Replies

This paper revealed the following key information:

The first patient had an onset of disease on December 1st, which was not associated with the seafood market.

The first patient had no epidemic association with subsequent patients.

On December 10th, another 3 cases had occurred, of which 2 were not related to South China seafood market.

Starting from December 15th, cases with a history of exposure to the seafood market are concentrated.

The paper counts a total of 41 patients, and 14 cases are not related to the seafood market, the proportion exceeds 1/3.

No bats are sold in the seafood market and no trace of bats has been found.

Not only that, but another issue of The Lancet on January 29 analyzed 99 confirmed cases at Jinyintan Hospital, 50 of which had no history of contact with the seafood market. The New England Journal of Medicine also has a paper showing that: Of the 425 cases, 45% of those affected before January 1 had no history of exposure to the seafood market.

Compared with the official report, it can be seen that there are obvious differences between the two. The corresponding official information is as follows:

The first patient’s onset time was December 8th, which was related to the seafood market.

The South China Seafood Market was officially identified as the epidemic source.

The first patient had no history of seafood market contact and the above mentioned 1/3 cases had no seafood market exposure Historical data.

Wuhan Institute of Virology’s Zheng Li et al., published January 23, refers to the horseshoe bats found from Yunnan Province containing a virus whose genome they announced was 96.2% identical to the Wuhan Coronavirus, thus virus from bats become a popular consensus.