Top Asian News 10:20 a.m. GMT

WHO team visits 2nd Wuhan hospital in virus investigation

WUHAN, China (AP) — Members of a World Health Organization team investigating the origins of the coronavirus pandemic visited another Wuhan hospital that had treated early COVID-19 patients on their second full day of work Saturday. Wuhan Jinyintan Hospital was one of the first in the Chinese city to deal with patients in early 2020 suffering from a then-unknown virus and is a key part of the epidemiological history of the disease. “Just back from visit at Jinyintan hospital, that specialised in infectious diseases and was designated for treatment of the first cases in Wuhan," Dutch virologist Marion Koopmans said in a post on Twitter.

Latest Stories

  • Marjorie Taylor Greene suggested Ruth Bader Ginsburg had been replaced by a body double

    According to QAnon lore, the Supreme Court justice had died years earlier but her death was hidden as part of a conspiracy

  • McConnell misquotes Biden in an attempt to criticize his rush of executive orders

    Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) seemed to think he had a slam dunk argument against President Biden's rush of executive orders. But in an attempt to spin Biden's own words against him on Thursday, McConnell ended up replacing Biden's quote with a misleading version that has been circulating online. Biden has signed more than 30 executive orders since he took office last week, taking aim at former President Donald Trump's immigration crackdowns, loosened environmental policies, and more. McConnell on Thursday claimed the flurry of orders flew in the face of what Biden said in an October town hall: That "you can't legislate by executive action unless you are a dictator." But as CNN's Daniel Dale points out, Biden actually said "there are some things you can't do by executive order unless you're a dictator," with no reference to legislation. Oh, didn't see until now that Mitch McConnell took Biden's quote way out of context in the same way Hannity did. https://t.co/5rK6V0jEPR — Daniel Dale (@ddale8) January 28, 2021 Fox News host Sean Hannity similarly tweeted out the false quote as a "flashback" just a few hours prior. Hannity got it from a tweet by Tom Elliott, who shares news clips with a conservative spin and misleadingly paraphrased Biden as saying "you can't [legislate] by executive order unless you're a dictator." .@JoeBiden in October: “I have this strange notion, we are a democracy … if you can’t get the votes … you can’t [legislate] by executive order unless you’re a dictator. We’re a democracy. We need consensus." pic.twitter.com/7UotJCXSm3 — Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) January 26, 2021 White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki was asked about the quote on Thursday, and told reporters it was taken out of context. More stories from theweek.comThe Capitol insurrection isn't moderating the GOP. It's making them more extreme.Democrats plan to make every House Republican take a vote on GOP Rep. Marjorie Taylor GreeneWall Street has its worst week since October amid GameStop chaos

  • Psychiatrists fear children are being 'coached' into accessing puberty blockers, Court of Appeal hears

    Psychiatrists fear that transgender children are being “coached” into giving rehearsed answers when trying to access puberty blockers, the Court of Appeal has heard. Dr David Bell, a former governor at a gender identity NHS trust, expressed concern that children may be pressured by parents, friends or websites when trying to address feelings of gender dysphoria. Dr Bell, who was a psychiatrist at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust from 1996 until earlier this month, was granted permission on Friday by two senior judges to intervene in a landmark case examining whether transgender children can legally take puberty blockers. In November, the High Court ruled that children should not receive the controversial drugs unless they understand the "long-term risks and consequences" of them. The NHS was forced to change its guidance overnight, preventing children from accessing the hormonal treatment without a court order. The Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust has since launched an appeal against the ruling. In a preliminary hearing on Friday, lawyers on behalf of Dr Bell told the court that he wishes to intervene in the appeal as he has since retired from the NHS Trust and feels he can speak more freely. In legal papers lodged before the Court, Dr Bell is described as a “high profile whistleblower” after he published a report in August 2018 which “investigated serious concerns” raised by ten clinicians working at the Tavistock. The report found that the Tavistock’s gender identity clinic, GIDS, “is not fit for purpose” and some young patients “will live on with the damaging consequences.” Dr Bell said he felt “victimised for whistleblowing” by the Trust in the wake of the report and as a result “did not feel able to participate” in the initial High Court dispute. However, Dr Bell retired from the Trust earlier this month on January 15 and “is no longer subject to the same constraints,” the legal documents said. "There is evidence that staff members may be frightened of coming forwards," the documents continued. "Dr Bell, a highly eminent psychiatrist who until recently occupied a senior position with the Appellant, is now free from his employment and able to describe the concerns, which he investigated in some detail." Lady Justice King and Lord Justice Dingemans granted his application to intervene in the appeal, which will be heard over two days in April, while other groups, including the LGBT charity Stonewall, had their application denied. Lawyers for Dr Bell said he wants to tell the court about concerns that were raised to him by gender identity practitioners, including that “children may be ‘coached’, whether from parents, peers, or online resources, to provide rehearsed answers in response to particular questions.” The practitioners were also concerned that “highly complex factors” - including historic child abuse and family bereavement - can influence children’s attitudes towards gender, meaning puberty blockers is not always the best course of treatment. The landmark case on puberty blockers was first launched against the Trust by Keira Bell, a 23-year-old woman who began taking puberty blockers before deciding to reverse the process of changing gender. Ms Bell said the clinic should have challenged her more over her decision to transition to a male when she was 16. It was also brought by a woman who can only legally be identified as "Mrs A", the mother of a 15-year-old autistic girl who is currently on the waiting list for treatment. At the initial High Court hearing in October, their lawyers said that children going through puberty are "not capable of properly understanding the nature and effects of hormone blockers". They argued there is "a very high likelihood" that children who start taking hormone blockers will later begin taking cross-sex hormones, which they say cause "irreversible changes", and that the NHS Trust offers "fairytale" promises to children because they are unable to give their consent to the sex-change process.

