‘Investigation’ into virus origins is a sham

I think this story, which I first published 12 months ago, proves this charge. Maybe one official or MSM investigative journalist who’s genuinely interested in the truth will read it.

Diogenes was a Greek philosopher best known for holding a lantern to the faces of the citizens of Athens claiming he was searching for an honest man. I’m still searching for one honest virus-origins official.

Author’s note: For the first time since I began publishing a Substack newsletter 14 months ago, I’d like to re-run an article. I’m doing this because I think this story - which I first published November 16, 2022 (approximately 40 days after I started this newsletter) - did not receive nearly enough attention. Also, because upon further reflection, I think this is one of the most important articles I’ve written.

Indeed, I believe details presented in this article are compelling enough to make any serious person re-examine the entire “authorized” narrative on the origins of Covid.

My original story was long. However, the length was necessary to make what I believe are the salient points, which include these:

* At least two residents of Snohomish County Washington had contracted Covid by late to mid-December 2019. Significantly, this would be at the same time or before the “live market” in Wuhan, China took place. 

* According to the accepted origins narrative still endorsed by many scientists, the Wuhan Live Market was the origin event for the spread of the novel coronavirus around the world. Significantly, this could not be the case if these two people, who had never been to Wuhan, also had Covid before or at the same time as this event.

* Also of significance: Public health officials in Washington D.C. and Atlanta at the CDC must have known of these two likely/possible early cases (among many other likely early cases in America). Despite this knowledge, public health officials continued to insist that virus spread in America did not commence until “latter January” 2020. Public health officials still date the first “confirmed” case of Covid in America to January 19, 2020.

• Public health officials were clearly not telling the truth when they assured the public they would continue to investigate all possible early cases. 

* I believe key officials concealed compelling evidence of “early spread” primarily by not investigating - and then “confirming” - possible early cases. This belief, if sufficiently proven, should qualify as a massive scandal as every part of the policy-response to Covid would likely have changed if “early spread” had been widely acknowledged by the public.

* At least two cases in Washington should have been labeled as “confirmed” Covid (not “probable”). As this article illustrates, public health officials inexplicably refused to investigate  65 other possible “cases” in this state that also likely occurred before latter January 2019.

* Virus spread was occurring in Washington state by November 2019 if not earlier. Officials either knew this or should have known this. 

* The “official” timeline of when virus spread began to occur in America and the world is clearly erroneous - intentionally so in my opinion.

• I believe vast numbers of people who later died from “vaccines,” from “collateral damage” caused by the lockdowns and from criminal iatrogenic protocols would be alive today if “early spread” had been “confirmed” by mid-March 2020.

I re-publish this article in the hopes that any public official, member of a Congressional Committee or legitimate investigative journalist might read this article and, belatedly, do their job and ask the common-sense questions they’ve yet to ask.

Trust in the honesty and competence of public officials and institutions underpins any democratic system of government. This article provides further evidence that this trust is very likely misplaced.

Note: I made a few minor edits, deleted some text and added new text I think is important to my original story.

Early spread can (literally) NOT be ‘confirmed’

Almost four years after the official start of the global Covid pandemic, I’m still unaware of any mainstream journalist who has challenged public health officials on the vitally-important question of when this virus actually began to spread across America and other countries.

In today’s dispatch, I highlight several points relevant to my on-going “early spread” investigation:

• CDC officials were almost certainly not telling the truth when they stated as fact on May 29, 2020 that there were “no indications” of virus spread in America until “latter January” 2020.

• At least two weeks before this CDC press conference, public health officials in Washington state had chronicled at least two “probable” cases in their state that dated to December 2019. Washington public health officials further stated there could have been as many as 65 other “cases” that officials admitted they were simply not going to investigate.

• While CDC officials stated on May 29, 2020 that they were going to continue to investigate possible early cases, this has clearly never happened so this was another false statement.

• The definition of a “confirmed” case of Covid seems to have been intentionally created to rule out any possible evidence of early spread. Indeed, per the operative CDC definitions, it seems that nothing can “confirm” a case of early infection in America.

• Also, the definition of a “confirmed case” has not been consistently applied as language found in the CDC’s antibody study of sailors on the USS Teddy Roosevelt confirms.

I believe at least some officials have long been aware of “early spread” evidence that pre-dates the official timeline. Officials have either ignored this evidence or intentionally made the decision to NOT investigate this possibility. If I’m correct, this constitutes, at worst, a criminal cover-up or, at best, gross malfeasance and professional incompetence.

