1

Documents Prove NIH Funded Coronavirus Research in Wuhan. Could That Be What Caused the Pandemic?

A multimillion-dollar bat coronavirus research grant, funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), was made public last week, revealing that researchers based in Wuhan, China had manipulated coronaviruses in ways that led to increased severity of infection, employing platforms that tested the ability of bat coronaviruses to use human receptors.

The grant documents underscore the perils of the collection of and experimentation on potentially pathogenic viruses and shed new light on U.S.-funded coronavirus experiments in Wuhan, China for five years prior to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The new information disclosed in the grant proposal and its interim reports does not establish that the research led to the pandemic. But they do suggest that it was possible.

The NIH-funded, five-year grant was awarded in 2014 to the U.S.-based EcoHealth Alliance, with EcoHealth President Peter Daszak as “principal investigator” in collaboration with several researchers in China, including two working at China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV).

A key collaborator on the grant was Ralph Baric, of the University of North Carolina, providing expertise in mouse models for coronavirus infections. The grant was renewed in 2019 but then canceled in 2020 as the pandemic set off panic around the globe.

A copy of the research plan and interim reports, titled “Understanding the Risk of Bat Coronavirus Emergence,” was obtained through litigation against the NIH and publicly released by The Intercept.

The documents show that the NIH grant was for $3.1 million, of which $599,000 went to the WIV and to researcher Zhengli Shi, who specialized in the study of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-1 (SARS-CoV-1) and similar viruses, called SARS related (SARSr)-CoVs.

Many scientists have posited a possible lab origin of SARS-CoV-2 and suggested the WIV as a possible source for the origin of the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, which causes COVID-19.

Coronaviruses (CoVs) emerging from wildlife are a “significant threat to global health,” the grant claims, with bats considered a “natural reservoir of these viruses.”

With that in mind, the authors said that the purpose of their research was to “examine the risk of future coronavirus … emergence from wildlife” using a range of research techniques and to understand “what factors increase the risk of the next CoV emerging in people …”

The work involved screening more than 30 species of bats for CoVs and then developing strategies for assessing the potential spillover of coronaviruses from bats to humans, according to the grant documents.

But it is possible that, in seeking to learn how to avoid spillover events, the work actually caused one.

How it could have happened

How might the EcoHealth Alliance grant have caused, or contributed to, the pandemic? Here are some possible scenarios based on a close reading of the grant.

  • During fieldwork, collection, and containment of bat SARSr-CoV samples, people could have been accidentally infected. The research involved collecting samples from bats in four Chinese provinces: Yunnan, Guangdong, Guangxi, and Fujian.

The researchers explained their prolific sampling of Chinese bats and identification of new coronaviruses: “We have identified sequences from 268 novels bat-CoVs (140 from China alone),” they wrote in the grant. “We have an additional 5000+ clinical samples from free-ranging bats and rodents from Guangdong province.”

The grantees acknowledged that their work had serious implications, writing in the grant documents that “some SARSr-CoVs currently circulating in bats in southern China are likely able to infect and replicate within people.” [Emphasis in original].

In fact, the most closely related virus to SARS-CoV-2 identified to date was found by WIV scientists in a mineshaft in Mojiang (Yunnan Province). In 2012-2013, six miners experienced acute respiratory distress syndrome after exposure to bat feces in this mineshaft, and three died.

“Fieldwork involves the highest risk of exposure to SARSr-related or other bats CoVs while working in caves with high bat density overhead and the potential for fecal dust to be inhaled,” according to the grant documents.

The grant documents state that “Tyvek suits and HEPA-filtered Powered Air Purifying and Supplied Air Respirator Systems (PAPRs) will additionally be worn in cave systems where there is a higher risk of contact with aerosolized bat feces.”

If any of those bat samples contained a close relative of SARS-CoV-2 infectious to humans, an accidental infection during the course of fieldwork, subsequent lab procedures, or containment could have led to a transmissible SARSr-CoV with greater similarity to SARS-CoV-2 than the currently reported strains.

In fact, analysis of some early strains of SARS-CoV-2 shows that they may be more similar to bat coronaviruses than previously thought, based on evidence recovered from viral sequences deleted from NIH sequence archives.

  • During lab experimentation with the bat coronaviruses, it is possible that a novel virus was produced with greater similarity to SARS-CoV-2 than those reported in the NIH grant.

The researchers stated in the grant that they developed an in vivo model, that is, mice genetically engineered to carry human angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (hACE-2), the receptor for SARS-CoV-1 and SARS-CoV-2.

The research group also reported that they were successful in generating new SARS-like coronaviruses. They did this by splicing the RNA sequences of the novel spike proteins they discovered into the viral ‘backbone’ of known lab strains. This kind of novel virus is called a chimera because it consists of genetic elements from different viruses.

In this way, the researchers created three chimeric viruses, each with a different spike protein, from bats.

  • Though the grant does not mention a virus similar enough to SARS-CoV-2 to be a direct progenitor, it is possible that other chimeric viruses were tested in this model, but were not reported in the grant. The researchers had access to troves of novel coronaviruses collected during fieldwork, including unreported bat viruses.

It is common for researchers to present some but not all data in interim grant reports. The research described in the grant established a platform that could have easily been used to study other chimeric viruses more closely related to SARS-CoV-2 than those mentioned in the grant.

There are indications of this within the grant documents. While results from infection of hACE-2 mice with three chimeric viruses were presented, the researchers wrote in the grant, “[w]e cannot anticipate exactly how many viruses we will find that are candidates for experimental models … and that we will identify approximately 20 viruses that will be used for mouse infection experiments.”

It is possible that the researchers generated a novel chimeric virus with more similarity to SARS-CoV-2 than those reported.

Experiments on human ACE-2 mice

The NIH grant describes important research on mice with human ACE-2 receptors.

The researchers infected the hACE-2 mice with the chimeric SARS-like bat coronaviruses to see how sick they would get, and whether they would shed infectious virus compared to the original viral strain.

They found that hACE-2 mice infected with some of the chimeric viruses lost more body weight and shed more virus in the lungs than those infected by the original viral strain at certain time points. This research resulted in chimeric viruses that gained infectious and pathogenic properties.

“We’ll infect them [hACE-2 mice] with cultured bat coronaviruses and determine which organs become infected and whether these mice are capable of shedding infectious virus”, the grant proposed. The grant aimed to study tissues of the chimeric virus-infected hACE-2 mice for virus replication.

The grant proposed testing different transmission routes in which the mice could be infected, comparing nasal infection versus other routes.

The grant outlines, “[W]e will perform in vivo infection experiments in humanized mice modified to carry human ACE2 … gene in the Wuhan Institute of Virology BSL-3 animal facility … [t]his work will provide information about viral pathogenicity, tissue tropism, transmission route, and infection symptom.”

An outstanding question is whether the chimeric viruses can be transmitted between the hACE-2 mice. Whether the scientists explicitly reported on this is not the question, but rather, was a novel chimeric bat virus engineered that was also transmissible between hACE-2 mice?

While the grant does not discuss repeated passage of viruses in hACE-2 mice, the platform also sets up biosafety concerns about this possibility.

A weakness in the prominent ‘proximal origin’ paper?

Some scientists who have argued against a lab origin for SARS-CoV-2 contend that the virus has a signature of it being adapted in an animal host with an intact immune system, for which no such appropriate laboratory model has been described.

One of these arguments against a lab origin of SARS-CoV-2, advanced by scientist Kristian Andersen and colleagues, and published as an influential correspondence in Nature Medicine, was “[s]ubsequent generation of a polybasic cleavage site would have then required repeated passage in cell culture or animals with ACE2 receptors similar to those of humans, but such work has also not previously been described.” [Emphasis ours.]

However, the grant shows this is not correct — the experimentation on the hACE-2 mice establishes such a model.

Infection of hACE-2 mice with the novel chimeric bat coronaviruses could have supported new viruses with sequence changes that make them better able to infect human cells. These could be more similar in sequence to SARS-CoV-2 than the original chimeric virus infecting strains.

The hACE-2 expressing mice could have enabled some human adaptation of the chimeric SARS-like bat coronaviruses in vivo, generating viruses with more similarity to SARS-CoV-2 than those reported to date.  This is another possible explanation for how NIH-funded research in China could have led to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The bottom line

In addition to searching for spillover events, the research outlined in the grant had the potential to generate a spillover event.

This could have occurred as an accidental infection during fieldwork and laboratory handling of bat SARSr-CoVs, during containment or storage of them, during the laboratory engineering of novel chimeric bat coronaviruses or, after these novel viruses were used to infect hACE-2 mice, leading to a more infectious, transmissible and/or pathogenic virus that was a precursor to SARS-CoV-2.

The possibility of a lab leak or lab-acquired infection with any of these novel coronaviruses during lab experimentation raises serious biosafety concerns.

Though the bat coronavirus grant project has concluded, it is entirely possible that other studies using this platform were performed or are now being performed, including those related to a viral transmission. It is noteworthy that it took civil litigation to bring these grant documents to light, even though the research itself was paid for by U.S. taxpayers.

It is also noteworthy that EcoHealth Alliance has received nearly $40 million in multiple grants from the Department of Defense, and DOD grant data is often considered classified and withheld from the public.

And though the 5-year bat coronavirus research grant was only renewed for one additional year, a $7.5 million NIH grant, titled “Understanding Risk of Zoonotic Virus Emergence in EID Hotspots of Southeast Asia,” was awarded to EHA in 2020 to expand on the platforms established in the 2014 grant.

This newer grant, with Daszak again as principal investigator, was also made public in early September by the Intercept. The new grant is a consortium grant that adds more collaborators and lab sites where the research will be performed, including a BSL-4 facility in Boston. Funding is approved for the budget cycle of June 17, 2020, through May 31, 2025.

The bottom line is this: It is unclear whether the work performed under the 2014 bat coronavirus NIH grant played a role in the COVID-19 pandemic. But the EcoHealth Alliance and WIV collection and storage of SARS-related bat coronaviruses, and the creation and use of chimeric novel bat coronaviruses with human ACE-2 expressing mouse platforms, could have sparked the pandemic.

Congress should launch an investigation into U.S. government funding of this type of risky research as part of a full and thorough investigation of the origins of the pandemic.

U.S. Right to Know believes transparency in science is essential to the protection of public health, including preventing future pandemics.

Originally published by U.S. Right to Know.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Children’s Health Defense.




The Bombshell Outbreak in the Wuhan Lab

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | mercola.com

Story at-a-glance

  • The House Foreign Affairs Committee reviewed public and classified intelligence to reach their stunning conclusions that the virus did originate in the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), and it was genetically manipulated
  • Unfortunately, the mainstream media have ignored the report, providing even more evidence experts are hoping to manipulate what you know and what you do
  • The evidence clearly points to a viral leak from the Wuhan lab before September 12, 2019, the date a public database of 22,000 viral samples from WIV was inexplicably taken offline
  • In September and October, daily volume at local hospitals was higher than in the past 2.5 years, and researchers found a much higher than average number of searches for COVID symptoms on the Chinese search engine, Baidu
  • The Committee also concluded there was enough evidence to show genetic modification was viable, that new processes could produce genetic sequencing “indistinguishable from wild type” and that Peter Daszak likely has information about the specific gain-of-function research and should be brought to testify before Congress

Any question about the origin of SARS-CoV-2 has been dispelled by a new addendum from the House Foreign Affairs Committee of the 117th Congress that reviewed public data and classified intelligence to reveal key new facts.1

In the short video above, Saagar Enjeti talks about a few of the interesting facts revealed in the addendum.2 Unfortunately, as has been the case throughout the last 18 months, the mainstream media completely ignored any report like this one, which suggests health experts have been manipulating what you see.

I believe it’s important to share information from the committee’s report with your friends and family as it sheds light on the lies the media have been perpetuating throughout 2020 and 2021. As you will see and can find in the report, much of the information that led to the conclusions were taken from publicly available data.

If the media’s aim were to ferret out the truth and inform the public, this report may never have been necessary. And, if the media haven’t been telling you the truth about the origins of the virus, what else have they been hiding?

A report by the House Foreign Affairs Committee published in September 2020 highlighted the potential that SARS-CoV-2 was leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV). However, after discovering further evidence, the committee finds it is “time to completely dismiss the wet market as the source of the outbreak.”3

In the last 18 months, the virus has wreaked havoc on a health care system unwilling to use cost-effective and successful treatment modalities,4 and we have an economy that is still reeling from months of lockdowns and social distancing.

People are being forced to either accept the consequences and repercussions of hospital treatment for the infection or seek out successful alternatives that are criticized and discouraged by health agencies.5,6 If successful treatment were truly the objective, why would health experts vilify the use of medications that have been on the market for decades7,8 and the media maintain the lie?

Whether you are interested in the origin of a virus technocrats are using to manipulate human behavior or not, as Enjeti succinctly put it, “Getting to the bottom of it [origin of the pandemic] is vitally important for mankind so we can avoid any of this in the future.” And by “any of this” I take it to mean society’s complete trust in a system that has failed the public.

The Most Stunning Headline: Virus Was Leaked From the Lab

Enjeti believes the most stunning headline of the report is that the committee is convinced the virus was leaked from the lab,9 but that’s just the tip of the iceberg. The committee used publicly available data, intelligence reports, and geospatial tracking to make their determination.

It appears the original infections likely occurred well before the December announcement from Wuhan, China. It is important to note that Wuhan is a large metropolitan city, home to some of the tallest skyscrapers, major cultural sites, and multiple universities. As noted in the report, it is five times the size of Houston in landmass with a larger population than Chicago and New York City combined.10

Before the leak in 2019, the committee noted there had been several safety concerns in labs across the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since 2004. It was at this time that SARS leaked for the Beijing lab, and since then other accidental releases have occurred. From what the committee can discern, it is highly probable that SARS-CoV-2 was released from the Wuhan lab before September 12, 2019.

It was on that date, September 12, 2019, that the online public database WIV of viral sequences and samples disappeared. The database had more than 22,000 entries of pathogens collected from mice and bats, with key information including similarities to other known viruses.

Dr. Shi Zheng-li was the senior scientist at WIV who was listed as the data correspondence author, but as the report highlights, to date has not given a consistent answer as to why the online database was removed or when or if it will be put back online.

Coincidentally, researchers from Harvard Medical School and Boston University School of Public Health had been evaluating 2.5 years of satellite imagery of hospitals in Wuhan.11 They were analyzing parking lot traffic volume and discovered that in September and October 2019, five of the six hospitals in the city had a volume that was much higher than in the previous 2.5 years.

The researchers found this peak correspondent with a higher number of searches for two central COVID symptoms — “cough” and “diarrhea” — on the Chinese search engine Baidu.

Was the 2019 Military Games the Ultimate Superspreader?

Each of these factors and more identified in the report point to the likelihood the virus had been released from the lab before September 12, 2019. Data gathered after the 2019 Military World Games held in Wuhan on October 18, 2019, further support the committee’s assertion that the virus may have been contained to a local outbreak had the truth been told.12

The military games are an Olympic-style event that drew 9,308 athletes from 109 countries, including the U.S.13,14 There were 25 countries that sent more than 100 athletes. The government used 236,000 volunteers, 90 hotels, and more than 2,000 drivers. In other words, the games were a hotbed for spreading around the world what could have been contained as a local virus.

One journalist from the Financial Post15 reported some participants at the games described Wuhan as a “ghost town.” One of the athletes told the reporter, “This was a city of 15 million people that was in lockdown. It was strange, but we were told this was to make it easy for the games’ participants to get around.”16

The source shared there were 60 Canadian athletes put in isolation on the flight home who had symptoms of coughing and diarrhea. Once home, he reported that the symptoms became worse and included nosebleeds, fever, and pain with breathing. Family members became ill and doctors were unable to identify a source for the infection. Another military source reported:17

“One-quarter of us got sick, there and when we returned. Some were bedridden for weeks. This made us potential vectors for the virus. The military did nothing. I was sick and others were, too, with Wuhan symptoms … I was eventually given a swab test, which measures only recent exposure, and told to carry on.”

The committee identified four countries that had sent athletes to the games that had people with confirmed COVID-19 in November and December 2019.18 Those countries were Italy, Brazil, Sweden, and France. In both Italy and France, the individuals infected had no known history of traveling outside the country. This suggests the virus was brought into the country from another source. The Committee concluded:19

“While much of the public debate was initially focused on the Huanan seafood market in Wuhan as the origin of the pandemic, the preponderance of evidence now suggests that the virus leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

Given the WIV’s demonstrated history of conducting gain-of-function experiments on coronaviruses, including genetically manipulating viruses specifically to make them infectious to humans in BSL-2 labs, as well as their possession of one of the world’s largest collections of coronaviruses, it is completely plausible that one or more researcher(s) was accidentally infected and carried the virus out of the lab.”

Committee Also Believes the Virus Was Genetically Modified

Twenty-nine pages into the report, the committee began addressing the topic of genetic modification. Within the first paragraph, they said there was enough evidence to suggest that genetic modification is a “viable hypothesis.”20 The committee included research from a 16-year collaboration between Peter Daszak, president of EcoHealth Alliance, and Dr. Shi Zheng-li, senior scientist at WIV, which revealed a strong relationship. They wrote:21

“Beginning in 2005, and continuing over the next 16 years, Shi and Daszak have collaborated on coronavirus research. Together, they ‘led dozens of expeditions to caves full of bats, to collect samples and analyze them.’

They have identified more than 500 novel coronaviruses, including roughly 50 related to SARS or MERS, and they have repeatedly engaged in gain-of-function research on coronaviruses designed to make them more infectious in humans.”

Information from the papers they co-wrote also appears in the committee report, three of which were papers on bat SARS-like coronaviruses. The paper in 2013 that was published in the journal Nature was called “Isolation and characterization of a bat SARS-like coronavirus that uses the ACE2 receptor.”22

In 2015, Shi gave Ralph Baric and researchers at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill spike protein sequences and plasmids they identified from bat feces samples in 2013. The Committee reported these were used by American researchers to create:23

“’… a chimeric virus expressing the spike of bat coronavirus SHC014 in a mouse-adapted SARS-CoV backbone.’ In other words, they removed the spike protein from SHC014 and inserted it into a SARS coronavirus that was genetically manipulated to better infect mice.”

The research was funded by the NIAID and the NIH through the EcoHealth Alliance and the PRC government. In a paper published in 2016, in which Baric was the corresponding author, the writers discussed “moving from disease surveillance to creating chimeric viruses as a means of pandemic preparedness.”24 After reviewing the data, the committee concluded:

“Given the above, it is self-evident that Shi and her colleagues, with funding and support from Daszak, were actively genetically manipulating coronaviruses and testing them against human immune systems in 2018 and 2019, before the beginning of the pandemic.”

The committee’s report delved further into some of the unusual features of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. They point out that critics claim what they say is an apparent “lack of telltale signs of genetic manipulation” is proof that the virus is naturally occurring.

However, Baric had developed and published a novel genetic engineering system to allow for genetic sequencing that would create a new and infectious coronavirus that was “indistinguishable from wild type.”

Daszak’s Dark Relationship With Wuhan

Daszak is the only scientist named in the Executive Summary of the report and whose actions “call into question the way in which U.S. government grants are used in overseas labs and call for more oversight of those grants.”25 To understand the full implications of emails connecting Fauci and Daszak in early 2020, it’s important to understand what happened in the days before.

At the GOP House Oversight and Reform Subcommittee, Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, shared email information revealed in a Freedom of Information Act release, which demonstrated Fauci and many other health experts in the world knew the virus was lab-created. 26

Jordan quotes from an email Fauci received from British researcher Christian Anderson that said, “The unusual features of the virus make up a really small part of the genome so one has to look really closely at all the sequences to see that some of the features look engineered. Eddie, Bob, Mike, and myself all find the genome inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory.”27

In a separate presentation at the House Select Committee on the Coronavirus, Jordan illustrated Fauci’s changing narrative on the issue of gain-of-function research, which is a lab-performed genetic alteration to make a virus more infectious to humans, saying:28

“He initially said the United States taxpayer money did not fund the Wuhan Institute of Virology. He later changed that, saying no, no we did fund it but it was through a sub-grant. He subsequently said no, no we funded it but we did not fund gain-of-function research.

Then just last Sunday he said, well, we funded it, there was gain-of-function research, but it was a sound scientific decision. And then he said this … it would have been negligent to not fund the lab in China.”

In a section of the report from the House Foreign Affairs Committee titled “The Cover-Up, “29 there is evidence that Daszak pushed for a cover-up. His actions included bullying scientists who asked questions and directly lying about the nature of the research and about the low-level safety protocols being used in the research. They conclude his actions cost time and “provide further proof the virus likely leaked from the WIV.”30

Daszak Grateful Fauci on Board With Cover Up

In April 2020, Fauci was at the White House, where he rejected the idea that the coronavirus was created in the lab in Wuhan.31 In July 2020, Daszak headed up a second commission to investigate the origin of the virus, The Lancet COVID-19 commission,32 despite his many conflicts of interest and of having openly and repeatedly dismissed the possibility of the pandemic being the result of a lab leak.33

However, once Fauci’s emails were released under a Freedom of Information Act request, it was discovered that Daszak wrote: “I just wanted to say a personal thank you on behalf of our staff and collaborators, for publicly standing up and stating that the scientific evidence supports a natural origin for COVID-19 from a bat-to-human spillover, not a lab release from the Wuhan Institute of Virology.”34

Jordan quotes testimony from “Dr. Jarrar,” whom he identifies as a former assistant secretary for health, that supports the mounting evidence being revealed. Jordan said:35

“Here’s what Dr. Jarrar said. ‘I believe it’s just too much of a coincidence that the worldwide pandemic caused by a novel bat coronavirus that cannot be found in nature started just a few miles away from a secretive laboratory doing potentially dangerous research on bat coronaviruses.'”

In the House Committee’s report, Daszak’s name is mentioned 125 times. The importance of Daszak’s position in gain-of-function research done at WIV and the ensuing coverup is brought home by the committee’s recommendation for the next steps that Congress should take, namely “After this extensive investigation, we believe it is time to call Peter Daszak to testify before Congress.”36

Sources and References



New Documents Show Fauci LIED to Congress: His Organization DID FUND Fund Gain-of-Function Research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology

Source: NY Post

St. Anthony Fauci just lost his halo.

For more than a year, the media has hailed our kindly scientist grandfather as some sort of infallible holy figure.

But new reporting casts doubt on Fauci’s insistence that no US money went to “gain-of-function” research — where scientists manipulate viruses, often making them more transmittable, to study their effects and develop treatments.

Records acquired by The Intercept detail grants that the US government’s scientific agencies gave to an outfit called EcoHealth Alliance, which funneled some of that money to research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China. One clause in the contract says that “prior to altering mutant viruses,” the NIAID needed a “detailed description” of the proposed changes. Work on coronaviruses “must be submitted to NIAID for review and approval.”

The NIAID is the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, of which Anthony Fauci is the director.

In May, Fauci insisted that the US “has not ever and does not now fund gain-of-function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology.”

Perhaps he defines “gain-of-function” so narrowly that altering mutant viruses doesn’t count, but Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) certainly doesn’t, tweeting, “Surprise, surprise — Fauci lied again.”

READ THE REST OF THE ARTICLE HERE: NY Post

@@@

Rand Paul says Fauci should be held responsible for his lies, saying “He has lied dozens of times” – which is a felony offense.  Paul has referred this matter to the Department of Justice:




The Real Reason We Locked Down the Healthy

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | mercola.com

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • “Deception in America Episode One: The Tale of Peter Daszak,” presents a succinct history of his involvement in gain-of-function research that may have triggered the pandemic
  • EcoHealth Alliance is a nonprofit organization that receives millions in funding every year from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, which then gives it to the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), where it appears increasingly likely that the virus emerged from
  • Daszak continues to say emerging infectious diseases come from climate change and ecological drivers, ignoring the gain-of-function research on SARS viruses that he and his organization are directly involved with
  • One study found there is an 80% likelihood of a potential pandemic pathogen escaping from at least one of the 42 labs engaged in their research every 12.8 years
  • Several members of the U.S. Congress have vowed to launch an investigation to explore the lab accident theory after a WHO investigation found no connection
  • The Energy and Commerce Committee has also requested extensive records from both the NIH and EcoHealth Alliance detailing research and collaborations with WIV

There are two prevailing theories about the origins of SARS-CoV-2. The first is that SARS-CoV-2 emerged naturally and jumped from wildlife to humans, with or without an intermediary host. The other is that the virus was being kept and/or studied in a lab, from which it escaped.

Peter Daszak, president of EcoHealth Alliance, is one of the most ardent supporters of the theory of natural origins. He told The Associated Press in November 2020 that SARS-CoV-2 could have passed from a wildlife poacher to a trader who brought it to Wuhan.1 Daszak also organized the publication of a scientific statement, published in The Lancet and signed by 26 additional scientists, condemning such inquiries as “conspiracy theory.”2

Daszak, however, is part of the World Health Organization team that investigated the origins of SARS-CoV-2 and has a long history of close ties to the Chinese laboratory in question — the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), from where it appears increasingly likely that the virus emerged.

The video above, “Deception in America Episode One: The Tale of Peter Daszak,” presents a succinct history of his involvement, as well as that of Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), which is part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and who has also long backed dangerous coronavirus research, including that conducted by EcoHealth Alliance. According to the film:3

“From the beginning of the COVID-19 outbreak, said to have begun some time in December of 2019, the battle to control the narrative has been fought ferociously by global organizations, CEOs, billionaires and the programs at the center of the Wuhan Institute of Virology controversy … Despite his attempts to shift the blame to anyone else but himself and his team, all roads eventually lead back to Daszak.”

EcoHealth Alliance Is the Middleman for NIAID’s WIV Funding

EcoHealth Alliance is a nonprofit organization that receives millions in funding every year from NIAID and then gives it to WIV. In fact, the film reveals that, since 2002, EcoHealth Alliance and Peter Daszak have received over 32 grants worth hundreds of thousands of dollars from NIH, with most coming from NIAID:4

“Over the years, Peter Daszak and the Ecohealth Alliance have received $5,764,128 from the Fogarty International Center and $7,875,012 from the NIAID, for a grand total of $13,639,140.”

EcoHealth Alliance also has contracts with other government departments worth millions of dollars. The following contracts are among them:5

  • $4.5 million with the Department of Defense (DOD)
  • $2.9 million with DOD
  • $499,000 with the National Science Foundation
  • $566,000 with the Department of Homeland Security
  • $1.2 million with the Department of Commerce

There are many others as well. According to USASpending.gov, EcoHealth Alliance has 36 contracts with various government agencies.6 Over the years, the organization has been awarded $61.5 million, with DOD chief among its funders, giving them a total of $41.9 million. Overall, 91% of EcoHealth Alliance’s funding comes from government grants.7

Daszak Joins the Lancet Commission on COVID-19

Daszak has extensive connections, including having worked for the Center of Infection and Immunity at Mailman School of Public Health at Columbia University, alongside colleague Jeffrey Sachs, the former director of The Earth Institute at Columbia.8 Sachs, also an adviser to the United Nations, spearheaded the Millennium Villages project, which was an attempt to reduce extreme poverty in Africa, supporting a shift to self-sufficiency.

While the project claimed to be a success, an evaluation in 2012 revealed its goals were unrealistic and serious questions were raised about the project’s ability to create long-lasting impact, along with its cost-effectiveness. 9

Sachs also wrote a number of articles in support of China, stating, for instance, that “the U.S., not China, is the real threat to international law,”10 and was named chair of the Lancet Commission on COVID-19. He then named Daszak as one of the commissioners.

“Peter Daszak’s constant involvement with people like Jeffrey Sachs and the World Economic Forum suggests that he could be another one of those types of men who are so disconnected with reality that they will do anything to shape the world, not realizing what they are doing,” the film noted.11

In fact, in a Tweet from May 10, 2011, EcoHealth Alliance wrote, “Q for the crowd: is western-style democracy, a la USA, compatible with sustainability? Or is eastern style (a la China) better?”12 As further noted by the film:13

“Peter Daszak’s Ecohealth Alliance receives far more in funding from the U.S. government, including grants from the Department of Defense, among others. He is also closely associated with Jeffrey Sachs via Columbia, who frequently appears alongside George Soros in talks and seminars.

Daszak is very well connected to many globalist enterprises and their organizers. His own organization touts the sustainable development goal model, originally devised by Jeffrey Sachs.

So, when Peter Daszak deflects and says his team and their research that are directly involved the Wuhan Virology Lab has nothing to do with the SARS coronavirus outbreak in 2019, it follows a pattern that the organizations he surrounds himself with do, wherein they blame a lack of funding, or other outside factors. It is never his fault.”

Daszak’s Gain-of-Function Research

Gain-of-function (GOF) research refers to studies that have the potential to enhance the ability of pathogens to cause disease, including enhancing either their pathogenicity or transmissibility.14 Such research is by its very nature controversial since there are clear risks should the information be misused or the pathogens escape (or are maliciously released).

Jonathan Latham, Ph.D., a molecular biologist, and virologist, and Allison Wilson, Ph.D., a geneticist, are among those who believe gain-of-function research performed at WIV played “an essential causative role in the pandemic.”15 However, Daszak continues to say emerging infectious diseases come from climate change and ecological drivers, ignoring the gain-of-function research that he and his organization are directly involved with.

For instance, as reported by Alexis Baden-Mayer, political director for the Organic Consumers Association, EcoHealth Alliance lists WIV and the Wuhan University School of Public Health as subcontractors under a $3.7-million NIH grant16 titled, “Understanding the Risk of Bat Coronavirus Emergence.”

EcoHealth Alliance also used a sub-grant17 from the University of California at Davis to fund a gain-of-function experiment by Shi Zhengli, Ph.D., the director of WIV’s Center for Emerging Infectious Diseases, also known as “batwoman,” and colleague Ralph Baric from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, involving the use of genetic engineering to create a “new bat SARS-like virus … that can jump directly from its bat hosts to humans.” According to Baden-Mayer (see hyperlinked article above):

“The work, ‘A SARS-like cluster of circulating bat coronaviruses shows potential for human emergence,’18 published in Nature in 2015 during the NIH’s moratorium19 on gain-of-function research, was grandfathered in because it was initiated before the moratorium … and because the request by Shi and Baric to continue their research during the moratorium was approved by the NIH.

As a condition of publication, Nature, like most scientific journals, requires20 authors to submit new DNA and RNA sequences to GenBank, the U.S. National Center for Biotechnology Information Database. Yet the new SARS-like virus Shi and Baric created wasn’t deposited21 in GenBank until May 2020.”

Unacceptable Risks of a Man-Made Pandemic

Daszak and WHO officials continue to state that safety guidelines make it very unlikely that SARS-CoV-2 could have escaped from a lab, but a paper published in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists22 revealed in 2012 that it’s a matter of when, not if, a potential pandemic pathogen (PPP) escapes.

At the time, they noted that there were at least 42 facilities engaged in research on live PPPs, “and the actual number is likely higher.” Using a conservative estimate that the probability for escape from a lab in a year is 0.3%, they found:

“[This] translates to an 80 percent likelihood of escape from at least one of the 42 labs every 12.8 years, a time interval smaller than those that have separated influenza pandemics in the 20th century. This level of risk is clearly unacceptable.”

In fact, biosecurity breaches in high containment biological labs in the U.S. and around the world have occurred with surprising frequency,23 and as the film noted:24

“It is hardly reassuring that despite increased policy demands for rigorous biosecurity procedures, potentially high-consequence breaches occur nearly daily. In 2010, 244 unintended releases of bioweapon candidate ‘select agents’ were reported. Being practical, the question is not if such escapes will result in a major civilian outbreak, but what the pathogen will be and how well it can be contained, if it can be contained at all.”

WHO’s investigative commission, tasked with identifying the origin of SARS-CoV-2, announced the Wuhan Institute of Virology and two other biosafety level 4 laboratories in Wuhan, China, had nothing to do with the COVID-19 outbreak in February 2021. Since then, WIV deleted mentions of its collaboration with the NIAID/NIH and other U.S. research partners from its website.25 It also deleted descriptions of gain-of-function research on the SARS virus.

Several members of the U.S. Congress have now vowed to launch their own investigation to explore the lab accident theory. The Energy and Commerce Committee has also requested extensive records from both the NIH and EcoHealth Alliance detailing research and collaborations with WIV.26

If SARS-CoV-2 did, in fact, come from a lab, it shows clearly that gain-of-function research is the real threat and reason for locking down the healthy and highlights the disturbing truth that any such pathogen manufactured to infect humans can be designated as a biological weapon, even if it was created with non-nefarious intentions.




Fauci Emails: How Top Public Health Officials Spun Tangled Web of Lies Around COVID Origin, Treatments

By Meryl Nass, MD | The Defender

In early 2020, there was a lot of chatter about where the virus, later named SARS-CoV-2, actually came from.

In an excellent, detailed article written earlier this month for the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, former New York Times science writer Nicholas Wade described how two short pieces published in March 2020 — one in The Lancet and one in Nature Medicine — determined how this chatter would be channeled to the public.

These two extraordinarily influential pieces, each published under the heading “correspondence,” were parroted by mainstream media for a year. Both were plainly intended to shut down any discussion of the possibility that the virus originated in a lab.

Listen here as Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and I discuss these issues:

As I read both the Lancet and Nature papers in March 2020, it became immediately apparent each was designed as a propaganda tool. Neither was based on science.

I was so intrigued by these articles, I searched the web to better understand them. That’s when I discovered Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), who had blogged on March 26, 2020, about the Nature article, suggesting the article should put an end to conspiracy theories about lab origin.

Collins wrote:

“Either way, this study leaves little room to refute a natural origin for COVID-19. And that’s a good thing because it helps us keep focused on what really matters: observing good hygiene, practicing social distancing, and supporting the efforts of all the dedicated healthcare professionals and researchers who are working so hard to address this major public health challenge.”

I wondered why five otherwise credible scientists would sign their names to the Nature article — and why Collins would endorse the article’s conclusion — when the arguments made in the paper were nonsensical, in my opinion.

I eventually concluded the authors had been put up to writing the paper by a “hidden hand.”

How had I reached that conclusion, even before Dr. Anthony Fauci’s emails were uncovered Wednesday?

Months ago, in another email drop obtained by U.S. Right to Know, we learned Peter Daszac, CEO of the nonprofit EcoHealth Alliance, was the primary but hidden author of the Lancet article.

Daszac was also the primary beneficiary of the article’s conclusion — that the virus evolved in nature — as his organization had been used as the pass-through to send money from the National Institute of Allergy & Infectious Diseases (NIAID), headed by Fauci, to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, in Wuhan, China. (Some might consider this method of giving out grants as a fancy way of money laundering.)

Daszac, like Fauci, earned more than $400,000/year. He was also a member of the World Health Organization’s (WHO) COVID origins investigative team and had been selected as the head of the Lancet COVID origins investigative team, which appears now to be dead in the water.

The WHO and the Lancet thus seem to be co-conspirators, choosing the fox (Daszac) to guard the henhouse (the theory that COVID evolved in nature).

The release Wednesday of Fauci’s emailsobtained by BuzzFeed News through the Freedom of Information Act, help to further clear up some of the mystery behind why five well-known scientists co-authored drivel — which the venerable Nature journal published, and which was then used as the foundation to support the natural origin theory.

One of the emails strongly indicates Andersen, lead author of the Nature paper, knew he was participating in a con job. In a Feb. 1, 2020, email to Fauci, Andersen expressed his own concerns about some of the “unusual features of the virus.” Andersen appears to be worried these features suggest laboratory tampering.

But Andersen then reassures Fauci these “unusual features of the virus make up a really small part of the genome (<0.1%) so one has to look really closely at all the sequences to see that some of the features (potentially) look engineered.”

Fauci email

In another email to Fauci, Andersen thanks three incredibly important people — Fauci, Collins, and Sir Jeremy Farrar — for their “advice and leadership” regarding the paper. All three are M.D. researchers who dole out more money for medical research than anyone else in the world, with the exception perhaps of Bill Gates.

Fauci email

Fauci runs the NIAID, Collins is the NIH director (nominally Fauci’s boss) and Farrar is director of the Wellcome Trust. Farrar also signed the Lancet letter. And he is chair of the WHO’s R&D Blueprint Scientific Advisory Group, which put him in the driver’s seat of the WHO’s Solidarity trial, in which 1,000 unwitting subjects have overdosed with hydroxychloroquine in order to sink the use of that drug for COVID.

Farrar had worked in Vietnam, where there was lots of malaria, and he had also been involved with SARS-1 there. He additionally was central in setting up the UK Recovery trial, where 1,600 subjects have overdosed with hydroxychloroquine.

Even if Farrar didn’t have some idea of the proper dose of chloroquine drugs from his experience in Vietnam, he, Fauci, and Collins would have learned about such overdoses after Brazil told the world about how they mistakenly overdosed patients in a trial of chloroquine for COVID. The revelation was made in an article published in the JAMA in mid-April 2020. Thirty-nine percent of the subjects in Brazil who were given high doses of chloroquine died, on average age 50.

Yet the Solidarity and Recovery hydroxychloroquine trials continued into June, stopping only after their extreme doses were exposed.

Fauci made sure to control the treatment guidelines for COVID that came out of the NIAID, advising against both chloroquine drugs and ivermectin. Fauci’s NIAID also canceled the first large-scale trial of hydroxychloroquine treatment in early disease, after only 20 of the expected 2,000 subjects were enrolled.

What does all this mean?

  1. There was a conspiracy between the five authors of the Nature paper and the heads of the NIH, NIAID, and Wellcome Trust to cover up the lab origin of COVID.
  2. There was a conspiracy involving Daszac, Fauci, and others to push the natural origin theory. (See other emails in the recent drop.)
  3. There was a conspiracy involving Daszac to write the Lancet letter and hide its provenance, to push the natural origin theory and paint any other ideas as a conspiracy theory. Collin’s blog post is another piece of this story.
  4. Farrar was intimately involved in both large hydroxychloroquine overdose trials, in which about 500 subjects total died.
  5. Farrar, Fauci, and Collins withheld research funds that could have supported quality trials of the use of chloroquine drugs and ivermectin, and other repurposed drugs that might have turned around the pandemic.
  6. Are the four individuals named here — Fauci, Daszak, Collins, and Farrar —  intimately involved in the creation of the pandemic, as well as the prolongation and improper treatments used during the pandemic?

For more background, read two earlier posts on this subject from March and April 2020. I don’t want to take credit improperly for these discoveries — Dan Sirotkin noticed and wrote about the Nature article before I did, and wrote lucidly about it. I did not see his writing until much later.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Children’s Health Defense.




COVID Origin: The Biggest Flip-Flop Ever — Who’s Going to Jail?

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | mercola.com

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), has defended the natural-origin theory for SARS-CoV-2 since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic
  • In his biggest about-face to date, Fauci is now saying he’s “not convinced” the virus had a natural origin after all, and that we must continue to investigate “what went on in China until we find out, to the best of our ability, what happened”
  • Considering Fauci’s opinion has been used by mainstream media and fact-checkers to censor any and all other experts, this very public 180 is no doubt causing embarrassment among mainstream reporters
  • Fauci is now also denying ever having funded gain-of-function research, even though there’s irrefutable evidence that he did. It seems he’s trying to redefine “gain-of-function,” such that none of the research he paid for will fall under that definition
  • National Institutes of Health director Dr. Francis Collins is backing Fauci’s denials in what appears to be a preemptive attempt to distance the NIAID/NIH from future blame, should the lab leak theory be determined to have caused the COVID-19 pandemic

Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), has been a staunch defender of the natural-origin theory for SARS-CoV-2 since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. Back in May 2020, CNN used Fauci’s statements on the issue as proof that then-President Donald Trump was spouting a ridiculous conspiracy theory:1

“For weeks now, President Donald Trump has been making the case that the coronavirus originated not in nature but in a lab in Wuhan, China,” CNN wrote.2

“Enter Anthony Fauci, the head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease and perhaps the single most prominent doctor in the world at the moment. In an interview with National Geographic … Fauci was definitive about the origins of the virus …

‘If you look at the evolution of the virus in bats and what’s out there now, [the scientific evidence] is very, very strongly leaning toward this could not have been artificially or deliberately manipulated … Everything about the stepwise evolution over time strongly indicates that [this virus] evolved in nature and then jumped species,’ [Fauci said].

Now, before we play the game of ‘he said, he said’ remember this: Only one of these two people is a world-renowned infectious disease expert. And it’s not Donald Trump.”

Oh, the difference a year can make. Mainstream media is finally forced to face the fact that Fauci and a number of other so-called “experts” they’ve paraded before their viewers and readers have been no more reliable than your average armchair scientist.

Fauci Pulls Biggest 180 Yet

Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, Fauci has been front and center, spouting recommendations, over time changing his mind again and again.

A virtuoso of contradiction, he’s flip-flopped on the usefulness and needs for masks multiple times, from “Americans shouldn’t be wearing masks because they don’t work,” to masks definitely work and should be worn by everyone, to you should wear not just one but two, for safe measure.

He’s gone from promising a mask-free existence once the vaccine rolls out, to insisting mask-wearing is still necessary after vaccination because vaccine-resistant variants might pop up, to proposing we might need to wear masks every flu season in perpetuity.

His biggest flip-flop to date, however, has to be his stance on the origin of SARS-CoV-2. As reported by Krystal Ball and Saagar Enjeti in a May 24, 2021 “Rising with Krystal & Saagar” episode (see video above), Fauci is now claiming he’s “not convinced” the virus had a natural origin after all, and that we must continue to investigate “what went on in China until we find out, to the best of our ability, what happened.”

Considering Fauci’s opinion has been used by mainstream media pundits and fact-checkers to censor any and all other experts — including people with far more impressive credentials than Fauci, who at the end of the day is an administrator, a paper-pusher, not a working scientist — this very public 180-degree turn is no doubt causing embarrassment among many mainstream reporters.

Krystal and Saagar both look uncomfortable having to explain how the media, en masse, ended up being so wrong for so long.

Mainstream Media Scramble to Justify Their Errors

According to Krystal and Saagar, new information indicating workers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) fell ill with COVID-like symptoms in November 2019 now makes the lab leak theory the most plausible.

What’s so ironic about that statement is that this isn’t new information that would definitively tip the scale. It’s just that now, all of a sudden, it’s not being dismissed off-hand. The weight of the evidence has, for over a year now, strongly leaned in the direction of SARS-CoV-2 being a lab creation that somehow escaped.

Now, mainstream media are scrambling to save face, and it’s rather hilarious to watch them trying to justify their previous refusal to do what journalists and reporters are expected to do: Report the facts without interjecting their own personal opinions and biases.

Of course, you’d be hard-pressed to find an unbiased news outlet these days — it’s all tightly and centrally controlled, as detailed in “Reuters and BBC Caught Taking Money for Propaganda Campaign” — so, in all likelihood, the only reason mainstream media are now starting to report on the lab leak theory is because of the success of alternative media.

Their viewers simply aren’t buying what they’re selling anymore, so they have no choice but to acknowledge what a majority of people already know, or lose what little credibility they have left.

The Case for the Lab-Leak Theory

In the video above, Freddie Sayers interviews3 Nicholas Wade, a former New York Times science writer, about the two primary origin theories. Wade recently published a widely-read article4 detailing the evidence supporting the lab-leak and natural-origin theories.

As reported by Wade in “Origin of COVID — Following the Clues: Did People or Nature Open Pandora’s Box at Wuhan?”5 if we are ever to solve the mystery of where this novel virus came from, we must be willing to actually follow the science, as “it offers the only sure thread through the maze.”

“It’s important to note that so far there is no direct evidence for either theory,” Wade writes.6 “Each depends on a set of reasonable conjectures but so far lacks proof. So I have only clues, not conclusions, to offer. But those clues point in a specific direction.”

In summary, the preponderance of clues leans toward SARS-CoV-2 originating in a lab, most likely the WIV, and having undergone some sort of manipulation to encourage infectiousness and pathology in humans.

As just one example, there’s research dating as far back as 1992 detailing how inserting a furin cleavage site right where we find it in SARS-CoV-2 is a “sure way to make a virus deadlier.” One of 11 such studies was written by Dr. Zhengli Shi, head of coronavirus research at the WIV.

The arguments laid out in support of natural origin theories, meanwhile, are grounded in inconclusive speculations that require you to throw out scientifically possible scenarios. From a scientific standpoint, doing so is ill-advised.

“It seems to me that proponents of lab escape can explain all the available facts about SARS2 considerably more easily than can those who favor natural emergence,” Wade writes.7

Fauci Pulls 180 Turnabout on Gain-of-Function Backing Too

Getting back to Fauci, he’s also now denying ever having funded gain-of-function research, even though there’s irrefutable evidence that he did. As reported by the National Review:8

“Dr. Roger Ebright, a professor of chemistry and chemical biology at Rutgers University and biosafety expert, is contesting … Fauci’s testimony before the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee on [May 11, 2021].

Dr. Fauci’s claim — made during an exchange with Senator Rand Paul9 — that ‘the NIH has not ever and does not now fund gain of function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology’ is ‘demonstrably false,’ according to Ebright …

A research article written by WIV scientists, ‘Discovery of a rich gene pool of bat SARS-related coronaviruses provides new insights into the origin of SARS coronavirus,’10 for example, qualifies as gain-of-function and was clearly a product of NIH-funding.

Ebright insists that the research can be classified as gain-of-function under a number of different definitions, including those found in two pieces of Department of Health and Human Services guidance on the subject.

The first details the Obama administration’s 2014 decision to halt domestic gain-of-function research, which it defines as that which ‘may be reasonably anticipated to confer attributes to influenza, MERS, or SARS viruses such that the virus would have enhanced pathogenicity and/or transmissibility in mammals via the respiratory route.’11

The second — drafted in 2017 as Fauci was pushing to renew government funding for gain-of-function research — provides a definition of what are called ‘enhanced potential pandemic pathogen (PPP)’ or those pathogens ‘resulting from the enhancement of the transmissibility and/or virulence of a pathogen.’12

Ebright claims that the work being conducted at the WIV, using NIH funds originally granted to Peter Daszak of EcoHealth Alliance, ‘epitomizes’ gain-of-function research under the definition HHS provided in its guidance, and is the exact kind of research that led the Obama administration to conclude that gain-of-function was too dangerous to continue domestically.”

Fauci and NIH Try to Redefine ‘Gain-of-Function’

Essentially, Fauci is now trying to redefine what “gain-of-function” actually is. However, as explained above, the type of research Fauci has been funding at the WIV has always and repeatedly been referred to as gain-of-function.

It appears as though Fauci and National Institutes of Health director Dr. Francis Collins are preemptively trying to position themselves in such a way as to distance themselves from future blame, should the lab leak theory be proven true. In a May 19, 2021, statement, Collins backed Fauci’s convoluted word-wrangling and attempts at rewriting the definition of gain-of-function research, stating:13

“Based on outbreaks of coronaviruses caused by animal to human transmissions such as … SARS and … MERS, NIH and the NIAID have for many years supported grants to learn more about viruses lurking in bats and other mammals that have the potential to spill over to humans and cause widespread disease.

However, neither NIH nor NIAID have ever approved any grant that would have supported ‘gain-of-function’ research on coronaviruses that would have increased their transmissibility or lethality for humans.”

In other words, both admit they funded research at the WIV and other places, but they insist none of it was gain-of-function specifically, so even if the COVID-19 pandemic turns out to have been the result of a lab leak at the WIV, Fauci and Collins had no part in the creation of that particular virus — or any other virus capable of causing a deadly pandemic — and should not be on the list of people to be held accountable.

Wordplay Won’t Save Fauci

Considering what the NIH has stated previously, and what we already know about the coronavirus research the NIAID/NIH funded, Collins’ statement appears to be a desperate lie, issued to prop up Fauci’s indefensible stance that no gain-of-function research was ever funded.

For example, as reported by the National Review,14 we know that the WIV received NIAID/NIH funding to create novel chimeric SARS-related coronaviruses capable of infecting both human cells and lab animals. “Chimeric viruses” refers to artificial man-made viruses, hybrid organisms created through the joining of two or more different organisms. This is precisely what gain-of-function research is all about. So, as noted by the National Review:15

“Fauci appears to have been, at best, mistaken while sparring with Senator Paul … At worst, he was playing tenuous word games meant to deceive.”

Of course, Fauci and Collins have good reason to develop sudden amnesia when it comes to the definition of complicated words like “gain-of-function.” While statistics have been massively manipulated to overcount COVID-19 deaths, there’s no doubt that this pandemic has been one of the most destructive in modern history.

Sure, we can blame global and regional leaders for playing along with the globalist game to use a hyped-up pandemic to justify a Great Reset of our global economic and societal systems, but without doubt, the creators of this virus will not get off scot-free, and neither will those who enabled its creation. And those people may well include Fauci and Collins at the NIAID and NIH.

At the end of it all, should SARS-CoV-2 be deemed a man-made bioweapon, even if its release was a total accident, which appears to be the case, a number of individuals stand to lose their careers, and perhaps their freedom, as the punishment for having anything to do with the creation of biological weapons includes both potentially hefty fines and lengthy jail sentences? The Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989 states:16

“Whoever knowingly develops, produces, stockpiles, transfers, acquires, retains, or possesses any biological agent, toxin, or delivery system for use as a weapon, or knowingly assists a foreign state or any organization to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both.”

Gain-of-Function Research Is the Real Threat

I believe research cooperation and sharing between nations is such that blame will ultimately be shared by multiple parties. The key issue, really, if SARS-CoV-2 did in fact come from a lab, is how do we prevent another lab escape? And, if it turns out to have been a genetically manipulated virus, do we allow gain-of-function research — based on the conventionally accepted definition — to continue?

I believe the answer is to ban research that involves making pathogens more dangerous to humans. As it stands, the same establishment that is drumming up panic by warning of the emergence of new, more infectious, and dangerous variants is also busy creating them.

World leaders need to realize that funding gain-of-function research is the real threat here and take action accordingly to forestall another pandemic. As long as researchers are allowed to mutate and create synthetic pathogens, they’re creating the very risk they claim they’re trying to prevent. We got off easy this time, all things considered. The next time, we may not be as lucky.




Wuhan Lab Deleted Files Showing Fauci Authorized Funding for Risky Coronavirus Experiments

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | The Defender

Story at-a-glance:

  • The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) — a division of the National Institute of Health (NIH) headed by Dr. Anthony Fauci since 1984 — has, for years, provided grants to the EcoHealth Alliance and others to conduct gain-of-function (GOF) research on coronaviruses.
  • In a May 11, 2021, Senate hearing, Fauci denied ever having funded GOF research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV). This despite clear documentation proving otherwise.
  • In March 2021 the WIV deleted mentions of its collaboration with the NIAID/NIH and other American research partners from its website. It also deleted descriptions of GOF on the SARS virus.
  • The NIH/NIAID has funded GOF research to the tune of at least $41.7 million. Up until 2014, this research was conducted by Ralph Baric at the University of North Carolina. After 2014, when federal funding of GOF was banned, such research was funneled to the WIV via the EcoHealth Alliance.
  • In August 2020, the NIAID announced a five-year, $82-million investment in a new global network of Centers for Research in Emerging Infectious Diseases that will conduct GOF experiments to “determine what genetic or other changes make [animal] pathogens capable of infecting humans.”

As reported in several previous articles, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) — a division of the National Institute of Health (NIH) headed by Dr. Anthony Fauci since 1984 — has, for years, provided grants to the EcoHealth Alliance and others to conduct gain-of-function research on coronaviruses.

EcoHealth Alliance, in turn, farmed out some of this research to the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), from whence SARS-CoV-2 appears to have emerged. On May 11, 2021, Senate hearing, Sen. Rand Paul questioned Fauci on the NIAID’s funding of GOF research on bat coronaviruses, some of which was conducted at the WIV.

Fauci denied the charge, saying “The NIH has not ever, and does not now, fund gain-of-function research in the Wuhan Institute.” It’s a curious denial, considering the NIH’s funding of such research has been thoroughly documented and can be easily double-checked.

When Paul asks Fauci if the NIAID funded Dr. Ralph Baric’s GOF research, Fauci claims Baric “does not do gain-of-function research, and if it is, it is according to the guidelines and is being conducted in North Carolina.” Paul shoots back, saying:

“You don’t think turning a bat virus spike protein, that he got from the Wuhan Institute into the SARS virus, is gain-of-function? You’d be in a minority because at least 200 scientists have signed a statement from the Cambridge Working Group that it is gain-of-function.”

In the video above, Jimmy Dore reviews the apparent lies dished out by Fauci during the Senate hearing. In the Truth in Media report below, investigative journalist Ben Swann lays out some of the proof, showing Fauci’s dishonesty.

“What’s insane about this exchange is that Fauci is clearly and probably lying … to Congress, which is a crime … and he’s lying to the American public,” Swann says.

https://youtu.be/k-2kGhQ5WWo

NIH/NIAID has funded gain-of-function research

As reported by Swann, the NIH/NIAID has funded GOF research to the tune of at least $41.7 million. Up until 2014, this research was conducted by Baric at the University of North Carolina (UNC). In 2014, the U.S. government issued a moratorium on federal gain-of-function research funding due to safety, ethical and moral concerns raised within the scientific community.

It was at this point, in 2014, that funding for GOF research started being funneled through the EcoHealth Alliance to the WIV. Swann reviews documents proving Fauci lied to Congress, including a paper titled “SARS-Like WIV1-CoV Poised for Human Emergence,” submitted to PNAS in 2015 and subsequently published in 2016. In this paper, the authors state that:

“Overall, the results from these studies highlight the utility of a platform that leverages metagenomics findings and reverse genetics to identify pre-pandemic threats.

“For SARS-like WIV1-CoV, the data can inform surveillance programs, improve diagnostic reagents and facilitate effective treatments to mitigate future emergence events. However, building new and chimeric reagents must be carefully weighed against potential gain-of-function (GOF) concerns.”

At the end of that paper, the authors thank “Dr. Zhengli-Li Shi of the Wuhan Institute of Virology for access to bat CoV sequences and plasmid of WIV1-CoV spike protein.” They also specify that the research was supported by the NIAID under the grant awards U19AI109761 and U19AI107810, which together total $41.7 million.

As noted by Swann, this paper clearly spells out that the NIAID spent $41.7 million on GOF research, with the aim of determining how to bat coronaviruses can be made more pathogenic to humans, and that this research continued after the 2014 moratorium on such funding was implemented.

NIAID viewed Baric’s research as GOF

What’s more, a letter from the Department of Health and Human Services to the director of proposals at UNC-Chapel Hill, discussing grant U19AI107810, also spells this out in black and white. The October 21, 2014, letter states, in part:

“NIAID has determined that the above-referenced grant may include Gain of Function (GOF) research that is subject to the recently-announced U.S. Government funding pause … The following specific aims appear to involve research covered under the pause: Project 1: Role of Uncharacterized Genes in High Pathogenic Human Coronavirus Infect — Ralph S. Baric, Ph.D. — Project Leader.

“Specific Aim 1. Novel Functions in virus replication in vitro. Specific Aim 3. Novel functions in virus pathogenesis in vivo … As your grant is currently funded, this pause is voluntary.”

In other words, the NIAID authorized the continuation of what it admitted was gain-of-function research — simply because the grant had already been funded — and it did so after the ban on such funding was put into place.

NIAID authorized GOF research, bypassing the review board

But that’s not all. After the moratorium was lifted in 2017, a special review board, the Potential Pandemic Pathogens Control, and Oversight (the P3CO Review Framework), was created within the DHHS to evaluate whether grants involving dangerous pathogens are worth the risks. The review board is also responsible for ensuring proper safeguards are in place for approved research.

According to Rutgers University professor Richard Ebright, an NIH grant for research involving the modification of bat coronaviruses at the WIV was sneaked through because the NIAID didn’t flag it for review. In other words, the WIV received federal funding from the NIAID without the research first receiving a green light from the HHS review board.

The NIAID apparently used a convenient loophole in the review framework. As it turns out, it’s the funding agency’s responsibility to flag potential gain-of-function research for review. If it doesn’t, the review board has no knowledge of it.

According to Ebright, the NIAID and NIH have “systemically thwarted — indeed systematically nullified — the HHS P3CO Framework by declining to flag and forward proposals for review.”

NIAID is also committed to continued GOF research

Lastly, Fauci is also clearly committed to continuing GOF research, seeing how the NIAID, back in August 2020, announced a five-year, $82-million investment in a new global network of Centers for Research in Emerging Infectious Diseases.

Peter Daszak‘s EcoHealth Alliance will receive $7.5 million from this grant, and planned research will include GOF-type experiments that the NIAID says will “determine what genetic or other changes make [animal] pathogens capable of infecting humans.”

Wuhan lab deleted documents showing Fauci’s NIAID funding

All of that basically serves as a backstory to the latest development. It’s now been discovered that the WIV quietly deleted all mentions of its collaboration with Fauci’s NIAID, the NIH, and other American research partners from its website shortly after Fauci testified in a Senate hearing in March 2021, when he went head to head with Sen. Rand Paul on mask-wearing. As reported May 15, 2021, by The National Pulse:

“March 21, 2021, the lab’s website listed six U.S.-based research partners: the University of Alabama, University of North Texas, EcoHealth Alliance, Harvard University, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the United States, and the National Wildlife Federation.

“One day later, the page was revised to contain just two research partners — EcoHealth Alliance and the University of Alabama. By March 23, EcoHealth Alliance was the sole partner remaining.

“EcoHealth Alliance is run by long-standing Chinese Communist Party-partner Dr. Peter Daszak, who National Pulse Editor-in-Chief Raheem Kassam has repeatedly claimed will be the first ‘fall guy’ of the Wuhan lab debacle …

“Beyond establishing a working relationship between the NIH and the Wuhan Institute of Virology, now-deleted posts from the site also detail studies bearing the hallmarks of gain-of-function research conducted with the Wuhan-based lab.”

Altered WIV page admits GOF research with American partners

Indeed, a now-deleted WIV web page titled “Will SARS Come Back?” stated that:

“Prof. Zhengli Shi and Xingyi Ge from WIV, in cooperation with researchers from University of North Carolina, Harvard Medical School, Bellinzona Institute of Microbiology … examine the disease potential of a SARS-like virus, SHC014-CoV, which is currently circulating in Chinese horseshoe bat populations.

“Using the SARS-CoV reverse genetics system, the scientists generated and characterized a chimeric virus expressing the spike of bat coronavirus SHC014 in a mouse-adapted SARS-CoV backbone.

“The results indicate that group 2b viruses encoding the SHC014 spike in a wild-type backbone can efficiently use multiple orthologs of the SARS receptor human angiotensin-converting enzyme II (ACE2), replicate efficiently in primary human airway cells, and achieve in vitro titers equivalent to epidemic strains of SARS-CoV.

“Evaluation of available SARS-based immune-therapeutic and prophylactic modalities revealed poor efficacy; both monoclonal antibody and vaccine approach failed to neutralize and protect from infection with CoVs using the novel spike protein.

“On the basis of these findings, they synthetically re-derived an infectious full-length SHC014 recombinant virus and demonstrated robust viral replication both in vitro and in vivo …”

Again, while Fauci insists Baric is “not doing any kind of GOF research,” and “if he is,” then he’s doing it at UNC and not in China, the WIV’s web page clearly refutes this. GOF research was done at the WIV, in partnership with UNC researchers, of which Baric is a leading one.

The WIV’s deletions of American research partners from its website (with the exception of EcoHealth Alliance), and its deletion of the article discussing genetic research on the SARS virus raise a host of questions and appears to be yet another attempt at a cover-up. The surprising thing is that they’re now covering up American involvement and not just their own.

Chinese-American GOF research example

The WIV and the Wuhan University School of Public Health are both listed as subcontractors for EcoHealth Alliance under a $3.7-million NIH grant titled, “Understanding the Risk of Bat Coronavirus Emergence.”

The two institutions also worked as collaborators under another $2.6-million grant to research the “Risk of Viral Emergence from Bats,” and under EcoHealth Alliance’s largest single source of funding, a $44.2 million sub-grant from the University of California at Davis for the PREDICT project (2015-2020).

Part of the PREDICT grant went to funding GOF experiments by WIV scientist Zhengli and Baric with the UNC. In this experiment, Zhengli and Baric used genetic engineering and synthetic biology to create a “new bat SARS-like virus … that can jump directly from its bat hosts to humans.” A request by Zhengli and Baric to continue their research during the moratorium on GOF was approved by the NIH. Daszak described Zhengli and Baric’s work in a 2019 interview:

“You can manipulate them [coronaviruses] in the lab pretty easily. Spike protein drives a lot of what happens with the coronavirus, zoonotic risk. So, you can get the sequence, you can build the protein, and we work with Ralph Baric at UNC to do this. Insert it into a backbone of another virus, and do some work in the lab.”

The research was published in the journal Nature in 2015. As a condition of publication, Nature, like most scientific journals, requires authors to submit novel DNA and RNA sequences to GenBank, the U.S. National Center for Biotechnology Information Database. Curiously, the new SARS-like virus Zhengli and Baric published in 2015 wasn’t deposited in GenBank until May 2020.

Fauci has accomplished a great deal of harm

It remains to be seen whether Daszak is in fact being groomed as the fall guy in this saga. Clearly, he’s innocent in the lab origin cover-up. He somehow ended up on two separate commissions charged with investigating the origin of SARS-CoV-2 — one by the WHO and one by The Lancet — having already played a central role in the plot to obscure the lab origin of SARS-CoV-2 by crafting a scientific statement condemning such inquiries as “conspiracy theory.”

Letting Fauci off the hook is not an option, however. Like Daszak, Fauci has spent the last year denouncing the possibility that COVID-19 could be the result of a lab leak, all while knowing the kinds of research his agency funded there.

He’s been a longtime defender and promoter of GOF research on animal viruses in general, saying while he was working on GOF with bird-flu viruses such research is worth the risk because it allows scientists to prepare for pandemics. However, this kind of research clearly has not improved governments’ pandemic responses one whit.

Fauci has also flip-flopped endlessly when it comes to masking recommendations and helped suppress one of the most effective, safest, and least expensive COVID-19 remedies, hydroxychloroquine, despite his knowledge of a 2005 study showing it’s an effective remedy against SARS coronavirus.

The study was published in Virology Journal, which is the official publication of the NIH, so it’s hard to believe he was unaware of it. But rather than protect public health and save lives using hydroxychloroquine, Fauci promoted the ineffective, dangerous and expensive drug remdesivir and COVID-19 gene therapies instead.

Fauci also knew (and has admitted) that using a PCR test with a cycle threshold (CT) above 35 renders it useless because at that point, you’re just detecting dead nucleotides. No live virus can be detected at CTs that high. As early as March 2020, he knew up to 90% of positive PCR tests were false positives and that these people really weren’t sick, yet he said and did nothing.

Now, as COVID-19 vaccines are taking their toll, with vaccine injury reports that show they are possibly disabling and killing tens of thousands around the world, Fauci is defending the universal use of the shots and downplaying their lethality.

According to Fauci, deaths from the vaccines have to be “put into context with the population they occurred in.” What he’s referring to are cases where old people died shortly after receiving their COVID shots. Old people die, so therefore you shouldn’t blame it on the vaccine.

This is hypocrisy at its finest. When seniors die before vaccination, it’s due to COVID-19 and something must be done to prevent it, but when they die after vaccination, they die of natural causes and no preventive action is necessary. Fauci’s dismissal of vaccine deaths also overlooks the fact that many young, healthy people have reported serious adverse reactions or even died within hours or days of their vaccinations.

Gain-of-function research is the real threat

I believe GOF research cooperation and sharing between nations is such that blame will ultimately be shared by multiple parties. The key issue, really, if SARS-CoV-2 did in fact come from a lab, is how do we prevent another lab escape? And, if it turns out to have been a genetically manipulated virus, do we allow gain-of-function research to continue?

I believe the answer is to ban research that involves making pathogens more lethal to humans. As it stands, the same establishment that is drumming up panic by warning of the emergence of new, more infectious, and dangerous variants is also busy creating them. They just never tell you about that part.

Already, scientists have figured out a way to mutate SARS-CoV-2 such that it evades human antibodies. Were this mutated virus ever get out, we’d be in serious trouble. While mankind has created several outbreaks, nature seems to have a way of NOT mutating animal viruses into global killers. So, the hypocrisy needs to end.

World leaders need to realize that funding and defending gain-of-function research is the real threat here. I believe Fauci’s lies are a pathetic attempt to hide his agency’s involvement with GOF research that may have resulted in a global crisis.

Originally published by Mercola.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Children’s Health Defense.




The Manmade Biowarfare Threat Continues

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | mercola.com

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • The NIH and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), led by Dr. Anthony Fauci, have funded gain-of-function research on coronaviruses. Several such grants were given to EcoHealth Alliance, which in turn subcontracted some of that research to the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV)
  • A loophole in the review process set up to ensure the safety of gain-of-function research allows funding institutions to bypass review. Fauci and the NIAID are accused of shirking the review process for some of the research performed at the WIV
  • Two lengthy reports have been published detailing Fauci’s questionable research activities and attempts to mislead the public on a number of issues, including the benefits of hydroxychloroquine, the effectiveness of masks, and the possibility of SARS-CoV-2 being a lab creation
  • Many were aware that gain-of-function research on coronaviruses and other dangerous pathogens was taking place at the WIV, and that the lab had known safety lapses, yet nothing appears to have been done to shore up security and prevent an outbreak
  • While government officials would like you to believe that SARS-CoV-2 is one of the most serious threats to life on earth, the reality is that the gain-of-function research they fund is a far greater threat. Even if the COVID-19 pandemic wasn’t the result of this kind of research, history tells us there will be another leak. It’s only a matter of time, which is why we must ban all gain-of-function research, worldwide

We first reported on this issue with my interview with Francis Boyle over a year ago, which received well over one million views. Of course, our coverage was disparaged as fake news and removed from YouTube, but now one year later it appears the facts are confirming our speculations.

In the April 4, 2021, Sky News report above, award-winning investigations writer Sharri Markson summarizes the findings1,2,3,4 of the World Health Organization’s investigative team, tasked with identifying the origin of SARS-CoV-2.

She blasts the report as a “PR exercise for China,” calling the team’s conclusion that one of the most likely origin theories was that the virus entered Wuhan in or on frozen food from overseas, “embarrassing.” As noted by Markson, even the director-general of the WHO ended up backpedaling in an effort to salvage the organization’s credibility.5

As reported by The Washington Post, March 30, 2021,6 the WHO director-general, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, and 13 other world leaders have now joined the U.S. government in expressing “frustration with the level of access China granted an international mission to Wuhan.”

According to Ghebreyesus, the team “did not conduct an ‘extensive enough’ assessment of the possibility the virus was introduced to humans through a laboratory incident,” which will therefore necessitate additional studies with “more timely and comprehensive data sharing.”

NIH Has ‘Systematically Thwarted’ Oversight Efforts

I’ve previously detailed how the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), led by Dr. Anthony Fauci, have funded gain-of-function research on coronaviruses. Several such grants were given to EcoHealth Alliance, which in turn subcontracted some of that research to the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV).

EcoHealth Alliance is led by Dr. Peter Daszak, who is also on the WHO’s investigative team, and who has plenty of reasons to hide the truth, were the virus in fact from the WIV. In 2014, a federal moratorium was placed on gain-of-function research, which focuses on making pathogens more virulent and lethal, due to public safety concerns.

After the moratorium was lifted in 2017, a special review board, the Potential Pandemic Pathogens Control, and Oversight, or P3CO Review Framework, was created within the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), to evaluate “whether grants that involve enhancing dangerous pathogens, such as coronaviruses, are worth the risks and that proper safeguards are in place,” Daily Caller reports.7

According to Rutgers University professor Richard Ebright, an NIH grant for research involving the modification of bat coronaviruses at the WIV was sneaked through because the NIAID failed to flag it for review.8 In other words, the WIV received federal funding from the NIAID without the research first receiving a green light from the HHS review board. According to the Daily Caller:9

“The review framework split oversight responsibilities between two groups — the funding agency … and the P3CO Review Committee … The committee is responsible for recommending whether a research grant involving gain-of-function needs to include any additional risk mitigation measures … But the committee is kept in the dark on any grant until the funding agency flags one for its review …

Ebright said the offices of the director for the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) — the subagency that funded EcoHealth — and the NIH have ‘systematically thwarted — indeed systematically nullified — the HHS P3CO Framework by declining to flag and forward proposals for review’ …

Had EcoHealth’s grant been subjected to P3CO review, an HHS panel would have independently evaluated the grant and, if necessary, recommended additional biocontainment measures to prevent potential lab leaks — or even recommended that the grant be denied entirely.”

