Covid-19 Leaked Emails: WHO Feared Chinese Scientists Would Suffer Reprisals if the WHO Criticised China

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Breitbart reports WHO scientists were reluctant to publicly criticise China, because they were worried Chinese scientists supplying information to the WHO would suffer reprisals.

Report: W.H.O. Feared China Would Attack Its Scientists if Criticized on Coronavirus

The Associated Press (AP) on Tuesday reported on leaked documents from the World Health Organization (W.H.O.) that showed its officials were well aware China was withholding vital information about the coronavirus in January, even as W.H.O. leadership extravagantly praised China for its transparency.

For example, some of the emails uncovered by the AP show W.H.O. officials worrying that if they openly accused China of wrongdoing, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) would stop cooperating entirely, and might even commit violence against Chinese scientists who were trying to help. That’s hardly a refutation of the U.S. narrative, since American critics have long suspected W.H.O. played softball with China – putting hundreds of thousands of lives around the world at risk – because it knew Beijing was ready to play hardball with them.

Read more:

I have not seen the emails which allegedly express concern that Chinese scientists would suffer reprisals.

There is no doubt some Chinese scientists were subject to intimidation and threats, and who knows what other mistreatment.

Having said that, some people have criticised Chinese academics themselves for some of the secrecy. From the original AP article;

A major factor behind the gag order, some say, was that Chinese CDC researchers wanted to publish their papers first. “They wanted to take all the credit,” said Li Yize, a coronavirus researcher at the University of Pennsylvania. 

Internally, the leadership of the Chinese CDC is plagued with fierce competition, six people familiar with the system explained. They said the agency has long promoted staff based on how many papers they can publish in prestigious journals, making scientists reluctant to share data.

As the days went by, even some of the Chinese CDC’s own staff began to wonder why it was taking so long for authorities to identify the pathogen.

“We were getting suspicious, since within one or two days you would get a sequencing result,” a lab technician said, declining to be identified for fear of retribution.

Read more:

While not belittling the impact of Covid-19, if Covid-19 had been as deadly as historical diseases like Smallpox or the Black Death these mistakes would have cost many more lives. So in a sense we got lucky this time. Let’s hope the people involved in disease control who made mistakes take the risk more seriously in the future, and prioritise doing the job they’ve been entrusted to do, next time the world faces a deadly outbreak.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Gordon A. Dressler
June 3, 2020 6:11 pm

Eric Worrall wrote, in his concluding paragraph of the above article: “So in a sense we got lucky this time.”

With all due respect, Eric, I don’t think so.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Eric Worrall
June 3, 2020 8:15 pm

Eric, thanks for responding and I do indeed respect to your article. I took the exception that I did because unlike smallpox and bubonic plague and most previous pandemics*, COVID-19 started and progressed in a world having the ability for large amounts of humans to travel to almost all inhabited places on Earth in a matter of a day or so.

This modern capability for rapid travel, direct human-to-human transmission of COVID-19, and some unnecessary delay by China reporting the severity of this virus was a very UNLUCKY combination of circumstances: the virus was already widely dispersed into the world before its contagion rate and lethality were publicized internationally.

So, my apologies if you took offense in my post. I should have expanded on my comment for clarification.

*Eight of the world’s ten worst pandemics prior to COVID-19 occurred prior to 1960 and the advent of commonly-accessible, low cost international air travel.
(ref,in%20its%2012%2C000%20year%20existence. )
Only the flu pandemic of 1968 and the HIV/AIDS pandemic peaking 2005-2012, have been more recent. Ebola is not listed as being a pandemic in this reference.

BTW, smallpox has without question been the greatest scourge, killing between 300-500 million people in its 12,000 year existence!

Leo G
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
June 4, 2020 4:04 am

Surely, malaria and TB have been the most significant causes of premature deaths?
Tuberculosis still kills up to 2 million each year, more than 300 million over the 20th century and close to 1 billion in the last two centuries.
According to a 1999 estimate by the WHO Malaria could have killed more than 200 million in the 19th century and some researchers suggest that it may have killed more than half of all the people who ever lived up to the beginning of the 20th century.

