Coronavirus cases inch up in U.S. but still very light

In Friday’s update from the CDC, the total number of potential coronavirus cases in the U.S. is 337. Specimens tested to date include 12 positives, 225 negatives and 100 pending.

Three days ago, the total was 293 (11 positives, 206 negatives and 76 pending).

Selected tickers: THW, BME, GRX, IXJ, KMED, XLV, CODX, NNVC, REGN, GILD, GSK, JNJ, NVAX, LAKE, AHPI, APT

Update: At a news conference Friday, an official speaking for the Trump administration’s coronavirus taskforce stated that two of the 12 confirmed positive cases in the U.S. to date occurred in people who had not recently visited China (both were spousal contacts of people who had traveled there). The risk to Americans has not changed from last week, remaining low. The CDC’s test for 2019-nCoV can be ordered by qualified laboratories and institutions. This week, the State Department helped deliver 17.8 tons of relief supplies to Hubei province. About 4,000 air travelers/day are being screened.

https://seekingalpha.com/news/3539753-coronavirus-cases-inch-up-in-u-s-still-light

Infectious disease expert to clinicians on coronavirus: Just ask patients 1 question

Anthony Fauci, M.D., has some simple advice for clinicians faced with a patient with respiratory symptoms and a fever—the signs of coronavirus.
“Just ask them a question: ‘Have you been in China recently?’” said Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the National Institutes of Health, in a JAMA podcast.

If the patient has been in China where the coronavirus outbreak began and is still growing rapidly, “you put a mask on the person, you put them in an isolation room and you contact the CDC,” said Fauci, about notifying the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
There are now 12 confirmed cases of coronavirus in the U.S. The 12th known case was confirmed in Wisconsin by the CDC, the Wisconsin Department of Health Services said in a statement Wednesday. The patient is an adult with a history of travel to Beijing prior to becoming ill and was exposed to known cases while in China.
Other cases in the U.S. were reported in California, Arizona, Illinois, Washington and Massachusetts.
Health officials expect to find additional cases of coronavirus infection in the U.S. and more cases of person-to-person spread among close contacts of those diagnosed with the virus, Nancy Messonnier, M.D., director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, said at a Monday briefing.
The U.S. declared a public health emergency on Jan. 31, and President Donald Trump signed a presidential proclamation temporary suspending entry into the U.S. of foreign nationals who pose a risk of transmitting the illness.
American citizens and permanent residents who fly to the U.S. from China are now subject to a two-week quarantine.
Officials in China reported Wednesday that at least 490 people have died from the coronavirus and 24,324 were confirmed to be infected. That was up from 425 deaths and 20,438 confirmed cases the day before, according to The New York Times.
Cases of the coronavirus have been concentrated in China, but more than 200 individuals have been detected with the virus in 28 locations outside China, including the U.S., Messonnier said Wednesday.

Fauci, who co-authored a JAMA viewpoint titled, “Coronavirus Infections—More than Just the Common Cold,” was interviewed in a podcast by JAMA Editor-in-Chief Howard Bauchner, M.D., about the disease.

Bauchner’s last question to Fauci was about what clinicians should do, because patients are likely to be anxious about the illness and may seek care.

