SARS: Corona virus first act

On February 19, 2003, CNN reported that a "mysterious disease" had killed five people in the southern Chinese province of Guangdong and that at least 305 people had fallen ill since November. According to reports in the Hong Kong press, the disease was avian flu. (1) On March 5, 2003, Dr. Carlo Urbani, an Italian WHO physician stationed in Hanoi, Vietnam, called his superior Dr. Shigeru Omi, the WHO's West Pacific representative, in Manila and asked for technical support by telephone. In his hospital in Hanoi, many patients and staff had fallen ill with an infectious disease he suspected. He assumed that those affected might have contracted the disease from a patient who had flown in from Hong Kong. Omi registered this, but urged Urbani to attend a meeting in Bangkok (Thailand) on 9 March. Actually an act of complete irresponsibility due to the danger of infection - at least if one believes in the official SARS theory. In spite of all his misgivings, Urbani was on a plane to Bangkok on March 11. And lo and behold, he too fell ill during the flight:

On March 11, he showed the first symptoms during the flight to Bangkok. On arrival, he asked a colleague from the CDC, who greeted him at the airport, not to approach him. They sat at a distance from each other and waited in silence for an ambulance with the necessary protective equipment. (2)

Urbani was admitted directly from the airport to the isolation ward of a hospital in Bangkok. However, it was not clear whether his symptoms were a consequence of the infectious disease he suspected.

Hong Kong: Place of origin?

Now the SARS campaign began: No sooner had Urbani left Hanoi than Dr. Shigeru Omi issued a report on March 12 on behalf of the WHO, warning of a 'Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome' of 'unknown cause', or SARS for short. Before that, there had been talk of avian flu. The WHO wrote on its website: "So far no link has been established between these outbreaks of acute respiratory syndrome in Hanoi and Hong Kong and the outbreaks of avian flu (H5N1) reported from Hong Kong on February 19. Investigations are ongoing and laboratory testing of the samples from Vietnam and Hong Kong is being conducted by centers in Japan and the United States in cooperation with the WHO."

Hong Kong was made the place of origin of SARS without any evidence because Urbani was infected by a Hong Kong patient: Persons arriving from Hong Kong with flu symptoms were possible SARS cases from now on almost all over the world. In Europe, the first suspected cases were linked to SARS, and the first 'deaths' in Canada. The first suspected cases also occurred in Germany. Symptoms alone and a recent visit to Hong Kong were sufficient for the SARS suspicion. On March 15, 2003, the WHO issued a worldwide travel warning.

SARS suspects were usually immediately placed in strict quarantine, even if they did not show any symptoms, and treated with powerful antiviral drugs. Sometimes also with antibiotics. Whether this treatment caused or aggravated the symptoms was not investigated. For example, the Italian doctor Carlo Urbani, who is considered the discoverer of the disease, may have died in Bangkok from overtreatment. (p.69)

Nothing but an assumption

In mid-March 2003, the global race of epidemiological institutes to 'discover' the mysterious SARS virus was in full swing. The successful institute not only enjoyed worldwide fame, but also received generous grants to finance further research, studies and publications. For the time being, the virus remained nothing more than a conjecture.

Only three weeks later it was said: "All eleven laboratories working on SARS agree that a corona virus is the primary cause", WHO spokesman Peter Cordingley told the scientific magazine New Scientist on April 7. One day later, scientists from Hong Kong published an article on the corona virus as a possible cause of SARS in the renowned scientific journal Lancet. Corona viruses were detected in two out of 50 patients using genetic testing procedures, and specific antibodies were detected in 35 other patients. The bacterium 'Escherichia coli' was found in one sample and the bacteria 'Klebsiella pneumoniae' and 'Haemophilus influenzae' in two other patients. (3) These traces were not followed up, although in the end they were not much less likely to be the origin of a disease than the corona viruses - not to mention other causes such as air pollution etc., which were never discussed. The decision was made: The WHO's worldwide network of laboratories would now only deal with the corona virus as a possible cause of SARS.

Drosten sends greetings

Two days later, scientists from the Bernhard Nocht Institute in Hamburg published a study in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) according to which corona viruses had been detected in SARS patients using the PCR method. According to the BNI, the genetic sequences found were only 50 to 60% similar to the known corona viruses. Christian Drosten, today perhaps the most important government advisor on the subject of COVID-19, was also involved.

