EXHIBIT
44
INDEX
NO. 034252/2022
NYSCEF
DOC. NO. 107 RECEIVED NYSCEF:
04/21/2023
SUPREME
COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK. COUNTY OF ROCKLAND
INDEX
NO. 034252/2022
SECOND
AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
IN
RE SARS-CoV-2;
KATHLEEN MCKINNISS, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF
ROSEMARIE MCKINNISS, DECEASED; CARIN ROSADO, individually; DAVID CADDOO,
EXECUTOR OF ESTATE OF PATRICIA MARIE CADDOO, DECEASED; MELANIE SMITH, EXECUTRIX
OF ESTATE OF ROBERT SENDZISCHEW, DECEASED; KIMBERLY J. LEWIS, ADMINISTRATOR OF
THE ESTATE OF ROBERT F. LEWIS, DECEASED; LISA PETER, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE
ESTATE OF PATRICIA A. CHISLETT, DECEASED; and ROXANNE JONES, PROPOSED
ADMINISTRATOR OF
THE ESTATE OF DALE JONES, DECEASED
Plaintiffs,
-against-
ECOHEALTH ALLIANCE, INC., PETER DASZAK, JANET D.
COTTINGHAM a/k/a JANET DASZAK, RALPH BARIC, WALTER IAN LIPKIN, and JOHN AND
JANE DOES 1-1000;
Defendants.
Plaintiffs,
by and through their undersigned attorneys, respectfully allege as follows:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. These are personal injury actions and
tort claims against Defendants and their affiliates, subsidiaries, alter-egos,
named and unnamed co-conspirators, and/or joint venturers who were responsible
for creating, financing, designing, researching, developing, testing,
manufacturing, and releasing SARS-CoV-2 into the environment, directly and
proximately causing the Covid-19 pandemic and plaintiffs’ injuries.
2. The above-identified Plaintiffs have
received letters of testamentary and administration necessary to proceed as
representatives of decedent's estates.
3. The above-identified Plaintiffs allege
claims for negligence, strict liability, negligent failure to warn, intentional
infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress,
assault and battery, medical monitoring fee of contracting illness, civil
conspiracy, wrongful death, and survival and breach of warranty.
4. The Covid-19 pandemic could have been
avoided.
5. Plaintiffs allege Defendants caused the
Covid 19 pandemic injuring Plaintiffs by engaging in dangerous research,
including, but not limited to, Gain of Function (“GOF”) research, whereby, a
virus is genetically altered to become more transmissible and/or virulent to
humans.
6. Defendants alleged illegal acts caused
for a GOF manipulated virus to be released into the environment directly and
proximately causing Plaintiffs’ injuries.
7. Defendants engaged in dangerous GOF
research despite a federal moratorium on such research, and ultimately exposed
the world to a manipulated, highly transmissible and deadly lab-made virus and
global pandemic, directly and proximately causing Plaintiffs’ injuries.
8. On March 13, 2020, then President
Donald Trump stated: “In December 2019, a novel (new) coronavirus known as
SARS–CoV–2 (‘the virus’) was first detected in Wuhan, Hubei Province, People’s
Republic of China, causing outbreaks of the coronavirus disease COVID–19 that
has now spread globally.” 85 Fed. Reg. 15337 (“Proclamation 9994”)
(March
18, 2020).1
1 See also 85 Fed.Reg. 17060, 17062 (March 26, 2020)
(“COVID–19 is a communicable disease caused by a novel (new) coronavirus,
SARS-CoV–2, that was first identified as the cause of an outbreak of
respiratory illness that began in Wuhan, Hubei Province, People’s Republic of
China (China).” 85 Fed.Reg. 17335 (March 27, 2020) (“involves a novel (new)
coronavirus (nCoV) first detected in Wuhan City, Hubei Province, China in 2019
(2019–nCoV). The virus is now named SARS–CoV–2, which causes the illness COVID–19.”).2
8.[sic] In April 2020, President Trump proclaimed that
SARS-CoV-2, also known as the Covid 19 virus, was released from a Level-4 Bio
Safety Laboratory (“BSL-4”) in Wuhan, China.
9. This same dangerous virus research was
being conducted and funded by and through Defendants at the Wuhan Institute of
Virology (“WIV”) at a less secure Level-2 (“BSL-2”) and Level-3 (“BSL-3”) Bio
Safety Laboratories.2 See Exhibit “1” to Complaint (“Compl.”), Photos of the
Wuhan Institute of Virology.
10. Ongoing with Defendants’ research, WIV
was well-known to U.S. public health officials for its failed safety and lax
security, as well as ties to the Chinese military.3 Id.
11. WIV’s failed safety and lax security, as
well as its ties to the Chinese military was well known to Defendants.
12. Defendants disregarded WIV failed safety
and lax security, and ties to Chinese military to conduct and funded the GOF
research creating the SARS-CoV-2 virus that directly and proximately injured
Plaintiffs.
13. Since the release of the GOF SARS-CoV-2
virus into the environment, Defendants engaged in a cover-up with respect to
the origins of SARS-CoV-2, impeding effective countermeasures and strategies to
control the release, mutation, and spread of SARS-CoV-2, directly and
proximately causing Plaintiffs’ injuries.
14. The evidence showing that SARS-CoV-2
could have escaped from a lab was initially denigrated as a baseless conspiracy
theory through the concerted, intentional actions of the Defendants.
2 See, e.g.,“An Analysis of the Origins of the
COVID-19 Pandemic, Interim Report”, October, 2022 Senate Committee on Health
Education, Labor and Pensions, Minority Oversight Staff:
https://www.help.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/report_an_analysis_of_the_origins_of_covid-19_102722.pdf
3 Josh Rogin, Opinion: State Department cables
warned of safety issues at Wuhan lab studying bat coronaviruses. Washington
Post April 14, 2020.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/04/14/state-department-cables-warned-safety-issues-wuhan-lab-studying-bat-coronaviruses/
(accessed 12.16.2022)
15. Today, much of the scientific community
accepts the “lab leak” theory origin of SARS-CoV-2.
16. An October, 2022, Interim Report issued
by the US Senate Minority Oversight Staff the report concluded it was now “more
likely than not” that the Covid-19 pandemic was “the result of a
research-related incident.”4 See Exhibit “13” to Compl.: The U.S. Senate
Minority Interim Report “An Analysis of the Origins of the Covid-10 Pandemic,”
Senate Committee on Health Education, Labor and Pensions Minority Oversight
Staff, October 2022.
17. Plaintiffs allege the above-mentioned
“research-related incident” was the caused by Defendants’ illegal acts directly
and proximately causing Plaintiffs’ injuries.
18. Defendants GOF SARS-CoV-2 virus was
designed and created at WIV, made possible through the research, development,
and funding support by the named Defendants, acting in concert.
19. Each Plaintiff, or the Decedent they
represent, named herein, was exposed to SARS-CoV-2 and suffered injuries.
20. SARS-CoV-2 is an abnormally dangerous,
genetically manipulated coronavirus that was created, financed, designed, and
released into the environment by the Defendants through the WIV, the result of
their alleged illegal acts, directly and proximately causing Plaintiffs’
injuries.
II. CPLR ARTICLE 16
4 “An Analysis of the Origins of the COVID-19
Pandemic, Interim Report”, October 2022 Senate Committee on Health Education,
Labor and Pensions, Minority Oversight Staff:
https://www.help.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/report_an_analysis_of_the_origins_of_covid-19_102722.pdf,
at 26.
21. If it is deemed by this Court that
Article 16 of the CPLR applies to this action, the Plaintiffs assert this
action falls within one or more of the exceptions set forth in CPLR § 1602
including, but not limited to, the exception for cases where a person is held
liable for causing the claimant’s injury by having acted with reckless
disregard for the safety of others [CPLR § 1602(7)]; the exception for cases
involving any person held liable for causing claimant’s injury by having
unlawfully released into the environment a substance ultra-hazardous to public
health, safety or the environment [CPLR § 1602(9)]; the exception for any
parties found to have acted knowingly or intentionally and in concert to cause
the acts or failures upon which liability is based [CPLR § 1602(11)]; the
exception based upon Defendants’ non-delegable duty to warn of the health
hazards of genetically manipulated viruses [CPLR § 1602(2)(iv)]; and the
exception for persons held liable in a product liability action where the
manufacturer of the product is not a party to the action and jurisdiction over
the manufacturer could not with due diligence be obtained [CPLR § 1602(10)].
III. PARTIES
A. PLAINTIFFS
1. Kathleen McKinniss, on behalf of the
Estate of Rosemarie McKinniss, Deceased
22. Plaintiff
Kathleen McKinniss (“Plaintiff McKinniss”) is a resident of Worthington, Ohio,
County of Franklin, and is the surviving daughter and former caregiver of
Rosemarie McKinniss, a decedent who was killed as a result of the SARS-CoV-2
virus.
23. Rosemarie
McKinniss was infected with SARS-CoV-2 while in a nursing home in Franklin
County, Ohio, and died from exposure to SARS-CoV-2 on April 24, 2020 at the age
of 85.
24. Plaintiff Kathleen McKinniss is pending
an appointment as the personal representative of the Estate of Rosemarie
McKinniss by the State of Ohio.
25. Plaintiff Kathleen McKinniss brings this
action on her own behalf, on behalf of the Estate of Rosemarie McKinniss, and
on behalf of all heirs of Rosemarie McKinniss, in their own right and in their
capacities as beneficiaries of the Wrongful Death, Survival, and other claims
pled in this Verified First Amended Complaint.
2. Carin Rosado
26. Plaintiff Carin Rosado (“Plaintiff
Rosado”) is a resident of Rocky Point, New York, County of Suffolk, and
suffered injuries alleged in this Complaint as a direct and proximate result of
the Defendants’ individual, and collective, unlawful and tortious conduct.
27. Plaintiff Rosado was a front-line worker
with the NYC Fire Department (FDNY) as an emergency medical technician (EMT)
and deemed to be an essential worker required to work during the early stages
of Covid 19, when its consequences were then unknown.
28. Plaintiff Rosado brings this action on
her own behalf to recover damages personal to her.
3. Geraldine Finn, on behalf of the Estate
of James Finn, Deceased
29. Plaintiff Geraldine Finn (“Plaintiff
Finn”) resides in New York, County of Rockland, and is the surviving spouse of
Decedent James Finn, who died at Montefiore Nyack Hospital on April 18, 2021,
at the age of 90 as a result of the exposure to SARS-CoV-2 virus as a direct
and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful and tortious conduct.
30. Plaintiff Finn was appointed the Executor
of the Estate James Finn.
31. Plaintiff Finn brings this action on her
own behalf, on behalf of the Estate of James Finn, and on behalf of all heirs
of James Finn, and in their capacities as beneficiaries of the Wrongful Death,
Survival, and other claims pled in this Verified Amended Complaint.
4. David Caddoo, on behalf of Estate of
Patricia Marie Caddoo, Deceased
32. Plaintiff David Caddoo (“Plaintiff
Caddoo”) is a resident of Lewisville, Texas, and the son of Patricia Marie
Caddoo, a decedent who was killed as a result of the SARS-CoV-2 virus at the
age of 85.
33. Patricia Marie Caddoo died at a nursing
home in Lewisville, Texas, on December 9, 2020, as a result of exposure to SARS
CoV-2 and as a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful and tortious
conduct.
34. The Estate of Patricia Marie Caddoo is
being administered in Denton County, Texas.
Plaintiff
Caddoo brings this action on his own behalf, on behalf of the Estate of
Patricia Marie Caddoo, and on behalf of all heirs of Patricia Marie Caddoo in
their own right and in their capacities as beneficiaries of the Wrongful Death,
Survival, and other claims pled in this Verified First Amended Complaint.
5. Melanie Smith, on behalf of Estate of
Robert Sendzischew, Deceased
35. Plaintiff Melanie Smith (“Plaintiff
Smith”) resides in Valley Village, California, and is the surviving wife of
Robert Sendzischew, and the Executrix of the Estate of Robert Sendzischew, who
died at the age of 48 at a long-term rehabilitation facility named Five Towns
Premier Rehabilitation and Nursing Center in Nassau, New York on December 13,
2021, as a result of exposure to SARS CoV-2 and as a direct and proximate
result of Defendants’ unlawful and tortious conduct.
36. Plaintiff Smith is pending an appointment
as the personal representative of the Estate of Robert Sendzischew being
administered in Nassau County, New York.
37. Plaintiff Smith brings this action on her
own behalf and on behalf of the Estate of Robert Sendzischew and on behalf of
all heirs of Robert Sendzischew in their own right and in their capacities as
beneficiaries of the Wrongful Death, Survival, and other claims pled in this
Verified First Amended Complaint.
6. Kimberly J. Lewis, on behalf of Estate
of Robert F. Lewis, Deceased
38. Plaintiff Kimberly J. Lewis (“Plaintiff
Lewis”) resides in Alden, New York, and is the surviving wife of Robert F.
Lewis, who was hospitalized on December 28, 2021 as a result of COVID 19 at
Mercy Hospital in Buffalo, New York, and died at the age of 60 on January 15,
2022 as a result of exposure to SARS CoV-2 and as a direct and proximate result
of Defendants’ unlawful and tortious conduct.
39. Plaintiff Lewis is pending an appointment
as the personal representative of the Estate of Robert F. Lewis being
administered in Eire County, New York, and brings this action on her own behalf
and on behalf of the Estate of Robert F. Lewis and on behalf of all heirs of
Robert Lewis in their own right and in their capacities as beneficiaries of the
Wrongful Death, Survival, and other claims pled in this Verified First Amended
Complaint.
7. Lisa Peter, on Behalf of the Estate of
Patricia A. Chislett, Deceased
40. Plaintiff Lisa Peter (“Plaintiff Peter”)
is a resident of East Aurora, New York and the daughter of Patricia A.
Chislett, who was hospitalized as a result of COVID 19 at Sisters of Charity
Hospital in Buffalo, New York, on November 24, 2021 and died on December 18,
2021, at the age of 75, as a result of exposure to SARS CoV-2 and as a direct
and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful and tortious conduct.
41. Plaintiff Peter is pending an appointment
as the personal representative of the Estate of Patricia A. Chislett, being
administered in Erie County, New York.
42. Plaintiff Peter brings this action on her
own behalf and on behalf of the Estate of Patricia
A.
Chislett and on behalf of all heirs of Patricia A. Chislett in their own right
and in their capacities as beneficiaries of the Wrongful Death, Survival, and
other claims pled in this Verified First Amended Complaint.
7. Roxanne Jones, on behalf of the Estate
of Dale Jones, Deceased
43. Plaintiff Roxanne Jones (“Plaintiff
Jones”) is a resident of Cheektowaga, New York and the surviving spouse of Dale
Jones, who was hospitalized as a result of COVID 19 at Mercy Hospital in South
Buffalo, New York, on July 30, 2021 and died on September 2, 2021, at the age
of 62, as a result of exposure to SARS CoV-2 and as a direct and proximate
result of Defendants’ unlawful and tortious conduct.
44. Plaintiff Jones is pending an appointment
as the personal representative of the Estate of Dale Jones being administered
in Erie County, New York.
45. Plaintiff Jones brings this action on her
own behalf and on behalf of the Estate of Dale Jones and on behalf of all heirs
of Dale Jones in their own right and in their capacities as beneficiaries of
the Wrongful Death, Survival, and other claims pled in this Verified First
Amended Complaint.
B. DEFENDANTS
1. Defendant EcoHealth Alliance
46. Defendant ECOHEALTH ALLIANCE, Inc.
(“Defendant EcoHealth”) is a 501 (c)(3), non-governmental organization, with a
street address of 520 8th Avenue, Ste. 1200, New York, NY 10018, registered in
New York State as a foreign not-for-profit corporation, and is authorized to
transact business in New York State as a “global environmental health nonprofit
corporation.” Its principal place of business is in the City of New York,
County of New York.
47. Upon information and belief, Defendant
EcoHealth, formerly “Wildlife Trust,” was initially organized under the laws of
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts on or about July 20, 2000 and registered by
Application for Authority with the State of New York, as a foreign corporation
filed with the Department of State on or about July 27, 2000.
48. Defendant EcoHealth, through the
above-captioned Defendants and known and unknown co-conspirators, has engaged
in the oversight, direction, control, funding, research and development of the
genetically modified coronavirus, a.k.a., SARS-CoV-2 virus using GOF and other
techniques, with full knowledge of its dangerous propensities and lethality,
directly and proximately causing Plaintiffs’ damages from the release of their
lab-made, ultra-hazardous SARS-CoV-2 virus into the environment.
49. Defendant EcoHealth expected or should
have expected their acts to have consequences within each of the States and
Territories of the United States.
2. Defendant Peter Daszak
50. Defendant PETER DASZAK is the President
of Defendant EcoHealth, transacts business in the State of New York, resides in
Suffern, New York, County of Rockland, and owns real property there. Pursuant
to CPLR § 503(c), venue in Rockland County is appropriate.
51. Upon information and belief, Defendant
Peter Daszak holds a doctorate in infectious diseases awarded in the United
Kingdom.
52. Defendant Peter Daszak receives a salary
for his work and is not subject to the protections of Not-for-Profit
Corporations Law § 720-a and the pleading requirements of CPLR § 3016(h).
53. At all times relevant, Defendant Daszak,
individually, and acting in concert with the other above-captioned Defendants,
known and unknown co-conspirators, engaged in the oversight, direction,
control, funding, research, development and creation of the genetically
modified coronavirus using GOF and other techniques, resulting in the
SARS-CoV-2 global pandemic and directly and proximately causing Plaintiffs’
injuries and Decedents’ deaths.
54. At all times relevant, Defendant Daszak
engaged in a cover-up of the origins of SARS-CoV-2 to mislead the public and
health officials as to the origin of SARS-CoV-2, and the lethality, virulence
and transmissibility of the ultra-hazardous lab-made virus released into the
environment by the Defendants.
55. Defendant Peter Daszak expected or should
have expected his acts to have consequences within each of the States and
Territories of the United States.
3. Defendant Janet D. Cottingham-Daszak
56. Defendant JANET D. COTTINGHAM, also known
as JANET DASZAK, (“Cottingham-Daszak”) is an immunologist, and the wife of
Defendant Peter Daszak. Defendant Cottingham-Daszak was and is providing input,
advice and service to Defendant EcoHealth, that transacts business in the State
of New York with her co-defendant husband PETER DASZAK, both of whom reside in
Suffern, New York, County of Rockland, where they own real property. Pursuant
to CPLR § 503(c), venue in Rockland County is appropriate.
57. Upon information and belief, Defendant
Cottingham-Daszak works along with Daszak to aid and abet his goals, including
the cover up of the cause and origin of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and the COVID-19
pandemic, while handsomely profiting economically and in professional
reputational respect, etc.
58. Upon information and belief, by, amongst
other things, Defendant Cottingham provided input, advice and support to Eco
Health and Daszak, by, inter alia, aiding in seeking and securing the subject
federal research grants, performing research, monitoring grant applications,
monitoring receipt and expenditure of funds, and improperly monitoring and
supervising grant activities and compliance.
59. Upon information and belief, Defendant
Cottingham aided and abetted Daszak and EcoHealth Alliance’s acts and omissions
in securing grants under false pretenses; in creating, making, engineering and
altering coronaviruses, including SARS-CoV-2; in making and covering up
falsehoods and fraud; in failing to maintain proper biosafety and biosecurity
with respect to their subject coronavirus experimentation; in failing to comply
with grant restrictions, limitations, terms, and conditions; in failing to
properly monitor and supervise the Wuhan Lab concerning the subject coronavirus
experimentation; in failing to safeguard and secure SARS-CoV-2, and, inter
alia, in causing and originating the COVID-19 pandemic.
60. At all times relevant, Defendant
Cottingham-Daszak, along with her husband Peter Daszak and Eco Health Alliance
engaged in a cover-up of the origins of SARS-CoV-2 to mislead the public and
health officials, as to her alleged role in the origin of SARS-CoV-2, and the
lethality, virulence and transmissibility of the ultra-hazardous lab-made virus
released into the environment by Defendants.
61. Defendant Cottingham-Daszak expected or
should have expected her acts to have consequences within each of the States
and Territories of the United States.
4. Defendant Ralph Baric
62. Defendant RALPH BARIC (“Baric”) is a
Professor in the Department of Epidemiology and the Department of Microbiology
and Immunology at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North
Carolina.
63. At all times relevant, Defendant Baric,
individually and acting in concert with the other above-captioned Defendants,
and other known and unknown co-conspirators, engaged in the oversight,
direction, control, research, development and creation of the genetically
modified coronavirus, resulting in the SARS-CoV-2 global pandemic and
Plaintiffs’ and their Decedents’ injuries and/or deaths.5
64. Defendant Baric expected or should have
expected his acts to have consequences within each of the States and
Territories of the United States.
5. Defendant Walter Ian Lipkin
65. Defendant WALTER IAN LIPKIN (“Lipkin”) is
the John Snow Professor of Epidemiology at the Mailman School of Public Health
at Columbia University, with his principal place of employment and business in
the State of New York. He lives and works in the State of New York.
66. Defendant Lipkin was listed as a member
of EcoHealth’s advisory board from 2012 to 2014.
67. Defendant Lipkin has co-authored at
least 15 scientific papers with Defendant Daszak between 2010 and 2020:
(a) “Identification
of GBV-D, a novel GB-like flavivirus from old world frugivorous bats (Pteropus
giganteus) in Bangladesh.”
(b) “Zoonotic
viruses associated with illegally imported wildlife products.”
5.“The Origins of
COVID-19: An Investigation of The Wuhan Institute of Virology,” August, 2021
Report of House Foreign Affairs Committee Report Minority Staff:
https://gop-foreignaffairs.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/ORIGINS-OF-COVID-19-REPORT.pdf
(accessed 12/30/2022).
(c) “The
search for meaning in virus discovery.”
(d) “Prediction
and prevention of the next pandemic zoonosis.”
(e) “Ebola
virus antibodies in fruit bats, Bangladesh.”
(f) “Bats
are a major natural reservoir for hepaciviruses and pegiviruses.”
(g) “Identification
of a novel cetacean polyomavirus from a common dolphin (Delphinus delphis) with
Tracheobronchitis.”
(h) “A
strategy to estimate unknown viral diversity in mammals.”
(i) “Middle
East respiratory syndrome coronavirus in bats, Saudi Arabia.”
(j) “Middle
East respiratory syndrome coronavirus infection in dromedary camels in Saudi
Arabia.”
(k) “Middle
East respiratory syndrome coronavirus quasi species that include homologues of
human isolates revealed through whole-genome analysis and virus cultured from
dromedary camels in Saudi Arabia.”
(l) “Reply
to ‘Concerns about misinterpretation of recent scientific data implicating
dromedary camels in epidemiology of Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)’”.
(m) “Non-random
patterns in viral diversity.”
(n) “Viral
Diversity, Prey Preference, and Bartonella Prevalence in Desmodus rotundus in
Guatemala.”
(o) “Nipah
virus dynamics in bats and implications for spillover to humans” (edited by Dr.
Anthony Fauci).
68. In early 2020, certain media sources were
reporting the conclusions of other specialists suggesting that WIV had created
the coronavirus and it had escaped from that facility, either by accident or
design.
69. In April of 2020, for his own interest
and to assist the other named Defendants, Defendant Lipkin and several others
published an article titled “The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2” in an effort to
conceal his involvement in the creation SARS-CoV-2 to convince the public that
the coronavirus had natural origins, stating in relevant part: “Although the
evidence shows that SARSCoV-2 is not a purposefully manipulated virus, it is
currently impossible to prove or disprove the other theories of its origin
described here. However, since we observed all notable SARS-CoV-2 features,
including the optimized RBD and polybasic cleavage site, in related
coronaviruses in nature, we do not believe that any type of laboratory-based
scenario is plausible.”6
70. At all times relevant, Defendant Lipkin
engaged in a cover-up of the origins of SARS-CoV-2 to mislead the public and
health officials as the origin of SARS-CoV-2, and the lethality, virulence and
transmissibility of the lab-made virus released into the environment by
Defendants.
71. Defendant Lipkin knew the origins of
SARS-Cov-2 was manmade, and he later admitted to having knowledge that
SARS-Cov-2 was manmade after publishing the misleading Proximal Origins to
conceal the “lab leak” theory.