“You know, it’s easy,” Fauci said, directing doctors to the CDC’s guidance for healthcare professionals.
Fauci said the situation is, however, made more difficult by the fact it’s the peak of influenza season. “You’re going to get a lot of people that are going to be coming in with respiratory infections,” he said. However, if a patient presents with a respiratory pulmonary issue, such as cough or shortness of breath, and fever, the important thing is to determine whether the patient has been in China.
The CDC says healthcare providers should notify both infection control personnel at their healthcare facility and their local or state health department in the event they have a patient under investigation (what the government calls a PUI) for coronavirus. State health departments are told to immediately contact the CDC’s emergency operations center.
Fauci’s advice echoed that of CDC officials who advised healthcare providers to watch for people with travel history to China and fever and respiratory symptoms. Healthcare providers caring for patients with coronavirus are also being advised to following recommended infection control procedures.
In a briefing Wednesday, Messonnier said health officials are now evaluating the national stockpile of personal protective equipment (PPE)—masks, gloves and gowns—that healthcare workers use to protect themselves from exposure to illnesses. “We’re working with healthcare and industry parties to understand the supply chain,” she said.
She urged healthcare workers to use PPE “appropriately” but not “excessively,” because the country may need to preserve supplies if the risk from coronavirus becomes higher. Naturally, if the outbreak lasts a long time, the projections of PPE stockpiles look very different than if the virus is short-lived, she said. “Currently, the risk to the public is low,” she said, and health officials do not think members of the public need to go out and buy protective masks.
JAMA has established a resource center for coronavirus, which includes updates on diagnosis and treatment.
https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/practices/infectious-disease-expert-to-clinicians-coronavirus-just-ask-patients-one-question

Coronavirus should taper off by April, S&P predicts

The novel coronavirus that threatens to hobble the global economy, causing travel restrictions and the closure of some U.S. retail stores in China, is expected to stabilize in April, according to a projection from S&P Global Ratings.

S&P’s analysts said a worst-case scenario would involve the virus spreading into late May, with an optimistic prediction calling for an end to transmissions in March. The firm said the impact on economic activity in Asia could peak around the middle of the year before an economic rebound in 2021.

There has yet to be a confirmed case of the coronavirus in New York state.

The city Health Department said Thursday morning that two people suspected of having coronavirus have tested negative. Samples from three others are awaiting results from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The novel coronavirus that has caused an outbreak in China this year is a respiratory illness that causes flu-like symptoms, such as fever, cough and shortness of breath. It can be spread through close contact with an infected person who coughs or sneezes. The fatality rate has been about 4.1% in Wuhan and less than 1% in China outside of the Hubei province where Wuhan is located.

More than 28,200 people have been diagnosed with coronavirus in Asia, and 565 have died in China, according to The New York Times.

Twelve cases had been documented in the U.S with no fatalities reported as of Thursday morning.

Brad Hutton, a deputy commissioner at the state Health Department, said Thursday that the state has run drills to prepare for how it would respond to a confirmed case and identify the person’s recent contacts to stop the spread of the virus.

“It really is a success that thus far we have 12 cases in the U.S. only,” Hutton said during a meeting of the state Public Health and Health Planning Council. “The fact we have so few is the result of the travel actions taken by the Chinese government and the U.S. government to restrict travel.”

https://www.modernhealthcare.com/clinical/coronavirus-should-taper-april-sp-predicts

Scientific Puzzles Surround Wuhan Novel Coronavirus

The sudden outbreak of the Wuhan Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) has resulted in all of China’s Hubei Province and three major cities in Zhejiang Province being subjected to quarantine. Other nations are anxiously trying to get their people out of China, and restrictions are being placed on flights to China. Because this novel virus has an extremely high transmission speed (high R0) and a high fatality rate, it is posing a significant challenge to public health, not only in China, but around the world.

There are major gaps in our knowledge of the virus’s origin, duration of human-to-human transmission, and clinical management of those infected based on the current limited information coming from China. Nevertheless, the findings of those scientists who have recently published research papers about this virus are summarized below.

Lancet Article Reports Wuhan Virus Not Likely Caused by Natural Recombination

Most papers reported that the 2019-nCoV is only 88 percent related to the closest bat coronavirus, only 79 percent to SARS, and just 50 percent to MERS. Professor Roujian Lu from the China Key Laboratory of Biosafety, National Institute for Viral Disease Control and Prevention, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, and his co-authors commented in a Jan. 30 paper in Lancet that “recombination is probably not the reason for emergence of this virus.”
A Jan. 27 2020, study by 5 Greek scientists analyzed the genetic relationships of 2019-nCoV and found that “the new coronavirus provides a new lineage for almost half of its genome, with no close genetic relationships to other viruses within the subgenus of sarbecovirus,” and has an unusual middle segment never seen before in any coronavirus. All this indicates that 2019-nCoV is a brand new type of coronavirus. The study’s authors rejected the original hypothesis that 2019-nCoV originated from random natural mutations between different coronaviruses. (Paraskevis et al 2020 BioRxiv) The article is a preprint made available through bioRxiv and has not been peer-reviewed.