HD Hoese
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
June 4, 2020 9:14 am

I suppose it depends on your definition as the worst in history left out polio and malaria. I survived polio, two in my high school class didn’t, and the sublethal effects are still with us.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Eric Worrall
June 4, 2020 1:17 am

Talking of Ebola, there has recently been reports (I can’t recall where I read it) of a small outbreak and some deaths. Victims apparently suffer minor symptoms and then die. While we waste vast sums of money on “climate” and destroy economic activity over COVID-19 we have a growing problem with Ebola, that, if escapes, COVID-19 will look like a dose of the runs after a dodgy curry on a Friday night.

Reply to  Patrick MJD
June 4, 2020 2:55 am

yeah its african again and theyve got covid ebola 4 or 5 dead and 4 ill as well as a measles outbreak
congo I think it is.
at least with the covid crap halting global airtravel that risk of it offshored is cut
but I see already the attempts to get tourist flights happening Israel of all places is puching to have a flight through there the big saudi? airport etc to do the eu to asian etc runs asap.
spain n greece pushing to reopen too
all after the tourist $ but before all the tourism fluff , people had jobs and did more productive useful work
time to revert to that?

mario lento
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
June 3, 2020 6:49 pm

Gordon: Given the way Eric posted his statement, your post is senseless. Your post only appears cogent if you exclude what Eric wrote preceding the statement.

So I will simplify it for you. We were lucky that this was not a more deadly disease, because based on how the WHO acted, it would have been even worse.

I am sorry I even needed to chime in on this but…

Greg Cavanagh
Reply to  mario lento
June 3, 2020 7:14 pm

Lucky the virus wasn’t more deadly, sure.
Not lucky in the CCP and WHO handling of it.
Not lucky in the reaction to it (our own politicians).

Even worse; the virus lab was doing research into virus so that they could formulate reaction plans should an outbreak happen. But guess what, they did the opposite of those plans.

Reply to  Greg Cavanagh
June 4, 2020 2:56 am

and then Xies missus IS the pr lady for the WHO
yup amazing what a singer/dancer? can aspire to

Reply to  mario lento
June 4, 2020 12:45 pm

mario: Luck? By the time lockdowns in USA occurred, we already knew the target groups most at risk (over 65, comorbidities, in nursing homes). COVID-19 pandemic fear may have started out due to the virus, but by mid-April at the latest it morphed into politics and power. There was no luck involved. However, the ramifications of the over-reaction may have far reaching effects, such as when a true pandemic-worthy virus appears, some people will be less likely to believe the info that WHO, China, Europe, USA, politicians, and one-sided news outlets tell us.

mario lento
Reply to  goracle
June 4, 2020 1:49 pm

Gordon: Context matters. I agree with you 100% on how this was handled. Read what I wrote, and please try not to fixate on a word by stripping the context.

Because I believe you are correct about the responses taken, I agree with you –we are not lucky that the virus hit and that we acted poorly. That is not what I said or implied or meant to convey.

I was attempting to defend that “If this virus was a worse one, our terrible response would have led to even worse consequences. Most of the damage was self inflicted, and political malfeasance prevented wide spread good mitigation responses (quarantine the sick, and treat with HCQ Zn etc).

Let’s hope we have learned from this experiment uninformed panic so that if/when a much more deadly bio contagion attacks, we do not act in similar fashion. We are lucky this was not a worse virus.

Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
June 4, 2020 1:45 am

Yep, this Covid was work in progress via the ‘furin linkages’ with known samples of ebola and henipa viruses going to Wuhan BSL4 lab some years ago , with recombinant DNA splicing of Gp41/ Gp/120 spike protein- can u imagine if same infectious capability along with increased ‘gain-of-function’ contagion were imparted to Henipa virus – WITH 70% mortality rate vs 3% for Covid19….Ebola is ‘only’ a 30% mortality rate….work in progress which escaped…

Linda Goodman
June 3, 2020 6:17 pm

Sounds an awful lot like ‘Look, we’re dissing China! Please give us money?’

Reply to  Linda Goodman
June 4, 2020 6:34 am

Yes, a few leaks at a time.

Nick Schroeder
June 3, 2020 6:34 pm

China does not matter.

What’s the story with NYC, NJ, NY and MA?
Together they had more Covod-19 deaths than the ENTIRE rest of the country combined.
NYC was around fifth place GLOBALLY!!
That takes some kind of special talent.

And if everybody keeps quacking about China nobody will go see what that talent is. (hint: it’s BLUE)

Japan has the highest percentage of 65+ at 27% yet didn’t even pass 1,000 deaths.
How did they do that?