  • Married Texas police chief accused of cheating resigns after arrest

    Jason Collier allegedly showed a fake marriage annulment document to a girlfriend.

  • Navy Destroyer CO Fired After Trying to Make His Crew a Plaque with Seized AK-47

    The Forrest Sherman was one of two ships celebrated for their 2019 and 2020 arms seizures in the Middle East.

  • As Wisconsin's Johnson weighs future, Trump ties take a toll

    After President Donald Trump lost his reelection bid, most Senate Republicans, his Justice Department and the courts dismissed or disputed his baseless claims about a “stolen election." The GOP senator used his chairmanship of the Senate Homeland Security Committee to highlight Trump's allegations, claiming millions of Americans “have real, legitimate suspicions that this election was stolen” and worrying about “so many irregularities here.”

  • Teen charged in fatal shooting of 5 at Indianapolis home

    A 17-year-old Indianapolis boy was charged with murder for allegedly fatally shooting his father, stepmother, two teenage relatives and a 19-year-old pregnant woman in the family's home.

  • Biden vows to have most ethical admin in response to claims brother used Biden name for business

    Despite warning, Frank Biden published ad for law firm on inauguration day promoting close relationship to Joe Biden

  • Two gay men in Indonesia publicly caned 77 times each after vigilantes broke into their flat

    Two men in Indonesia’s conservative Aceh province have been publicly lashed 77 times each after neighbourhood vigilantes burst into their apartment last November and reported them to Islamic religious police for allegedly having sex with each other. The caning is the third time people have been punished for practicing homosexuality since Aceh banned it under Shariah law in 2015. The consumption of alcohol, gambling, tight clothing for women, and extramarital sex have also been outlawed under Shariah ordinances. The men, aged 27 and 29, were whipped on Thursday with a rattan stick in front of dozens of people by a team of five enforcers wearing long brown robes and hoods. The pair reportedly winced as they were struck and the punishment was briefly halted to allow them to drink water. The mother of one man fainted at the scene. A Shariah court last month sentenced each man to 80 strokes, but they received 77 to compensate for time spent in prison. Morality offenses including gay sex can be punished by up to 100 lashes. On the same day, a woman and man were each given 20 lashes for being caught in close proximity to each other, and two men were given 40 lashes each for drinking alcohol.

  • Johnson & Johnson Releases Single-Dose Vaccine Results

    Johnson & Johnson announced on Friday that its coronavirus vaccine was 72 percent effective against the pathogen in the U.S., and the company will ask federal regulators for approval in February. Unlike the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna candidates, Johnson & Johnson’s vaccine is administered in one shot. The vaccine uses a relatively new technology to deliver a coronavirus gene into the body by using a modified form of the common cold. The gene instructs bodily cells to make a protein similar to coronavirus, which wards off infection. While the vaccine is not as effective as those of Pfizer and Moderna, Johnson & Johnson’s vaccine is still strong enough to give widespread protection from coronavirus. The company has the ability to ship millions of doses, and a February approval would add the vaccine to the tools currently being used to fight the pandemic. While the vaccine’s efficacy rate was 72 percent in the U.S., that rate dropped to 57 percent in trials in South Africa, where a new variant of coronavirus is spreading. The variant, labeled B.1.351, has also been found to slightly reduce the efficacy of the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines. Concern over the variant prompted the Biden administration to impose a travel ban from South Africa earlier this week.