72. Defendant Lipkin expected or should have
expected his acts to have consequences within each of the States and
Territories of the United States.
6. Unidentified Defendants John Does/Jane
Does 1-1000
73. Defendants JOHN DOES/JANE DOES 1-1000 are
those persons, agents, employees, representatives, affiliates, subsidiaries,
alter-egos, joint venturers, and/or other unnamed co-conspirators of the
Defendants whose conduct described herein caused or contributed to the damages
of Plaintiffs, all of whose names and legal identities are unknown to
Plaintiffs at this time, but will be substituted by amendment when ascertained,
individually and jointly.
6. Andersen, K.G., Rambaut, A., Lipkin, W.I. et al.
The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2. Nat Med 26, 450–452 (2020).
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-020-0820-9
74. Defendants Unknown Individuals,
Businesses and/or Corporations 1-1000 are unknown entities whose conduct as
described herein caused or contributed to the damages of Plaintiffs, all of
whose names and legal identities are unknown to Plaintiffs at this time, but
will be substituted by amendment when ascertained, individually and jointly.
IV. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
75. Pursuant to CPLR § 301, the Supreme Court
of the State of New York may properly exercise jurisdiction over Defendants
EcoHealth, Peter Daszak, Cottingham-Daszak, Lipkin, and any unknown John
Doe/Jane Doe Defendants, given that at all relevant times they resided, were
formed, and/or maintained the principal places of business within the State of
New York.
76. Pursuant of CPLR § 302(a), the Supreme
Court of the State of New York may properly exercise jurisdiction over any
parties that may be a non-domiciliary of the State of New York given that at
all relevant times, they committed dangerous and/or tortious acts within the
State of New York; or alternatively they committed dangerous and/or tortious
acts outside the State of New York, causing damages sustained by Plaintiffs
within the State; and/or they regularly transact business within the state or
contract anywhere to supply goods or services in the state; and/or they possess
real property in New York State.
77. Defendants Peter Daszak and
Cottingham-Daszak own, use and possess real property in New York State, and,
upon information and belief, Defendant EcoHealth uses and possesses real
property in New York State.
78. Defendants regularly solicited business,
engaged in other persistent courses of conduct, derived substantial revenue
from services rendered in the State of New York, derived substantial revenue
from interstate commerce, derived substantial revenue from international
commerce, and expect and/or should reasonably expect that their improper acts
would have consequences in the State of New York.
79. Pursuant of CPLR §503 (a), venue is
properly fixed in the Supreme Court, Rockland County as it is the County in
where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiffs’
claims occurred and it is the domiciliary residence of Defendants Daszak and
Cottingham-Daszak and Plaintiff Geraldine Finn.
V. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
A. Background on Gain of Function Research
80. The United States Government describes
GOF as follows:
“Gain of function” refers to any modification of a
biological agent that confers new or enhanced activity. Typically, researchers
mutate or alter genes and examine the impact of these modifications on a
particular property or trait of the organism. For example, some investigators
can modify influenza viruses in ways that enhance pathogenicity and/or
transmissibility in order to better understand the origins and nature of these
traits at the molecular level, as well as their pathogenesis in susceptible hosts.
Since influenza viruses constantly evolve in nature, these gain-of-function
studies may help predict whether these viruses could evolve naturally over time
to acquire these new or enhanced traits, and if so, how the viruses might
affect hosts and the kinds of medical countermeasures that might be most
effective. Some gain-of-function studies may entail biosafety and biosecurity
risks that require unique risk assessment and mitigation measures.7 (Emphasis
added).
81. A chimera, or chimeric virus, is a virus
that contains genetic material from two or more distinct viruses.
7 US Health and Human Services (HHS), Administration
for Strategic Preparedness and Response (ASPR), November 2014 Report, U.S.
Government Gain-of-Function Deliberative Process and Research Funding Pause on
Selcted Gain-of-Function Research Involving Influenza, MERS, and SARS Viruses,
“Frequently Asked Questions.”
https://www.phe.gov/s3/dualuse/Documents/GOF-qanda.pdf
82. Chimeric viruses have been considered
potential bioweapons with increased lethality that can result from combining
pathogens in a lab. See Exhibit “14” to Compl., Answering Crucial Questions
About Sars-CoV-2, authors Thomas Renz, attorney at law and Pamela A. Popper,
Make Americans Free Again, dated September 12, 2022 at pg. 10, 41, 55.
83. GOF research is controversial due to the
risk that a mutated virus might develop and/or be released, causing harm of
immeasurable proportions. Id. at 8.
B. The Scientific Community Knew GOF
Research Was Abnormally Dangerous
84. In 2012, Dutch scientist Ron Fouchier
conducted GOF experiments designed to make a highly lethal avian influenza
virus, H5N1, more transmissible. After several attempts, the team was
successful. Live ferrets were used and H5N1 acquired mutations resulting from
serial passage in ferrets. The result: lab created H5N1 was transmissible
between mammals without requiring recombination in an intermediate host. It
“gained” this “function.” Government officials were alarmed, which led to the
2014 GOF moratorium that paused GOF research involving influenza, SARS, and
MERS until a new regulatory framework could be developed. Id. at pg. 8.
C. EcoHealth’s Background and Mission
85. Defendant EcoHealth, formerly Wildlife
Trust, is a nonprofit organization that at one time focused on wildlife
conservation and matters like habitat loss, pollution, and environmental
issues. In 2010, EcoHealth rebranded itself to focus on “global health,” and
the relationships between ecosystems and animal and human health.”
86. EcoHealth purports to be “dedicated to
protecting wildlife and public health from the emergence of disease.”8
“Building on over 45+ years of groundbreaking science,
8 https://www.ecohealthalliance.org/about (accessed
12.16.22).
EcoHealth
Alliance is a global environmental health nonprofit organization dedicated to
protecting wildlife and public health from the emergence of disease.”9
87. On its website, Defendant EcoHealth lists
many partners, including the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(“CDC”); the NIH; the New York City Department of Health; University of
California, Davis; University of Pittsburgh, School of Public Health; Columbia
University; Princeton University; Johns Hopkins, Bloomberg School of Public
Health; and Johnson & Johnson, among others.
88. The Vice Chair of Defendant EcoHealth’s
Board of Directors, Carlota Vollhardt, previously “held positions of increasing
responsibility at Pfizer Inc. in global talent, organizational development, and
knowledge management as part of the R&D, commercial and corporate
divisions.”10
89. Starting in 2008, Defendant EcoHealth
received funding specifically related to GOF research from two U.S. government
sources: the U.S. Agency for International Development (“USAID”) through a
5-year program called “PREDICT,” and the National Institutes of Health (“NIH”).
It also received grants from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious
Diseases (“NIAID”), including a $3.7 million grant in 2014 entitled,
“Understanding the Risk of Bat Coronavirus Emergence.”11,12 The grant “proposed
to screen wild and captive bats in China, analyze sequences in the laboratory
to gauge the risk of bat viruses infecting humans, and build predictive models
to examine future risk.”13
9 Id. (accessed 12.16.22).
10
https://www.ecohealthalliance.org/2016/12/carlota-vollhardt-board-directors
(accessed 12.16.22);
https://www.ecohealthalliance.org/board-of-directors
(accessed 12.16.22).
11
https://www.usaspending.gov/award/ASST_NON_R01AI110964_7529
(accessed 12.16.22).
13 Id.
90. The USAID’s “PREDICT” was “[a]n
epidemiological research grant program funded by the [USAID]. PREDICT provided
funding for biological sampling aimed at virus identification and collection.
The program provided grant funding to EcoHealth Alliance.”14
91. During an interview on December 19, 2019,
Defendant Daszak stated that SARS likely originated from bats, which prompted
researchers to find more SARS-related coronaviruses. Eventually, over one
hundred were found.15 Daszak reported that some coronaviruses can “get into
human cells in the lab,” and others can cause SARS disease in “humanized mouse
models.” He warned that such coronaviruses are “untreatable with therapeutic
monoclonals [antibodies] and you can’t vaccinate against them with a vaccine.”
Daszak claimed that his team’s goal was trying to find the next “spillover
event” that could cause the next pandemic.
92. At the 29:54 mark of the video recording,
Defendant Daszak is asked what can be done to deal with coronaviruses given
that there are no therapeutics or vaccines for them.
93. Defendant Daszak discusses that the goal
of his GOF (gain-of-function) research was to develop a universal vaccine that
could be used for many different types of coronaviruses.
94. Referring specifically to bat
coronaviruses, Defendant Daszak said, “[y]ou can manipulate them in the lab
pretty easily.” He then mentioned the most unique characteristic of SARS-CoV-2
(which had not yet been named at the time of this podcast), the spike protein,
and stated “[s]pike protein drives a lot of what happens with the coronavirus,
zoonotic risk.”
14.“The Origins of
COVID-19: An Investigation of The Wuhan Institute of Virology,” August 2021
Report of House Foreign Affairs Committee Report Minority Staff:
https://gop-foreignaffairs.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/ORIGINS-OF-COVID-19-REPORT.pdf
15 Keoni Everington. WHO inspector caught on camera
revealing coronavirus manipulation in Wuhan before pandemic. Taiwan News Jan
18, 2021. https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/4104828 (accessed 12.16.2022).
95. Defendant Daszak also talked about
inserting the spike protein “into a backbone of another virus” and then doing
“some work in the lab.”
96. Defendant Daszak further acknowledged
collaboration with Defendant Baric: “and we work with Ralph Baric at UNC
[University of North Carolina] to do this.”
97. Defendant Daszak also admitted the
creation of chimeras in order to investigate vaccines: “Now, the logical
progression for vaccines is, if you are going to develop a vaccine for SARS,
people are going to use pandemic SARS, but let’s try to insert these other
related diseases and get a better vaccine.”16
98. Defendant EcoHealth collaborated with a
consortium of entities and named and unnamed co-conspirators to study
SARS-related coronaviruses in humans. One of these entities was the Wuhan
Institute of Virology (“WIV”).17
D. The Wuhan Institute of Virology (“WIV”)
99. The WIV was founded in 1956 as the Wuhan
Microbiology Laboratory and has operated under the administration of the
Chinese Academy of Sciences since 1978. The WIV hosts labs ranging from BSL-2
to BSL-4, which is the highest level of biosafety containment. According to
HHS:
Biosafety
Level 4 is required for work with dangerous and exotic agents that pose a high
individual risk of aerosol-transmitted laboratory infections and
life-threatening disease that is frequently fatal, for which there are no
vaccines or treatments, or a related agent with unknown risk of transmission.
16 Id.
17.“An Analysis of the Origins of the COVID-19
Pandemic, Interim Report”, October 2022 Senate Committee on Health Education,
Labor and Pensions, Minority Oversight Staff:
https://www.help.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/report_an_analysis_of_the_origins_of_covid-19_102722.pdf
at 15.
The
Wuhan National Biosafety Laboratory (“WNBL”), along with WIV Headquarters, are
two of the WIV’s campuses. WNBL’s BSL-4 space did not become operational until
early 2018.
100. The WIV was a key collaborator of Defendant
EcoHealth and received approximately$600,000 in subawards from them.18 The two
entities sought to collaborate on the Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency’s (“DARPA”) “Project DEFUSE” to “search for SARS-related coronaviruses
with potential to bind to human ACE2 receptors and that have
naturally-occurring furin cleavage sites in Yunnan Province, China.”
1. Background and Purpose of WIV BSL-4
Labs
101. BSL-4 labs are used for research with
dangerous agents and substances. The WIV BSL-4 lab at interest in this matter
was developed by the People’s Republic of China (“PRC”) in partnership with
France following the 2003 SARS pandemic. Almost immediately after the project
was undertaken, French officials expressed discomfort because it was suspected
that the PRC had an ongoing biological warfare program, and the BSL-4 lab might
be used for the purpose of developing biological weapons. To mitigate this concern,
the parties agreed that all PRC/French research projects would be conducted
under the supervision of French researchers on site at the lab, but this did
not resolve the concerns.
2. Shi Zheng-Li’s Research and
Collaboration with EcoHealth, Daszak, Baric, and DARPA
102. The WIV is headed by Dr. Shi Zheng-Li, who
is known as China’s “Bat Woman” because she has spent a significant portion of
her career collecting and studying bat viruses,
18 Eban, Katherine. “‘This Shouldn't Happen’: Inside
the Virus-Hunting Nonprofit at the Center of the Lab-Leak Controversy.” Vanity
Fair, 31 Mar. 2022,
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/03/the-virus-hunting-nonprofit-at-the-center-of-the-lab-leak-controversy
ostensibly
to facilitate the development of effective vaccines.19 Her colleagues include
scientists and physicians who have close ties to both the political and
military leadership of the PRC. An example is Guo Deyin, who has conducted
research on AIDS and hepatitis vaccines, as well as genetic recombination
methods. Dr. Shi’s lab at WIV is/was unencumbered by any GOF restrictions, and
GOF continued at the WIV while the U.S. moratorium existed. Dr. Shi and her
colleagues researched how spike proteins in both natural and chimeric SARS-like
viruses bind to the ACE2 receptors in the cells of humans, bats, and animals.20
103. In a 2010 paper, Shi and her colleagues
reported the results of their research on angiotensin-converting enzyme II
(ACE2) protein, which is a known SARS-CoV receptor. The group looked at ACE2
molecules from seven bat species and tested the interaction of the ACE2
receptor with the human SARS-CoV spike protein. They used HIV-based pseudo type
and live SARS-CoV infection assays. Spike proteins are structures that allow
coronaviruses to bind to the receptor sites on human cells. The researchers
found that the ACE2s of two bat species – Myotis daubentoni and Rhinolophus
sinicus – were susceptible to SARS-CoV and might be candidates as the natural
host of the SARS-CoV progenitor viruses.21
104. Shi was also a member of the research team
that was involved in the controversial GOF research financed by the NIH and
Defendant EcoHealth and conducted in partnership with a research team led by
Defendant Baric at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill. In a paper
published in 2015 in Nature Medicine, the group characterized a chimeric virus
19 Qiu, Jane. “How China's 'Bat Woman' Hunted down
Viruses from SARS to the New Coronavirus.” Scientific American, Scientific
American, 1 June 2020,
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-chinas-bat-woman-hunted-down-viruses-from-sars-to-the-new-coronavirus1/
20 See, e.g., Ren W, Qu X, Wendong L et al.
“Difference in Receptor Usage between Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS)
Coronavirus and SARS-Like Coronavirus of Bat Origin.” J Virol 2008
Feb;82(4):1899-1907. 21 Hou Y, Peng C, Yu M et al. “Angiotensin-converting
enzyme 2 (ACE2) proteins of different bat species confer variable
susceptibility to SATS-CoV entry.” Arch Virol 2010 Oct;155(10):1563-1569.
with
the spike protein SHC014 that was able to use multiple genes of the SARS
receptor human angiotensin-converting enzyme II (ACE2) and “replicate
efficiently in primary human airway cells and achieve in vitro titers
equivalent to epidemic strains of SARS-Cov.”
105. In other words, this virus could infect
humans and quickly replicate. The article specifically stated, “... we
synthetically re-derived an infectious full-length SHC014 recombinant virus and
demonstrate robust viral replication both in vitro and in vivo.22
106. The team also reported replication of the
chimeric virus in the lungs of mice. Most important, therapies typically used
to treat SARS patients were found to be ineffective for treating the chimeric
virus and vaccines did not prevent “infection with CoVs using the novel spike
protein.”23
107. Shi further conducted research on a virus
called “WIV1” with clones of spike proteins and then tested the creation in
humanized mice. The viruses quickly replicated, and the mice showed signs of
severe pathogenesis. A peer-reviewed article reporting the results of this
research listed Defendant Peter Daszak as a co-author.24 This work was
especially risky as WIV1 was already known to be potentially dangerous to
humans. Defendant Baric had made this clear in an article titled “SARS-Like
WIV1-CoV Poised for Human Emergence.”25
22 Menachery VD, Yount BL, Debbink K et al. “A
SARS-like cluster of circulating bat coronaviruses shows potential for human
emergence.” Nat Med 2015 Nov; 21:1508-1513.
23 Id.
24 Zeng LP, Gao YT, Ge XY et al. “Bat Severe Acute
Respiratory Syndrome-Like Coronavirus WIV1 Encodes an Extra Accessory Protein,
ORFX, Involved in Modulation of the Host Immune Response.” J Virol 2016
Jun;90(14):6573-6582.
25 Menachery VD, Yount BL, Sims AC et al. “SARS-like
W1V10CoV poised for human emergence.” PNAS 2016 Mar;113(11):3048-3053.
108. Researchers at the WIV, in partnership and
collaboration with U.S. scientists including Defendants EcoHealth, Daszak,
Baric, and others, were conducting dangerous research on bat viruses, and
admitted they were successful on at least one occasion in developing a virus
that could infect humans and was resistant to treatment and/or prevention with
vaccination.
109. In an e-mail to NIAID, Defendant Daszak
listed several “Senior/Key Personnel” involved in his projects, including
Defendant Baric and Dr. Shi Zhengli, along with several other scientists at
WIV.26
110. According to the October 2022 Senate
Interim Report:
WIV researchers and their collaborators undertook
large scale virus collection expeditions to Southern China and Southeast Asia,
where bats naturally harbor SARS-related viruses, on an annual basis from 2004
onwards. During these expeditions, scientists collected bat blood, saliva, and
urine samples. The WIV collected more than 15,000 bat-related samples around
the time the pandemic began. Of these, the WIV had identified more than 220
SARS-related coronaviruses, at least 100 of which have not been made public.
***
By
2018, the WIV showed interest in finding SARS-related coronaviruses that used
human ACE2 receptors to enter cells in order to determine whether SARS
antibodies would effectively neutralize those viruses. This research effort is
described in a March 2018 grant proposal submitted to the Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency (DARPA) by a consortium of research entities,
including the WIV, led by the U.S.-based non-governmental organization
EcoHealth Alliance. The group proposed to collect and conduct genetic
recombination experiments on SARS-related coronaviruses possessing specific
traits making them “high-risk” for zoonotic spillover into animals and humans.
26 See https://theintercept.com/2021/11/03/coronavirus-research-ecohealth-nih-emails/
3. Extensive Safety Concerns at WIV Were
Well-Known in China and U.S.
111. It is well-documented that WIV has a
history of biosafety failures and problems. In 2004, the WHO voiced concerns
about laboratory security, particularly Chinese labs. According to the WHO, a
SARS outbreak in 2003 during research using both live and inactivated samples
of SARS-CoV infected nine people, one of whom died. This was the third outbreak
of SARS that had been traced to a lab, and the WHO indicated that a better
containment policy might be necessary, as well as a reduction in the number of
labs that handled SARS viruses.27, 28
112. Approximately two (2) years before the
release of SARS-CoV-2, U.S. Embassy officials visited the Wuhan Lab, and
reported that safety in the lab was inadequate. One U.S. Embassy official
specifically warned about the lab’s experiments on bat viruses and the
potential for human transmission and the risk of a SARS pandemic, and this
information was known, or should have been known, to Defendants’ prior to
subcontracting their Gain of Function research to the Wuhan Lab and Dr.
Zheng-Li.29
113. A former employee at Defendant EcoHealth –
Dr. Andrew Huff – informed Defendant Peter Daszak and other members of the
EcoHealth executive team of “biosafety and biosecurity risks in contract
laboratories.” According to Huff, “Daszak refused to mitigate the risks without
any objection or discussion from the other executives. In my opinion,
27 Parry J. “Breaches of safety regulations are
probable cause of recent SARS outbreak, WHO says.” BMJ 2004 May;328(7450):1222.
28 The Origins of the COVID-19 Global Pandemic,
Including the Roles of the Chinese Communist Party and the World Health
Organization. House Foreign Affairs Committee Minority Staff Interim Report.
https://gop-foreignaffairs.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Interim-Minority-Report-on-the-Origins-of-the-COVID-19-Global-Pandemic-Including-the-Roles-of-the-CCP-and-WHO-8.17.20.pdf
(accessed 12.16.2022).
29 https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/kleelerner/files/20200414_wapo_-_state_department_cables_warned_of_safety_issues_at_wuhan_lab_studying_bat_coronaviruses_-_the_washington_post.pdf
Daszak
was dismissive of my concerns.” See Exhibit “3” to Compl., Andrew Huff
Declaration dated September 14, 2022 at pg. 4 -5.
114. The U.S. Senate October 2022 Minority
Interim Report “An Analysis of the Origins of the Covid-10 Pandemic” points out
recent activity at the WIV suggesting evidence of biosafety failures:
See Exhibit “13” to Compl.: The U.S. Senate Minority
Interim Report “An Analysis of the Origins of the Covid-10 Pandemic,” Senate
Committee on Health Education, Labor and Pensions Minority Oversight Staff,
October 2022 at pg.17 - 19.
115. Sir Jeremy Farrar, head of the Welcome
Trust, privately condemned the “Wild West” research being done at WIV.30 A
tweet by Alina Chan, Scientific Advisor at the Broad Institute of MIT and
Harvard, and co-author of VIRAL: the search for the origin of Covid-19, stated
“[i]t’s clear from the emails that the leaders of funding agencies that had
funded
30
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11465573/Top-British-scientist-privately-condemned-Wild-West-research-carried-Wuhan.html
(accessed 12.1.2022).
the
Wuhan Institute of Virology were concerned that risky SARS-like virus work had
been performed at low biosafety levels in Wuhan. Farrar described it as the
‘Wild West’. [sic]”31
3. Other U.S. Collaborators
116. James LeDuc, Director of the Galveston
National Laboratory (“GNL”) at the University of Texas, frequently collaborated
with Defendants and co-conspirators at the WIV and elsewhere on risky GOF
research. See Exhibit “8” to Compl.: Galveston emails\invitation November 2,
2017.
31
https://twitter.com/Ayjchan/status/1595401489337417728 (accessed 12.1.2022)
117. A November 2, 2017, e-mail shows that the
U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and GNL hosted a “meeting of U.S. and
Chinese experts working to counter infectious disease and improve global
health.”
118. Defendant Baric received the invitation to
meeting the above-mentioned meeting and attended.
E. The United States Funded GOF and other
Risky Research with Grants to EcoHealth
119. Beginning in 2008, EcoHealth received
funding from two U.S. government sources related to GOF research.
120. First, the U.S. Agency for International
Development (USAID) funded a five-year program called PREDICT.
121. In addition, the NIH and NIAID funded
research related to “Understanding the Risk of Bat Coronavirus Emergence.”
Exhibit “14” at 17 -18.
122. Between 2002 and 2021, EcoHealth received
approximately $16,874,314 in grant money from NIH/NIAID to research GOF. Id.
Some of the grants awarded are listed herein:
• number 5R01AI079231-05, Risk of Viral
Emergence from Bats ($518,980).32 2008 NIH/NIAID Project number
1R01AI079231-01, Risk of Viral Emergence from Bats ($534,989). Id.
• 2009 NIH/NIAID Project number
5R01AI079231-02, Risk of Viral Emergence from Bats ($535,156). Id.
• 2010 NIH/NIAID Project number
5R01AI079231-03, Risk of Viral Emergence from Bats ($480,423). Id.
32 Id. (citing source).
• 2011 NIH/NIAID Project number
5R01AI0179231-04, Risk of Viral Emergence from Bats ($510,005). Id.
• 2012 NIH/NIAID Project. Id.
123. According to a press release dated November
21, 2014, Defendant EcoHealth announced their participation in the second phase
of the PREDICT project which would develop initiatives to help prepare the
world for emerging infectious diseases like pandemic influenza, SARS, and
Ebola. See Exhibit “3” to Compl., at 6.
124. Defendant EcoHealth, in the same
announcement, confirmed it was partnering in this project with the University
of California-Davis, Metabiota, Smithsonian Institution, Wildlife Conservation
Society, Columbia University, Boston Children’s Hospital, International Society
for Infectious Disease, and University of California – San Francisco.33
125. EcoHealth and its co-conspirators’ GOF
research led to the creation and release of the ultra-hazardous SARS-CoV-2
virus, causing a worldwide pandemic, as alleged herein, which was the direct
and proximate cause of Plaintiffs’ injuries.