At least two likely December 2019 cases in

Snohomish County, Washington ….

According to a story published on Page 1 of The Seattle Times on May 14, 2020, two Snohomish County residents who were sick with COVID symptoms in December 2019 later tested positive for COVID antibodies.

According to information included in Seattle Times articles, up to 65 other local cases may have been linked to serology tests.

Times’ journalist Lewis Kamb provided details about only one of these “probable” cases - that of a 64-year-old retired nurse the story identifies by her middle name, Jean.

“She came down with a bug two days after Christmas, and for the next week or so, Jean … suffered through a series of worsening symptoms: a dry, hacking cough, a fever and body aches, and finally, a wheeze that rattled her lungs …”

“… The cold …. caused her to cough up blood and throttled her breathing … ‘I told people, if that wasn’t coronavirus I had, then I’ll  be dead if I really do get it,’ she said.” The illness was severe enough that Jean made “two trips to the doctor … After her condition worsened on Jan. 4, a doctor found her lungs hyper-inflated.”

Jean said she “didn’t get sick any other time. If I didn’t get the virus then, I can’t imagine when I would’ve gotten it.”

In late April 2020, Jean received a positive antibody test. According The Times, “the test Jean received — designed by Abbott Laboratories and now widely performed by the (University of Washington) Medicine Virology Lab — is considered highly accurate.”

DISCUSSION

Jean first experienced symptoms on December 27, 2019. As it takes two to 14 days from infection to onset of symptoms, this means Jean was infected with this virus between December 13 and December 25. The unknown person who infected Jean would have had the virus even earlier (and the unknown person who infected this person even earlier).

As the Seattle Times’ article points out, the first “confirmed” case in America was January 20, 2020 (also now listed as Jan. 19), from a man who had returned from China on January 15th. Several early outbreaks in nursing homes that received extensive national press coverage occurred in this same area (Snohomish County is just north of Seattle).

The fact Jean is a retired nurse suggests her comments and opinions about clinical details of her illness were informed by decades of professional experience in the medical field.

The fact that one or more “probable” and “possible” early cases occurred in a “rural” section of such a county suggests that this virus may have already been spreading widely …. even in “rural” areas. In a feature story I wrote about Tim and Brandie McCain’s almost-certain early cases, I note that the McCains also live in a small rural town in Alabama.

Comments of local health officials contradict

those made by CDC officials …

The most interesting elements of these Washington “case studies” come from comments made by state and local health officials. More specifically, several of these comments seem to contradict statements made by CDC officials in Atlanta two weeks later.

For example, the comments of state and local public health officials reveal that as many as 65 other “possible” early cases existed in this county. This number certainly suggests “community spread,” or that that these cases were not “isolated.”

Other possible cases of early spread were not investigated

Comments from Washington public health officials also include quotes from several public health officials who admit that serious investigations of such cases would either not occur or were a very low priority. This admission seems to contradict CDC officials’ assertion that health officials would “continue to search for clues” of early spread in America.

The comments made by officials in Washington also clearly contradict the CDC’s assertion that there was no “indication” the novel coronavirus had been “introduced” in America prior to latter January 2020, or that “limited” community spread in America did not commence until at least “latter January” 2020.

I note that all quotes and details mentioned in this story were included in Seattle Times’ articles published at least two weeks before the May 29, 2020 CDC press briefing.

From a Times’ follow-up article published May 15, 2020: “(Dr. Spitters gave) a new accounting of 35 ‘probable’ cases that are based on positive serology (antibody) tests of residents previously exposed to the virus.”  

In the same article, readers learn that as of May 15 The Snohomish County district (had also) “received an additional 20 to 30 positive antibody reports that it has yet to investigate, Spitters said.”

To summarize, this means there were two cases later said to be “probable” (including Jean’s case) and up to 65 other possible cases of people who might have been infected months before they gave blood for their antibody tests.

Investigating possible early spread cases are ‘lower priority’

Nor does it seem that any investigations into these possible cases was going to take place.

While “the Snohomish Health District has received other reports of positive antibody tests … case investigations on those are a lower priority in follow-up, as our focus is on current cases,” according to the Health District’s spokeswoman Heather Thomas.”

“… Local and state public health officials also say they don’t have much capacity to investigate whether individuals like Jean, who receive positive antibody test results, may have had COVID-19 earlier than the first known case.”

