Covid, China – The Story Timeline.

The following was on Twitter and I have brought it over here because I think it is brilliant research and I wanted to keep it in one place for myself.  Here is the link to Michael P Senger’s tweet. 

The Chinese Communist Party’s Global Lockdown Fraud –

Request for expedited federal investigation into scientific fraud in COVID‑19 public health policies

In early 2020, the public turned to the advice of scientific authorities when confronted with an apparent viral outbreak. Soon after, most nations followed the advice of prominent scientists and implemented restrictions commonly referred to as “lockdowns.”

While the policies varied by jurisdiction, in general they involved restrictions on gatherings and movements and the closure of schools, businesses, and public places, inspired by those imposed by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in Hubei Province.


Lockdown proponents have rationalized them by comparing them to actions taken to combat Spanish influenza. But a realistic look at mitigation efforts in response to Spanish flu reveals that nothing remotely approximating lockdowns was ever imposed.

Federal Court Holds “Stay-at-Home” Orders and Mandatory Business Closures Unconstitutional

Not only are lockdowns historically unprecedented in response to any previous epidemic or pandemic in American history, but they are not so much as mentioned in recent guidance offered by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”).


Indeed, to our knowledge, no scientist ever publicly supported imposing lockdowns until Xi Jinping, General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party, personally authorized the “unprecedented lockdown of Wuhan and other cities beginning on Jan. 23.”

Xi is perhaps best known for the reeducation and “quarantine” of over a million Uyghur Muslims “infected with extremism” pursuant to the CCP’s pet hybrid of public health and security policy, fangkong, which inspired Xi’s lockdown of Hubei province.

The Xinjiang Papers – Absolutely No Mercy!

General Secretary Xi later affirmed that he had issued these instructions to the CCP’s Politburo Standing Committee on January 7, 2020, but his instructions have never been revealed.

Chinese business leader Ren Zhiqiang was sentenced to 18 years in prison for an open letter in which he requested Xi’s instructions be made public.  – China’s ‘Big Cannon’ Blasted Xi. Now He’s Been Jailed for 18 Years.

When the lockdown of Hubei began, the World Health Organization (WHO)’s representative in China noted that “trying to contain a city of 11 million people is new to science… The lockdown of 11 million people is unprecedented in public health history…” – China extended its Wuhan coronavirus quarantine to 2 more cities, cutting off 19 million people in an unprecedented effort to stop the outbreak

Human rights observers expressed great concern with China’s lockdowns.China’s reaction to the coronavirus outbreak violates human rights

But human rights concerns didn’t stop WHO from praising CCP’s “unprecedented” lockdowns just days later, long before they produced any results. “The measures China has taken are good not only for that country but also for the rest of the world.”Statement on the second meeting of the International Health Regulations (2005) Emergency Committee regarding the outbreak of novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV)

WHO Director Tedros Adhanom added that he was personally “very impressed and encouraged by the president [Xi Jinping]’s detailed knowledge of the outbreak” and the next day praised China for “setting a new standard for outbreak response.”WHO Director-General’s statement on IHR Emergency Committee on Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV)

In its February report, WHO waxed rhapsodic about CCP’s triumph: “China’s uncompromising and rigorous use of non-pharmaceutical measures to contain transmission of the COVID-19 virus in multiple settings provides vital lessons for the global response” – Report of the WHO-China Joint Mission on Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)

Soon after, Bruce Aylward—who disconnected an interview when asked about Taiwan—told the press: “What China has demonstrated is, you have to do this. If you do it, you can save lives and prevent thousands of cases of what is a very difficult disease.”

Video: Top WHO doctor Bruce Aylward ends video call after journalist asks about Taiwan’s status

Two days later, in an interview for China Central Television (CCTV), Aylward put it bluntly: “Copy China’s response to COVID-19.”

The WHO did not even consider other countries’ economic circumstances, demographics, or even their number of COVID-19 cases—which were very few in most of the world—before instructing the entire world that “you have to do this.”What’s Behind The WHO’s Lockdown Mixed-Messaging

The idea of locking down an entire state or country and forcibly shutting down its businesses and public places was never entertained, never discussed, and never implemented in any pandemic literature until it was done by General Secretary Xi in January 2020.

Lockdowns were never tried before 2020 and never tested before 2020, even on a theoretical basis. The idea of “lockdown” was brought into human history on the order of General Secretary Xi; it otherwise never would have entered the collective human imagination.

Anytime anyone endorses a lockdown for any length of time, even a few minutes, they are endorsing a Xi Jinping policy. The remainder of this letter concerns how lockdowns were laundered into the world’s go-to pandemic policy.