F. EcoHealth and Co-Defendants Conspired
with WIV Researchers to Continue GOF and Other Risky Coronavirus Research
Before the COVID-19 Pandemic Began
126. During the relevant time, Defendants
EcoHealth, Peter Daszak, and Baric regularly conspired with WIV to conduct
risky research on viruses, including coronaviruses. Defendant EcoHealth
provided funding to the WIV to conduct dangerous GOF research prior to the
COVID-19 pandemic. While the NIH informed Defendant EcoHealth that the
33 USAID Announces Second Phase of Predict Project
with Global Partners. Nov. 24, 2014.
https://www.ecohealthalliance.org/2014/11/usaid-announces-second-phase-of-predict-project-with-global-partners
NIH
was “pursuing suspension of Wuhan Institute of Virology from participation in
federal programs[,]” the damage had been done.
127. Scientists at WIV and their collaborators,
including Defendants EcoHealth, Peter Daszak, and Baric, had conducted the
risky research in unsafe environments, which led to the COVID-19 pandemic.
128. The House Committee investigating the
origins of COVID-19 described Defendant Peter Daszak as the “CEO of EcoHealth
Alliance as a longtime collaborator of [WIV bat virus researcher Dr.] Shi
[Zheng-Li] and others at the WIV. The Committee described Defendant Baric as a
“[r]esearcher at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill who has
collaborated with Shi and other WIV researchers on coronavirus research.”
129. The House Committee described Dr. Shi
Zheng-Li of WIV as a “Senior scientist” that “[s]erves as Director, Research
Center for Emerging Infectious Diseases; Director, Chinese Academy of Sciences
Key Laboratory of Special Pathogens; Director, Biosafety Working Committee; and
Deputy Director of the Wuhan National Biosafety Laboratory’s Biosafety-Level 4
lab.”34
130. Defendants Peter Daszak and Baric regularly
collaborated with “Bat Woman” Shi Zhengli on research related to SARS-like
coronaviruses between 2004 and 2017.
131. At all times relevant hereto, and in
furtherance of its conspiracy, Defendant EcoHealth funneled to the WIV
sub-grants and other U.S. taxpayer funds awarded to it by NIH.
132. The above-described sub- grants were used
for GOF research enabled by Defendant EcoHealth after receiving an NIH
“exemption” from a 2014 moratorium restriction placed on GOF funding and
research.
34 Id.
133. Defendant EcoHealth provided direct funding
and resources to perform GOF research to WIV researcher Dr. Zheng-Li,
consequently violating the terms of the grant funding for which the exemption
to the GOF Moratorium was obtained, specifically, prohibiting outsourcing of
GOF research by EcoHealth to the Wuhan Lab and Dr. Zheng-Li.
134. In 2010, the WIV bat virus researcher Dr.
Shi Zheng-Li, in partnership with Defendant Peter Daszak and EcoHealth,
conducted research on a virus called “WIV1” with clones of spike proteins and
then tested the creation in humanized mice.
135. Upon exposure to the virus, the mice showed
signs of severe pathogenesis. All of the Defendants knew or should have known
that WIV1 was potentially dangerous to humans.35
136. In its 2014 NIH Notice of Award grant to
EcoHealth, Dr. Zheng-Li and the Wuhan Lab were listed by Peter Daszak as one of
the collaborating institutions that were specifically allocated funds for
“subcontract/consortium activity with the Wuhan Institute of Virology” and were
engaged in GOF research.36
137. In the 2014 NIH Notice in the
“accomplishments” section of the Award, Defendant Peter Daszak reported that
EcoHealth had collected 121 bat fecal samples in Laos to test for viruses by
Dr. Zheng-Li.
138. The viruses collected from the
aforementioned bat fecal samples were genetically manipulated by Defendant
EcoHealth and their co-conspirators through GOF mechanisms, creating a
lab-made, SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes Covid-19. SARS-CoV-2 is transmitted
35 Menachery, V. D., Yount Jr, B. L., Sims, A. C.,
Debbink, K., Agnihothram, S. S., Gralinski, L. E., ... & Baric, R.S.
(2016). SARS-like WIV1-CoV poised for human emergence. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences, 113(11), 3048-3053.
36 Notice of Award. Grant Number 1R01AI110964-01
https://www.nih.gov/sites/default/files/institutes/foia/20211214-foia-log-2021.pdf
from
person to person predominantly through droplets and/or aerosols and has
directly and proximately caused Plaintiffs’ injuries.37
139. Dr. Zheng-Li at the Wuhan Lab, working in
partnership with Defendants EcoHealth, Peter Daszak, and Ralph Baric, was
successful on at least one occasion in developing a dangerous, genetically
modified coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 that could jump species, and could infect
humans, and seemed to be resistant to treatment and prevention with vaccines.38
G. Moratorium on GOF Research
1. Background
140. In announcing the GOF Moratorium in 2014,
the government stated:
141. Gain-of-function studies, or research that
improves the ability of a pathogen to cause disease, help define the
fundamental nature of human-pathogen interactions, thereby enabling assessment
of the pandemic potential of emerging infectious agents, informing public
health and preparedness efforts, and furthering medical countermeasure
development. Gain-of-function studies may entail biosafety and biosecurity
risks; therefore, the risks and benefits of gain-of function research must be
evaluated, both in the context of recent U.S. biosafety incidents and to keep
pace with new technological developments, in order to determine which types of
studies should go forward and under what conditions:
“In
light of recent concerns regarding biosafety and biosecurity, effective
immediately, the U.S. Government (USG) will pause new USG funding for
gain-of-function research on influenza, MERS or SARS viruses, as
38 Menachery, V. D., Yount, B. L., Debbink, K.,
Agnihothram, S., Gralinski, L. E., Plante, J. A., ... & Baric, R. S.
(2015). A SARS-like cluster of circulating bat coronaviruses show potential for
human emergence. Nature medicine, 21(12), 1508-1513
defined
below. This research funding pause will be effective until a robust and broad
deliberative process is completed that results in the adoption of a new USG
gain-of-function research policy 1. Restrictions on new funding will apply as
follows:
‘New USG funding will not be released for
gain-of-function research projects that 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. The research funding pause would not apply to characterization or
testing of naturally occurring influenza, MERS, and SARS viruses, unless the
tests are reasonably anticipated to increase transmissibility and/or
pathogenicity.’
In
parallel, we will encourage the currently funded USG and non-USG funded
research community to join in adopting a voluntary pause on research that meets
the stated definition.” Exhibit “14” to Compl. at 9 -10. fn. 4.
142. Elsewhere, the government explained:
Why is the U.S. government1 [sic] pausing the
funding of certain types of gain-of-function studies at this time?
The occurrence this year of laboratory biosafety
incidents at U.S. government research facilities have caused the federal
government to re-assess the risk/benefit calculus underpinning funding
decisions for a certain subset of gain-of-function research involving agents
that pose a significant risk to public and animal health. The pause will allow
the U.S. government, in partnership with the life sciences community, to
conduct a comprehensive assessment of gain-of-function research with the
explicit goal of developing a new policy framework to guide future funding
decisions.39
143. It should have been clear to Defendants –
that GOF research is extremely risky, and abnormally dangerous and posing a
significant risk to Plaintiffs.
39 See
https://www.phe.gov/s3/dualuse/Documents/GOF-qanda.pdf (accessed 12.19.22)
144. Defendant Baric, who was at the time
conducting GOF research in partnership with Dr. Shi Zhengli of WIV, petitioned
the NIH biosecurity board for an exemption from the pause on GOF research. It
was subsequently granted.
145. At all relevant times, Defendants knew or
should have known that GOF research is extremely risky and abnormally
dangerous.
146. Defendants and their co-conspirators were
aware that in October 2014, the NIH stated that the moratorium on GOF research
“will be effective until a robust and broad deliberative process is completed
that results in the adoption of a new US Government gain-of-function research
policy” and understood that NIH “suspend[ed] funding for GOF studies involving
influenza, MERS-CoV, and SARS-CoV.”40
147. On February 23, 2016, the New York Academy
of Medicine hosted an event entitled, “Where Will The Next Pandemic Come
From?”41 Defendant Peter Daszak was a member of the panel at this event.
148. At the above-mentioned event Defendant
Daszak presciently explained exactly how the Covid-19 pandemic would come about
less than four years later: “We found other coronaviruses in bats, a whole host
of them; some of them looked very similar to SARS. So we sequenced the spike
protein, the protein that attaches to cells; then we – I didn’t do this work,
my colleagues in China did this work – you create pseudo-particles, you insert
the spike proteins from those viruses, see if they bind to human cells, each
step of this you move closer and closer to this virus [ …] could really become
pathogenic in people.”42
40 Burki, Talha: Ban on gain-of-function studies
ends, The Lancet, Infectious Diseases (Vol. 18, Issue 2, P. 148-49, Feb. 1,
2018).
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(18)30006-9/fulltext
(accessed 12.19.22).
41
https://www.nyam.org/events/event/where-will-next-pandemic-come/ (accessed
12.19.2022)
42 Daszak C-SPAN video (See
https://twitter.com/i/status/1463673517501816840) (accessed 12/19/2022).
149. Defendant Daszak’s statement (admitting
“we” did this work) demonstrates his and co-Defendant EcoHealth’s culpability
in working to develop and unleash the ultrahazardous SARS-CoV-2 that caused
Plaintiffs’ injuries.
150. Nonetheless, Defendant EcoHealth,
collaborating with co-conspirators, facilitated and was responsible for the GOF
research that resulted in the creation of SARS-CoV-2 at the WIV.
151. Defendant EcoHealth had knowledge of the
potential risks involved in such research but proceeded anyways.
152. Defendants EcoHealth, Peter Daszak, and
Baric and other name and unnamed defendants collaborated with Shi and others at
WIV to collect, identify, genetically modify, and test the novel coronaviruses
against the human immune systems.
2. Moratorium on GOF Research Ends in 2017
153. In December of 2017, federal policy changed
to permit federal funding of GOF research following the GOF Moratorium. The
original GOF framework established in 2017 required that any federal funding
sought for GOF research be subject to enhanced oversight given the “biosafety
and biosecurity risks associated with undertaking such research.”43 Pursuant to
the guidelines, a “Potential Pandemic Pathogen” [“PPP”] is “likely highly
transmissible and likely capable of wide and uncontrollable spread in human populations”
and “likely highly virulent and likely to cause significant morbidity and/or
mortality in humans.”44
154. Moreover, “[a]n enhanced PPP is defined as
a PPP resulting from the enhancement of the transmissibility and/or virulence
of a pathogen.
43 https://www.phe.gov/s3/dualuse/Documents/p3co.pdf
44 Id.
155. Enhanced PPPs do not include naturally
occurring pathogens that are circulating in or have been recovered from nature,
regardless of their pandemic potential.”45
156. Given the risks associated with enhanced
PPP, the guidelines require that proposed GOF research that may be funded by a
federal agency be subjected to additional review by the Department of Health
and Human Services.46
157. SARS-CoV-2 is an enhanced PPP because it is
an alleged, lab creation with enhanced transmissibility and virulence.
H. EcoHealth/DARPA DEFUSE Project
158. After the moratorium on GOF research was
lifted in 2017, on January 19, 2018, DARPA issued a “Broad Agency Announcement”
publishing a funding opportunity entitled “Preventing Emerging Pathogenic
Threats” (PREEMPT).47
DARPA
is soliciting innovative proposals for research to develop new tools and models
to quantify the likelihood of a virus to jump from an animal host into humans,
and to develop and validate new scalable technologies to target potential
human-capable viral pathogens in wild reservoirs and/or mosquito vectors to
prevent transmission to humans.48
DARPA
made the following statement regarding GOF research:
45 Id.
46 Id.
47
https://drasticresearch.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/prempt-background-hr001118s0017.pdf
48 Id. at 4.
159. Defendants EcoHealth and Peter Daszak
subsequently applied for a $14,209,245 grant from the DARPA PREEMPT Committee
in late March 2018.49
160. Defendants EcoHealth and Daszak, in
conjunction with Defendant Baric, and other co-conspirators, sought to use this
money for “Project Defuse: Defusing the Threat of Bat-Borne Coronaviruses.”50
161. Defendants proposed to make infectious
clones with chimeric spike genes and SARS coronaviruses with Furin cleavage
sites at WIV.
162. On the title page of the Project Defuse
Proposal, the “LEAD ORGANIZATION” was listed as “EcoHealth Alliance (Other
Nonprofit)” while “OTHER TEAM MEMBERS” included Duke NUS Medical School (Other
Educational), University of North Carolina (Other
50 Id.
Educational),
Wuhan Institute of Virology (Other Educational), USGS National Wildlife Health
Center (Other Nonprofit), and Palo Alto Research Center (Large Business).”
163. The “Project Defuse” proposal explains in
detail how Defendants ultimately caused the COVID-19 pandemic. “In TA1
[Technical Area 1] we will intensively sample bats at our field sites where we
have identified high spillover risk SARSr-CoVs. We will sequence their spike
proteins, reverse engineer them to conduct binding assays, and insert them into
bat SARSr-CoV (WIV1, SHC014) backbones… to infect humanized mice and assess
capacity to cause SARS-like disease.”51
164. Defendants would then evaluate two
approaches to reduce SARSr-CoV shedding in cave bats via “Broadscale immune
boosting” and “Targeted immune boosting” where they would “inoculate bats with
novel chimeric polyvalent recombinant spike proteins plus the immune modulator
to enhance innate immunity against specific, high-risk viruses.”52
165. The “Executive Summary” for Project Defuse
was encapsulated in the following chart:
51 https://drasticresearch.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/main-document-preempt-volume-1-no-ess-hr00118s0017-ecohealth-alliance.pdf at 3.
52 Id.
166. Defendant EcoHealth was the “lead
organization” behind the Project Defuse proposal, and would “oversee all
work[,]” with “subcontract[ing] to the following organizations:
• [Defendant] Prof. [Ralph] Baric,
Univ. N. Carolina, will lead targeted immune boosting work, building on his
two-decade track record of reverse-engineering CoV and other virus spike
proteins.
• Prof. [Linfa] Wang, Duke-Natl. Univ.
Singapore, will lead work on broadscale immune boosting, building on his
group’s pioneering work on bat immunity.
• Dr. Shi [Zhengli], Wuhan Institute of
Virology will conduct viral testing on all collected samples, binding assays
and some humanized mouse work.
• Dr. [Tonie] Rocke, USGS National
Wildlife Health Center will optimize delivery of immune modulating biologicals,
building on her vaccine delivery work in wildlife, including bats.
• Dr. [Jerome] Unidad, Palo Alto
Research Center will lead development of novel delivery automated
aerosolization mechanism for immune boosting molecules.53
The
“Program Administration” as supplied by Defendants in their proposal was as
follows:
167. Regarding some of the names in the chart,
above, Defendants noted that “Dr. Karesh has 40+ years’ experience leading
zoonotic and wildlife disease projects… Dr. Epstein, with 20 years’ experience
working emerging bat zoonoses will coordinate animal trials across partners.
Drs. Olival and Ross will manage modeling approaches for this project.” In
addition, Defendants acknowledged that Defendant EcoHealth “has worked
extensively with other collaborators: Prof. Wang (15+ yrs); Dr. Shi [Zhengli]
(15+ yrs; [Defendant] Prof. Baric (5+ yrs) and Dr. Rocke (15+ yrs).”54
168. Defendants claimed in their Project Defuse
proposal that viruses identified in China had produced SARS-like disease in
humanized mice, which do not respond to antibody treatment or vaccination, and
argued “[t]hese viruses are a clear and present danger to our military and to
global health security because of their circulation and evolution in bats and
periodic spillover into humans."55 Defendant EcoHealth further touted that
it “leads the
54 Id., Defuse Proposal at 22. See also
“Biographies” at page 24 of the Proposal.
55 Id. Defuse Proposal at 2 (emphasis in original).
world
in predictive models of viral emergence[]” and would use their expertise to
minimize hazards.56
169. Defendants explained their strategy in
detail, including “using data from >10,000 previously collected bat samples
from 6 Asian countries under our USAID-funded PREDICT project.”57 Continuing:
“[t]he Univ. N. Carolina (UNC) team will reverse-engineer spike proteins of a
large sample of high- and low-risk viruses for further characterization…
[t]hese QS0 strain viral spike glycoproteins will be synthesized, and those
binding to human cell receptor ACE2 will be inserted into SARSr-CoV backbones
(non-DURC, non-GOF), and inoculated into humanized mice to assess capacity to
cause SARS-like disease… or vaccines against SARS-CoV.”58 Continuing,
Defendants stated: “[w]e will test these previously collected human sera
(n>2000) for presence of antibodies to the high- and low-risk SARSr-CoVs
identified by our modeling, using Luciferase immunoprecipitation system (LIPS)
assays we design against the SARSr-CoVs identified in this project.”59
170. In explaining “Technical Area 2,”
Defendants highlight their plans to use CRISPR technology at Duke-NUS and their
plans to develop recombinant chimeric spike proteins at UNC.60
171. The chimeric spike proteins would contain a
Furin cleavage site.
56 Id.
57 Id. at PDF Pg. 5.
58 Id. at PDF Pg. 5 (grant proposal at 3).
59 Id. (internal citation omitted).
60 Id. at PDF Pg. 6
172. Defendants – recognizing the extreme risks
of their proposed project, highlighted the fact that their “team has more than
50 years collective experience in safe and humane handling of bats for
biological sampling.”61
173. Defendants and their co-conspirators
proposed to make new, chimeric coronaviruses at WIV, by swapping spike proteins
with infectious clones from related viruses, inserting Furin cleavage sites:
“we will introduce appropriate human specific cleavage sites and evaluate
growth potential in Vero cells and HAE [Human Airway Epithelial] cultures.”62
The Furin cleavage site allows a virus to bind more efficiently, and to release
genetic material into human cells, allowing for easier viral transmission
between humans. The researchers would then test the altered viruses in human
respiratory cells and humanized mice at WIV. (“In vivo, we will evaluate
pathogenesis in transgenic hACE2 mice.”).63 In the words of one researcher:
“Find, engineer, and evolve human-infectious viruses capable of causing a
pandemic…”64
174. In the “Capabilities” section of its Defuse
proposal, Defendants describe a few of their partner labs, including:
• “University of North Carolina Medical
School (UNC). The Baric Laboratory in University of North Carolina at Chapel
Hill comprise biosafety level two facilities equipped to perform basic
virology, immunology, and molecular biology as well as university space for
breeding mice for the proposed studies. The Baric BSL-3
61 Id. at PDF Pg. 10.
62 Id. at PDF Pg. 13. See also Exhibit “13” – Senate
Minority Interim Report October 2022 at 15 (“[I]f WIV researchers were unable
to find a SARS-related virus with these traits … they then proposed to
manipulate the ACE2 receptors of SARS-related coronaviruses to increase binding
affinity to human lung tissue and to insert furin cleavage sites at the same
location where one appears in SARS-CoV-2.”). Notably, DARPA did not ultimately
fund this proposal. Id.
63 Id. at PDF Pg. 13 (proposal Pg. 11).
64
https://alexwasburne.substack.com/p/the-totality-of-the-circumstances (last
accessed 11.21.22).
laboratories
are approved and have the required equipment to perform all of the chimeric
virus recovery and characterization and ventilated rodent caging to examine the
bat coronaviruses within this proposal.”
• “Wuhan Institute of Virology:
includes BSL3, BSL-3, and BSL-4 laboratories, animal feeding rooms and other
supporting facilities. The Biosafety Laboratory will carry out CoV research,
sample testing, sequencing, binding assays, in vitro and in vivo work.”65
175. In Section II, Part J of their Defuse
proposal, Defendants laid out their “PREEMPT RISK MITIGATION PLAN” where they
listed “Risks: Personnel safety, biosafety, mitigation of risks to public
health and animal safety.”66 Defendants further stated:
176. Notably, Defendants planned to conduct
experimental work using bats and transgenic mice in less than BSL-4 labs, while
acknowledging that “[e]ach partner institute would be responsible for ensuring
the training and safety of its laboratory personnel[.]”67
65 Id., Proposal at 25.
66
https://drasticresearch.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/main-document-preempt-volume-1-no-ess-hr00118s0017-ecohealth-alliance.pdf
at Pg. 35 of PDF, Pg. 33 of Proposal.
67 Id.
177. The subsection “Risks to general public”
was apparently cut short at the bottom of page 33 of the Defuse proposal. The
text as written states: “The proposed work has minimal risk to the general
public, as sampling will be done near the cave sites and not in populous areas.
Our team has extensive experience…”
178. A “Summary of Proposed Costs” for Project
Defuse details exactly how Defendants and their co-conspirators planned to
carry out their research experiments that ultimately led to the COVID-19
pandemic.68 This document also shows that substantial travel between the United
States and Wuhan was planned.69
179. DARPA ultimately turned down the
Defendants’ “Project Defuse” proposal.70,71.
180. In the “PM Summary Sheet” rejecting
Defendants’ request for funding, PM James Gimlett, Ph.D., Program Manager,
Biological Technologies Office gives the following reasons: [L]ack of detail
regarding data, statistical analyses and model development and how prior work
will be leveraged and extended. Proposal also lacks clear decision points to
assess the deployment and how prior work will be leveraged and extended.
Proposal also lacks clear decision points to assess the deployment and
validation of TA2 preemption methods in the wild. Regulatory ELSI issues are
not discussed. Variability of vaccine dose due to variability in delivery
mechanisms is also not discussed. In addition, there is concern that vaccine
approaches may lack sufficient epitope coverage to effectively protect against
the diverse and evolving quasispecies of the many coronaviruses found in the
bat caves.
Notably,
Dr. Gimlett pointed out that Defendants:
[Did]
not mention or assess potential risks of Gain of Function (GOF) research and
DURC [dual use research of concern]. Given the team’s approach does potentially
involve GOF/DURC research (they aim to synthesize spike glycoproteins that may
bind to human cell receptors and insert them into SARSr-CoV backbones to assess
capacity to cause SARS-like disease), if selected for
69 Id.
70 See Exhibit “14” to Compl., (Answering Crucial
Questions…) at 19-20 (citing sources).
funding
an appropriate DURC risk mitigation plan should be incorporated into
contracting language that includes a responsible communications plan.
181. As such, Defendants were unambiguously put
on notice that their proposed research involved dangerous GOF experiments that
must be addressed if they were to proceed. Nevertheless, Defendants’ Defuse
proposal shows a clear aspiration to create SARS coronaviruses not yet found in
nature.
182. Rutgers University Chemistry and Chemical
Biology Board of Governors Professor Richard Ebright explained, “SARS-CoV-2 …
is the only virus in its entire genus of SARS-related coronaviruses that
contains a fully functional cleavage site at the S1, S2 junction. And here is a
proposal from the beginning of 2018, proposing explicitly to engineer that
sequence at that position in chimeric lab-generated coronaviruses.”72
183. Scientist Alex Washburne notes that
“SARS-CoV-2 has a Furin cleavage site (FCS), and it is the only SARS
coronavirus with one.”73
He
continues:
Prior to SARS-CoV-2, we had discovered as many Furin
cleavage sites in SARS coronaviruses as we had discovered winged primates or
flying penguins: zero. Other mammals have wings (bats) and other birds fly, but
the lineages of interest don’t. Similarly, despite extensive wildlife sampling,
SARS coronaviruses were not known to have Furin cleavage sites. The exact FCS
of SARS-CoV-2 is not found in any other coronavirus and in fact it contains
specific RNA sequences - CGG CGG - that are almost nonexistent in bats but are
optimized for humans. Not only are FCS’s nonexistent in other SARS
coronaviruses, but this specific FCS is particularly anomalous in its
optimization for humans. From an evolutionary standpoint, the FCS is a massive
anomaly in nature, yet it is exactly what was proposed in the DEFUSE grant.
Recall
the language of the DEFUSE grant:
“…
we will introduce appropriate human specific cleavage sites and
72 Sharon Lerner, Maia Hibbet. Leaked Grant Proposal
Details High Risk Coronavirus Research. The Intercept Sept 23, 2021,
https://theintercept.com/2021/09/23/coronavirus-research-grant-darpa/ (accessed
9.10.2022).
73
https://alexwasburne.substack.com/p/the-totality-of-the-circumstances (accessed
12.1.2022) (emphasis added).
evaluate
growth potential in Vero and HAE (Human Airway Epithelial) cell cultures.'
The
evolutionary anomaly of the FCS must be impressed upon the lay reader, so I’ll
repeat it here. The FCS of SARS-CoV-2 is the first FCS of any SARS coronavirus.
It is an uncommonly human-specific cleavage site for what’s otherwise a lineage
of bat coronaviruses. The SARS-CoV-2 FCS has not one but two CGG codons
appropriate for humans and it mimics a particular protein (ENaC) found in
humans.
