The Covid Conundrum
Introduction by PCR
Soren Korsgaard has proved to be an excellent researcher. He presents us with the facts that Covid was a man-made pathogen with its gain-of-function feature–its ease of spreading among human population–added as a Dr. Fauci NIH financed addition, and that Covid appeared in several countries prior to its appearance in Wuhan, China, indicating that the origin of the virus was not a Chinese lab leak. This suggests that the virus was intentionally released.
The questions before us are why was the virus created, and why was it released? Was Covid supposed to be more dangerous than it turned out to be in order to reduce the world population as Bill Gates and others advocated? Was its release in many countries intended to give it a head start before the danger was realized? Or was it a profit-driven scheme to mass market an experimental vaccine, or an experiment in the efficacy of fear in controlling populations and securing their consent to lockdowns and other tyranny? Or did it serve as a simulation in how to manage the release of a more deadly pathogen?
We are a long ways from having any answers. US Senators Rand Paul and Ron Thompson have made strenuous efforts to get at the facts. But Dr. Fauci took the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination 111 times and refused to answer questions. If no crimes have occurred, what is the reason for Dr. Fauci’s need for the Fifth Amendment? The official position remains that Covid was just a natural occurrence. The world population is so insouciant that mankind does not seem to be concerned that possibly someone was out to get them or to use them for the sake of profit. Western liberals have destroyed the belief in evil and cannot conceive of a plot of world-wide genocide, or that pharmaceutical companies would so inconvenience the world for money.
Historically, insouciance is the underlying cause of wars and catastrophes. Insouciance remains the unifying factor of the world’s populations.
COVID was Made in a Lab, but did it Leak by Accident? Here’s What you Need to Know.
Søren Roest Korsgaard
1.0 Introduction
Was the coronavirus made in a lab? The evidence strongly points in that direction. But that is not the real question. The real question is how it entered the human population. Matt Taibbi recently argued, using two quotes from Fauci’s diary and weak circumstantial evidence, that the virus escaped from the Wuhan Institute of Virology [1]. The lab leak crowd has built a seemingly compelling case for incompetence, but the devil is in the details. Here is what they are not telling you, and why it falsifies their theory.
1.1 The Fauci Quotes and the Wuhan Conspiracy
First, let’s review Dr. Fauci’s two quotes, both of which were written on January 26, 2020.
1. “The infections spread among people weeks before the Chinese reported that they were dealing with a new infection.”
2. “Early on, the Chinese were saying that there is no human to human transmission and all the original 27 cases were from the market. Now we know the market was not the source, it was the amplifier” [2].
Fauci nevertheless added, “the virus jumped from animals to humans,” demonstrating that he himself did not believe that the virus escaped from a lab [2]. However, the evidence that the virus was a human construct is strong and is best exemplified by the fact that no coronavirus has ever crossed the species barrier and instantly become exceedingly optimized to persist and thrive in the human host.
Returning to the quotes, Fauci was correct: The virus was spreading in Wuhan for weeks before Chinese officials reported a “cluster of pneumonia of unknown etiology” on December 31, 2019. In itself this means nothing because a new virus will not be identified on the same day as it appears because it is circulating at low levels. Depending on surveillance methods and the impact of a new pathogen, weeks, months, or even years can go by before it is first identified.
More importantly, Chinese officials knew very well that it was a new SARS virus when they deceptively only reported the atypical pneumonia cases. All along, they also knew that it was spreading among humans. In short, they lied.
Here is the evidence:
On December 27, Vision Medicals, a genomics company based in China’s Guangzhou’s Huangpu District, finished testing fluid samples from the lungs of a 65-year-old man who was admitted to the Central Hospital of Wuhan nine days earlier with a pneumonia diagnosis [3]. Rather than sending a report as was customary, Vision Medicals immediately called Dr. Zhao Su, the head of respiratory medicine at the hospital, stressing that it “was a new coronavirus” [4].
Meanwhile, Dr. Ai Fen, the head of the emergency department at the hospital, sent swabs from a 41-year-old patient with pneumonia to a laboratory for analysis. On December 30, she received the result: “SARS coronavirus” along with other pathogens [3, 5]. Acting instinctively, Dr. Ai circled the result in red and shared it with others, sparking a chain reaction. Instead of being rewarded for caring about public health, Dr. Ai, along with several other doctors, was swiftly reprimanded for spreading rumors and ordered not to release more information about the virus.