In February 2020, a team from Imperial College London led by physicist Neil Ferguson ran a computer model that played an outsized role in justifying lockdowns in most countries.  Report 9: Impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) to reduce COVID-19 mortality and healthcare demand

Imperial forecast that by Oct 2020, 2.2 million people in the U.S. would die as a result of COVID, and recommended months of lockdowns. The model predicted the United States could incur up to one million deaths even with “enhanced social distancing”  – Report 12: The GlobalImpact of COVID-19and Strategies for Mitigation and Suppression

In reality, by the end of October, approximately 230,000 deaths in the U.S. had been attributed to COVID-19 (though deaths from all other leading causes mysteriously declined, indicating even these low counts from CDC and NHS are vastly overstated). – National Center for Health Statistics

A study compared the accuracy of various institutions’ models predicting COVID-19 mortality. Across all time periods, the models produced by Imperial College were measured to have FAR higher rates of error than the others—ALWAYS too high.

Imperial’s inaccuracy continued unabated. In Oct 2020, Imperial’s model predicted the U.K. would experience 2,000 deaths per day by mid-December. In fact, deaths per day in the U.K. never reached 400, per NHS. – COVID-19 Daily Deaths

Five years earlier, on Oct 21, 2015, General Secretary Xi personally visited Imperial College London for the announcement of “a series of new UK-China education and research collaborations” including “nanotechnology, bioengineering…and public health.” – Chinese President sees UK-China academic partnerships at Imperial

In a speech welcoming Xi and his wife Peng Liyuan, a goodwill ambassador to WHO, Imperial College President Gast announced: “Imperial College London strives to be just that, China’s best academic partner in the west…” – In pictures: President Xi Jinping at Imperial

In 2019, Gast became part of the notably pro-China WEF’s AI Council with Chinese AI Expert Kai-Fu Lee, and to this day, Imperial College continues to advertise itself as “UK’s number one university collaborator with Chinese research institutions.” On the morning of Jan. 23 local time, the World Economic Forum announced the establishment of the “Artificial Intelligence Council”, which will be co-chaired by Sinovation Ventures CEO Kai-Fu Lee and Microsoft President Bradford L. Smith.

In March, Imperial produced a report, “Evidence of initial success for China exiting COVID-19 social distancing policy after achieving containment,” concluding: “social distancing measures enacted in China have led to control of COVID-19 in China…”  – Report 11 – Evidence of initial success for China exiting COVID-19 social distancing policy after achieving containment

Imperial had no way of knowing if this was, in fact, true, and its conclusion directly contradicted that of the U.S. intelligence community around the same time that China had intentionally misrepresented its coronavirus numbers. – The US intelligence community has reportedly concluded that China intentionally misrepresented its coronavirus numbers

Neil Ferguson recalled how China inspired him: “It’s a communist one party state, we said. We couldn’t get away with it in Europe … And then Italy did it. And we realised we could… If China had not done it, the year would have been very different.” – Professor Neil Ferguson: People don’t agree with lockdown and try to undermine the scientists

SECTION 3 – DEADLY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR EARLY MECHANICAL VENTILATION CAME FROM CHINA ‘First Choice’: How China and the WHO created mass ventilator hysteria

In early March 2020, the WHO released COVID-19 provider guidance documents to healthcare workers. The guidance recommended escalating quickly to mechanical ventilation as an early intervention for treating COVID-19 patients. – Clinical management of severe acute respiratory infection (SARI) when COVID-19 disease is suspected

WHO cited the guidance by Chinese journal articles, which published papers in January and February claiming that “Chinese expert consensus” called for “invasive mechanical ventilation” as the “first choice” for people with respiratory distress. Management and Treatment of COVID-19: The Chinese Experience

As Wall Street Journal later reported: “Last spring, doctors put patients on ventilators partly to limit contagion … “We were intubating sick patients very early. Not for the patients’ benefit, but in order to control the epidemic … That felt awful.”Hospitals Retreat From Early Covid Treatment and Return to Basics

On March 31, 2020, Dr. Cameron Kyle-Sidell, who had been caring for ICU patients at one of the hardest-hit hospitals in New York City, acted as an early whistleblower, sounding the alarm about the ventilator issue in a widely-shared video.


“We are operating under a medical paradigm that is untrue… This method being widely adopted at this very moment at every hospital in the country … is actually doing more harm than good.” said Dr. Kyle-Sidell. – Is Protocol-Driven COVID-19 Ventilation Doing More Harm Than Good?