  • Grieving families in China offer stark warning for visiting WHO scientists: Don't be fooled

    "If the science is allowed to speak, it will help heal this wound and help us move on," scientist Peter Daszak told NBC News.

  • Congress could use an arcane section of the 14th Amendment to hold Trump accountable for Capitol attack

    If the Senate acquits former President Donald Trump in the upcoming impeachment trial, there's an obscure other way to punish him. iStock /Getty Images PlusUntil recently, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment was an obscure part of the U.S. Constitution. The amendment is better known for its first section, which guaranteed individual rights and equality following the abolition of slavery. Section 3 of the 14th Amendment was created to tackle a different problem related to the Civil War: insurrection. It prohibits current or former military officers, along with many current and former federal and state public officials, from serving in a variety of government offices if they “shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against the United States Constitution. This section was created after the Civil War as part of the 14th Amendment to bar military officers and civil officials who joined the Confederacy from serving in government again. Now, this provision is cited in the article of impeachment against former U.S. President Donald Trump, introduced after the insurrectionist violence at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. An impeachment trial is slated to begin in the Senate on Feb. 8. Even the trial is called off or acquits Trump, some senators are considering a resolution invoking Section 3 of the 14th amendment in an effort to bar him from holding future office. Sen. Tim Kaine, Democrat of Virginia, is reportedly preparing a 14th Amendment alternative to a Senate impeachment trial. Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images A Reconstruction-era amendment Right after the passage of the 14th Amendment in 1868, Section 3 was enforced vigorously. For example, Congress directed the Union Army to oust any former Confederate officials then holding office in the ex-Confederate states still under martial law. It is estimated that tens of thousands of men were made ineligible to serve by Section 3. Article 1 of the impeachment charges against Donald Trump invokes the 14th Amendment. U.S. House of Representatives Congress then enacted legislation as part of the First Ku Klux Klan Act in 1870 giving the Justice Department authority to bring lawsuits in federal court to enforce Section 3 against former Confederate officials still holding office in other states. Three justices on Tennessee’s Supreme Court were sued under this law. One resigned; the other two contested their ineligibility in court. North Carolina and Louisiana also enforced Section 3 in court upholding in 1869 the dismissal of some state officials who had served the Confederacy, including a sheriff, a constable and a district attorney. In 1871, after the North Carolina Legislature elected their Civil War-era governor, Zebulon Vance, to the Senate, the Senate deemed him ineligible to serve under Section 3. The state legislature was forced to choose someone else. Unity versus accountability Less than five years into Reconstruction, however, many Northerners began calling on Congress to grant amnesty to Southern officers barred from office by Section 3. The 14th Amendment gives Congress the power to restore the right to hold office with a two-thirds vote in each chamber. This campaign, led by the prominent New York newspaper editor Horace Greeley, reflected white fatigue with the burdens of enforcing the entire 14th Amendment and a desire to move past the bitterness of the Civil War. Greeley and his “Liberal Republicans” mounted a presidential campaign in 1872 based in part on a platform of “universal amnesty.” President Ulysses S. Grant, who was running for reelection, knew white public opinion now favored amnesty. In a Dec. 4, 1871 message to Congress, he asked lawmakers to grant amnesty to former Confederate officials. After a long and emotional debate, Congress did so in 1872 with the General Amnesty Act. Soon Southern voters sent many previously disqualified men back to Congress, including Alexander Stephens, the former Confederate vice president. Confederate president Jefferson Davis and a few hundred other former federal officials and military officers remained excluded from public office. Georgia’s Stone Mountain commemorates Confederates leaders Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee, both banned from office in the 1870s. Wikimedia Commons, CC BY In granting this amnesty, Congress rejected a proposal by Massachusetts Sen. Charles Sumner, an eloquent advocate for racial equality, to couple forgiveness for white Southerners with a new civil rights law that would, among other things, have barred racial discrimination in schools. In 1898, with the Spanish-American War about to begin, Congress removed Section 3 ineligibility from all living ex-rebels. It was widely seen as another gesture of national unity, but it was another nail in the coffin of Reconstruction. Neglected but not forgotten During the 20th century, Section 3 was largely ignored. It was used just once, during World War I, to exclude the socialist Congressman Victor Berger from the House for his anti-war speeches. In the 1970s, Congress gave Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis posthumous Section 3 amnesty. This was again done in the name of national “reconciliation,” after the divisive Vietnam War. Today Section 3, created to vanquish white supremacy, is seeing a revival. The Confederate flag, which never entered the Capitol during the Civil War, was carried inside during the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi signs an article of impeachment against then-president Donald Trump, Jan. 13, 2021. Stefani Reynolds/Getty Images Any congressional members determined to have “engaged in insurrection” may be expelled under this provision by a two-thirds vote in their house of Congress. That includes, potentially, lawmakers who are found to have directly aided or incited the rioters. Capitol police are investigating several Republican congressional representatives for allegedly leading “reconaissance” tours of the building on Jan. 5. Though lawmakers can remove their colleagues from office, they cannot legally keep those members from running for, and occupying, public office again. That’s because there is today no federal statute enforcing Section 3; those parts of the Ku Klux Klan Act were repealed long ago. Unless Congress passes a new enforcement law, any expelled lawmakers could return later. [Deep knowledge, daily. Sign up for The Conversation’s newsletter.] Similarly, Congress could at any time use Section 3 to declare its constitutional opinion that Trump is ineligible to hold public office again, with a majority vote. But only the courts, interpreting Section 3 for themselves, can bar someone from running for president. The issue may never come up. The Senate may disqualify Trump first, as part of impeachment, or he may choose not to run again. If he does run, though, he may have to take his case to the Supreme Court. A bipartisan congressional opinion of ineligibility would be a big blow to his candidacy.This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit news site dedicated to sharing ideas from academic experts. It was written by: Gerard Magliocca, Indiana University. Read more:What those mourning the fragility of American democracy get wrongHow age diversity in a presidential Cabinet could affect policies and programs Gerard Magliocca does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