“That certainly is of academic and scientific interest to me and many people,” Spitters said. “Someday maybe that work will be done, but it’s not a priority for the disease control moving forward.”

My Comment: It’s now 3 1/2 years later and this work has still not been done.

Washington Department of Health spokeswoman Lisa Stromme Warren noted that “Local health jurisdictions are encouraged to investigate patients with positive antibody results if they have the resources, but these investigations are not required.”

Even if local officials  lacked the “resources” to perform contact tracing investigations of possible “Case Zeros” in America, one assumes this would not be the case for public health agencies of a federal government that seems to have the capacity to write a blank check to cover any and all COVID expenses.

At least to this author, it seems that local, state or national health agencies could have found the “resources” to investigate cases that, if “confirmed,” might radically change the entire COVID narrative and possibly confirm new “Case Zeroes” in America and perhaps the world  …. unless, of course, their real goal was to NOT “confirm” such cases.

The following excerpts from a Seattle Times article present what seems to be unequivocal conclusions of Dr. Spitters, a statement that seems to reject/contradict later assessments of higher-ranking health officials at CDC headquarters in Atlanta.

“The notion that the first recorded case of COVID-19 in the United States — a Snohomish County man diagnosed with the illness in mid-January — represents America’s Patient Zero for the novel coronavirus is “clearly false,” the county’s top public-health official said Friday (May 15, 2020).

“…. It’s reasonable to assume, given reports like the ones that we’ve had and others around the country, that introduction may have occurred prior to January, as we initially suspected,” said Dr. Spitters.

My comment: For clarity, virus “introduction … prior to January” means “December” (if not “November.” ) Note also that Dr. Spitters said the “notion” (that the virus had not been introduced in America before January) is not only false, it is “clearly false.”

Washington officials seem to have long known

that early spread was happening

Kamb’s Seattle Times’ article made additional news by reporting that these health officials had actually “initially suspected” that this virus had been “introduced” in America in December 2019. This, to me at least, seems like buried news.

If it’s true that these local officials had suspected this for a while,  why didn’t these officials pass these suspicions along to public health agencies at the national level? If they did pass these opinions up the chain of command, why did national health officials ignore or dismiss the views of public health colleagues at America’s “ground zero” of the pandemic?

When CDC officials stated on May 29, 2020 that there was “no indication” the virus had been introduced anywhere in America before late January, were they unaware of the comments Dr. Spitters and his colleagues made to the the press in Washington state two weeks earlier?

Certainly the vast majority of Americans thought this virus had been been “introduced” in this nation at some point in “latter January” at the earliest.  Americans thought this because that’s what all the public health officials they trusted  - including the world’s foremost authority, Dr. Fauci - had told them.

From May 29th, 2020 CDC press briefing, as reported by NBC News:

“The coronavirus began quietly spreading in the U.S. as early as late January, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported Friday …

“There was no indication the virus had been introduced into the U.S. earlier, in November or December. We looked for evidence of early widespread transmission and could not confirm it," Dr. Jay Butler, deputy director for infectious diseases at the CDC, said. “He added his team will continue to search for clues of the first cases on U.S. soil …”

Also, the CDC assured Americans that the agency’s search for early-spread evidence would “continue.” Despite this pledge, public health colleagues in the state that was the epicenter of early spread told reporters that such investigations were not a “priority.”

I also note that officials at the WHO had previously “urged” public health officials around the world to “investigate all suspicious (early) cases.” This recommendation from the WHO was also ignored by officials with the CDC as well as officials at probably all 50 state health agencies (and also by the WHO itself).

No official with the CDC or no official from the state health agencies in New Jersey, Florida, Alabama and California has ever interviewed or contacted any of the other 15 likely or probable cases I’ve identified in previous articles. 

All 15, plus Jean and the unnamed person in Snohomish County, were written about or covered in media stories written by prominent news organizations in their states, stories that appeared at least two weeks before the CDC press conference of May 29, 2020 when CDC officials said they had looked for, but could not find any “indication” of virus spread in America before latter January 2020.

The positive case of Jean and one other unnamed person in Snohomish Country are apparently the only two early cases in America that any health official in the country actually investigated.

Top official is still skeptical Jean had Covid in December …

Despite this, officials in Washington state will still not “confirm” any “early” Covid cases in this state before January 19, 2020.

“While both cases are considered ‘probable,’ from a public-health perspective, Spitters said respiratory-tract symptoms experienced in December in each case overlap with other illnesses. 

