has to be done. It starts with voluntary quarantine for anybody who thinks they may have symptoms, whether they have this or not. It means social distancing of those people who are over 70. But because of this fragmented health system in the US, every state is going to do something differently. So, making generalizations about the United States in this context becomes really very difficult.
Assuming we could have a systematic imposition of all of the above and that the leakage rate is something like 25%– that is, it's 75% effective– the sense is that they could really turn the curve down by two or three months. It won't go away. China didn't go away once they turned the curve down. But that might be the time that we could release some of the constraints on people, so they could resume more normal lives.
In Korea, people still went to work. They had to get certain permissions. They had to get tested at certain checkpoints. People were removed from their households to be in fever hospitals. There are lots of ways to try to contain the people who might be ill and allow others the opportunity to go to work. And of course, everybody in China and Korea wears a mask, even before this.
I think there's much that we could be doing during these three months that would help bend the curve to the point where, as everybody says, we protect the hospital system. I'm hopeful we could actually do more than that, to the extent that a lot of what needs to be constrained can be loosened by the fall– expecting there will be outbreaks in various places, but being prepared with testing, large numbers of people able to do contact tracing, which we don't now have with cuts at CDC over the past many years– we can tool up to find cases if the numbers are low.
But to be absolutely honest, as I said at the beginning, models are not predictions. And nobody really knows for sure how long it would take to really lower the curve that we could live in a tolerable way, and how much can be released of all of those constraints– schools, social distancing whole populations, protecting people of 70 years of age, isolating anybody with a fever from their contacts. How long we can do that is unclear. And I think that's a political question and a kind of solidarity question that we haven't been tested in since the Second World War.
OPERATOR: Next question.
Q: Thank you so much for taking the question. It actually goes along with what you were just saying. We hear a lot about contact tracing here in Florida and what they're doing with those efforts. But as we've reported in the Herald, testing is still really a challenge. We're only testing the most severe cases, the most symptomatic people, or those with known ties to travel. So, my question is, how effective can contact tracing be without that kind of widespread testing?
BARRY BLOOM: I think you've answered the question. Contact tracing can only work if you find, essentially, every contact. So, I would contrast, for example, at the same time, what was happening in 60,000 people being infected. And in another part of China, 200 people were infected. Guangzhou or Hong Kong or Singapore.
And the difference is once they knew what was coming, and once they had developed a diagnostic test, it works really well when you have a limited number of contacts and you can identify all of them. Once the numbers exceed the number of public health people that can find them or the number of tests you can do, it's very difficult to work by containment of known contacts or infected. You're working at social population level mitigation, which is locking everybody down to avoid social distancing at every level possible. So, testing really can be done best when you know what the problem is and you have enough tests for everybody.
Let me just say that we're using a challenging molecular test that has to be done by qualified people in high tech machines to get the answer at the present time. There are tests being developed– in China, they are developed– where with a stick drive, anybody in their house could look to see whether they have been infected with the coronavirus. It will not be 100% sensitive. It will not be 100% accurate. But boy, I would really like to have a test that I could look at tomorrow and ask whether I am likely to have been infected and then could report that somewhere. And we could get everybody's answer in without having to wait in lines and drive-through things.
So, the science is moving to the point where we can do that, not necessarily testing for the virus, but for example, testing the immune response to the virus, which starts as soon as you are infected. And a week later, whether you're sick or not sick, you will probably have an antibody that– we know how to do very quick antibody tests for HIV and many other diseases. And they could be made household tests as we do with pregnancy and other things.
It is how to move what we know how to do in a laboratory to a commercial area where people can get– on their own, be empowered to do their own testing. That would be the ideal for me. And that's not going to be tomorrow in the United States.
OPERATOR: Next question.
Q: Thanks for taking my call. I'm seeing a few things having to do with transmission and whether the virus moves more through the air or is spreading more on surfaces. I wonder what you can tell us about what scientists have figured out on that and what it means for public health recommendations.
BARRY BLOOM: A wonderful question.
To answer your question, that was published– we can go in the New England Journal paper where scientists actually did experiments to measure, if you put so many viral particles down on cardboard, or copper, or plastic, or steel, how long can you find viable viruses there? And the answer is– how much stays in the air? And the answer is a matter of minutes to hours. About 35 or 40 minutes you lose half of the viability. So, this is an exponential decay. It's not a straight line. It's a half-life.
