So, who exactly is Wei Cai, the scientific staff member of Germany’s public health authority, the Robert Koch Institute (RKI), who, as revealed in hitherto hidden minutes of the institute’s “COVID-19 Crisis Group”, comes from none other than Wuhan? And when I say “hitherto hidden minutes”, I mean hidden precisely in the ostensible leak of the unredacted “RKI Files”. For, as I discussed in a recent article, the file in question was not included among the supposedly “complete minutes” assembled by Aya Velazquez, the prostitute-turned-journalist and anti-Covid-measure activist who unveiled the documents at a highly-publicised press conference in Berlin on July 23rd.
As discussed in a postscript to that article, although I have asked her, I have not received a coherent answer from Velazquez as to how she could have overlooked these minutes, which are indeed the minutes of the very first RKI “crisis group” meeting of which we have a public record.
Be that as it may, the reason why the revelation of the RKI’s link to Wuhan is important – and why German authorities may have preferred that it remain secret – is because, as I have documented in, among other places, my ‘The Greatest Story Never Told‘, Germany in fact had a very active publicly-funded research partnership in virology with several research institutions in Wuhan, including the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV).
Indeed, the German-Chinese virology network, known as the “Sino-German Transregional Collaborative Research Centre” or TRR60, gave rise to a full-fledged German-Chinese virology lab, not only right in Wuhan but indeed right in what is regarded as the area of the initial outbreak of COVID-19 in the city. For this and other (microbiological) reasons outlined in my ‘The Smoking Gun in Wuhan‘, the members of the German-Chinese virology partnership ought to be prime suspects in any genuine investigation into a possible laboratory origin of SARS-CoV-2. But, instead, they have been completely ignored in favour of suspects in far off places like Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
The below photo shows various members of the partnership, as well as associated German and Chinese luminaries in the field of virology. It was taken in 2015 at a “Sino-German Symposium on Infectious Diseases” in Berlin organised by the German Co-Director of TRR60, Ulf Dittmer. Dittmer is the bald man in the middle of the picture. None other than Christian Drosten, the German designer of the ‘gold standard’ SARS-CoV-2 PCR test, and Shi Zhengli, the WIV’s renowned bat coronavirus expert, can be seen together in the lower left-hand corner of the picture.
Other notables include Chen Xinwen, the then Director of the WIV. Chen is the small, somewhat buck-toothed man in the lower right-hand corner. He was a member of TRR60. The young woman with the long-hair next to Shi Zhengli appears to be the current Director of the WIV, Wang Yanyi. The former President of the Robert Koch Institute, Reinhard Burger, is also in the picture. He is the white-haired man with the blue shirt near the centre of the group.
Given the WIV’s famed practice of gain-of-function research, it is worth noting that this get-together took place precisely during the American moratorium on such research. It is also worth noting that Christian Drosten himself, as touched upon in my ‘The Greatest Story‘, has coordinated a German research project on the MERS coronavirus involving gain-of-function experiments. Indeed, that ‘RAPID’ project got underway just two years after the Berlin get-together and likewise while the American moratorium still remained in place.
So, did Wei Cai have anything to do with the German-Chinese virology network? Well, yes, from her publications, we know that she did. Thus, she is a co-author with Michael Roggendorf of this 2013 paper on PCR detection of Hepatitis and HIV infections. Roggendorf is none other than the founder of the German-Chinese partnership. He is the white-haired man with the red bowtie next to RKI president Burger in the above photo. The former Chair of the Department of Virology at Essen University Hospital, he would cede his position as German Co-Director of TRR60 to his colleague Dittmer in 2013. Essen University Hospital is the lead German institution in the German-Chinese virology partnership.
Roggendorf can be seen below receiving the “Chime Bell” award from the Governor of Hubei Province in 2016 in honor of his contributions to the German-Chinese partnership. Wuhan is the capital of Hubei Province.
In early 2020, Wei Cai would then appear as co-author with Christian Drosten on a paper about the famous first cluster of COVID-19 cases in Germany. As discussed in my series of articles here, here and here, it was precisely this cluster that first raised the spectre of ‘asymptomatic spread’ of COVID-19, even though – contrary to what was claimed by Drosten and other German authors in a letter to the New England Journal of Medicine – Patient Zero was not in fact asymptomatic and none of the members of the cluster appear to have been particularly ill.
