A high-level Italian
virologist, Giuseppe Remuzzi, has published papers in the
Lancet and other articles in which he states facts not hitherto known. (1)
The doctor stated that Italian physicians now recall having seen:
“a very strange and very severe pneumonia,
particularly in old people in December and even November . This
suggests that the virus was circulating, at least in Lombardy, and before we
were aware of this outbreak occurring in China.“(2)
Chinese medical authorities have
determined the same underlying phenomenon, that the virus had been
circulating among the population for perhaps two months before it finally broke
out into the open.
Further, according to the Italian
National Health Service (ISS):
“It is not possible to reconstruct, for all
patients, the chain of transmission of infection. Most cases
reported in Italy report an epidemiological link with other cases diagnosed in
Lombardy, Emilia Romagna and Veneto, the areas most affected by the epidemic.”
[translation from Italian] (3)
The above statement is of crucial
importance since it supports in itself the assertion of several simultaneous
infection clusters and several ‘patients zero’. There are cases in
Lombardy that could not be placed in an infection chain, and this must also be
true for other areas. (see below) Given that the virus broke out separately in
disparate regions of Italy, we can expect the identification of independent
infectious clusters in those regions as well. That would mean Italy was
hit by at least several individual ‘seedings’ of the virus.
China’s outbreak of consequence was
primarily in the city of Wuhan but with multiple sources in the city and
multiple patients zero, with a minor outbreak in Guangdong that was easily
contained. China had multiple clusters in Wuhan. There was no single
source, and no patient zero has been identified which is similar to
those of Italy.
The mystery of Italy’s “Patient No.
Was the Italian outbreak caused by
infections from China? Yes, and no.
Before February 20, 2020, there
were only three cases of coronavirus infection in Italy, two tourists from
Wuhan, China, confirmed on January 30th, and an Italian man who returned to Rome from Wuhan
on February 6th. These were clearly imported cases with Italy
experiencing no new infections during the next two weeks.
Then suddenly there appeared new infections that were unrelated to China.
On February 19, the Lombardy Health Region issued a statement that a
38-year-old Italian man was diagnosed with the new coronavirus, becoming the
fourth confirmed case in Italy. The man had never traveled to China and had no
contact with the confirmed Chinese patients.
Immediately after this patient was diagnosed, Italy experienced a major
outbreak. In one day, the number of confirmed cases increased to 20
and, after little more than three weeks, Italy had 17,660 confirmed
The Italians were not idle in searching for their patient zero. They renamed
the “patient 4” “Italian No. 1”, and attempted to learn how he became infected.
The search was apparently fruitless, the article stating that “America’s
pandemic of the century has become the subject of suspicion by Italians“.(4)
The mystery of South Korea’s “Patient No. 31”
South Korea’s experience was eerily similar to that of Italy, and also to that
of China. The country had experienced 30 imported cases which began on January
20, I believe all of which were traceable to contact with Hubei and/or Wuhan.
But then South Korea discovered a “Patient No. 31”, a 61 year-old South
Korean woman diagnosed with the new coronavirus on February 18. This
‘local’ patient had no ties to China, had had no contact with any Chinese, and
no contact whatever with any of the infected South Koreans. Her infection was a
South Korean source.
Just as with Italy, the outbreak in South Korea exploded rapidly after the
discovery of Patient 31. By the next day, February 19 (Italy was February 21,
for comparison), there were 58 confirmed cases in South Korea, reaching 1,000
in less than a week. After little more than three weeks, South Korea
had 8,086 confirmed cases. It would now seem likely (yet to corroborated) that
South Korea and Italy could have been ‘seeded’ at approximately the same time.
Like the Italians, South Korea performed a massive hunt for the source of the
infection of their “Korean No. 1”, combing the country for evidence, but
without success. They discovered the confirmed cases in South Korea were mainly
concentrated in two separate clusters in Daegu and Gyeongsang North Road, most
of which – but not all – could be related to “Patient 31”. As with Italy,
multiple clusters and multiple simultaneous infections spreading like wildfire
– and without the assistance of a seafood market selling bats and pangolins.
For both Italy and South Korea, I could also add that there is no supposed
“bio-weapons lab” anywhere within reach (as was claimed for China), but that
wouldn’t be accurate. There are indeed bio-weapons labs easily within reach of
the stricken areas in both Italy and South Korea – but they belong to the US
Korea is particularly notable in this regard because it was proven likely that
MERS resulted from a leak at the American military base at Osan. The official
Western narrative for the MERS outbreak in South Korea was that a Korean
businessman became infected in the Middle East then returned to his home in
Gyeonggi Province and spread the infection. But there was never any
documentation or evidence to support that claim, and to my best knowledge it
was never verified by the South Korean Government.
Pertinent to this story is that according to the Korean Yonhap News Service, at
the onset of the outbreak about 100 South Korean military personnel were
suddenly quarantined at the USAF Osan Air Base. The Osan base is home to the
JUPITR ATD military biological program that is closely related to the lab at
Fort Detrick, MD, both being US military bio-weapons research labs.
There is also a (very secretive)
WHO-sponsored International Vaccine Institute nearby, which is (or at least
was) managed by US military biological weapons personnel. At the time, and
given the quarantine mentioned above, the event sequence accepted as most
likely was that of a leak from a JUPITR biowarfare project. (5) (6)
The Korean path is similar with that of Italy. If we look at a map of the
virus-stricken areas of Italy, there is a US military base within almost a
stone’s throw of all of them. This is of course merely a case of circumstance
arousing suspicion, and by no means constitutes proof of anything at all.
However, there is a major point here which cannot be overlooked, namely the
fact of simultaneous eruptions of a new virus in three
different countries, and in all three cases no clear epidemiology,
and an inability to identify either the original source or a patient zero
Multiple experts on biological weapons are in unanimous agreement that
eruptions in a human population of a new and unusual pathogen in multiple
locations simultaneously, with no clear idea of source and cases with no proven
links, is virtually prima facie evidence of a pathogen deliberately
released, since natural outbreaks can almost always be resolved to one
location and one patient zero. The possibility of a deliberate leak is as
strong in Italy and South Korea as in China, all three nations apparently
sharing the same suspicions.
Larry Romanoff is a retired management consultant and
businessman. He has held senior executive positions in international consulting
firms, and owned an international import-export business. He has been a
visiting professor at Shanghai’s Fudan University, presenting case studies in
international affairs to senior EMBA classes. Mr. Romanoff lives in Shanghai
and is currently writing a series of ten books generally related to China and
the West.He is a Research Associate of the
Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).He can be contacted
(A) This is an aside, but Italy has experienced a fatality rate nearly twice
that of Wuhan, but there may be an external contributing factor. Observations
were made that, in most cases especially among the elderly in Italy, ibuprophen
was widely used as a painkiller. The Lancet published an article demonstrating
that the use of ibuprophen can markedly facilitate the ability of the virus to
infect and therefore to increase the risk of serious and fatal infection. (YY)
(B) “The mean age of those who died in Italy was 81 years and more than
two-thirds of these patients had . . . underlying health conditions, but it is
also worth noting that they had acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS)
caused by . . . SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia, needed respiratory support, and “would
not have died otherwise.”