184. Elsewhere, Washburne observed:
The motives and intentions to create such a virus
did not die with the rejection of DEFUSE. While not funded by DARPA, similar
research proposals were funded by NIAID and others prior to and during the
emergence of SARS-CoV-2, and may easily have provided enough discretionary
funding to support the inexpensive research proposed in DEFUSE. The DEFUSE
grant is the letter proposing the crime: catch wild bat coronaviruses, send
them to Wuhan, assemble infectious clones in vitro with a specific method, swap
Spike genes and add Furin cleavage sites, all to find an extremely
human-infectious coronavirus against which we could produce vaccines.74
I. NIH Funded EcoHealth’s Research Despite
DARPA Grant Proposal Rejection, Leading to the Creation of SARS-CoV-2
185. NIH funded research on SARS viruses,
including but not limited to GOF research such as the 2014 $3.7 million grant
entitled, “Understanding the Risk of Bat Coronavirus Emergence.”75This included
various “sub-awards” to WIV and the Wuhan University School of Public Health.76
74
https://alexwasburne.substack.com/p/the-totality-of-the-circumstances (last
accessed 11.21.22).
75
https://www.usaspending.gov/award/ASST_NON_R01AI110964_7529 (accessed
12.2.2022);
https://reporter.nih.gov/search/xQW6UJmWfUuOV01ntGvLwQ/project-details/9491676
(“Understanding the Risk of Bat Coronavirus Emergence”) (accessed 12.2.2022).
76 Id.
NIH
suspended the grant in July 2020.77
186. As noted by Washburne, supra, the DARPA
rejection did not deter the Defendants’ quest to research bat coronaviruses
using GOF and/or other dangerous research methods. Defendants EcoHealth and
Peter Daszak applied for a grant from the NIH to do exactly that, and NIH
awarded the requested grant to Defendants EcoHealth and Peter Daszak.78 As
scientist Alex Washburne explained in a blog post:79
The
DEFUSE proposal was not accepted as DARPA saw major risks that the proposed
recombinant viruses might gain functions like enhanced infectivity or lethality
in humans. However, the grant reveals the clear desire of this group to conduct
such research and the intention to make a very unusual set of SARS
coronaviruses not found in nature. While their intentions were not funded by
DARPA, the proposed research is relatively
77
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/03/the-virus-hunting-nonprofit-at-the-center-of-the-lab-leak-controversy
(“But the work there had been controversial enough that the NIH suspended the
grant in July 2020.”) (accessed 12.2.2022).
78
https://reporter.nih.gov/search/sizVvtAps0O7_3-grB_8Bw/project-details/9819304
(accessed 12.1.2022).
79
https://alexwasburne.substack.com/p/the-totality-of-the-circumstances (accessed
12.1.2022).
inexpensive
and EcoHealth and the Wuhan Institute of Virology had funding from other
sources that could finance their proposed work. Their alternative sources of
funding include an NIAID biodefense grant proposing extremely similar S-gene
chimeras made with infectious clones.80 In fact, the NIAID grant was cited as a
funding source in the construction of a novel infectious clone at the Wuhan
Institute of Virology, rWIV1.81 The DEFUSE grant proposed to make infectious
clones with chimeric Spike genes, SARS coronaviruses with furin cleavage sites,
all at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
187. As laid out in detail in a June 10, 2021
letter from Congress’s Energy and Commerce Committee to Dr. Francis Collins,
Defendant EcoHealth worked hand-in-glove with WIV using grant money from NIH to
study bat coronaviruses, among other things, in Wuhan.82 Congress criticized
NIH’s oversight of its grants to Defendant EcoHealth and subgrants to WIV,
among other issues. According to a more recent letter to the NIH, the agency
still has not responded to the June 10, 2021 letter.83 Exhibit “25”.
188. In a Senate hearing on November 4, 2021,
Senator Rand Paul asked Dr. Anthony Fauci: “Will you today finally take some
responsibility for funding GOF research in Wuhan?” Fauci responded by asserting
that GOF is a “very nebulous term…” and would not admit that NIH funded GOF
research according to the operative NIH definition.84 Many scientists believe
this is untrue, and at the very least, Defendant EcoHealth was conducting risky
research at WIV using NIH funds, which ultimately led to the SARS-CoV-2 lab
leak.
J. Release of the Ultra-Hazardous
SARS-CoV-2 Virus Into the Environment and Early Investigations Into Its Origin
80 See
https://reporter.nih.gov/search/sizVvtAps0O7_3-grB_8Bw/project-details/9819304
(accessed 12.1.2022).
81 See https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27170748/
(accessed 12.1.2022).
82 See Exhibit “25” June 10, 2021 Letter from
Congress to Dr. Francis Collins
83 See Exhibit “20”, November 30, 2022 Letter from
Energy and Commerce Committee to Dr. Lawrence A. Tabak.
84
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/healthcare/rand-paul-accuses-fauci-of-trying-to-cover-your-ass-over-gain-of-function
(accessed 12.2.2022).
189. As alleged herein, there has been a
coordinated effort to suppress any suggestion that SARS-CoV-2 was created in a
lab and released on the global population.
190. It is unclear when exactly SARS-CoV-2 was
released into the world.
191. The first official announcement from the
government of the People’s Republic of China (“PRC”) concerning SARS-CoV-2 was
issued on December 30, 2019, when the Wuhan Municipal Health Commission
(“WMHC”) reported that “cases of pneumonia of unknown cause” were linked to the
Huanan Seafood Market.
192. The first official announcement would come
to be known as the “natural origin” or “wet market” theory and is Defendant
Peter Daszak and his co-conspirators’ chief alibi.
193. The WMHC stated there was no evidence of
“obvious human to human transmission and no infection among medical personnel.”
See Exhibit “14” to Compl. at 22.
194. Defendant Daszak’s program officer at
NIAID, Erik Stemmy, asked Daszak on January 7, 2020, what his China contacts
were saying about “Wuhan pneumonia cases” and Daszak promised to tell him “off
the record.” 85
195. Dr. Anthony Fauci’s senior adviser, David
Morens, asked Defendant Daszak on January 9, 2020 for “any inside info” on the
new virus. Daszak responded that he had been “talking to reporters today” and
would share with Morens as well.86
196. Before China or the WHO made an official
statement on the nature of SARS-CoV-2, Defendant Baric in a January 13, 2020
email to Defendant Peter Daszak referred to the coronavirus as “our highly
variable SARS-like COV!” See Exhibit “4” to Compl.: January 13, 2020 email
exchange between Baric and Daszak; Source Goa Chronicle: re: “Looks
85
https://justthenews.com/government/federal-agencies/major-funder-wuhan-lab-told-faucis-agency-covid-would-end-20000-cases
(accessed 11.30.22).
86 Id.
like
we found our Highly Variable SARS-like COV: Ralph Baric to Peter Daszak” by
Savio Rodrigues 87.
197. In mid-January 2020, virologist Robert
Redfield – then director of the CDC – voiced concern to Dr. Anthony Fauci,
Welcome Trust Director Jeremy Farrar, and WHO Director-General Tedros
Ghebreyesus that a lab accident occurred at WIV.88 “Farrar noticed email
chatter among credible scientists ‘suggesting the virus looked engineered to
infect human cells’ in the last week of January, according to his memoir
Spike.89 Farrar obtained a “burner phone” and suggested they avoid discussing
SARS-CoV-2 in e-mails.90
198. In a January 27, 2020 e-mail among
NIH/NIAID members, Dr. Fauci is informed that NIH had been funding work on
coronaviruses at WIV through EcoHealth Alliance:91
88
https://usrtk.org/covid-19-origins/timeline-the-proximal-origin-of-sars-cov-2/#fauci-alerted
89 Id.
90 Id.
91 Id.
199. This e-mail makes clear that Defendants
EcoHealth, Peter Daszak, and Ralph Baric were collaborating with WIV, via
funding from NIAID, and “[f]ound SARS-related CoVs that can bind to human
cells… and that cause SARS-like disease in humanized mouse models.”92
200. On January 29, 2020, Scripps Research
virologist Kristian Andersen “became alarmed that a bat coronavirus may have
been engineered to infect humans, pointing to the receptor binding domain and
furin cleavage site.”93 He further noted a GOF study that showed how
92 Id.
93 Id. (citing Farrar memoir, Spiked).
to
build the Wuhan coronavirus in a lab, according to Farrar.94 “Andersen found a
scientific paper where exactly this technique had been used to modify the spike
protein of the original SARS-CoV-1 virus, the one that had caused the SARS
outbreak of 2002/3… [t]he pair knew of a laboratory where researchers had been
experimenting on coronaviruses for years: the Wuhan Institute of Virology, in
the city at the heart of the outbreak.”95
201. Upon information and belief, Andersen
informed University of Sydney virologist Edward Holmes about a concerning part
of the SARS-CoV-2 genome: the furin cleavage site between the S1 and S2
junctions, with two restriction sites (BamHI) around it, which appeared to have
reduced variation. In short, the furin cleavage site – a feature of SARS-CoV-2
that makes it unusually infectious – had features characteristic of genetic
engineering.96 “F*ck, this is bad,” Holmes allegedly said.97
202. On January 30, 2020, the WHO designated
SARS-CoV-2 a “Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC).” The
WHO advised at that time that “further international exportation of cases may
appear in any country.”98
203. The next day, January 31, 2020, HHS
Secretary Alex Azar declared a public health emergency for the United States.99
94 Id.
95 Id.
96 Id.
97 Id.
98 https://www.who.int/news/item/30-01-2020-statement-on-the-second-meeting-of-the-international-health-regulations-(2005)-emergency-committee-regarding-the-outbreak-of-novel-coronavirus-(2019-ncov) (accessed 1.2 2023).
99
https://aspr.hhs.gov/legal/PHE/Pages/2019-nCoV.aspx (accessed 1 2 2023).
204. That same day, Dr. Fauci received an email
from Greg Folkers of the National Institutes of Health.100 The email included
no text, but an article published in Science was attached.101
205. This article reported that scientists were
sharing and reviewing a growing number of genetic sequences of the virus
obtained from infected patients. These had been posted in the Global Initiative
on Sharing All Influenza Data database.102
206. The author of the above-mentioned article
reported that there was some doubt as to whether the virus originated in the
wet market, which was the story promoted by U.S. and Chinese authorities at the
time.
207. The same author also reported in the
article that many scientists had been expressing concerns for many years about
experiments conducted at the Wuhan Institute and cited the gain-of-function
research fully described in the above-mentioned article in Nature Medicine in
2015.103
208. The Nature Medicine article referenced
above included a disclosure that the research was funded by the National
Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), the division of the NIH
headed by Fauci, along with the NIH and Defendant EcoHealth.
209. Further on January 31, 2020, Wellcome
Trust’s Jeremy Farrar requested a phone call with Dr. Fauci, in which he asked
Fauci to call Andersen.
210. In the meantime, Fauci forwarded to Farrar
and Andersen an article published in Science Magazine quoting Holmes, Andersen,
and Rutgers Professor Richard Ebright concerning
100
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/20793561/leopold-nih-foia-anthony-fauci-emails.pdf
p3229
(accessed 9.10.2022).
101 Jon Cohen. Mining coronavirus genomes for clues
to the outbreak’s origins. Science Jan 31 2020.
https://www.science.org/content/article/mining-coronavirus-genomes-clues-outbreak-s-origins
102
https://gisaid.org/database-features/flusurver-mutations-app (accessed 1 2
2023).
103 Menachery VD, Yount BL, Debbink K et al. “A
SARS-like cluster of circulating bat coronaviruses shows great potential for
human emergence.” Nature Medicine 2015 Nov;21:1508-1513.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26552008/ (accessed 1.2.2023).
the
origins of SARS-CoV-2. Fauci noted the article was “of interest to the current
discussion.”104
211. At this point, Andersen was fairly
convinced that SARS-CoV-2 was not of natural origin, noting to Fauci that he
and other scientists “all find the genome inconsistent with expectations from
evolutionary theory” and highlighting “[t]he unusual features of the virus…”105
212. Following his call with Andersen, Dr. Fauci
sent the 2015 Nature paper by Defendant Baric and WIV’s Shi Zhengli entitled “A
SARS-like cluster of circulating bat coronaviruses
104
https://usrtk.org/covid-19-origins/timeline-the-proximal-origin-of-sars-cov-2/
105 Id.
shows
potential for human emergence” to a principal deputy director at NIAID, Hugh
Auchinloss, with instructions: “You will have tasks today that must be done.”
Fauci further said “[i]t is essential that we speak this AM. Keep your cell
phone on.”106 The file name attached to the e-mail included the words “SARS
Gain of function.”
213. The Nature Medicine paper supra had shown
that Defendant Baric, Shi, and colleagues had spliced the spike protein of one
coronavirus into a SARS-CoV backbone, but that future experimentation with such
viruses “may be too risky to pursue.”107
214. NIH had funded this study through a grant
to Defendant EcoHealth. The NIH deputy director later responded to Fauci that
the work was reviewed and approved by NIH but had not undergone the “P3
framework[.]”108
215. On February 1, 2020, Farrar set up a
teleconference with Dr. Fauci and others, including Andersen, Bob Garry of
Tulane University, German virologist Christian Drosten, Dutch virologist Ron
Fouchier, Holmes, Dutch Virologist Marion Koopmans, Patrick Vallance – Chief
Scientist UK, German virologist Stefan Pohlmann, Wellcome’s deputy chair and
biochemist Mike Ferguson, and Wellcome’s Paul Schreier. “My preference is to
keep this
[a]
really tight group… obviously ask everyone to keep in total confidence,” wrote
Farrar.109 CDC Director Robert Redfield was excluded from the meeting.110
216. Following the meeting, on information and
belief, Holmes was “80 percent sure” SARS-CoV-2 originated in a lab, while
Andersen was 60 to 70 percent sure. Andersen later told Farrar: “I was battling
with the idea that, having raised the alarm, I might end up being the
106 Id.
107 Id.
108 Id. The “P3 framework” is a reference to
regulations put in place to regulate “pandemic potential pathogens” after a
temporary pause on GOF research related to SARS viruses. Id.
109
https://usrtk.org/covid-19-origins/timeline-the-proximal-origin-of-sars-cov-2/#fauci-alerted
110 Id.
person
who proved this new virus came from a lab… I didn’t necessarily want to be that
person.”111
217. On February 2, 2020, Farrar e-mailed Fauci,
Collins, and others at NIH with a summary of thoughts from others at the
meeting, including concern about the furin cleavage site. “He [Mike Farzan,
discoverer of SARS receptor] is bothered by the furin site and has a hard time
explain [sic] that as an event outside the lab (though, there are possible ways
in nature, but highly unlikely)… Instead of directed engineering, changes in
the RBD and acquisition of the furin site would be highly compatible with the idea
of continued passage of virus in tissue culture… Acquisition of the furin site
would likely destabilize the virus but would make it disseminate to new
tissues.” Farrar concluded that SARS-CoV-2’s origin could have occurred from
passage in tissue culture on human cell lines in a BSL-2 lab for an extended
period; accidentally creating a virus primed for rapid transmission between
humans via gain of furin site (from tissue culture) and adaptation to human
ACE2 receptor via repeated passage.112
218. Dr. Garry of Tulane University said:
“I really can’t think of a plausible natural
scenario where you get from the bat virus or one very similar to it to nCoV
where you insert exactly 4 amino acids 12 nucleotide that all have to be added
at the exact same time to gain this function – that and you don’t change any
other amino acid in S2? I just can’t figure out how this gets accomplished in
nature.” 113
219. University of Edinburgh virologist Andrew
Rambaut agreed: “From a (natural) evolutionary point of view the only thing
here that strikes me as unusual is the furin
111 Id.
112 Id. (citing
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/20793561/leopold-nih-foia-anthony-fauci-emails.pdf#page=3126)
113
https://usrtk.org/covid-19-origins/timeline-the-proximal-origin-of-sars-cov-2/
cleavage
site. It strongly suggests to me that we are missing something important in the
origin of the virus.114 Dr. Fouchier’s position was that debating natural
versus lab-leak origin “would unnecessarily distract top researchers from their
active duties and do unnecessary harm to science in general and science in
China in particular.”115
220. Francis Collins agreed with this sentiment:
“a swift convening of experts… is needed, or the voices of conspiracy will
quickly dominate, doing great potential harm to science and international
harmony.”116
221. In an e-mail to Fauci and Collins, Farrar
wrote: “Tedros and Bernhard have apparently gone into conclave… they need to
decide today in my view. If they do prevaricate, I would appreciate a call with
you later tonight or tomorrow to think about how we might take forward
[sic].”117
222. In this email, Farrar expressed concern
about an article published by ZeroHedge which discussed the potential lab
release as the origin of the virus. Id.
223. ZeroHedge was thereafter banned from
Twitter.
224. On February 4, 2020, Farrar sent an early
draft of what would come to be a seminal article concerning the origins of
SARS-CoV-2 – The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2 (“Proximal Origin paper”) –
published on March 17, 2020 in Nature Medicine. In his e-mail regarding the
early draft, Holmes noted they “[d]id not mention other anomalies as this will
make us look like loons” even though the group of scientists did discuss such
“anomalies” (i.e., the furin cleavage site). Similarly, Andersen shared his
concerns about “conspiracy theorists”
114 Id.
115 Id.
116 Id.
117
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/20793561/leopold-nih-foia-anthony-fauci-emails.pdf#page=3126
(accessed 1.2.2023)
and
wrote to Fauci regarding the Proximal Origin paper: “If one of the main
purposes of this document is to counter those fringe theories, I think it’s
very important that we do so strongly and in plain language… ‘consistent with
[natural evolution] is a favorite of mine when talking to scientists, but not
when talking to the public – especially conspiracy theorists[.]”
225. In response to one of the drafts of the
Proximal Origin paper, on February 4, 2020 Francis Collins stated: “Very
thoughtful analysis. I note that Eddie [Holmes] is now arguing against the idea
that this is the product of intentional human engineering. But repeated tissue
culture passage is still an option – though it doesn’t explain the O-linked
glycans.”118 Farrar responded: “Being very careful in the morning wording.
‘Engineered’ probably not. Remains a very real possibility of accidental lab
passage in animals to give glycans. Will forward immediately or if you want to
give Eddie [Holmes] a ring. Eddie would be 60:40 lab side. I remain 50:50…”119
Collins responded: “Yes, I’d be interested in the proposal of accidental lab
passage in animals (which ones?).”120 Fauci responded to Collins’s e-mail later
that day: “?? Serial passage in ACE2-transgenic mice” to which Farrar replied,
“Exactly!”121 Collins then replied: “Surely that wouldn’t be done in a BSL-2
lab?” to which Farrar replied, “Wild West……” referring to the WIV.122
226. On February 11, 2020, Defendant Lipkin made
the following observation about the draft Proximal Origin paper:123
118
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23316400-farrar-fauci-comms at 93
(accessed 11.23.22).
119 Id.
120 Id.
121 Id. at 92.
122 Id.
123 Id. (citing
https://media.vanityfair.com/photos/625450eee8cd707c14c24ee9/master/pass/eban-email.jpg?_ga=2.257946248.283059975.1661889230-1462471727.1645214664)
227. Defendant Lipkin’s admission that there was
“a nightmare of circumstantial evidence” apparently refers to the fact that
risky, abnormally dangerous research on SARS coronaviruses was taking place at
WIV, the precise city of the eventual SARS-CoV-2 outbreak.
228. In or around February 2020, as the debate
about COVID-19’s origins began in earnest, Defendant Peter Daszak coordinated
the drafting and signing of a group letter to The Lancet, a well-known
international medical journal (“Lancet Letter”).124 The authors of the Lancet
Letter argued – without support – that the COVID-19 pandemic occurred
naturally, despite facts suggesting it was actually developed in a lab.125
Defendant Peter Daszak’s motive was obvious: “The Lancet statement, signed by
27 prominent scientists, has been influential in tamping down suspicions by
some scientists that COVID-19 could have ties to China’s Wuhan Institute of
Virology, which has a research affiliation to the EcoHealth Alliance.”126
124 Calisher, et al., “Statement in support of the
scientists, public health professionals, and medical professionals of China
combatting COVID-19,” The Lancet, Vol. 395, Issue 10226, March 7, 2020.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30418-9/fulltext
(last accessed 1 2 2023).
125 Emails show scientists discussed masking their
involvement in key journal letter on COVID origins. US Right to Know Feb 15,
2021,
https://usrtk.org/covid-19-origins/scientists-masked-involvement-in-lancet-letter-on-covid-origin/
accessed 1 2 2023; Also see Exhibit “3” to Compl.: Huff Declaration.
126 Id.
229. The authors of the Lancet Letter – which
include Defendant Daszak – wrote: “[t]he rapid, open, and transparent sharing
of data on this outbreak is now being threatened by rumours and misinformation
around its origins. We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories
suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin.” There is evidence
that Defendant Daszak was in fact the primary author of the Lancet Letter.127
Exhibit “21” Daszak-Baric email February 6, 2022.
230. In addition, five of the signatories of the
Lancet Letter were directly affiliated with Defendant EcoHealth,128 and two
were partners there.129
231. Further proof of Defendant Peter Daszak’s
motive can be gleaned from an e-mail exchange between him and Defendant Baric,
and others, on February 6, 2020, entitled “No need for you to sign the
‘Statement’ Ralph!!” sent with “high importance.” There, Defendant Peter Daszak
wrote:
“I spoke with Linfa [Wang] last night about the
statement we sent round. He thinks, and I agree with him, that you, me and him
should not sign this statement, so it has some distance from us and therefore
doesn’t work in a counterproductive way.
Jim
Hughes, Linda Saif, Hume Field, and I believe Rita Colwell will sign it, then
I’ll send it round some other key people tonight. We’ll then put it out in a
way that doesn’t link it back to our collaboration so we maximize an
independent voice.” See Exhibit “21” Baric – Daszak email exchange, February 6,
2020.
232. In response, Defendant Baric wrote:
“I
also think this is a good decision. Otherwise it looks self-serving and we lose
impact.”
127
https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Maryland-Lancet-emails_Feb_6_draft.pdf
128 Sainath Suryanarayanan. EcoHealth Alliance
orchestrated key scientists’ statement on “natural origin” of SARS-CoV-2. USRTK
Nov 18 2020
https://usrtk.org/covid-19-origins/ecohealth-alliance-orchestrated-key-scientists-statement-on-natural-origin-of-sars-cov-2/
(accessed 1 2 2023).
129 https://www.ecohealthalliance.org/partners
(accessed 1 2 2023).
233. Thus, while Defendant Peter Daszak
organized the Lancet letter, he purposefully omitted Defendant EcoHealth’s
partnership with WIV and Defendant Baric’s name in order to feign
impartiality.130 The letter publicly called upon the WHO to discount the lab leak
theory.131
234. The Lancet letter further included this
statement: “We declare no competing interests.”132 Daszak also told the
Washington Post that he had no conflicts of interest concerning his work with
Shi Zhengli at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.133
235. Defendant Daszak further tried to cover his
tracks when he agreed to be part of a team sent to China by the WHO in February
2021 to investigate the origin of SARS-CoV-2.
236. Not surprisingly, the team reported it was
“extremely unlikely” that the virus has been released from a lab.134
237. Team members were asked to sign a
declaration of interest and according to the report, “[a]ll declared interests
were assessed and found not to interfere with the independence and transparency
of the work.”135
238. Defendant Daszak could not have disclosed
his connection to the WIV and prior GOF research and met the criteria for
“independence and transparency.”
130
https://usrtk.org/covid-19-origins/timeline-the-proximal-origin-of-sars-cov-2/
131 Calisher, et al., “Statement in support of the
scientists, public health professionals, and medical professionals of China
combatting COVID-19,” The Lancet, Vol. 395, Issue 10226, March 7, 2020.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30418-9/fulltext
(accessed 11.21.22).
132 Calisher C, Carroll D, Colwell R et al.
“Statement in support of the scientists, public health professionals, and
medical professionals of China combatting COVID-19.” The Lancet 2020
Mar;395(10226):E42-E43
133 Josh Rogin. Opinion: the coronavirus shows he
risks of scientific collaboration with China. Washington Post Apr 23 2020
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/the-coronavirus-crisis-
shows-the-risks-of-
scientific-collaboration-with-china/2020/04/23/4ccd5850-85a8-11ea-878a-
86477a724bdb_story.html (accessed 1 2
2023)
134 WHO-convened Global Study of the Origins of
SARS-CoV-2: China Part.
https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/who-convened-global-study-of-origins-of-sars-cov-2-china-part
(accessed 1 2 2023)
135 Ibid. at 12.
239. Defendant Daszak also hid his conflicts of
interest concerning his research and his ties to the Wuhan Institute of
Virology from Jeffrey Sachs, chair of the Lancet COVID-19 Commission.
240. Defendant Daszak had been asked by Sachs to
head a Task Force to look into the origins of COVID-19. According to Sachs, “It
is clear that the NIH co-funded research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology
that deserves scrutiny under the hypothesis of a laboratory-related release of
the virus.”136 Sachs ended the task force’s work after more information became
public that questioned the veracity of statements made by Daszak.137
241. On February 17, 2020, a preprint of the
Proximal Origin paper was published.138
242. On March 6, 2020, Andersen thanks Fauci,
Collins, and Farrar for their “advice and leadership” on the Proximal Origin
paper, which had just been accepted for publication in Nature Medicine. Fauci
responds thanking Andersen and commenting, “[n]ice job on the paper.”
243. On March 17, 2020, the Proximal Origin
paper is officially published in the journal by five authors: Andersen,
Rambaut, Defendant Lipkin, Holmes, and Garry.
244. The media promptly accepted the paper’s
conclusion that SARS-CoV-2 was not lab-made,139 and branded anyone that argued
otherwise “conspiracy theorists.” For example,
136 Jeffrey Sachs. Finding the Origins of the
COVID-19 and Preventing Future Pandemics.
https://www.jeffsachs.org/newspaper-articles/cp24mtcpswgyty5st4pm29mwh6dt2d
(accessed 9.10.2022)
137 COVID-19: Lancet investigation into origin of
pandemic shuts down over bias risk. BMJ 2021;375:n2414
https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2414 (accessed 1.2.2023).
138
https://web.archive.org/web/20200217170645/http://virological.org/t/the-proximal-origin-of-sars-cov-2/398
139 See, e.g.,
https://www.foxnews.com/science/the-coronavirus-did-not-escape-from-a-lab-heres-how-we-know
(last accessed 1.2.2023);
https://www.vice.com/en/article/xgqkn4/the-novel-coronavirus-was-not-made-in-a-lab-nature-medicine-study-confirms
(1.2.2023).
an
article published on the ABC News website announced: “Sorry, conspiracy
theorists. Study concludes COVID-19 ‘is not a laboratory construct.’”140
245. The Proximal Origin paper proposed “two
scenarios that can plausibly explain the origin of SARS-CoV-2: (i) natural
selection in an animal host before zoonotic transfer; and (ii) natural
selection in humans following zoonotic transfer.”141 The authors also wrote
that “[i]t is improbable that SARS-CoV-2 emerged through laboratory
manipulation of a related SARS-CoV-like coronavirus” and provided the following
analysis:
[T]he
RBD of SARS-CoV-2 is optimized for binding to human ACE2 with an efficient
solution different from those previously predicted. Furthermore, if genetic
manipulation had been performed, one of the several reverse-genetic systems
available for betacoronaviruses would probably have been used. However, the
genetic data irrefutably show that SARS-CoV-2 is not derived from any previously
used virus backbone.142
246. In their Conclusions section, the authors
stated: “Although the evidence shows that SARS-CoV-2 is not a purposefully
manipulated virus, it is currently impossible to prove or disprove the other
theories of its origin described here.”143
247. In mid-April, Francis Collins voiced his
concern about the lab leak theory gaining widespread momentum and wondered if
NIH can do anything “to help put down this very destructive conspiracy[.]”144
Fauci tells Collins to stand down, as COVID-19 “is a shiny object that will go
away in times.”145
248. In an April 18, 2020 e-mail, Defendant
Daszak thanked Dr. Anthony Fauci for “publicly standing up and stating that the
scientific evidence supports a natural origin for COVID-
140
https://abcnews.go.com/US/conspiracy-theorists-study-concludes-covid-19-laboratory-
construct/story?id=69827832 (accessed 1.2.2023).
141
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9 (accessed 1.2.2023).
142 Id.
143 Id.
144
https://usrtk.org/covid-19-origins/timeline-the-proximal-origin-of-sars-cov-2/
145 Id.
19
from a bat-to-human spillover, not a lab release from the Wuhan Institute of
Virology.”146 See Exhibit “5” to Compl., Daszak to Fauci email exchange April
18- 19, 2022, re: thank you Dr. Fauci.
249. The above email was in response to Fauci’s
statement at a White House press conference on April 17, 2020, where Fauci
cited the Proximal Origin paper and told reporters the virus’s genome was
“totally consistent with a jump of species from an animal to a human.”147
250. In response to a White House press corps
reporter’s inquiry, Fauci attached a copy of the Proximal Origin paper along
with A Genomic Perspective on the Origin and Emergence of SARS-CoV-2.148
251. Members of the Chinese Communist Party
affiliated with Defendant Lipkin expressed pleasure with the efforts by
scientists to dispel the lab leak theory.
252. On May 5, 2020, Defendant Lipkin wrote to
Fauci: “We deeply appreciate your efforts in steering and messaging.”149
253. As part of his message to Fauci, Defendant
Lipkin forwarded an e-mail from China’s former Minister of Health, Chen Zhu,
the current vice-chairperson of the Standing Committee of the National People’s
Congress of China (headed by Li Zhanshu, a prominent CCP figure and top advisor
to Chinese President Xi Jinping). While most of Zhu’s e-mail is redacted, he
thanks Defendant Lipkin and promises to keep him “informed
146 April 18, 2020, e-mail from Peter Daszak to
Anthony Fauci, et al.:
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/06/caught-top-official-thanks-dr-fauci-email-april-2020-insisting-covid-19-naturally-occurring-men-knew-lie/
147
https://usrtk.org/covid-19-origins/timeline-the-proximal-origin-of-sars-cov-2/
(accessed 1.2.2023 ).
148 Id. (citing
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32220310/ (accessed 1.2.2023)).
149
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/columbia-professor-lipkin-fauci-wuhan-lab-china
(accessed 11.21.22).
of
any progress in the coming weeks.”150 Zhu’s e-mail came in response to
Defendant Lipkin’s e-mail to Zhu, in which Lipkin discusses the “[u]ncertainty
about the origin of COVID-19 pandemic [] causing friction worldwide,
particularly between China and the United States” and assures Zhu “[t]here is
agreement that the causative agent, SARS-CoV-2 originated in a bat.” Lipkin
also referenced “a high level of confidence that the virus was not deliberately
modified in any laboratory[.]”151
254. On March 30, 2021, the WHO released a
report on the origins of SARS-CoV-2.152
255. Defendant Peter Daszak and Professor
Koopmans (who had an undisclosed role in drafting the Proximal Origin paper)
were members of the WHO team.
256. While WHO Director-General Ghebreyesus
noted the investigation was still incomplete, the report dismissed a lab origin
as “extremely unlikely[.]”153
257. In records released by investigative
reporting group Project Veritas, Major Joe Murphy USMC – who had previously
worked at DARPA – made the following allegations:
“I’m
reaching out to communicate some information relative to COVID that I don’t
believe or your director is aware of. You probably saw earlier this week that
more official documents linking NIH and EcoHealth Alliance to the Wuhan
Institute of Virology were published by The Intercept. I came across additional
incriminating documents and produced an analysis shortly after leaving DARPA
last month. This report was routed to the DOD IG office.
I’m
unsure whether the significance of what I communicated is understood by those
that received the report. Decisions with regards to the vaccines do not appear
to be informed by analysis of the documents. The main points being that
SARS-CoV-2 matches the SARS vaccine variants the NIH-EcoHealth program was
making in Wuhan; that the DOD rejected the program proposal because vaccines
would be ineffective and because the spike proteins being inserted into the
variants were deemed too dangerous (gain-of-function); and that the DOD
150
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/20793561-leopold-nih-foia-anthony-fauci-emails
at 706-707
(accessed 11.21.22).
151 Id. at 707.
152
https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/origins-of-the-virus
(accessed 11.21.22).
153
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/feb/09/wuhan-laboratory-leak-covid-origin-theory-unlikely-says-who-
team (accessed 11.21.22).
now
mandates vaccines that copy the spike protein previously deemed too dangerous.
To me, and to those who informed my analysis, the situation meets no-go or
abort criteria with regards to the vaccines until the toxicity of the spike
protein can be investigated.’’
258. Major Murphy further asserted:
“SARS-CoV-2 is an American-created recombinant bat
vaccine, or its precursor virus. It was created by an EcoHealth Alliance
program at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), as suggested by the reporting
surrounding the lab leak hypothesis. The details of this program have been
concealed since the pandemic began. These details can be found in the EcoHealth
Alliance proposal response to the DARPA PREEMPT program Broad Agency
Announcement (BAA) HR00228S0017, dated March 2018…
The contents of the proposed program are extremely
detailed. Peter Daszak lays out step-by-step what the organization intends to
do by phase and by location…
When synthesized with the EcoHealth Alliance
proposal, US collections confirm EcoHealth Alliance was performing the work
proposed…
DARPA rejected the proposal because the work was too
close to violating the gain-of-function (GOF) moratorium, despite what Peter
Daszak says in the proposal (that the work would not). As is known, Dr. Fauci
with NIAID did not reject the proposal. The work took place at the WIV and at
several sites in the US, identified in detail in the proposal.
SARS-CoV-2, hereafter referred to as SARSr-CoV-WIV,
is a synthetic spike protein chimera engineered to attach to human ACE2
receptors and inserted into a recombinant bat SARSr-CoV backbone... It leaked
and spread rapidly because it was aerosolized so it could efficiently infect
bats in caves…”154 155
259. In 2021, the WHO created the Scientific
Advisory Group for the Origins of Novel Pathogens (SAGO), an international team
of 26 people. SAGO issued reports on April 13, 2022, May 15, 2022, and June 9,
2022. In the June 9, 2022 Preliminary Report of the
154 https://assets.ctfassets.net/syq3snmxclc9/2mVob3c1aDd8CNvVnyei6n/95af7dbfd2958d4c2b8494048b4889b5/JAG_Docs_pt1_Og_WATERMARK_OVER_Redacted.pdf
(accessed 12.2.2022)
155
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/03/the-virus-hunting-nonprofit-at-the-center-of-the-lab-leak-controversy
- add additional facts.
SAGO,
the group discussed the “[p]ossibility of introduction of SARS-CoV-2 to the
human population through a laboratory incident[.]”156
260. SAGO determined they could not make a
conclusive recommendation on this issue until additional information can be
obtained, noting “it is not common practice to publish the institutional
implementation of biosafety and biosecurity practices of individual
laboratories in peer-reviewed scientific journals[.]”157 In other words, WIV’s
cooperation is essential.
261. In the Summer of 2022, a connection between
Holmes and WIV was uncovered – specifically related to work on RaTG13. “One
hundred and sixty-three partial sequences describing SARS-like coronaviruses
appeared on an NIH database, but quickly disappeared from the database’s search
results… Two of the authors are Shi, senior scientist at the [WIV], and Holmes,
a coauthor of the ‘proximal origin’ paper.”158
262. Holmes said in a September 2022 interview
that “[t]he really shocking thing about these submissions was that my name was
on them… I thought, ‘why am I on this?’ Then I looked back, and it turns out
there was this paper that was never published.”159
263. Upon information and belief, Holmes had
helped write a paper about bat coronaviruses in January 2018 at the request of
a Chinese scientist, Jie Cui. The paper investigated where SARS1 bat viruses
are found in Guangdong and Yunnan Provinces, and sought to discern whether
there is a lineage that goes along that southern part of China. 160
156
https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/default-source/scientific-advisory-group-on-the-origins-of-novel-pathogens/sago-
report-09062022.pdf?sfvrsn=42b55bbc_1&download=true
(accessed 11.21.22).
157 Id.
158
https://usrtk.org/covid-19-origins/timeline-the-proximal-origin-of-sars-cov-2/#genbank
(emphasis added).
159 Id.
160 Id.
264. The partial sequence of the SARS-Cov-2
virus are missing from the NIH database and is highly concerning.
265. As Defendant Peter Daszak stated on Chinese
state-affiliated television in 2018: “The work we do with Chinese collaborators
is published jointly in international journals and the sequence data is
uploaded onto the Internet free for everyone to read, very open, very
transparent, and very collaborative… Science is naturally transparent and open…
You do something, you discover something, you want to tell the world about it.
That’s the nature of scientists.”161, 162
266. In October 2022, the Senate Committee on
Health Education, Labor and Pensions (Minority Oversight Staff) issued An
Analysis of the Origins of the COVID-19 Pandemic (“Senate Minority Interim
Report”). See Exhibit “13” to Compl. 163
267. Senator Richard Burr explained in the
October 2022 Senate Interim Report that the effort sought to clarify the origin
of the COVID-19 pandemic so as “to address pandemic preparedness and response
programs… to be better prepared to respond to future public health threats.”164
Id. at 3.
268. The October 2022 Senate Interim Report
acknowledged the challenges in establishing the origins of SARS-CoV-2,
including efforts by the PRC to stonewall and prohibit transparency.165 Id. at
4.
161
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/03/the-virus-hunting-nonprofit-at-the-center-of-the-lab-leak-controversy
(accessed 1 2 2023).
162
https://usrtk.org/covid-19-origins/scientists-masked-involvement-in-lancet-letter-on-covid-origin
163
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/61910a2d98732d54b73ef8fc/t/635d0e2c7d58c0223ff8ac02/1667042865326/report_an_analysis_of_the_origins_of_covid-19_102722.pdf
164 Id. at 3.
165 Id. at 4.
269. The October 2022 Senate Minority Interim
Report begins with an Analysis of Natural Zoonotic Origins Hypothesis.166 Id at
5. While recognizing natural zoonotic spillover might plausibly explain the
Covid-19 outbreak, the Senate Interim Report also points to several “anomalies
in the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak and the early COVID-19 pandemic compared to the
emergence of past natural zoonotic spillovers…”167
270. For example, assuming the virus began in a
horseshoe bat residing in Southern China or Southeast Asia, the authors of the
October 2022 Senate Interim Report question how the virus could have traveled
over 1,000 miles before emerging in Wuhan. Id.
271. The October 2022, Senate Interim Report
questions how there is still no evidence of an animal infected with SARS-CoV-2
or a related virus, despite being approximately three years into the
pandemic.168 Id.
272. The October 2022 Senate Interim Report
recounts:
“[a] number of epidemiologists and virologists –
and, at first, the Chinese government – have asserted that the COVID-19
pandemic originated from a natural zoonotic transmission occurring at the
Huanan Seafood Market. Government officials in China have subsequently also
postulated the theory that SARS-CoV-2 arrived in China on the surface of
imported frozen seafood or was brought into China by infected people or animals
after being created by the U.S. military. Support for these alternative
theories is limited to government-controlled publications in China and is not
credible absent independent corroboration.”169 Id.
273. The October 2022 Senate Minority Interim
Report further notes the lack of published genetic evidence that SARS-CoV-2 was
circulating in animals prior to the start of the
166 Id. at 5.
167 Id.
168 Id. at 6-7.
169 Id. at 8 (citing Cohen, Jon. (Aug. 18, 2022).
Where did the pandemic start? Anywhere but here, argue papers by Chinese
scientists echoing party line. Science. 2022: 377 (6608).
https://www.science.org/content/article/pandemic-start-anywhere-but-here-argue-papers-chinese-scientists-echoing-party-line;
and Scientific Advisory Group for the Origins of Novel Pathogens (SAGO). (June
9, 2022). Preliminary Report. World Health Organization.
https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/default-source/scientific-advisory-group-on-the-origins-of-novel-pathogens/sago-report-09062022.pdf
pandemic.
The authors also point to “the genomes of early COVID-19 cases” which did not
show genetic evidence that SARS-CoV-2 recently circulated in species other than
humans.170 Id.
274. The October 2022 Senate Minority Interim
Report concludes, in part, it appears likelier that the virus bound at the
Huanan Seafood Market was shed by infected humans, rather than by infected
animals.171 Id.
275. The October 2022 Senate Minority Interim
Report added:
“[t]here… do not appear to have been subsequent
spillovers of the virus that generated sustained transmission in humans, or any
other independent spillovers of SARS-CoV-2, from the immediate host animal(s)
to humans since the pandemic started. It is also noteworthy that the earliest
variants of SARS-CoV-2 were well-adapted for human-to-human transmission.”172
276. The October 2022 Senate Minority Interim
Report concludes that the natural zoonotic hypothesis is unlikely to explain
the origins of SARS-CoV-2 for the following reasons:
o The intermediate host species for
SARS-CoV-2, if one exists, remains unidentified;
o Unlike SARS, the genomes of early
COVID-19 cases from the first months of the pandemic do not show genetic
evidence of SARS-CoV-2 having circulated in another animal species other than
humans;
o SARS-CoV-2’s high binding affinity for
human ACE2 receptors suggests that it is possible for it to directly infect
humans without needing a period of adaptation in an intermediate host;
o Based on the available evidence, Wuhan
is the only location where SARS-CoV-2 spilled over into humans; and
o The low genetic diversity of the
earliest SARS-CoV-2 samples suggests that the COVID-19 pandemic is most likely
the result of a single successful spillover of SARS-CoV-2.173 Id. at 12.
170 Interim Report at 8 (citing sources).
171 Id. at 8-9 (citing sources).
172 Id. at 9 (citing sources).
173 Id. at 12 (citing sources). Calisher, et al.,
“Statement in support of the scientists, public health professionals, and
medical professionals of China combatting COVID-19,” The Lancet, Vol. 395,
Issue 10226, March 7, 2020. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30418-9/fulltext
(last accessed 1 2 2023).
277. Despite Defendants’ and their
co-conspirators’ efforts to bolster the “wet market” origin theory, published
research showed that the market could not have been the source of the outbreak.
278. Indeed, the co-authors of the article
published in the Lancet, including experts from Wuhan’s leading infectious
disease hospital, reported that among the first 41 patients identified in
Wuhan, the first patient to show symptoms (on December 1, 2019) had no exposure
to the market. “No epidemiological link was found between the first patient and
later cases,” wrote the researchers. Thirteen of the patients had no link to
the wet market.174 See Exhibit “14” at 24.
279. The authors of the October 2022 Senate
Interim Report separately analyzed whether SARS-CoV-2 could have resulted from
a “research-related incident.” They noted that a lab release could result from
“human errors, mechanical failure, animal bites, animal escapes, inadequate
training, insufficient funding, and pressure for results,” among other
things.175
280. Further, they observed that “[t]he WIV is
an epicenter of advanced coronavirus research that was designed to predict and
prevent future pandemics by collecting, characterizing, and experimenting on
‘high-risk’ coronavirus with the potential to spill over into humans.”176
281. The abnormally dangerous activity
undertaken through WIV include:
• In the aftermath of the 2002-2004
SARS epidemic, WIV researchers undertook annual virus collection expeditions to
Southern China and Southeast Asia, where bats naturally harbor SARS-related
viruses, from 2004 onward.177
174 Huang C, Wang Y, Li X et al. "Clinical
Features of Patients Infected with 2019 Novel Coronavirus in Wuhan,
China." Lancet, 2020 Feb;395(10223):P497-506
175 Id. at 13.
176 Id. at 23.
177 Id. at 23 (citing Qiu J. (June 1, 2020). How
China’s “Bat Woman” Hunted Down Viruses from SARS to the New Coronavirus.
Scientific American. 322, 6, 24-32. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0620-24,
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-chinas-bat-woman-hunted-down-viruses-from-sars-to-the-new-coronavirus1/
(accessed 11.15.22)).
• WIV researchers actively sampled bats
in Southern China and Southeast Asia where the SARS-related coronaviruses most
similar to SARS-CoV-2 have been collected and identified.178
• The WIV had collected more than
15,000 samples from bats, from which they had identified more than 1,400 bat
viruses, including an estimated 100 unpublished sequences of SARS-related
coronaviruses – the genre of coronaviruses to which SARS-CoV-2 belongs. The
database containing the sequences of viruses collected by the WIV, including
unpublished SARS-related coronaviruses, was taken offline starting in September
2019.179
• Following field collection, samples
were transported to Wuhan, where they were screened for the presence of
coronaviruses. WIV researchers performed animal and human cell-related research
using recombinant genetic techniques with the express goal of discovering human
adapted SARS- like chimeric viruses. The WIV conducted these experiments in
BSL2 and BSL3 laboratories.180
• Senior coronavirus researcher Shi
Zhengli disclosed that in 2018-2020, her team infected civets and humanized
mice that expressed human ACE2 receptors with chimeric SARS-related
coronaviruses. The results of these experiments have never been published.181
• The EcoHealth Alliance NIH grants and
DARPA grant proposals, in partnership with the WIV, sought to collect and
conduct genetic recombinant experiments on SARS-related coronaviruses with
specific traits that made those viruses a “high risk” for zoonotic spillover
into animals and humans. SARS-CoV-2 shares many of the traits these researchers
were interested in finding in SARS-related coronaviruses or interested in
engineering such traits if they were not found naturally.182
178 Id. at 23 (citing BurNIH-00000483-495 (on file
with staff)).
179 Id. at 23 (citing Editorial Board. We’re still
Missing the Origin Story of this Pandemic. China is Sitting on the Answers. The
Post’s View. Washington Post.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/02/05/coronavirus-origins-mystery-china/;
see also Contributor, Anonymous & Bostickson, Billy & Demaneuf, Gilles.
(2021). An Investigation into the WIV Databases that were Taken Offline.
DOI:10.13140/RG.2.2.28029.08160 -
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/349073738_An_investigation_into_the_WIV_databases_that_were_taken_offline
180 Id. at 23 (citing Cohen J. (Jul. 31, 2020).
Wuhan Coronavirus Hunter Shi Zhengli speaks out. Science. 369(6503), 487–488.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.369.6503.487).
181 Id. at 24 (citing Cohen J. (Jul. 31, 2020).
Wuhan Coronavirus Hunter Shi Zhengli speaks out. Science. 369(6503), 487–488.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.369.6503.487).
182 Id. at 24 (citing Cohen J. (Jul. 31, 2020).
Wuhan Coronavirus Hunter Shi Zhengli speaks out. Science. 369(6503), 487–488.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.369.6503.487).
282. The October 2022 Senate Minority Interim
Report further noted evidence of biosafety failures at the WIV, management and
training concerns at the WIV, and anomalies in epidemiology of SARS-CoV-2
outbreak as supporting the lab-leak origin.183
283. SARS-CoV-2 was created in a lab and
developed in collaboration with other entities. “BLAST” is an acronym for
“Basic Local Alignment Search Tool.” It’s a computer algorithm available for
use at the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) website.
284. The above-described algorithm allows
scientists to quickly query a DNA sequence to find matches or regions of
similarity between protein sequences.
285. Scientists worldwide deposit their
sequences when they make new discoveries.
286. A distinguishing feature of SARS-CoV-2 is
the furin cleavage site and the 12-nucleotide insertion in the spike protein,
particularly its two consecutive CGG codons. Researchers conducted a BLAST
search and found a 100% reverse match in a proprietary U.S. patent filed on
February 4, 2016 (US patent 9,587,003).184
287. According to the researchers, statistical
analysis shows that the probability of this sequence randomly being present in
a 30,000-nucleotide viral genome is 3.21 x 10–11 (less than one in one
billion). The owner of the patent is Moderna, which makes COVID-19 vaccines
using mRNA technology.185
183 See Exhibit 13, Senate Minority Interim Report
October 2022 at 24-25.
184 Bancel S, Chakraborty T, De Fougerolles A,
Elbashir SM, John M, Roy A, et al. Modified Polynucleotides for the Production
of Oncology-Related Proteins and Peptides. Cambridge, MA: United States Patent.
(2016). https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/patent/US-9587003-B2 (accessed
1.2.2023)
185 Ambati BK, Varshney A, Lundstrom K et al. “MSH3
Homology and Potential Recombination Link to SARS-CoV-2 Furin Cleavage Site.”
Frontiers Virol 2022 Feb; https://doi.org/10.3389/fviro.2022.834808 (accessed
9.10.2022).
