EXHIBIT
14
RENZ
LAW, LLC.
September
12, 2022
Donald
Trump, Senator Ron Johnson, Senator Rand Paul, Rep. Jim Jordan, and others were
right. As early as late April or early May of 2020 former President Trump spoke
of the creation of SARS-COV2 in a lab in Wuhan, China. Since that time both the
investigation and the cover-up have continued but the evidence provided herein
clearly demonstrate that SARS-COV2 was indeed created in a lab in Wuhan China
by EcoHealth Alliance and with funding from Anthony Fauci’s NIH/NIAID.
Evidence
included herein demonstrate the following key points (amongst others):
1. SARS-COV2
was created in the lab in Wuhan, China;
2. Anthony
Fauci funded the creation of SARS-COV2 and lied to Congress about funding
Gain-of-Function work;
3. The
US Intelligence Community was aware of and appeared to have been involved with
the funding of said Gain-of-Function work;
4. A
number of well-connected public and private partners were involved in the
Gain-of-Function work that resulted in the creation and release of SARS-COV2;
5. Anthony
Fauci and others coordinated to cover-up the funding of the Gain-of-Function
work that resulted in SARS-COV2.
Given
the recent high-profile criminal enforcement actions taken by Congress and the
DoJ, we expect immediate investigations will see bi-partisan support in light
of this newly compiled information. Renz Law and Make Americans Free Again
(MAFA) will provide any and all support possible in such investigations and
prosecutions. Further, with the additional high-profile revelations that
certain segments of the government have promoted censoring this information,
presumably as part of this same cover-up, we will voluntarily support any
good-faith efforts by the media to correct the record.
As
has been the case since early in the pandemic, Renz Law and MAFA will continue
to seek truth and justice in this matter for all that have been impacted by the
worst man-made pandemic in human history.
Sincerely,
Thomas
Renz Renz Law, LLC
RENZ
LAW, LLC.
Answering
Crucial Questions About Sars-CoV-2
Thomas
Renz, attorney at law
Pamela
A. Popper, Make Americans Free Again
Executive
Summary
In
early 2020, billions of people were told by governments and health agencies all
over the world that a “novel virus” had caused severe illness in several
individuals in Wuhan, China. Shortly after this announcement, people were told
that the lethality rate for this virus, SARS-CoV-2, could be ten times higher
than typical flu. The entire world started organizing to prevent the healthcare
system from being overwhelmed with seriously ill patients, and to prevent as
many deaths as possible. Government and health officials issued orders
requiring businesses, schools, and houses of worship to close. People were told
not to leave their homes except to purchase food and essential items and for
emergency healthcare. Masks were required in all public indoor and outdoor
places. Parks and beaches and trails were closed. Special events worldwide were
cancelled for almost two years. Life as we know it came to a screeching halt
and has not yet returned to normal.
In
spite of these draconian measures, the World Health Organization reports that
as of September 9, 2022, there have been over 600 million cases of SARS-CoV-2
and over 6.4 million deaths reported worldwide.1
Damage
due to SARS-CoV-2 is not limited to illness and death from the virus itself.
Hundreds of thousands of businesses were bankrupted and families lost their
livelihoods. The unemployment rate skyrocketed. The incidence of depression,
anxiety, and other psychological disorders increased dramatically.
Unprecedented harm was inflicted on children; school closures, masks, and
relentless fear resulted in developmental delays and academic failure for
millions of kids of all ages.
The
response to this disaster must be to prevent this from happening again. The
only way to protect the world from another devastating debacle like this is to
get to the bottom of its origin. Almost three years after the first SARS-CoV-2
patients were reported in Wuhan, China, most Americans still do not know the
truth about the origin of SARS-CoV-2. There are many as-yet unanswered
questions:
• Where did SARS-CoV-2 come from? Lab?
Animal?
• If SARS-CoV-2 was developed in a lab,
which one(s)?
• Who was involved in the development
of SARS-CoV-2?
1 WHO Coronavirus (COVID-19) Dashboard.
https://covid19.who.int/ accessed 9.9.2022
• Who paid for it?
• And why has this information not been
made public?
This
document is designed to answer these questions, with the best evidence
available at this time. Arriving at a conclusion required the analysis of large
amounts of research, some of which is quite complex. We have done our best to
summarize complex data in relatively easy-to-understand terms.
The
story of SARS-CoV-2 involves many government officials and agencies; academic
research centers and research centers; and funding sources. We will discuss
many of them here, but have determined that only a few bare most of the
responsibility for SARS-CoV-2, and this document focuses on these individuals
and organizations:
• Peter Daszak and his organization
EcoHealth Alliance,
• Anthony Fauci, head of The National
Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases,
• Shi Zhengli, Chinese virologist who
headed the Center for Emerging Infectious Diseases at the Wuhan Institute of
Virology,
• Ralph Baric, Professor in the
Department of Epidemiology and the Department of Microbiology and Immunology at
the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
We
believe that in the coming weeks and months, partly in response to making this
document public, more evidence will become available. We do not expect new
disclosures to change any conclusions herein; but rather that more people
coming forward will strengthen our findings.
As
for how to organize our findings, we decided to relate the information as
sequentially as possible, and to provide background information where
appropriate. This document, is, essentially, the “story of SARS-CoV-2”.
Table
of Acronyms
BLAST Basic Local Alignment Search Tool
BSL Bio-Safety
Level
CCP Chinese
Communist Party
CDC Centers
for Disease Control
DARPA U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
DHHS Department
of Health and Human Services
EUA Emergency
Use Authorization
FCS Furin
Cleavage Site
FOIA Freedom
of Information Act
GoF Gain
of Function
NCBI National
Center for Biotechnology Information
NIAH National
Institute of Aging
NIAID National
Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases
NIH National
Institutes of Health
PRC People’s
Republic of China
UNCH University
of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
USAID U.S. Agency for International
Development
USG US
Government
WHO World
Health Organization
WIV Wuhan
Institute of Virology
Table
of Contents
-About
Andrew G. Huff page 6
-What
is Gain-of-Function Research? page
8
-What
is a Chimeric Virus? page10
-The
Wuhan Institute of Virology page 11
-Dr.
Shi’s Research at WIV page 13
-The
Government and Scientific Community Knew GoF Was a Problem page 15
-Government/Health
Officials Knew That Labs in China Were Not Secure page 16
-EcoHealth
Alliance and Peter Daszak page 17
-Could
SARS-CoV-2 Have Come From an Animal? page
21
-Addressing
the Myth That SARS-CoV-2 Originated at the Seafood Market page 22
-Conclusion:
The Creation of SARS-CoV-2 Was Funded
by
NIH, NIAID, and EcoHealth Alliance and Took Place in a Lab page 28
-The
Cover-Up page 31
-From
the Declaration by Andrew G. Huff page
42
-Other
Individuals, Research Institutes and Organization of Interest page 43
-Declaration
of Dr. Andrew G. Huff, PhD, M.S. page
48
- -
- - -
About
Andrew G. Huff PhD.
Andrew
G. Huff worked at EcoHealth Alliance for a period of time and was a first-hand
witness to the design and engineering of SARS-CoV-2. Dr. Huff has provided
considerable valuable information to Renz Law concerning the origin of
SARS-CoV-2 and the misbehavior that took place during the planning and
execution of research supported by or conducted by EcoHealth Alliance.
Information from his first-hand account, which is supported by a deposition
under penalty of perjury, is included in this document.
Dr.
Huff served in the U.S. Army, was involved in the Global War on Terrorism in
Central America, and was engaged served in combat operations in Iraq.
After
returning home from Iraq, Dr. Huff completed a bachelor’s degree in psychology
at the University of Minnesota, one of the top psychology research institutions
in the world. He worked for the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, both
relocating and building new outpatient mental healthcare offices.
Dr.
Huff then earned a master’s degree in Security Technologies with a Geographic
Information Systems minor, also from the University of Minnesota. He was
offered a full scholarship and earned a Ph.D. in the fields of bioterrorism,
biowarfare, chemical warfare, pandemics, and emerging infectious disease. His
research was published in peer-reviewed journals before he submitted his
dissertation for review.
Dr.
Huff then worked as a Research Fellow at the Department of Homeland Security
Center of Excellence. During his tenure there, he presented research at
high-level government meetings and to executives in the private sector.
While
employed with Sandia National Laboratories, Dr. Huff was given Department of
Energy “Q” clearance ,which is equivalent to a Department of Defense “Top
Secret” Clearance with a Special Access Programs designation. He analyzed
national security problems, served as a subject matter expert in public health
and food protection, and worked on projects related to pandemic preparedness,
mitigation, and response.
When
he decided to leave public sector work, he applied for a position at EcoHealth
Alliance in September 2014. Dr. Peter Daszak offered, and Dr. Huff accepted, a
position as Senior Scientist in charge of the Data and Technology team. During
his time at EcoHealth, Dr. Huff was prepared reports for U.S. intelligence
agencies, and reviewed proposals for funding gain of function research to the
National Institute for Allergies and Infectious Diseases as routine scientific
tasks. He eventually was promoted to Vice President after demonstrating that he
could raise funds from wealthy donors and government project sponsors; design
and successfully execute sophisticated research and development projects; and
build high-functioning cohesive teams rapidly.
Dr.
Huff has personal knowledge and documents related to the origin of COVID-19 and
has shared both with Renz Law. His personal declaration is included in this
document as evidence to support many assertions we make.
What
is Gain-of Function Research?
For
purposes of this discussion, gain-of-function research involves manipulating
viruses in a laboratory setting to investigate their potential to infect
humans.
Here
is a description of how gain-of-function research was conducted on a virus to
make it transmissible to humans and to potentially make it more deadly to
humans (in other words, the creation of SARS-CoV-2):
• First,
the genome of an existing virus is mapped.
• In
one approach, a virus is passaged in host animals (for example from
mouse-to-mouse or ferret-to-ferret) repeatedly until a virus with different
properties emerges. The virus may not have the capability of infecting a
targeted animal species at the beginning of the project but gains this
capability to infect the target animal through serial transmission.
• Another
approach involves directly engineering changes in the genome of the virus. In
the case of SARS-CoV-2, a genetically engineered spike protein created in the
lab, was inserted into the genetic sequence of a virus. The high affinity of
this spike protein to the ACE2 receptor in the body increased the infectivity
of what became SARS-CoV-2.
• The
new virus was then tested on humanized mice (biologically modified with a human
receptor that enabled the new SARS-CoV-2 to enter their cells) and on human
lung cells in the lab.
• Researchers
succeeded in infecting human epithelial cell preparations and making the living
mice sick with SARS-CoV-2. They knew they had created a virus that could infect
humans.
• They
then made the absurd claim that this process can happen in nature, which is why
more funding should be allocated to conduct more of this type of research.
This
type of research is controversial due to the risk of accidental release of a
mutated virus that results from these experiments. While hundreds of
researchers have spoken out against it, Dr. Anthony Fauci (head of the National
Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases or NIAID) has historically
defended this type of research. In an editorial in the Washington Post on
December 30 2011, Fauci wrote: “[D]etermining the molecular Achilles’ heel of
these viruses can allow scientists to identify novel antiviral drug targets
that could be used to prevent infection in those at risk or to better treat
those who become infected. Decades of experience tells us that disseminating
information gained through biomedical research to legitimate scientists and
health officials provides a critical foundation for generating appropriate
countermeasures and, ultimately, protecting the public health.”2
Despite
Fauci’s enthusiasm for it, the National Institutes of Health issued a
moratorium on funding for gain-of-function research in 2014. Researchers
involved in this type of work were urged to discontinue their activities until
risks and benefits could be more clearly defined.3
The
October 17, 2014, document that announced the moratorium included these
statements expressing concern about this type of research:
“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 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.”
