President Trump Just De-Funded a Research Nonprofit Studying Virus Transmissions (politico.com) 231
Charlotte Web writes: The U.S.-based research non-profit Ecohealth Alliance has spent 20 years investigating the origins of infectious diseases like Covid-19 in over 25 countries, "to do scientific research critical to preventing pandemics."
America just cut it's funding.
Trump's reason? "Unfounded rumors" and "conspiracy theories...without evidence," according to reports in Politico and Business Insider. The group had received a total of $3.7 million through 2019 (starting in 2014), publishing over 20 scientific papers since 2015 on how coronaviruses spread through bats, including at least one paper involving a lab in China. But during a White House press briefing, a conservative web site incorrectly stated the whole $3.7 million had gone to that single lab, while even more erroneously implying that that lab was somehow the source of the coronavirus. They'd then asked "Why would the U.S. give a grant like that to China?" and President Trump vowed he would revoke the (U.S.-based) nonprofit research group's grant, which he did 10 days later.
Slashdot referenced that research nonprofit just this Sunday, citing a recent interview with the group's president who'd said they'd found nearly 3% of the population in China's rural farming regions near wild animals already had antibodies to coronaviruses similar to SARS. "We're finding 1 to 7 million people exposed to these viruses every year in Southeast Asia; that's the pathway. It's just so obvious to all of us working in the field."
Yet Thursday Politico reported the Trump administration "has been pressuring analysts, particularly at the CIA, to search for evidence that the virus came from a lab and that the World Health Organization helped China cover it up," citing a person briefed on those discussions. People briefed on the intelligence also told them there is currently no evidence to support that theory.
Michael Morell, the former acting director and deputy director of America's CIA, also pointed out Thursday that the lab in question was in fact partially funded by the United States. "So if it did escape, we're all in this together."
America just cut it's funding.
Trump's reason? "Unfounded rumors" and "conspiracy theories...without evidence," according to reports in Politico and Business Insider. The group had received a total of $3.7 million through 2019 (starting in 2014), publishing over 20 scientific papers since 2015 on how coronaviruses spread through bats, including at least one paper involving a lab in China. But during a White House press briefing, a conservative web site incorrectly stated the whole $3.7 million had gone to that single lab, while even more erroneously implying that that lab was somehow the source of the coronavirus. They'd then asked "Why would the U.S. give a grant like that to China?" and President Trump vowed he would revoke the (U.S.-based) nonprofit research group's grant, which he did 10 days later.
Slashdot referenced that research nonprofit just this Sunday, citing a recent interview with the group's president who'd said they'd found nearly 3% of the population in China's rural farming regions near wild animals already had antibodies to coronaviruses similar to SARS. "We're finding 1 to 7 million people exposed to these viruses every year in Southeast Asia; that's the pathway. It's just so obvious to all of us working in the field."
Yet Thursday Politico reported the Trump administration "has been pressuring analysts, particularly at the CIA, to search for evidence that the virus came from a lab and that the World Health Organization helped China cover it up," citing a person briefed on those discussions. People briefed on the intelligence also told them there is currently no evidence to support that theory.
Michael Morell, the former acting director and deputy director of America's CIA, also pointed out Thursday that the lab in question was in fact partially funded by the United States. "So if it did escape, we're all in this together."
Trump didn't do the de-funding (Score:4, Insightful)
Ever since they've acquitted him at his impeachment, the GOP is now responsible for Trump's actions (or, inaction when otherwise something important needs to be done).
As such, it was the GOP that de-funded it.
Re:Trump didn't do the de-funding (Score:5, Insightful)
Ever since they've acquitted him at his impeachment, the GOP is now responsible for Trump's actions (or, inaction when otherwise something important needs to be done).
As such, it was the GOP that de-funded it.
Looks like the funding was started under the Obama Administration so, simply based what they've been doing so far, of course this Administration would want to stop and/or undo it. Any other reason offered is just smoke ...
Re: (Score:2)
Except that Trump administration continued the funding. This is a health and science issue, politics should stay out of any decision making here.