And so, in that context, it's hours in the air if you're in the same room with somebody. If it's on a surface, it can be up to 27 hours as a common number of how far they carried out the test and find some level of virus, but much lower that was put down. Cardboard did better in terms of reducing the time the virus remained viable, for reasons that, at least, those authors had no idea, nor do I. We know that viruses in general like flu don't survive well on fabric, clothes, as they would in surfaces that are hard.
But we're talking about the persistence in some places for a matter of days on surfaces, which means disinfection is something that should be done at a minimum, in places like factories where there is lots of surface contact of goods and things, as often as possible.
OPERATOR: Next question.
Q: Hi, Barry. I have a general immunology question. We've been reading about NBA players who are infected but don't have any symptoms. And then other people who become very, very ill. Is this an unusual characteristic of COVID-19? Or is this typical of any disease?
BARRY BLOOM: I don't think it's typical of any disease. But I think there is a gradation in respiratory diseases. For example, in my favorite disease, tuberculosis, something like 2/3 of the world's population, perhaps, has been infected with the bug that causes of TB. Either they cure it, or it remains latent, and they're not sick ever. But at some point, some of them, particularly, with may become immunosuppressed either by chemotherapy, or by HIV, or their immune system wanes in old age, when their immune system shuts down– your ability to control a persisting infection goes down. So, in this context, it isn't terribly surprising there's a huge gradation.
In one of the key questions, which is an immunologic question is, is there any way to predict anyone who comes into a fever hospital, or a clinic, or a hospital for testing, can you sort who's going to get really sick and develop a cytokine storm and be life threatening, and who is just going to have a bad case of this viral infection and recover after 10 days? And the answer is, we have no test for that. There is a hint that there might be certain cytokines that– looking at China data, one unpublished archived paper preprint suggests there might be such a thing. And I learned that there are investigators at Harvard hospitals that are interested in pursuing that.
And that would be very helpful for hospitals to know who's going to get sick, but isn't going to need a ventilator, or respirator, or extracorporeal oxygen treatment. That would free up some of the major hospital interventions that we're worried about running out of. Research to be done.
OPERATOR: Next question.
Q: Thank you, Barry. What would you tell providers in the community– physicians and nurse practitioners– who are not in the acute care setting? What roles are they playing in this pandemic? And what can we tell them to help them help their patients?
BARRY BLOOM: I think the first priority I would have is how they can protect themselves. And this is where testing is so terribly important. It's one thing to know how to deal with a patient that you know has been infected and might be at a risk. And you would take certain precautionary steps in dealing with them. But if you're a school nurse and you have no idea whether your kids who are healthy are able to transmit the virus to you, or if you're a nurse in a hospital worrying whether you're in a position to transfer the nurse to your kids, those are serious questions that really worry the hell out of me.
And the protective tools that we have available to people at the second line– the high school nurses and practical nurses and home nurses– they're not there yet. And it would be really helpful if everybody knew who was carrying the virus for 10 days and stayed up and had to go somewhere. Tell someone that you're in contact with, I might have this virus. Please protect yourself. That would be ideal. But for that, we really need testing, personal protective equipment, and masks.
And I would start with masks. I'm not the biggest fan in masks, but there are a few scientific experiments that I can't dismiss that suggest that surgical masks are not all that bad. And in fact, in some studies, two studies, in hospitals, in seven medical centers, they were essentially as good as N-95 masks. I wouldn't count on that. But it's better than nothing. And in this case, anything that would protect the frontline people strikes me as something they try to utilize.
OPERATOR: Next question. Please go ahead.
Q: Hi, Professor Bloom. Can you talk a little bit about the recent government directives concerning nonessential surgery? How nonessential is being defined, who's defining it. Is this something that's being determined on a case by case basis?
BARRY BLOOM: It's a terribly [LAUGHS] important question to which I don't have a very good answer. My sense from the infectious disease people who are not surgeons, obviously, is that there is no general guideline that the federal government has put out as deciding what is essential and what is nonessential. Hospitals are being left, as I understand it, at least in most states, to decide on their own. And I have heard there's a clamoring in the network of scientific communication.
