WHO-PRC Are Not Qualified Re The New Independent Investigation Of SARS2 Origin.

English Version

简说联合调查报告的数据作弊。
----中国和世卫组织因作弊而失去病源调查的合法资格。
直言简评，2021-07-20。
https://zhiyanleback.blogspot.com/p/who-prc-are-not-qualified-re-new.html
English Version

美国华盛顿邮报等新闻媒体报道，世卫组织和中国的新冠病毒病源的联合调查报告被发现数据作弊。最明显者，一个是病例病号地理位置篡改互换，另一个是病毒检测基因序列与病例病号不符、甚至替换篡改。应对采访，世卫组织发言人称之为【编辑错误】。国际学界质疑：再有编辑错误，也不会出现数据规模掉包；因此，必须清查是否故意弄虚作假。就此，中国方面拒绝采访和回答问题。

举例来看看那个【编辑错误】是啥名堂。譬如，掉包数据之一，是41岁病号病例及其病毒基因序列，放到另一个2019年12月08日以后的和60多岁病号头上；由此，报告说2019年12月08前没有发现病例，中国方面为此还重复发了报道和做了外交发言。然而，该41岁病例记录在联合调查前被删除，其发病住院时间是2019年11月20日到26日，即联合报告所谓的2019年12月08日前没发现病例之说、是对全球及全体联合国成员国故意撒谎欺骗。而那个60多岁病号病例没有完整数据，于是，【编辑错误】就把那个被删除的病例的基因数据放到该60多岁病号头上，似乎就有了完整数据了，新闻报道和发言人就说该报告多么权威、多么完整和多么开放云云了。那个【编辑错误】，不是故意弄虚作假的作弊、还能是啥？

其实，该联合报告的数据作弊程度大大超过该新闻报道所说的故事。

举例。报告大量篇幅说到病毒基因突变并以此为依据绘制了进化树、由此而说病毒传播途径来自海鲜市场或冷冻食品而极不可能来自实验室泄漏。然而，其依据主要就是联合报告使用的13个病例，故意回避其它病例，而其它病例的病毒基因突变足以说明传播图景与海鲜市场和冷冻食品无关。

不做全面数据分析，就来看看几个足够典型的案例，样本如下：
 

Samples Used by This Essay
Name	ID	Collect/Date	Discription
WH01	NC_045512.1	Y2019-12	Sample from PRC-Wuhan, Reference
AH01	MT415366	Y2020-02-03	Sample from PRC Anhui Province
AH02	MT415377	Y2020-02-18	Sample from PRC Anhui Province
AH03	MT281577.1	Y2020-03-10	Sample from PRC Anhui Province
m-Ind	MW927136	Y2020-05-10	Sample from India
m-Ind2	MW969758	Y2020-09-16	Sample from India
CW02	CN111218459A/en	Y2020-02-26	PLA Chen Wei Vaccine S-Gene patent

其中，
WH01：武汉病例，截止目前为比对参考基本案例。
AH01、AH02和AH03，中国安徽省的三个病例，联合报告回避使用。
m-Ind和m-Ind2，发生在印度的病例。
CW02，中国军医陈薇团队疫苗专利中的新冠病毒S-蛋白基因。

在密码子水平的初步统计显示：安徽病例的变异发生频率为18个，而印度的只有四个、其中一个还是两个案例共享的；安徽病例的突变为13种，而印度的只有四种、且其中一个是两个案例共享的。公开发行的基因序列记录说明，那些安徽病例与武汉海鲜市场无关，跟冰冻食品也无关。美国卫生部统计说明，在中国境内，仅S-基因突变就有46种；印度两个案例共享的突变TAT>TAC，在中国境内发生案例已经发生了22种。那些记录说明，病例与武汉海鲜市场和冰冻食品都无关。（见附后表格）。

那些数据说明，对病毒来历及其进化的关系树的形成而言，发生在安徽的病例具有相当重要的意义。然而，世卫组织和中国的联合调查报告却没有那些数据。

进一步看，世卫组织自己发表的病毒基因突变数据说明，全球规模疫情形成以后发生的不少病毒基因突变，其实都是【分支】，而【主干】或【基底】部分早已在中国境内完成。譬如下面记录：