Independently, BGI Genomics received 30 samples from pneumonia patients in Wuhan throughout December. The samples received on December 26, 29, and 30 were sequenced and determined to contain a previously unseen coronavirus that was similar to SARS [4]. BGI Genomics reported these findings to the Wuhan Municipal Health Commission on January 1.
Most damaging: On December 28, a team of virologists from the Institute of Pathogen Biology of the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences submitted a sequence of the novel coronavirus to the GenBank database. Due to some missing technical details that were not supplied despite follow-up requests, the sequence was not made public. Four years later, however, the submission and its metadata were unearthed by the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s investigation into the origins of the coronavirus. Despite knowing the truth, Chinese officials framed it as a mysterious cluster of pneumonia cases three days later.
So, yes, indeed, there was a cover-up by Beijing. Without a doubt, their actions paint a vivid image of them as guilty as sin of a lab leak. Compounded by the fact that mainstream researchers conspired to denounce the lab origin hypothesis, many observers have accepted the circumstantial evidence and moved on.
The picture is more complex, however. When SARS, for example, which was not a lab-made virus, emerged in 2002, Beijing used the same playbook: They attempted to hide the outbreak, imposed strict censorship, and did not notify the WHO until the virus had already begun spreading to other countries. Subsequently, they downplayed the severity of the situation but were exposed by a whistleblower, Dr. Jiang Yanyong.
Those who understand China and its government will not be surprised at how it responded to the virus. Unfortunately, this behavior, while predictable, has made it difficult to unravel what truly happened.
1.2 How to Test the Lab Leak Hypothesis
If there were a lab leak at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, then all strains of the virus descended from the one that escaped. In other words, the parent of all variants and sublineages from across the world is the one that escaped. It follows that we can dismiss a lab leak as a plausible theory if the virus circulated in other countries prior to the first emergence in Wuhan. Therefore, we need answers to the following questions:
1. When did the virus first emerge in Wuhan?
2. Was the virus spreading outside Wuhan before this time or only after?
Note that it is a fallacy to assume that the virus must have emerged in Wuhan because it was the origin of identification. In response to SARS, China rolled out the Pneumonia of Unknown Etiology (PUE) surveillance system, which promptly identifies novel pathogens. Dr. Ai Fen acted swiftly due to this system, which requires doctors to flag patients with an illness of unknown cause combined with criteria, such as an underarm temperature higher than 38 °C. A sample from a suspected PUE case is sent directly for testing for various influenza types by PCR, but if it is negative, the lab worker looks for SARS- and MERS-like viruses.
1.3 When did the Virus Emerge in Wuhan?
Let’s first focus on the aforementioned sequence uploaded on December 28 by the Chinese virologists, which was collected from a patient just four days earlier. It is the earliest known full-length genome of SARS-CoV-2 from Wuhan, making it a crucial piece of evidence. Close examination of the sequence reveals that it had three mutations relative to the progenitor―the parent or ancestor of all strains. In other words, the virus had circulated for some time resulting in those three mutations. For how long? Fortunately, the scientific literature is unambiguous: the virus accrued approximately two mutations per month in the early pandemic phase [6]. This means that the virus emerged around November 8 to 10.
Detailed studies by virologists using pandemic simulations and other techniques agree: the virus most likely emerged in November 2019 in Wuhan. For example, a study in Science by Jonathan Pekar et al. estimated that human-to-human transmission began in mid-November, though mid-October was also possible. During this time, the number of cases was very low; thus, circulation outside China would have been unlikely [7].
Another important study regarding the emergence time was published by Roberts et al. in the journal PLoS Pathogens [8]. After feeding the official dataset from China into a modified version of the Optimal Linear Estimation (O.L.E.) framework, they singled out November 17 as the most likely date of the first case. The O.L.E. framework requires relatively few data points for accurately calculating emergence or extinction times, making it ideal for timing the pandemic.
In conclusion, the virus likely emerged in November in Wuhan.
1.4 What about the Wuhan Military Games?
Lab leak proponents generally ignore the molecular and epidemiological evidence pointing to November. Instead, they highlight that athletes became sick at the Wuhan Military World Games and portray it as evidence of massive transmission already in October. Let’s examine it.
Held over nine days starting on October 18, 2019, the event brought together 9,308 athletes from more than 100 nations, along with over 200,000 staff and volunteers. In the following months, as the virus dominated global headlines, many of the participants recounted becoming sick during the event, and some of them believed it was COVID-19.
In a June 2021 interview with the Financial Post, an anonymous member of the Canadian Armed Forces characterized Wuhan as already being in lockdown. “This was a city of 15 million people that was in lockdown,” he said. “It was strange, but we were told this was to make it easy for the Games’ participants to get around” [10].