2 Anthony S. Fauci, Gary J. Nabel and Francis S. Collins. A flu virus risk worth taking. Washington Post December 30 2011 https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-flu-virus-risk-worth-taking/2011/12/30/gIQAM9sNRP_story.html accessed 9.10.2022
3 Akst J. “Moratorium on Gain-of-Function Research.”
The Scientist October 21 2014
“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.”4
It
is important to note that the moratorium applied to NEW rather than existing
funding. Research funded in part by The National Institute of Allergy and
Infectious Diseases through EcoHealth which we have termed “The SARS-CoV-2
Creation Project” was already underway at the time the moratorium was declared.
Ralph Baric, who was conducting gain of function research conducted at the
University of North Carolina Chapel Hill and in partnership with researchers
from the Wuhan Institute of Virology petitioned the NIH biosecurity board for
an exemption from the pause. It was subsequently granted.
What
is a Chimeric Virus?
A
chimera, or chimeric virus, is a virus that contains genetic material from two
or more distinct viruses. Chimeric viruses have been considered as potential
bioweapons due to the increased lethality that can result from combining two
pathogens in a lab.5 6 7
4 U.S. Government Gain-of-Function Deliberative
Process and Research Funding Pause on Selected Gain-of-Function Research
Involving Influenza, MERS and SARS Viruses.
https://www.phe.gov/s3/dualuse/documents/gain-of-function.pdf accessed
9.10.2022
5 Collett Marc. “Impact of Synthetic Genomics on the
Threat of Bioterrorism with Viral Agents”. Working Papers for Synthetic
Genomics: Risks and Benefits for Science and Society 2006:83–103.
6 Smithson A. “A Bio Nightmare.” Bulletin of the
Atomic Scientists 1999 Jul:
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.2968/055004019 accessed 9.9.2022
7 Ainscough MJ. Next Generation Bioweapons: Genetic
Engineering and BW. US Airforce Counterproliferation Center Future Warfare
Series No. 14
https://media.defense.gov/2019/Apr/11/2002115480/-1/-1/0/14NEXTGENBIOWEAPONS.PDF
accessed 9.9.2022
The
Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV)
The
Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) was originally founded in 1956 as the Wuhan
Microbiology Laboratory. The Institute has operated under the jurisdiction of
the Chinese Academy of Sciences since 1978. The Institute’s labs range from
Biosafety Level II (BSL-2) to Biosafety Level IV (BSL-4). BSL-4 labs are used
for research with dangerous agents and substances.
The
WIV BSL-4 LAB, which is of interest in the COVID-19 debacle, 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. This did not, however,
resolve the issue.
Disagreements
between the parties continued. The French obtained information that led them to
think that the PRC intended to build several BSL-4 labs. There were ongoing
disputes over construction. After the Wuhan BSL-4 lab opened, the French became
alarmed when the PRC requested biohazard suits that offered protection beyond
what would have been necessary based on the research that should have been
going on in the lab.
Of
concern to everyone is the influence the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) had and
continues to have on the Institute. High-level CCP officials serve on
committees that decide the projects that will be undertaken in the lab and are
also appointed to management positions.
Accidents
at the lab have been another concern. For example, during a one-month period in
2004, the PRC reported nine new cases of SARS related to an accident during
research using both live and inactivated samples of SARS-CoV.8
8 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.
June 12. 2020 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 9.10.2022
The
Institute 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, ostensibly to facilitate the development of effective
vaccines.9 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.
9 Jane Qiu “How China’s ‘Bat Woman’ Hunted Down
Viruses from SARS to the New Coronavirus.”
Scientific American June 1 2020
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-chinas-bat-woman-
hunted-down-viruses-from-sars-to-the-new-coronavirus1/
accessed 9.10.2022
Dr.
Shi’s Research at WIV
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.10
Shi
was also a member of the Chinese research team that was involved in the
controversial gain-of-function research financed by the National Institute of
Allergy and Infectious Diseases (headed by Anthony Fauci), The National
Institute of Aging of the US National Institutes of Health, and EcoHealth
Alliance (headed by Peter Daszak), and conducted in partnership with a research
team (led by Ralph Baric) at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill. In a
paper published in 2015 in Nature Medicine, the group characterized a chimeric
virus 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.” 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.”
Furthermore,
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.”11
10 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
11 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
Shi
also 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 Peter Daszak as an author.12
What
made this work especially risky was that WIV1 was already known to be
potentially dangerous to humans. Baric had made this clear in an article titled
“SARS-Like WIV1-CoV Poised for Human Emergence.”13
The
bottom line: Researchers at the Wuhan lab, in partnership with U.S. scientists
and funded by the government (directly through the NIAH and NIAID and
indirectly via grants to EcoHealth Alliance) were conducting research on bat
viruses, admitted that they were successful on at least one occasion in
developing one that could infect humans, and this virus seemed to be resistant
to treatment and prevention with vaccines.
12 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
13 Menachery VD, Yount BL, Sims AC et al. “SARS-like
W1V10CoV poised for human emergence.” PNAS 2016 Mar;113(11):3048-3053
The
Government and the Scientific Community Already Knew That Gain of Function
Research was a Problem
In
2012, Dutch scientist Ron Fouchier conducted gain-of-function 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: H5N1 was transmissible between mammals without requiring
recombination in an intermediate host. And it was created in a lab.14
Government
officials were alarmed, which led to the 2014 moratorium. Then-President Obama
mandated that gain-of-function research involving influenza, SARS, and MERS be
paused until a new regulatory framework could be developed. Ralph Baric, who
was at the time conducting gain-of-function research in partnership with Shi
Zhengli (from the Wuhan Institute), petitioned the NIH biosecurity board for an
exemption from the pause.
It
was subsequently granted.
Meanwhile
Shi’s lab was unencumbered by any restrictions and gain-of-function research
continued at the Wuhan Institute. She 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.15
14 Herfst S, Schrauwen EJA, Linster M et al. “Airborne
Transmission of Influenza A/H5N1 Virus Between Ferrets.” Science 2012
Jun;336(6088):1534-1541
15 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
Government
and Health Officials Were Also Aware That Labs in China Were Not Secure
In
2004, the World Health Organization voiced concerns about lab security,
particularly Chinese labs. According to the WHO, a SARS outbreak in 2003
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.16
The
Wuhan Lab was the first in China to achieve the highest level of international
bioresearch containment (BSL-4), but it was well-known that security was lax.
Two years before the SARS-CoV-2 debacle, U.S. Embassy officials visited the
Wuhan Institute several times and sent two “Sensitive but unclassified” cables
to Washington stating that safety in the lab was inadequate. One of them warned
about the lab’s experiments on bat viruses and the potential for human
transmission and the risk of a SARS pandemic.17
16 Parry J. “Breaches of safety regulations are
probable cause of recent SARS outbreak, WHO says.” BMJ 2004 May;328(7450):1222
17 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 9.10.2022
EcoHealth
Alliance and Peter Daszak
EcoHealth
Alliance, 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, the organization rebranded itself to focus on “global
health,” and the “relationships between ecosystems and animal and human health.”18
EcoHealth
Alliance currently lists many partners on its website. These include19:
• The
Centers for Disease Control
• The
National Institutes of Health
• UC
Davis California
• University
of Pittsburgh Public Health
• Columbia
University
• Princeton
University
• Johns
Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
• Johnson
and Johnson
Many
of these organizations have been very involved with and some have profited from
the SARS-CoV-2 debacle. For example, Johnson and Johnson is the maker of one of
the COVID-19 vaccines approved under the Emergency Use Authorization, and sales
have totaled billions of dollars.20
During
a several-year period of time starting in 2008, EcoHealth Alliance received
funding from two U.S. government sources specifically related to Gain of
Function Research:
The
U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) through a 5-year program
called PREDICT.
18 Entering its Fifth Decade, Wildlife Trust
Re-Brands as EcoHealth Alliance. September 21 2020
https://www.ecohealthalliance.org/2010/09/entering-its-fifth-decade-wildlife-trust-re-brands-as-ecohealth-alliance
19 https://www.ecohealthalliance.org/partners
20 Spencer Kimball. J&J expects more than $3
billion in COVID vaccine sales this year in mixed quarterly report. CNBC Jan 25
2022
National
Institutes of Health and National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases
gave grants related to “Understanding the Risk of Bat Coronavirus Emergence.”21
Here
are just a few of the grant awards:
2008 NIH/NIAID Project number 1R01AI079231-0122 Risk
of Viral Emergence from Bats
$534,989
2009 NIH/NIAID Project number 5R01AI079231-0223 Risk
of Viral Emergence From Bats
$535,156
2010 NIH/NIAID Project number 5R01AI0799231-0324
Risk of Viral Emergence From Bats
$480,423
2011 NIH/NIAID Project number 5R01AI0179231-0425
Risk of Viral Emergence From Bats
$510,005
2012 NIH/NIAID Project Number 5R01AI0179231-0526
Risk of Viral Emergence From Bats
$518,980
For
the period 2002 through 2021, EcoHealth Alliance received a total of
$16,874,314 in grant money from NIH/NIAID.27 Millions of dollars were allocated
for researching bat viruses but
21
https://www.usaspending.gov/award/ASST_NON_R01AI110964_7529
22
https://reporter.nih.gov/search/CzU6U_tz2EG7c2LWkYMjLA/project-details/7509184
23
https://reporter.nih.gov/search/CzU6U_tz2EG7c2LWkYMjLA/project-details/7688507
accessed
9.11.2022
24
https://reporter.nih.gov/search/CzU6U_tz2EG7c2LWkYMjLA/project-details/7934526
accessed
9.11.2022
25
https://reporter.nih.gov/search/CzU6U_tz2EG7c2LWkYMjLA/project-details/8142143
accessed
9.11.2022
26
https://reporter.nih.gov/search/DSSafL8TgkmP49MquyvTDQ/project-details/8313666 accessed
9.11.2022
27
https://reporter.nih.gov/search/Ho2wtHWeYEyi7P9MQUkUtQ/projects accessed
9.11.2022
NIH
also provided several hundred thousand dollars for research on the Nipah
virus,28 which has a 40-70% lethality rate, according to the WHO.29
Some
of this money received by EcoHealth – about six hundred thousand dollars – was
given as a subgrant to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, in spite of the fact
that security issues in Chinese labs and specifically at the Wuhan Institute
were well-known.
Several
hundred pages of emails obtained as a result of a lawsuit filed by the White
Coat Waste Project reveal significant information about Daszak and his
partners. In an email to NIAID, Daszak lists several “Senior/Key Personnel”
involved in his projects including Ralph Baric at the University of North
Carolina Chapel Hill, and Shi Zhengli along with several other scientists at
the Wuhan Institute of Virology.30
These
emails also discuss collecting viruses from bats in several countries including
Laos.31
Why
is this significant? The emails show that it was decided to send samples to the
Wuhan Institute of Virology.
Viruses
isolated from the bats from Laos were genetically very close to SARS-CoV-2; the
only thing missing was the furin cleavage site. But it defies logic that a bat
virus that is almost identical to SARS-CoV-2 could have been transported to the
Wuhan lab, where gain of function research was taking place, that the outbreak
of SARS-CoV-2 took place in Wuhan, and that this could all be a coincidence.32
33 34
This
is particularly unlikely in view of a grant proposal submitted by EcoHealth to
another U.S. government agency that specifically referred to the “furin
cleavage sites.”
In
2018, Daszak, at EcoHealth Alliance, in partnership with Shi, Baric, and Linfa
Wang director of the Programme in Emerging Infectious Diseases at Duke-N.U.S.
