In Siberia, Russia, a young researcher at an anti-plague research institute passed away in early October due to “unknown cause pneumonia.” Concerns arose about accidental exposure to lab viruses, leading to multiple Chinese regions issuing plague prevention and control advisories. Rumors of unconfirmed cases also circulated among the public.
Experts interviewed believe this incident shares similarities with the controversy surrounding the origin of the outbreak at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The key lies in whether the cause of death, pathogen testing, and accident records can be made public, urging a reliance on evidence rather than speculation until the truth is revealed.
The Irkutsk Anti-Plague Research Institute in Siberia recently reported the death of 28-year-old laboratory staff, Darya Shipilova, on October 2 due to “unexplained severe pneumonia.” This sparked international concerns about the outbreak of pneumonic plague and laboratory accident exposure.
Reports suggest that countries like Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan have heightened preventive measures and testing. Mongolia has implemented health monitoring along its border with Russia.
Following the news, various regions in China also reacted.
Qinghai, Inner Mongolia, Hunan, Guangdong, among others, issued plague prevention and control advisories. Hong Kong’s Department of Health also strengthened health monitoring of travelers arriving from Russia.
Recently, the CDC in Hulunbuir, which borders Russia, issued warnings about plague prevention and control risks, drawing significant public attention. Many Chinese netizens speculated whether the epidemic in Russia had spread to China. However, the warning was soon retracted, leading to questions from the public about the reason for the initial alert and subsequent retraction.
Regarding this, prominent internal medicine doctor Zheng Yuanyu from Taiwan stated to the Epoch Times: “The issuance and cancellation of health risk alerts, health monitoring, etc., across various regions in China could be due to mutual distrust between China and Russia, as well as between local governments and the central government. Hence, regional health policies might be based on sources like monitoring data of personnel entering and leaving various locales.”
Zheng noted that if there is a real risk of severe diseases spreading from Russia to China, or if cross-border transmission has already occurred, in the current information environment, can China promptly confirm the pathogen?
In contrast to the discreet approach within China, official media actively report on overseas outbreaks. Xinhua reported on confirmed cases of plague in Madagascar, located far in Africa, on October 13, but, as of now, China, closer to Russia, has not announced any confirmed plague cases.
Despite official announcements, conflicting narratives emerged from the public.
An anonymous source claiming to be from a hospital affiliated with the Inner Mongolia Medical College recently disclosed that the hospital had admitted 70 plague patients recently. The whistleblower mentioned, “Because they were in the later stages, over 40 died, and their bodies were cremated without notifying their families.”
According to the source, some patients arrived at the hospital with severe symptoms, and the lack of early experience in managing the outbreak contributed to medical staff facing infection risks. They revealed: “When we began admitting patients, with no experience, over 10 doctors got infected, and three passed away.”
Besides Ereenhot, the whistleblower mentioned that plague cases had emerged in cities like Hohhot, Chifeng, Tongliao, and Baotou, with thousands of cases reported.
The informant also disclosed that local pharmacies had sold out of plague treatment drugs such as streptomycin, gentamycin, and ciprofloxacin. Hospital leaders had stocked up on antibiotics at home, planning to self-administer if family members showed symptoms.
The source expressed concerns about the plight of ordinary citizens. They stated that hospital administrators with more information could prepare medications in advance, while “more grassroots people are unaware of the situation’s severity.”
Regarding whether hospitals openly treat plague patients, the source claimed that the official stance was to deny admitting any plague patients. Summing up their understanding, they said, “The official line is that no plague patients have been admitted. Plague cases do not exist.”
Not long ago, an individual claiming to be from a P4 laboratory in China disclosed that one patient each arriving from Russia in Shanghai and Chongqing had been confirmed with plague. Even though both patients were stable after isolation treatment and allowed to leave, they both unexpectedly passed away a few days after returning to their respective destinations.