Don’t look behind those curtains, there’s a three ring media misdirection circus up front with Trump, China and big pharma.

Bryan A
Reply to  Nick Schroeder
June 3, 2020 6:56 pm

NYC…Population Density
NJ…Population Density

Reply to  Bryan A
June 3, 2020 7:50 pm

Tokyo … Population Density.
San Francisco … Population Density.

Doesn’t Fit.

Charles Nelson
Reply to  Zoe Phin
June 4, 2020 1:03 am

Japan…respect for elders.
NYC, NJ, dump ’em and let ’em rot.

Reply to  Zoe Phin
June 4, 2020 2:29 am

“San Francisco … Population Density.

SF is NOT dense.

plus they locked down fast

Bryan A
Reply to  Steven Mosher
June 4, 2020 5:22 am

SF isn’t dense but a number of it’s politicians are.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
June 4, 2020 7:16 am

Lockdowns? I thought everyone was out in the streets protesting and looting 🙂

Bryan A
Reply to  Zoe Phin
June 4, 2020 5:25 am

NY, NJ, and MA are also states that Deny HCQ treatment…what else might they have wrong?

Adam Gallon
Reply to  Zoe Phin
June 4, 2020 7:40 am

Tokyo, very efficient Public Health Service. Was formed in the 1930s, to tackle TB. Unlike other countries, they didn’t dismantle it in the vaccine & antibiotics era. So fairly easy to repurpose it to test/track/trace/isolate Covid-19 cases.

Rhoda R
Reply to  Bryan A
June 3, 2020 10:26 pm

I’d say the state governors nasty habit of parking Covid positive patients back into the LTC facilities had a LOT to do with it as well. Over 40% of the deaths were from that demographic. I don’t think the elderly LTC inhabitants make up 40% of our population.

Reply to  Bryan A
June 3, 2020 11:05 pm

I would take the results from NJ and NYC with a grain of salt. Distorted by flash cash and top down control.

Reply to  Bryan A
June 4, 2020 6:48 am

Gov Cuomo is taking a lot of heat because of a NY policy of returning patients to nursing homes as soon as they felt better, without waiting for them to no longer be contagious.

Reply to  MarkW
June 4, 2020 1:02 pm

Cuomo should not just take heat, but the full fire for his continued stupidity.

Reply to  Neo
June 4, 2020 2:27 pm

Manslaughter, I think they call it.

Reply to  Nick Schroeder
June 3, 2020 8:27 pm

There seems to be some indication that T lymphocytes activated by other coronaviruses responsible for colds could provide some immunity. Coronaviruses producing this effect could have been more widespread in Asia. In addition, the Italian strain, which was also the predominant strain on our East coast, is more virulent.

Then there are all kinds of environmental factors and impacts from response, such as sending infected into care facilities with vulnerable populations.

Tropical Lutefisk
Reply to  Nick Schroeder
June 4, 2020 3:50 am

Totally agree. We need to figure out what happened in the NE US. In FL we locked down the elderly care facilities and did a far less restrictive lockdown compared to the NE US. Yet we have not had anything near the number of cases or deaths. Aside from the South Florida hotspots in Miami-Dade, Broward and Palm Beach counties, the virus has not been overly pervasive or deadly. So why are those three counties so much worse than the other 64 counties? We have a population of almost 22 million, we are a tourist destination, we have a high population of elderly and yet we have fared much, much better than NY or the other NE states. Those three counties are unique from the rest of Florida in a few ways though. Its much more dense than the rest of the state, there is a larger immigrant population and there are a lot of New York snowbirds. As a matter of fact, when NY locked down many New Yorkers came to Florida to escape the more restrictive lockdowns up there. Was NY a ground zero? I have no idea. But why NY and the NE was so deadly is definitely worth investigating.

Gerry, England
Reply to  Nick Schroeder
June 4, 2020 6:21 am

Japan? Simple – they were prepared for a SARS epidemic by having local health teams in place all over the country to operate a Track Trace Isolate programme as soon as the virus hit. The system dates back to before the war and is exactly what is required – a response at a local level to each separate outbreak. They also know that all cases must be kept isolated from the normal day to day hospital system otherwise you will end up with infection problems and a host of nosocomial deaths – just like the UK where that death toll stands at over 6000 in addition to the wanton infection of care homes that may have killed up to 10,000.

