The Dam of Lies Surrounding COVID Lab Leak Is Breaking

• House Oversight Committee Republicans released a series of emails from and to the National Institutes of Health in January 2022. Jimmy Tobias, at The Intercept, brought a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), lawsuit that forced the release of unredacted NIH correspondence.
• These emails show that there was concern among NIH leaders as SARS-CoV-2 seemed to be a genetically engineered disease that somehow escaped from China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology.
• These emails reveal that they were worried about whether they had funded the creation this virus and were determined to silence any questions.
• Dr. Jeremy Farrar was the director of Wellcome Trust. He convened a group that included scientists and claimed the virus wasn’t the result of intentional engineering. Although accidental creation in a laboratory could not be excluded, they believed natural evolution was the most probable scenario. Fauci had previously received emails from some of the same scientists indicating genetic engineering.
• The “Proximal Origin” Fauci edited paper. “debunked” Without any evidence, the lab leak theory was the most popular paper ever published. More than 2,000 media outlets have used it to support their propaganda.

House Oversight Committee Republicans published a series of emails dated January 20, 2022 that were sent to and from National Institutes of Health. [1][2][3] Jimmy Tobias, at The Intercept, brought a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), lawsuit [4] Unredacted NIH correspondence was also released in late November 2022, as Dr. Anthony Fauci was preparing to retire from his post as director of National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Many suspected that SARS-CoV-2 was a genetically engineered virus. The emails revealed what many had been assuming all along. (In a January 17, 2023, tweet thread. [5] Richard Ebright, a molecular biologist and doctorate in molecular genetics, summarized lab-origin theory.

It was also clear that NIH leaders were worried about whether they had funded the creation of the virus.

As reported by the House Oversight Committee [6]

“Excerpts of emails released today reveal the following:

• Jan. 27, 2020: Dr. [Anthony] Fauci knew NIAID had funded EcoHealth Alliance, the WIV was a subgrantee of EcoHealth, and EcoHealth was not in compliance with its grant reporting, in particular, a grant that NIAID knew had gain-of-function potential on novel bat coronaviruses.
• Feb. 1, 2020: Dr. Fauci, [then-NIH director] Dr. [Francis] Collins, and at least 11 other scientists convened a conference call to discuss COVID-19. On the conference call, Drs. Fauci and Collins were first warned that COVID-19 may have leaked from the WIV and may have been intentionally genetically manipulated.
• Feb. 4, 2020: After speaking with Drs. Fauci and Collins, four participants of the conference call abandoned their belief the virus originated from the Wuhan lab and authored a paper [7] entitled ‘The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2.’ Prior to final publication in Nature Medicine, the paper was sent to Dr. Fauci for editing and approval.
• April 16, 2020: More than two months after the original conference call, Dr. Collins emailed Dr. Fauci expressing dismay that the Nature Medicine article—which they saw prior to publication and were given the opportunity to edit—did not squash the lab leak hypothesis and asks if the NIH can do more to ‘put down’ the lab leak hypothesis.
• April 17, 2020: After Dr. Collins explicitly asked for more public pressure, Dr. Fauci cited the Nature Medicine paper from the White House podium likely in an effort to further stifle the hypothesis COVID-19 leaked from the Wuhan lab.”

Fauci received an email on Jan. 31, 2020 from Dr. Jeremy Farrar (director of the Wellcome Trust), asking him to contact Kristian Andersen. Kristian Andersen is an evolutionary biologist who holds a doctorate of immunology. He also teaches at the Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla. The Intercept reported this story on Jan. 19, 2023. [8]

“Fauci had his phone call with Andersen that night, and what he heard clearly disturbed him. In an email to Farrar after the call, he wrote the following:

“‘I told [Andersen] Eddie Holmes and he should meet with a group of evolutionary biologists as soon as possible to go over the data in detail to confirm his concerns. He should quickly do this and, if everyone agrees, they should inform the authorities.