Re:Trump didn't do the de-funding (Score:5, Insightful)
"This is a health and science issue, politics should stay out of any decision making here."
Errr....from this alleged administration? Why should they start now?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Prepare yourselves for another 4 more years of Trumpton being in power in DC. He is playing to his core base of voters. There is no way any opponent can get anywhere near as much exposure as he is and all for free. Do you think that his re-election campaign is paying for any of this?
Historians (if there are any left after this...) will look back and calculate the cost of his actions to the USA. It will be huge... but as Trump said, 'the Mexicans will pay for it all'.
Those of us outside the USA are watching
Re: Trump didn't do the de-funding (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
More specifically, I've never heard of this organization before and frankly neither has anyone else. They have a Wikipedia article [wikipedia.org] which paints them as a group that moved from conservationism to whate
Re: (Score:3)
Was Congress (or at least the Senate (Republican controlled if it matters)) responsible for all of Clinton's actions (or inactions) after he was acquitted (or whatever the correct terminology may be) after his impeachment?
They absolutely were. Fortunately for Clinton, not much has happened after his impeachment.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Suppose that you either have been, are, or will be on a jury. If you choose to acquit the person on trial, are you now responsible for their future actions from that point forward in any way?
Suppose that you're on a jury but you refuse to convict a criminal because it would be bad for your wallet. Are you now responsible for their future actions from that point forward in any way?
I would say: "yes".
Re: (Score:2)
I'd like to see you present a legal argument that a jury member should be put on trial because they didn't convict a man who later went on to commit some crime. By your own argument that person is even culpable for failing to convict an innocent man who
Re:Trump didn't do the de-funding (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
"The Senate was presented with clear evidence of Trump's wrongdoings."
And the whole word watched Clinton perjure himself under oath. Regardless of the subject or reasoning for his perjury, it's significantly more fact based than what Trump was impeached over.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And the whole word watched Clinton perjure himself under oath. Regardless of the subject or reasoning for his perjury, it's significantly more fact based than what Trump was impeached over.
Yes, and Clinton should have been removed. Trump made a bad precedent though, so the next president will just stonewall everything.
Re: (Score:2)
Those "wrongdoings" are entirely in the eye of the beholder. And the charge of "Obstruction of Congress" is not a charge, it's a job description.
Re: (Score:2)
Strawman detected.
Construction of a relevant example is a trivial exercise which I leave to the reader.
Re: Trump didn't do the de-funding (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
How is any post tearing down Trump or supporing him "off topic"? That's the whole point of the OP.
Re: Trump didn't do the de-funding (Score:2)
TDS. It's powerful.
Re: (Score:3)
Ever since they've acquitted him at his impeachment, the GOP is now responsible for Trump's actions (or, inaction when otherwise something important needs to be done).
As such, it was the GOP that de-funded it.
What is this GOP thing you mention? Something to do with the GOT (Gang Of Trump)? Making Amerika Grate since 1861 or thereabouts.
To all the mod trolls that modded this down (Score:2)
Score:5, Insightful
neener neener neener!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Wow... (Score:2, Insightful)
That's a very VERY longwinded, nonsensical, and some would speculate propagandistic way to say
Trump defunds the Wuhan Lab.
Re:Wow... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: Wow... (Score:2, Informative)
This defunds one of dozens of gov't contracts for millions of dollars. It likely does little more than cut one or two researcher head counts, nothing more.
From the politico article:
EcoHealth Alliance has secured dozens of contracts amounting to millions of dollars from multiple government sources, including health agencies, the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security.
EcoHealth Alliance will be fine.
Re: (Score:2)
No kidding, we all know that coronavirus research is a waste of time.
Re: Wow... (Score:5, Insightful)
Dumbass. Why would we NOT want government funded scientists in China's labs?
We should be steering more influence towards China's virology labs, not cutting it off. I don't understand this simultaneous paranoia and bridge burning. Do you want to know what's going on inside these labs or not?
Re: (Score:2)
More influence? How did that funding get us any influence?