Robert J Doyle
June 3, 2020 6:36 pm

Late today, WHO reversed it decision that would have ended its testing of Hydro chloroquine. I feel the statements will be wrapped in bureau-linguistics.

Reply to  Robert J Doyle
June 3, 2020 11:01 pm

So the testing is continuing, is that what you are saying ??????

Bryan A
June 3, 2020 6:53 pm

China fired the first shot…
China fired the only shot…
China killed 350,000 globally…
Praise be to China…NOT

June 3, 2020 6:54 pm

Hmm, but didn’t care about tens of thousands dying an agonizing death from the Chinese virus, Wuhan flu. How do they sleep at night? Oh, right, they have money and access to drugs.

Reply to  bluecat57
June 4, 2020 3:08 am

leadership there never really has given a damn about the masses ie maos leap forward
as for the usa death rates
well your less than wonderful care system?
ran BY pharmas and health providers rather than anyone that gives a shit?

Reply to  ozspeaksup
June 4, 2020 7:41 pm

Deaths from Covid-19 per one million population:

Belgium 824
UK 588
Spain 580
Italy 557
Sweden 452
France 445
Ireland 337
USA 333

Now what was your point about the US healthcare system, again? In every case, including the US, government screw-ups increased the numbers, and the more government was involved, the higher the death rate.

June 3, 2020 7:14 pm

There are a lot of obvious lessons here. It will be interesting to monitor any new awareness arising from the current experience.

An analysis of what happened is the usual next step.
Things like what was the quality of the decisions which were made?
How could that have been improved? What are the economical, social and political consequences of future actions?

Is it too early to even start an analysis like that?

Irritable Bill
June 3, 2020 7:55 pm

The WHO knows it will be destroyed once the investigations take place…and why should the leaders not share the same charges as the Chinese who very obviously let the virus free to infect the world at the same time they had closed the borders to the rest of china from Wuhan….
Don’t trust WHO Donald Trump, WHO is asshoe!
And for those who haven’t seen what I am referring to…..

June 3, 2020 7:57 pm

There’s more to this story that will never be told in near time because the MSM is controlled. But from what we do know China’s reluctance, or plan, resulted in a pandemic that could have been avoided. China knew in December 2019 that the virus was deadly. Every day they withheld that information resulted in a geometric progression of the virus. Enough said.

June 3, 2020 11:27 pm

The net result of the leaked correspondence is that the WHO is incompetant, unreliable, biased and willing to sacrifice many lives to save a few Chinese scientists, and appease one of its primary contributors.

The next time they offer guidance, they should be ignored until they validate their reasono g. Governments that followed Neil Ferguson’s computer models without checking his previous pedigree, or asking for peer review, should resign or be dismissed immediately as they have proved themselves to be completely incompetant beaurocrats.

Neil ferguson should be put on trial for his totally unfounded predictions, for not seeking peer review and code review prior to release. He is a complete failure and should never work in the profession again. His actions are an act of terrorism.

We the people should look at who we are voting for, their suitability, as most of them are incompetant at serving us in a meaningful way.

There, I feel slightly better.

Reply to  Ozonebust
June 4, 2020 12:45 am

Confused here – why the conflation of Neil Ferguson and WHO. He is a British academic who was serving on SAGE. He predicted 500k deaths with no interventions in the UK. Meanwhile the Warwick group, also advising SAGE, published their data this week. That study indicated 370k deaths without intervention and a minimum of 50k with a strict lockdown. UK did not have a strict lockdown. That combined with the fiasco of care homes is why UK excess deaths is currently 60k and counting.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Mog
June 4, 2020 11:07 am

“Meanwhile the Warwick group, also advising SAGE, published their data this week. That study indicated 370k deaths without intervention and a minimum of 50k with a strict lockdown.”

Neil Ferguson predicted 500k deaths without the benefit of much information about the Wuhan virus at the time he made the prediction, and now a second group has come out with a prediction, after accumulating months of data on the Wuhan virus and their estimate is 370k deaths.

So Neil Ferguson missed it by 130k by making educated guesses. Is that what I should take from this? Is this a big or a small miss in the world of virus computer models?

Reply to  Tom Abbott
June 4, 2020 8:01 pm

My take is that the model showing 370,000, deaths is as fictitious as Ferguson’s model.