“I would imagine that in the USA this would be the FBI and in the UK it would be MI5′ … What were Andersen’s concerns? And why were they so dire they might merit a call to the FBI?

“Andersen made them clear in an email to Fauci the following evening. ‘The unusual features of the virus make up a really small part of the genome (<0.1 percent) so one has to look really closely at all the sequences to see that some of the features (potentially) look engineered,' Andersen wrote in the email.

“‘I should mention,’ he added, ‘that after discussions earlier today, Eddie, Bob, Mike, and myself all find the genome inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory. But we have to look at this much more closely and there are still further analyses to be done, so those opinions could still change.'”

Fauci, Farrar and Collins called Andersen and other virologists at their conference call on February 1, 2020 at 2 pm. Andersen was clearly not the only one to have noticed signs of genetic engineering. Farrar himself wrote, “On a spectrum, if zero is nature and 100 is release—I am honestly at 50!”[9]

According to The Intercept [10] Fauci was there that morning “brushing up on what sorts of grants and collaborations his agency was involved in with research institutions in China.”

In all likelihood, he discovered (if he was somehow previously unaware, which seems doubtful) that the NIH had provided research grants to the EcoHealth Alliance, which in turn subcontracted coronavirus experiments to the WIV—including an experiment involving humanized mice that were infected with chimeric hybrids of SARS-related bat coronaviruses. [11]

The Intercept claims that it is unlikely that these tests resulted in SARS/CoV-2 because the viruses are too similar. “but it does raise questions about what other kinds of experiments were going on in Wuhan and haven’t been disclosed.”

Farrar distributed a set notes on February 2, 2020 summarizing the discussion. He said that it was to be treated “in total confidence.” [12] Michael (Mike) Farzan, who holds a doctorate in pathology and is an expert on the entry processes of enveloped viruses, was bothered by the presence of a furin cleavage site—a novel feature that allows SARS-CoV-2 the ability to infect cells in the human airways.

Farrar’s note states that Farzan is Farzan. “has a hard time explain[ing] that as an event outside the lab.” Farrar concludes his summary by stating that: [13]

“… the likely explanation could be something as simple as passage SARS-live CoVs in tissue culture on human cell lines (under BSL-2) for an extended period of time, accidentally creating a virus that would be primed for rapid transmission between humans via gain of furin site (from tissue culture) and adoption to human ACE2 receptor via repeated passage …

“So I think it becomes a question of how do you put all this together, whether you believe in this series of coincidences, what you know of the lab in Wuhan, how much could be in nature—accidental release or natural event? I am either 70:30 or 60.40.”

A note from professor and microbiologist Robert (Bob) Garry, who has a doctorate in microbiology, [14] reveals he had similar concerns:

“… I aligned the nCoV with the 96 percent bat CoV sequenced at WIV. Except for the RBD [receptor binding domain]Essential are the S proteins [sic] identical at the amino acid level—well all but the perfect insertion of 12 nucleotides that adds [sic] The furin website.

“S2 is over its whole length essentially identical. I really can’t think of a plausible natural scenario where you get from the bat virus or one very similar to it to nCoV where you insert exactly four amino acids 12 nucleotide [sic] that all have to be added at the exact same time to gain this function—that, and you don’t change any other amino acids in S2?

“This is how it works in nature, but I don’t know how. Do the alignment of the spikes at the amino acid level—its [sic] stunning. It would be simple to create the perfect 12 base insert in the laboratory.

“Another scenario is that the progenitor of nCoV was a bat virus with the perfect furin cleavage site generated over evolutionary times. In this scenario, RaTG13 the WIV virus was generated by a perfect deletion of 12 nucleotides while essentially not changing any other S2 amino acid [sic]. Even more implausible IMO [in my opinion]. That is the big if.”

In other words, in early days of the pandemic, virologists communicating with the NIH agreed that a WIV laboratory leak was plausible and possibly the most probable. It is evident that Collins and Fauci tried to silence this theory.