Re: (Score:2)
We probably would have learned that even without that one funding initiative.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know if AC speaks the truth, but if this is true, then isn't also true that TRUMP FUNDED THE WUHAN LAB?
Wheels within wheels, people!
1) Trump secretly funds Wuhan Lab via this non-profit that really seems to be doing good work
2) Pandemic allows Bill Gates the power to microchip all living beings (this has recently popped up without a real source here on slashdot!).
3) . . . .
4) MASSIVE STEAK SALES!!!
Re: (Score:3)
When Trump orders you to drink the kool-aid, be sure to drink deep.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
This is fact is why we don't eat things like monkeys and even dogs and cats because they can infect us
Do you eat anything from pigs? Have you ever heard of swine flu? Or have you ever eaten duck?
Re: (Score:2)
And as soon as these less developed people stop wasting our time
Yeah, fuck those red states who only continue to exist because of handouts from blue states.
Re: (Score:2)
Stories like these make it hard to deal with opposition to Trump. They lie and misdirect as much as he does.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
They're tied to gates.
And here I thought that the pandemic would make you crazy anti-vaxxers to hide under a bridge or something.
I'm not anti vaccination. I'm for all organizations researching a vaccination. This non for profit was not doing that
Well, at least you're not denying the "crazy" part...
He's spending it on more promising studies. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Well, the first trials look promising. Of all the covfefe infected people subjected to the treatment, none of them died of the virus.
Re: (Score:2)
I can save you money on your trials. You don't actually need the hose. Or, if you have a hose, you don't need the garage.
Re: (Score:2)
Liberal policies ruined the effect of car exhaust on the virus.
I do not recommend running the experiment, but in the majority of cases you will be practically unharmed. The quick killer from car exhaust was carbon monoxide. No car emitting significant amounts of carbon monoxide will pass emissions testing in a reasonably modernized country or the US.
It's not about anything (Score:2)
but spending tax payer money in a way the most benefits tax payers. They are obviously a non-profit that does good with the funds they get. But please read what they do https://www.ecohealthalliance.... [ecohealthalliance.org] .
At this time and day, don't you think there's better ways to use tax payer dollars? If we're printing dollars, at least give them to the people that created the dollars. Charity is great when the budget allows it.
He said he'd do this before his election, why does everyone expect less from people the elect?
to do scientific research critical to preventing.. (Score:3)
The rest of the summary is just all over the place and trying to point fingers for click bait.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't have an issue ... (Score:2)
... with defunding any agency sending money to China for almost any reason.
List of acceptable reasons includes overthrow of the communist, freeing the Uyghur, etc.
SubjectIsSubject (Score:2)
Not valid sources. So I'm going to wait the customary 3 days before finding out this is completely fake.
Gain of function research (Score:2)
The grant was paused in 2014 because the Obama administration felt it was conducting risky and dangerous "gain of function" experiments on flu, SARS, and MERS viruses:
https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/who-we-are/nih-director/statements/statement-funding-pause-certain-types-gain-function-research
Quote from the above:
For purposes of the deliberative process and this funding pause, “GOF studies” refers to scientific research that increases the ability of any of these infectious agents to cause disease
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I would like to know which conservative web site "incorrectly stated the whole $3.7 million had gone to that single lab, while even more erroneously implying that that lab was somehow the source of the coronavirus". The Snopes link mentions something called "Newsmax" but all Snopes says is that they questioned Trump about it.
The fact is that Ecohealth Alliance was funding a virology lab in China, so they lost their funding. From Snopes:
What's True
A portion of $3.7 million in grants awarded between 2014 and 2019 by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to EcoHealth Alliance, a global environmental health nonprofit organization, helped fund research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China.
What's False
However, not all of that $3.7 million went to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, and not all of the funding took place under the Obama administration. Approximately $700,000 of the $3.7 million total was approved under Donald Trump.
Re: As if they're the only ones... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
it does not imply that it was the source of COVID-19 as the Slashdot summary disingenuously states.
From the article: "Coincidentally (or not), both laboratories studied coronaviruses in bats and conducted experiments. The coronavirus officially named COVID-19, which caused the current pandemic, is also thought to have come from bats." (bold text as in original article.)