Puzzles of the Wuhan Novel Coronavirus (Yuhong Dong)

Very High Genetic Identity in Patients Indicates a Recent Transmission to Humans

2019-nCoV is an RNA virus. RNA viruses have high natural mutation rates. The Lancet study by Lu et al. states: “As a typical RNA virus, the average evolutionary rate for coronaviruses is roughly 10-4 nucleotide substitutions per site per year, with mutations arising during every replication cycle. It is, therefore, striking that the sequences of 2019-nCoV from different patients described here were almost identical, with greater than 99.9% sequence identity. This finding suggests that 2019-nCoV originated from one source within a very short period and detected relatively rapidly.”
A Jan. 31 article by Jon Cohen in Science said: “The longer a virus circulates in a human population, the more time it has to develop mutations that differentiate strains in infected people, and given that the 2019-nCoV sequences analyzed to date differ from each other by seven nucleotides at most, this suggests it jumped into humans very recently. But it remains a mystery which animal spread the virus to humans.”

Bat or Huanan Market Source Is Not the Whole Story

Prof. Lu et. al. also discussed the natural host of the virus. An early hypothesis had been the virus had passed to humans from bats sold at Wuhan’s Huanan Seafood Market.

Lu et. al write: “First, the outbreak was first reported in late December 2019, when most bat species in Wuhan are hibernating. Second, no bats were sold or found at the Huanan seafood market, whereas various non-aquatic animals (including mammals) were available for purchase. Third, the sequence identity between 2019-nCoV and its close relatives bat-SL-CoVZC45 and bat-SL-CoVZXC21 was less than 90%. Hence, bat-SL-CoVZC45 and bat-SL-CoVZXC21 are not direct ancestors of 2019-nCoV.”
The authors point out that while the 2019-nCoV causing the Wuhan outbreak might have initially been hosted by bats, it may have been transmitted to humans via other as yet unknown mechanisms.
The Science article said: “Huanan marketplace played an early role in spreading 2019-nCoV, but whether it was the origin of the outbreak remains uncertain. Many of the initially confirmed 2019-nCoV cases—27 of the first 41 in one report, 26 of 47 in another—were connected to the Wuhan market, but up to 45%, including the earliest handful, were not. This raises the possibility that the initial jump into people happened elsewhere.”

Spike Protein Has 4 Precise Mutations Without Impacting Its Affinity for Human Receptor

Every virus must have a receptor to bind to human cells, can only live inside human cells, and must rely on human cells to replicate. Without these capabilities, viruses found circulating in blood or tissue fluids are easily cleared by the human immune system.
Viruses enter human cells via specific surface protein channels. The interaction of viral surface proteins binding to human cells is similar with how keys are used to open locks.