Medical School), submitted a
$14.2-million
grant proposal to the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
28
https://reporter.nih.gov/search/DSSafL8TgkmP49MquyvTDQ/project-details/8326099
29
https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/nipah-virus
30 Gain of Function Communications Between EcoHealth
Alliance and NIAID p 21-22
31 Gain of Function Communications Between EcoHealth
Alliance and NIAID. P 61
32 White Coat Waste Project. From Laos to Wuhan: ECW
FOIA Investigation Sheds Light on Pandemic’s Origins. December 7 2021
https://blog.whitecoatwaste.org/2021/12/07/from-laos-to-wuhan-wcw-foia-investigation-sheds-light-on-pandemics-origins/
accessed 9.10.2022
33 Matt Riley. The COVID lab leak theory just got
even stronger. The Spectator November 20 2021
34 Wuhan scientists were studying Laos bat viral
samples before COVID-Report. Business Standard
November 22 2021
https://www.business-standard.com/article/current-affairs/wuhan-scientists-were-
studying-laos-bat-viral-samples-before-covid-report-121112201019_1.html
accessed 9.10.2022
(DARPA).35
This
proposal was ultimately turned down. But the proposal included plans to insert “human-specific”
furin cleavage sites into SARS-like coronaviruses, and then to test the altered
viruses in human respiratory cells and humanized mice. The furin cleavage site
is particularly important since it is the most distinguishing feature of
SARS-CoV-2. It allows the virus to bind more efficiently and release genetic
material into human cells. It is one of the reasons that SARS-CoV-2 transmits
so easily from human to human and can be so harmful.
According
to Richard Ebright, molecular biologist at Rutgers University, “The relevance
of this is that 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.”36
35
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21066966-defuse-proposal accessed
9.10.2022
36 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
Could
SARS-CoV-2 Have Come From an Animal?
It
is possible, but not probable. SARS was found to have been transmitted from
bats to civets and then to humans in November 2002.37
It
took about four months to make this determination.38
MERS
emerged in Saudi Arabia in 2012 spread from bats to camels to people.39
It
took about nine months to make this determination.40
But
almost three years after the first patients were identified, no animal has been
identified as the source of SARS-CoV-2. At this time, such a discovery is not
likely to occur. Authors of a World Health Organization report wrote in an
August letter to Nature, “The window is rapidly closing on the biological
feasibility of conducting the critical trace-back of people and animals inside
and outside China.” Daszak was a co-author of this letter.41
37 Wang LF, Eaton BT. “Bats, civets and the
emergence of SARS.” Curr Top Microl Immunol
2007;315:325-344
38 Guan Y, Zheng BJ, He YQ et al. “Isolation and
characterization of viruses related to the SARS coronavirus from animals in
southern China.” Science 2003 Oct;302(5643):276-278
39 Han HJ, Yu H, Yu XJ. “Evidence for zoonotic
origins of Middle East Respiratory syndrome coronavirus.”
J Gen Virol 2016 Feb;97(2):274-7280
40 Omrani AS, Al-Tawfiq JA, Memish ZA. “Middle east
respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV): animal to human interaction.”
Pathog Glob Health 2015 Dec;109(8):354-362
41 Koopmans M, Dszak P, Dedkov VG et al. “Origins of
the SARS-CoV-2: window is closing for key scientific studies.” Nature 2021 Aug
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02263-6?proof=t%29Nature accessed
9.10.2022
Addressing
the Myth That SARS-CoV-2 Originated at the Huanan Seafood Market
The
first official announcement from the Chinese government concerning SARS-CoV-2
was issued on December 30, 2019, when the Wuhan Municipal Health Commission
reported that “cases of pneumonia of unknown cause” were linked to the Huanan
Seafood Market, which sold live wild animals in addition to seafood, including
hedgehogs, badgers, snakes, and turtledoves. It was also stated there was no
evidence of “obvious human to human transmission and no infection among medical
personnel.”42
Timeline
for the Deception
On
January 1, 2020, the Huanan Seafood Market was closed for cleaning. Vendors
reported that workers had started spraying disinfectant on December 30, 2019.43
Scientists
from China’s National Institute for Viral Disease Control and Prevention
collected 515 samples from the Huanan Seafood Market for analysis, also on
January 1, 2020 and returned to collect 70 more samples from vendors after the
market re-opened.
At
the same time, an official at the Hubei Provincial Health Commission ordered
gene sequencing companies and labs to stop testing and to destroy all patient
samples.44
42 Zhang Jingshu and Wang Ruiwen Editor: Li Jie.
Wuhan Central Hospital claims that SARS rumors spread through the internet,
there is no doubt that the patient may be diagnosed. Beijing News 12.31.2019
http://www.bjnews.com.cn/news/2019/12/31/668421.html accessed 9.10.2022
43 Seafood market closed after outbreak of ‘unidentified’
pneumonia. Global Times Jan 1 2020
https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1175369.shtml accessed 9.10.2022
44 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.
June 12. 2020
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 9.10.2022
On
January 2, 2020 an analysis of samples from patients at Wuhan’s Jinyintan
Hospital by researchers at Wuhan Institute of Virology identified the novel
coronavirus.45
On
January 3, 2020 the Wuhan Municipal Commission reported that 44 patients had
been identified with symptoms consistent with “pneumonia of unknown origin”
some of whom worked at the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market and 11 of whom were
severely ill.46
On
January 5 2020 A WHO statement was posted that included the following:
“The
reported link to a wholesale fish and live animal market could indicate an
exposure link to animals. The symptoms reported among the patients are common
to several respiratory diseases, and pneumonia is common in the winter season;
however, the occurrence of 44 cases of pneumonia requiring hospitalization
clustered in space and time should be handled prudently.”47
According
to the authorities, some patients were operating dealers or vendors in the
Huanan Seafood market. Based on the preliminary information from the Chinese
investigation team, no evidence of significant human-to-human transmission and
no health care worker infections have been reported.48
The
WHO also posted this statement:
The
reported link to a wholesale fish and live animal market could indicate an
exposure link to animals. The symptoms reported among the patients are common
to several respiratory diseases, and pneumonia is common in the winter season;
however, the occurrence of 44 cases of pneumonia requiring hospitalization
clustered in space and time should be handled prudently.49
45 Report of the WHO-China Joint Mission on
Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) 16-24 Feb 2020
https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/who-china-joint-mission-on-covid-19-final-report.pdf
accessed 9.10.2022
46 Lu H, Stratton CW, Tang YW. “Outbreak of
Pneumonia of Unknown Etiology in Wuhan China: The mystery and the miracle.” J
Med Viro 2020 Apr;92(4):401-402
47 IBID
48 World Health Organization. Pneumonia of unknown
cause – China. World Health Organization
https://www.who.int/csr/don/05-january-2020-pneumonia-of-unkown-cause-china/en/
accessed 9.10.2022
49 IBID
In
other words, the WHO was repeating the Chinese claim that the virus originated
in the seafood market and gave the impression that there was no reason for
concern.
January
12, 2020
WHO
issued this statement: “China shared the genetic sequence of the novel
coronavirus on 12 January, which will be of great importance for other
countries to use in developing specific diagnostic tests.” WHO also stated, “The
evidence is highly suggestive that the outbreak is associated with exposures in
one seafood market in Wuhan. The market was closed on 1 January 2020. At this
stage, there is no infection among healthcare workers, and no clear evidence of
human-to-human transmission.”50
January
14, 2020
WHO
tweets, “Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have
found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel
#coronavirus (2019-nCov) identified in #Wuhan, #China.”51
January
26, 2020
The
Institute of Virology and Chinese CDC announced that the novel coronavirus was
present in 33 of the 585 environmental samples collected from the Wuhan Huanan
Seafood Wholesale Market earlier in the month. Of these 33 samples, all but two
were collected from an area of the market where wildlife vendors were located.
Xinhua News Service says the results indicate “the virus stems from wild
animals on sale at the market.”52
Almost
immediately, however, published research showed that the market could not have
been the source of the outbreak. The co-authors of an 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.
Two of the next three patients to show symptoms, all on December 10, also had
no exposure to the market. “No epidemiological link was found between the first
patient and later cases,” the researchers wrote. And, in fact, there were 13
patients with no link to the market.53
50 Novel Coronavirus—China. World Health
Organization. January 12, 2020
https://www.who.int/emergencies/disease-outbreak-news/item/2020-DON233
accessed 9.10.2022
51
https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1217043229427761152 accessed 9.10.2022
52 China Detects Large Quantity of Novel Coronavirus
at Wuhan Seafood Market. XinhuaNet January 27, 2020
http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2020-01/27/c_138735677.htm accessed 9.10.2022
53 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
“That’s
a big number, 13, with no link,” stated Daniel Lucey, an infectious disease
specialist at Georgetown University, who went on to say that the Lancet paper
raised questions about the overall accuracy of the data the CCP was providing
to the world.
According
to Lucey, the Wuhan Municipal Health Commission was the “official source” of
public information and on January 11, 2020, reported that there were only 41
confirmed patients, that there was no evidence of human-to-human transmission,
and that most cases were related to the market. Because the Wuhan Municipal
Health Commission noted that diagnostic tests had confirmed these 41 cases by
January 10, 2020, and officials presumably knew the case histories of each
patient, Lucey said “China must have realized the epidemic did not originate in
that Wuhan Huanan seafood market.”54
An
article published in the Lancet on January 30, 2020 reported that of 99
patients diagnosed with COVID-19 between Jan 1 and Jan 20, 2020, forty-nine had
been exposed to the Huanan Seafood Market, and 50 had not.55
And
an article in the New England Journal of Medicine reported that of 425
confirmed cases, the majority (55%) with onset before January 1, 2020 were
linked to seafood market, although this was true for only 8.6% of subsequent
cases.56
The
theory that the seafood market was the source of the outbreak and that the
virus was not transmissible between humans was falling apart.
It
is important to note that the First National Health Commission arrived in Wuhan
December 31, 2019, and determined that in order to diagnose SARS-CoV-2, three
criteria needed to be met: a history of exposure to the seafood market, fever,
and the full genome from respiratory or serum specimens identical to SARS-CoV-2
sequences.57
The
timeline above, however, indicates that the Chinese knew that one third had no
contact with the seafood market when these criteria were established. So why
were these criteria established? To mislead the world about the origin of the
virus? The criteria were not changed until January 18, 2020, but on January 26,
2020, Chinese authorities were still claiming that the virus originated at the
seafood market.
54 Jon Cohen. Wuhan seafood market may not be source
of novel virus spreading globally. Science Jan 26 2020
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/01/wuhan-seafood-market-may-not-be-source-novel-virus-spreading-globally
accessed 9.10.2022
55 Chen N, Zhou M, Dong X, Qu J, Gong F, Han Y. “Epidemiological
and clinical characteristics of 99 cases of 2019 novel coronavirus pneumonia in
Wuhan, China: a descriptive study.” Lancet 2020 Feb;395(10223):P507-513
56 Li Q, Med M, Guan X et al. “Early Transmission
Dynamics in Wuhan, China, of Novel Coronavirus-Infected Pneumonia.” NEJM 2020
Mar;382:1199-1207
57 Han Y, Yang H. “The transmission and diagnosis of
2019 novel coronavirus infection disease (COVID-19): A Chinese perspective.” J
Med Virol 2020 Mar;92:639-644
So
where did this virus originate?
A
sample of bronchoalveolar fluid from a single patient hospitalized on December
26, 2019, identified a new RNA virus strain most closely related (89.1%
nucleotide similarity) to a group of SARS-like coronaviruses previously found
in bats in China. The researchers noted that although SARS-like viruses have
been identified widely in bats in China, viruses identical to SARS-CoV had not
yet been documented. They noted that the Wuhan coronavirus was most closely
related to bat coronaviruses and showed 100% amino acid similarity to bat
SL-CoVZC45 in the nsp7 and E proteins. 58
The
problem is that there were no bats at the seafood market, which means that the
virus could not have originated there.
In
a paper published in the Lancet, researchers wrote, “Notably, 2019-nCoV was
closely related (with 88% identity) to two bat-derived severe acute respiratory
syndrome (SARS)-like coronaviruses, bat-SL-CoVZC45 and bat-SL-CoVZXC21,
collected in 2018 in Zhoushan, in eastern China.”59
The
researchers were referring to a 2018 paper which reported the results of an
analysis of 334 bats collected between 2015 and 2017 from Zhoushan City in
Zhejiang province China. Coronaviruses were detected in 26.65% of these bats,
and the viruses had 81% shared nucleotide identity with human/civet
SARS-CoVs.60
This
sounds complicated, and it is, but what this means is that the Wuhan virus was
very similar to bat viruses. Yet there were no bats at the seafood market. Also
remember that “the bat lady” – Shi - had been studying bat viruses at the WIV
for an exceptionally long time.