As touched upon in my previous article, Wei Cai would then go on to complete a PhD in Medicine at Drosten’s Charité University Hospital in Berlin, although under the direction of her supervisor in the Infectious Diseases Unit of the RKI, Walter Haas. Per her Linked-In page (hat-tip: FrauHodl), she completed a first degree in medicine at the Hubei University of Chinese Medicine in Wuhan in 2000 before going to Germany to do a master’s in public health in Bremen.
It should be noted that Wei Cai is an epidemiologist not a virologist. Hence, she would not have been involved in the sort of laboratory experimentation on viruses that was being conducted under the aegis of TRR60 in Wuhan.
Nonetheless, the questions remain. Why was the very existence of the RKI’s staff member from Wuhan redacted in the original official release of the “RKI Files”? Why were the minutes in question, now unredacted and revealing her existence, hidden in the ostensible leak, as if the leakers were somehow sensitive to the Government’s concerns? And why, finally, do German – unlike American – links to Wuhan appear to be off-limits for German media, both traditional and new? Why the omertà?
Robert Kogon is the pen name of a widely-published journalist covering European affairs. Subscribe to his Substack.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Why? Because the notion of RFI causing injury has about as solid a basis in reality as the notion of carbon dioxide causing climate change. It might therefore be weaponised by people who seek power by “Alarming the Populace with an Imaginary Hobgoblin”. Fortunately, RFI-phobia has not yet caught on, though doubtless researchers from competing cults will be paid to “model” the bio-electrical system.
(On the related matter of alleged psychological harm caused by change in habits of interpersonal communication, especially adolescents, I do not express an opinion.)
Most 5G alarmists are crackpots who are ignorant of proper scientific analysis and a sensible approach to risk. Treat all such alarmism with a big pinch of scepticism (this is the Daily Sceptic after all).
There are many links to conflicting scientific analysis in this article. I think you will find that systematic reviews and meta-analyses are hefty pieces of work.
CirrusFlyer, well yes a good number of activists who have an online and social media presence are (deliberately) quite objectionable. This has been engineered to besmirch the reputation of anyone raising awareness. It’s a well known tactic and it always surprises me that no one realises!
And do you have any evidence to support that contention?
I think Dd2 is referring to the idea of “the best way to control the opposition is to lead it” (attributed to Lenin?) which makes complete sense from the point of view of the powers that be.
For high-quality, peer-reviewed scientific research on biological detriment from RF radiation (RFR, not ‘RFI’) including clear evidence of cancer see papers and compilations at: National Toxicology Program, Ramazzini Cancer Research Institute, Environmental Health Trust (founder Dr Devra Davis, member of Nobel winning team and former scientific adviser to US govt), PHIREmedical, Physicians for Safe Technology, Bioinitiative Org. ICBE-EMF have explained in detail the flaws in the official science, and independent RF scientists have repeatedly pointed out the issues with ICNIRP and the FCC who set the ‘guidelines’ blindly followed by the UK government. See also the referenced Lancet article on planetary electrosmog showing that the belief that RFR is non-harmful is scientifically outdated.
If you are worried about RFI damaging your person then find a deep mine to live in, away from the relentless blasts coming from our star and outer space.
On the damaging effects of smartphone addiction and the ever-growing need for instant and passive gratification turning children and adolescents into brainless, dependent automatons – yes, the parents need to step in to sort that out – without interference from the state.
And as for the brainless, dependent adult automatons… Well, I don’t know what to do about that. Perhaps the seemingly inevitable power cuts the UK is heading for will help in this matter.
I think that’ll help us all in a strange kind of way… disconnect
Many are concerned with smartphone addiction, especially when it affects youngsters learning, from not learning social norms to being unable to concentrate.
Jonathan Haidt suggests involving all parents at a school, and getting non-smartphones for the under 13 or 14, so their own children aren’t isolated from electronic social circles. It’s the one-to-many social media that is the problem, while emails are one-to-one, so are possible.