Variant analysis of SARS-CoV-2 genomes
https://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/98/7/20-253591.pdf
D614G// 24 Jan 2020， EPI_ISL_422425， China。
L84S// 30 Dec 2019， MT291826， China。
L3606F// 18 Jan 2020， EPI_ISL_408481， China。
--- L3606F/V378I/，18 Jan 2020，EPI_ISL_412981，China。

等等，都是首发于中国境内的。世卫组织发表的该文献说：最常见的变异是同义 3037 C >T（6334 个样本）、开放阅读框 1ab 中的 P4715L（6319 个样本）和纤突蛋白中的 D614G（6294 个样本）。我们确定了 6 大主要分支（即，基底、D614G、L84S、L3606F、D448del 和 G392D）和 14 个子分支。在基底变化方面，以 C > T 突变最为常见，共有 1670 个不同的变异体。结论：我们发现严重急性呼吸综合征冠状病毒 2 (SARS CoV-2) 基因组存在多种变异体，其中 D614G 支系自2019 年 12 月以来已成为最常见的变异体。演化分析表明，这是一种结构化传播，有可能多次传入人群中。

无疑，那些病例对病毒来历及进化的关系树的建立，也是很有意义的。可中国方面却说那些发生在中国境内的突变是【境外输入】，乃至联合调查报告没有MT291826和EPI_ISL_422425等病例记录。

还有，上述中国军医陈薇团队的疫苗专利中的S-基因序列有三个密码子变异；该专利说该序列是针对WH01的，且疫苗于2020-02-26生产线下线；其疫苗可覆盖所有已知突变，而至今还没更新（即可覆盖至今所有已知突变，见后附表）。惯例，病毒疫苗开发至少半年（或数年）。如此看，最迟2019年08月，中国方面就具有了至今已知所有突变的病毒基因数据。可是，他们和世卫组织的联合调查报告故意不用2019年11月及之前的基因数据（甚至为销毁证据而删除相关基因序列记录）。

严重缺乏完整数据、甚至是基于篡改和伪造数据基础上的结论是不成立的。多年来，中国大陆以伪造数据而著称于世界学界，如今在新冠病毒病源调查方面又得到一次体现。而世卫组织也参与其中、为一个国家即中国的【甩锅】利益而对全球和其他成员国搞规模欺骗，这可能是联合国历史上的头一遭。

很值得注意的是，美国卫生部关于人类受体基因组ACE2的变异记录显示，中国大陆人口的受体表达频率最高且变异也是C>T最为常见。与此并行的是，在中国境内，基因编辑食品农作物（也称为生物设计育种或生物育种的作物）以常规育种名义全国铺开上市多年，其主要开发者李家洋和高彩霞等明白说明，他们搞基因编辑作物的一个主要目标实现，就是C>T最为常见。最近，欧美实验室检测发现，中国境内基改作物含有包括冠状病毒在内的不同病毒的基因成分。如此在同一时间段和发生于不同生命体的基因突变都完全符合实验室作业特征，这在自然界是不可能发生的，而在实验室条件下却可随时随地发生。这些互动因素也可说明联合调查报告的结论不成立。

简言之，上述数据并非全部但足以说明，世卫组织和中国的联合调查报告是为调查前就预设好的结论而选择病例数据、故意不选用不利于预设结论的数据，甚至还删除、销毁和篡改不利于预设结论的病例记录。在国际规范中，那种行为属于刑法规定的搞伪证和销毁证据的行为。众所周知，搞伪证的结论不但不成立，且涉嫌严重违法乱纪。

就世卫组织说了同意实行第二次调查，中国方面发言人说，该调查报告为今后提供了【基础】云云，那无疑是鼓动联合国机构按照中国【甩锅】需要而继续对全世界和各成员国继续搞伪证欺骗。搞伪证的行为是欺骗行为，是没有资格再搞调查的。其实，已经发现证实的数据和官方公开发表的当事人言行，都足以说明病毒病源来自中国实验室作业，问题在于泄漏是事故还是故意；而造成全球规模疫情显然是因为世卫组织渎职和联手中国方面、故意纵容来自中国的旅客把病毒传播到世界各国。因此，新的独立调查就不再是可以导致无休止（甚至是搅混水）的科学调查问题，而是必须在给定时间内有个明确答案的国际法医调查问题。就此而言，世卫组织和中国方面不但已经因数据作弊而失去再次调查的合法资格，且应是新的独立调查的对象。


表格一：

表格二：

表格三：


=#=

 

　