Sweden’s death rate is probably the most realistic simply because they took no action. Their death rate is currently 452 per million. They are the control group in this exercise. That the UK’s death rate stands at 588 indicates that the actions they took were counter-productive. In other words, had they done nothing, the deaths would be fewer. Indeed, some studies have shown that trying to lock people in place, instead of letting them move freely about outside and social distancing, increased the spread of the virus.

There were measures shown to be effective at saving lives – keeping the virus out of assisted living facilities, for example – but few places enacted those procedures without also implementing procedures that worsened the pandemic.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Tom Abbott
June 5, 2020 4:27 am

Quoting myself: “So Neil Ferguson missed it by 130k by making educated guesses. Is that what I should take from this? Is this a big or a small miss in the world of virus computer models?”

My question about this is: If Neil Ferguson had gone to Boris and told him 370,000 Britons would die with no mitigation, instead of the original 500,000 figure he offered, would not Boris have done the very same thing he did when he was given the 500,000 figure, i.e. gone to lockdown? I think he would have.

One commenter says he wouldn’t trust this latest model either, but why is that so? Doesn’t this latest model have just about all the data available on the Wuhan virus now? Wouldn’t that make it much more accurate than the educated guesses that were done when nothing was known about the virus? I think so.

A lot of emotion goes into trashing these virus computer models, but not much thought, it appears to me. People don’t like the shutdown so they make excuses for why it shouldn’t have happened, and that includes trashing the computer models.

One thing about the unmitigated deaths: We will eventualy know exactly what that number would have been. Then we’ll see just how accurate or inaccurate the models were. Perhaps some of you should hold your fire for a while until you see the lay of the land.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
June 5, 2020 4:50 am

Once a liar always a liar. This Ferguson chap has been “wrong” repeatedly, why does anyone listen to anything he says? Because they want to believe his crap.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Tom Abbott
June 6, 2020 4:09 am

“This Ferguson chap has been “wrong” repeatedly, why does anyone listen to anything he says?”

Well, supposedly this model that is claimed to be the best of them all, the one that predicts 370,000 unmitigated deaths was not done by Ferguson, but it’s only 130,000 off the 500,000 Ferguson predicted initially. Either figure, imo, would be enough to cause social distancing.

So it’s really not a question of believing Ferguson. He made a prediction that might be a little high but not off the mark far enough to change the policy Britain followed.

Claiming Ferguson is the source of all our shutdown problems is ridiculous. Dr. Birx, said she and her team looked at *all* the virus models, several dozen of them everyday, and I imagine everyone in the world did too, so they don’t make all their judgements based on one virus computer model.

And the one you imply is the worst comes near enough to the best model that there would be no difference in policy whether you used the Ferguson model or anothe model.


Andy in Epsom
June 4, 2020 1:05 am

To me this is very simple. The WHO have thought that for years they could cheat the world and just be the mouthpiece of China. Now this has become so massive and everyone can see just how complicit thay have been in helping China poison the globe they are panicing like crazy. So far I have read they the claim they were deceived, then they said that they were trying to do some ego stroking to get more information and now they were scared for Chinese doctors. Please just shut up and go away.

Reply to  Andy in Epsom
June 4, 2020 4:34 am

Good call Andy.

The WHO’s claims are self-serving falsehoods – protecting the few to kill multitudes – not credible.

When you are faced with a decision to put a few people at risk to save hundreds of thousands, the correct decision is obvious. See:

June 4, 2020 4:09 am

Good article and conclusions Eric – thank you.

I posted a Covid-19 summary weeks ago, included below. Willis and I independently called this Covid-19 illness and lockdown correctly on 21March2020. The point is not that we are so smart – the point is it was not that difficult to get it right, and two non-experts in the field did so and were confident enough to publish.

At the same time, the so-called epidemiology “experts” with their models got it totally wrong, and wasted trillions of dollars and harmed billions of lives with their needless full-Gulag lockdown.

This was only the fourth major conclusion that I have published outside my professional career expertise – and the other three, on climate-and-energy, were made after ~17 years of study – this conclusion, my fourth, was studied for only a few weeks. I did not publish my conclusions lightly – I was highly confident.

The open question is “Were the Covid-19 “experts” utterly incompetent, or were they deeply and widely corrupt?” How did they get it so wrong? Was that a deliberate scam?

The full lockdown was unnecessary – instead, we should have over-protected the elderly and infirm and everyone else should have taken reasonable precautions and carried on with their jobs.