I did hear that a government was considering giving schools the power, subject to parental consultation, to do this, so children couldn’t invoke the HRA.
Perhaps treated the same was as voting, sex, marriage, drugs and alcohol? All restricted until the individual is old enough?
.
A comprehensive article thank you. Why is it that as soon as 5G is mentioned the hecklers pop out of the woodwork? There are now nearly 30 thousand studies mentioning electromagnetic frequencies (wi-fi and all of the G’s, not just 5G) and human animal and plant health. Over 74 % of studies show harm to health, yet time and time again this huge body of evidence is ignored. All I can say is that the human species suffers from an excess of Cognitive dissonance. To those commentating in a derogatory way, I’d advise looking up the term and taking a look at the 30K or more studies on the orsaa.org database. Then and only then tell me that you want your children to get addicted to a screen who’s content is solely due to the transmission of harmful frequencies.
Hope you’re not referring to anyone here as hecklers!
Let’s not give the authorities any more reasons to “protect” us from non-existent threats, please.
I recognise the hugely compelling and potentially damaging world of social media etc. I make my children aware of the risks and stand ready to help them make sense of it all. I certainly do not want the state trying to “protect” them nor to “help” me in that endeavour.
I do not worry about their brains or any other part of their bodies being fried by very, very weak electromagnetic radiation because it isn’t happening.
I do tell them all about natural sources of electromagnetic radiation which are many thousands of times more powerful. See what happens to your naked skin when the sun is in the sky on a summer’s day? I advise them merely to moderate exposure, because I don’t like the ingredients of sunscreen smeared all over my skin, and certainly not their more fragile skins.
Having said all this, The Invisible Rainbow has been recommended to me by two people I respect greatly on other matters. I shall see if it changes my mind.
Fwiw I found The Invisible Rainbow a bit patchy – useful in parts, woowoo in others. Inconclusive but net, net – worth the time invested.
But surely there has been one lesson from last 5 yrs: if you are mocked for employing the precautionary principle on a health matter, every alarm bell in your body should ring.
leaving one with a Q on 5G: why on earth would anyone advise against caution?
The Precautionary Principle is what you do before any investigation is made.
Those invoking the Precautionary Principle for Climate have ended up with a Climate Emergency, just because the BBC say so, and NET Zero policies, that are expected to cost each UK family over £300,000.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2024/10/25/press-release-net-zero-could-cost-300000-per-household
And there is plenty of evidence that it is the Sun that controls the Earth’s Climate, but Meteorologists know little Solar Physics, and so we continue with a fantasy theory.
The “Climate Emergency” is based on computer modelling. The Precautionary Principle is based on the fact that many studies show harmful effects of non-ionising radiation, though they are not 100% conclusive, but studies rarely are as study desgn, execution and funding source may skew results.
Glad you are open to having your mind changed as this is important. Natural EM radiation isn’t comparable with manmade RFR – it is pulsed, we did not evolve with it, it penetrates the body, it oxidises cells deep in the body and damages DNA. Sunlight isn’t ‘stronger’, it’s entirely different and it is puzzling that people make that mistake; possibly that is because Big Wireless likes to perpetuate that myth. For reliable up-to-date science from genuinely independent experts the best resources are ehtrust.org, PHIREmedical.org, and bioinitiative.org. See also the NTP study on cell phones and heart tumours. The recent COSMOS study from the revolving door group (WHO/ICNIRP), widely reported in mainstream media has been thoroughly critiqued and exposed as flawed here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412024003933?via%3Dihub whilst the exposure guidelines which are laughably invalid are discussed by experts here: https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12940-022-00900-9 and there is also an excellent referenced overview in The Lancet here: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(18)30221-3/fulltext. We are not short of evidence, we are short of mainstream media and governments reporting on the evidence, and picking only the ‘tobacco science’ to make their lucrative reassurances.
Can somebody please grasp the difference between g for generation and G for Gigahertz, they are totally different.
The next thing to grasp is the difference between ionising and non-ionising radiation. Below a certain frequency in the X-ray range, the photons from radio transmitters do not have sufficient energy to break chemical bonds, their only measureable effect on body tissue is thermal and the only part of the body that is vulnerable is the crystalline lens in the eye due to its lack of blood supply to carry away the heat.