Previous studies have shown there are several receptors that different coronaviruses bind to, such as angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) for SARS-CoV. ACE2 receptors are abundantly present in human tissue, especially along the epithelial linings of lung and small intestines, provide routes of entry into cells for SARS-CoV.
According to Lu et al.’s Lancet paper, there is a structural similarity between the receptor-binding domains of SARS-CoV and 2019-nCoV. 2019-nCoV spike protein (S-protein) is responsible for binding to cell receptors and is crucial for viral targeting of host tissue. The molecular modelling data by Lu et. al. suggests that, despite the presence of amino acid mutations in the 2019-nCoV receptor-binding domain, 2019-nCoV might use the ACE2 receptor to gain entry into host cells.
On Jan. 21, 2020, Xintian Xu et al. from Key Laboratory of Molecular Virology and Immunology, Institute Pasteur of Shanghai, Center for Biosafety Mega-Science, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shanghai, China, published a paper entitled “Evolution of the novel coronavirus from the ongoing Wuhan outbreak and modeling of its spike protein for risk of human transmission” in SCIENCE CHINA Life Sciences. This paper provided a more precise analysis of the S-protein of Wuhan 2019-nCoV.
The S-protein was known to usually have the most variable amino acid sequences compared to other gene domains from coronavirus. However, despite considerable genetics distance between the Wuhan CoV and the human-infecting SARS-CoV, and the overall low homology of the Wuhan CoV S-protein to that of SARS-CoV, the Wuhan CoV S-protein had several patches of sequences in the receptor binding (RBD) domain with a high homology to that of SARS-CoV. The residues at positions 442, 472, 479, 487, and 491 in SARS-CoV S-protein were reported to be at receptor complex interface and considered critical for cross species and human-to-human transmission of SARS-CoV. So to our surprise, despite replacing four out of five important interface amino acid residues, the Wuhan CoV S-protein was found to have a significant binding affinity to human ACE2. The replacing residues at positions 442, 472, 479, and 487 in the Wuhan CoV S-protein did not alter the structural conformation. The Wuhan CoV S-protein and SARS-CoV S-protein shared an almost identical 3-D structure in the RBD domain, thus maintaining similar van der Waals and electrostatic properties in the interaction interface. Thus the Wuhan CoV is still able to pose a significant public health risk for human transmission via the S protein–ACE2 binding pathway.” (emphasis added)
We know already that the novel 2019-nCoV is a different virus than SARS. It is understood that S-protein is highly variable. It would be no surprise if the genetic sequence, protein structure, and even the function of 2019-nCoV’s S-protein is different than that of the SARS virus. But, how could this novel virus be so intelligent as to mutate precisely at selected sites while preserving its binding affinity to the human ACE2 receptor? How did the virus change just four amino acids of the S-protein? Did the virus know how to use Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats (CRISPR) to make sure this would happen?

Stunning Finding: S-Protein Insertions From HIV

On Jan. 27, 2020, Prashant Pradhan et. al. from the Indian institute of Technology published a paper entitled “Uncanny similarity of unique inserts in the 2019-nCoV spike protein to HIV-1 gp120 and Gag,” which is currently being revised. The corresponding author of this paper, Professor Bishwajit Kundu, is specialized in protein genetic and genetic engineering and has published about 41 papers during the past 17 years on PubMed, including high-impact biomedical journals.
The authors found 4 insertions in the spike glycoprotein (S) which are unique to the 2019-nCoV and are not present in other coronaviruses. “Importantly, amino acid residues in all 4 inserts have identity or similarity to those of HIV-1 gp120 or HIV-1 Gag. Interestingly, despite the inserts being discontinuous on the primary amino acid sequence, 3D-modelling of the 2019-nCoV suggests that they converge to constitute the receptor binding site. The finding of 4 unique inserts in the 2019-nCoV, all of which have identity/similarity to amino acid residues in key structural proteins of HIV-1 is unlikely to be fortuitous in nature.” (emphasis added) author.
Pradhan et al. added, “To our surprise, these sequence insertions were not only absent in S-protein of SARS but were also not observed in any other member of the Coronaviridae family. This is startling as it is quite unlikely for a virus to have acquired such unique insertions naturally in a short duration of time.”
“Unexpectedly, all the insertions got aligned with Human immunodeficiency Virus-1 (HIV-1). Further analysis revealed that aligned sequences of HIV-1 with 2019-nCoV were derived from surface glycoprotein gp120 (amino acid sequence positions: 404-409, 462-467, 136-150) and from Gag protein (366-384 amino acid). Gag protein of HIV is involved in host membrane binding, packaging of the virus and for the formation of virus-like particles. Gp120 plays crucial role in recognizing the host cell by binding to the primary receptor CD4. This binding induces structural rearrangements in GP120, creating a high affinity binding site for a chemokine co-receptor like CXCR4 and/or CCR5.”
It is well known that CD4 cells are essential to human immunity and are the direct targets of the Human Immunodeficiency Virus or HIV. HIV attaches to CD4 cells, enters and infects them. The virus then turns each infected CD4 cell into a factory creating more HIV virus until eventually all CD4 cells are destroyed. People infected with HIV lose their immunity or defense system which is like a country losing the function of its army.
If we take a closer look at the 4 insertions of the S-protein in figure 3 (from Pradhan et. al. 2020 bioRxiv), they are all located on the binding surface of the protein, seemly designed to be able to bind to target cell receptor sites. Natural accidental mutation would be randomly distributed across the whole length of the S-protein. It is highly unlikely that all of these insertions would coincidentally be manifested on the binding site of the S-protein.