Every hospital, not least for liability purposes, but for real life purposes, would like guidelines on how to tell people who have a pain here and an appointment to look at their annual melanoma reading– to tell them what's essential and what's not. And we don't have those guidelines that I'm aware of.
OPERATOR: Next question.
Q: Hey, doctor. Thanks for having this chat. My question is more to do with public health and panic buying. Here in Ohio and across the country, we're seeing a surge in sales from everything from food, to hand sanitizer, and even guns and ammunition. From a public health standpoint, what are the concerns with panic buying?
BARRY BLOOM: They make things worse. That's the best that I can say. Because the most mobile, affluent, healthy people are the ones who are able to do the panic buying. And the most vulnerable, those in the elderly population, those not quite so mobile, those that don't own cars, are the most vulnerable. And this is a question that, really– I heard the president's speech yesterday and the comments that didn't include this today. This is where citizenship really counts. This is where solidarity of– we're all in this together and having 10 more rolls of toilet paper or disinfectant in my household isn't going to make anybody any safer. But it's going to put other people at risk.
And until we can get people to really think about, yes, protect you and your family first. But you don't have to buy off the store in every cereal. I can't get cereal in my local market. This is a matter of my view of what citizenship is about. And protecting everybody, not just yourself, is what being a good citizen is.
And I know it sounds platitudinous. But that's the spirit that I have heard from colleagues in Korea and after the fact in China. There's less complaining than you would imagine about social distancing. Because there is this sense that what I spare for myself may make available to somebody else. We need that spirit. And we need leaders that every level, not just political and government, but entertainment, and medicine, and elsewhere, to encourage people to be good citizens.
OPERATOR: Next question.
Q: Barry, I want to go back to the wet markets for a second. Do you think for the infectious disease researchers worldwide, knowing what they know about the wet markets, should join forces and call for the shutting down of all the wet markets across Southeast Asia and China? Because the health risks are there. People know about it.
BARRY BLOOM: Oh, people do know about it. And they've known about it for a very long time. I would direct the question at a different level. I'm not sure the government of China is going to listen to a bunch of public health people who write a petition. I think they would have to listen to the World Health Organization. And I am not aware– I'm not that in touch with what's going on at the moment at WHO– I am not aware that that's been a major thrust to get WHO to take a position on it.
WHO doesn't like to take a position that is targeted to individual country. And since there are countries in Africa that do have open markets and sell things like non-human primates for food, bushmeat, in essence, it is possible that in this occasion without directly targeting it to China they could get the World Health Assembly to pass a resolution. And I'd love to see the United States of America government, which is represented there, to support such a resolution.
We should not have open markets where species of different animals are in constant contact with one another. It's too great a hazard to the whole world to allow that cultural tradition to continue.
OPERATOR: This concludes the question and answer session. I will now turn it back over to Dr. Bloom for any closing remarks.
BARRY BLOOM: I am most appreciative of the thoughtfulness of the questions and, obviously, the knowledge of the people who asked them, particularly in the press. I hope the answers were helpful. And I am hopeful that this series of broadcasts from the Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health will continue to be helpful to you in your work at informing America of how we can respond to this epidemic. Thank you all for your input.
This concludes the Thursday, March 19 press conference.
Note: The transcript of this interview was published in Mar 2020. By this time Dr YAN who once took a photo with him had already landed on U.S. soil.
So let’s take a look at who on earth this famous professor is:
Amazingly he has another status: an important member on the Harvard China Fund Steering Committee, pretty shocking? What’s his relationship with Harvard? It’s interesting to know.
So, if there were any doubt from FBI or reporters about the truth of the scientist’s revelation, it would be easier to inquire the famous biovirologist directly instead of schlepping to HK to investigate. We could get all the answers from this expert: whether Li-Meng YAN was a faculty member of the HKU Med SPH? Whether or not her research was important? Whether the accusations and disclosure were true?
There were lots of stories excavated about this Harvard China Fund. We shall specially dedicate an article in our Expose Revolution Season 3’s Excavation Operation to systematically dig deep and explain. You bet, there must be some connection generated between this Fund and P4 lab.
Here’s a little revelation: In 2016, a sensational speech was given by the Harvard China Fund in Harvard Business School which was real shocking. The guest speaker was CHEN Feng, the then Chairman and Founder of HNA (Hainan Airlines Group)!