There have been attempts to blame radio signals for many problems. Double blind testing has revealed no correlation with any of the reports and the field strength involved.
I’ve been resisting explaining things because I’ve found I don’t have the patience and I now find the fight too stressful. So I just remind myself that the truth needs no maintenance. But well done for banging the drum for sense, Tyrbiter… It seems people really need stuff to get frightened about, and clamour for more “protection”…
Most current 4G masts are up high. My understanding is that the 5G masts will be: lower down, much more numerous and quite high-powered in order to facilitate the data needed to aid driverless cars etc.
The downsides of living near power cables is well known but not widely publicised. There is a reasonable chance the 5G could provide a long term harm to health. I would be cautious and be one of the last to market.
If you want capacity then you need density which means lower power to reduce the frequency reuse distance. Cellular planning 101.
I have tried in the past but there are too many closed minds.
If they have home broadband then there are almost certainly being bathed constantly in 5Ghz radiation as well as 2.4 GHz.
If they have a mobile phone, I guess they have survived the scares about 1G, 2G, 3G and 4G phone masts sufficiently well to start worrying about the 5th generation, and best of luck spotting the masts for that.
Double blind testing has done no such thing. Harm has been known, and covered up with ‘tobacco science,’ for decades. There are around 2000 peer reviewed studies showing harm, listed on physicians’ and scientists’ websites such as ehtrust.org, PHIREmedical.org, bioinitiative.org and others. The 10 year authoritative, conclusive NTP program found ‘clear evidence’ of tumours. It is irrelevant and narrow to dismiss the known harms because of non-ionising radiation and chemical bonds. The damage to DNA occurs nonetheless, through oxidation, VGCCs and other biological effects.
The number of studies leaning in one direction or other is not sufficient proof of anything, just as it is claimed human caused climate change is true because 97% of climate scientists agreed with this assertion.
The electromagnetic spectrum is shown below and 5G falls below sunlight in the non-ionizing wave lengths. However, 5G is in the microwave part of the spectrum and if given enough energy and concentration it will heat anything with water in it. In addition to microwave, anyone working with radio/TV transmitter towers have to take precautions when in close proximity to these powerful transmitters, close meaning within feet, which include limiting the time near the transmitters or having the transmitter turned off.
Transmitter power is measured in Watts and it is this that is dangerous if high enough and a person is close enough. The higher the wattage the longer the range.
Crystal Palace is the joint most powerful transmitter in the country at 200kW and has a range as far out as Reading.
For 5G Antenna transmission power is anywhere between 250mW for a Small Cell, and 120W for the largest 5G MIMO arrays. A typical 2G, 3G, or 4G antenna has got a transmission power of 20W. The range is low compared to Crystal Palace. Also when there is good coverage the individual mobile phone will transmit at lower power.
The issue of ‘screen time’ damaging children’s cognitive abilities has nothing to do with radio waves and everything to do with the time spent focused on a screen giving endless dopamine ‘hits’.
Massive basic flaws here. Thermal effects are one thing but the point is that a huge body of authoritative research from genuinely independent experts shows that harmful biological effects occur even at low levels of manmade RFR. Natural EM radiation isn’t comparable with manmade RFR – it is pulsed, we did not evolve with it, it penetrates the body, it oxidises cells deep in the body and damages DNA. See compilations of peer reviewed science showing biological harm at ehtrust.org, PHIREmedical.org, and bioinitiative.org. See also the NTP study on cell phones and heart tumours. The recent COSMOS study claiming safety is flawed as detailed here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412024003933?via%3Dihub whilst the exposure guidelines which are laughably invalid are discussed by experts here: https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12940-022-00900-9 and there is also an excellent referenced overview in The Lancet here: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(18)30221-3/fulltext. We are not short of evidence, we are short of mainstream media and governments reporting on the evidence, and picking only the ‘tobacco science’ to make their lucrative reassurances and postpone the debate indefinitely, with deniers making flawed arguments about sunlight, thermal effects and non-ionising radiation which are irrelevant to the problem in hand.
