Following President Donald Trump’s statement that China would be held accountable for spreading the virus, this article introduced physician and commentator Lin Kenryo’s essay, “The Wuhan Coronavirus Is Far Too Convenient for Xi Jinping,” published in the monthly magazine Hanada. It records six questions concerning China’s initial response: the failure to disclose the first patient, the theory of direct bat-to-human transmission, the unidentified intermediate host, the closure and disinfection of the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market, the removal of scientific information, the dispatch of a biological and chemical weapons specialist to Wuhan, and the reported disposal of research records and samples.

August 27, 2020
Why did China ignore the fundamental principle that determining the cause is essential to preventing a recurrence? Is there a truth that is inconvenient for China?
Of the two major points President Trump announced at a press conference on the day the Republican National Convention was held, the most important one was broadcast on the news programs I was watching, with the exception of Watch 9.
“We will make absolutely certain that China is held accountable for spreading the virus.”
I felt greatly relieved and vindicated.
People throughout the world who saw this report must have felt the same way.
I have continued publishing this column on goo and Ameba, and I was proud that the chapter most frequently found through searches on goo was titled: “What Was Combined with the Coronavirus to Create the Novel Virus? She Must Have Confirmed How It Would Mutate as Well… She Must Disclose the Entire Process by Which It Was Created… Shi Zhengli, That Is Your Duty as a Human Being.”
I wrote that chapter with 100 percent conviction because my conviction was supported by a powerful intuition derived from genuine articles and other writings by Keiko Kawasoe, an up-and-coming journalist.
An article titled “The Wuhan Coronavirus Is Far Too Convenient for Xi Jinping,” written by physician, commentator, and political activist Lin Kenryo and appearing first in the major special feature “Fight Back Against Xi Jinping!” in the monthly magazine Hanada released yesterday, strengthened my conviction even further.
It is an article that must be read not only by the Japanese people but by people throughout the world.
Bats Do Not Infect Humans
As a medical scientist specializing in genetic engineering, I have checked and examined various articles concerning the virus ever since the Wuhan coronavirus problem began.
As a result, I discovered numerous points concerning this virus that, no matter how I considered them, could only appear inexplicable.

A Biological Weapons Specialist Entered Wuhan
Sixth, on January 26, the Chinese government dispatched an investigator to Wuhan.
If the purpose had been to control an infectious disease, doctors would have sent an infectious-disease specialist.
The person sent, however, was a female major general named Chen Wei, a People’s Liberation Army specialist in biological and chemical weapons.
Why was a biological and chemical weapons specialist dispatched?
What was the first task Major General Chen Wei undertook after entering the Wuhan Institute of Virology?
It was the disposal of all experimental research records, all samples, and the laboratory animals related to them.
Research records and samples are so important that they can be described as the very lives of researchers.
They are the culmination of work created and accumulated over decades.
There is no justification for disposing of them without any reason.
In fact, instructions to dispose of research records and samples were also issued to laboratories in Shanghai and Beijing, not only in Wuhan.
Why did they attempt to eliminate the “evidence” so thoroughly?
If these laboratories had done nothing improper, this information should have enabled them to prove their innocence by saying, “We were merely researching viruses.”
Instead, was it disposed of precisely because it constituted “evidence that something had been done”?
Even if research records are altered or falsified, a professional can recognize it immediately.
It is therefore impossible to conceal the truth merely by modifying the records.
Perhaps they concluded that, in that case, they should simply erase the evidence itself.
Furthermore, the Chinese government not only eliminated the “evidence” but also prohibited research and even discussion concerning the source of the virus.
If researchers cannot discuss a disease or a virus, they have no choice but to rely on their own experience, and there are limits to what that can accomplish.
Researchers study the work of others, compare it with their own treatment experience and observed symptoms, discuss the matter, and thereby attempt to determine what kind of disease it is and how it should be treated.
Discussion is the starting point of medical science.
Suppressing it is equivalent to saying, “It does not matter if nothing is ever learned about the Wuhan coronavirus.”
There is no possibility that such a policy could benefit the country’s own people.
As described above, China’s response to and announcements concerning the Wuhan coronavirus raise one question after another.
To be continued.

Who Was the First Patient?
First, naturally, there was a first person infected with the Wuhan coronavirus, and that person can certainly be identified.
In Japan, for example, it is known that the first infected person was a Japanese man in his thirties who lived in Kanagawa Prefecture and had stayed in Wuhan.
China, however, has not identified the first infected person.
If it were a disease never seen before, medical professionals would immediately realize that something was wrong, and they could not possibly overlook it.
Moreover, identifying the first patient and tracing the route of infection would also lead to identifying the source of the virus.
It is therefore an obvious part of an epidemiological investigation and could even be called a fundamental rule of public health.
For that reason, a country should devote all its resources to finding the first infected person.
China, however, has still not disclosed who or where that first person was.
Every country can identify its first infected person.
There is no possibility that China, where the outbreak originated, would be unable to identify that person.
China probably identified the first infected person but has not disclosed that information.
Why has China ignored the fundamental principle that determining the cause is essential to preventing a recurrence?
Is there a truth that is inconvenient for China?