Here's the link to the video:
DT, the Digger, sincerely hope that Americans can study this video carefully, because this speech by Chen Feng, a so-called big man with CCP's ugly DNA all over him, addressing Americans basically represents CCP's fundamental attitude and perception level towards America and Americans.
6. Everything has begun
We put the final preface of this season at the end, and once again pay tribute to our beautiful hero scientist with this prologue excavation article.
"P4 Lab Series Season 3" General Preface
Eleven excavating survey articles for DT Excavating Team's "P4 Lab Series Season 2" have been launched.
Here, the DT excavator first thanks the justice scientists for their participation and interpretation. Without their participation and patience, DT cannot understand the abstract terms and the truth and secret hidden behind the technology. At the same time, I would like to thank all the volunteers who participated in the translation of the second season, because the difficulty of the translation work in the second season and the heavy of the task are unprecedented. I would also like to thank Mr. Miles Kwok and cofighters of the Whistleblowers Movement. Thanks to the Warriors of Hong Kong. It is Mr. Miles Kwok and the Whistleblowers Movement and the Warriors of Hong Kong who gave the DT excavating team the courage, confidence and inspiration for the CCP virus excavating. Finally, I would like to thank the kind Americans for their kindness and friendship towards the Chinese people. Thank you America, the Son of God.
The conception of "P4 Lab Series Season 3" was actually completed during the work of the second season. In the discussion with justice scientists, we have gradually clarified that there are only eleven articles from the second season. It is not enough to reveal the truth of the P4 laboratory; this is just a tip of the iceberg. Its follow-up work not only includes the outreach we forecasted in the second season, but also mainly based on the huge excavating data we have, continue to sort out and interpret, and deeply excavate the process of CCP virus generation and use. The secret behind the P4 laboratory. In this season, our justice scientists still work together with the DT excavator team to explain in detail some of the esoteric biomedical terms, concepts, and technical issues involved.
The system built by the Chinese Communist Party for 99 years and kleptocrating the country for more than 60 years，this is too huge to be said clearly in one season or two. This requires the DT team to invest time and experience to excavate continuously, so it is unclear how many seasons there are, and can only say "Everything has begun!".
In the second season, DT has stated that all the information excavated comes from public Internet data queries, meaning that DT does not have and does not use internal intelligence, but only systematically sorts, statistics，interpret and analyzes these public data. Of course, to verify the authenticity of these materials is not DT's job. Based on this, all DT's inferences and conclusions can be taken by the reader as a story, or they can be regarded as the facts and truths that have happened, and they can be logically judged and verified by themselves. Its impact, DT excavating team does not take any responsibility.
Of course, the excavation work of the DT excavating team is very valuable. Its value is to sort out the thinking path of CCP for strategic actions and layout, that is, to strip the thinking logic essence of CCP’s evil behavior, and to understand this essence CCP evil devil is not terrible. "Know yourself, know your enemy and win every battles", in the process of combating CCP, many cofighters and many institutions and countries are facing a "black box” to CCP. On this point, DT may have to talk more. The so-called "black box" means that you don't understand it, and results in fear and hesitation and wrong judgment. Mr. Miles Kwok said that "the truth break everything" is the way to solve this problem and crack the "black box".
The decisive battle between the civilized society represented by the United States and CCP is essentially an information war. The purpose of CCP to build a firewall using blue-gold-sex means is to create this "black box", to create an information asymmetry, and creating information asymmetry is the key to information warfare. For example, the use of firewalls not only blocked the public’s understanding of the real world and the truth, but also reduced to slaves of the party state through the brainwashing of the official propaganda system. More importantly, it shielded the United States from a large number of real intelligence sources of the Chinese Communist Party. The judgment for the Communist Party of China is based on false information or hard to distinguish true and false information. The asymmetry of this information will eventually affect the decision and judgment of the US side in the decision of Sino-US strategic relations. What is more terrifying is that it will affect the public opinion of the United States and even the general elections of the United States and the political direction of the government.
When the DT excavating team carried out this excavation mission, the so-called defrauding incident that attacked Mr. Wen Gui and the Whistleblowers Movement cofighters with a large number of so-called "awakening volunteers" collectively integrated media was a typical case of information warfare due to the "black box" information asymmetry.