In an April Reuters interview with dozens of medical specialists “Many highlighted the risks from using the most invasive types of them – mechanical ventilators – too early or too frequently, or from non-specialists using them without proper training.” – Special Report: As virus advances, doctors rethink rush to ventilate

By May 2020, it was common knowledge in the medical community that early ventilator use was hurting, not helping, COVID-19 patients, and that less invasive measures were in fact very effective in assisting recoveries.With ventilators running out, doctors say the machines are overused for Covid-19

A New York City study found a 97.2% mortality rate among those over age 65 who received mechanical ventilation. This “early action” ventilator guidance that WHO distributed to the world killed thousands of innocent patients; it was obtained from China.Presenting Characteristics, Comorbidities, and Outcomes Among 5700 Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19 in the New York City Area


Virologists Victor Corman and Christian Drosten led the exceptionally-rapid creation of the first COVID-19 PCR test, now the most commonly-used testing protocol in the world for detecting the SARS-CoV-2.Berlin, Jan 17th, 2020Diagnostic detection of 2019-nCoV by real-time RT-PCR

Corman and Drosten were provided with the in silico (theoretical) genome sequences used to create their PCR protocol by Chinese scientists including Yong-Zhen Zhang and Shi Zhengli, Director at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.The Controversial Experiments and Wuhan Lab Suspected of Starting the Coronavirus Pandemic

The Corman-Drosten Protocol was submitted to the WHO on January 13, eight days prior to the date it was submitted to the medical journal Eurosurveillance for “peer review.” –

WHO released the Corman-Drosten Protocol on January 21, the same day it was submitted to Eurosurveillance. Drosten sits on the board of Eurosurveillance, a conflict of interest.

The Corman-Drosten Protocol was accepted by Eurosurveillance the very next day, Jan 22, a comically quick turnaround; peer review for scientific journals is an intensive process requiring external reviewers which typically takes weeks to months.

Of all 1,595 publications at Eurosurveillance since 2015, not one other research paper was reviewed and accepted in fewer than 20 days.

The molecular biologist Pieter Borger and his team submitted a retraction request for the Corman-Drosten PCR protocol. According to Borger’s report, the Corman-Drosten PCR test workflow contains multiple, fatal errors.

A study compared COVID PCR tests on WHO’s list. The CDC protocol is also based on in silico sequences from China: “The E Charité [Drosten] and N2 US CDC assays were positive for all specimens, including negative samples and negative controls (water).”Performance Assessment of SARS-CoV-2 PCR Assays Developed by WHO Referral Laboratories


n accordance with recommendations by the WHO and other public health authorities, countless laboratories have engaged in mass PCR testing for the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Fundamental to PCR testing is the concept of “cycle thresholds.”–  Laboratory testing for coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in suspected human cases

If PCR cycle threshold indicating a “positive” is too high, a positive result may not even indicate any meaningful amount of live virus. As Anthony Fauci mentioned in a July 2020 interview, a cycle threshold over 34 should not be considered a positive. – In little noticed July interview, Fauci warned that widely used COVID tests may pick up ‘dead’ virus

“a bit of a standard … if you get a cycle threshold of 35 or more…the chances of it being replication-confident are minuscule… So, I think if somebody does come in with 37, 38, even 36, you got to say, you know, it’s just dead nucleotides, period.” – COVID Tests May Inflate Numbers by Picking Up ‘dead’ Virus

WHO published its currently-outstanding guidance on laboratory testing for COVID-19 on March 19, 2020. WHO’s guidance contained only three studies discussing PCR cycle thresholds. All three are from China and use cycle thresholds from 37 to 40. 0 -1- Laboratory testing for coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in suspected human cases 

As described by the New York Times, most laboratories and manufacturers in the United States now set their cutoff for a positive PCR test from 37 to 40 cycle thresholds: “Most tests set the limit at 40, a few at 37.”

Michael Mina said he would set the figure at 30, or even less. Using current testing standards, “from 85 to 90 percent of people who tested positive in July with a cycle threshold of 40 would have been deemed negative if the threshold were 30 cycles.”

The Court of Appeal of Lisbon concluded: “In view of current scientific evidence, this test shows itself to be unable to determine beyond reasonable doubt that such positivity corresponds, in fact, to the infection of a person by the SARS-CoV-2 virus.” Judges in Portugal highlight “more than debatable” reliability of Covid tests 

The Court cited a study by “some of the leading European and world specialists,” showing that if someone tested positive for COVID-19 at a cycle threshold of 35 or higher, the “the probability of… receiving a false positive is 97% or higher.”

To summarize, labs across the world are using COVID-19 PCR tests that were created using in silico genome sequences from China, and PCR testing standards from China, pursuant to which positive COVID case counts have been inflated ten- to thirty-fold.


Underpinning the policy of “lockdown” is the scientific concept of “asymptomatic spread.” According to the WHO, “Early data from China suggested that people without symptoms could infect others.”Transmission of SARS-CoV-2: implications for infection prevention precautions

This idea of asymptomatic spread was reflected in the WHO’s February report. According to this concept, healthy individuals, or “silent spreaders” might be responsible for a significant number of SARS-CoV-2 transmissions.

