Was there ever any evidence for human-to-human transmission of 2019-nCoV?

From the looks of the early months, no.

On 20 January 2020, it was reported that China had confirmed human-to-human transmission of 2019-nCoV, after finding “no clear evidence” six days earlier.

In the days before the announcement, events unfolded ridiculously fast.

China reported the first death. A genetic sequence for the "novel" coronavirus was rushed to GenBank. The WHO swiftly endorsed the newly developed Corman-Drosten testing protocol. A “very small amount of 2019-nCoV RNA” was detected in a man just returning to Japan. Meanwhile, a legal permanent resident of the United States arrived back in the Seattle area after two months in Wuhan — soon to be identified as the first American “case.”¹

What did China suddenly discover, not even a week after saying it didn’t see between-person spread ?

This version of “transmission confirmation” says:

Experts have confirmed people-to-people transmission of a novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) and infection of medical staff.

A high-level expert team of China's National Health Commission Monday confirmed people-to-people transmission of a novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) and infection of medical staff.

Zhong Nanshan, a renowned respiratory expert and head of the team, said two cases in Guangdong Province were confirmed to be people-to-people transmission.

Zeng Guang, chief epidemiologist of the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, said the outbreak of the new coronavirus can be reversed if measures are taken now. (Source)

Nanshan was involved with SARS-1 (ergo “renowned”) but here’s the important part:

Two cases in Guangdong Province were confirmed to be people-to-people transmission.

This raises so many questions:

• Confirmed how?

• Two people with “close contact” tested positive for the new thing? Why is that evidence of transmission?

• What if one is a false positive? What if both are?

• What if the test isn’t really testing for anything meaningful - or anything that causes illness?

• Maybe the thing(s) being “tested” was already detectable in humans…and didn’t spread or transmit at all?

Also key: “confirmation” of “infection of medical staff” - a clear signal to healthcare workers everywhere that they were in danger and needed to be ready for the pandemic scenario they’d been primed for had arrived.

But consider:

1. Nobody in contact with the Seattle area case tested positive.

2. The “first” person-to-person transmission in the U.S. — a couple in Chicago — was not a definitive example of spread. The husband wasn’t sick and genomic sequencing revealed their ‘variants’ didn’t cluster together in a phylogenetic tree.

   Questioning the "First Known Person-to-Person Transmission of SARS-CoV-2"

   Incredibly, 372 contacts of the couple were identified — 347 of whom were assessed and monitored. None visited the ER with respiratory symptoms within 14 days. Forty-three became “Persons Under Investigation” (PUIs) for possible, nonspecific “COVID” symptoms; 26 had “medium risk or greater” exposures. None tested positive.²

3. A study by Chinese scientists published in an NEJM on 29 January 2020 claimed to evaluate Early Transmission Dynamics in Wuhan, China, of Novel Coronavirus-Infected Pneumonia, but was essentially a report about incidence of positive tests for a nonspecific thing among loosely-associated people with unremarkable symptoms — not a demonstration or study of transmission dynamics.

4. Nobel winner Michael Levitt apparently wondered about transmission. Observing that “cases” inside Hubei peaked at the same time as cases outside of Hubei, he said in a February 2020 interview, “It’s almost like…it’s almost like there’s been no spreading…”

5. There was no illness outbreak on the Diamond Princess during the voyage. (Detailed here.) The first passenger to test positive was a Hong Kong resident who disembarked at Hong Kong—with no indication he left the ship because he was sick. The man didn’t go to the doctor for flu-like symptoms until four days later. It was only when the boat returned to Yokohama, quarantined, and waves of passenger testing commenced that “spread” was inferred.

6. When five sailors aboard the USS Roosevelt tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 a second time, UC Berkeley infectious disease expert John Swartzberg, was quoted as saying, “This is not behaving like any infectious disease I have heard of, if these tests are accurate. None of this makes any sense.”

7. An academic virologist told Jessica last year that detection of SARS-CoV-2 via positive tests was evidence of human-to-human transmission because, “There is no other sensible explanation for this pattern. The detection of this virus in sick & dead people, whose number grew fast, implicated this virus into the disease.” The tests failing to target a specific thing, or the entity named SARS-CoV-2 being computer-constructed and/or an endogenous phenomenon, didn’t cross his mind.

8. As John Khademi explained very well in a April 2020 video, the deployment of a new test creates the illusion of “spread” very easily — and “COVID” was not the first time the trick was pulled off. The same was done with SARS and H1N1.³

9. Testing curves in New York City - shown here (min 40:00+) and further discussed here - are the best COVID-era examples of how testing, including and starting with the testing of patients already in the hospital, can make people think transmission of something new is occurring when the more likely explanation is that light is being shone on one or more things that were already there, or that the test is measuring something else altogether.⁴

10. Sudden, synchronous, and sharp rises in the daily death curves of provinces in Lombardy, Italy, are antithetical to any conception or expectation of what a pathogen “transmitting” from person to person would do and are better explained by iatrogenic measures, if not some combination of democide and statistical fraud.

More instances from late 2019 and early 2020 could be given that challenge the core lie about transmission. Despite claims made China, the WHO, and officials in most countries, it was never demonstrated that “SARS-CoV-2” is a distinct entity which travels between humans. Zero days were needed to “slow the spread” because nothing new was spreading.

Rolling out a test to fake spread is a now well-established, proven method by which ‘pandemics’ are created. Whatever viruses are, or their relationship to illness and disease, we must disarm those who would continue to pull off human-rights heists by revealing the true nature of their conjuring tricks.

Waves of illness and death need not be occurring in real life—or be driven by viral behavior—when storytelling, military-grade propaganda, sophisticated testing programs, and data dashboards are enough to cast the spell, setting off a positive feedback loop that fuels perverse incentives and sustains pandemic-threat mythologies.

The sooner we can get the perpetrators to confess to what they’ve done, the better.

---

X thread version | Correction: Michael Levitt has won one Nobel prize — not two, as we originally stated.

---

Follow-up article:

How mass testing creates the illusion of "spread".

1. See also https://www.woodhouse76.com/p/memory-lane-14-january-2020 and timeline https://www.woodhouse76.com/p/timeline-the-naming-of-sars-cov-2

2. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30607-3/fulltext

3. See also depiction of H1N1 testing and explanation here: https://www.woodhouse76.com/p/response-to-clare-craig-88e

4. …and flawed in numerous ways and nevertheless keeps people from questioning whether something was spreading. (See Why do people still believe in Covid?)