Again,
the CCP was not forthcoming. The Shanghai lab where researchers published the
first genome sequence of the coronavirus that caused COVID-19 was shut down by
the Shanghai Health Commission for “rectification” on January 12, 2020, five
days after Professor Yong-Zhen Zhang’s team published the genome sequence and
made it available to the public. The team had reported that the virus resembled
a group of viruses previously found in bats. This lab was a Level 3 biosafety
facility and had just passed its annual inspection on January 5, 2020.61
58 Wu F, Zhao S, Yu B et al. “A new coronavirus
associated with human respiratory disease in China.”
Nature 2020 Feb;579:265-269
59 Lu R, Zhao X, Li J et al. “Genomic
characterization and epidemiology of 2019 novel coronavirus: implications for
virus origins and receptor binding.” Lancet 2020 Feb;395:565-574
60 Hu D, Zhu C, Ai L et al. “Genomic
characterization and infectivity of a novel SARS-like coronavirus in Chinese
bats.” Emerg Microbes Infect 2018 Sep;7:154
61 Zhuang Pinghui “Chinese laboratory that first
shared coronavirus genome with world ordered to close for ‘rectification’,
hindering its Covid-19 research.” South China Morning Post Feb 28 2020
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/3052966/chinese-laboratory-first-shared-coronavirus-genome-world-ordered
accessed 9.10.2022
Indian
researchers also studied the virus and found four insertions in the spike
protein that are unique to SARS-CoV-2 and not present in other coronaviruses.
The amino acid residues in all four insertions were found to be similar to
amino acid residues in the structural proteins of HIV-
1.
The researchers noted that there are only 3 viruses that contain these
sequences – HIV-1, the bat coronaviruses discovered by Shi, and the New Wuhan
virus (COVID-19). They also noted that it was highly unlikely that this could
have occurred naturally.62
This
article was later withdrawn. The Indian researchers wrote that they intended to
revise it in response to comments received from the research community.63
Almost
a year later, Ashutosh Kumar Pandey, one of the researchers, told a reporter
that the article was inconvenient for those who wanted to promote the natural
origin theory. He stated that the paper was withdrawn due to pressure from “people
with vested interests.”
Pandey
also said that the original paper represented a small portion of the studies
that he and his group had conducted. When they tried to include their entire
findings in a new article, the revised manuscript was blocked by journal
publishers. When asked how it was possible for scientific papers to be blocked
to comply with a particular agenda, he replied, “Science is the new medieval
church, those who are popes of it censor at their will.”64
Notes
from a lecture delivered by Shi shortly before the outbreak began disappeared
from the Institute website.
The
CCP’s order to labs to destroy samples, and its refusal to share information
and samples to the world community has not helped to instill confidence in the
integrity of Chinese officials and their representations concerning the virus.
Bottom
Line: What we now call SARS-CoV-2 is almost identical to viruses obtained from
bats in Laos and shares important characteristics with chimeric viruses created
via gain-of-function research. There is almost no evidence to support the idea
that this virus was transmitted directly from bats or other animals to humans,
or that the original patients were infected at the wet market.
62 Pradhan P, Pandley AK, Mishra A et al. “Uncanny
similarity of unique inserts in the 2019-nCoV spike protein to HIV-1 gp120 and
Gag.” BioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.01.30.927871
63 IBID
64 COVID-19 lab leak theory: Indian scientists had
flagged ‘unnatural insertions’ in its genome, were forced to withdraw study.
OpIndia June 4 2021
https://www.opindia.com/2021/06/indian-scientists-had-found-unique-insertions-in-covid-19-virus-genome/
accessed 9.10.2022
Conclusion:
The Creation of SARS CoV-2 Was Funded by NIH, NIAID, and EcoHealth Alliance and
Took Place in a Lab
A
comparison between a virus created in a lab, and described in a paper published
in Nature Medicine reveals startling similarities to SARS-CoV-2:65
• Younger
mice were relatively unaffected.
• The
virus was deadly to older mice or mice with compromised immune systems.
• Showed
strong tendency to attack lung tissue, invade human bronchial epithelial cells.
• Caused
weight loss in mice, a common side effect of SARS-CoV-2 in humans.
• Resistant
to standard treatment.
• Researchers
were unable to develop an effective vaccine.
• When
a vaccine made of “inactivated whole SARS-CoV” was given to older animals they
became sicker when re-exposed to SARS-CoV.
• Older
animals vaccinated and then exposed: “augmented immune pathology was also
observed, indicating the possibility of the animals being harmed because of the
vaccination.”
• Exaggerated
immune response after vaccination and re-exposure.
According to the article, this work was funded by
EcoHealth Alliance, The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases
(NIAID), and The National Institutes of Health. The authors of the paper
included Zhengli-Li Shi (from the Wuhan Institute), Ralph Baric (UNCH) and
Peter Daszak (EcoHealth Alliance).
Another
clue as to the origin of SARS-CoV-2 comes from an interview with Daszak
conducted by virologist Vincent Racaniello on December 19, 2019, just three
weeks before the Wuhan Municipal Health Commission reported the first cases of
what turned out to be COVID-19:
65 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
At
the 28:10 mark of the podcast interview, Daszak states that researchers found
that SARS likely originated from bats and then set out to find more
SARS-related coronaviruses, eventually finding over one hundred of them.
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.
At
the 29:54-mark Daszak is asked what can be done to deal with coronaviruses
given that there are no therapeutics or vaccines for them, 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.
Referring
specifically to bat coronaviruses, Daszak said, “You 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, stating “Spike protein drives a lot of what happens with the
coronavirus, zoonotic risk.” He also talked about inserting the spike protein “into
a backbone of another virus” and then doing “some work in the lab.”
Daszak
acknowledged collaboration with Baric: “and we work with Ralph Baric at UNC
[University of North Carolina] to do this.”
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.”66
Evidence
also shows that SARS-CoV-2 is likely not only manmade but may have been
developed in collaboration with other entities.
66 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 9.10.2022
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. The algorithm allows scientists to quickly query a DNA sequence to
find matches or regions of similarity between protein sequences. Scientists worldwide
deposit their sequences when they make new discoveries.
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).67
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
×10−11 (less than one in one billion). The owner of the patent is Moderna,
which makes COVID-19 vaccines using mRNA technology.68
While
nothing is impossible, a SARS virus mutating in nature and jumping species that
contains a furin cleavage site that does not exist in nature but does exist in
a Moderna patent – not at all likely. The authors write, “The presence in
SARS-CoV-2 of a 19-nucleotide sequence encoding an FCS at amino acid 681 of its
spike protein with 100% identity to the reverse complement of a proprietary
MSH3 mRNA sequence is highly unusual. Potential explanations for this
correlation should be further investigated.”69
67 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
9.10.2022
68 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
69 IBID
The
Cover-Up
Peter
Daszak, Anthony Fauci, and many others have invested considerable effort in
trying to convince the public and the scientific community that the lab origin
theory is false.
In
February 2020, Daszak organized scientists to write an open letter published in
the Lancet that included these statements: “The 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.”70
Daszak
was one of the authors. But prior to signing on, he expressed concern about
distancing himself to hide his participation in gain-of-function research. In
an email obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request, Daszak wrote to
collaborator Ralph Baric: “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. We’ll then put it out in a way that
doesn’t link it back to our collaboration so we maximize an independent voice.”71
Baric
agreed, writing back, “I also think this is a good decision. Otherwise it looks
self-serving and we lose impact.”72
70 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
71 Emails show scientists discussed masking their
involvement in key journal letter on COVID origins. US Right to Know Feb 15
2021
https://usrtk.org/biohazards-blog/scientists-masked-involvement-in-lancet-letter-on-covid-origin/
accessed 9.10.2022
72 IBID
The
letter included this statement: “We declare no competing interests.”73
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.74
Daszak
further tried to cover his tracks when he agreed to be part of a team sent to
China by the World Health Organization in February 2021 to investigate the
origin of SARS-CoV-2. Not surprisingly, the team reported that it was “extremely
unlikely” that the virus has been released from a lab.75
Team
members were asked to sign a declaration of interest and according to the
report, “All declared interests were assessed and found not to interfere with
the independence and transparency of the work.”76
It
is difficult to believe that Dasak could have disclosed his connection to the
Wuhan Institute and gain-of-function research and met the criteria for “independence
and transparency.”
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. 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.”77
Sachs
ended the task force’s work after more information became public that
questioned the veracity of statements made by Daszak.78
Daszak’s
collaborators are equally evasive. According to David Morens, Daszak’s work
benefits humanity and we should all be grateful.”79
But
Morens is with the National Institute
73 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
74 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 9.10.2022
75 WHO-convened Global Study of the Origins of
SARS-CoV-2: China Part.
file:///C:/Users/Pam/Downloads/Final-joint-report_origins-studies-6-April-201%20(2).pdf
accessed 9.10.2022
76 IBID p 12
77 Jeffrey Sachs. Finding the Origins of the
COVID-19 and Preventing Future Pandemics.
https://www.jeffsachs.org/newspaper-articles/cp24mtcpswgyty5st4pm29mwh6dt2d
accessed 9.10.2022
78 COVID-19: Lancet investigation into origin of
pandemic shuts down over bias risk. BMJ 2021;375:n2414
79 Jon Cohen. Prophet in Purgatory. Science November
17 2021
of
Allergy and Infectious Diseases, which provides grant money to Daszak, and he
co-authors articles defending the idea that SARS-CoV-2 came from nature.80
Yet
more evidence of a cover-up is described in email exchanges between Anthony
Fauci, head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, other
NIH personnel and outside researchers.
On
January 31, 2020, Fauci received an email from Greg Folkers of the National
Institutes of Health.81
The
email included no text, but an article published in Science was attached.82
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.83
The
author 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. The author also reported 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 2015.84
This
article 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 EcoHealth.
Within
minutes, Fauci forwarded the Science article to Jeremy Farrar, the head of
Wellcome Trust, a UK non-profit, and Kristian Andersen with Scripps Research
Institute.85
He
later sent the article to Robert Kadlec at the Health and Human Services Office
of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response.86
80 Morens D, Daszak P, Markel H, Taubenberger JK. “Pandemic
COVID-19 Joins History’s Pandemic Legion.” mBio 2020 May;11(3):e00812-20
81
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/20793561/leopold-nih-foia-anthony-fauci-emails.pdf
p3229 accessed 9.10.2022
82 Jon Cohen. Mining coronavirus genomes for clues
to the outbreak’s origins. Science Jan 31 2020
83
https://gisaid.org/database-features/flusurver-mutations-app/ accessed
9.10.2022
84 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
85
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/20793561/leopold-nih-foia-anthony-fauci-emails.pdf
p3187 accessed 9.10.2022
86
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/20793561/leopold-nih-foia-anthony-fauci-emails.pdf
p3222 accessed 9.10.2022
On
the same day, Kristian Anderson wrote in an email to Fauci: “The unusual
features of the virus make up a really small part of the genome (<0.1%) so
one has to look really closely at all the sequences to see that some of the
features (potentially) look engineered.”87
The
next day on February 1 2020, Fauci sent an email to Hugh Auchincloss, deputy
director of NIAID.88
The
subject line was IMPORTANT (in all caps) and read: “It is essential that we
speak this AM. Keep your cell phone on…Read this paper as well as the email
that I will forward to you now. You will have tasks today that must be done.”
Attached
to the second email was a document titled “Baric, Shi et al – Nature Medicine –
SARS Gain of Function.pdf.” This is particularly important since Fauci denied
under oath in front of a Senate hearing that Ralph Baric was conducting
gain-of-function research at the University of North Carolina. Within a few
seconds, Fauci forwarded the article from Science89
to
Auchincloss as well.90
He
then forwarded the Nature Medicine article to Lawrence Tabak at the National
Institutes of Health with “IMPORTANT” in the memo.91
It
seems that Fauci was concerned and was alerting his colleagues that disclosure
of this information might be a problem. The others seemed equally concerned.