They go on discussing the possible escape of the virus from the lab, pretending some neutrality, but the tone for sure is suggestive.
Re: (Score:2)
Snopes also says this:
"In fact, records show that the NIH has provided approximately $2.5 million in additional funding to various organizations in China (including Wuhan University) in 2018 and 2019, under the Trump administration. "
So Trump is funding Wuhan labs.
Re:As if they're the only ones... (Score:5, Informative)
I would like to know which conservative web site "incorrectly stated the whole $3.7 million had gone to that single lab, while even more erroneously implying that that lab was somehow the source of the coronavirus". The Snopes link mentions something called "Newsmax" but all Snopes says is that they questioned Trump about it.
The statements were made in the press conference itself by a reporter for Newsmax. The phrase "a conservative web site" is short for "a reporter for a conservative web site". The summary does say the statements was made "during a White House press briefing", so they were obviously verbal statements. The video was in the Snopes link, but from the transcrtipion [whitehouse.gov]:
Thank you, Mr. President. U.S. intelligence is saying this week that the coronavirus likely came from a level 4 lab in Wuhan. There’s also another report that the NIH, under the Obama administration, in 2015 gave that lab $3.7 million in a grant. Why would the U.S. give a grant like that to China?
Re: As if they're the only ones... (Score:5, Insightful)
The entire exchange below. I just wanted to point out the serious Stalin/KGB level times the US is in today. It's classic psychology manipulation at its best.
You have a random "reporter" at a news briefing building a false foundation in Trump's head. "US intelligence agency says...". "Obama, 2015 funded..." It's totally false, but seems innocent and aligns with Trump's ego.
Once that's settled, then builds the entirely wrong narrative on top to execute the wanted action. "Why fund China for the virus?"
Trump, I guess, starts off independent of the topic. And even questions the statement briefly. But then starts digesting that false narrative and cements it in his psyche.
Three days later, he is still championing for that false narrative against his own administration, intelligence agencies, doctors, researchers, and general reporting. If anything those just further cement "his idea". Ten days later, like a well trained mole given a hypnotic suggestion, he executes on the given order and cuts funding!
Bravo to the organization behind this. Because what's impressive is that they got a execution that has no support in the US public and private sectors without ANY backlash to the source. There isn't ONE reporter at the event that corrected the question. There isn't one reporter that attacked the statements at later dates. The intelligence agencies are saying "No, but still looking...". They don't want to upset Trump. But even they aren't attacking the original reporter that made false statements on their behalf. The Obama supporters aren't attacking the reporter for making false statement on their behalf...
It's crazy!
Q Thank you, Mr. President. U.S. intelligence is saying this week that the coronavirus likely came from a level 4 lab in Wuhan. Thereâ(TM)s also another report that was the NIH, under the Obama administration, in 2015 gave that lab $3.7 million in a grant. Why would the U.S. give a grant like that to China?
THE PRESIDENT: The Obama administration gave them a grant of $3.7 million? Iâ(TM)ve been hearing about that. And weâ(TM)ve instructed that if any grants are going to that area â" weâ(TM)re looking at it, literally, about an hour ago, and also early in the morning. We will end that grant very quickly.
But it was granted quite a while ago. They were granted a substantial amount of money. Weâ(TM)re going to look at it and take a look. But I understand it was a number of years ago, right?
Q So you are (inaudible)?
Re: As if they're the only ones... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: As if they're the only ones... (Score:2)
From the politico link in the summary:
EcoHealth Alliance has secured dozens of contracts amounting to millions of dollars from multiple government sources, including health agencies, the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security.
NIH cancelled ONE of the "dozens of contracts amounting to millions of dollars from multiple government sources, including health agencies, the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security."
Big whoop.