Transmission from Bats to Humans
Second, this virus is said to have been “transmitted from bats to humans,” but previous research has not produced a single example of direct transmission from a bat to a human being.
Avian influenza and swine influenza, for example, may directly infect humans, but this is possible precisely because birds and pigs are domesticated animals that frequently come into contact with human beings.
There are many cases in which, through several thousand years of contact as domesticated animals during human history, viruses repeatedly underwent natural mutations and eventually became capable of infecting human beings.
Bats, however, do not have a history of such close contact with humans.
If a virus is transmitted from bats to humans, an intermediate host is always required.
Yet the intermediate host involved in the Wuhan coronavirus remains unknown.
Incidentally, SARS was said to have been transmitted to humans through civets, but civets likewise do not have particularly close contact with humans.
Civets are eaten as a luxury dish in Guangdong Province, but that could hardly be called close contact.
Thus, questions actually remain on this point concerning SARS as well.
The Unnatural Closure of the Seafood Market

Where Were the Bats?
Third, where did the bats carrying the original virus come from?
Even if we assume that the virus was “transmitted from bats to humans,” bats are hibernating in Wuhan during November and December.
Furthermore, the species of bat identified was the horseshoe bat, whose breeding habitat is in Yunnan Province.
That is one thousand kilometers away from Wuhan, and there is no possibility that the bats flew all the way to Wuhan by themselves.
Even if they had been transported there for some reason, people in Wuhan do not have a custom of eating bats, and bats were not sold at the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market in Wuhan.
The animals sold at the market included monkeys, wolves, sheep, and rats.
Bats are eaten in southwestern areas and around Guangdong Province.
There is also a theory that pangolins were the source of the outbreak, but pangolins are used in medicines rather than as an ingredient in Chinese cuisine.
They are extremely expensive and are sold in traditional Chinese medicine markets rather than ordinary markets.
They were therefore not present at the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market in Wuhan.
Moreover, they are not generally eaten, so they are considered unlikely to have been the source of the infection.

Closure and Disinfection of the Market
The fourth point is the unnatural closure of the market.
After an investigation found that most of the initial virus patients were either visitors to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market in Wuhan or connected to employees working there, the market was closed on January 1, 2020.
Closing the market would be understandable, but all the animals sold there were disposed of.
It was announced during that process that “a virus had been detected,” but no details were disclosed concerning what kind of virus had been detected or how it had been detected.
Moreover, although the site should have been preserved as evidence and investigated, it was instead thoroughly disinfected.
The stated reason was “to prevent infection of human beings,” but in that case, it would have been sufficient merely to erect barricades to prevent anyone from entering.
There was absolutely no need for the authorities themselves to erase the material that could have identified the source of the virus.
Furthermore, according to China’s own announcement, 30 percent of the patients infected during the initial period had no direct or indirect contact with the seafood market.
Where, then, were those 30 percent infected?
That has not been made clear.
Information Was Deleted Immediately After Its Release

Concealment of Information
The fifth point is that a great deal of information was concealed.
On January 20, the head of a Chinese government team of experts announced that “there is no doubt that human-to-human transmission is taking place.”
However, the English-language newspaper South China Morning Post revealed on March 13, 2020, that the possibility of human-to-human transmission had already been known as of November 17, 2019.
A research team led by Professor Zhang Yongzhen at the Shanghai Public Health Clinical Center affiliated with Fudan University, which possesses a Biosafety Level 3 laboratory facility, had examined a seafood-market employee infected with the Wuhan coronavirus.
On January 5, the team succeeded in decoding the virus’s genome sequence and reported it to China’s National Health Commission on the same day.
At that point, the team warned that it was “an unknown virus similar to SARS and highly likely to be transmitted through the respiratory tract,” thereby identifying the possibility of human-to-human transmission.
It also recommended that measures be taken to prevent the spread of infection.
The health authorities, however, took no action.
The team concluded that the authorities were not prepared to take countermeasures and released the sequencing information on the virus-information-sharing website virological.org on January 11.
The following day, however, the authorities suddenly decided to close the center, and this valuable information was not communicated to the outside world.
Furthermore, on February 6, Professor Xiao Botao and others from the South China University of Technology uploaded an article to ResearchGate, an information-sharing website for scientists.
Its title was “The Possible Origins of the Coronavirus.”
Broadly speaking, its contents suggested the possibility that the Wuhan coronavirus had leaked from one of two laboratories in Wuhan.
The article drew a great deal of attention, but it was deleted only a few hours after being uploaded.
Xiao disappeared and did not reappear until March 6.
In an email response to an inquiry from The Wall Street Journal, he stated that the article “was not supported by direct evidence.”
The Destruction of Evidence in the Form of Research Records