, the team zeroed in on the southwestern section of the Huanan market, where live animals were sold as recently as 2019, as being the potential epicentre of the outbreak. The researchers arrived at this conclusion by compiling information on the first known COVID-19 cases in China, as reported by various sources, including the WHO investigation, newspaper articles, and audio and video recordings of doctors and patients in Wuhan.
The authors also examined the locations of the positive samples collected in the market, as reported in the WHO study, and fleshed out information about the potential surroundings of these spots by collecting business registration information, photographs of the market before it closed and scientific reports that have emerged since the WHO’s investigation.
One major finding reported by Andersen and colleagues is the mapping of five positive samples from the market to a single stall that sold live animals, and, more specifically, to a metal cage, to carts used to move animals and to a machine used to remove birds’ feathers.
Taking all of the new data together, and adding a degree of speculation, Andersen suggests that raccoon dogs could have been infected on a farm that then sold the animals at the markets in Wuhan in November or December 2019, and that the virus might have jumped to people handling them or to buyers. On at least two occasions, those infections could have spread from an index case to other people, he says.
I didn't know a prestigious scientific publishing group would one day suck up to CCP propaganda and shamelessly sell itself to a pittance thrown to them by a reprehensible regime.
‘Garbage In, Garbage Out’, unfortunately MichaelWorobey ‘s paper falls into this GIGO category! Because the inputs (Chinese CDC record of COVID cases) were fabricated by intentionally required the epic-link to market. Read the thread to find why.
Yeah, definitely not the Wuhan institute of virology.
please stop tweeting this. These studies have not been peer reviewed. Also the title it's somewhat misleading. The virus could have leaked from a lab in Wuhan and through infected people found its way to the market where it rapidly spread.
EPICENTRE DISTINTO A CREACIÓN DEL VIRUS POR PARTE DE CHINA.
In the end, it might help humans to understand that dogs are the most loyal and should not be treated as food. Raccoon dogs are my cousins.
Dirty fucking people and country should pay the world
Let’s not eat the unclean
I can't believe how much slack this post is getting! But hey, 2.5 years of careful research is less interesting to me than the opinions of twitter folks, so I'm convinced!
CHINA'TURE. Reputation as the most trusted and authoritative scientific journal has eroded forever.
covid was already circulating since September in Europe, so i can't belive this
This is the third time I've seen you retweet this nonsense. You don't like the replies to your post or what? Read what you published in 2015...
How about Fort Detrick? More information?
Slap in the face🤣:'Liang Wannian, the head of a Chinese government expert panel, said...it was unscientific to conclude that some early cases of people living close to the market was proof that it was the origin of the community transmission.'
I don’t believe that
United States United States Latest News, United States United States Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Wuhan market was epicentre of pandemic’s start, studies suggestReport authors say that the coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 jumped from animals sold at the market into people twice in late 2019 — but some scientists want more definitive evidence. Hmmmmmm 🤔 Does anyone checked Fort Dekrit? 🧐🧐🧐🤔🤔🤔
Source: Nature - 🏆 64. / 68 Read more »
Wuhan market was epicentre of pandemic’s start, studies suggestReport authors say that the coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 jumped from animals sold at the market into people twice in late 2019 — but some scientists want more definitive evidence. Thanks nature 💰 2 studies to flatten the truth.
Source: Nature - 🏆 64. / 68 Read more »
Source: YahooNews - 🏆 380. / 59 Read more »
Source: sciam - 🏆 300. / 63 Read more »
Source: WebMD - 🏆 709. / 51 Read more »
Source: kgun9 - 🏆 584. / 51 Read more »