288. On October 20, 2022, Bruttel and colleagues
issued a pre-print entitled, “Endonuclease fingerprint indicates a synthetic
origin of SARS-CoV-2.” (“Endonuclease Fingerprint Paper”).186
289. After reviewing the evidence, the authors
concluded that “SARS-CoV-2 likely originated from a reverse genetics system.”
They explained that “[t]he Bsal/BsmBl map of SARS-CoV-2 is anomalous for a wild
coronavirus and more likely to have originated from an infectious close
designed as an efficient reverse genetics system.”187
290. The above-mentioned authors further noted
their evidence “is independent of other genomic evidence suggestive of a lab
origin of SARS-CoV-2, such as the furin cleavage site (FCS) found in SARS-CoV-2
yet missing from all other known sarbecoviruses.”188 And they advise that
“[t]he probable laboratory origin suggested by our findings motivates
improvements in global biosafety.” Id.
291. Further evidence suggests that SARS-CoV-2
has the restriction map of an infectious clone.
According
to scientist Alex Washburne:189
“Valentin Bruttel, Tony VanDongen and I examined all
infectious clones of coronaviruses made from 2000-2019 by type II directional
assembly.190 We found that 8 out of 10 infectious clones, including the single
CoV infectious clone made in the Wuhan Institute of Virology, used the specific
type II directional assembly method cited in the DEFUSE grant. We uncovered a
fingerprint of this particular method of in vitro viral assembly: due to
bioengineering constraints, the cutting/pasting sites researchers choose end up
being unusually regularly spaced compared to the random spacing of
cutting/pasting sites in non-engineered viruses.
SARS-CoV-2
has that exact fingerprint.191 In our preprint, we examined a wide range of
other coronaviruses and SARS-CoV-2 has the most extreme
186 Bruttel, et al., Endonuclease Fingerprint
Indicates a Synthetic Origin of SARS-CoV-2. See
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.10.18.512756v1.full.pdf
187 Id.
188 Id.
189
https://alexwasburne.substack.com/p/the-totality-of-the-circumstances (accessed
12.1.2022)
190 See
https://alexwasburne.substack.com/p/the-synthetic-origin-theory-of-sars
(accessed 12.1.2022)
191 See
https://alexwasburne.substack.com/p/a-synthetic-origin-of-sars-cov-2 (accessed
12.1.2022)
infectious-clone-like
type II restriction map of all the natural coronaviruses we analyzed.192 The
FCS of SARS-CoV-2 is anomalous among sarbecoviruses, and the type II
restriction map of SARS-CoV-2 is the most extreme type II restriction map of
any coronavirus we analyzed.”
292. Washburne further argues that:
“…animal
trade outbreaks look a lot different from SARS-CoV-2 emergence… While the
animal trade and Huanan wet market are proposed as the proximal origins of
SARS-CoV-2 under the zoonotic theory, the earliest cases may not have been
associated with the wet market and SARS-CoV-2 lacks a broader geographic
fingerprint characteristic of our prior experience with SARS-CoV outbreaks
caused by animal trade networks.”193
192
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.10.18.512756v1 (accessed
12.1.2022)
193
https://alexwasburne.substack.com/p/the-totality-of-the-circumstances (accessed
12.1.2022)
K. Dangerousness of SARS-CoV-2
1. Background Facts
293. SARS-CoV-2 is undeniably dangerous, which
is why a pandemic was declared. At all times relevant hereto, SARS-CoV-2 (the
virus that causes COVID-19) has been listed pursuant to 42 C.F.R. §73.3(b) as
one of what is categorized as “Select Agents” because HHS has determined it
“ha[s] the potential to pose a severe threat to public health and safety.” 42
C.F.R.
§ 73.3(a).194
294. Pursuant to 42 C.F.R. §73.12, research
involving “Select Agents” is subject to strict biosafety and containment
procedures because of the severe threat they pose to public health and
safety.195
295. According to the CDC, there are “a wide
range of symptoms reported” for COVID-19, including fever or chills, cough,
shortness of breath or difficulty breathing, fatigue, muscle or body aches,
headache, new loss of taste or smell, sore throat, congestion or runny nose,
nausea or vomiting, and diarrhea.196
296. The CDC also addresses “Post-COVID
Conditions” on its website, which “is an umbrella term for the wide range of
physical and mental health consequences experienced by some patients that are
present four or more weeks after SARS-CoV-2 infection…”197 CDC also
acknowledges that Post-COVID conditions are referred to as: Long COVID,
Post-acute COVID-19, Long-term effects of COVID, Post-acute COVID syndrome,
Chronic COVID, Long-haul COVID, and others. “Although standardized case
definitions are still being developed, in the broadest sense, post-COVID
conditions can be considered a lack of
194
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-42/chapter-I/subchapter-F/part-73/section-73.3
195
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-42/chapter-I/subchapter-F/part-73/section-73.12
196
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/symptoms-testing/symptoms.html
(accessed 12.1.2022).
197
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/clinical-care/post-covid-conditions.html
(accessed 1.2.2023).
return
to a usual state of health following acute COVID-19 illness.”198 The CDC
further describes debilitating results of COVID-19, including multiorgan system
effects.
2. The Virus That Injured Plaintiffs
297. In early 2020, the daily death toll of
COVID-19 was harrowing, as the medical journals and media frequently
reported.199 Video footage from China claimed to show people collapsing in the
streets of Wuhan, sending shockwaves of fear across the world.200 In Italy,
“hysteria over coronavirus… [was] reminiscent of the black death.”201
SARS-CoV-2 was a virus that shut down the world.
298. On March 11, 2020, the WHO declared that
COVID-19 was a “pandemic.”202
299. SARS-CoV-2 has been designated by the
Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) as a biological agent or toxin
with “potential to pose a severe threat to public health and safety.”203
300. In the first quarter of 2020, officials
from around the world took unprecedented steps to combat the emerging pandemic
and the novel pathogen that caused it. The risks from SARS-CoV-2 were so severe
that entire countries forced their citizens into “lockdowns,” whereby people
could not freely leave their homes, travel, go to work, attend school, or meet
in groups.204
198 Id. (emphasis in original).
199 See, e.g.,
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01008-1 (accessed 1.2.2023).
200
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7923981/Coronavirus-Disturbing-videos-claim-people-collapsing-
Wuhan.html (accessed 12.1.2022).
201
https://sg.news.yahoo.com/hysteria-over-coronavirus-italy-reminiscent-165558650.html
(accessed 1 2 2023)
202
https://www.who.int/director-general/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-opening-remarks-at-the-media-briefing-on-covid-19 11-march-2020
203 CFR § 73.3(a) and (b).
204 See, e.g.,
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-italy/italy-to-extend-coronavirus-lockdown-until-easter-as-new-cases-fall-idUSKBN21H2EH;
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/22/germany-merkel-bans-meetings-two-people-142283;
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/16/new-york-and-other-east-coast-states-extend-shutdown-of-nonessential-businesses-to-may-15-gov-cuomo-says.html
301. On widely viewed television channels such
as CNN, a Coronavirus Pandemic case and death count was perpetually displayed
on-screen, per below:205
302. As such, SARS-CoV-2 came to be known as
“the virus that shut down the world.”206
3. EcoHealth Award Terminated
303. In an October 20, 2021, letter (“Tabak
Letter”), NIH Deputy Director Lawrence Tabak wrote to Representative James
Comer (R-KY) that the NIH had given a grant to EcoHealth Alliance, Inc., which
then awarded a subgrant to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, and that EcoHealth
had failed to submit reports as required under the terms of the grant.207 See
Exhibit “7” to Compl.: Tabak letter to Comer dated October 20, 2021.
304. Tabak’s letter stated that EcoHealth’s
“limited experiment” looked at whether spike proteins from naturally occurring
bat viruses circulating in China were capable of binding to the ACE2 receptor
in a mouse model. Tabak stated that mice infected with the modified
205
https://edition.cnn.com/world/live-news/coronavirus-pandemic-03-31-20/h_3253ec4c79b62eecf1cc7024e18a16f0
206
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/world/coronavirus-pandemic-globalization/
207
https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/nih-eco-health-alliance-letter/512f5ee70ce9c67c/full.pdf
(accessed 11/16/2022).
virus
became sicker than those who were infected with the unmodified virus. Tabak
also wrote, “[a]s sometimes occurs in science, this was an unexpected result of
the research, as opposed to something that the researchers set out to do.”208
Id.
305. Tabak explained that while the NIH
determined the research did not involve enhanced pathogens of pandemic
potential, it nevertheless required “an additional layer of oversight” as a
condition for the grant.
306. Specifically, EcoHealth was required to
“report immediately a one log increase in growth” which would then prompt a
secondary review to determine whether the research aims should be re-evaluated,
or new biosafety measures should be enacted.”209 Id.
307. Defendant EcoHealth allegedly failed to
report this finding immediately as required by the terms of the grant, they
were given five days to submit to NIH all unpublished data from the experiment
and work conducted under the award.210 Id.
308. In an October 20, 2021 tweet, Oversight
Committee Republicans (@GOPoversight) said the following regarding the Tabak
Letter, specifically calling out Defendants Peter Daszak and EcoHealth:211
208 Id.
209 Id.
210 Id.
211
https://twitter.com/GOPoversight/status/1450934193177903105 (accessed
1.2.2023).
309. A former member of a WHO advisory
committee, Jamie Metzl, tweeted in response that it is “[d]eeply concerning
Peter Daszak & @EcoHealthNYC violated terms of their @NIH grant by not
reporting the increased ability of the genetically altered bat coronaviruses to
infect human cells. We need a full investigation w/access to all relevant data,
samples & personnel in #China.”212 Separately, Rutgers Professor Richard H.
Ebright tweeted his own response:
212
https://twitter.com/JamieMetzl/status/1450949931305422851 (accessed 12.1.2022)
310. On January 6, 2022, Dr. Michael Lauer, NIH
Deputy Director for Extramural Research wrote to Defendant EcoHealth Alliance –
specifically Drs. Aleksei Chmura and Defendant Peter Daszak. Exhibit “22” to
January 6, 2022, Letter from Michael S. Lauer, MD, HIH Deputy Director for
Extramural Research to Daszak, et ano.
311. In the above-mentioned letter, Dr. Lauer
informed Defendants EcoHealth and Peter Daszak that “NIH is imposing specific
award conditions on EcoHealth’s active awards, U01AI151797 and U01AI153420.
EcoHealth has demonstrated a history of failure to comply with several elements
of the terms and conditions of grant awards not only for these active awards,
but also for the suspended award, R0AI110964.” (Emphasis added). Id. See
Exhibit “16” to Compl.: Lauer letter to Chmura and Daszak, July 23, 2021.
312. Dr. Lauer outlined Defendant EcoHealth’s
failures to comply in detail. Id at 24.
313. As a result, NIH imposed specific award
conditions (SAC), and required Defendant EcoHealth to successfully implement a
Corrective Action Plan (CAP).
314. On August 19, 2022, NIH terminated a
sub-award to WIV that had been part of an earlier grant to Defendant EcoHealth
due to “failure to meet award terms and conditions requiring provision of
records to NIH upon request.”213 (Emphasis in original). Exhibit “23” Letter from
Lauer to Comer August 19, 2022.
213
https://republicans-oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/NIH-Letter-to-Congress-regarding-EHA_Comer.pdf
315. On August 19, 2022, that same day, NIH
informed Defendants EcoHealth and Peter Daszak that, “NIH is terminating the
subaward from EcoHealth Alliance (EHA) to the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV)
due to material non-compliance with terms and conditions of award that cannot
be remedied by specific award conditions.” According to NIH, Defendant
EcoHealth failed to provide NIH the laboratory notebooks and original
electronic files from the research conducted at WIV. “To date, WIV has not
provided these records” either.214
316. NIH further explained that “WIV’s refusal
to provide the requested records, and EHA’s failure to include the required
terms in WIV’s subaward agreement represent material failures to comply with
the terms of award.”215 While NIH noted that the partial termination is
appealable, there is no evidence EcoHealth appealed the termination. The NIH
advised that Defendant EcoHealth could potentially renegotiate the grant
without involvement of the WIV.216
L. Congressional Investigations Into the
Origins of SARS-CoV-2 Are Continuing Amid NIH’s Stonewalling
317. On November 30, 2022, members of
Congress217 sent another letter to Dr. Lawrence Tabak at the NIH: “We write to
urge the [NIH] to respond to our longstanding requests to provide us
information related to the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic, including matters
related to [NIAID’s] grant to EcoHealth Alliance and subgrant to [WIV], and
other subjects.”218 Exhibit “20”: House letter to Tabak, November 30, 2022.
214 Id. at 3.
215 Id.
216
https://theintercept.com/2022/10/04/ecohealth-alliance-lab-leak-nih-grant/
217 Representatives Rodgers (Committee on Energy and
Commerce), Guthrie (Subcommittee on Health), and Griffith (Subcommittee on
Oversight and Investigations) issued the letter.
218
https://republicans-energycommerce.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/11.30.22-Letter-to-Dr.-Tabak.pdf
(accessed 12.2.2022).
318. The House members expressed concern that
NIH has continuously failed to address their correspondence, and summarized the
twelve letters sent between March 18, 2021 through October 31, 2022:
a. date.219 March 18, 2021, Letter to Dr.
Francis Collins – Congressional members sent a letter “requesting information
related to where SARS-CoV-2 originated and how NIH grant dollars at the WIV
were used.”220 NIH has not provided written responses.
b. June 10, 2021, Letter to Dr. Francis
Collins – Congressional members “wrote to strongly express support for a
‘comprehensive investigation into the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic,
including the possibility of an accidental laboratory leak.’ We identified
several concerns related to the financial management and oversight of the NIH
grant to EcoHealth Alliance and its subaward recipient, the WIV.” NIH has not
provided responses.221 Exhibit “25”.
c. July 21, 2021, Letter to Dr Francis
Collins – Congressional members asked for more information regarding
“NIH-supported gain-of-function research involving ‘humanized mice’ as well as
briefings from NIAID officials related
219 Exhibit 29, Letter from Committee Ranking
Members (Full and Subcommittees, respectively) Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Brett
Guthrie, Morgan Griffith to Francis Collins, M.D., Ph.D., Director, NIH (Feb.
14, 2022) (internal footnotes omitted).
220 Exhibit 24 - Letter from Committee Ranking
Members (Full and Subcommittees, respectively) Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Brett
Guthrie, Morgan Griffith to Francis Collins, M.D., Ph.D., Director, NIH (March
18, 2021).
221 Exhibit
25, Letter from Committee Ranking Members (Full and Subcommittees,
respectively) Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Brett Guthrie, Morgan Griffith to Francis
Collins, M.D., Ph.D., Director, NIH (June 10, 2021) (internal footnotes
omitted).
to
a grant award to EcoHealth Alliance, and an NIAID’s official [sic] visit to
WIV.”222
d. August 24, 2021, Letter to Dr. Francis
Collins – Congressional members followed up concerning “NIAID’s coronavirus
grant to EcoHealth Alliance[]” including inquiries about Defendant EcoHealth’s
“oversight of its subgrantee WIV’s experiments to ensure compliance with
biosafety requirements.” NIH has not provided a written response to date.223
e. October 27, 2021, Letter to Dr. Francis
Collins – “Based on documents the Department of Health and Human Services
arranged for the Committee to review in camera, we highlighted in an October
27, 2021, letter our concerns about NIH’s oversight of EcoHealth Alliance’s
research proposal that purported it was not conducting gain-of-function
research. In addition, the letter raised concerns EcoHealth Alliance failed to
comply with NIH’s grant terms yet continued to receive millions of dollars in
grant funds. NIH was asked to reply to our questions by November 10, 2021, but
to date, NIH has not submitted a written response to this letter.”224
222 Exhibit
26 Letter from Committee Ranking Members (Full and Subcommittees,
respectively) Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Brett Guthrie, Morgan Griffith to Francis
Collins, M.D., Ph.D., Director, NIH (July 21, 2021) (internal footnotes
omitted).
223 Exhibit 27, Letter from Committee Ranking
Members (Full and Subcommittees, respectively) Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Brett
Guthrie, Morgan Griffith to Francis Collins, M.D., Ph.D., Director, NIH (Aug.
24, 2021) (internal footnotes omitted).
224 Exhibit 28, Letter from Committee Ranking
Members (Full and Subcommittees, respectively) Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Brett
Guthrie, Morgan Griffith to Francis Collins, M.D., Ph.D., Director, NIH (Oct.
27, 2021) (internal footnotes omitted).
f. February 14, 2022, Letter to Dr.
Francis Collins – The Committee sent a letter to Dr. Collins concerning
suppression of scientific debate that SARS-CoV-2 could have originated from a
research related incident. A similar letter was sent to Dr. Fauci, but neither
has responded to
g. February 24, 2022, Letter to Dr.
Lawrence A. Tabak – “On February 24, 2022, we raised concerns with you that NIH
failed to effectively enforce its policies and regulations over EcoHealth
Alliance. Specifically, EcoHealth withheld attribution of data to another
federal grant from NIH, raising the possibility it was double-billing two
federal agencies for the same research. Additionally, EcoHealth Alliance’s
inability to provide laboratory notebooks and electronic files called into
question the safety of the research conducted on humanized mice. Additionally,
the letter expressed that, in contravention of federal regulations regarding
financial disclosures, EcoHealth Alliance may have hidden from NIH the
identities of its private donors. Several questions were requested to be
answered by March 24, 2022. To date, NIH has not sent a written response.”225
h. April 25, 2022, Letter to Dr. Lawrence
A. Tabak – “On April 25, 2022, we wrote to you raising concerns that EcoHealth
Alliance was potentially omitting key information in research allegedly
conducted at WIV in order to obtain a renewal of federal grant funding.
Specifically, information related to mice deaths (the higher death rates with
mice infected by chimeric viruses, a supposedly unexpected result) may have
been withheld from peer reviewers
225 Exhibit 30, Letter from Committee Ranking
Members (Full and Subcommittees, respectively) Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Brett
Guthrie, Morgan Griffith to Lawrence A. Tabak, D.D.S., PhD., Acting Director,
NIH (Feb. 24, 2022)
during
the grant renewal’s application. These nondisclosures may have prevented peer
reviewers from examining the complete research findings, thereby preventing
them from questioning the riskiness of the experiments conducted with federal
grant funds. While NIH has provided some information in a bipartisan briefing,
many questions remain unanswered. NIH has not provided a written response to
this letter.” 226
i. July 21, 2022, Letter to Dr. Lawrence
A. Tabak – The committee sent a letter to NIH regarding its recent failure to
convene a Scientific Management Review Board.227
j. August 11, 2022, Letter to Dr.
Lawrence A. Tabak - This letter dealt with issues not directly related to this
matter.
k. October 24, 2022, Letter to Dr.
Lawrence A. Tabak – “Last month we sent you a letter raising concerns about how
NIH could contemplate funding a new EcoHealth Alliance grant considering this
organization’s past noncompliance with regulatory requirements and grant terms.
As we noted, EcoHealth Alliance’s history of failing to substantiate scientific
experiments with material records and its slipshod oversight of its sub
awardee, the WIV, should have caused NIH to conclude that EcoHealth Alliance
could not be a responsible steward of federal grant funding. We submitted
several questions for you to answer by November 7, 2022, regarding the NIH’s
decision to renew its funding
226 Exhibit 31, Letter from Committee Ranking
Members (Full and Subcommittees, respectively) Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Brett
Guthrie, Morgan Griffith to Lawrence A. Tabak, D.D.S., PhD., Acting Director,
NIH (Apr. 25, 2022) 227 Exhibit 32, Letter from Committee Ranking Members (Full
and Subcommittees, respectively) Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Brett Guthrie, Morgan
Griffith to Lawrence A. Tabak, D.D.S., PhD., Acting Director, NIH (July 21,
2022).
of
EcoHealth Alliance. To date, we have not received a written response from NIH
to this letter.”
M. Defendant EcoHealth Continues to Pursue
Risky GOF and Other Research
319. Despite the wreckage caused by the
Defendants’ and their co-conspirators’ dangerous research, and even though
Defendant EcoHealth has refused to cooperate with Congressional inquiries,
Defendant EcoHealth continues to engage in risky research that could cause
another pandemic. Within weeks of terminating the funding for the Wuhan lab in
August 2022, the NIH awarded a new grant to EcoHealth: “Analyzing the potential
for future bat coronavirus emergence in Myanmar, Laos, and Vietnam.”228 The
project number is 1R01AI163118-01A1, while the contact PI/project leader is
Peter Daszak and the Awardee Organization is EcoHealth Alliance, Inc.229
320. In questioning how NIH could continue to
fund Defendant EcoHealth’s research in light of the events discussed herein,
the Committee on Energy and Commerce highlighted Defendant EcoHealth’s past
transgressions, including failure to substantiate scientific experiments with
material records and careless oversight of WIV. This “should have caused NIH to
conclude that EcoHealth Alliance could not be a responsible steward of federal
grant funding.”230
321. Defendants continue to double, triple, and
quadruple down on risky, dangerous research that has the potential to cause
another pandemic. As noted in the Intercept:
The
aim of the new research is to identify areas of potential concern for future
pandemic emergence in order to help public health authorities suppress an
outbreak before it breaks containment. But the process of performing the
research introduces the risk of sparking an outbreak that would not otherwise
have occurred, a concern highlighted by The
228
https://reporter.nih.gov/search/0jAp779zVkaN-DEsKnKa5A/project-details/10522470
229 Id.
230
Intercept
last year: “Virtually every part of the work of outbreak prediction can result
in an accidental infection. Even with the best of intentions, scientists can
serve as vectors for the viruses they hunt – and as a result, their work may
put everyone else’s lives on the line along with their own.”231
322. In the words of Professor Richard Ebright,
“[i]t is disturbing that additional funding continues to be awarded for the
same high-risk research that may have caused the current pandemic, before there
has been a national investigation of the origin of the current pandemic.”232 In
fact, congressional investigations to date have concluded it is “more likely
than not” that the Covid-19 pandemic resulted from a research incident.233
Indeed, the House Foreign Affairs Committee Report Minority Staff in August 2021
issued an addendum to their September 2020 Final Report, entitled The Origins
of COVID-19: An Investigation of the Wuhan Institute of Virology. There, the
committee concluded:
It is the opinion of the Committee Minority Staff,
based on the preponderance of available information; the documented efforts to
obfuscate, hide, and destroy evidence; and the lack of physical evidence to the
contrary; that SARS-CoV-2 was accidentally released from a Wuhan Institute of
Virology laboratory… Its release was due to poor lab safety standards and
practices, exacerbated by dangerous gain-of-function research being conducted
at inadequate biosafety levels, including BSL-2.”234
VI. INJURIES – PLAINTIFF-SPECIFIC ALLEGATIONS
Plaintiff
McKinniss
323. Plaintiff Kathleen McKinniss’ Decedent,
Rosemarie McKinniss was exposed to SARS-CoV-2 in a nursing home and died from
said exposure on April 24, 2020.235 See Exhibit
231
https://theintercept.com/2022/10/04/ecohealth-alliance-lab-leak-nih-grant/
(accessed 11.17.22) (quoting
https://theintercept.com/2021/12/28/covid-pandemic-virus-hunters-ecohealth-alliance-peter-daszak-wuhan/
(last accessed 11.17.22)).
232
https://theintercept.com/2022/10/04/ecohealth-alliance-lab-leak-nih-grant/
(accessed 11.17.22).
233 See Exhibit “13”, e.g., Source: Senate Minority
Interim Report October 2022 @ 23.
234 See Exhibit “13” Senate Minority Interim Report
October 2022, The Origins of COVID-19: An Investigation of the Wuhan Institute
of Virology at 62 (emphasis added).
235 See Exhibit “8” to Compl.: Rosemarie McKinniss
Death Certificate, showing cause of death was Covid-19).
“8”
to Compl.: McKinnis Death Certificate; See Exhibit “9” to Compl., Photo of
McKinniss.
324. Decedent Rosemarie McKinniss’ death was
directly and proximately caused by Defendants’ and their co-conspirators’
actions and omissions as alleged herein.
325. Decedent Rosemarie McKinniss was extremely
fearful for her life and well-being upon contracting SARS-CoV-2 and was
isolated from her family and friends in her final days after suffering through
a quarantine that caused all of them extreme emotional distress, intense pain
and physical suffering, all due to Defendants’ and their co-conspirators’
actions and omissions as alleged herein.