Conclusion of the publication: The new corona virus, whose existence has been deduced from the gene sequences found, 'could' play a role in causing SARS. (4) On the same day, the NEJM published another important publication of the US CDC, which claimed to identify the corona virus as the cause of the disease. (5)

Now, a critic has intervened: Frank Plummer, Canada's leading SARS researcher and director of one of the WHO laboratories On April 27, U.S. News & World Report reported that coronavirus was found in only 40% of Canadian SARS patients, according to Plummer. In an earlier wave of the disease, only five out of nine cases were found. At the same time, 20% of completely healthy Canadians who have recently been in Asia had the virus in them. Plummer was very irritated by the results and announced further investigations. It was further said: "CDC representatives consider Plummer's data to be unconvincing compared to the unpublished studies from the Netherlands, according to which the injection of the virus into monkeys led to SARS-like symptoms". (6)

The Rotterdam Monkey Experiment

Which study was it about? The fulfillment of the Koch postulates for the SARS virus was first claimed by researchers from the University of Rotterdam at the end of April. At that time, however, the guilty verdict against the suspected virus had long since been handed down without the slightest scientific proof that the respiratory symptoms of the alleged SARS patients had anything to do with an unknown new corona virus. On July 22, the renowned journal Lancet published an article with the 'final proof' that a previously unknown specific corona virus was the cause of the new disease SARS. [7] A group of researchers at the Erasmus University of Rotterdam concluded that the Koch postulates had been fulfilled by their experiments with monkeys, thus proving the role of a specific virus as a causative agent of the disease.

The scientists took a cell culture, which was originally from a patient who allegedly died of SARS, and administered it to four macaque monkeys in the throat, nose and under the eyelids. The animals were examined daily for clinical symptoms. Shortly before infection and on the second, fourth and sixth subsequent day, 10 ml of blood was taken from the monkeys inguinal veins and swabs were taken from the nose, mouth, throat and anus. The animals showed different symptoms such as lethargy, skin rash and shortness of breath, but not uniformly. The lung and lymphatic tissue of some monkeys showed abnormalities.

Gross scientific mischief

As already mentioned, the assignment of the symptoms that have occurred is only possible if the virus is present in pure culture and its composition has been clearly determined. However, no scientific publication was available on this subject - the Rotterdam researchers did not claim this for themselves either. The monkeys were anesthetized with ketamine four times during the collection procedure. Possible side effects of this drug in humans: Lethargy, skin rash and shortness of breath, which is what the monkeys also showed. These side effects known in humans can also manifest themselves in monkeys in weaker, stronger or altered form. Strangely enough, the possible side effects of ketamine were not discussed in the article! Basically, we are dealing here with gross bungling - on a 'highly scientific level', of course.

Based on only four experimental animals that did not even consistently show the same symptoms, not to mention typical SARS or flu symptoms such as fever and cough, the researchers concluded that corona viruses are the cause of a serious disease. In such an experiment, an honest scientist would try to identify all factors that could falsify the results. This is usually done by a control group that is exposed to exactly the same (possibly traumatic) holding conditions and treatments, including anesthesia with ketamine. Why was this not done? The experiments of the University of Rotterdam published in the Lancet were not suitable to prove a viral cause of SARS symptoms. The experimental setup was not only scientifically questionable, but gross nonsense!

Further inconsistencies

• Half of the new cases reported in Beijing had no previous contact with suspected SARS cases. (8).
• On June 3, the German newspaper 'Märkische Oderzeitung' noticed that the WHO always spoke only of 'probable' SARS cases, but never of proven cases. There was no WHO definition for real SARS cases, but rather 'suspected cases' and 'probable cases'. The category 'probable' is the highest category assigned by the WHO for SARS patients. (9) SARS shocked the world in 2003. Everything was looking forward to China. In the end, the numbers were negligible. Without a media campaign, no one would have noticed SARS.
• The virus tests used were more than questionable in their validity: As the World Health Organization (WHO) announced in a press release on October 22, 2003, there was still no 'gold standard' for the detection of the alleged SARS virus. (10) By then, the 'epidemic' was long gone.

In the summer of 2003, the number of 'newly infected' people in the world steadily declined, or so it was claimed. Officially, the 'SARS epidemic' ended with 8096 sick and 774 dead. These numbers are negligible. For all the tragedy for those affected and their families, the potential danger posed by SARS was downright ridiculous. Without worldwide testing, no one would have noticed SARS.