Farrar sent an email at 10:34AM announcing that he had scheduled a conference
call and wrote that his expectation was that “information and discussion is
shared in total confidence and not to be shared until agreement on next steps.”92
Auchincloss
then wrote to Fauci, “The paper you sent me says the experiments were performed
before the gain of function pause but have since been reviewed and approved by
NIH. Not sure what that means since Emily is sure that no Coronavirus work has
gone through the P3 framework. She will try to determine if we have any distant
ties to this work abroad.”93
Fauci
replied, “OK. Stay tuned.”94
87
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/20793561/leopold-nih-foia-anthony-fauci-emails.pdf
p
3187 accessed 9.10.2022
88
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/20793561/leopold-nih-foia-anthony-fauci-emails.pdf
p
3221 accessed 9.10.2022
89 Jon Cohen. Mining coronavirus genomes for clues
to the outbreak’s origins. Science Jan 31 2020
90
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/20793561/leopold-nih-foia-anthony-fauci-emails.pdf
p
3215 accessed
9.10.2022
91
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/20793561/leopold-nih-foia-anthony-fauci-emails.pdf
p3210 accessed 9.10.2022
92
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/20793561/leopold-nih-foia-anthony-fauci-emails.pdf
p3197 accessed 9.10.2022
93
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/20793561/leopold-nih-foia-anthony-fauci-emails.pdf
p3206 accessed 9.10.2022
94
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/20793561/leopold-nih-foia-anthony-fauci-emails.pdf
p3206 accessed 9.10.2022
During
the conference call, Farrar sent an email to four of the people on the call,
including Fauci, that read, “Can I suggest we shut down the call and then
redial in? Just for 5-10 minutes?”95
There
are several follow-up emails between the parties but the most important are
those that discuss the need to talk to World Health Organization
Director-General Tedros. An email of particular interest is from Farrar to
Fauci and NIH Director Collins, which was shared with others: “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 how we might take forward [sic].”96
In
this email, Farrar expressed concern about an article published by ZeroHedge
which discussed the potential lab release as the origin of the virus.97
Subsequently
ZeroHedge was banned from Twitter.
On
February 3 2021, Tedros delivered a Report of the Director-General, 146th
Meeting of the Executive Board, during which he emphasized the importance of
controlling the spread of misinformation and announced that WHO was working
with Google “to make sure people searching for information about coronavirus
see WHO information at the top of their search results. Social media platforms
including Twitter, Facebook, Tencent and Tiktok have also taken steps to limit
the spread of misinformation.”98
The
proper term to describe this might be “censorship.”
In
March 2020, a statement of support for the idea that SARS-CoV-2 was transmitted
from an animal to a human was published in the Lancet.99 It was signed by many
people including Peter Daszak, President of EcoHealth Alliance and Christian
Drosten. Then things start to get very interesting.
EcoHealth
Alliance is the organization that received money from NIAID and distributed it
to Ralph Baric at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, and Shi
Zhengli, a virologist
95
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/20793561/leopold-nih-foia-anthony-fauci-emails.pdf
p 3172 accessed 9.10.2022
96
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/20793561/leopold-nih-foia-anthony-fauci-emails.pdf
p3125 accessed 9.10.2022
97 Tyler Durden. Coronavirus Contains “HIV
Insertions”, Stoking Fears Over Artificially Created Bioweapon. ZeroHedge Feb 1
2020
98 Report of the Director-General, 146th Meeting of
the Executive Board.
https://www.who.int/director-general/speeches/detail/report-of-the-director-general-146th-meeting-of-the-executive-board
accessed 9.10.2022
99 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.” Lancet 2020 Mar;395(10226):E42-E43
referred
to as the “bat lady” at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The money was
earmarked for gain-of-function research. Emails obtained by U.S. Right to Know
show that the “statement of solidarity” that appeared in the Lancet was
actually drafted by Peter Daszak.100
Apparently,
Ralph Baric was shown drafts of Daszak’s letter but was informed by Daszak that
he did not need to sign the statement. Baric agreed, stating that doing so
would appear to be self-serving. Daszak wrote that other key people would be
looking at the letter and that it would be “…put out in a way that doesn’t link
it back to our collaboration so we maximize an independent voice.”101
Daszak
also wrote, “Please note that this statement will not have EcoHealth Alliance
logo on it and will not be identifiable as coming from any one organization or
person, the idea is to have this as a community supporting our colleagues.”102
This
shows deliberate intent to hide the relationships between the parties. Indeed,
five of the signers of this “solidarity statement” were directly affiliated
with EcoHealth Alliance103
and
two were partners of EcoHealth.104
Christian
Drosten is another signer of the solidary statement. He also has an interesting
background. Drosten and his colleagues had published an article in
Eurosurveillance on Jan 23, 2020, in which they claimed to have developed a
RT-PCR test for SARS-CoV-2.105
There
were several problems with this paper, including the fact that that this group
did not have SARS-CoV-2 viral material at the time that the article was
published. The researchers acknowledged this, writing: “We aimed to develop and
deploy robust diagnostic methodology for use in public health laboratory
settings without having virus material available.”106
Instead,
the group relied on theoretical sequences which were provided by a lab in
China. Despite this, the test was immediately endorsed by World Health
Organization Director General Tedros Adhanom. A large group of scientists has
called for this paper to be retracted for many reasons, including undisclosed
conflicts of interest for some of the authors and lack of peer review.107
100
https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Biohazard_FOIA_Maryland_Emails_11.6.20.pdf
accessed 9.10.2022
101
https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Baric_Daszak_email.pdf p 273
accessed 9.10.2022
102
https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Baric_Daszak_email.pdf p 274
accessed 9.10.2022
103 Sainath Suryanarayanan. EcoHealth Alliance
orchestrated key scientists statement on “natural origin” of SARS-CoV-2. USRTK
Nov 18 2020
https://usrtk.org/biohazards-blog/ecohealth-alliance-orchestrated-key-scientists-statement-on-natural-origin-of-sars-cov-2/
accessed 9.10.2022
104 https://www.ecohealthalliance.org/partners
105 Corman VM, Landt O, Kaiser M et al. “Detection
of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR.” Euro Surveill 2020
Jan;25(3):2000045
106 IBID
107 Borger P, Malhotra BR, Yeadon M et al. “External
peer review of the RTPCR test t detect SARS-CoV-2 reveals 10 major scientific
flaws at the molecular and methodological level: consequences for false
positive results.” Corman-Drosten Review Report. November 27 2020
https://cormandrostenreview.com/report/ accessed 9.10.2022
The
bottom line: both Daszak and Drosten had significant motivation to keep the
actual origin of the virus, their knowledge about it, and other details a
secret; as did Fauci and other employees of the NIH and NIAID.
Kristian
Andersen, who had, in late January, written to Fauci expressing his concerns
that SARS-Co-V-2 included sequences that appeared to be manmade, led a group
that published an article in Nature on March 17, 2020, in support of the theory
that the virus was transmitted from animals to humans.108
After
this, Andersen received a generous grant from the National Institutes of
Health. At this time, we have no way of knowing if this was a form of quid pro
quo, but it can at least be said that this does not pass the “smell test.”
Dr.
Anthony Fauci continued to insist that gain-of-function research was not
responsible for the creation of SARS-CoV-2 and stated under oath when
testifying in front of a Senate Committee that neither his agency nor the
National Institute of Health funded gain-of-function research. In response to
questions from Senator Rand Paul he said, “With all due respect, you are
entirely, completely incorrect.” He added that the NIH “…has not and does not
now fund gain-of-function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology.”109
But
The National Institutes of Health admitted that it funded gain-of-function
research on bat coronaviruses at the Wuhan Institute in China. In a letter to
Rep James Comer (R-KY), NIH Deputy Director Lawrence Tabak stated 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. In this letter, Tabak 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 virus became sicker than those who were infected with the unmodified
virus. Tabak also wrote, “As sometimes occurs in science, this was an
unexpected result of the research, as opposed to something that the researchers
set out to do.”110
A
letter dated Oct 27, 2021, from Congressional leaders to Frances Collins,
(former) Director of the National Institutes of Health, concerned inadequate
oversight of grants made from NIH to
108 Andersen KG, Rambaut A, Lipkin WI, Holmes EC,
Garry RF. “The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2.” Nature Medicine 2020
Mar;26:450-452
109 Jack Brewster. Fauci and Sen Rand Paul Spar Over
Wuhan Lab Research and COVID-19 Origin. Forbes
May 11 2021
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackbrewster/2021/05/11/fauci-and-sen-rand-paul-spar-over-
wuhan-lab-research-and-covid-19-origin/?sh=5169857e1df9
accessed 9.10.2022
110 Emily Crane. NIH admits US funded
gain-of-function in Wuhan – despite Fauci’s denials. New York Post Oct 21 2021
https://nypost.com/2021/10/21/nih-admits-us-funded-gain-of-function-in-wuhan-
despite-faucis-repeated-denials/ accessed 9.10.2022
EcoHealth
Alliance. Some of these concerns arose from a bipartisan “in camera” review of
documents conducted at the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). The
documents were examined in chambers because the NIH refused to make the
documents public.
Here
are excerpts from this letter to Dr. Collins:
NIH
terminated an EcoHealth Alliance grant in April 2020, reinstated the grant and
then suspended the grant in July 2020 due to EcoHealth’s inadequate oversight
of research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
EcoHealth
Alliance refused to provide information to the NIH related to its subaward to
the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
NIH
failed to report EcoHealth’s noncompliance and grant suspension into the
www.SAM.gov database that alerts other U.S. Government agencies to risky grant
recipients.
Both
Daszak and officials at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious
Disease appeared to have known that EcoHealth’s research was crossing the line
in consideration of the moratorium on gain-of-function research. In a 2016
project report concerning to the NIH concerning his research, EcoHealth
described its plans to carry out experiments involving humanized mice using two
chimeric bat coronaviruses.111
Subsequently
NIH wrote to EcoHealth, stating that the research studies appeared “to involve
research covered under the pause.”
Daszak
replied on behalf of EcoHealth Alliance, and asserted that the organization’s
research did not involve gain of function:
“These
2 chimeric bat-like CoVs were constructed on Sept. 24, 2015. They use the
backbone of a group 2b SARS-like bat CoV WIV1 and the spike proteins of two
newly discovered bat SL-CoVs (Rs7327 and RsSHC014). The construction of these
chimeric viruses aims to understand the receptor usage and infectivity of bat
SL-CoVs that may be progenitors of SARS-CoV. We have not yet tested the
pathogenicity of these viruses in animals.”
111 Understanding the Risk of Bat Coronavirus
Emergency. Project Number 5R01AI110964-04
https://reporter.nih.gov/search/H_f9L5dZYESM-o4gIMrLig/project-details/9320765
Daszak
offered no explanation concerning how RsSHC014 differed from the RsSCHO14 spike
protein that was reported to be of great concern in 2015.112
Instead,
Daszak stated that this work would not be considered GoF because “…the pause
specifically targeted experiments that related to the pathogenicity or
transmissibility of SARS-CoV, MERS CoV and any influenza virus. Our molecular
clone is WIV1, which is a group 2b SARS-like bat coronavirus that has never
been demonstrated to infect humans or cause human disease.” But this was not
true.
Gain
of function research funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious
Diseases and the National Institute of Aging of the NIH concluded: “…viruses
using the WIV1-CoV spike protein are capable of infecting HAE cultures directly
without further spike adaptation. Whereas in vivo data indicate attenuation
relative to SARS-CoV, the augmented replication in the presence of human ACE2
in vivo suggests that the virus has significant pathogenic potential…”113
“…studies
that build reagents based on viruses from animal sources cannot exclude the
possibility of increased virulence or altered immunogenicity that promote
escape from current countermeasures. As such, the potential of a threat, real
or perceived, may cause similar exploratory studies to be limited out of an “abundance
of caution.”114
“…the
WIV1-CoV cluster has been identified as a threat for future emergence in human
populations due to robust replication in primary human airway epithelial cell
cultures.”115
In
other words, WIV1 was known to be potentially dangerous to humans.
Daszak
proposed that Daszak/EcoHealth and its collaborators would immediately stop
their research and inform their NIAID program officer if the chimeras showed
evidence of virus growth greater than 1 log (or 10 times) the growth rate of
the original viruses and/or grow more efficiently in human lung cells.
112 Menachery VD, Yount BL, Sims AC et al. “SARS-like
WIV1-CoV poised for human emergence.” PNAS
2016 Mar;113(11):3048-3053
113 Menachery VD, Yount BL, Sims AC et al. “SARS-like
WIV1-CoV poised for human emergence.” PNAS
2016 Mar;113(11):3048-3053
114 IBID
115 IBID
Ignoring
obvious warning signs, NIAID agreed with EcoHealth’s self-assessment and agreed
to let EcoHealth police its own activities. A NIH July 7, 2016, response letter
to EcoHealth included these statements:
NIAID
is in agreement that the work proposed under Aim 3 to generate MERS-like or
SARS-like chimeric coronaviruses (CoVs) is not subject to the GoF research
funding pause. This determination is based on the following: (1) the chimeras
will contain only S glycoprotein genes from phylogenetically distant bat CoVs;
and (2) recently published work demonstrating that similar chimeric viruses
exhibited reduced pathogenicity. Therefore, it is not reasonably anticipated
that these chimeric viruses will have enhanced pathogenicity and/or
transmissibility in mammals via the respiratory route.
As
a result, the NIAID added the following award condition, per the grant
documents (NOTE: this is the specific language proposed by Daszak to NIAID):
NIAID
acknowledges that if any of the MERS-like or SARS-like chimeras generated under
this grant show evidence of enhanced virus growth greater than 1 log over the
parental backbone strain, Dr. Daszak will immediately stop all experiments w/
these viruses and provide the NIAID Program Officer and Grants Management
Specialist, and Wuhan Institute of Virology Institutional biosafety Committee,
with the relevant data and information related to these unanticipated outcomes.
(Emphasis added).116
Daszak
and EcoHealth did not do what they promised. Sometime during the period June
2017-May 31, 2018, the experiments involving chimeric viruses and humanized
mice were carried out. EcoHealth and the Wuhan Institute of Virology infected
humanized mice with the WIV1 parental virus and three chimeric viruses
containing SHC014S, WUV16S and Rs4231S. The SHC014S virus grew at 10,000 times
greater than the parent virus. Mice lost 20% of the body weight in six days.
At
day two and four, “Viral loads in lung tissues of mice challenged with all
three chimeras reached >106 genome copies per/g, significantly higher than
related WIV1 infection (Fig. 6b). This demonstrates that pathogenicity of
SARS-related coronaviruses in humanized mice differs
116
https://republicans-energycommerce.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/2021.10.27-Letter-to-NIH.pdf
with
divergent S proteins, confirming the value of this model in assessing novel
SARS related coronavirus pathogenicity.” (Emphasis added).117
Despite
running two years behind in submitting required reports to NIH, and the failure
of EcoHealth to stop the experiments and report to NIAID as promised, NIH
approved the renewal of EcoHealth’s grant on June 18, 2018. In its November 5,
2018, progress report to NIH for the period of June 1, 2014, through May 31
2019, EcoHealth reported that the strains of viruses it was using could
represent a significant threat to public health because they could escape
existing vaccine and therapeutic treatments.118
The
Congressional letter raises many important issues that need to be investigated
and ends with a long list of demands from the NIH concerning the agency’s
grants to, and management and oversight of EcoHealth Alliance.
117 IBID
118 IBID
From
the Declaration by Andrew Huff Ph.D., Former Employee of EcoHealth Alliance
After
being promoted to Vice President of EcoHealth Alliance, Dr. Huff had access to
information about the organization’s finances. He learned that EcoHealth was
heavily dependent on government contracts to remain solvent and that cash flow
was often tight. He also observed first-hand that EcoHealth engaged in minor
fraud by overbilling time on contracts and double-dipping on some contracts
between government agencies and provide donors.
Dr.
Huff was routinely involved in meetings and informal discussions during which
gain-of-function research was discussed.
During
direct participation in the USAID PREDICT program, Dr. Huff saw first-hand that
EcoHealth failed to pay adequate attention to biosafety, biosecurity, and risk
management. The organization did not perform proper oversight of foreign
laboratories at which research funded by EcoHealth took place. Dr. Huff
expressed his concerns regularly and they were routinely dismissed by Daszak
and other EcoHealth staff.
Dr.
Huff met Dr. Shi Zhengli and Dr. Ralph Baric and attended presentations at
which they discussed their work on the design and engineering of SARS-CoV-2 and
the use of humanized mice in their experiments.
Dr.
Huff was involved in the creation of a slide deck presented to In-Q-Tel which
included the use of USAID PREDICT funding to collect coronavirus samples from
bats all over the world, to analyze these viruses to identify their most
dangerous features to humans, and then create chimeras to test on humanized
mice.
Other
Individuals, Research Institutions, and Organizations of Interest
The
Rockefeller Foundation has given several grants to EcoHealth Alliance for the
purpose of forming a network called One Health Alliance in South Asia (OHASA)
for the purpose of investigating emerging infectious diseases, including bat
viruses that have the potential to spread to humans.119 120
In
2010, the Rockefeller Foundation published a report in partnership with the
Global Business Network titled “Scenarios for the Future of Technology and
International Development.”121
The
collaboration used “scenario planning” to look at possible responses to
hypothetical situations, including a pandemic. A scenario titled “LOCK STEP”
describes a world of tighter top-down government control and more authoritarian
leadership with innovation and growing citizen pushback after a pandemic is
declared. The events described in this report are eerily like what started
taking place in 2020.
In
September 2020, The Rockefeller Foundation published a “Message Handbook” for “COVID-19
Testing and Tracing.” The Handbook was designed to teach health professionals
and others how “…to motivate the public to participate in testing and tracing.”
The Handbook provides messages developed through research, expert interviews,
and testing that have been shown to lower resistance to regular testing and
contact tracing. Readers are encouraged to reinforce “new norms” that include “ongoing,
repetitive actions.” These include:
“Doctors,
nurses, and health care workers are putting their lives at risk to care for
people who need it. They need our help. Contact tracing stops more people from
getting sick, so hospitals don’t get crowded, doctors and nurses can stay safe,
and every patient gets the attention they need.”
119 The Rockefeller Initiative. Disease Surveillance
Networks.
https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/Disease-Surveillance-Networks-Initiative.pdf
120 Epstein JH, Quan PL, Briese T et al. “Identification
of GBV-D, a Novel GB-like Flavivirus From Old World Frugivorous Bats (Pteropus
gigantus) in Bangladesh.” PLoS 2010 Jul
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1000972
121 Technology’s Power to Transform the Lives of the
Poor Revealed in New Study by the Rockefeller Foundation and Monitor’s Global
Business Network.”
https://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2010/06/21/4859175.htm#google_vignette accessed
9.10.2022
“If
you test positive, there is a short window of time to pinpoint who else might
have the virus before they could lose their health and their jobs. If you
identify who you were in contact with, you can stop the virus in its tracks.”122
In
August 2022,
https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/news/mercury-project-to-boost-covid-19-vaccination-rates-and-counter-public-health-mis-and-disinformation-in-17-countries-worldwide/
UC
Davis One Health Institute leads the PREDICT Project, with partners including
EcoHealth Alliance, Metabiota, and the Smithsonian Institute. The purpose of
this project is to “…enable global surveillance for pathogens that can
spillover from animal hosts to people…” and “…discover viruses of pandemic
potential.”123
In
a series of emails between members of the PREDICT research team obtained by US
Right To Know:
EcoHealth
Alliance made requests via the predict-outbreak@ucdavis.edu email system for
travel approval for Dr. Peng Zhou and Dr. Shi Zhengli to travel to the U.S.
Both were listed as “PREDICT China Country Coordinators,” both were listed as
working at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, and both were traveling to the U.S.
to meet with the PREDICT global team at EcoHealth Alliance for “China project
updates.”124
Metabiota
also made several similar requests for foreign researchers to visit the U.S.
Emails
also discuss subgrants through EcoHealth to other countries including China;
and funds to Metabiota with subawards to other countries.
Many
emails pertain to the Global Virome Project, which involves Nathan Wolfe at
Metabiota and endeavors to “…identify virtually every viral pathogen on the
planet.”
Some
emails refer to PREDICT work in Laos, which is one of the sources of bat
viruses which were sent to The Wuhan Institute, one of which has a genetic
sequence almost identical to SARS-CoV-2 (discussed in this manuscript above).
One
journal article included in the document with the emails describes a PREDICT
project that involved isolation of an Ebola virus from bats in Sierra Leone.
122 Rockefeller Foundation. Message Handbook:
COVID-19 Testing and Tracing. September 2020
123 https://whc.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/predict-project
accessed 9.10.2022
124
https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/UC-Davis-Jonna-Mazet-batch-1.pdf
accessed 9.10.2022
Many
names in the email exchanges are redacted.125
METABIOTA
is an EcoHealth Alliance and UC Davis partner and received investment from the
CIA and DoD investment firm In-Q-Tel 126
and
numerous contracts and/or grants from the US government. Metabiota was funded
in part by Rosemont Seneca, partially owned by Hunter Biden. An In-Q-Tel
quarterly report titled “Mission Possible: Quenching Epidemics” lists Metabiota
and EcoHealth Alliance as partners.127
Metabiota
was also part of a consortium that included EcoHealth Alliance, University of
California Davis and others. This group was formed as part of the second phase
of USAID PREDICT program to investigate coronaviruses, influenza viruses, and
filoviruses such as Ebola.128
EcoHealth’s
Fiscal Year Annual report 2014 report confirms this arrangement.129
University
of North Carolina Chapel Hill, Ralph Baric
Here
are just a few of the projects involving Ralph Baric and conducted at or in
partnership with UNCH:
Baric,
in partnership with Chinese researchers, isolated and studied coronaviruses
from bats with HKU spike protein. Funded by National Institutes of Health Grant
R01AI89728 and R21AI109094
Yang
Y, Du L, Liu C et al. “Receptor usage and cell entry of bat coronavirus HKU4
provide insight into bat-to-human transmission of MERS coronavirus.” PNAS
2014;Aug;111(34):12516-12521
Baric
and Shi Zhengli collaborated to study the virus surface spikes of MERS-CoV and
a related bat coronavirus HKU4. Although HKU4 could not mediate viral entry
into human cells, two mutations allowed it to do so.
Yang
Y, Liu C, Du L et al. “Two Mutations Were Critical for Bat-to-Human
Transmission of Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus.” J Virol 2015
Sep;89(17):9119-9123
Funded
by NIH Grants R01AI089728 and R01AI110700
125
https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/UC-Davis-Jonna-Mazet-batch-1.pdf
accessed 9.10.2022
126 John T. Reinert. In-Q-Tel: The Central
intelligence Agency as Venture Capitalist.
https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/njilb/vol33/iss3/4/ accessed
9.10.2022
127 IQT Quarterly. Mission Possible: Quenching
Epidemics. Winter 2016;7(3)
128 USAID Announced Second Phase of Predict Project
with Global Partners. November 21 2014.
https://www.ecohealthalliance.org/2014/11/usaid-announces-second-phase-of-predict-project-with-global-partners
accessed 9.10.2022
129 EcoHealth Alliance Fiscal Year 2014 Annual
Report.
https://www.ecohealthalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/EcoHealth_Alliance_FY14_Annual_Report.pdf
accessed 9.10.2022
Baric
and Shi Zhengli were both part of the research team which generated a chimeric
SARS-CoV virus that could infect humans. Symptoms in infected humanized mice
were similar to symptoms of SARS-C-V-2
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
Funded
by grants from NIH and NIAID: U19AI109761 (R.S.B.), U19AI107810 (R.S.B.),
AI085524 (W.A.M.), F32AI102561 (V.D.M.) and K99AG049092 (V.D.M.), USAID-EPT-PREDICT
funding from EcoHealth Alliance
Columbia
University
The
Department of Ecology, Evolution and Environmental and Environmental Biology
lists three individuals with EcoHealth Alliance, including Peter Daszak, as
faculty members.130
Columbia
University Mailman School of Public Health announced a partnership with several
organizations, including EcoHealth, to launch and operate New York City’s first
Pandemic Response Institute. The website states that this “…builds on Columbia’s
robust involvement in the NYC COVID-19 response and grants it a significant
role in preparing New York City for future public health emergencies.”131
EcoHealth’s
website lists Columbia University as a partner.132
Yunnan
Institute of Endemic Disease Control and Prevention
Received
funding from The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (Grant
#R01AI110964). Peter Daszak and EcoHealth served as consultants.