Luxembourg triathlete Oliver Gorges, who also fell ill, reported similarly strange conditions. He described the supposedly bustling city as a “ghost town” and “nearly empty,” telling the Daily Mail about rumors that the government had “warned the inhabitants not to go out” [11]. He called the situation “strange” and also recounted unusual protocols like temperature checks at the airport and mandatory hand washing in cafeterias [10].
These statements have fueled numerous articles and books claiming that Beijing conspired to hide that the virus had leaked, thereby inadvertently creating the world’s first super-spreader event.
As recently as April 2025, in an interview with NewsNation, Dr. Robert Redfield, the former director of the CDC, admitted that he had “always” believed that the virus leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology [12]. He went on to characterize the Military World Games as probably the first major super-spreader event, and he blamed the government:
You know, it’s interesting that when those games took place in Wuhan, it was very unusual that the Wuhan government didn’t allow any spectators. It was like having the Olympics, but they allowed no spectators. So, they clearly knew there was something going on in Wuhan at the time [12].
These accounts seemingly paint a convincing picture; the critical question, however, is whether they are true? According to Dan Kersch, the Minister of Sport and Labor in Luxembourg, they are completely false:
I was there and I have a hard time imagining that there was already a knowledge of the spread of the virus. President Xi Jinping was also present and there were no special safety measures, particularly in terms of health [13].
Kersch’s statement is confirmed by videos recorded on October 18, 2019. They show President Xi Jinping and other officials attending the opening ceremony at the Wuhan Sports Center along with tens of thousands of people (Figs. 1 and 2). There was no social distancing or other virus-related precautions [14]. This single observation makes the secret lockdown theory highly improbable.
Figure 1: President Xi Jinping at the Wuhan Sports Center on October 18, 2019.
Figure 2: Tens of thousands of people attended the opening ceremony on October 18, 2019.
If Chinese authorities knew a novel, deadly virus was spreading uncontrollably, they would not knowingly expose their paramount leader, President Xi Jinping, to that threat. Placing him in an enclosed stadium with tens of thousands of people from all over the world would be an unimaginable security and health protocol failure. The very presence of the head of state, without visible, extreme precautions, implies that the authorities perceived no such threat at the time.
The secret lockdown allegation fails further when we examine satellite imagery provided by Maxar Technologies. In Figure 3, we see Wuhan Avenue on October 17, 2019 (left)—there are numerous cars going in all directions. By contrast, when the city was under lockdown on February 25, 2020, the exact same area was mostly empty (right). The allegations of an empty stadium and a secret lockdown are simply completely and provably false.
Figure 3: Wuhan Avenue on October 17, 2019, and February 25, 2020.
It is very clear that determining the origin of the virus is not straightforward; there are several competing agendas and plenty of deception, of which I have only covered the surface. To get to the truth, we must separate ourselves from preconceived notions and consider all the relevant evidence.
Now, what about the athletes who became sick? Dr. Jari Autti, who treated all Finnish athletes who became sick in Wuhan, was not impressed by the allegations. While they had some flu-like symptoms, he pointed out that none of the special features of COVID were present [15]. “Upper respiratory symptoms (cough, runny nose, slight fever) were quite common among the athletes,” he added, “but when there are 10,000 people from all over the world, it is not at all surprising for an event of that size” [15].
Let’s focus on the athletes from Sweden. In April 2020, Dr. Anders Nystedt, an infectious disease specialist, administered antibody tests to Swedish athletes, several of whom had experienced severe, COVID-like symptoms during the Military Games. Many were surprised: the participants tested negative, save for one who was “slightly positive.” Dr. Nystedt clarified to the news agency Expressen that the lone positive was “probably” the result of an infection during Sweden’s first wave, rather than an earlier infection in Wuhan [16]. “Everyone should have been positive if they had been infected in Wuhan,” he clarified. “There will be no cigar today either” [16]. Swedish pentathlete Melina Westerberg concurred, dismissing their earlier illness as “just a coincidence” [11].
As for the allegation that there were unusual protocols at the Wuhan airport. This is also completely bogus. A video was recorded showing numerous athletes at the Wuhan Tianhe International Airport. There is no social distancing and airport personnel were not wearing masks. There is simply nothing unusual to be seen [17]. Why is there so much deception? Who benefits?
In sum, when examined scientifically, the allegations about the Military Games are undermined. This example demonstrates that one can craft a compelling but false narrative as long as data is kept hidden or misrepresented.