Instead, we did the exact opposite. Some states like New York and the UK even adopted policies that selectively exterminated their elderly and poor. This made no sense. Whatsupwiththat?

Best personal regards, Allan


I examined a large amount of data on Covid-19 starting in late January 2020. Much of the data was of poor quality, with several exceptions. For example, the Diamond Princess cruise ship in Yokohama provided excellent data on the morbidity/mortality of Covid-19 for different age groups – it had little or no effect on the majority younger healthier population, but was highly dangerous to the old and infirm. That was my confident conclusion by mid-March. I published that the full-lockdown was NOT necessary on 21-22Mar2020 and events have shown that to be correct.
[excerpt- posted 21Mar2020]

Isolate people over sixty-five and those with poor immune systems and return to business-as-usual for people under sixty-five.
This will allow “herd immunity” to develop much sooner and older people will thus be more protected AND THE ECONOMY WON’T CRASH.
[excerpt- posted 22Mar2020]

This full-lockdown scenario is especially hurting service sector businesses and their minimum-wage employees – young people are telling me they are “financially under the bus”. The young are being destroyed to protect us over-65’s. A far better solution is to get them back to work and let us oldies keep our distance, and get “herd immunity” established ASAP – in months not years. Then we will all be safe again.

I concluded in writing on 21March2020 that there was no justification for the full lock-down, but an obvious need to over-protect the elderly and infirm. Countries that did so did very well.

In contrast, New York State Governor Cuomo (and others) did the exact opposite and eliminated multitudes of New York’s high-risk population. Cuomo mandated that nursing homes must accept coronavirus patients even though older people are the most at-risk to die from COVID-19!

Donald Trump was initially correct but was persuaded to change by his advisers. He wisely left the lockdown decision to the Governors, a few of whom actually got it right, but many more chose full-lockdown. Now the Dems are extending the lockdown to try to harm the economy – and Trump’s chances of re-election.

What really happened in many cities was a disaster – hospitals were emptied of patients, elective surgeries were cancelled, and then the hospitals were near-empty for ~8 weeks awaiting the anticipated “tsunami of Covid-19 cases“ that never arrived. Now there is a huge backlog of medical cases that will take many months to clear, and some patients will die awaiting treatment… and the economy is trashed, and low-income people are too, and small businesses are destroyed, and their employees are as well, and…

I don’t publish such strong conclusions lightly – my track record of being correct is excellent.

Statistician William M. Briggs independently reached the same conclusion based on more data:

The full-lockdown was an unnecessary, costly debacle.

June 4, 2020 5:00 am

No, they feared the money spigot would be turned off so they slow walked what information they were releasing and threw a bunch of false info in for good measure. Now the spigot has shut, it was Trump, not Xi, who shut it down and they are scrambling to try and get it opened. They have a delegation in DC right now meeting with Nanee Pelosi and her flying monkey squad to see what illegal sh*t they can pull to get it turned back on.

old construction worker
June 4, 2020 5:11 am

In early January I read a news article about a Chines doctor who rang the alarm bells about Coronas Virus. He was arrested and later died from the virus. Another article said (early January) that the city order 100,000 urns.

Reply to  old construction worker
June 4, 2020 5:40 am

“He was arrested and later died from the virus.”

Sure he did – when you upset the CCP, you get shot in the back of the head.

June 4, 2020 5:44 am

Or infected with something. Russia likes the polonium route, CCP likes giving people nasty infections and denying treatment till “your mind is right”, posthumously being their favored time to begin treatment.

Reply to  2hotel9
June 4, 2020 6:31 am

There is the international group called Doctors Without Borders (DWB) but in Russia there are ‘doctors that fall out of windows.’

Reply to  ResourceGuy
June 4, 2020 11:14 am

Yea, a spike in suic,,,,er, Arkancides does seem to be on the up swing in the good ole CCCP. Shrillary and Vlad probably exchanged some pointers on technique whilst Willie Jeff was busy in the cloakroom, and the scullery, and the bar liquor room, so forth and so on. They had plenty of time to kill waiting on him to finish up.

June 4, 2020 6:28 am

Sounds like the WHO was playing politics and diplomacy instead of public health. That is most shocking after their failure and late arrival to the ebola crisis. If this news has to be leaked, then they are still not playing fair with the public.