  • Filipino American Father, Daughter Electrocuted by Downed Power Lines in LA

    A Filipino American father and daughter were electrocuted in the backyard of their home in Panorama City, California, on Monday. The victims were identified as Ferdinand Tejada, 53, and Janine Reyn Tejada, 20, according to the Los Angeles County Coroner’s Office via CBS Los Angeles. Ferdinand was reportedly trying to move a downed electrical wire outside his home when the fatal accident occurred.

  • Fury at Emmanuel Macron's 'nonsense' claims about Oxford Covid vaccine

    Emmanuel Macron has been accused of making "nonsense" and "untrue" claims about the Oxford-AstraZeneca jab that risked undermining public confidence in the UK's vaccine programme. Senior Conservative MPs and scientists accused the French president of failing to understand the science after he claimed the vaccine "doesn't work as expected" and appeared to be "quasi-ineffective" in the over-65s. Mr Macron also criticised the UK's decision to give doses 12 weeks apart, claiming this could "accelerate the mutations" of the virus. He was speaking hours before the European Medicines Agency (EMA) approved the AstraZeneca vaccine for use, stating that it could be used “in older adults”. It was the latest salvo in the extraordinary row between Brussels and the UK over vaccines, which saw the EU row back on Friday night over moves to block jabs from crossing from the Republic of Ireland into Northern Ireland. The plans, which were part of wider moves by the EU to place controls on vaccine exports, threatened to effectively create a border on the island of Ireland and were met with a fierce international backlash. Arlene Foster, Northern Ireland’s First Minister branded it an “incredible act of hostility”, while the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Most Rev Justin Welby, also condemned the move, warning that “seeking to control the export of vaccines undercuts the EU’s basic ethics.” Separately, Micheal Martin, the Irish Taoiseach, expressed his alarm in tense discussions with Commission president Ursula von der Leyen, with sources indicating that neither the UK or Irish governments had been notified in advance. After speaking to Mrs Foster and Mr Martin, the Prime Minister also spoke with Mrs von der Leyen, during which he expressed his “grave concerns about the potential impact which the steps the EU has taken today on vaccine exports could have.” Michael Gove spoke to Maros Sefocovic, the European Commission vice president and his counterpart on the UK-EU joint-committee, to "express the UK's concern over the lack of notification from the EU about its actions in relation to the Northern Ireland protocol." Michel Barnier, the EU's chief Brexit negotiator, urged the EU to de-escalate tensions and deploy a "spirit of co-operation" with the UK to work through "an extraordinarily serious crisis". Facing mounting condemnation, the Commission on Friday night issued a statement confirming the U-turn, adding that it would “ensure the Ireland/Northern Ireland Protocol is unaffected.” Speaking in Paris on Friday afternoon, Mr Macron said of the AstraZeneca jab: "We're waiting for the EMA [European Medicines Agency] results, but today everything points to thinking it is quasi-ineffective on people older than 65, some say those 60 years or older. "What I can tell you officially today is that the early results we have are not encouraging for 60 to 65-year-old people concerning AstraZeneca."