The question now becomes: Were Chinese officials aware of the virus in November? The first-hand account of Dr. Ruth Carrico, an American expert in infectious diseases and epidemiology, is revealing.
During the first week of November, Dr. Carrico attended the 2019 National Disinfection and Infection Control Academic Conference in Wuhan. In a later retrospective diary, she described how the conference was attended by around 5,000 people in a single room with chairs close together, but “no masks were worn inside” [18]. The crowded conditions made her feel uneasy, she admitted, because it was the beginning of the influenza season. Dr. Carrico’s observations strongly suggest that there was no alarm or knowledge whatsoever among the nation’s top infectious disease specialists of a viral outbreak beyond the usual. Awareness must have begun later.
Beyond the Military Games, lab leak theorists also cite allegations made by ABC News and CNN in April 2020 as evidence that infections were spiraling out of control. The networks alleged that the National Center for Medical Intelligence (NCMI) had issued a dire warning. This came in the form of a report to top officials at the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Pentagon’s Joint Staff, and the White House. Four unnamed officials, who were allegedly “briefed” on the report, spoke to ABC News. They said it warned of a “contagion” that was “sweeping through China’s Wuhan region, changing the patterns of life and business and posing a threat to the population” [19]. The report, allegedly based on wire and computer intercepts, as well as satellite imagery, concluded that a “cataclysmic event” could be unfolding [19]. However, shortly after the allegations emerged, Colonel Dr. R. Shane Day, the Director of the NCMI, threw water on the fire: “No such NCMI product exists” [19].
We now know that those reports were disinformation. The “patterns of life and business” were not changing at all, not even among the nation’s top infectious disease specialists. The absurdity of the reports was coincidentally captured by an American travel blogger, who visited Wuhan in November 2019 [20]. His recorded trip through the city shows no evidence whatsoever of a lockdown or anything unusual as he visits stores and talks to unmasked people in the streets. These facts were later reaffirmed by multiple studies of satellite imagery [21-22].
Although there was no NCMI report and the media reports were disinformation, they weaponized the lab leak hypothesis. But disinformation is never random—it serves a purpose. So we must ask: who benefits from the deception, and who has an interest in promoting a lab leak?
1.5 The Lab Leak Hypothesis vs. Reality
Wuhan-centric hypotheses depend on the virus most likely emerging in November 2019. Any circulation outside Wuhan significantly before this timeline refutes the lab leak hypothesis.
It is an inconvenient fact to lab leak proponents that multiple strong studies demonstrate pre-pandemic spread, including in Italy, the US, France, Morocco, and Angola [23-34]. The most significant finding is that strains sequenced in Italy from September, October, November, and December were highly mutated, whereas the earliest strain from Wuhan had a mere three mutations, as previously mentioned. This is evidence of multiple viral introductions and on different continents.
While the virus was spreading unnoticed in Italy, there was a highly unusual increase in Google searches for “cough” and “fever” in Italy, beginning in September 2019 [24]. At the Alzano Lombardo hospital in the Bergamo province, atypical pneumonia hospitalizations increased by 30.6% in 2019 compared to 2018 [35].
Advanced analysis of the Italian cases reveals an emergence time in the summer of 2019. However, the virus likely emerged even earlier in Morocco [27]. Lab leak theorists ignore these studies or dismiss them as false positives with no evidence whatsoever. Why? Because they don’t fit their model.
One of the more atypical studies was published in The British Journal of Dermatology [36]. The study analyzed skin biopsies of patients from Milan. One of them, a 25-year-old woman, had a biopsy taken on November 10, 2019, for an atypical dermatosis. The analysis showed the tissue was indistinguishable from skin pathologies caused by COVID-19, and it tested positive for two viral proteins, including the notorious spike protein. When she was informed of the findings in June 2020, she underwent antibody testing which was positive for the coronavirus.
The time that elapses from infection to the development of skin lesions is well-documented. In this case, it was characterized by a minichilblain pattern, which has been shown to appear two to four weeks post-development of symptoms. This indicates that she was infected between October 8 and October 22, but probably considerably earlier since she likely didn’t have the biopsy on the first day the condition appeared. Even if we assumed that the virus emerged in mid-October 2019 in Wuhan, the probability that a woman in Italy was infected with that strain is virtually zero. This is hard evidence that continues to be ignored by those with an agenda.