Before revealing the identity of Zeng Hong’s hidden spy and he like, first to split Falun Gong and persecute overseas democracy activists, and then to discredit Mr. Guo Wengui, only from what he did and the so-called “mung bean flies” reporting and news exposure. It can be seen that these CCP hypocrites have asymmetric information in the face of the CCP ,the US and the Whistleblowers Movement led by Mr. Wen Gui, that is, they are facing a black box.
They neither understand the United States, nor the Chinese Communist Party, nor the Whistleblowers Movement. This is extremely sad and pathetic. Of course, their purpose in creating various incidents is also to use many people's ignorance of American culture, system, laws, and institutions to create chaotic incidents caused by misjudgment under the condition of new information asymmetry. Therefore, for some people's "dig me" clamour , DT is dismissive. The excavation about Zeng Hong and the mung bean fly are to remind the privies and cofighters to pay attention to what the black box of CCP is.
From Zeng Hong’s experience, we can clearly know the path of a spy lurking to become a pro-democracy activist in the United States: "Packaged into rights defenders to guide rights defenders to suppress rights defenders." Published anti-communist articles to obtain political capital and sneaked into Falun Gong, Applied for political asylum to obtain identity and status, Become a pro-democracy activist to divide Falun Gong, "Be brave and support Mr.Guo sneaking into the Whistleblowers Movement team, and create incidents to combat the Whistleblowers Movement." Note that this path is not the character setting or design of Zeng Hong's personal invention, but the CCP's consistent approach, and Zeng Hong's manifestation of the CCP Zombie slave perfectly proves that he is only a poor task performer, "everything is organized by the organization." The DT excavating tweet for mung bean flies is to reveal the methods and means of CCP using overseas students to conduct its overseas propaganda. The deep excavating of specific implementation methods and paths will be involved in the season three.
It is pitiful that these exploited persons are still asleep, not knowing that they are just a small chess piece. DT has sincerely reminded these CCP hypocrites to face these "black boxes" and spend time to read the articles on the Whistleblowers Movement, because they are ignorant of the CCP, the United States, and the Whistleblowers Movement. They know nothing about the whole world. It is conceivable that the ending and consequences of being the active accomplice of CCP can be imagined under the general environment that the whole world is re-examining and reviewing CCP.
Therefore, through a series of excavating articles, let everyone turn the CCP "black box" into a "white box" in their eyes. It is the core purpose of the DT excavating team to see the essence of CCP and the truth of this biochemical weapon virus war.
Of course, there are two basic tasks to be done before excavating throughout the third season.
Basics A. Summary of the second season
Let's summarize the second season first. In that season, we presented some systematic views and understandings that are the basis of our entire excavation work. It consists mainly of the following.
A. In terms of the content, pay attention to the time span and consider the underlying intent and reasons for the CCP's actions. Pay attention to particular time points in time and key changes.
B. The emergence of the CCP virus as a biochemical genetic weapon was not coincidental; the CCP virus definitely did not arise naturally, but originated from a CCP laboratory.
C. The use of ABC as a strategic weapon for strategic decisive war against the United States is a collective decision of the organization. The underlying cause is the organization's departure in values from the civilized world represented by the United States. Its evil nature and ambition to plunder wealth inevitably lead to an eventual strategic showdown with the United States. This strategy was carried out after June 4, 1989, by the Shanghai Gang, represented by Jiang Zemin, following in the footsteps of the previous generation of leaders, including Deng Xiaoping. The way it is implemented is by extracting wealth through the pretext and means of national economic development. Stealing U.S. science and technology by means of national openness, economic and cultural exchanges. Thus concentrating economic and scientific strength on the development of strategic military facilities and weapons based on information technology and represented by high technology. The means and methods of dueling are positioned as The Beyond War.
D. The core promoters of this strategy are the university system represented by the Chinese Academy of Sciences and the Peking University & Tsinghua University. And the controllers are the Shanghai Gang. Through this strategy, the high-tech control of the military, the state, wealth, and power is accomplished, thus achieving the strategic mission of perpetuating the empire, wealth, and family prosperity.
