I would like to preface by saying that I wrote the title of this article by stealing the line from Attorney L. Lin Wood who fights fearlessly in uncovering the truth of the November 2020 Election. Attorney Wood would not be surprised that he is not the only messenger who is attacked for the message he carries. Dr Li-Meng Yan, formerly a virologist from the University of Hong Kong who escaped to the United States in April 2020, is suffering a similar fate.
Dr Yan has been attacked constantly since her first appearance on Fox in a July 2020 documentary where she exposed that in the early days of the Covid-19 pandemic, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) covered up crucial data and facts with the help of the World Health Organisation (WHO). She further asserted in a number of other media appearances, that Covid-19 is a laboratory-produced virus intended to be an “unrestricted bioweapon”.
In September 2020, she published her first scientific paper on this subject: ‘Unusual Features of the SARS-CoV-2 Genome Suggesting Sophisticated Laboratory Modification Rather Than Natural Evolution and Delineation of Its Probable Synthetic Route’. In October, she published her second paper: ‘SARS-CoV-2 Is an Unrestricted Bioweapon: A Truth Revealed through Uncovering a Large-Scale, Organized Scientific Fraud’.
The reactions to her revelations were unexpected. Despite the relevance to the devastating worldwide pandemic, few from members from the Western media and scientific community were interested in looking at what Dr Yan wrote. Instead, she was called a liar, unethical, misleading, attention seeking, to name a few. Back at home in China, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) government arrested Dr Yan’s mother for her daughter’s “unfaithful behaviour” towards her country.
The real question: Is Dr Yan right that Covid-19 is a lab-made Bioweapon?
Dr Yan has been extremely consistent in her claims about the Covid-19 virus. She appeared in many media appearance, from big cable news, to right-wing media outlets such as Steve Bannon’s War Room Pandemic, to a number of Indian and UK media programmes. One interesting turn in tide in 2021 was that some establishment media outlets have begun to agree with Dr Yan’s position, after dismissing her views throughout the entire year of 2020. For example, CNN recently aired an interview where the former CDC Director, Robert Redfield, said he believes the Covid-19 virus came from a lab in China.
Other big media outlets also reported the statement by Redfield, for example the Sun from UK and Skynews from Australia. While the Washington Post continues to call Dr Yan’s claims as “flawed”, they admitted that her two papers on the subject of Covid-19 have gained more readership than any other scientific papers on the subject of Covid-19.
Perhaps one of the most revealing material that surfaced on the internet was a textbook used by the Chinese Military Academy, that talks about Coronaviruses being a good candidate for developing a Bioweapon. This book was discussed in Dr Yan’s third paper (see below).
What is in Dr Yan’s third paper?
Recently on March 31st, Dr Yan released her third paper on the subject of Covid-19. This paper contains point-to-point rebuttals of two ‘peer review’ papers, presumably the most prominent two that she thought were worthy of a rebuttal, that criticised her work.
Dr Yan and her co-authors dedicated the first 15 pages out of the 68-page to detailing Dr Yan’s journey from a humble virologist who worked in the University of Hong Kong to a worldwide renowned name, due to her courage in calling out China’s role in creating the Covid-19 virus. The remainder of the report is dedicated to refuting selected criticism of her papers.
After reading through her paper, I am able to broadly categorise the criticism of Dr Yan’s work into the following kinds:
1. The reviewer ignored the body of the scientific proof and evidence in her reports, yet said she shows no evidence to substantiate her claims.
Examples: pages 19, 22, 24, 28, 30, 32, 33, 42, 50, 51, 52
2. The reviewer cited papers written by Chinese researchers controlled by the Chinese Communist Party, on a fabricated virus sequence (RaTG13) to “prove’ that Dr Yan is wrong.
Examples: pages 16, 25, 31, 34, 40, 50
3. The reviewer used his or her own scientific opinions as the argument against Dr Yan’s factual evidence.
Examples: pages 49, 50, 53, 54, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61
4. The reviewer misinterpreted Dr Yan’s words and offered counter-arguments against those misinterpreted words.
Examples: pages 17, 23, 44, 46, 47, 48, 50, 59, 61
5. The reviewer questioned Dr Yan’s affiliation with her sponsors rather than the body of evidence in her work.
Examples: pages 24, 25, 27, 28, 30, 33
6. The reviewer seemingly rooting for the CCP by repeating the Chinese government’s talking points.
Examples: pages 27, 41, 43, 50, 51
7. The reviewer criticised Dr Yan’s research procedures.
Examples: pages 20, 21, 32, 47, 55
Dr Yan’s rebuttals to each of the peer reviewer’s criticism are in my opinion, solid and backed with evidence. She reiterated some data and evidence presented in her first two papers that the reviewers may have “overlooked” or “not understood”, or did they?
What happens to the scientific inquisitive minds?
Perhaps what was the strangest over the last year was the apparent lack of scientific inquisitive minds when it comes to uncovering the truth of the Covid-19 origin. On 19th January this year, a day before the WHO’s field visit to China, Dr Yan called for the WHO to look into virus sequences described by Chinese researchers as “RaTG13”, the so-called Pangolin Coronaviruses, and “RmYN02”; or so-called Bat Coronavirus, both proclaimed to be the basis for Covid-19’s natural evolution by Chinese researchers.
Disappointingly, the WHO’s team continues to display an apparent lack of inquisitive minds as their final report indicated that they did not ask China nor inspected virus samples of those viruses.
What does the story of Dr Yan show? When the message cannot be attacked, the message is ignored, twisted and the messenger herself is attacked.
Disclaimer: The views expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of GNEWS.org.