1.6 Conclusion
The debate over the origin of the virus can be distilled into two questions. The first is whether the virus was engineered in a lab. The second is how it entered the human population. The evidence refutes a singular lab leak at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and points toward multiple releases on different continents—the Parallel Release In Multiple Environments (P.R.I.M.E.) hypothesis.
The full deep-dive is in my book, The New September 11th: Solving the COVID-19 Pandemic. I am censored and shadowbanned almost everywhere, so buying the book is the most direct way to support my independent investigation into the virus and vaccines: https://www.amazon.com/dp/8793987919
1.7 References
[1]. The Ongoing Covid Coverup https://www.racket.news/p/the-ongoing-covid-coverup
[2]. Anthony Fauci’s Diary https://www.paul.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/2026.07.24_Tonys-Diary-Package.pdf
[3]. COVID-19 and China: A Chronology of Events (December 2019-January 2020) https://www.everycrsreport.com/files/2020-05-12_R46354_b672c0ed6fddc7954356bc440f084a6fe068c52b.pdf
[4]. In Depth: How Early Signs of a SARS-Like Virus Were Spotted, Spread, and Throttled https://www.caixinglobal.com/2020-02-29/in-depth-how-early-signs-of-a-sars-like-virus-were-spotted-spread-and-throttled-101521745.html
[5]. 发哨子的人 https://web.archive.org/web/20221209073005/https://archive.vn/OLdHs#selection-41.64-41.86
[6]. Tay, John H et al. “The Emergence of SARS-CoV-2 Variants of Concern Is Driven by Acceleration of the Substitution Rate.” Molecular biology and evolution vol. 39,2 (2022): msac013. doi:10.1093/molbev/msac013 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35038741/
[7]. Pekar, Jonathan et al. “Timing the SARS-CoV-2 index case in Hubei province.” Science (New York, N.Y.) vol. 372,6540 (2021): 412-417. doi:10.1126/science.abf8003 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33737402/
[8]. Roberts, David L et al. “Dating first cases of COVID-19.” PLoS Pathogens vol. 17,6 e1009620. 24 Jun. 2021, doi:10.1371/journal.ppat.1009620 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34166465/021
[9]. Coronavirus: China’s first confirmed Covid-19 case traced back to November 17 https://web.archive.org/web/20200313020250/https://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/3074991/coronavirus-chinas-first-confirmed-covid-19-case-traced-back
[10]. Diane Francis: Canadian Forces have right to know if they got COVID at the 2019 Military World Games in Wuhan https://financialpost.com/diane-francis/diane-francis-canadian-forces-have-right-to-know-if-they-got-covid-at-the-2019-military-world-games-in-wuhan
[11]. Why DID so many athletes fall sick in Wuhan in October? More competitors reveal they were ill at the World Military Games months before China admitted coronavirus could be passed between humans https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8327047/More-competitors-reveal-ill-World-Military-Games.html
[12]. Former CDC director on COVID report: Wuhan games didn’t allow spectators | Vargas Reports https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIxUITEc3gQ
[13] . Jeux militaires à Wuhan : le ministre des Sports luxembourgeois y était aussi… https://lequotidien.lu/politique-societe/jeux-militaires-a-wuhan-le-ministre-des-sports-luxembourgeois-y-etait-aussi/
[14]. President Xi Announces Opening of 7th CISM Military World Games https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYGfJQGJABg
[15]. Lukuisat urheilijat epäilevät sairastaneensa koronaviruksen jo viime lokakuussa – Wuhanissa paikalla olleen suomalaislääkärin mukaan asiaa on lähes mahdoton todistaa https://yle.fi/a/3-11358272
[16]. Militäridrottare besökte Wuhan i oktober – testades för corona https://www.expressen.se/nyheter/militaridrottare-besokte-wuhan-i-oktober-testades-for-corona
[17]. Delegates, first batch of firearms reach Wuhan for Military World Games https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKuLXJaPkJk
[18]. COVID-19 Pandemic Diary: Episode 2- “November 2019 Travels to Wuhan” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNBaqbTOBmk
[19]. Intelligence report warned of coronavirus crisis as early as November: Sources https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/intelligence-report-warned-coronavirus-crisis-early-november-sources/story?id=70031273
[20]. Wuhan China: Before the World Shut Down in 2020 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrELQq5wuqo
[21]. Hao Chen, Ziming Du, Yu Kang, Zhenyu Lin, William Ma. Comment on “Analysis of hospital traffic and search engine data in Wuhan China indicates early disease activity in the Fall of 2019” by Nsoesie et al.. 2020. https://hal.science/hal-02897822/document