Jeffery P
June 4, 2020 7:06 am

O/T, but quite important — St Louis Today reports No new COVID-19 cases from Lake of the Ozarks crowds. No new COVID-19 cases from Lake of the Ozarks crowds, Missouri health director says.

An estimated 770,000 visited the area over the Memorial Day holiday weekend.

You may recall the media reports shaming party-goers for not wearing masks or proper social distancing. (See the drone video here:

So maybe the virus no longer as contagious as it was, or perhaps no very infectious outdoor in warm weather?

Mike McHenry
Reply to  Jeffery P
June 4, 2020 9:13 am

In New Jersey which became infected nearly all the numbers are in decline. Nearly 10% of the population (800K+) has been tested. Of that 20% test positive. The peak of hospitalization etc was mid April. So something has happened.

Mike McHenry
June 4, 2020 8:32 am

None of this should be a surprise about WHO. These are the same folks that told us coffee and cell phones were carcinogenic and lots of other nonsense.

Jeffery P
June 4, 2020 9:01 am

Won’t get fooled again, oh no, oh no, no
Don’t get fooled again, no, no…


June 4, 2020 9:11 am

Seems we are looking at the trees and do not want to see the forest. A major experiment has been run through the world populations based on a non-threat. WHO didn’t want to see some scientists impacted, but hey, downstream destruction and death are in consequential?

I recall that if you want to change a habit that it takes about 28 days to re-program the brain to a new behavior. So we are hit with a bogus reason to decimate the society as-constructed in order to create a new one by quarantining healthy people for four weeks plus? Reflect on that.

Who tells WHO what to do?

Reply to  Corkster
June 4, 2020 11:41 am

Agreed – this just does not make sense – the full-Gulag lockdown error was too great and too stupid.
What else is going on and who (WHO?) is behind it?

See my post above at

Roger welsh
June 4, 2020 9:46 am

WHO= bill and Miranda gates control!

Why don’t people shout about it and stop the evil. Only we can do it.

Tom Abbott
June 4, 2020 10:47 am

From the article: “Internally, the leadership of the Chinese CDC is plagued with fierce competition, six people familiar with the system explained. They said the agency has long promoted staff based on how many papers they can publish in prestigious journals, making scientists reluctant to share data.”

I wonder if they were reluctant to share their data with the only U.S. member of the WHO to visit China? What was his name again, Nick?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Tom Abbott
June 6, 2020 4:12 am

That’s what I thought.

William Astley
June 4, 2020 1:51 pm

Some good news. Maybe some really good news.

We may have a serendipitous, breakthrough, that will (if it works at it did for Ebola, Human tests, of the new optimized antibody on sick people, are now underway in the US) reduces the Covid death rate by 95%…

So, if we assume the Covid death rate is say 2%.

Early antibody treatment could reduce the covid death rate to 0.1%, and more importantly, almost all of those that do die, would have serious preconditions.

The antibody, if given to the patient early enough, stops the virus from replicating, ensuring almost everyone recoveries, almost symptom free.

The antibody starts to act in 20 minutes, and the patient is almost virus free in 48 hours.

Eli Lilly and Company said Monday it has started the first human trial of an antibody therapy designed to treat Covid-19.

Prior to the discovery of Covid, Eli Lilly had been working with a Canadian company, AbCellera…

And …. AbCellera have been working with the US military Advance Research projects, to develop.

…An optimized Antibody, that could be used to protect a population from a virus like Covid.

AbCellera have developed software and laboratory techniques, to rapidly find an optimized antibody design, that can be mass produced.

As soon as Covid was discovered, AbCellera who were working with Eli Lilly, started a program to develop optimized antibodies for Covid.

Eli Lilly are independently leading the clinical development and testing of the Optimized Antibody that AbCellera and they developed.

The antibody that AbCellera/Eli Lilly developed is called, in research documentation LY-CoV555.

LY-CoV555 is a highly potent, neutralizing IgG1 monoclonal antibody that targets the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2, the novel coronavirus that causes COVID-19.

This is a link to news that Regeneron’s antibody reduced the death rate due to Ebola by 95%.

Regeneron also has a covid antibody project.

June 4, 2020 11:43 pm

This is the time when responsibility must be determined and blame game to be removed. Poor and needy are tremendously suffering.

June 5, 2020 4:18 am

You mean it is time to find who is to blame and punish them? The political left calls that “playing the blame game”.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights