Tag Archives: Cornell University

Did US Send 7000 Insects To Destroy Crops In China?!

Did the US try to send 7,000 Drosophila insects into China to destroy their crops?! Take a look at viral claims, and find out what the facts really are!

Updated @ 2024-03-23 : Updated for new release
Originally posted @ 2023-04-19


Claim : US Sent 7,000 Insects To Destroy Crops In China!

People are sharing a video of a Chinese news report about Chinese custom officials discovering 66 containers of some 7,000 insects in a parcel shipped from the US.

They allege that this is evidence of American sabotage – that the US sent those insects to destroy crops in China. The video is often shared with such messages :

China customs found 7000 insects sent from the USA. Out to destroy crops in China.

An evil country on the way down trying to pull others down too with sickening and rather despicable tactics !

The video showed China 🇨🇳 Port Custom, checked a luggage claimed to contain clothing. But when scanned through & upon suspicion, Custom Officers opened up the bag. They found there were more than 60 bottles containing the larvae of Drosophila, some 7k of it. If these bottles of larvae Drosophila were successfully smuggled into China & the matured Drosophila spread throughout the whole China. It will destroy all the fruits plantation/orchards. The matured ones multiplies & spread very fast. The luggage is from USA 🇺🇸. The acts of inhumanity in infecting & destroying China 🇨🇳 food chain. Evilness knows no boundries.

Recommended : China Unveils New Incentives For Wumao + CCP Uncles!

In addition to claiming that these insects are dangerous to crops, some pro-CCP or Chinese-sponsored websites are promoting the claim that these insects had their genes edited to become “more infectious”, like a “super mosquito”.

They also point out that each of these insects can reproduce every 10 days, laying 400 eggs in their lifetime to quickly produce a swarm that will destroy fruits in China, by corrupting them with bacteria and fungi.

Recommended : Was US Military Caught Stealing Tents From China?!


Truth : US Did Not Send 7,000 Insects To Destroy Crops In China!

This is yet another example of fake news created by the Chinese 50 Cent Army (wumao, 五毛), and shared by pro-CCP netizens and websites, and here are the reasons why…

Fact #1 : The Incident Happened In July 2022

First, let us establish what we know about this case.

Sometime in early July 2022, Qingdao customs officers examined a package sent from the United States. Its declaration form claimed that the parcel contained clothes.

When they opened it up, they found two pieces of clothes inside, with 66 sealed tubes containing eggs, larvae, pupae and adult insects.

After analysing them, Qingdao custom officers estimated that the 66 tubes contained roughly 7,000 fruit flies, specifically of the species Drosophila melanogaster.

Recommended : Did This American Harass Chinese Female Tourists?!

Fact #2 : Drosophila megalogaster Is Present Worldwide

Drosophila melanogaster is known as the common fruit fly, which is commonly present across the world. Yes, this fruit fly is already present in China.

Despite originating in Africa – it is now present on all continents across the world, including islands.

Fact #3 : Drosophila megalogaster Can Lay Up To 2,000 Eggs

The Chinese media promoting this story can’t even get their facts right, claiming that these fruit flies lay up to 400 eggs in their lifetime.

Drosophila melanogaster females are far more productive than that – they can lay up to 100 eggs a day, and up to 2,000 eggs in a lifetime.

Fact #4 : Drosophila megalogaster Do Not Cause Fruits To Rot

Drosophila melanogaster is not an economic pest, even though no one welcomes them in their home.

It is often confused with Tephritidae – a different family of insects that are also called fruit flies, some of which are economic pests that destroy fruits.

Unlike Tephritidae fruit flies, Drosophila melanogaster do not destroy fruits. They are attracted to fruit that is already rotting, but do not cause fruits to rot.

The claims that the US sent Drosophila melanogaster fruit flies to destroy crops in China is nonsense.

Recommended : Did Xi Jinping Divorce His Wife To Serve China?!

Fact #5 : Drosophila megalogaster Is Commonly Used For Research

Drosophila melanogaster fruit flies are very popular in scientific research, for many reasons :

  • they are easy and cheap to care for, requiring little equipment and space
  • they have a rapid life cycle of 10 days, allowing several generations to be studied in a few weeks
  • each female can produce many offspring, laying up to 2,000 eggs in its lifetime
  • they have simple genetics, with only four pairs of chromosomes
  • their genome was completely sequenced and published in the year 2000

Scientists do not mention this as a reason for using Drosophila melanogaster, but I think it is important to note that it is not a pest, so accidental release of these fruit flies would not pose any danger of any form or kind.

Fact #6 : Drosophila megalogaster Is Commonly Shipped Worldwide

Because it is a model organism for research, Drosophila melanogaster is bred and shipped internationally to researchers worldwide.

The College of Agriculture and Life Science at Cornell University, for example, breeds and sells Drosophila melanogaster fruit flies, which they ship internationally including China.

Fact #7 : 2021 Seized Shipment Was Meant For Chinese Research Institute

This wasn’t the first time China seized live Drosophila melanogaster fruit flies in such tubes.

In June 2021, Chinese custom officials found 58 tubes containing more than 1,000 of these fruit flies in an imported parcel addressed to a Chinese research institute.

They seized the parcel because its contents were not declared, and it lacked an import permit.

Recommended : China Caught Lab Workers Paid To Spread Covid-19?!

Fact #8 : China Requires Quarantine For Live Insects

China forbids live insects from being mailed or carried into the country, without special quarantine or approval. However, quarantine is a problem for Drosophila melanogaster because it has such a short lifespan of just 50 days.

Hence, it is possible that Chinese researchers are trying to circumvent the quarantine by importing live Drosophila melanogaster fruit flies, without an import permit which would require quarantine.

It is also possible that these fruit flies are being imported as a live food source for people’s pet fish, frogs and other animals.

Fact #9 : Cornell University Warned About Chinese Import Permit

Cornell University specifically warned Chinese researchers trying to purchase these fruit flies that :

As of November 1, 2014, we can only offer free replacements for shipments of live flies to China that were accompanied by an import permit.

That suggests that they lost shipments to China in the past, because they lacked import permits.

Recommended : Did Four Taiwan F-16 Fighters Just Defect To China?!

Fact #10 : This Is Just Chinese Propaganda

This is really nothing more than yet another example of Chinese propaganda created by the infamous Chinese 50 Cent Army (wumao, 五毛). Here is just the latest dozen I fact-checked:

Please help us fight fake news – SHARE this article, and SUPPORT our work!


Please Support My Work!

Support my work through a bank transfer /  PayPal / credit card!

Name : Adrian Wong
Bank Transfer : CIMB 7064555917 (Swift Code : CIBBMYKL)
Credit Card / Paypal : https://paypal.me/techarp

Dr. Adrian Wong has been writing about tech and science since 1997, even publishing a book with Prentice Hall called Breaking Through The BIOS Barrier (ISBN 978-0131455368) while in medical school.

He continues to devote countless hours every day writing about tech, medicine and science, in his pursuit of facts in a post-truth world.


Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Fact Check | Science | Tech ARP


Support Tech ARP!

Please support us by visiting our sponsors, participating in the Tech ARP Forums, or donating to our fund. Thank you!

Did Cornell Name Ivermectin Most Effective Drug vs. Omicron?

Did Cornell University just confirm ivermectin as the most effective drug against the Omicron variant of COVID-19?

Take a look at the viral claim, and find out what the facts really are!


Claim : Cornell Calls Ivermectin Most Effective Drug vs. Omicron!

Antivaxxers and alternative medicine websites like Mercola are sharing what they claim to be a Cornell University study that names ivermectin as the most effective drug against the Omicron variant.

Here is an example of a WhatsApp message that people are sharing about this Cornell University study.

It’s a long post, so feel free to skip to the next section for the facts.



Researchers used a computational analysis to look at the Omicron variant, which has demonstrated a lower clinical presentation and lower hospital admission rates.

After having retrieved the complete genome sequence and collecting 30 variants from the database, the researchers analyzed 10 drugs against the virus, including:


Truth : Cornell Did Not Call Ivermectin Most Effective Drug vs. Omicron!

This is yet another example of ivermectin FAKE NEWS, created by antivaxxers and alternative health websites like Mercola.

Let me show you just how they maliciously lied to you about this study…

Fact #1 : Study Was Not Conducted By Cornell University

The study in question is called Insights from a computational analysis of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant: Host-pathogen interaction, pathogenicity and possible therapeutics.

The study was conducted by Parvez et. al. – a team from the Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine in Japan, and the Shahjalal University of Science & Technology in Bangladesh.

This study on ivermectin and other protease inhibiting drugs has NOTHING to do with Cornell University.

Fact #2 : arXiv Is An Online Library Managed By Cornell University

The study summary in arXiv has a Cornell University logo at the top, which the fake news creator hopes will convince you that the study was done by a Cornell University team.

The truth is – arXiv is an open access repository (library) of scientific papers that is financed and managed by the Cornell University Library. Hence, the Cornell University logo.

That does not mean that the papers submitted to arXiv were conducted or endorsed by Cornell University.

Fact #3 : arXiv Papers Are NOT Peer-Reviewed

The C19Ivermectin website claims that the Parvez et. al. paper has been peer-reviewed. That’s false.

arXiv stores scientific preprints and post-prints (also called e-prints) that any scientist choose to submit.

All papers submitted to arXiv are NOT peer-reviewed, and must NOT be used without proper context.

While papers are typically peer-reviewed before becoming post-print and published (see graphic below), this is not the case for arXiv.