Is the NIAID Telling the Truth?

An NIAID spokesperson told the Daily Caller that the grant in question had not been forwarded for review because it did not involve “the enhancement of the pathogenicity or transmissibility of the viruses studied.” The problem is that the P3CO Framework does not require the HHS review committee to double-check the determination of the funding agency, in this case, the NIAID.

According to Ebright, this is a loophole that can easily be misused. In this case, he strongly disagrees with the NIAID’s statement that the research didn’t involve gain-of-function research. The Daily Caller writes:10

“Ebright told the DCNF that NIAID was wrong to determine that the EcoHealth grant did not involve enhancing the transmissibility of Chinese bat-based coronaviruses.

He said the project’s abstract11 for the 2019 fiscal year, which referenced ‘in vitro and in vivo infection experiments’ on coronaviruses, ‘unequivocally’ required risk-benefit review under the HHS P3CO Framework. Other scientists have said EcoHealth’s NIH-funded work in China involved gain-of-function research on bat-based coronaviruses.

‘It is hard to overemphasize that the central logic of this grant was to test the pandemic potential of SARS-related bat coronaviruses by making ones with pandemic potential, either through genetic engineering or passaging, or both,’ Drs. Jonathan Latham and Allison Wilson wrote12 in June [2020].”

Rep. Scott Perry, a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, is now saying Fauci really needs to answer why his agency bypassed oversight for research done at the WIV and intends to call Fauci in to testify. He’s pessimistic, however, about an open hearing actually taking place, as House Democrats are unlikely to support it. Perry told the Daily Caller:13

When it comes to oversight of U.S. tax dollars headed to the Chinese Communist Party, Dr. Fauci seems like he’s literally whistling past the graveyard … We seem so cavalier about this approval paradigm for this funding, and the definitions seemingly allow you to drive a truck through them regarding what is gain-of-function research and what isn’t.

It seems to me this was done by design to allow this kind of research to be done in these kinds of places without any kind of scrutiny. And this is the result of that.”

Fauci’s ‘Criminal Violations’ Deserve Review

Fauci has more than one or two questions to answer, though, considering at least two lengthy reports have been issued detailing Fauci’s questionable research activities and attempts to mislead the public on a number of issues, including the benefits of hydroxychloroquine, the effectiveness of masks and the possibility of SARS-CoV-2 being a lab creation.

One report, “Dr. Fauci’s COVID-19 Treachery,”14 was written by Dr. Peter Breggin and published in October 2020. The other, a 205-page paper titled “The Fauci/COVID-19 Dossier,”15 was compiled by Dr. David E. Martin, in which he reviews “numerous criminal violations” by Fauci, the CDC, and others, “that may be associated with the COVID-19 terrorism.” Here’s just a small sampling of paragraphs from Martin’s paper:

“Using the power of NIAID during the alleged pandemic, Dr. Anthony Fauci actively suppressed proven medical countermeasures used by, and validated in scientific proceedings, that offered alternatives to the products funded by his conspiring entities for which he had provided direct funding and for whom he would receive tangible and intangible benefit …

NIAID’s Director, Dr. Anthony Fauci is listed as an inventor on 8 granted U.S. patents. None of them are reported in NIAID, NIH, or GAO reports of active licensing despite the fact that Dr. Fauci reportedly was compelled to get paid for his interleukin-2 ‘invention’ …

Through non-competitive grant awards to UNC Chapel Hill’s Ralph Baric, to selection of the Bio-Safety Level 4 laboratory locations, to the setting of prices for Remdesivir and mRNA therapies from Moderna and Pfizer, NIAID, CDC, and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services have been involved in allocating Federal funds to conspiring parties without independent review.

Around March 12, 2020, in an effort to enrich their own economic interests by way of securing additional funding from both Federal and Foundation actors, the CDC and NIAID’s Dr. Fauci elected to suspend testing and classify COVID-19 by capricious symptom presentation alone.

Forcing the public to rely on The COVID Tracking Project — funded by the Bloomberg, Zuckerberg and Gates Foundation and presented by a media outlet — not a public health agency — Dr. Fauci used fraudulent testing technology (RT-PCR) to conflate ‘COVID cases’ with positive PCR tests in the living while insisting that COVID deaths be counted by symptoms alone.

This perpetuated a market demand for his desired vaccine agenda which was recited by him and his conspiring parties around the world until the present. Not surprisingly, this was necessitated by the apparent fall in cases that constituted Dr. Fauci’s and others’ criteria for depriving citizens of their 1st Amendment rights …

While Moderna enjoys hundreds of millions of dollars of funding allegiance and advocacy from Anthony Fauci and his NIAID, since its inception, it has been engaged in illegal patent activity and demonstrated contempt for U.S. Patent law. To make matters worse, the U.S. Government has given it financial backing in the face of undisclosed infringement risks potentially contributing to the very infringement for which they are indemnified.”

Many Were Aware of Lab Leak Threat Yet Did Nothing

The harsh reality is that any number of people, both in the U.S. and China, were aware that gain-of-function research on coronaviruses and other dangerous pathogens was taking place at the WIV, and that the lab had known safety lapses. Yet nothing appears to have been done to shore up security and prevent an outbreak.

As reported by the National Review16 in July 2020, American State Department officials who visited the WIV in 2018 wrote two separate memos — one in January and one in April — detailing safety concerns. This included “a shortage of the highly-trained technicians and investigators required to safely operate a [Biosafety Level] 4 laboratory and lack of clarity in related Chinese government policies and guidelines.”

“These memos do not prove that SARS-CoV-2 pandemic was caused by a laboratory accident,” the National Review wrote,17 “But they do dispel one of the less-plausible arguments against the lab-accident theory: That the Chinese scientists working at WIV were simply too professional and diligent to ever have an accident that released a contagious virus.”

Ironically, this is precisely the argument presented by the WHO’s corrupted investigative team. The team leader, Danish food safety and zoonosis scientist Ben Embarek went on record saying that lab accidents are “extremely rare;” hence, it’s “very unlikely” that SARS-CoV-2 could have escaped from the WIV or any other lab18 — so much so, the team dismissed the possibility entirely and said it would no longer consider it.

Meanwhile, in the real world, biosafety incidents involving dangerous pathogens occur twice a week, on average, in the U.S. alone,19,20 and virology labs accidentally released the original SARS virus on no less than four separate occasions.21,22

Gain-of-Function Research Is the Real Threat

While government health officials would like you to believe that SARS-CoV-2 is one of the most serious threats to life on earth, the reality is that the gain-of-function research they fund is a far greater threat. It’s quite possible that the COVID-19 pandemic was the result of this kind of research, but even if it wasn’t, history tells us there will be another release, another leak, another accident. They happen far more frequently than people like to imagine.

Already, as detailed in “New Engineered Coronaviruses Are Under Development” and “Bioweapons Labs Get More NIH Funding for Deadly Research,” scientists are tinkering around with SARS-CoV-2, trying to see if they can make an even worse version. Meanwhile, the same establishment is drumming up panic in the streets, warning of new, more infectious, and dangerous variants. Never do they tell you that they’re also busy creating them.

This hypocrisy must end. I firmly believe we need to ban gain-of-function research across the world. We do not need it. As noted by Marc Lipsitch in his 2018 review, “Why Do Exceptionally Dangerous Gain-of-Function Experiments in Influenza?”:23

“While there are indisputably certain questions that can be answered only by gain-of-function experiments in highly pathogenic strains, these questions are narrow and unlikely to meaningfully advance public health goals such as vaccine production and pandemic prediction.

Alternative approaches to experimental influenza virology and characterization of existing strains are in general completely safe, higher throughput, more generalizable, and less costly than creation of PPP [potential pandemic pathogens] in the laboratory and can thereby better inform public health.

Indeed, virtually every finding of recent PPP experiments that has been cited for its public health value was predated by similar findings using safe methodologies.”

While the origin of SARS-CoV-2 remains to be conclusively proven, a paper24 published in Nature in 2015 discussed how a “lab-made coronavirus related to SARS” capable of infecting human cells had stirred up debate as to whether or not this kind of research is worth the risks:

“Although the extent of any risk is difficult to assess, Simon Wain-Hobson, a virologist at the Pasteur Institute in Paris, points out that the researchers have created a novel virus that ‘grows remarkably well’ in human cells. ‘If the virus escaped, nobody could predict the trajectory,’ he says.

With 20/20 hindsight, we now have a much clearer idea of what the release of such a virus can do. We may chalk it up to luck that SARS-CoV-2 turned out to be orders of magnitude less lethal than initially suspected, although government containment measures have turned out to be devastating and deadly as well. If this kind of research is allowed to continue, the next time there’s a leak, we may not be as lucky.




‘Highly Probable’ Military Developed COVID, Leaked From Lab

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | mercola.com

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • According to David Asher, former lead investigator for the U.S. State Department’s task force that looked into the origins of COVID-19, the data “made us feel the Wuhan Institute was highly probably the source of the COVID pandemic”
  • Asher also admits there is evidence in the genetic sequence of SARS-CoV-2 suggesting it’s been synthetically altered
  • An assessment report by the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency states SARS-CoV-2 was likely an accidental release from an infectious diseases laboratory. The intentional release was ruled out
  • The Chinese tried to remove viral sequencing data from a European database. The sequences included adenovirus, a vaccine vector, which could indicate that SARS-CoV-2 is part of a vaccine program. Such a vaccine would likely be the antidote to a biological weapon
  • There’s evidence the Wuhan Institute of Virology worked on classified military programs, and since the NIH has funded gain-of-function research on coronaviruses at the WIV, this could mean the U.S. funded research that ended up being used in a Chinese military bioweapons program

It typically takes a lot longer for the truth to become public knowledge than the finely orchestrated propaganda we are all exposed to on a daily basis, but eventually, the truth tends to rise to the surface.

This appears to be the case with the origin of SARS-CoV-2 as well, as we’re now starting to see more mainstream media reporting what alternative media have been saying for months, which is that the most likely origin of the virus is a laboratory.

I first mentioned that the outbreak had the hallmarks of a laboratory escape in my February 4, 2020, article, “Novel Coronavirus — The Latest Pandemic Scare.” Currently, the mainstream narrative is that while it may indeed have been a lab creation, after all, it’s certainly not part of a bioweapons project.

Well, at least that brings us halfway, and this is good news. Personally, I wouldn’t dismiss the bioweapon’s angle just yet, though. In the end, we may well find that this pandemic was the result of a bioweapon program after all, which is precisely why I believe we need to permanently ban gain-of-function research. The risks to public health are simply too great.

As noted by investigative journalist Alison Young in a recent USA Today op-ed, in which she details a number of hair-raising near-misses involving extremely lethal pathogens that could have led to unmitigated disaster were it not for sheer luck:1

“The risk that a laboratory-released virus — carried into the community by a worker who didn’t know they were infected or through the leak of infectious waste — could cause a deadly outbreak has been a growing concern for many years.

In America, scientists and members of Congress … and the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office have expressed concerns for years. In reports and hearings, they’ve worried that the proliferation of laboratories working with high-risk pathogens is increasing the aggregate threat of a deliberate or accidental lab release causing a catastrophic outbreak …

If the COVID-19 pandemic were found to have been caused by a lab accident, it would have far-reaching implications for the fragmented and secretive oversight of biological research in the United States and worldwide that currently relies heavily on the scientific community to police itself.”