326. The death of Decedent Rosemarie McKinniss
caused extreme emotional pain, physical harm, and economic loss to Plaintiff
Kathleen McKinniss, a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ and their
co-conspirators’ acts and omissions as alleged herein.
Plaintiff
Rosado
327. Plaintiff Carin Rosado was a front-line,
essential worker with the NYC Fire Department working as an EMT.
328. Plaintiff Rosado worked through the early
stages of SARS-CoV-2 when its consequences were then unknown and being
concealed by Defendants, and contracted SARS-CoV-2 and since then has been
suffering neurological, financial and emotional injuries.
329. Plaintiff Rosado was injured by exposure to
SARS-CoV-2, including suffering an illness that caused migraines, high fever,
cough, and intense fear due to the unknown consequences of contracting
SARS-CoV-2, a novel virus.
330. Plaintiff Rosado further suffers from skin
sensitivity, and loss of taste and smell due to exposure to SARS-CoV-2,
affecting her ability to protect herself as a front-line worker because skin
sensitivity and sense of smell are essential components of an EMT employee
necessary to protect the EMT, and those in need and receiving emergency
services.
331. On January 20, 2022, Plaintiff Rosado was
fired by her employer for refusing a Covid-19 vaccination, thus suffering
economic and property loss as a result of her loss of employment with the City
of New York in the FDNY/EMT unit because of Defendants’ GOF SARS-CoV-2 virus
creation.
332. Plaintiff Rosado brings this action on her
own behalf seeking compensation for her injuries directly and proximately
caused by Defendants’ wrongful conduct, causing her physical harm, emotional
injuries, and economic loss.
Plaintiff
Finn
333. Plaintiff Geraldine Finn’s Decedent, James
Finn, was admitted to Montefiore Nyack Hospital in Nyack New York, on March 25,
2021, and after receiving the standard COVID treatment protocol, and died on
April 18, 2021.
334. Decedent James Finn’s Death Certificate
lists his death as Covid 19. See Exhibit “11”, Finn Death Certificate. See
Exhibits “11 & 12” to Compl., re: Finn Death Certificate and Photos.
335. Plaintiff Finn’s husband James suffered
from intense pain and fear prior to his death and was ventilated as a standard
COVID treatment protocol suffering an agonizing death.
336. Plaintiff Finn was isolated and quarantined
from his family during his final days causing all of them extreme emotional
distress and anguish.
337. The death of James Finn caused emotional
and physical harm, and economic loss to Plaintiff Geraldine Finn and to James
Finn’s heirs, a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ and their
co-conspirators’ actions and omissions as alleged herein.
Plaintiff
Caddoo
338. Plaintiff David Caddoo’s mother, Decedent,
Patricia Caddoo, was a resident of an assisted living facility in Lewisville,
TX.
339. On December 5, 2020, Decedent Caddoo was
sent to the emergency room at Medical City Hospital in Lewisville, TX where she
tested positive for COVID.
340. Decedent Caddoo was intubated immediately
in the ER and admitted to the ICU where she was not expected to survive the
night.
341. On December 6, 2020, Decedent was extubated
and sent back to her assisted living facility where she never regained
consciousness and passed away on December 9, 2020. Exhibit “33” Death
Certificate of Patricia Cadoo re: Covid 19.
342. Decedent Patricia Caddoo’s death was
directly and proximately caused by Defendants’ and their co-conspirators’
actions and omissions as alleged herein.
343. Plaintiff Caddoo’s mother Patricia suffered
from intense pain and fear prior to her death and received the standard COVID
treatment protocol she received suffering an agonizing death.
344. Plaintiff Caddoo was isolated and
quarantined from her family during her final days causing all of them extreme
emotional distress and anguish.
345. The death of Patricia Caddoo caused
emotional and physical harm, and economic loss to Plaintiff David Caddoo and to
Patricia Caddoo’s heirs, a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ and their
co-conspirators’ actions and omissions as alleged herein.
Plaintiff
Smith
346. Plaintiff Melanie Smith’s Decedent, Robert
Sendzischew, upon having difficulty breathing the morning of August 1, 2021,
was taken by ambulance to South Nassau Mt. Sinai Hospital where he tested
positive for COVID-19.
347. After receiving the standard COVID
treatment protocol, he died on December 13, 2021.
See Exhibit “34” Sendzischew Death Certificate, re:
Covid 19.
348. Decedent Robert Sendzischew’s death was
directly and proximately caused by Defendants’ and their co-conspirators’
actions and omissions as alleged herein.
349. Decedent Robert Sendzischew was extremely
fearful for his life and well-being upon contracting SARS-CoV-2 and was
isolated from his family and friends in his final days after suffering through
a quarantine that caused all of them extreme emotional distress, intense pain
and physical suffering, all due to Defendants’ and their co-conspirators’
actions and omissions as alleged herein.
350. The death of Decedent Robert Sendzischew
caused extreme emotional pain, physical harm, and economic loss to Plaintiff
Melanie Smith, a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ Defendants’ and
their co-conspirators’ acts and omissions as alleged herein.
Plaintiff
Lewis
351. Plaintiff Kimberly Lewis’ husband,
Decedent, Robert Lewis, was admitted to Mercy Hospital in Buffalo, New York, on
December 28, 2021, and after receiving the standard COVID treatment protocol,
died on January 15, 2022. Exhibit “35” Lewis Death Certificate, re: Covid 19.
352. Plaintiff Lewis’ husband Robert Lewis
suffered from intense pain and fear prior to suffering an agonizing death.
353. Plaintiff Lewis was isolated and
quarantined from his family during his final days causing all of them extreme
emotional distress and anguish.
354. The death of Robert Lewis caused emotional
and physical harm, and economic loss to Plaintiff Lewis and Robert Lewis’ a
direct and proximate result of Defendants’ and their co-conspirators’ actions
and omissions as alleged herein.
Plaintiff
Peter
355. Plaintiff Lisa Peter’s mother, Decedent,
Patricia Chislett, tested positive for COVID on November, 20, 2021 and was
admitted to Sister’s of Charity Hospital in Buffalo, New York, on November 24,
2021 where she was ventilated on December 15, 2021 and died on December 18,
2021. Exhibit “36”, Death Certificate Chislett, re: Covid 19.
356. Plaintiff Peter’s mother Patricia suffered
from intense pain and fear prior to her death, treated with the standard COVID
treatment protocol and suffered an agonizing death.
357. Decedent Chislett was isolated and
quarantined from her family during her final days causing all of them extreme
emotional distress and anguish.
358. The death of Patricia Chislett caused
emotional and physical harm, and economic loss to Plaintiff Lisa Peter and to
Patricia Chislett’s heirs, a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ and
their co-conspirators’ actions and omissions as alleged herein.
Plaintiff
Jones
359. Plaintiff Roxanne Jones’ husband, Decedent,
Dale Jones, was admitted to Mercy Hospital in Buffalo, New York, on July 30,
2022. He remained stable in the hospital until August 13, 2022 when he was put
on a ventilator and moved to ICU, put on a ventilator . Decedent Dale Jones
died in the hospital on September 2, 2021.
360. Plaintiff Jones’ husband Dale suffered from
intense pain and fear prior to her death, treated with the standard COVID
treatment protocol and suffered an agonizing death. Exhibit “37”, Jones’ Death
Certificate, re: Covid 19.
361. Decedent Jones was isolated and quarantined
from his family during his final days causing extreme emotional distress and
anguish.
362. The death of Dale Jones caused emotional
and physical harm, and economic loss to Plaintiff Roxanne Jones and to Dale
Jones’ heirs, a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ and their
co-conspirators’ actions and omissions as alleged herein.
VII. TOLLING OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
A. Discovery Rule Tolling
363. Plaintiffs had no way of knowing about the
Defendants’ actions and omissions as alleged herein with respect to the
SARS-CoV-2 virus.
364. Within the time period of any applicable
statutes of limitation, Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated could not
have discovered through the exercise of reasonable diligence that the
Defendants were concealing the conduct complained of herein and exposing the
general public to great risks of harm, illness, and death.
365. Plaintiffs did not discover, and did not
know of, facts that would have caused a reasonable person to suspect that the
Defendants did not report information within their knowledge to federal and
state authorities, the medical community, and the general public; nor would a
reasonable and diligent investigation have disclosed that the Defendants had
concealed information about the creation and release of the ultra-hazardous
SARS-CoV-2 virus, which was discovered by Plaintiffs only shortly before this
action was filed. Nor, in any event, would such an investigation on the part of
Plaintiffs have disclosed that the Defendants’ actions and omissions led to a
worldwide pandemic and unquantifiable human suffering and damages.
366. For these reasons, all applicable statutes
of limitation have been tolled by operation of the discovery rule with respect
to claims as to the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
B. Fraudulent Concealment Tolling
367. All applicable statutes of limitations have
also been tolled by the Defendants’ knowing and active fraudulent concealment
and denial of the facts alleged herein throughout the time period relevant to
this action.
368. Instead of disclosing the dangerous nature
of the SARS-CoV-2 virus they created, Defendants intentionally obfuscated and
sought to convince the world, including Plaintiffs, that the SARS-CoV-2 virus
was a natural virus.
369. For these reasons, all applicable statutes
of limitation have been tolled due to Defendants’ fraudulent concealment
related to the origins of the SARS-CoV-2 virus as well as to the existence of
Plaintiffs’ causes of action.
C. Estoppel
370. The Defendants were under a continuous duty
to disclose to Plaintiffs the true character, abnormally dangerous and
lethality of the SARS-CoV-2 virus that was released by them into the
environment first reported on about December of 2019 in the media.
371. The Defendants knowingly, affirmatively,
and actively concealed or recklessly disregarded the true nature,
dangerousness, and lethality of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, putting Plaintiffs, at
increased risk of harm.
372. Based on the foregoing, the Defendants are
estopped from relying on any statutes of limitations in defense of this action.
VIII. CAUSES OF ACTION
FIRST
CAUSE OF ACTION
(Negligence)
373. Plaintiffs repeat, reiterate and reallege
each and every paragraph of the Verified Amended Complaint as if fully set
forth herein.
374. Defendants, individually and collectively,
failed to use ordinary care while researching, developing, creating, and
maintaining the SARS-CoV-2 virus at the WIV or elsewhere.
Duty
375. Defendants, individually and collectively,
owed a duty to each Plaintiff and Decedent to act as a reasonably prudent
person(s) would act under the circumstances when conducting dangerous research
on viruses that have the potential to cause a pandemic.
376. Defendants, individually and collectively,
and those working in furtherance of their enterprise and within the scope of
their authority, owed a duty of care to Plaintiffs and Decedents to protect
them from the risks of exposure to SARS-CoV-2, because Defendants were in the
best position to protect against the risk of harm that resulted in damages to
each Plaintiff and Decedent, as alleged herein.
377. Defendants, individually, collectively, and
those working in furtherance of their enterprise and within the scope of their
authority, owed Plaintiffs and Decedents a duty to maintain their research
under an appropriate biosafety level while implementing proper protective
measures so that there would be no leak of the ultra-hazardous SARS-CoV-2 from
the WIV or elsewhere.
378. Defendants, individually, collectively, and
those working in furtherance of their enterprise and within the scope of their
authority, owed the Plaintiffs and Decedents a duty to perform an appropriate
risk assessment of the laboratories where their research was conducted so that
there would be no leak of the ultra-hazardous SARS-CoV-2 from WIV or elsewhere.
379. Defendants, individually, collectively and
their co-conspirators owed a duty to Plaintiffs and Decedents to immediately
warn them that a pathogen with potential to cause a pandemic had leaked from
the WIV or elsewhere.
380. Defendants, individually, collectively and
those working in furtherance of their enterprise and within the scope of their
authority were in the best position to learn about the release of SARS-CoV-2
and warn Plaintiffs, Decedents, and others similarly situated of the potential
risks and consequences of exposure to this novel virus.
Breach
381. Defendants, individually and collectively,
breached their duty of care to Plaintiffs and Decedents by conducting
abnormally dangerous research on viruses, which led to the release of
SARS-CoV-2 and damages to Plaintiffs and Decedents, as alleged herein.
382. Defendants, individually, collectively, and
their co-conspirators further breached their duty to Plaintiffs and Decedents
by engaging in dangerous GOF research despite knowledge of its dangers,
including a moratorium on such research and acknowledgement of such dangers in
the medical literature and elsewhere.
383. Defendants, individually, collectively, and
their co-conspirators nonetheless continued to perform dangerous GOF research
at the WIV and elsewhere, eventually causing the COVID-19 pandemic when
SARS-CoV-2 was released on the global population, injuring and/or killing
Plaintiffs and/or Decedents.
384. Defendants, individually, collectively and
their co-conspirators further breached their duty to Plaintiffs and Decedents
by conducting dangerous GOF research in inadequate and unsafe laboratories,
including BSL-2 and BSL-4 labs.
385. Defendants, individually, collectively, and
those working in furtherance of their enterprise and within the scope of their
authority, breached their duty by failing to maintain their research under an
appropriate biosafety level and/or use enhanced bio-safety containment
processes, which upon information and belief led to the release of SARS-CoV-2
from the WIV or elsewhere.
386. Defendants failed to perform an appropriate
risk assessment of their research laboratories to avoid a leak of the
ultra-hazardous SARS-CoV-2 from WIV or elsewhere and disregarded multiple
substantial warnings about safety breaches and lax biosecurity standards at the
WIV, termed the “Wild West” as alleged herein.
387. Defendants breached their duty to
Plaintiffs and Decedents by causing SARS-CoV-2 to be released due to their
carelessness and failure to employ ordinary care.
388. Defendants, and those working in
furtherance of their enterprise and within the scope of their authority,
further breached their duty by failing to implement reasonable and proper
protective measures to prevent a lab leak of SARS-CoV-2, as alleged herein, and
by failing to protect Plaintiffs and Decedents from the risks of exposure to
SARS-CoV-2, a product and creation of their abnormally dangerous research and
experiments on viruses at the WIV and elsewhere.
389. Defendants breached their duty to
Plaintiffs and Decedents by failing to immediately warn them about the release
of SARS-CoV-2, including potential risks and consequences of exposure to the
novel SARS-CoV-2. In furtherance of their enterprise and conspiracy, Defendants
and their co-conspirators actively sought to downplay their role in a potential
lab leak of SARS-CoV-2, in the process withholding critical information about
the novel virus, its makeup, and its origin.
390. Defendants, individually and collectively,
and their co-conspirators instead worked diligently to advance alternative
theories concerning the origin of SARS-CoV-2, including that the virus
originated in a wet market in Wuhan, or was released through frozen food
imported to China.
391. Defendant Daszak and his co-conspirators’
statements regarding the origins and release of the ultra-hazardous SARS-CoV-2
virus into the environment were knowingly false and misleading, designed by
Defendants to mislead other medical researchers, immunologists, doctors, the
medical community, and the public about their GOF research and as to
Defendants’ and their co-conspirators’ role in the origins, creation and
release of the ultra-hazardous SARS-CoV-2 virus into the environment.
392. Defendants’ concerted actions took the form
of an express or implied agreement not to warn and was achieved by providing
substantial assistance or encouragement to one another to conceal their
wrongful course of conduct.236
393. Defendants, individually and collectively,
and their co-conspirators failed to disclose or to warn Plaintiffs of the known
dangers associated with the exposure to Defendants’ ultra-hazardous SARS-CoV-2
virus.
CAUSATION
236 Emails show scientists discussed masking their
involvement in key journal letter on COVID origins. US Right to Know Feb 15,
2021,
https://usrtk.org/covid-19-origins/scientists-masked-involvement-in-lancet-letter-on-covid-origin/
accessed 11.17.2022 & Exhibit 3, Huff Declaration.
394. Defendants’, individually and collectively,
and their co-conspirators’ acts and omissions as alleged herein directly and
proximately caused physical and emotional injury, economic loss, and/or death
to Plaintiffs and/or Decedents in that Defendants’ acts and omissions were a
substantial factor(s) in bringing about said injuries and/or death.
395. But for Defendants’, individually and
collectively, and their co-conspirators’ acts and omissions relating to the
dangerous GOF research and subsequent release of the abnormally dangerous
SARS-CoV-2, and the ensuing cover-up about its origins, Plaintiffs and
Decedents would not have suffered injuries and/or death due to SARS-CoV-2 or
could have mitigated such outcomes.
DAMAGES
396. As a result of Defendants’, individually
and collectively, and their co-conspirators’ acts and omissions as alleged
herein, Plaintiffs and Decedents were damaged by exposure to the SARS-CoV-2
virus, causing Plaintiffs and/or Decedents to suffer physical and emotional
injury, economic loss, and/or death.
397. The limitations on liability set forth in
CPLR § 1601 do not apply to this action by reason of one or more of the
exceptions set forth in CPLR § 1602.
398. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment in
their favor against all Defendants, individually, jointly, severally, in an
amount to be determined at trial, plus interest, costs, and such other monetary
and equitable relief as this Honorable Court deems appropriate to prevent
Defendants and others from ever again committing the dangerous acts related to
the development and release of SARS-CoV-2 or similar acts.
SECOND
CAUSE OF ACTION
(Gross
Negligence)
399. Plaintiffs repeat, reiterate and reallege
each and every paragraph of the Verified Amended Complaint as if fully set
forth herein.
400. Defendants, individually and collectively,
and their co-conspirators failed to use even slight care while researching,
developing, creating, and maintaining the SARS-CoV-2 virus at the WIV or
elsewhere.
401. Defendants’, individually and collectively,
and their co-conspirators’ conduct as alleged herein was so careless that it
shows a complete disregard for the rights and safety of others, including
Plaintiffs and Decedents.
Duty
402. Defendants, individually and collectively,
owed a duty to each Plaintiff and Decedent to act as a reasonably prudent
person(s) would act under the circumstances when conducting abnormally
dangerous research on viruses.
403. Defendants, individually and collectively,
and those working in furtherance of their enterprise and within the scope of
their authority, owed a duty of care to Plaintiffs and Decedents to protect
them from the risks of exposure to SARS-CoV-2, because Defendants were in the
best position to protect against the risk of harm that resulted in damages to
each Plaintiff and Decedent, as alleged herein.
404. Defendants, and those working in
furtherance of their business and within the scope of their authority, owed
Plaintiffs and Decedents a duty to maintain their research under an appropriate
biosafety level while implementing proper protective measures so that there
would be no leak of the ultra-hazardous SARS-CoV-2 from the Wuhan Lab or
elsewhere.
405. Defendants, and those working in
furtherance of their enterprise and within the scope of their authority, owed
the Plaintiffs and Decedents a duty to perform an appropriate risk
assessment
so that there would be no leak of the ultra-hazardous SARS-CoV-2 from WIV or
elsewhere.
406. Defendants, individually and collectively,
and their co-conspirators owed a duty to Plaintiffs and Decedents to
immediately warn them that a pathogen with potential to cause a pandemic had
leaked from the WIV or elsewhere.
407. Defendants and those working in furtherance
of their enterprise and within the scope of their authority were in the best
position to learn about the release of SARS-CoV-2 and warn Plaintiffs,
Decedents, and others similarly situated of the potential risks and
consequences of exposure to this novel virus.
Breach
408. Defendants, individually and collectively,
failed to use even slightest care in conducting abnormally dangerous research
on viruses at inappropriate and unsafe facilities, which on information and
belief, resulted in the release of SARS-CoV-2 and damages to Plaintiffs and
Decedents, as alleged herein.
409. Defendants, individually and collectively,
and their co-conspirators further breached their duty to Plaintiffs and
Decedents by engaging in dangerous GOF research despite knowledge of its
dangers, including a moratorium on such research and acknowledgement of such
dangers in the medical literature and elsewhere.
410. Defendants, individually and collectively,
and their co-conspirators nonetheless continued to perform dangerous GOF
research at the WIV and elsewhere, eventually causing the COVID-19 pandemic
when SARS-CoV-2 was released on the global population, injuring and/or killing
Plaintiffs and/or Decedents.
411. Defendants and their co-conspirators
further breached their duty to Plaintiffs and Decedents by conducting dangerous
GOF research in inadequate and unsafe laboratories, including BSL-2 and BSL-4
labs.
412. Defendants, and those working in
furtherance of their enterprise and within the scope of their authority,
breached their duty by failing to maintain their research under an appropriate
biosafety level and/or use enhanced bio-safety containment processes, which
upon information and belief led to the release of SARS-CoV-2 from the WIV or
elsewhere.
413. Defendants failed to perform an appropriate
risk assessment of their research laboratories to avoid a leak of the
ultra-hazardous SARS-CoV-2 from WIV or elsewhere and disregarded multiple
substantial warnings about safety breaches and lax biosecurity standards at the
WIV, termed the “Wild West” as alleged herein.
414. Defendants further breached their duty to
Plaintiffs and Decedents by causing SARS-CoV-2 to be released due to their
carelessness and failure to employ ordinary care.
415. Defendants, and those working in
furtherance of their enterprise and within the scope of their authority,
further breached their duty by failing to implement reasonable and proper
protective measures to prevent a lab leak of SARS-CoV-2, as alleged herein, and
by failing to protect Plaintiffs and Decedents from the risks of exposure to
SARS-CoV-2, a product and creation of their abnormally dangerous research and
experiments on viruses at the WIV and elsewhere.
416. Defendants, individually and collectively,
and their co-conspirators further breached their duty to Plaintiffs and
Decedents by failing to immediately warn them about the release of SARS-CoV-2,
including potential risks and consequences of exposure to the novel SARS-CoV-2.
417. In furtherance of their enterprise and
conspiracy, Defendants and their co-conspirators actively sought to downplay
and conceal their role in a potential lab leak of SARS-CoV-2, by withholding
critical information about the novel virus, its makeup, and its origin.
418. Defendants and their co-conspirators
instead worked diligently to advance alternative theories concerning the origin
of SARS-CoV-2, including that the virus originated in a wet market in Wuhan, or
was released through frozen food imported to China that was knowingly false to
them.
419. Defendants, individually and collectively,
and those working in furtherance of their enterprise and within the scope of
their authority, breached their duty by failing to protect Plaintiffs and
Decedents from the risks of exposure to SARS-CoV-2, a product and creation of
their abnormally dangerous research and experiments on viruses at the WIV and
elsewhere.
Causation
420. Defendants, individually, and their
co-conspirators’ failure to use even slight care, as alleged herein, directly
and proximately caused physical and emotional injury, economic loss, and/or
death to Plaintiffs and/or Decedents.
421. Defendants, individually and collectively,
and their co-conspirators’ acts and omissions were a substantial factor(s) in
bringing about Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries and/or deaths.
422. But for Defendants’, individually and
collectively, and their co-conspirators’ acts and omissions relating to the
dangerous GOF research and subsequent release of the abnormally dangerous
SARS-CoV-2, and the ensuing cover-up about its origins, Plaintiffs and
Decedents would not have suffered injuries and/or death due to SARS-CoV-2 or
could have mitigated such outcomes.
Damages
423. As a result of Defendants’, individually
and collectively, and their co-conspirators’ reckless and/or careless disregard
for the rights and safety of others, as alleged herein, Plaintiffs and
Decedents were damaged by exposure to the SARS-CoV-2 virus, causing Plaintiffs
and/or Decedents to suffer physical and emotional injury, economic loss, and/or
death.
424. The limitations on liability set forth in
CPLR § 1601 do not apply to this action by reason of one or more of the
exceptions set forth in CPLR § 1602.
425. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment in
their favor against all Defendants, jointly, severally, and/or individually, in
an amount to be determined at trial, plus interest, costs, and such other
monetary and equitable relief as this Honorable Court deems appropriate to
prevent Defendants and others from ever again committing the dangerous acts
related to the development and release of SARS-CoV-2 or similar acts.
THIRD
CAUSE OF ACTION
(Strict
Liability)
426. Plaintiffs repeat, reiterate and reallege
each and every paragraph of the Verified Amended Complaint as if fully set
forth herein.
427. Defendants, individually and collectively,
and their co-conspirators engaged in uncommon, abnormally dangerous research on
viruses that created a foreseeable and highly significant risk of physical harm
to others, even if all actors had exercised reasonable care.
428. Defendants’ and their co-conspirators’ GOF
research involving bat coronaviruses was and is abnormally dangerous.
429. Defendants and their co-conspirators knew
and had reason to know of the abnormally risky nature of their GOF research at
WIV, UNC, and elsewhere.