The article by Pradhan et. al. is a preprint made available through bioRxiv and has not been peer-reviewed.
bioRxiv reports: “This paper has been withdrawn by its authors. They intend to revise it in response to comments received from the research community on their technical approach and their interpretation of the results. If you have any questions, please contact the corresponding author.”

Clinical Evidence: Patients Have Cytokine Storm with Progressive Decline in Blood Lymphocytes

Are Pradhan et. al.’s findings right or wrong? If correct, the virus should be able to invade human CD4 T cells and result in corresponding clinical features. A paper published in The Lancet on Jan. 24, 2020 by Professor Chaolin Huang from Jin Yin-tan Hospital, Wuhan, China, et. al.,  reviewing “Clinical features of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan, China” supports Pradhan et. al’s conclusions.
Huang analyzed 41 hospital patients admitted with laboratory-confirmed 2019-nCoV infection as of Jan. 2, 2020. “Only 27 (66%) of 41 patients had been exposed to Huanan seafood market. Common symptoms at onset of illness were fever (98%), cough (76%), and myalgia or fatigue (44%); less common symptoms were sputum production (28%), headache (8%), haemoptysis (5%), and diarrhoea (3%). Dyspnoea developed in 55% (median time from illness onset to dyspnoea 8·0 days). 63% had lymphopenia. All 41 patients had pneumonia with abnormal findings on chest CT. Complications included acute respiratory distress syndrome (29%), RNAaemia (15%), acute cardiac injury (12%) and secondary infection (10%). 32% patients were admitted to an ICU and six (15%) died. Compared with non-ICU patients, ICU patients had higher plasma levels of IL2, IL7, IL10, GSCF, IP10, MCP1, MIP1A, and TNFα. The 2019-nCoV infection caused clusters of severe respiratory illness similar to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus and was associated with ICU admission and high mortality.”
Although low white blood cell counts are common in viral infections, it is surprising that 63 percent of all infected patients and 85 percent of those admitted to the ICU had lymphopenia with lymphocyte counts <1·0 × 10⁹/L. In a study on SARS published March 2004 by C.M. Chu et. al. in the journal Thorax, the mean lymphocyte count was often reported as normal.