The concept of significant asymptomatic spread was believed to be a unique feature of SARS-CoV-2 based on several studies performed in China. Multiple studies from other countries could not find any asymptomatic transmission of SARS-CoV-2.

A paper from McGill University concluded that “transmission in the asymptomatic period was documented in numerous studies,” but every one of those was conducted in China; where studies outside of China have tried to replicate them, they have failed. – Proportion of asymptomatic infection among COVID-19 positive persons and their transmission potential: A systematic review and meta-analysis

An Italian study concluded that two asymptomatic individuals who tested positive had been infected by two other asymptomatic individuals, but this was based on 2,800 PCR tests; given the false-positive rate discussed above, the conclusion is dubious.Suppression of a SARS-CoV-2 outbreak in the Italian municipality of Vo’

An influential study from Brunei found significant asymptomatic spread, but its findings are considerably weakened by a poor case definition; its two findings of asymptomatic spread were both supposedly individuals who had “a mild cough on one day.”

A study co-authored by Christian Drosten claimed “Transmission of 2019-nCoV Infection from an Asymptomatic Contact in Germany,” but the researchers didn’t speak to the woman before publishing and officials later confirmed she did in fact have symptoms.

China’s Global Lockdown Propaganda Campaign

Beginning the day the CCP locked down Hubei, “leaked” videos from Wuhan began flooding social media sites—all of which are blocked in China—purporting to show the horrors of Wuhan’s epidemic in scenes likened to Zombieland and The Walking Dead.  = Did China instigate global panic through Wuhan’s COVID-19 ‘zombieland’ stories?

Official Chinese accounts widely shared an image of a hospital wing supposedly constructed in one day, but which actually showed an apartment 600 miles away.  – Chinese State Media Spread A False Image Of A Hospital For Coronavirus Patients In Wuhan

China floods Facebook with undeclared coronavirus propaganda ads blaming Trump

Chinese media accounts began erroneously describing “herd immunity”—the inevitable endpoint of every epidemic either by naturally-acquired immunity or vaccination—as a “strategy” violating “human rights.”

Sweden-China ties grow ever icier over Hong Kong and coronavirus

Per Global Times: “netizens doubt herd immunity and called it a violation of human rights… ‘rights, democracy, freedom are heading in the wrong direction in Sweden, and countries that are extremely irresponsible do not deserve to be China’s friend …” Sweden’s herd immunity strategy coldblooded, indifferent: netizens

That was, of course, before the WHO adopted the bold strategy of attempting to rewrite the historical definition of herd immunity wholesale. In October 2020, WHO effectively erased the eons-long history of naturally-acquired immunity from its website.WHO Deletes Naturally Acquired Immunity from Its Website

Chinese company DJI donated drones to 22 U.S. states to help enforce lockdown rules. – Chinese Company Suspected of Spying on U.S. Citizens Donates Police Drones to 22 States

Later, DJI was blacklisted for having “enabled wide-scale human rights abuses within China through abusive genetic collection and analysis or high-technology surveillance, and/or facilitated the export of items by China that aid repressive regimes …”

On July 7, FBI Director Christopher Wray disclosed that the CCP even specifically approached local politicians to endorse its pandemic response.

The Threat Posed by the Chinese Government and the Chinese Communist Party to the Economic and National Security of the United States

A Rundown Of Major U.S. Corporate Media’s Business Ties To China

The CCP has shaped the media’s scientific narratives by consistently promoting the falsehood that “China controlled the virus,” which is—of course, a baldfaced lie—effectively transforming elite media outlets into water carriers for CCP propaganda. – How China Controlled the Coronavirus

Nonetheless, by encouraging mainstream publications to repeat the lie that “China controlled the virus,” the CCP has normalized this lie and ensured its forged data remains integral to scientific discourse.  – Don’t trust China’s coronavirus numbers

Meanwhile, the CCP began closely monitoring Chinese academic publications on COVID-19.China clamping down on coronavirus research, deleted pages suggest


In China Central TV, Richard Horton, editor-in-chief of The Lancet, praised China’s lockdowns: “It was not only the right thing to do, but it also showed other countries how they should respond…So, I think we have a great deal to thank China for…” China shows world the right way for pandemic response: The Lancet chief editor

In  August, Horton doubled down in a piece that had little to do with health: “The ‘century of humiliation,’ when China was dominated by a colonially-minded west and Japan, only came to an end with the Communist victory in the civil war in 1949…” –This wave of anti-China feeling masks the west’s own Covid-19 failures

On October 8, The Lancet published a ringing endorsement of China’s pandemic response: China’s successful control of COVID-19.

This article was met with high praise by Chen Weihua, China Daily EU Bureau Chief: 

Top WHO Official: COVID19 Virus Refined at Wuhan Lab Before Pandemic! – 2 March 2021















this site will help you catch up if you've just realised something is not quite right in the world