E. BGY and 3F plans against the US show their hideous face. The BGY are means and methods, and the 3Fs are goals. Both plans are concrete programs for implementation and action, and have already occurred.
F. The CCP virus is only one virus in the development of the "ABC" strategic weapon; the CCP has many more weapons and viruses. The development of the CCP virus as the ultimate biochemical weapon began with SARS in 2003 and took shape in 2016. Its main domestic developer is the P3 Laboratory, the State Key Laboratory of Virology at Wuhan University. The ultimate receiver of the virus weapon was the P4 lab at the Wuhan Virus Institute. The real managers of the P4 lab are military civilians with the Academy of Military Medical Sciences as the core unit.
G. The development of the CCP virus and the "ABC" strategic weapon employed almost the entire core scientific research capacity of the Chinese Communist State. The implementation and deployment of national projects, such as the "Knowledge Innovation Project", deliberately blurs the line between civilian and military use and conceals the truth in order to confuse the international community, mainly the United States, and to fool the public internally.
H. The super-team for the development and delivery of biological and chemical weapons of the CCP virus is an international team. Its implementation has been under way since 2003 or even earlier. At its core are the France-China Foundation and the French Pasteur institution system.
I. The strategic stockpile of biological and chemical weapons of the CCP virus is very large. Not only does it have the largest stockpile of viral strains, but it also has a long-term stockpile of experimental animals, laboratory and other hardware conditions, R&D software, basic databases, and biomedical personnel.
Each of these points is the key conclusion of the digging and analysis conducted in the second season.
Basic Work B The Importance of Understanding the CCP's Viral Strategy
The reason why the importance of understanding the CCP’s viral strategy is emphasized again in the basic work of the third season is because the “P4 Laboratory Season 2” reveals that ABC weapon (nuclear weapons, biological weapons, and chemical weapons) ,at the beginning, is a national strategic weapon chosen by CCP for a strategic decisive battle against the United States. This decision was made by the collective decision of the first and second generation of the CCP. The third generation of leaders represented by Jiang Zemin passed the militarization of all national economic strategies, and the unrestricted warfare ideology to implement it. In other words, the CCP virus did not happen by accident, it was not the personal behavior of a mad scientist and political ambitionist, and it was even less likely to have occurred through a laboratory leak. It is safe to say that the development of ABC weapons is aimed at the United States.
Only by understanding and attaching great importance to this point, that is, paying close attention to the fact that the strategic goal of the Chinese Communist Party's ABC weapons must be the United States, can we clarify the logic and the essential core of the practice in various plans such as the "Blue-Gold-Sex Plan", "3F Plan" and " 1,000 Talents Plan" , also see the essence of CCP virus, fentanyl, Beidou project, 5G, firewall, various overseas associations, societies, foundations, and Confucius Institutes.
Therefore, the national military strategy of "Informatization-based ABC high-tech development strategic weapon in three steps" formulated by Jiang Zemin during his tenure as the chairman of the Military Commission is the core goal and foundation of the Season Three. On this basis, we searched for clues and discovered a lot of information and jaw-dropping facts. And the logic behind these facts and the paths revealed have once again verified the accuracy of the information content of Mr. Guo Wengui's breaking news. Therefore, we have reason to believe that Jiang Zemin’s postponement of the chairmanship of the Military Commission is not just a power struggle. It seems that it is more a collective decision of the organization to ensure the realization of the strategic goal of CCP and a smooth transition to the command power of the decisive battle against the United States. Of course, we do not deny that there is a contention of power struggle, because if it do not fight for power and do not fight internally, it will not be the real CCP.
At this great moment that determines the destiny of the entire human race, We are glad to see our beautiful hero scientist appeared in front of the camera. We firmly believe that the emergence of Mr.Miles Kwok, Hong Kong warrior, Mr.Hao Haidong, Mrs.Ye Zhaoying, and the hero scientist is just the beginning, because justice must win, darkness Will eventually disperse.
Let us conclude with the sincere smile of the beautiful hero scientist:
Picture text：Yan Limeng said this in an interview with Fox News on July 10, 2020
“This has nothing to do with politics, it is related to whether all mankind can survive！！！”
Everything has begun.
Stay tuned next time.
This article ends.
Edited by 【Himalaya Hawk Squad】