The Lancet supports Man Made Climate Change narratives, Covid Lockdowns and mass vaccination using mRNA type therapies. You use the pejorative term ‘denier’ which is emotive and a shameful attempt to create an equivalence between someone sceptical of your views and a Holocaust denier.
However, I will read your links and also ask radio experts that I know.
My opinion as an electronic engineer;
1.) Whether it’s 5G or 4G, I do have some concerns about an RF transmitter capable of outputting a few Watts of power operating right next to your brain.
2.) Taking into account the enormous amount of money involved (telecom companies), I am doubtful that an objective study could be carried out at the moment.
3.) Taking into account the fact that very few people would be willing to give up their phones, I also doubt that any warning or advice about adverse effects would make a difference on people’s behaviour.
Given the abundance of clear evidence that manmade electromagnetic radiation, which is not comparable with natural forms (sunlight does not pass through walls or bodies for example), is biologically harmful (neurological, endocrine, carcinogenic and other harms have all been repeatedly proven) the denying comments below are either ignorant or biased. Note the lack of evidence also from the deniers. Non-ionising radiation may not directly break bonds, but research shows that it oxidises cells and damages DNA so it is irrational to dismiss harms based on the outdated ‘but it’s non-ionising’ mantra. For high quality research on biological detriment including clear evidence of cancer see papers and compilations at: National Toxicology Program, Ramazzini Cancer Research Institute, Environmental Health Trust, Phire Medical, Physicians for Safe Technology. ICBE-EMF have explained in detail the flaws in the official science, and independent RF scientists have repeatedly pointed out the issues with ICNIRP and the FCC who set the ‘guidelines’ blindly followed by the UK government. Note ICNIRP look only at thermal effects and, amazingly, do not review the thousands of studies showing biological harm. Children are at particular risk and it is time the UK government and schools did their duty of care and set regulations for ethernet only at schools, as has been officially advised in other countries such as France, Russia, Israel, and Cyprus. Children are currently part of an experiment – this technology has not been around long – and it is dangerous and wrong to put them at risk in this way.
“sunlight does not pass through walls”
Phew. Thankfully we can all Stay At Home.
The problems referred to by the author are easily avoided by wearing a tinfoil hat, which prevents the microwave radiation from reaching the brain…
However she is being rather silly in trying to avoid wifi radiation by not having wifi or a smart meter in her home. Her home will still be bathed in microwave radiation, both natural and from her neighbours’ wifi systems.
Therein lies the problem. We are irradiated involountarily – without consent. However not having wifi or smart devices at home still reduces the radiation.
“Other Countries Are Taking the Health Risks of 5G and Wireless Radiation Seriously. Why Isn’t the U.K.?”
Because it’s a non-problem hyped up by people with no understanding of EM radiation and its biological effect.
Years ago the same sort of lunatics insisted that overhead HT wires caused leukaemia. They don’t.
Yes, they do, and industry/government claims to the contrary have been exposed as flawed. Are people like you paid by industry to comment this way on articles exposing harms from RFR and EMFs? Your evidence-free, ad hominem approach does not reflect well on you. https://www.powerwatch.org.uk/news/20140207-powerlines-childhood-leukaemia.asp
Why does the author amalgamate the non-risk 5G with risks from masts, WiFi and mobiles, thus diminishing the potential risk of the latter? The possible wireless radiation risks were discussed decades ago, chiefly by NZ and German scientists (easy internet search). To convince the readership, the author may consider concentrating on side effects on those residing close to masts, especially on the masts’ “beam corridors”, or using obsessively mobiles. Alasdair Philips is a priceless source of information on the topic.
The author did not mention 5G. The title is given by the editor. The article is mainly about the covering up of the science showing harm from RFR generally.
The people don’t take things seriously. For example many leave their wifi routers on all night. You can easily wire any device to be cable only doesn’t cost much you can buy adapters on Amazon which will use the power cables in your houise to transmit data and then you can connect an Ethernet cable and their are adapters available for smaller devices. It isn’t my intention to lecture but you can’t just assume that because something is invisible and it doesn’t produce immediate noticeable sensory effects then it is perfectly safe. This is an assumption based on absolutely nothing.