In fact, arXiv specifically warns that their post-prints are NOT peer-reviewed at the top of the page :

Important: e-prints posted on arXiv are not peer-reviewed by arXiv; they should not be relied upon without context to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information without consulting multiple experts in the field.

Fact #4 : Study Used Computer Modelling

The Parvez et. al. study (PDF download) was not conducted in the real world, or even in a laboratory. It was conducted on a computer.

They used computational analysis to analyse the binding potential for ten drugs that target the SARS-CoV-2’s protease protein.

However, this was all done on a computer, and may not necessarily reflect real world results. They must be reviewed (to look for mistakes), and then confirmed in actual lab and real world tests.

As the study authors themselves state, “While these hypotheses hold great value and may provide significant insights into the therapeutic strategies, further research is crucial to authenticate these statements.

Fact #5 : PAXLOVID Consists Of Two Drugs, Not One

The Parvez et. al. paper looked at individual drugs, and labelled Nirmatrelvir as PAXLOVID.

That is incorrect, as PAXLOVID is a combination of two protease inhibitors :

  • two 150 mg tablets of Nirmatrelvir (the new protease inhibitor developed by Pfizer)
  • one 100 mg tablet of Ritonavir (an old antiviral approved in 1996)

Drug combinations like this offer a synergistic effect, above and beyond their individual abilities.

Hence, the Parvez et. al. study does not accurately reflect the ability of the PAXLOVID combination of Nirmatrelvir and Ritonavir to simultaneously and synergistically bind to the coronavirus protease enzyme.

And no – you cannot combine or average their results. It doesn’t work that way…

Pro Tip : If you are searching for Ritonavir in the Parvez et. al. study, do note that they wrongly called it Ritonvir.

Fact #6 : In Silico Results Are Least Clinically Important

Computational analysis can help scientists identify potential drug candidates, but the results are not always clinically important.

In this study’s case, it looked at the affinity (ease) at which ten drugs can bind to the protease enzyme of the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

While that is a critical feature of protease inhibiting drugs that block the coronavirus’ ability to replicate, it does not tell us other important things like :

  • the minimum drug plasma level to inhibit replication
  • maximum dose a human being can safely tolerate
  • the dose required to achieve the therapeutic plasma level
  • drug interactions and adverse effects
  • plasma half life and drug metabolism

In the order of clinical importance, such computational (in silico) research is the least significant. That’s why we cannot draw any conclusions from such studies.

Fact #7 : PAXLOVID Proven To Work Against COVID-19

Like many people, I am aghast at the high price of the Pfizer PAXLOVID drug combination. However, low cost is not a requirement for FDA approval.

The US FDA issued PAXLOVID an Emergency Use Authorisation (PDF download) because its Phase 2/3 trial results (PDF download) showed an 88% reduction in the risk of hospitalisation or death from COVID-19.

Even so, the US FDA limited PAXLOVID’s use to only treat early cases of mild-to-moderate COVID-19 :

  • Not authorised for severe or critical COVID-19
  • Not authorised as a preventive measure (prophylaxis) against COVID-19
  • Cannot be used for longer than 5 consecutive days

Fact #8 : Ivermectin Not Proven To Work Clinically Against COVID-19

Ivermectin has shown promise against the COVID-19 virus in laboratory tests since April 2020, but that has not translated into actual clinical benefit.

In other words – scientists can only show that ivermectin kills the coronavirus in laboratory tests, but not in actual human beings.

Here is a meta-analysis of ivermectin RCTs (randomised control trials), with three fraudulent studies removed – Elgazzar, Okomus and Niaee. Results towards the left suggest a clinical benefit for ivermectin.

Taken in totality, the latest meta-analysis show that the clinical effect of ivermectin on COVID-19 patients is NOT SIGNIFICANT enough to warrant its use as a treatment.

While it is ridiculous that Pfizer would charge so much for PAXLOVID, there is fortunately a low-cost way to prevent COVID-19 – vaccines.

Getting vaccinated is a cheap way to avoid getting COVID-19, and avoid the use of expensive drugs like PAXLOVID.

If you want to stick it to Pfizer, get vaccinated against COVID-19!


Please Support My Work!

Support my work through a bank transfer /  PayPal / credit card!

Name : Adrian Wong
Bank Transfer : CIMB 7064555917 (Swift Code : CIBBMYKL)
Credit Card / Paypal : https://paypal.me/techarp

Dr. Adrian Wong has been writing about tech and science since 1997, even publishing a book with Prentice Hall called Breaking Through The BIOS Barrier (ISBN 978-0131455368) while in medical school.

He continues to devote countless hours every day writing about tech, medicine and science, in his pursuit of facts in a post-truth world.


Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Health | Fact Check | Tech ARP


Support Tech ARP!

Please support us by visiting our sponsors, participating in the Tech ARP Forums, or donating to our fund. Thank you!