Whether many of the official SARS deaths actually died from the drugs they were given was never investigated. The German newspaper 'Süddeutsche Zeitung' described the treatment of the famous case of Carlo Urbani in this way

"They had tried everything, antibiotics, new drugs against influenza, an antiviral drug with which Hong Kong doctors had allegedly achieved success. Nothing helped. Carlo Urbani was in a foreign country, surrounded by six hooded figures with masks, glasses, suits, shoe covers, double gloves. People who were not allowed to touch him. At 11:45 a.m., after the fourth heart attack, the doctors gave up attempts at resuscitation." (11)

We will never know how many of the 774 'SARS victims' actually suffered from the side effects of this treatment.

Poverty and environmental factors as causes?

Cases of severe pneumonia in the Chinese province of Guangdong near Hong Kong are considered the starting point of the 'SARS epidemic'. A responsible anamnesis should, of course, have taken into account the living conditions of those affected. Therefore, more detailed information about the conditions in Guangdong would have been relevant. Only those who have dedicated themselves to virological tunnel vision will escape the fact that the catastrophic living and environmental conditions in Guangdong probably still represent a chronic disease risk factor today. Guangdong province is a special economic zone and is experiencing an unprecedented high-tech boom. However, the dark sides of this rapid development are extreme environmental pollution, low safety standards in the workplace and the emergence of slums with inhumane living conditions. In Guangdong, the computer scrap of the rich West lands and is broken down by hand into its sometimes highly toxic components without protective measures. The living conditions here are completely sufficient to explain the increased incidence of respiratory diseases. But these living conditions have not been discussed by virologists, politicians or authorities as a factor to be considered - not even in Wuhan in 2020.

Ribavirin & Co - Deadly medication?

After the alleged 'SARS epidemic' in 2003, there was strong criticism of the drug administration. SARS was mostly treated with antibiotics, steroids and the antiviral ribavirin. A researcher from Hong Kong wrote about the latter in 2004:

"Ribavirin was selected as an empirical antiviral agent for SARS therapy in the distressing situation of a major outbreak of a life-threatening infection, before the actual pathogen was even identified. Ribavirin was the broadest spectrum antiviral agent commercially available when SARS was thought to be caused by a new virus". (12)

Antiviral drugs like ribavirin interrupt the production of new DNA or RNA molecules. In addition to the supposed viruses, they also damage healthy cells and can lead to anemia. After the SARS mass hysteria subsided, many doctors discovered that the antiviral drugs could harm patients. This was the opinion of 21 Canadian doctors:

"The use of ribavirin was temporarily associated with significant toxicity." (13)

Seven doctors from Taiwan concluded that ribavirin-induced anemia led to 'a significantly higher mortality rate'. (14)

Such antiviral agents are also used in the case of COVID-19, including toxic AIDS drugs such as lopinavir and ritonavir. Furthermore, it can be observed that there has always been a strong correlation between the intensity of general hysteria and the quantity and strength of drugs used.

Original article appeared in Issue 32, May 2020 of German ExpressZeitung

Telegraph main page with overview of all articles: Link

Visit our Telegram Channel for additional news & information: Link

Chat with like-minded in our Telegram Chat Group: Link

Please support to keep this blog alive: paypal

References:

(1) TIMES, Special Report "The Truth about SARS", May 2003

(2) NEJM, May 15, 2003

(3) Peiris et al, The Lancet, April 8, 2003

(4) Drosten et al; NEJM, April 10, 2003

(5) Ksiazek et. al., nejm.org, April 10, 2003

(6) U.S. News & World Report of April 27, 2003

(7) thelancet.com, Newly discovered coronavirus as the primary cause of severe acute respiratory syndrome

(8) Epidemiologisches Bulletin des RKI (Epidemiological Bulletin of the RKI) No. 20/2003 of May 16, 2003

(9) Märkische Oderzeitung online, 3.6.2003

(10) German Medical Journal, 23 Oct. 2003

(11) Süddeutsche Zeitung, April 8, 2003

(12) ncbi.nlm.nih.gov, Severe acute respiratory syndrome among children, 2004

(13) jamanetwork.com, Clinical Features and Short-term Outcomes of 144 Patients With SARS in the Greater Toronto Area, 2003

(14) ncbi.nlm.nih.gov, Adverse effects of ribavirin and outcome in severe acute respiratory syndrome: experience in two medical centers, 2005