Get back to me when all funding for the dozens of contracts is cut, until then, nothing to see here, move along...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: As if they're the only ones... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: As if they're the only ones... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: As if they're the only ones... (Score:2)
Re: As if they're the only ones... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's ok to yank funding from people with a fictitious reason just to keep the president happy. Because it makes the president happy. What? You need a better reason than that? What are you, some kinda of 5th columnist?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The group had received a total of $3.7 million through 2019 (starting in 2014), publishing over 20 scientific papers since 2015 on how coronaviruses spread through bats
So we've been paying for people to write papers (not even do original research, these are compilation papers) to document something that's been known for decades. And the guy heading up the NIH group that axed the funding, Michael Lauer, was appointed to his current position during the Obama Administration [nih.gov].
This actually seems like a good trim o
Re: (Score:2)
Because some of those papers include discovery of novel coronaviruses closely related to the current pandemic, and some of those novel viruses were already being worked on in labs around the world to figure out vaccines, fast tracking the vaccine process for this pandemic.
For example:This Canadian university already had vaccines for animals for some of these closely related viruses (discovered because of the work done by EcoHealth Alliance and their partners) before all this started, so they adjusted their
Re: As if they're the only ones... (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Can't fix stupid. No matter how shallow it goes.
Re: Kettle, pot. Pot, kettle. (Score:2)
Why you are too busy not reading the papers yourself?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Re-election Formula (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I will be so happy when he is gone.
Same here. But it looks like we're gonna replace him with a senile 79 year old. Hope Biden picks a VP I can trust, otherwise I'm back in the strongly "I hate HRC, I hate Trump, now what?" camp I was in 4 years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: trump is a total idiot (Score:2)
I see no clear path that has Biden beating Trump - the only justification for thinking its likely that Biden wins in 2020 is if you believe polling has gotten better since 2016 which had Hillary beating Trump, right up until the moment she lost.
Biden doesn't really appeal to republican voters, independent voters, or even that many Democrats - he has a serious uphill battle to overcome the incumbents traditional advantage.
As a reminder, Bush 43 won re-election with increased support over his first election,
Re: (Score:3)
Trump doesn't appeal to Democratic voters, independents, or even a big percentage of Republicans. If only there was a reasonable alternative...
Re: trump is a total idiot (Score:2)
Re: trump is a total idiot (Score:5, Interesting)
He still has a big chunk of Republicans, and also some who vote Republican but who thought they were all screwed up; Tea Party types. You can find plenty who will declare the Dubya was too liberal. Plus many Republicans who just backed him while holding their nose. Once Trump won the primary then a lot just stood in line behind him (even his Republican opponents who were personally insulted or who had their wives insulted). Baffled me that he won the primary, baffled a lot of Republicans too. Remember, people really dislike Hillary. Fear and Loathing style. Plus major campaign screwups.
There's not the same visceral hatred of Biden though, so he just has to get past the rumors of being senile (whereas Trump may not be senile but he may as well be given his idiocy). Independent voters have seen 4 years of Trump, so a very large chunk are likely to not stick with him. They're not the sort to hold their nose and stick with him because they hope he can help overturn Roe-v-Wade. But it still will come down to whether the Democrats can get younger voters to overcome their apathy and show up at the polls.
Re: (Score:2)
But it still will come down to whether the Democrats can get younger voters to overcome their apathy and show up at the polls.
I'm not sure which is worse, a party that really believes in an invisible man, or a party that believes that when a male fucks his wife with his dick, has children, and afterwards declares that he was really a female the entire time, then it must be true. Both also tend to believe that not accepting their viewpoint should be a crime.
That's why I'm apathetic. Both parties define themselves by shit that ultimately doesn't even matter. The only reason I tend to slightly favor republicans more is because at lea
Re: (Score:2)
You're missing the big middle in both parties, don't define them by the fringe wings.
Re: (Score:2)
Now that you've brought it up...
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Biden's stutter/decline (Score:4, Interesting)
"I don't think of myself as continuing to stutter. ... That doesn't cross my mind that I'm stuttering," Biden said. "Look, the mistakes I make are mistakes. And some people think I still stutter. I don't think of myself that way."
Sometimes, Biden said, "I'll find myself searching for a second" to find the words - but "I've always attributed that to being tired and not to the stutter."
Even Biden himself doesn't believe this explanation, why do you? I have a slight stutter and I sure know when I'm doing it.