On Jan. 22, 2020, two clinical guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of Wuhan 2019-nCoV were posted on China websites. One is “Quick Guide for the Diagnosis and Treatment of New Coronavirus Pneumonia” authored by the expert group of Tongji Hospital, and the other is “Instructions for Handling 2019 New Coronavirus” from the Wuhan Union Hospital of Tongji Medical College of Huazhong University of Science and Technology. The first guideline clearly points out a “progressive lymphocyte reduction” while the second guideline highlights “the importance of monitoring the absolute value of lymphocytes.” (emphasis added)
Therefore, the observed lymphocyte reduction must be of clinical significance in a certain proportion of patients. CD4 positive T lymphocytes constitute a major fraction of all lymphocytes. Although not a routine test for patients with coronavirus infection, perhaps monitoring CD4 cell counts would be helpful in 2019-nCoV patients.
Another clinical feature of patients infected with 2019-nCoV is the high levels of serum cytokines and chemokines, which is defined as a cytokine storm (Huang et al 2020 Lancet). This is consistent with the observation from Pradhan et al. that the 2019-nCoV S-protein inducing structural rearrangements in GP120, creating a high affinity binding site for a chemokine co-receptor such as CXCR4 and/or CCR5. It is well known that activating T cell surface receptors can cause a cytokine storm. Cytokine storms have potential to create significant damage to organs and bodily tissues. If a cytokine storm occurs in the lungs, for example, immune cells such as macrophages and fluid may trigger tissue damage that results in acute respiratory distress and possible death.
The United States Centers for Disease Control stated: “There is no specific antiviral treatment recommended for 2019-nCoV infection.” But, there are a few case reports of Wuhan 2019-nCoV patients benefiting from empiric treatment with anti-HIV drugs such as lopinavir. More such detailed clinical experience needs to be shared.

Conclusion

There are many scientific questions regarding this novel virus. Based on recently published scientific papers, this new coronavirus has unprecedented virologic features that suggest genetic engineering may have been involved in its creation. The virus presents with severe clinical features, which make it a significant threat. It is imperative for scientists, physicians, and people all over the world, including governments and public health authorities, to make every effort to investigate this mysterious and suspicious virus in order to elucidate its origin and to better enable populations in China and around the world to respond.
Yuhong Dong holds a M.D. from Beijing Medical University and a doctorate in infectious diseases from Beijing University. Dong has 17 years of working experience in viral infectious disease clinical treatment and antiviral drug research. Dong worked as a doctor in the First Affiliated Hospital of Beijing Medical University and then later as a Medical Scientific Expert specialized in antiviral drug clinical research in Novartis R&D. She currently works as a Chief Scientific Officer in a Swiss Biotech company.
https://www.theepochtimes.com/scientific-puzzles-surrounding-the-wuhan-novel-coronavirus_3225405.html

Virus Outbreak Puts China’s Alleged Biowarfare Research Under Scrutiny

The source of the novel coronavirus that has led to the lockdown of 34 Chinese cities, and has now spread to 35 countries outside China, is still unknown.

Initial reports from China claimed the source was a live food market in Wuhan, the capital of Hubei Province, and may have been caused by bats.
Other reports claimed the source may have been the state-run Wuhan Institute of Virology near the market, where the virus may have been leaked from the country’s first top-level “P4” lab, which handles the most dangerous types of pathogens.
The original report making the claim about the P4 lab as a potential source was published by GreatGameIndia, a journal on geopolitics and international relations. Other publications, such as The Washington Times, followed, with additional claims based on interviews.
While the narrative of the virus coming from the lab hasn’t been debunked, it has been criticized by several news outlets, since some of the connections still aren’t proven.

Regardless of where the coronavirus came from, the attention on the P4 lab has focused a spotlight on the Chinese regime’s alleged biological warfare programs and is raising questions about the nature of the P4 lab in Wuhan.
The main argument against the idea that the Chinese regime has a biological warfare program is the fact that China became a state party to the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) in 1984, which would forbid it from developing biological weapons.
A brief perusal of official documents and strategies, however, quickly fuels doubt about how closely the Chinese regime has followed the BWC. A U.S. State Department report from August 2019 notes the U.S. assessment that China had an offensive biological weapons program from at least the 1950s to the late 1980s, and despite signing the BWC, “there is no available information to demonstrate that China took steps to fulfill its treaty obligations” to “divert or destroy” any offensive biological weapons it previously developed.
The report also notes that the Chinese regime “engaged during the reporting period in biological activities with potential dual-use applications, which raises concerns regarding its compliance with the BWC.”
In other words, some research programs done by the Chinese regime could be used for both peaceful and hostile purposes. The report notes, “Available information on studies from researchers at Chinese military medical institutions often identify biological activities of a possibly anomalous nature … with potential dual-use applications.”
Rick Fisher, a senior fellow at the International Assessment and Strategy Center and an Epoch Times contributor, said in an interview that U.S. assessments in the government and intelligence communities hold that “China has been developing these weapons all along.”