430. SARS-CoV-2 has been designated by the
Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) as a biological agent or toxin
with “potential to pose a severe threat to public health and safety.”237
431. Defendants and their co-conspirators were
engaging in an abnormally dangerous activity subject to strict liability
without regard to fault for any injury to person or property caused by that
activity.
432. SARS-CoV-2 was known by Defendants to be
dangerous to Plaintiffs’ health at the time it was released into the
environment, and Defendants knew or should have known SARS-CoV-2 was harmful
and deleterious.
433. At all times relevant, and as alleged
herein, Defendants and their co-conspirators knew, or should have known, about
the serious biosecurity problems at the WIV and its ties to the Chinese
military prior to subcontracting their GOF research under the guise of pandemic
preparedness.
434. Defendants, individually, and their
co-conspirators knew the NIH imposed a moratorium on GOF research in October
2014, to “be effective until a robust and broad deliberative process is
completed that results in the adoption of a new US Government gain-of-function
policy.”
237 CFR § 73.3(a) and (b).
435. Defendants and their co-conspirators
further had knowledge that many scientists had serious concerns about the risks
of GOF research and worked to conceal the SARS-Cov-2 origins.238
436. The SARS-CoV-2 virus and related “spike
protein” are ultra-hazardous and abnormally dangerous because they necessarily
involve a risk of serious harm to humans, which could not have been eliminated
by the exercise of utmost care and are not items of common usage.
437. Defendants, individually, and their
co-conspirators at WIV and elsewhere, as part of their enterprise with
Defendant EcoHealth, funded, designed, and created the abnormally dangerous
SARS-CoV-2 in an unsafe and inherently dangerous manner. As expected, SARS-CoV-2
caused serious bodily harm and/or death to Plaintiffs and/or Decedents.
438. Defendants outsourced their GOF research to
the WIV without required safety protocols in place for the kind of
ultra-hazardous research conducted there as alleged herein, demonstrating a
willful and reckless disregard for the dangers associated with GOF genetic
virus manipulation that, when later released into the environment, directly and
proximately caused Plaintiffs’ and Decedents’ injuries and/or death.
439. Defendants’, individually and collectively,
and their co-conspirators’ actions as alleged herein were a substantial factor
in bringing about Plaintiffs’ and Decedents’ injuries and/or death.
440. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment in
their favor against all defendants, jointly, severally, and/or individually, in
an amount to be determined at trial, plus interest, costs, and such other
monetary and equitable relief as this Honorable Court deems appropriate to
238 Burki, Talha: Ban on gain-of-function studies
ends, The Lancet, Infectious Diseases (Vol. 18, Issue 2, P. 148-49, Feb. 1,
2018).
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(18)30006-9/fulltext
prevent
Defendants and others from ever again committing the dangerous acts related to
the development and release of SARS-CoV-2 or similar acts.
FOURTH
CAUSE OF ACTION
(Negligent
Failure to Warn)
441. Plaintiffs repeat, reiterate and reallege
each and every paragraph of the Verified Amended Complaint as if fully set
forth herein.
442. Defendants possessed superior knowledge
concerning the true hazards of SARS-CoV-2, and with intent, concealed said
knowledge from Plaintiffs and Decedents.
443. Defendants concealed their knowledge and
role in causing the Covid-19 pandemic to avoid liability and the public shame
that would cause irreparable harm to their reputation(s).
444. As researchers, manufacturers and funders
of the ultra-hazardous, abnormally dangerous SARS-CoV-2, Defendants and their
co-conspirators knew or should have known of its hazards and dangers.
445. Defendants negligently failed to provide
adequate and proper warnings to Plaintiffs as to the dangers of the exposure to
SARS-CoV-2.
446. Defendants and their co-conspirators
possessed the superior medical data and scientific knowledge which clearly
indicated that their virus was ultra-hazardous to the environment and public
health, and, prompted by pecuniary motives and self-interest, failed to act
upon said medical data and scientific knowledge, and failed to disclose the
information to health officials and the public, including Plaintiffs and
Decedents, thus leaving them physically vulnerable and uninformed as to the
consequences of exposure to the ultra-hazardous SARS-CoV-2.
447. Defendants and their co-conspirators failed
to disclose their role(s) in the origin of SARS-CoV-2, failed to disclose their
knowledge of its lethality, transmissibility and virulence, and failed to
provide for safety precautions to be observed by persons who would reasonably
and foreseeably come into contact with SARS-CoV-2.
448. Defendants negligently failed to warn and
to convey whatever knowledge of the dangers, health hazards, or safety
precautions they had to those innocent persons exposed to their ultra-hazardous
coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, including Plaintiffs and Decedents.
449. Defendants and their co-conspirators
negligently failed to warn Plaintiffs and Decedents of the risks and dangers to
their health as a result of exposure to SARS-CoV-2, which information
Plaintiffs and Decedents could have used to make an adequate and informed
judgment as to how to avoid such exposure, or treat the virus if and when
exposed, impeding effective countermeasures that could have prevented injuries
and saved lives.
450. As a direct and proximate result of
Defendants’ and their co-conspirators’ concealment and negligent failure to
warn, as alleged herein, Plaintiffs and Decedents have suffered and endured
great physical pain and mental anguish and suffered loss of enjoyment of their
lives, and/or death.
451. Plaintiffs and Decedents did not contribute
in any manner to their own injuries and/or deaths caused by Defendants’
ultra-hazardous SARS-CoV-2 virus released into the environment.
452. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment in
their favor against all defendants, jointly, severally, and/or individually, in
an amount to be determined at trial, plus interest, costs, and such other
monetary and equitable relief as this Honorable Court deems appropriate to
prevent Defendants and others from ever again committing the dangerous acts
related to the development and release of SARS-CoV-2 or similar acts.
FIFTH
CAUSE OF ACTION
(Intentional
Infliction of Emotional Distress)
453. Plaintiffs repeat, reiterate and reallege
each and every paragraph of the Verified Amended Complaint as if fully set
forth herein.
Extreme
and outrageous conduct
454. Defendants’ and their co-conspirators’ acts
and omissions as alleged herein were extreme and outrageous.
455. Defendants and their co-conspirators were
well aware of the risks and dangers involved with GOF research, including the
potential of causing a worldwide pandemic.
456. Defendants and their co-conspirators
nonetheless proceeded with such research, eventually causing the Covid-19
pandemic by creating and releasing a highly transmissible and deadly lab-made
virus, SARS-CoV-2.
457. Defendants and their co-conspirators
knowingly and willfully manufactured SARS-CoV-2, negligently failed to advise
Plaintiffs, Decedents, and the general public of the serious health
consequences associated with the lab-made SARS-CoV-2 virus, and worse,
intentionally engaged in a scheme to conceal the true laboratory origins of
SARS-CoV-2. Such acts and omissions were extreme and outrageous.
Intent
to cause, or disregard of a substantial probability of causing, severe
emotional distress.
458. Defendants blatantly disregarded the
substantial probability that their actions and omissions would cause severe
emotional distress to Plaintiffs and others similarly situated, by having to
confront the reality of a dangerous, novel virus that causes debilitating
symptoms ranging from loss of taste and smell to death.
A
causal connection between the conduct and the injury
459. Defendants’ dangerous GOF research directly
and proximately caused Plaintiffs’ and Decedents’ physical and emotional
injuries and/or deaths, as alleged herein.
460. But for Defendants’ and their
co-conspirators’ abnormally dangerous and risky research in an inadequate
laboratory setting, Plaintiffs and Decedents would not have been injured and/or
killed.
Severe
emotional distress
461. As a result of Defendants’ and their
co-conspirators’ acts and omissions, Plaintiffs and/or Decedents suffered
and/or continue to suffer severe emotional distress and mental anguish, knowing
their injuries and/or deaths were caused by Defendants’ and their
co-conspirators’ negligent, reckless, and wanton acts and omissions, which were
fully avoidable. Plaintiffs’ and Decedents’ physical and emotional injuries
and/or deaths have caused and continue to cause Plaintiffs severe emotional
distress due to their debilitating symptoms and fear of contracting SARS-CoV-2
in the future.
462. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment in
their favor against all defendants, jointly, severally, and/or individually, in
an amount to be determined at trial, plus interest, costs, and such other
monetary and equitable relief as this Honorable Court deems appropriate to
prevent Defendants and others from ever again committing the dangerous acts
related to the development and release of SARS-CoV-2 or similar acts.
SIXTH
CAUSE OF ACTION
(Negligent
Infliction of Emotional Distress)
463. Plaintiffs repeat, reiterate and reallege
each and every paragraph of the Verified Amended Complaint as if fully set
forth herein.
464. Defendants owed a duty of care to
Plaintiffs and Decedents, as alleged herein.
465. Defendants breached their duty of care by
directly and unreasonably endangering Plaintiffs’ and/or Decedents’ physical
safety, and/or directly causing Plaintiffs and/or Decedents to fear for their
own safety.
466. Plaintiffs’ and Decedents’ injuries and/or
death are a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ abnormally dangerous
activity, negligence and carelessness, and their demonstrated wanton and
reckless disregard for Plaintiffs’ safety and well-being, directly and
unreasonably endangering Plaintiffs’ and/or Decedents’ physical safety, and/or
directly causing Plaintiffs and/or Decedents to fear for their own safety.
467. At all times relevant herein, Defendants
negligently inflicted emotional distress on each Plaintiff and/or Decedent by
creating, releasing and exposing them to SARS-CoV-2, directly and unreasonably
endangering Plaintiffs’ and/or Decedents’ physical safety, and/or directly
causing Plaintiffs and/or Decedents to fear for their own safety.
468. As a result of said conduct by Defendants
and their co-conspirators, Plaintiffs and/or Decedents have sustained extreme
emotional distress and mental anguish associated with their physical injuries
as well as extreme emotional distress and mental anguish associated with the
failure of Defendants to advise them of the serious health effects associated
with exposure to SARS-CoV-2.
469. As a result of Defendants’ and their
co-conspirators’ mishandling of SARS-CoV-2 as alleged herein, each Plaintiff
and/or Decedent was exposed to a dangerous, ultra-hazardous lab-made virus, and
as a direct and proximate result thereof have suffered the injuries alleged
herein, unreasonably endangering Plaintiffs’ and/or Decedents’ physical safety,
and/or directly causing Plaintiffs and/or Decedents to fear for their own
safety.
470. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment in
their favor against all defendants, jointly, severally, and/or individually, in
an amount to be determined at trial, plus interest, costs, and such other
monetary and equitable relief as this Honorable Court deems appropriate to
prevent Defendants and others from ever again committing the dangerous acts
related to the development and release of SARS-CoV-2 or similar acts.
SEVENTH
CAUSE OF ACTION
(Assault
and Battery)
471. Plaintiffs repeat, reiterate and reallege
each and every paragraph of the Verified Amended Complaint as if fully set
forth herein.
472. Defendants intentionally and continuously
committed battery to Plaintiffs’ and Decedents’ persons by releasing SARS-CoV-2
into Plaintiffs’ and Decedents’ work and living environments, exposing them to
their GOF virus and experiment.
473. Defendants’ assault and battery are a
direct and proximate cause of injuries, damages, and/or death sustained by the
Plaintiffs and/or Decedents.
474. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment in
their favor against all defendants, jointly, severally, and/or individually, in
an amount to be determined at trial, plus interest, costs, and such other
monetary and equitable relief as this Honorable Court deems appropriate to
prevent Defendants and others from ever again committing the dangerous acts
related to the development and release of SARS-CoV-2 or similar acts.
EIGHTH
CAUSE OF ACTION
(Medical
Monitoring and Fear of Contracting Illness)
475. Plaintiffs repeat, reiterate and reallege
each and every paragraph of the Verified Amended Complaint as if fully set
forth herein.
476. As a direct and proximate result of
Defendants’ conduct as alleged herein, Plaintiffs have sustained personal
injuries that are presently known, and which cause symptoms, pain, and
suffering, and sequala.
477. As a direct and proximate result of
Defendants’ conduct as alleged herein, Plaintiffs have incurred and continue to
incur the cost of medical treatment and monitoring requiring routine
temperature tests, masking, PCR testing and other intrusive and distressing
diagnostics.
478. As a direct and proximate result of
Defendants’ and their co-conspirators’ conduct as alleged herein, Plaintiffs
are at greater risk of suffering future injuries, symptoms, and pain and
suffering from the latent and unknown effects of their exposure to SARS-CoV-2.
As a direct and proximate result thereof, Plaintiffs will need continual
medical treatment, testing and monitoring in the future.
479. As a result of the foregoing, Plaintiffs
are entitled to recover the costs of past and future medical monitoring,
testing and treatment from Defendants, as a separate claim for relief, or,
alternatively, as additional damages under each of the other claims for relief
above.
480. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment in
their favor against all defendants, jointly, severally, and/or individually, in
an amount to be determined at trial, plus interest, costs, and such other
monetary and equitable relief as this Honorable Court deems appropriate to
prevent Defendants and others from ever again committing the dangerous acts
related to the development and release of SARS-CoV-2 or similar acts.
NINTH
CAUSE OF ACTION
(Civil
Conspiracy)
481. Plaintiffs repeat, reiterate and reallege
each and every paragraph of the Verified Amended Complaint as if fully set
forth herein.
482. Plaintiffs herein allege twelve (12)
cognizable causes of action.
Agreement
among the conspirators
483. Defendants and their co-conspirators agreed
to conduct dangerous GOF research at WIV and elsewhere, despite knowledge of
the dangers of GOF research, allegedly to prevent a pandemic.
484. Defendants and their co-conspirators agreed
to perform dangerous GOF research at inadequately maintained laboratories,
increasing the risk of a pandemic.
485. Defendants and their co-conspirators then
worked to cover up the true origins of SARS-CoV-2 as alleged herein.
486. Defendants and their co-conspirators
intentionally engaged in numerous overt acts in furtherance of their various
agreements. For example, Defendant EcoHealth intentionally funneled money to
WIV to conduct dangerous GOF research.
487. In addition, Defendants and their
co-conspirators intentionally studied bat coronaviruses using GOF to make such
viruses more transmissible and deadly, allegedly to prevent the next pandemic.
488. Additionally, Defendants Daszak,
Cottingham, Baric, and Lipkin intentionally conspired among themselves and
their co-conspirators to draft an article debunking the lab leak theory,
instead pointing to a natural origin of SARS-CoV-2.
489. Defendants intentionally delayed and
obfuscated instead of being forthcoming with Plaintiffs and the public, causing
irreparable harm and damage in the interim period as alleged herein.
490. Defendants’ and their co-conspirators’
conspiracy caused physical and emotional harm, economic loss, and/or death to
Plaintiffs and/or Decedents as alleged herein.
491. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment in
their favor against all defendants, jointly, severally, and/or individually, in
an amount to be determined at trial, plus interest, costs, and such other
monetary and equitable relief as this Honorable Court deems appropriate to
prevent Defendants and others from ever again committing the dangerous acts
related to the development and release of SARS-CoV-2 or similar acts.
TENTH
CAUSE OF ACTION
(Wrongful
Death)
492. Plaintiffs repeat, reiterate and reallege
each and every paragraph of the Verified Amended Complaint as if fully set
forth herein.
493. Decedents are survived by family members
entitled to recover damages from all Defendants for the wrongful death of their
Decedents. These family members are among the Plaintiffs who are entitled to
damages deemed as a fair and just compensation for their injuries resulting
from the deaths of the Decedents.
494. The injuries and damages suffered by
Plaintiffs McKinniss, Finn, Caddoo, Smith, Lewis, Peter, and Jones by virtue of
the death of the Decedents, and the consequences resulting therefrom, were
proximately caused by the intentional and reckless acts, omissions, and other
tortious conduct of all Defendants as described herein.
495. As a direct and proximate result of the
deaths of the Decedents, their heirs have been deprived of future aid,
assistance, services, comfort, and financial support.
496. As a direct and proximate result of the
Defendants’ and their co-conspirators’ negligent, dangerous, reckless, and
deceptive acts and omissions as alleged herein, the heirs of the Decedents will
forever grieve their deaths.
497. As a further result of Defendants’ and
their co-conspirators’ negligent, dangerous, reckless and deceptive acts and
omissions, Plaintiffs McKinniss, Rosado, Finn, Caddoo, Smith and Lewis, Peter,
and Jones have been caused to expend various sums to administer the estates of
Decedents and have incurred other expenses for which they are entitled to
recover damages.
498. The statutes of limitations and statutes of
repose (if any) for Wrongful Death are equitably tolled by virtue of
Defendants’ and their co-conspirators’ continuing acts and omissions to cover
up the origins of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, and their role with respect thereto, as
alleged herein. Defendants must not be allowed to benefit from their fraudulent
concealment of Plaintiffs’ causes of action, as alleged herein.
499. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs McKinniss, Finn,
Caddoo, Smith, Lewis, Peter, and Jones demand judgment in their favor against
all Defendants, jointly, severally, and/or individually, in an amount to be
determined at trial, plus interest, costs, and such other monetary and
equitable relief as this Honorable Court deems appropriate to prevent
Defendants and others from ever again committing the dangerous acts related to
the development and release of SARS-CoV-2 or similar acts.
ELEVENTH
CAUSE OF ACTION
(Survival)
500. Plaintiffs repeat, reiterate and reallege
each and every paragraph of the Verified Amended Complaint as if fully set
forth herein.
501. Plaintiffs (except Rosado) bring this
action for damages suffered by the Decedents and caused by Defendants’ and
their co-conspirators’ actions and omissions.
502. As a result of the intentional and
negligent acts of the Defendants and their co-conspirators as described above,
the Decedents were placed in apprehension of harmful and offensive bodily
contact (assault), suffered offensive and harmful bodily contact (battery),
suffered extreme fear, anxiety, emotional and psychological distress
(intentional/negligent infliction of emotional distress), and were mentally and
physically harmed, trapped, and falsely imprisoned (false imprisonment) prior
to their deaths.
503. As a result of the Defendants’ and their
co-conspirators’ reckless and dangerous conduct, the Decedents suffered damages
including pain and suffering, trauma, emotional distress, loss of life and
life's pleasures, loss of earnings and earning capacity, loss of accretion to
their estates, and other items of damages as fully set forth in the paragraphs
above, which are incorporated herein by reference.
504. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment in
their favor against all Defendants, jointly, severally, and/or individually, in
an amount to be determined at trial, plus interest, costs, and such other
monetary and equitable relief as this Honorable Court deems appropriate to
prevent Defendants and others from ever again committing the dangerous acts
related to the development and release of SARS-CoV-2 or similar acts.
TWELFTH
CAUSE OF ACTION
(Breach
of Warranty)
505. 129. Plaintiffs repeat, reiterate and
reallege each and every allegation contained in the foregoing paragraphs of the
Verified Complaint with the same force and effect as if hereinafter set forth
at length.
506. As part of their role as prime and
subcontractors, and grant recipients of U.S. tax dollars, the Defendants,
expressly and impliedly warranted that their virus research was safe, and fit
for its intended purpose, i.e., pandemic preparedness.
507. There were implied/express warranties made
by Defendants (as prime and subcontractors and grant recipients of U.S. tax
dollars from NIH and NIAID), specifically, that the ultra-hazardous coronavirus
SARS-Co V-2 research and creation was fit, and consistent with their
particular, intended use, i.e., pandemic preparedness.
508. Defendants breached their implied\express
warranties to the Plaintiffs by creating and releasing SARS-Co V-2 and
concealing the fact that SARS-Co V-2 was a harmful, toxic lab-made virus that
caused the severe and permanent personal injuries and death to Plaintiffs
and/or Decedents while engaging in their ordinary course of conduct.
509. Defendants omitted reference to the Gain of
Function elements of their coronavirus research being conducted with the Wuhan
Lab in submissions for federal funding, breaching express and implied
warranties.
510. Defendants also omitted reference to the
CRISPR elements of their coronavirus research being conducted at the Wuhan Lab
in submissions for federal funding.
511. Defendants further omitted reference to the
serial passage elements of their coronavirus research being conducted at the
Wuhan Lab in submissions for federal funding.
512. Defendants further omitted reference to
capabilities of altering coronaviruses from their submissions for federal
funding to avoid detection of the risks to human safety associated with the
research and to evade enhanced HHS oversight.
513. As a direct and proximate result of the
breach of the implied/express warranties of good quality for fitness for the
particular use, Plaintiffs were seriously injured and developed coronavirus
related diseases and injuries and were caused to endure great pain and
suffering and sequala.
514. As a result of Plaintiffs' and Decedents'
continuing exposure to Defendants' ultrahazardous coronavirus SARS-Co V-2, each
has suffered, and/or continues to suffer, emotional and physical injuries,
economic loss, and/or death.
515. severally, and/or individually, in an
amount to be determined at trial, plus interest, costs, and such
516. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment in
their favor against all defendants, jointly, other monetary and equitable
relief as this Honorable Court deems appropriate to prevent Defendants and
others from ever again committing the dangerous acts related to the development
and release of SARS-Co V-2 or similar acts.
THIRTEENTH
CAUSE OF ACTION
(Punitive
Damages)
517. Plaintiffs repeat, reiterate and reallege
each and every paragraph of the Verified Amended Complaint as if fully set
forth herein.
518. The actions and omissions of all Defendants
and their co-conspirators, acting in concert to carry out their unlawful
objectives, were malicious, outrageous and in willful, wanton, and reckless
disregard of the rights, safety, health and lives of all Plaintiffs and/or
Decedents.
519. Defendants, acting individually and in
concert, intended to carry out actions they knew would endanger the lives of
the Plaintiffs and/or Decedents and all those similarly situated.
520. Defendants’ and their co-conspirators’
actions and omissions as alleged herein demonstrate a high degree of moral
culpability and turpitude. Defendants’ and their co-conspirators’ conduct
represents a high degree of immorality and shows such wanton dishonesty as to
imply a criminal indifference to their civil obligations.
521. Defendants’ and their co-conspirators’
actions and omissions put Plaintiffs, Decedents at risk of contracting a novel
and deadly pathogen, SARS-CoV-2. Defendants’ and their co-conspirators’ wanton
and willful conduct must be punished to deter similar conduct, which is still
continuing as alleged herein, and the attendant risks.
522. As a result of their intentional,
malicious, outrageous, willful and wanton conduct, all Defendants are jointly
and severally liable to all Plaintiffs for punitive damages in an amount to be
determined at trial.
523. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment in
their favor against all Defendants, jointly, severally, and/or individually, in
an amount to be determined at trial, plus interest, costs, and such other
monetary and equitable relief as this Honorable Court deems appropriate to
prevent Defendants and others from ever again committing the dangerous acts
related to the development and release of SARS-CoV-2 or similar acts.
PRAYER
FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE,
Plaintiffs demand judgment against the Defendants on each of the
above-referenced claims and causes of action and as follows:
1. Awarding compensatory damages in excess
of the jurisdictional amount, including but not limited to pain, suffering,
emotional distress, loss of enjoyment of life, and other non-economic damages
in an amount to be determined at trial of this action;
2. Awarding compensatory damages to
Plaintiffs for past and future damages, including, but not limited to,
Plaintiffs’ pain and suffering and for severe and permanent personal injuries
sustained by Plaintiffs including health care costs and economic loss;
3. Awarding economic damages in the form
of medical expenses, out of pocket expenses, lost earnings and other economic
damages in an amount to be determined at trial of this action;
4. Awarding punitive damages to Plaintiffs
in order to punish Defendants for their wanton, reckless, and malicious acts
and omissions, and thereby discourage Defendants and others from acting in a
similar way in the future;
5. Awarding special and consequential
damages for conspiratorial conduct.
6. Pre-judgment interest;
7. Post-judgment interest;
8. Awarding Plaintiffs reasonable
attorneys’ fees;
9. Awarding Plaintiff the costs of these
proceedings; and
10. Such other and further relief as this
Court deems just and proper.
DEMAND
FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiffs
hereby demand trial by jury as to all issues.
DATED:
1 1 2023
Respectfully
submitted,
s/Patricia
Finn, Esq.
PATRICIA
FINN ATTORNEY, P.C.
58
East Route 59, Suite 4 Nanuet, New York
845
398 0521
/s/
Thomas Renz
THOMAS
RENZ
Pending
Pro Hac Vice Admission
(Ohio
Bar ID: 98645) 1907 W. State St. #162
Fremont,
OH 43420
(419)
351-4248
renzlawllc@gmail.com
INDEX
NO. 034252/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 31607 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 014/0241/2023