HUMINT - Bye Bye (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But just as O went through hell in 2008 fixing W's economy, I think that Biden will not survive 6 months of trying to fix Trump's economy.
Re:trump is a total idiot (Score:5, Insightful)
I will be so happy when he is gone.
Even after Trump finally goes away I'm pretty convinced the GOP will bring out another similar specimen. They don't appear to have an issue with political dinasties, so maybe they'll name Jared or Ivanka, or somebody like that.
See, IMO the problem is not Trump. Trump is just a symptom. At this time I believe America's real problem is the GOP. Don't forget the GOP is not only responsible for Trump: they also brought us the disastrous G. W. Bush administration, with wars based on lies in Iraq and Afganistan and the criminal mismanagement of post-war evolution which led to the birth of the ISIS caliphate. The economic crisis of 2008, the terrible handling of the Katrina crisis and the loss of American leadership in the world are also directly traceable to GOP actions and politics.
The GOP doesn't have any principles or morals anymore. In the last few years I can only think of two cases where GOP politicians dared to put morality over the party line: McCain voting against dismantling the ACA and Romney voting for Trump's impeachment. It's a pitifully low number.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:trump is a total idiot (Score:4, Interesting)
The dems pushed the concept that only women's voices matter ( ignoring the constitution all the time ). Now with biden, they want to ignore it.
I think the GOP is (still) objectively worse but yeah, Democrats are sliding into their own brand of madness too. For a long time I disliked the Republican voters' tribalism, their way of putting loyalty to the party over the good of the country and over morality or principle. Lately though, many Democrat voters are also subscribing to the "If you're not with us you're against us" mantra - see the rage after Sanders stopped his campaign for an example.
All in all, it's becoming really difficult to find a candidate to vote for; I'd prefer voting for X because they're good, not because they're not as bad as Y.
Re: (Score:3)
see the rage after Sanders stopped his campaign for an example.
I'm sorry, what did Bernie do? He's still on the ballot, he still wants to win delegates, and is still running fundraisers - all he did was concede Biden would be the nominee, aside from his endorsement and no more debates, Bernie is still running.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm sorry, what did Bernie do? He's still on the ballot, he still wants to win delegates, and is still running fundraisers - all he did was concede Biden would be the nominee, aside from his endorsement and no more debates, Bernie is still running.
He is? Is Bernie's personal mission is to get Trump elected twice? WTF is up with that guy?
Re: (Score:2)
Is Bernie's personal mission is to get Trump elected twice?
Sanders has endorsed Biden and is urging people to vote for him. However fanatic Sanders supporters aren't convinced and are practically leading an anti-Biden campaign.
Now, as I mentioned before, I don't like the way Republican voters ignore facts, laws, principles or morality and the way they support the party line no matter what (as we see even in some of those threads). By contrast, some Democrat voters choose principles over party (or even above the realpolitik of eligibility), which is admirable. Howev
Re: (Score:2)
Such an approach would allow me to vote for Lawrence lessig, then Libertarian, Biden, all while voting against Trump.
Re: (Score:3)
Don't celebrate yet. There's a good chance Trump wins again. Stock up on supplies just in case things start spiraling downwards even faster.
Re: trump is a total idiot (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome (Score:3, Insightful)
The real story is that this group isn't a Regularly funded operation, they have to apply for funding and this time it wasn't approved because one of the labs they pay to use is owned by China (Wuhan.)
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty much. Cutting off a grant that had already been awarded is kind of unusual, and also feels like grandstanding, but not giving out this money isn't something that leaves us vulnerable or is that far out of line with the political decisions of other administrations.
On the other hand defunding is about the only tool the administration has to pressure China into improving lab safety practices (or improvi
Re: (Score:2)
TDS: the ability to listen to Trump speak without vomiting.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, social studies are interesting, too. It seems you can now not only steer idiots on the internet with fake news, you can actually steer the free world with them.
Re: (Score:2)
Plenty of people believed the story that China was handling things well, that's why a lot of people are so critical of China and the WHO now.
He said that he had heard it might