Fisher noted that it was suspected that biological warfare programs in China were connected to leakages of the SARS virus, following its outbreak in 2002 and 2003, and to a viral outbreak in the late 1980s in Xinjiang.
“They are still disasters—breakdowns—in the process of these laboratories that allowed for these very harmful viruses to leak out into the public and cause extensive, but clearly unnecessary, death,” Fisher said.
The P4 lab in Wuhan has connections to the Chinese military, the People’s Liberation Army. When the U.S.-based company Gilead Sciences recently sent a new drug (remdesivir) to China that could possibly treat the novel coronavirus, the Wuhan Institute of Virology quickly moved to apply for a patent.
In a Feb. 4 statement published on the institute’s website about the patent, the institute notes it conducted research alongside the National Academy of Military Medical Research Institute of Emergency Medicine for Prevention and Control of Drugs. It also notes ties to the Prevention Engineering Technology Research Center of Military Medical Research Institute, and to the National Institute of Emergency Medicine Control and Engineering Research Center for Military Medical Research.
The Wuhan P4 lab is part of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, which has close ties to the Chinese military in its research programs.
Meanwhile, Chinese military doctrine has identified biological warfare as a key part of the regime’s military strategies—particularly in any war scenarios with the United States. Among the key programs is its Assassin’s Mace (“Sha Shou Jian”) strategy.

Michael Pillsbury, a Pentagon consultant, warned of the strategy in his 2016 book “The Hundred-Year Marathon,” in which he noted the only time China won in a simulated war game with the United States, the China team used the Assassin’s Mace strategy. He wrote, “whenever the China team used conventional tactics and strategies, America won—decisively. However, in every case where China employed Assassin’s Mace methods, China was the victor.”
Fisher said that Assassin’s Mace is designed around using various unconventional weapons in conjunction for a brutal surprise attack, and that “when used at the right time, and targeted against a specific weakness of the enemy, can result in the rapid collapse of that enemy’s military threat.”
He also noted that Chinese military officials haven’t shied away from discussing the use of brutal attacks and weapons, including biological weapons. Some of the statements are so brazen and extreme, however, that many in the U.S. defense analyst community tend to dismiss them.
In regard to rumors about the new coronavirus spreading in China, he noted that while they’re still unproven, they also shouldn’t be written off without some investigation.
“Reputable scientists are beginning to coalesce around the idea that at a minimum, the coronavirus that we’re facing today is the product of a laboratory [and] not the product of some kind of naturally occurring process,” Fisher said.

He said the “developing consensus that this coronavirus is a man-made virus naturally links this to China’s biowarfare capabilities and programs.”

“The world should take this as a very serious possibility, and it should affect our policy and relationships with the People’s Republic of China.”

https://www.theepochtimes.com/amid-coronavirus-outbreak-chinas-alleged-biowarfare-research-under-scrutiny_3230089.html

Moderna up on positive comments on vaccine platform

Investors are maintaining their enthusiasm with coronavirus-related stocks, driving Moderna (MRNA +15.6%) up on almost triple normal volume. At a news conference today, a U.S. health official stated that there have been no “glitches” in development to date with the company’s investigational coronavirus vaccine (company is working with NIH).

Two weeks ago, it announced funding from a public-private coalition to support the manufacture of the vaccine.

Fellow mRNA therapeutics developer Alnylam Pharmaceuticals (ALNY +3%) is up as well, albeit on average volume.

Update: The official stated that the vaccine could be ready for a Phase 1 study in 2 1/2 months.

https://seekingalpha.com/news/3539821-moderna-up-16-on-positive-comments-on-vaccine-platform

Pangolin Suspect #1 as direct source of coronavirus outbreak

Researchers at the South China Agricultural University have identified the scaly pangolin as a ‘potential intermediate host’ for the virus

Chinese researchers investigating the animal origin of the deadly coronavirus outbreak in China said Friday the endangered pangolin may be the “missing link” between bats and humans, but other scientists said the search may not be over.