  • AOC tells Ted Cruz she doesn’t want to work with him on Robinhood probe because he ‘almost had me murdered’ during Capitol riot

    Ms Ocasio-Cortez again called for Mr Cruz to resign

  • Have a Drink in Style with These 9 Cocktail Tables

    The best occasional tables keep your cocktail at arm’s reachOriginally Appeared on Architectural Digest

  • Japanese woman 'kept mother's body in freezer for 10 years'

    The Japanese woman reportedly hid the body a decade ago because she "didn't want to move out".

  • Republican Jewish Coalition Rebukes Rep. Taylor Greene’s ‘Indefensible’ Jewish Space Laser Theory

    The Republican Jewish Coalition on Friday once again denounced Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene (R., Ga.), calling her newly surfaced anti-Semitic conspiracy theory comments “indefensible and unacceptable.” #JewishSpaceLasers began trending on Twitter on Thursday after Media Matters unearthed a 2018 Facebook post in which Greene made unfounded claims about the cause of California’s wildfires. She alleged that the Rothschilds, a wealthy Jewish banking family that is frequently the subject of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, may have used a laser beam from space to spark a forest fire in order to profit from it. “We rightly opposed Marjorie Taylor Greene in her primary election for Congress and proudly supported her GOP opponent, Dr. John Cowan,” RJC director Matt Brooks said, according to the Times of Israel. When RJC endorsed Cowan, Greene had already taken on a controversial reputation over her belief in the QAnon movement, which claims, among other things, that former President Donald Trump and his allies are secretly working to expose a deep-state ring of child sex traffickers. Many of the movement’s theories have anti-Semitic themes. Brooks said he could not yet say whether the RJC would once again support whoever runs against Greene in a future primary election, as no one has announced plans to run against the freshman congresswoman who is popular in her district. He also would not say if the group plans to call for Greene to be ousted from House committees; Earlier this week House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy named Greene to the Education Committee. Her appointment caused an outcry among Democrats who say that she should be disqualified from serving on the committee over a recently unearthed video of a 2019 incident in which she harassed a survivor of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting, saying the survivor was paid by George Soros, as well as a 2018 Facebook post in which she agreed that the Sandy Hook and Stoneman Douglas shootings were “staged.” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) on Thursday expressed concern over the Republican leadership in the House being “willing to overlook” and ignore Greene’s statements. “Assigning [Greene] to the Education Committee when she has mocked the killing of little children at Sandy Hook Elementary School; when she has mocked the killing of teenagers at the Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School; what could they be thinking, or is thinking too generous a word for what they might be doing?” Pelosi said. A spokesman for McCarthy (R., Calif.) told Axios he is aware of Greene’s statements, calling them “deeply disturbing” and saying the GOP leader “plans to have a conversation with the Congresswoman about them.”

  • DeSantis is right: Florida doesn’t need Biden’s vaccine plan. His has been a flaming success | Opinion

    Florida’s COVID vaccine rollout is more like a flaming ant farm, only less organized.

  • Archaeologists to excavate ancient beach at Herculaneum, Roman town destroyed by Vesuvius eruption

    Archaeologists are to excavate an ancient beach at Herculaneum, the ancient Roman town that along with Pompeii was partially destroyed and entombed by the eruption of Mt Vesuvius nearly 2,000 years ago. Experts hope the dig will yield important discoveries, 40 years after the last excavation at the site revealed the skeletons of dozens of Romans who had were killed as they tried to flee the catastrophe. Discoveries made in the past include the skeletons of Romans trying to escape the town, collapsed buildings complete with preserved wooden ceilings and bags of money and jewels, which desperate people grabbed as they fled their homes. The impending project, which will last more than two years, was announced by Francesco Sirano, the director of the archeological site south of Naples. “The excavation will allow us to reach the level of the beach as it was at the moment of the volcanic eruption,” he said. “It will provide an extraordinary opportunity to acquire useful information about life in the city, about the situation at the time of the eruption and the dynamics of the destruction, adding to our knowledge of the Roman cities on the Gulf of Naples.”