---

English Version

WHO-PRC Are Not Qualified Re The New Independent Investigation Of SARS2 Origin.
Zhiyan-Le, 2021-07-20 (Google on-line translation)

The Washington Post and other news media reported that the joint investigation report of the WHO and China on the source of the new crown virus was found to be cheating. The most obvious one is that the geographic location of the patient's disease number has been altered and exchanged, and the other is that the virus detection gene sequence does not match the case's disease number, or even replacement and tampering. In response to the interview, the WHO spokesperson called it [editing error]. The international academic community questioned: No matter if there are editing errors, there will be no data loss; therefore, it is necessary to check whether it is deliberately falsified. In this regard, the Chinese side refused to interview and answer questions.

Let’s take an example to see what the [editing error] is. For example, one of the dropped packets is the 41-year-old sick number case and its viral gene sequence, and put it on the head of another 60-year-old sick number after December 08, 2019; thus, the report says December 08, 2019 No cases have been detected before, and the Chinese side has repeatedly reported and made diplomatic statements for this. However, the 41-year-old case record was deleted before the joint investigation, and the onset and hospitalization period was from November 20 to 26, 2019. That is, the joint report said that no case was found before December 8, 2019. All UN member states deliberately lied and deceived. And the 60-year-old disease number case did not have complete data, so [editing error] put the genetic data of the deleted case on the 60-year-old disease number head, it seems that there is complete data, news reports and The spokesperson said how authoritative, complete and open the report is. That [editing error] is not a deliberate cheating, what else can it be?

In fact, the degree of cheating in the data of the joint report greatly exceeds the story in the news report.

For example. The report has a large amount of space talking about viral gene mutations and drawing an evolutionary tree based on this. Therefore, it is said that the virus transmission route comes from the seafood market or frozen food and is extremely unlikely to come from laboratory leaks. However, the basis is mainly based on the 13 cases used in the joint report, deliberately avoiding other cases, and the mutation of the virus gene in other cases is sufficient to show that the picture of transmission has nothing to do with the seafood market and frozen food.

Without doing a comprehensive data analysis, let's take a look at a few typical enough cases. The samples are as follows:
 

Samples Used by This Essay
Name	ID	Collect/Date	Discription
WH01	NC_045512.1	Y2019-12	Sample from PRC-Wuhan, Reference
AH01	MT415366	Y2020-02-03	Sample from PRC Anhui Province
AH02	MT415377	Y2020-02-18	Sample from PRC Anhui Province
AH03	MT281577.1	Y2020-03-10	Sample from PRC Anhui Province
m-Ind	MW927136	Y2020-05-10	Sample from India
m-Ind2	MW969758	Y2020-09-16	Sample from India
CW02	CN111218459A/en	Y2020-02-26	PLA Chen Wei Vaccine S-Gene patent

among them,
    WH01: Wuhan case. So far, it is the basic case for comparison.
    AH01, AH02 and AH03, three cases in Anhui Province, China, were jointly reported to avoid use.
    m-Ind and m-Ind2, cases that occurred in India.
    CW02, the new coronavirus S-protein gene in the vaccine patent of the Chinese military doctor Chen Wei's team.

Preliminary statistics at the codon level show that the frequency of mutations in Anhui cases is 18, while there are only four in India, and one of them is shared by two cases; there are 13 mutations in Anhui cases, while there are only four mutations in India. And one of them is shared by the two cases. The publicly issued genetic sequence records show that those Anhui cases have nothing to do with the Wuhan seafood market, nor with frozen food.

Statistics from the U.S. Department of Health show that there are 46 S-gene mutations in China alone; 22 of the mutations TAT>TAC shared by the two cases in India have occurred in China. Those records indicate that the case has nothing to do with the Wuhan seafood market and frozen food.

Those data show that the cases in Anhui are of great significance to the formation of the relationship tree of the virus's origin and evolution. However, the WHO-China joint survey report does not have those data.