Li
H, Daszak F, Chmura A, Zhang Y, Terry P, Fielder M. “Knowledge, Attitude and
Practice Regarding Zoonotic Risk in Wildlife Trade, Southern China.” EcoHealth
2021 Mar;18(2):95-106
Guandlong
Provincial Center for Disease Control and Prevention
Daszak
authored papers with researchers from this institution concerning pathogens
with pandemic potential. Funding was provided by “…generous support of the
American people through the United States Agency for International Development
(USAID) Emerging Pandemic Threats PREDICT program (Cooperative Agreement No.
AID-OAA-A-14-00102).”
Monagin
C, Paccha B. Liang N et al. “Serologic and behavioral risk survey of workers
with wildlife contact in China.” PLoS One 2018 Apr;13(4):e0194647
Wellcome
Trust
130
https://e3b.columbia.edu/faculty_location/eha-eco-health-alliance/ accessed
9.10.2022
131
https://neighbors.columbia.edu/news/columbia-university-mailman-school-public-health-lead-new-
york-citys-pandemic-response accessed 9.10.2022
132 https://www.ecohealthalliance.org/partners
accessed 9.10.2022
Has
a data sharing agreement with many organizations in public health emergencies.
These include EcoHealth Alliance, The Chinese Academy of Sciences, and 133
The
Chinese Centre for Disease Control and Prevention.
Google
Google.org
has been funding studies conducted by EcoHealth Alliance since 2010.
Here
are some of the studies that include Daszak and/or EcoHealth Alliance Vice
President Jonathon Epstein as authors and list Google as a funder:
Epstein
JH, Quan PL, Briese T et al. “Identification of GBV-D, a Novel GB-like
Flavivirus from Old World Frugiverous Bats (Pteropus giganteus) in Bangladesh.”
PLoS Pathog 2010 Jul;6(7):e1000972
Pernet
O, Schneider BS, Beaty SM et al. “Evidence for henipavirus spillover into human
populations in Africa.”
Nature
Comm 2014 Sep;5:5342
Lee
MH, Rostal MK, Hughes T et al. “Macacine Herpesvirus 1 in Long-Tailed Macaques,
Malaysia, 2009-2011.”
Emerg
Infect Dis 2015 Jul;21(7):1107-1113
The
Wuhan Institute of Virology
The
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
For
reasons stated earlier in this paper
133
https://wellcome.org/press-release/statement-data-sharing-public-health-emergencies
accessed
9.10.2022
Declaration
of Dr. Andrew G. Huff, PhD, M.S.
I
attest that the following is a true and accurate representation of facts and my
experiences:
Name:
Andrew G. Huff, PhD, M.S.
Personal
History/Background/Qualifications:
• From 2002 to 2008 I served in the
U.S. Army in both the Minnesota National Guard and on active duty in the US
Army as an infantryman.
• I was ordered to serve on active duty
to support and fight in the Global War on Terrorism as part Operation Enduring
Freedom as an infantryman in Central America, and I volunteered to serve in
combat in Operation Iraqi Freedom, where I received numerous medals, awards,
and accolades at the low ranks of Private First Class and Specialist.
• While performing combat operations in
Iraq, I continued my undergraduate studies while it was my turn to sleep and
prepared and competed in Non-Commissioned Officer Review Boards, where I
performed the best among the candidates in all aspects of the review except
fitness. I was also nominated by my commanding officer to attend Officer
Candidate School at the end of my tour in Iraq, based on my performance,
leadership ability, and success at executing officer level tasks, which were
assigned to me.
• After returning home from Iraq, I
completed a heavily research and quantitatively focused bachelor’s degree in
Psychology at the University of Minnesota, which is one of the top
psychological research institutions in the world. I worked directly with many
of the world’s leading experts in personality, vocational, career interests,
clinical, and counseling psychology research, and completed independent
quantitative psychological research which was submitted for peer review
publication.
• Simultaneously, to earning my
Bachelor’s degree, I was a program assistant and contracts technical
representative (COTR) for the United States Department of Veterans Affairs,
where I relocated and opened several new outpatient mental healthcare offices
for the agency and managed numerous contracts and relationships with healthcare
providers. My supervisor became severely ill, and I independently and
successfully managed the organization and contract facilities across the upper
Midwest and staff in his absence at the age of 26, which resulted in a
financial bonus paid by the government.
• Next, I earned a master’s degree in
Security Technologies with a minor in Geographic Information Systems, finishing
at the top of my class, from the College of Science and Engineering at the
University of Minnesota. In the program, I learned to solve national security
problems against different types of critical infrastructures using complex
systems analysis, systems modeling, high performance computing, intelligence
collection techniques and trade craft, international security, bioterrorism,
behavioral threat analysis, cryptography, cyber security, vulnerability, and
risk assessment among other things. Upon completion of my master’s degree
coursework and research thesis defense, in only fifteen months, my thesis
committee strongly encouraged me to obtain a PhD and was informed that I should
meet with one of my instructors which was a member of the faculty in the School
of Public Health.
• After meeting with Dr. Jeff Bender
from the School of Public Health and College of Veterinary Medicine at the
University of Minnesota, I was offered full employment as a Research Fellow at
a Department of Homeland Security Center of Excellence at the University of
Minnesota, along with a full scholarship to obtain a Ph.D. related to the
fields of bioterrorism, biowarfare, chemical warfare or terrorism, pandemics,
and emerging infectious disease. This is the best possible offer a Ph.D.
student can receive anywhere throughout academia and is rare.
• I earned a Ph.D. from the University
of Minnesota’s School of Public Health’s Environmental Health Science program
with a specialization in Emerging Infectious Diseases. My core focus of my
education and research was pandemic preparedness response, bioterrorism,
biowarfare, biosecurity, chemical attacks & exposures, and biosafety. I
completed the program at a record pace (around 3 years) and all my novel
research was published in peer reviewed and referred journals before I
submitted my dissertation for review.
• While working as a Research Fellow at
a Department of Homeland Security Center of Excellence, I frequently traveled
to Washington, D.C. and around the country where I became in an active member
of US government committees and meetings related to pandemics, public health,
and national security. I was introduced to many high-level managers within the
US government working in these areas, and I frequently presented my research at
US government meetings, to executives in the private sector at large multinational
companies, and worked directly with industry and state governments to help
improve their national security in areas where I have subject matter expertise.
• Upon completing my Ph.D., I was
recruited by Sandia National Laboratories, where I served the U.S. Government
as a Senior Member of the Technical Staff and held a Department of Energy ‘Q’
clearance (equivalent to the Department of Defense’s Top-Secret designation).
At Sandia, I analyzed complex national security problems in my areas of
expertise, served as a subject matter expert in public health systems and food
systems, and participated in a broad spectrum of projects related to pandemic
preparedness, mitigation, and response. Wishing to leave the classified work
environment, and due to a funding shortfall in my area of passion (preventing
intentional contamination of the food supply), I decided to seek work elsewhere
in the fall of 2014 and I applied to EcoHealth Alliance in September of 2014.
• Shortly after applying to a position
at EcoHealth Alliance, I interviewed with Dr. Peter Daszak on the telephone and
then traveled to EcoHealth Alliance’s office in New York City for a
comprehensive on-site interview. After completing the interview, I was offered
and accepted a position as a Senior Scientist in charge of the Data and
Technology team. Upon beginning work at EcoHealth Alliance, I was asked to
perform a series of duties which would be considered normal in any kind of
scientific or academic organization.
Information
Related to EcoHealth Alliance and the Development of SARS-COV2:
• In late 2014, I was asked to prepare
a report for the Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity, Office of
the Directorate of National Intelligence, (IARPA). I later learned upon
promotion to Associate Vice President while attending weekly finance updates
that EcoHealth Alliance did not receive any funding from this agency (IARPA),
as far as I am aware. Reference: IARPA Collaborator Report from Dr. Huff’s
documents retained from his employment at EcoHealth Alliance.
• In late 2014, I was asked to review
(provide edits, comments, and feedback) on a research proposal that was in
preparation to be submitted to the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH)
National Institute for Allergens and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) to conduct
Gain of Function research and development with numerous partners including the
Wuhan Institute of Virology, which was supported by Dr. Ralph Baric at the
University of North Carolina (UNC). Reference: File name “CoV as submitted”
titles “Understanding the Risk of Bat Coronavirus Emergence” Dr. Huff’s
documents retained from his employment at EcoHealth Alliance.
o I attest that I reviewed the proposal
that was submitted to NIH which detailed the gain of function virology work
that was being conducted to create the agent known as SARS-COV2, which causes
the disease known as COVID-19.
o I attest that the proposal clearly
stated that the gain of function work on SARS-COV2 was already underway in
China, prior to October 2014, at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), with
the support of USAID in collaboration with EcoHealth Alliance and EcoHealth
Alliance’s partners and sponsors.
o I attest that I made Dr. Peter Daszak
aware of the lack of a Biological Security Officer (BSO) and Institutional
Biosafety Committee (IBC) at EcoHealth Alliance in reference to the Select
Agent Form on in the “Understanding the risk of Bat Coronavirus Emergence”
proposal in accordance NIH requirements.
o I witnessed firsthand presentations by
Dr. Shi Zhengli (WIV) and Dr. Ralph Baric (UNC) at EcoHealth Alliance related
to their Gain of Function work managed and supported by EcoHealth Alliance.
o I witnessed firsthand presentations by
the executive team at EcoHealth Alliance related to the gain of function work
conducted at EcoHealth Alliance.
o I attest that EcoHealth Alliance’s
developed SARS-COV2 and is responsible for the development of the agent
SARS-COV2 during my employment at the organization.
o I attest that I informed the EcoHealth
Alliance executive team that I believed there were biosafety and biosecurity
risks in contract laboratories during an executive meeting. Specifically, I was
concerned that EcoHealth Alliance did not have enough visibility or firsthand
knowledge of what was happening at foreign laboratories contracted and managed
by EcoHealth Alliance. During this meeting I discussed bio-risk management with
the team due to these concerns. Dr. Daszak refused to mitigate the risks without
any objection or discussion from the other executives. In my opinion, Daszak
was dismissive of my concerns. He did not seem concerned about EcoHealth’s lack
of oversight which I felt was strange because it is typically the CEO’s duty to
protect the organization from organizational threats and risks. After raising
my concern, I accepted Peter’s position that our control measures were
adequate. Reference: See leaked cables that the US Consulate Cables to the
State Department reported Laboratory Safety Concerns at the Wuhan Institute of
Virology.
• In this same short time-period, I was
asked to review and contribute to an investment “pitch dick” (i.e., a
PowerPoint presentation used in venture capital presentations) that was
presented to an organization called In-Q-Tel. In the pitch dick, we proposed an
extension of the USAID global disease surveillance work, SARS-COV2 gain of
function and humanized mice research conducted by Drs. Baric and Zhengli, and
my work from my department developing advanced biosurveillance technologies and
platforms. This work was presented to In-Q-Tel (which can be verified by their
own records). I do not know what the outcome of that meeting as it was not
communicated to me by Dr. Daszak. Reference: File name Peter Daszak In-Q-Tel
October 2015 from Dr. Huff’s documents retained from his employment at
EcoHealth Alliance and the In-Q-Tel Quarterly report.
