A Chinese research paper showing that the novel coronavirus had come from a Wuhan biolab and not from the bats sold at the Wuhan market had been censored by communist authorities and pulled out of online publication, according to American China expert and author Steven Mosher.
Written by Botao Xiao and Lei Xiao from the state-run South China University of Technology, the paper titled “The Possible Origins of the 2019-n-CoV coronavirus” confirmed that the China virus came from an animal known as the intermediate horseshoe bats, as alleged by communist authorities who said that bats were being sold in the Wuhan market.
But the researchers said the virus couldn’t have come from the Wuhan market, wrote Mosher in an April 2 article on LifeSite News.
“First, they point out there are no known colonies of this species of bat within 90 kilometers—that’s 56 miles—of Wuhan. Second, they diligently interviewed 59 people with connections to Wuhan and each and everyone confirmed there were no [horseshoe bats] being sold there.”
Mosher says authors of “The Possible Origins” paper traced the virus to two Wuhan institutes.
“We screened the area around the seafood market and identified two laboratories conducting research on bat coronavirus,” the researchers said. “Within 280 meters from the market, there was the Wuhan Center for Disease Control and Prevention (WHCDC). WHCDC hosted animals in laboratories for research purposes, one of which was specialized in pathogens collection and identification.”
Before the outbreak
Seven miles away, the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) was also conducting research on the same bats, they added.
Mosher says journalist Bill Geertz had documented how China researchers were extracting and studying deadly bat viruses in Wuhan labs. This was before the outbreak. Geertz had reported that even Chinese state media had been “boasting” how China had “taken the lead” in global virus research.
Botao Xiao and Lei Xiao, writes Mosher, noted that one WHCDC study used 155 horseshoe bats captured from Hubei province and 450 bats captured from Zhejiang province.
“They concluded,” Mosher writes, “that the first case of a human having contracted the virus was probably a biolab worker from the WHCDC or WIV who accidentally exposed himself to blood or urine from a bat and infected himself. They also suggested that infected tissue samples from research animals, or the animals themselves, may have wound up in the wet market.”
According to Mosher, the researchers also concluded that “safety” should be improved in “high risk, biohazardous laboratories,” and that authorities should “relocate [them] far away from the city center and other densely populated areas.”
Published February, the “Possible Origins” paper was quickly censored by Chinese authorities and disappeared online. But Mosher says the paper has been saved and made available by Wayback Machine and LifeSiteNews: www.lifesitenews.com.Warning on test kits
Earlier, Mosher called Beijing’s claim of having achieved “zero transmission” in its fight against the pandemic “sheer fabrication” and “propaganda.” He also warns against test kits and medical equipment China was sending to COVID-19 stricken countries, saying they would “not heal but kill.”
The first American social scientist to do research work in China in 1979, Mosher is the head of the Population Research Institute (www.pop.org); he’s a leading, if controversial, international scholar known for his exposé on forced abortions of Chinese women as a result of Beijing’s one-child policy.
In his latest book, “Bully of Asia: Why China’s Dream is the New Threat to World Order” (Regnery Publishing, 2017), Mosher warns against China’s history of bloody tyranny over its own people. He writes that “China long ago invented totalitarianism—the real subjugation of the individual to the state,” and believes it has the right to impose its hegemony on the rest of the world.
Mosher writes that China’s legacy of totalitarianism is conserved and preserved by the Communist Party of China, which insists on its “homegrown ideology of ‘Socialism with Chinese characteristics.’”
“Aside from a tiny handful of Marxist regimes,” he points out, “no one today is interested in emulating the ‘China model’ of governance, … a one-party dictatorship presiding over a socialist-fascist system.”
Very familiar with Chinese history and culture, Mosher writes that China considers its civilization superior to the rest of the “barbarian” world. He explains that Chinese hegemonic designs could be seen in its arrogant claim over the whole South China Sea, its repression of the Muslim Uyghurs, and its occupation of Tibet, and its social engineering project of filling Xinjiang and Tibet with Han Chinese while reassigning Uyghurs and Tibetans elsewhere so as to empty them of their own people to better exploit their natural resources.
“China believes its superior race and culture give it the right to universal deference,” writes Mosher.
China’s “narcissistic” and “xenophobic” worldview explains its heavy-handed censorship and diplomacy, Mosher explains.
Any question on China’s aid to other countries, such as the COVID-19 test kits that the Department of Health initially had said did not meet standards, are rejected by Beijing.
“China’s foreign policy [has become] increasingly heavy-handed and threatening,” Mosher notes. “[It] does not win plaudits abroad.” INQ