Taking a closer look, the WHO's own published viral gene mutation data show that many viral gene mutations that have occurred after the formation of a global epidemic are actually [branch], and the [main] or [base] part has already been completed in China. For example, the following record:

Variant analysis of SARS-CoV-2 genomes
URL: https://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/98/7/20-253591.pdf
D614G// 24 Jan 2020， EPI_ISL_422425， China。
L84S// 30 Dec 2019， MT291826， China。
L3606F// 18 Jan 2020， EPI_ISL_408481， China。
--- L3606F/V378I/，18 Jan 2020，EPI_ISL_412981，China。

And so on, they all started in China. The document published by the WHO stated that the most common variants are synonymous 3037 C >T (6334 samples), P4715L in open reading frame 1ab (6319 samples) and D614G (6294 samples) in fibrillin . We identified 6 major branches (ie, base, D614G, L84S, L3606F, D448del, and G392D) and 14 sub-branches. In terms of basal changes, C> T mutations are the most common, with a total of 1670 different variants. Conclusion: We found that there are many variants in the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS CoV-2) genome, among which the D614G branch has become the most common variant since December 2019. Evolutionary analysis shows that this is a structured transmission, which may be introduced into the population many times.

Undoubtedly, those cases are also very meaningful for the establishment of the relationship tree of the virus's origin and evolution. However, the Chinese side said that the mutations that occurred in China were [imported from abroad], and even the joint investigation report did not have records of cases such as MT291826 and EPI_ISL_422425.

In addition, the S-gene sequence in the vaccine patent of the Chinese military doctor Chen Wei’s team has three codon variations; the patent says that the sequence is for WH01, and the vaccine will be offline on the 2020-02-26 production line; the vaccine can cover All known mutations, which have not been updated so far (that can cover all known mutations so far, see the attached table). Conventionally, virus vaccines are developed for at least half a year (or several years). Looking at it this way, China has all the genetic data of the virus that has been mutated so far by August 2019 at the latest. However, the joint investigation report between them and the WHO deliberately did not use the genetic data of November 2019 and before (and even deleted the relevant genetic sequence records in order to destroy the evidence).

There is a serious lack of complete data, and even conclusions based on tampering and falsifying data are untenable. Over the years, Mainland China has been known in the world academia for falsifying data, and now it has once again been reflected in the investigation of the source of the new coronavirus. The World Health Organization also participated in the deception of the world and other member states for the benefit of a country, namely China. This may be the first time in the history of the United Nations.

It is worth noting that the U.S. Department of Health's record of mutations in the human receptor genome ACE2 shows that the receptor expression frequency in the mainland Chinese population is the highest and the mutation is also the most common C>T. In parallel with this, in China, gene-edited food crops (also known as bio-design breeding or bio-breeding crops) have been marketed nationwide under the name of conventional breeding for many years. The main developers Li Jiayang and Gao Caixia clearly explained One of their main goals for gene-edited crops is that C>T is the most common. Recently, laboratory tests in Europe and the United States have found that genetically modified crops in China contain genetic components of different viruses, including coronaviruses. In this way, gene mutations that occur in different organisms at the same time period are completely in line with the characteristics of laboratory operations. This is impossible in nature, but can occur anytime and anywhere under laboratory conditions. These interactive factors can also show that the conclusions of the joint investigation report are not valid.

In short, the above-mentioned data are not all but sufficient to explain that the joint investigation report of WHO and China selected case data for the pre-established conclusions before the investigation, deliberately not selected data that was not conducive to the pre-determined conclusions, or even deleted them. , Destroying and falsifying case records that are not conducive to pre-determined conclusions. In international norms, that kind of behavior belongs to the criminal law to engage in perjury and destroy evidence. As we all know, the conclusion of perjury is not only untenable, but is also suspected of serious violation of law and discipline.

Regarding the WHO’s agreement to carry out the second investigation, the Chinese spokesperson said that the investigation report provides a [foundation] for the future, which undoubtedly encourages the UN agencies to continue to deal with the world in accordance with the needs of China. Member states continue to engage in perjury and deception. The act of perjury is deceptive, and it is not eligible for further investigation. In fact, it has been found that the confirmed data and the official publicly published words and deeds of the parties are sufficient to explain that the source of the virus originated from laboratory operations in China. The question is whether the leak was an accident or intentional; and the global scale of the epidemic was obviously caused by WHO's malfeasance and cooperation with China , Deliberately condone travelers from China to spread the virus to countries around the world. Therefore, the new independent investigation is no longer a scientific investigation question that can lead to endless (even mixing water), but an international forensic investigation question that must have a clear answer within a given time. In this regard, the WHO and China have not only lost the legal qualifications for re-investigation due to data cheating, but should also be the subject of a new independent investigation.
 

Table 01：

Table 02：

Table 03:


　

=#=