US State Department Suspects Lab Leak

In a March 21, 2021, interview with Sky News Australia2 (video above), David Asher, former lead investigator for the U.S. State Department’s task force that looked into the origins of COVID-19, said the data they collected “made us feel the Wuhan Institute was highly probably the source of the COVID pandemic.”

According to Asher, three workers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) who worked with the RatG13 coronavirus — the closest relative to SARS-CoV-2 identified to date — appear to have been the first cluster of cases of COVID-19. They fell ill with symptoms consistent with COVID-19 as early as October 2019. At least one of the workers required hospitalization.

He also points out there is evidence in the genetic sequence of SARS-CoV-2 suggesting it’s been synthetically altered. It has the backbone of a bat coronavirus, combined with a pangolin receptor and “some sort of humanized mice transceptor.” “These things don’t naturally make sense,” Asher says, adding that experts around the world agree that the odds of this configuration occurring naturally is “very low.”

Another troubling indicator that something was amiss at the WIV was the Chinese government’s taking down of a WIV database in September 2019. According to the Chinese, this was done because of “thousands of hacking attempts.”

However, Asher points out many other databases were taken offline around the same time as well.3 The Chinese also tried to remove data posted in a European database containing viral sequencing from patients exhibiting COVID-19-related symptoms.

SARS-CoV-2, a Suspected Bioweapon Vector

Interestingly, the sequences posted in the European database included adenovirus, which is a vaccine vector. This, Asher says, could indicate that SARS-CoV-2 is part of a vaccine program.

Now, it doesn’t make sense to create a vaccine for just any virus that they happen to be working on. It is, however, consistent with a biological weapons program. Meaning, first a biological weapon is created, and then an antidote, such as a vaccine, is developed to defend your own population and your allies.

In an earlier article4 by The Sun, Asher is quoted saying the WIV “was operating a secret, classified program,” and that “In my view … it was a biological weapons program.” He stops short of accusing China of intentional release, however, which also would not make sense from a bioweapon point of view. Instead, he said he believes it was a weapon vector that, during development, “somehow leaked.”5

This falls in line with a March 27, 2020, assessment report by the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency, which stated that SARS-CoV-2 was likely an accidental release from an infectious diseases laboratory. According to Newsweek,6 “The classified report, titled ‘China: Origins of COVID-19 Outbreak Remain Unknown,’ ruled out that the disease was genetically engineered or released intentionally as a biological weapon.”

On March 8, 2021, Politico article,7 columnist Josh Rogin also pointed out that “just months into the pandemic, a large swath of the government already believed the virus had escaped from the WIV lab, rather than having leaped from an animal to a human …”

Hallmarks of Guilt

Asher also told Sky News8 he’s never seen a more systematic cover-up, and The Sun9 quotes him as saying that “Motive, cover-up, conspiracy, all the hallmarks of guilt are associated with this.”

Regardless of how the virus came about, Asher is unequivocal about China’s behavior resulting in a global pandemic, as they delayed border closings and even claimed the virus didn’t appear to spread from human to human, even though there were clear indications that it did. Indeed, people were secretly complaining about China’s lack of transparency from the earliest days of the pandemic. As reported by RTE:10

“China insists that it was transparent during the early outbreak, delivering ‘timely’ information to the WHO. Indeed, the WHO publicly praised China for its openness and cooperation. Yet behind the scenes, the Irishman leading the emergency response complained they weren’t getting the information or access they needed.

In leaked recordings obtained by Prime Time, Dr. Michael Ryan is heard comparing it to China’s cover-up during the SARS outbreak in 2003. ‘This is exactly the same scenario, endlessly trying to get updates from China about what was going on in Guangdong and then, bang,’ he said.

‘The WHO barely got out of that one with its neck intact given the issues that arose around transparency in southern China … We do need to shift gears here.

‘There’s been no evidence of human-to-human transmission’ is not good enough,’ Dr. Ryan is heard saying in the recordings … ‘We need to see the data, we need to be able to determine for ourselves the geographic distribution, the timeline, the epicurve and all of that,’ he said.”

Chinese Researchers Sought to Distance China From the Virus

In a March 22, 2021, article,11 The Sun also reported that emails from Dr. Shi Zhengli at WIV, obtained by U.S. Right to Know (USRTK) via freedom of information act requests, “shows how Chinese scientists fought to shift blame” for the pandemic away from China and Wuhan.

To distance themselves from the virus, they initially tried to get it renamed, as SARS-CoV-2 links it to the Chinese SARS outbreak of 2003. Shi suggested the virus be called TARS-CoV or HARS-CoV, to clearly differentiate it from the Chinese SARS outbreak.

They also feared the virus might become known as the “Wuhan coronavirus” or “Wuhan pneumonia.” The scientists’ effort to change the scientific name “shows their conscription into political processes,” Gary Ruskin, executive director of USRTK said, adding that “The power to name is the power to define.”

Congress Demands Information From the NIH

Other good news includes March 18, 2021, letter12 from the U.S. Congressional Committee on Energy and Commerce to the director of the National Institutes of Health, Dr. Francis Collins, requesting “information, assistance and needed-leadership” from the agency “to advance an independent scientific investigation into the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic.”

In the letter, they quote Stanford professor David Relman, who in a November 2020 commentary in the journal PNAS stated that:

“A more complete understanding of the origins of COVID-19 clearly serves the interests of every person in every country on this planet. It will limit further recriminations and diminish the likelihood of conflict; it will lead to more effective responses to this pandemic, as well as efforts to anticipate and prevent the next one.

It will also advance our discussions about risky science. And it will do something else: Delineating COVID-19’s origin story will help elucidate the nature of our very precarious coexistence within the biosphere.”

The Committee also stresses that while the WHO attempted to investigate the origins of the virus and had vowed to be guided by science and not exclude any hypothesis, they failed to live up to this promise, as China “did not provide complete access or independence” for the team.

Without conducting a thorough investigation, but rather relying on information provided by the Chinese, the team roundly dismissed the lab-origin theory and announced it would no longer be part of their investigation.

Within days, WHO director-general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus walked back the team’s outright dismissal saying “I want to clarify that all hypotheses remain open and require further study.”13 Perhaps he realized the WHO was about to make a public relations mistake so severe it would never recover.

China Cites ‘Privacy Laws’ to Avoid Crucial Data Sharing

In response to questions as to why China refused to share original patient data with the WHO’s investigative team, the Chinese head of the WHO joint team claims such data cannot be copied and shared due to patient privacy and data protection laws.14

As noted by OneShared.World founder Jamie Metzl in a Tweet,15 this sounds like a dubious justification considering the Chinese government is “forcibly extracting genetic samples from Uighurs [and] Tibetans,” a practice reported by The New York Times in June 2020.16 Besides, Metzl notes, “If anonymized data can be shared safely in democracies, it can be shared safely everywhere.”

WHO Investigation Was Tainted From the Start

Lastly, while not discussed in the Congressional Committee on Energy and Commerce’s letter, the WHO’s investigative team was also severely biased from the start, thanks to the inclusion of Peter Daszak, Ph.D., president of EcoHealth Alliance, a nonprofit organization focused on pandemic prevention that worked closely with bat coronavirus researchers at the WIV, including Shi.

Daszak was also found to have played a central role in the early plot to obscure the lab origin of SARS-CoV-2 by crafting a scientific statement condemning such inquiries as “conspiracy theory.”17,18 Mainstream media have been referring to and relying on this manufactured “consensus” statement ever since to “debunk” counternarratives.

Was US-Funded Research Used in Chinese Bioweapons Program?

The Committee on Energy and Commerce does raise the issue of the U.S. having potentially funded the research that resulted in SARS-CoV-2, and that the Chinese military may have been involved as well. According to letter,19 the U.S. government has “determined that the WIV has collaborated on projects with China’s military,” and “engaged in classified research … on behalf of the Chinese military since at least 2017.”

Disturbingly, since the NIH has funded gain-of-function research on coronaviruses at the WIV through grants to the EcoHealth Alliance, this could mean the U.S. actually funded research that ended up being used in a Chinese military bioweapons program.

“Accordingly, it is imperative to determine not only where SARS-CoV-2 originated, but also how and if NIH’s funding and research to projects at the WIV could have contributed to SARS CoV-2,” the letter states.20

The letter includes a long list of information requests, including:

  • All information the NIH has about laboratory accidents at the WIV since January 2015.
  • Any communication between NIH staff, grantees, subgrantees, contractors, and subcontractors with the China-based NIH, the Chinese National Science Foundation, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Chinese CDC, regarding events at the WIV between August 2019 and the present.
  • Whether the WIV invited researchers from the University of Texas Medical Branch Galveston (UTMBG), as indicated in an April 2018 State Department cable, whether any UTMBG researchers ended up conducting research there, and any documents relating to that research.
  • All correspondence between the NIH and EcoHealth Alliance since January 1, 2020, related to funding involving the WIV.
  • The sources for its April 2020 communication with EcoHealth Alliance, in which the NIH stated it had “received reports” that the WIV “has been conducting research … that pose serious biosafety concerns.”

Scientists Also Call for Independent Investigation

Two dozen scientists and policy experts have also signed an open letter21 calling for an independent investigation into the virus’ origin,22 listings a number of flaws in the joint WHO-China inquiry, including the universal absence of evidence demonstrating a wholly natural origin of SARS-CoV-2. If the virus was truly natural, surely, we’d have some evidence of its evolution at this point, yet we have nothing.

In addition to the shortcomings of the WHO’s investigative commission, the letter also details what a full and independent investigation “should look like,” starting with the creation of a multidisciplinary team, whose members have “no unresolved conflicts of interest and no full or partial control by any specific agenda or country.”

They also recommend “considering all possible scenarios for each pathway,” and then following standard forensic approaches, which include securing full access to all relevant sites, records, logs, databases, and samples.

Gain-of-Function Research Must Be Banned

I firmly believe we need to ban gain-of-function research across the world. As noted by Marc Lipsitch in his 2018 review, “Why Do Exceptionally Dangerous Gain-of-Function Experiments in Influenza?”:23

“This is a question of intense debate … Experiments to create potential pandemic pathogens (PPPs) are nearly unique in that they present biosafety risks that extend well beyond the experimenter or laboratory performing them; an accidental release could, as the name suggests, lead to global spread of a virulent virus, a biosafety incident on a scale never before seen …

While there are indisputably certain questions that can be answered only by gain-of-function experiments in highly pathogenic strains, these questions are narrow and unlikely to meaningfully advance public health goals such as vaccine production and pandemic prediction.

Alternative approaches to experimental influenza virology and characterization of existing strains are in general completely safe, higher throughput, more generalizable, and less costly than creation of PPP in the laboratory and can thereby better inform public health. Indeed, virtually every finding of recent PPP experiments that has been cited for its public health value was predated by similar findings using safe methodologies.”

While the origin of SARS-CoV-2 remains to be conclusively proven, a paper24 published in Nature in 2015 discussed how a “lab-made coronavirus related to SARS” capable of infecting human cells had stirred up debate as to whether or not this kind of research is worth the risks:

“Although the extent of any risk is difficult to assess, Simon Wain-Hobson, a virologist at the Pasteur Institute in Paris, points out that the researchers have created a novel virus that ‘grows remarkably well’ in human cells. ‘If the virus escaped, nobody could predict the trajectory,’ he says.”

With 20/20 hindsight, we now have a much clearer idea of what the release of such a virus can do. We may chalk it up to luck that SARS-CoV-2 turned out to be orders of magnitude less lethal than initially suspected, although government containment measures have turned out to be devastating and deadly as well. If this kind of research is allowed to continue, the next time there’s a leak, we may not be nearly as lucky.