An earlier study—since discredited—pointed to snakes, and there remain numerous candidate species in the Wuhan wildlife market thought to be ground zero of the epidemic.
The SARS outbreak of 2002-3, involving a different strain of coronavirus, was transferred to humans by the civet, a small mammal prized in China for its flesh.
Missing link: A pangolin?
Many animals are capable of transmitting viruses to other species, and nearly all strains of the coronavirus contagious to humans originated in wildlife.
Bats are known carriers of the latest strain of the disease, which has infected at least 31,000 people and killed more than 630 worldwide, mostly in China where the outbreak originate.
A recent genetic analysis showed that the strain of the virus currently spreading among humans was 96 percent identical to that found in bats.
But according to Arnaud Fontanet, from France’s Pasteur Institute, the disease likely didn’t jump straight from bats to humans.
“We think there’s another animal that’s an intermediary,” he told AFP.
Several studies have shown that the bat-bourne virus lacks the necessary hardware to latch on to human cell receptors. But it’s still not clear which animal is the missing link.
Fontanet believes the intermediary was “probably a mammal,” possible belonging to the badger family.
After testing more than 1,000 samples from wild animals, scientists at the South China Agricultural University found the genome sequences of viruses in pangolins to be 99 percent identical to those on coronavirus patients, the official Xinhua news agency reported.
But other experts urged caution.
“This is not scientific evidence,” said James Wood, head of the department of veterinary medicine at the University of Cambridge. “Investigations into animal reservoirs are extremely important, but results must be then be published for international scrutiny.”
“Simply reporting detection of viral RNA with sequence similarity of 99+ percent is not sufficient,” he added.
Wild goose chase?
To conclusively identify the culprit, researchers would need to test each species that was on sale at the market—a near impossibility given that it’s now permanently closed.
Martine Peeters, a virologist at France’s Institute for Research and Development (IRD), worked on the team that identified the host animal of the Ebola virus during recent epidemics.

Graphic on pangolins, the world’s most heavily trafficked mammals.

They found that it was indeed a bat that passed the virus on to humans, and Peeters believes that’s likely to be the case this time around.
During her Ebola research, “we collected thousands of bat dropping from several sites in Africa,” Peeters told AFP.
Fontanet said that Chinese researchers were doing likewise now.
“They say they’ve analysed samples from a rubbish truck,” he said. “They don’t say which, but I think it’s likely to have been excrement that was just lying around.”
Why does it matter?
While it may be too late for this outbreak, identifying the carrier animal for the novel coronavirus could prove vital in preventing future flare ups.
China for example outlawed the sale of civet for food in the wake of the SARS epidemic.
Eric Leroy, a virologist and vet at the IRD said the search could well turn up a result quickly like in the case of SARS. Equally, it could take years.
“With Ebola, research started in 1976 and we didn’t see the first results published until 2005,” he told AFP.
One determining factor could be what percentage of the same species are infected.
“If that’s low, less than one percent for example, that’s obviously going to lower the chance you stumble upon an infected animal,” said Leroy.
Prevent future outbreaks?
For Fontanet, coronavirus is just the latest example of the potentially disastrous consequence of humans consuming virus-carrying wild animals.
He said that China needed to “take pretty radical measures against the sale of wild animals in markets.”
Beijing has prohibited the practice, but only moved to do so last month, when the outbreak was already out of control.
“Each time, we try to put out the fire, and once it’s out we await the next one,” said Francois Renaud, a researcher at the Paris-based National Centre for Scientific Research.
He recommended compiling a watch list of all animals that could potentially transmit viruses to humans.
“You need to see epidemics before they come, and therefore you need to be proactive,” he said.
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2020-02-pangolin-potential-link-coronavirus.html