wuhan chupacabra
wuhan chupacabra

@WuhanChupacabra

67 Tweets 3 reads Aug 03, 2023
"At this stage, the nearest relatives to SARS-CoV-2 are found in Yunnan and Laos. The only known link to Wuhan is the Wuhan Institute of Virology sampled both locations and have refused to share their SrCVs with WHO or the NIH." thebulletin.org
The response to the BBC article. Included raccoon dogs, toilets, correlation, contamination and cross contamination, as well as response to linfa wang.
archive.md
Sorry, but raccoon dogs were still entirely non-susceptible, and there were also zero evidence that any mammals shed the virus in those Q* samples other than Homo Sapiens.
archive.md
Response to that vanityfair article.
The correlation is merely icing on the cake. The real kicker is that there is zero evidence of natural infections ever happening in a raccoon dog despite active surveillance in Europe and in Japan since freuling et al came out. archive.md archive.md
there is just no evidence at all that the virus in those Q* samples or in W6-29-33 was brought in on four legsβ€”when you run correlation analysis within the stall itself, all other correlation with mammals other than Homo Sapiens broke down. Raccoon dogs are always in
contamination of the sample tube lip by the suits of the samplers created one single PCR-/NGS+ in a stall that tested negative in 01/01/2020. the PCR is negative despite alignment over the ORF1ab primer, archive.md and despite focused resampling sue to confirmation
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov bias on snakes, they were unable to gather a positive result from the location again, and all they got were samples full of artifacts, cumulating in samples, still lineage reads-free, that contained fresh transcriptomes of human and SARS-CoV-2 and no
reads of any other mammals than Homo Sapiens.
It was never the correlation that killed the raccoon dogsβ€”zero evidence of positive correlation regardless of which slice you useβ€”It is the complete lack of natural infection evidence anywhere in the world. archive.md
In both Jan 01 and in Jan12, the stall with the most positive samples out of all samples is the stall closest to the toiletsβ€”W4-26(2/2)and outside of W4-26-28(5/6 or 5/9 for all samples W4-26-28) for Jan01, W6-29-33(5/10) in Jan 12 is closest to the toilets.
Toilets->cleanup workers and samplers->stalls. archive.md The only cover-up they orchestrated is to clean up and bleach the toilets and the main streets before the sampling is performed to cover up the track of contamination. Or β€œit is the samplers” is going
To be painfully obvious and totally embarrassing. archive.md archive.md
unfortunately, bleaching the toilets just leave behind one last batch of samples which the infected sampler dropped pure human DNA alongside SARS-CoV-2.
As none of the "wildlife stall" samples contained a lineage read, the possibility that the one infected sampler in WCDC dropped both A20 PPE in 31/12/2019 and then shed contamination in at least some of the "wildlife stall samples", can not be ruled out.
And guess why there were many stalls that had neither wildlife nor human cases? Well they are all located on the site where contamination from the toilets would occur. archive.md
Both jbloom data and alex C-C data indicate that the only species in consistent or significant positive correlation within these "wildlife stalls" is Homo Sapiens. archive.md
Must contact a sampler, must not be frequently handled by a vendor. That is what these samples show. Not human cases, not animals, there is no epidemiological pattern at all in these samples only patterns of contamination after the market have been closed. archive.md
Boot prints. Not animals. Not even human cases and the objects they contact most frequently. archive.md Nothing above waist height of the samplers in the market is positive. the overwhelming majority of the positive samples are below step height.
Neither wildlife nor human cases. Closest to toilets. Some had only human DNA inside.
archive.md not surprising that the stall that was closest to the toilets also being the stall that is closest to the toilets.
When the only β€œreference for raccoon dog susceptibility” was still freuling et al, you know something is terribly wrong with that β€œraccoon dogs at the market” claim. archive.md
Which is entirely expected consider that the samplers even sat on the surfaces before samplingβ€”none of them had even the basic training on scene preservation or to not contaminate the surface by walking besiding it and kicking, trampling or rubbing against it before sampling it.
Even more problems exist archive.md archive.md
SARS-CoV-1 spilled over 7 times in 7 markets in Foshan and 2 times in 2 markets in Guangzhou. causing 3 major outbreaks. markets in Hubei share the same supply chain, and farms in Yunnan that is large enough
to sell to Hubei would always sell to Guangdong--the primary distribution hub of wildlife trade in China and where the vast majority of all wild animals traded in China is consumed. even much of the animal supply of Huanan itself is distributed first through Guangdong. An absence
of primary infections in Guangdong or in other markets in Wuhan already rule out infected animals--something that China is rarely correct on.
anywhere in the wildlife supply chain in China.
4 out of the 5 samples in W4-26-28, all on the outside surfaces, contained no reads from wild animals at all.

Loading suggestions...