[22]. Ji Liu, Haoyi Xiong, Jizhou Huang, Jingbo Zhou, Haiyan Jiang, Tongtong Huang, Haifeng Wang, Dejing Dou. Analysis of Collective Response Reveals that COVID-19-Related Activities Start From the End of 2019 in Mainland China. Archives of Clinical and Biomedical Research 5 (2021): 313-343 https://www.fortunejournals.com/articles/analysis-of-collective-response-reveals-that-covid19related-activities-start-from-the-end-of-2019.pdf
[23]. Amendola, Antonella et al. “Molecular evidence for SARS-CoV-2 in samples collected from patients with morbilliform eruptions since late 2019 in Lombardy, northern Italy.” Environmental research vol. 215,Pt 1 (2022): 113979. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2022.113979 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36029839/
[24]. Lippi G, Mattiuzzi C. Unexpected volume of Google searches for COVID-19 symptoms in the prepandemic period in Lombardia, Italy. Tumori Journal. 2021;107(5):468-469. doi:10.1177/0300891620980796 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33327872/
[25]. Carrat, Fabrice et al. “Evidence of early circulation of SARS-CoV-2 in France: findings from the population-based “CONSTANCES” cohort.” European journal of epidemiology vol. 36,2 (2021): 219-222. doi:10.1007/s10654-020-00716-2 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33548003/
[26]. Fongaro, Gislaine et al. “The presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in human sewage in Santa Catarina, Brazil, November 2019.” The Science of the total environment vol. 778 (2021): 146198. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.146198 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33714813/
[27]. Najimi, Nouhaila et al. “Pre-pandemic antibodies screening against SARS-CoV-2 and virus detection among children diagnosed with eruptive fevers.” International journal of immunopathology and pharmacology vol. 38 (2024): 3946320241260633. doi:10.1177/03946320241260633 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38836458/
[28]. Paixao, Joana et al. “Early Evidence of Circulating SARS-CoV-2 in Unvaccinated and Vaccinated Measles Patients, September 2019-February 2020.” Infection and drug resistance vol. 15 533-544. 19 Feb. 2022, doi:10.2147/IDR.S344437 https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8865870/
[29]. Basavaraju, Sridhar V et al. “Serologic Testing of US Blood Donations to Identify Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)-Reactive Antibodies: December 2019-January 2020.” Clinical infectious diseases: an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America vol. 72,12 (2021): e1004-e1009. doi:10.1093/cid/ciaa1785 https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7799215/
[30]. Belleville Mayor Tests Positive for Antibodies of COVID-19 https://www.tapinto.net/towns/newark/articles/belleville-mayor-tests-positive-for-antibodies-of-covid-19
[31]. New Jersey mayor believes he had coronavirus in November https://nypost.com/2020/05/07/new-jersey-mayor-believes-he-had-coronavirus-in-november/
[32]. Trombetta, Claudia Maria et al. “A serological investigation in Southern Italy: was SARS-CoV-2 circulating in late 2019?.” Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics vol. 18,5 (2022): 2047582. doi:10.1080/21645515.2022.2047582 https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8935457/
[33]. Bianchi S, Fappani C, Gori M, Canuti M, Colzani D, Monti MC, Torriani C, Raviglione MC, Zuccotti G, Tanzi E, Amendola A. Serological investigation of SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with suspect measles, 2017-2022. Virol J. 2023 Jul 20;20(1):160. doi: 10.1186/s12985-023-02117-9. PMID: 37474969; PMCID: PMC10357797. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37474969/
[34]. Canuti M, Bianchi S, Kolbl O, Pond SLK, Kumar S, Gori M, Fappani C, Colzani D, Borghi E, Zuccotti G, Raviglione MC, Tanzi E, Amendola A. Waiting for the truth: is reluctance in accepting an early origin hypothesis for SARS-CoV-2 delaying our understanding of viral emergence? BMJ Glob Health. 2022 Mar;7(3):e008386. doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2021-008386. PMID: 35296465; PMCID: PMC8927931. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8927931/
[35]. Alzano, le 110 polmoniti ‘atipiche’ al vaglio degli inquirenti https://www.ansa.it/lombardia/notizie/2020/06/30/alzanoin-inverno-110-polmoniti-strane_4edeed5d-23b8-46a8-ab78-266f839fbb5a.html
[36]. Gianotti, R et al. “COVID-19-related dermatosis in November 2019: could this case be Italy’s patient zero?.” The British journal of dermatology vol. 184,5 (2021): 970-971. doi:10.1111/bjd.19804 https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9619443/