“He added ‘it’s possible — and frankly, I think more likely” that each patient didn’t have COVID-19 then, but later picked up a mild or asymptomatic case of it, leading to the positive antibody test results. But we can’t say that with 100% certainty,” he said. “I think that’s just the more likely scenario.’ “

Author’s note: See further discussion of Dr. Spitters’ theory - which I find highly implausible -  in the Reader Comments.

Confirmed vs. probable vs. presumptive cases …

Thanks to Kamb’s reporting, readers received some possible, if vague, answers to the important question of what constitutes a “confirmed” case of Covid.

“As far as including positive antibody tests in daily case counts, public health agencies in Washington don’t yet appear to be on the same page,” wrote Kamb. “The CDC’s case definitions note ‘serologic methods for diagnosis are currently being defined,’ but also list someone with a positive serology test as a ‘presumptive’ case.  That means to be formally counted, the person must also have had certain clinical symptoms at some point, or close contact with a confirmed or probable case of COVID-19 — details that require additional investigation to find out.”

Note that when someone has tested positive via an antibody test, the CDC’s “case definitions ….  require additional investigation.”

But only two of the 17 cases mentioned in this and previous articles (and here) seemed to have received cursory investigation (from local health officials in Washington state). 

This means that at least 15 “presumptive” cases did not receive the “require(d) additional investigation” needed to “be formally counted.” If nothing else, this would seem to prove professional malfeasance or dereliction of duty.

Still, every likely case mentioned in my prior articles meets the CDC’s first two “presumptive case” standards. That is, all 17 of these individuals received “positive” antibody tests, and all 17 had “clinical symptoms” in November or December 2019.  (Note: I later identified seven other Americans who meet the same early spread profile who contacted me).

Again: the “additional investigations required” to meet the CDC’s “case definitions” were never performed in 15 of these 17 likely early cases.

Journalist Kamb also included this information:

“Heather Thomas, the spokeswoman for the Snohomish Health District, added that the cases of Jean and the other confirmed December case “are being considered ‘probable. However, they are not captured in our case counts from Jan. 20 forward.”

The main take-way from the above quote is that even though local health officials now view at least two December cases in Snohomish County Washington as “probable,” public health officials did not move up the “official” start date of this pandemic. 

Because of this, virtually every story and medical study written to date  - and still being written today - continues to cite the first “official” case in America as January 19th, 2020.

What is the definition of a confirmed case? Here it is …

The definition of a “confirmed” Covid case is listed at various CDC and NIH websites … as a PCR swab or “molecular” lab test.

“A confirmed case is an individual who had a confirmatory viral test performed by way of a throat swab, nose swab or saliva test and that specimen tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, which is the virus that causes COVID-19.”

Or as noted at this CDC website:

“Confirmatory laboratory evidence” is “detection of SARS-CoV-2 ribonucleic acid (RNA) in a post-mortem respiratory swab or clinical specimen using a diagnostic molecular amplification test performed by a Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA)-certified provider, OR

• Detection of SARS-CoV-2 by genomic sequencing.”

There is no way to have a ‘confirmed’ early case …

Basically, per my reading of the “confirmed” case criteria, nobody in America could have a “confirmed” case of Covid before January 17, 2020 … as there were no PCR tests administered to anyone in America prior to January 17th.

As noted, the first “confirmed” case in America was recorded on January 19th, 2020 which, I believe, was just two days after the first PCR test had been administered in America. Also, (almost) the only people being tested, per CDC guidance, were people who had recently returned from China.

In other words, the only way to confirm that Jean of Snohomish County or Mayor Michael Melham of New Jersey or the McCains of Alabama had a “confirmed” case of Covid would be if someone went back in a time machine, brought a PCR test kit with them, and tested these individuals when they were sick with symptoms in November or December 2019.

Why does all of this matter? 

Answer: Because it blocks “confirmed” evidence of early spread from ever being acknowledged. It also probably explains statements from the May 29th CDC press briefing where officials noted they’d found no evidence of early spread that they “could confirm.” As usual, the organizations that control the definitions controls the diagnoses.

Here one could note that a 44-cycle PCR test was enough to confirm millions of Covid “cases.” However, a positive result (even multiple positive results) via an ELISA antibody test (coupled with definite Covid symptoms) is not enough to confirm a positive early case.