• On or around June 2015, I was
promoted to Vice President. After being promoted to Vice President, I was
exposed and participated in more aspects of the organization, as would be
expected from an Executive Officer at any organization.
• I began attending weekly financial
meetings where I learned that the organization was tight on cash, depended
heavily on government contract salary overhead to remain solvent, and that the
organization was not involved in traditional conservation work as classically
defined. This was upsetting as this was one of the main reasons that I wanted
to join the organization (being a conservationist and naturalist). Reference:
EcoHealth Alliance Marketing video from Dr. Huff’s documents retained from his
employment at EcoHealth Alliance.
• I also observed that EcoHealth
Alliance was engaged in irregular financial transactions regarding U.S.
Government grants. Specifically, I believe there was timecard fraud and
observed what I appear to be double dipping on contracts, between government organizations
and private donors (e.g., Skoll Foundation, Google Foundation, Bill &
Melinda Gates Foundation, & Wellcome Trust), or both. Reference: Compare
stated objectives, work locations, and data collection across a range of
projects from Dr. Huff’s documents retained from his employment at EcoHealth
Alliance.
• I later confronted Dr. Peter Daszak,
Harvey Kasdan (CFO, deceased), Dr. Aleksei Chmura about the financial fraud
when I was upset, arguing for pay raises in my department, company-wide salary
increases, and for myself. Shortly thereafter (1-2 days), CFO Harvey Kasdan
passed away from a heart attack. I am not insinuating foul play, but I believe
the stress was too much for him in his physical condition. Reference: Harvey
Kasdan’s Obituary.
• I also observed, while attending
board meetings and in communications directly with board members, that Dr.
Peter Daszak had a pattern of over-simplifying and lying by omission to our
stakeholders (including the board of directors). For example, while EcoHealth
Alliance positioned itself as a conservation organization, no substantial
conservation work, as traditionally defined, was occurring at the organization.
• The USAID Predict program was a
global hunt for viruses predicated upon the promise of predicting and
preventing pandemics. I believe that the data limitations and methods for
collecting and analyzing that data make this goal impossible to achieve. I further
believe that this program is more strongly aligned with collecting the
biological samples to conduct gain of function viral work, or intelligence
collection, than prediction and prevention of pandemics.
• Gain of function research is a highly
contentious topic in my scientific area of expertise. Those who are for it make
the argument that if you can identify a high-risk pathogen, and then engineer
the pathogen in the laboratory to increase its transmissibility, infectivity,
pathogenicity, or virulence, then you can develop medical countermeasures to
prevent the spread of disease, if an outbreak of a naturally evolving agent
were to occur. I believe this logic to be inherently flawed because it is naïve
to think that humans can modify or engineer a naturally occurring pathogen that
would evolve similar to the way infectious agents naturally evolve. Typically,
Gain of Function research (via selection of rare traits or genetic manipulation
or engineering of the agent) undergoes thousands of years of unnatural
evolution (decided by humans not by nature) in a laboratory in a matter of days
weeks or months. This is akin to predicting the future, with the likelihood of
success decreasing in every timestep.
• After being promoted to Vice
President, I commented on several concerns I had related to protecting the
organization including biosafety, biosecurity, enterprise security, and risk
management. None of the other executives voiced any opposition to Gain of
Function research being conducted at EcoHealth Alliance, and Dr. Daszak was
heavily supportive of the work. Drs. Johnathan Epstein and Kevin Olival were
supportive of the work and were key contributors to the gain of function work
in the SARS-COV2 proposal funded by USAID and NIH, and executed by EcoHealth
Alliance, the WIV, and UNC. My opposition to Gain of Functions research stemmed
from my Ph.D. studies taught by my Committee Chair, Dr. Michael T. Osterholm,
who was also President Joe Biden’s COVID advisor.
• In November 2015, a scientifically
peer reviewed, and referenced article was published by collaborators from the
Wuhan Institute of Virology, the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill
(UNC), the Food and Drug Administration, Harvard Medical School, and the
Bellinzona Institute of Microbiology. The peer reviewed article was titled “A
SARS-like Cluster of Circulating Bat Coronaviruses Shows Potential for Human
Emergence” in the journal Nature Medicine. The authors initially omitted the
funding source from the USAID - EPT - PREDICT program, which I was a
co-investigator and country coordinator while employed by EcoHealth Alliance.
The USAID - EPT - PREDICT funding cited in the article was used to develop a
relationship between Drs. Ralph Baric (UNC) and Zhengli-Li Shi of the Wuhan
Institute of Virology at EcoHealth Alliance, which was orchestrated by Dr.
Peter Daszak. Additionally, the USAID- EPT - PREDICT funding used in this peer
reviewed paper was used to collect biological samples from bats globally. Then,
the collaborators analyzed the collected samples to extract SARS like-corona
viruses, and select or engineer genetic features within the viruses, collected
with USAID - EPT - PREDICT funding, to create hybrid chimeric viruses. Chimeric
viruses are defined as combining the genetic material from two or more distinct
viruses. The process of developing SARS-COV2 was also described in detail in
the proposal submitted to, and ultimately funded by, the National Institutes of
Health (HHS NIH), The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases
(NIAID), by EcoHealth Alliance with the WIV and UNC listed as collaborators. It
is my attestation, that the creation of these SARS-like chimeric viruses
described in this article include SARS-COV2. Lastly, the engineered SARS-COV2
was then used to test SARS vaccines and monoclonal antibody therapeutics
against the disease in mice. Reference: 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 shows
potential for human emergence. Nature medicine, 21(12), 1508-1513.
• Dr. Peter Daszak approached me in
late 2015 and stated that somebody from the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)
approached him and stated that they were interested in the places we were
working, the people we were working with, and the data we were collecting.
Peter then proceeded to ask me for my advice, and specifically asked whether we
should work with them. I was shocked that Peter asked me this and was excited
for the opportunity. I stated to Peter that “It never hurts to talk to them.
There could be money in it.” Peter then later confirmed over the next 2 months,
between our weekly meetings that the relationship with them was proceeding.
• In March 2016, a paper was published
by Dr. Ralph Baric, an EcoHealth Alliance gain of function collaborator working
at UNC, in PNAS titled “SARS-like WIV1-CoV Poised for Human Emergence.” In the
article, the authors of the paper describe in detail how they used, designed,
and constructed full-length and chimeric viruses to determine if they would
replicate in human airway cultures. This specific paper is relevant because it
compares and documents the effectiveness of different variations of coronavirus
spike proteins at infecting human cells specifically by binding to ACE2
receptor, which was a critical and necessary step to design and engineer the
SARS-COV2 virus. While employed at EcoHealth Alliance, I met both Dr. Shi
Zhengli and Dr. Ralph Baric, where they presented their work on the design and
engineering of SARS-CoV2 (coronavirus gain of function research), and the use
of highly specialized humanized mice models, which were necessary to
successfully build SARS-COV2. These facts are supported by numerous recorded
presentations by Dr. Peter Daszak and Dr. Ralph Baric from 2015-2019. Some of
which, I personally attended while employed at EcoHealth Alliance.
Additionally,
the specific gain of function work described in this paper was presented by Dr.
Peter Daszak to In-Q-Tel, a DoD and CIA venture capital firm. In the slides
presented to In-Q-Tel, which I personally helped create at EcoHealth, describe
the use of USAID – EPT – PREDICT funding to collect coronavirus samples from
bats globally, where they are then analyzed to identify their most dangerous
features to humans, and recombined to make new coronaviruses like SARS-COV2.
Then, these viruses are tested on humanized mice to validate lethality and
transmissibility. EcoHealth Alliance then used Dr. Baric’s work for testing
experimental vaccines, treatments, and therapeutics against the newly
engineered SARS-COV2 strain to determine which countermeasures would be the
most effective at mitigating the disease in humanized mice. Reference:
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.
• In late September or early October of
2019, I was contacted by Dr. Amy Jenkins and she was attempting to recruit me
to be a Program Manager for emerging infectious disease work at the Defense
Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). I first met Dr. Amy Jenkins as a
Ph.D. student and paid Research Fellow at a Department of Homeland Security
Center of Excellence at the University of Minnesota in 2014. The position at
DARPA was presented to me as if it was mine if I wanted it and I was told that
it would need Top Secret Security clearance with a polygraph. I felt that the
recruitment effort was quite strange as I had not worked full-time and directly
in the national security space since 2014 at Sandia National Laboratories and I
had no clue how Dr. Jenkins obtained my new personal cell phone number.
Coincidentally, this is when epidemiological evidence indicates that the first
cases of COVID-19 likely emerged. The two events may not be related; however,
it is my belief that people working within the US government potentially
identified me as a risk to knowing firsthand that the SARS-COV2 disease
emergence event was a consequence of the US government’s sponsorship of the
genetic engineering of SARS-COV2 domestically and abroad. If I would have
accepted the position, then I suspect that DARPA would have disclosed
restricted information to me which would have consequently prevented me from
discussing any of this information publicly, like I have been and am doing now.
The recruitment effort itself was highly suspect as it seemed as if DARPA was
completely circumventing the US government recruitment process for one of the
most prestigious scientific positions in the world.
• I attest that I analyzed the funding
of Dr. Kristian Andersen of the Scripps Research Institute from data obtained
from NIH funding databases. Dr. Andersen’s funding dramatically increased after
changing his position on the characterization of the agent as being manmade, to
naturally emerging, after a series of discussions with Dr. Anthony Fauci.
Total
Funding Awarded Per Month Before Fauci Teleconference
$393,079.65
Total
Funding Awarded Per Month After Fauci Teleconference
$800,139.15
Total
Funding Awarded Per Calendar Year Before Fauci Teleconference
$
1,042,628.25
Total
Funding Awarded Per Calendar Year After Fauci Teleconference
$2,284,161.08
Total
Continuing Funding Before Fauci Teleconference
$7,141,011.83
Total
Continuing Funding After Fauci Teleconference
$23,724,681.83
Total
Continuing Funding INCREASE After Fauci Teleconference
$16,583,670.00
• Lastly, at no point in time has any
restricted information, including classified information, been shared with me
related to the domestic or foreign engineering of the biological agent
SARS-COV2, the subsequent release of SARS-COV2, the attempted cover-up of by
officials working for the United States government. I have never leaked any
legally obtained classified information or violated the rules and laws related
to my past security clearances. The information that I have shared from my time
at EcoHealth Alliance is not restricted by any non-disclosure agreement, nor is
it US government protected or restricted information, as EcoHealth Alliance is
supposedly a non-profit corporation conducting scientific research to protect
human and animal health. All the documents that I have shared were created by
myself or other personnel by EcoHealth Alliance and were not subject to
derivative classification by the US government, which is standard practice in
academic institutions. My findings, opinions, and analysis were informed by my
highly specialized education in the field of emerging infectious diseases from
one of the top 5 graduate programs in the world, by my experience working in
the field, and by analysis of publicly available open source and open access
information.
Simply,
I know how and where to find accurate and relevant information related to
pandemics, emerging diseases, biowarfare, and bioterrorism quickly and know how
to properly frame this information from my knowledge of how the government
works in the context of relevant policy frameworks.
• In context, this series of events
when they took place, did not seem of any consequence nor did I ever think or
believe that I would be in this terrible position. I have been severely
harassed by what appears to be state-sponsored actors based on the level of
sophistication, persistence, and duration, of the harassment and crimes
committed against me. I understand that these facts are difficult for our
country. I have viewed this as a non-partisan issue since coming forward as a
Whistleblower, as my only goal is to prevent another manmade pandemic from
occurring. COVID-19, the disease caused by SARS COV2, in my professional
opinion, is the result of Gain of Function research that was mismanaged by
EcoHealth Alliance and its contractors.
I
declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws
of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed
On (Date):
13
September 2022
Signature:
Andrew G. Huff, Ph.D., M.S.