This whistleblower expressed concerns that such incidents posed a risk greater than that of the COVID-19 pandemic, speculating that the Russian research institutes involved might have military purposes.
However, this disclosure comes from a singular source without independent evidence to support it, and currently, journalists cannot verify it independently.
With official statements conflicting with public disclosures, experts are turning their attention to the Russian laboratory itself.
China affairs expert Henghe, in an interview with The Epoch Times, expressed that one suspicion surrounding this incident is why the researcher died and how the initial virus strain differs from the official narrative.
Based on local media reports he has seen, the initial information was quite specific, involving a staff member breaking a test tube, being exposed to infection risks after handling samples. The person reportedly did inform doctors of their exposure when seeking medical attention, and local media at the time linked the incident to the plague.
Henghe said, “Later on, Russia’s federal government suppressed the news.”
He believes that when there is such a discrepancy between the detailed information initially disclosed by local media and the subsequent official narrative, the public is inclined to suspect whether the event was downplayed or covered up. “So people believe that just like the early stages of the COVID-19 outbreak in China, Russia is also attempting to cover up.”
To him, this situation evokes memories of the Wuhan Institute of Virology. He compared the Russian incident with the controversies surrounding the Wuhan Institute of Virology and the origin of the COVID-19 pandemic.
He stated, “If a staff member from a plague research institution developed lung symptoms after breaking a test tube and handling samples, the first step should be to investigate whether the infection resulted from lab exposure and whether the transmission route is related to the work environment.”
He believes this scenario easily draws parallels with the controversies surrounding the Wuhan Institute of Virology: observers had been questioning whether lab personnel could have been infected in the early stages of the epidemic and if relevant circumstances had been fully disclosed.
Henghe remarked, “This is exactly the same as what happened at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.”
He reflected on the controversy surrounding the origin of the COVID-19 pandemic, where speculations were made about lab personnel exhibiting similar symptoms before the outbreak in society, but the various disputes still revolve around different evidence and interpretations.
Henghe raised another question: why did a staff member familiar with plague risks, working at a plague research institution, succumb to suspected pneumonic plague symptoms?
“This staff member was inside a plague research institute and developed symptoms after contact with samples. Therefore, treatment should have been based on pneumonic plague. But the question is, why was there no improvement?”
He mentioned that during the Soviet era, bioweapon research was conducted, and the insider workings of related bioweapon programs were disclosed by defectors. Thus, he speculated that if this infection involved a genetically modified strain of plague resistant to antibiotics, it could explain why the patient did not respond to treatment as expected.
However, Henghe emphasized that these views are currently speculative and require reliable evidence for confirmation.
Regarding doubts about the Russian laboratory, Lin Xiaoxu, former director of the Virology Department at the U.S. Army Research Institute, told The Epoch Times: “The main issue currently is not whether Russia has confirmed the plague, but that the information on the cause of death remains unclear.”
He believes there is worth in explaining the gap between official diagnosis and epidemic control measures. “The official diagnosis is still vague, but the epidemic control measures are quite stringent, requiring further explanation of this discrepancy.”
Lin mentioned that in late August, Heilongjiang’s Fuyuan held a “China-Russia Cross-Border Infectious Disease Epidemic Joint Emergency Drill,” with Russian representatives including the head of the Irkutsk Anti-Plague Scientific Research Institute. A little over a month later, news of a researcher from the same research system in Irkutsk dying of unknown pneumonia emerged. Consequently, the activation of related reporting mechanisms becomes a necessary question for further inquiry.
Lin expressed that the significance of this incident extends beyond the death of a Russian researcher, concerning global biosecurity management in high containment laboratories.
He believed investigations should focus on three aspects: First, whether the deceased had contact with the plague pathogen or other high-risk pathogens; second, whether any accidents occurred in the laboratory, and if there were timely accident reports, personnel isolation, and post-exposure treatment; and third, whether Russia can disclose pathogen test results and investigation data for external parties to assess risks.