CDC used different definition in antibody

study of USS Roosevelt sailors

However, the CDC has not been consistent with its diagnosis and definitions. From reading the results of the USS antibody study of sailors on board the USS Teddy Roosevelt aircraft carrier, I noted with interest the CDC’s definition of sailors with “confirmed” Covid.

Per this definition, any sailor who tested positive for COVID-19 via either a PCR test or an “ELISA” antibody test was considered a “confirmed case.”

“(4). Previous or current SARS-CoV-2 infection was defined as a positive real-time RT-PCR result or positive ELISA result.”

The headline from this study is that 60 percent of the sailors who took part in this study tested positive for antibodies. Previously, based on PCR results, it was believed that 20 percent of this crew of 4,850 sailors had been infected in this heavily-publicized outbreak in late March and early April 2020.

 The study also provides strong evidence that at least two sailors were already infected when the ship left port in San Diego on January 17.

Jean and the other unknown person from Washington also tested positive via an ELISA antibody test. So did Tim and Brandie McCain of Alabama. So did all 106 of the people who tested positive in the “Red Cross” antibody study.

Red Cross blood study found positive cases

in Washington BEFORE Jean’s case …

Of the 106 “antibody positive” Red Cross blood donors, 39 were from Washington, Oregon and California. Sixteen (16) positive results came from 763 blood donors in  Washington and Oregon (2.1 percent of donors in these two states were positive).

Furthermore, while individuals from these three western states donated blood Dec. 13-16, 2019, all (or most) would have contracted the novel coronavirus weeks or months before this date as it takes approximately one to two week for detectable antibodies to develop.

To me, the Red Cross study’s findings of antibody-positive blood donors from Washington supports the findings that show that Jean and one non-identified person from Washington also tested positive with cases that almost-certainly dated to December 2019. 

In other words, these two people were not the only residents of Washington who had ELISA anti-body cases dating to the latter months of 2019.

And, as noted, the public doesn’t know the antibody status of the other 65 Washington residents referenced in a Seattle Times article because (apparently) no follow-up was done on these possible early cases. 

I also note that the results of the Roosevelt antibody study were also no doubt known before the CDC held its press conference of May 29, 2020 where officials highlighted the fact there was no evidence of infection in America before latter January 2020 that they “could confirm.” (The blood for the antibody study was collected April 20-24, 2020.)

When was the Red Cross blood actually tested?

To this day, the public does not know when the blood for the “Red Cross antibody study” was tested because this information is not given in the CDC’s non-peer reviewed paper. 

It would seem to me this blood would have been tested as rapidly as possible and could have been tested before lockdowns were ordered to “slow or stop” virus spread. Certainly, it would have been possible to test these blood samples for antibodies before May 29 when CDC officials announced they had found no indications of virus spread in America before “latter January” 2020.

The paper was published on November 30, 2020 - 50 weeks after the first tranche of blood had been donated by blood donors in Washington, Oregon and California.

Key never-asked-or-answered question: How long did it take to test 1,900 units of archived Red Cross blood?

Another question: Why didn’t public health officials “looking for clues” of early cases interview the 106 people who tested positive for antibodies in the Red Cross study?

CDC and Navy officials also didn’t interview any of the sailors on the Roosevelt who later tested positive for antibodies. At the very least, someone should have interviewed the 12 antibody-positive sailors who self-reported symptoms that occurred before the ship’s first port-of-call in Vietnam in March 2020.

It’s also very strange that officials, after learning of so many antibody-positive blood samples from two tranches of Red Cross blood, chose to not test other archived samples from other sections of the country and/or samples taken at other points in time before February 2020.

For example, per my research, I’ve learned that the most severe outbreaks of ILI might have occurred in Southern states in December 2019 and January 2020. Millions of residents of these Southern states undeniably became ill with Covid-like symptoms in these months. 

If some percentage of these illnesses were actually Covid, archived Red Cross blood from these Southern states might have “confirmed” this. However, no archived blood from any Southern state was tested for antibodies by the CDC.

The red flag/smoking gun I keep trying to highlight …

Regarding my on-going “early spread” investigations, I keep coming back to one point: It’s what officials didn’t investigate - or what they could have done but did not do - which makes one wonder what they really know … and why they seem to have gone to great lengths to keep the public from knowing this.

For reasons gleaned from the details presented above, I’m very confident our trusted public health officials will never “confirm” a case of Covid that happened in American in the year 2019.

***

Author’s note: Additional information and commentary is also included in the Reader Comments Section.