Collins stated in an email dated February 2, 2020 that he was “coming around to the view that a natural origin is more likely,” Also, be aware “voices of conspiracy will quickly dominate” They should convene a panel to discuss the matter. “great potential harm to science and international harmony.”

Ron Fouchier (Dutch virologist) participated in the conference call. He also warned his colleagues against continuing to discuss a potential lab leakage. “would unnecessarily distract top researchers from their active duties and do unnecessary harm to science in general and science in China in particular.” [15]

Fauci seems to have decided to suppress the laboratory leak theory that day (Feb. 2) He sent an email saying: [16]

“Like all of us, I do not know how this evolved, but given the concerns of so many people and the threat of further distortions on social media, it is essential that we move quickly.”

According to The Intercept Collins, Farrar, Fauci and Collins alerted officials of the World Health Organization in the hope that they would convene a panel of experts to investigate. “WHO apparently declined to do so at the time.” While the group was fully aware of the risks involved in the lab leak theory, they were not able to stop it from gaining traction. “accusations” The idea was apparently born.

Fauci and Collins received their first draft of the article just two days later on February 4, 2020. “The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2,” Published in Nature Medicine later. [17]

Andersen, Robert Garry of Tulane University and Edward Holmes of University of Sydney were among the three authors who participated in the conference call on February 1, 2020. Garry, Andersen, and another “Proximal Origin” W. Ian Lipkin, Columbia University’s author, has also been awarded large NIH grants. [18] This paper was not written independently and without disinterested parties.

The original draft is still unknown. The only thing we have is an email from Fauci. In it, he appears flag serial passage through humanized mouse. This indicates that the issue of animal passage was raised but then quickly dropped.

Nature Medicine article dismissed the notion that the virus was a result of deliberate engineering and suggested instead that it had most likely evolved naturally, despite the lack of evidence. (Two natural-evolution theories were presented. They didn’t conclusively dismiss the possibility of a lab leak, though—only the idea that it was “deliberately” engineered. As stated in the paper: [19]

“Although the evidence shows that SARS-CoV-2 is not a purposefully manipulated virus, it is currently impossible to prove or disprove the other theories of its origin described here.

“We do not believe any laboratory-based scenario to be plausible, however, as we have observed all the SARS-CoV-2 characteristics, including the optimized RBD, and polybasic site of cleavage, in coronaviruses that are closely related.”

The “Other theories about its origin” described in the “Proximal Origin” paper was the possibility that it might have been the result of “selection during passage,” which is a routine laboratory practice. In other words, it seems they were most concerned with dispelling any rumors about it being intentionally created, which would place it in the category of a bioweapon.

As reported by The Intercept, Farrar, Fauci, and Collins certainly had not ruled out the possibility of a lab origin altogether: [20]

“Scientists seem to have drawn a distinction between two scenarios in which the virus had been deliberately engineered in a laboratory and one in which it was created during serial passage experiments in the lab.

“‘Eddie would be 60:40 lab side,’ Farrar added. ‘I remain 50:50.’

“‘Yes, I’d be interested in the proposal of accidental lab passage in animals (which ones?Collins wrote.

“‘?? Serial passage in ACE2-transgenic mice,’ Fauci responded.

“‘Exactly!’ Farrar replied.

“‘Surely that wouldn’t be done in a BSL-2 lab?’ wrote Collins, referring to biosafety level 2 labs, which do not have the most stringent safety protocols.

“‘Wild West,’ was Farrar’s response, an apparent reference to lab practices in China or possibly to the Wuhan Institute of Virology itself.

“In the above exchange, the health officials seem to be contemplating the possibility that the repeated passage of a coronavirus through genetically modified mice in an insufficiently secure lab could have resulted in the accidental emergence and release of SARS-CoV-2.

“Farrar, quoting Garry in an email exchange later, stated that serial passage in animals has been proven to cause the appearance of furin sites in other viruses, particularly the H5N1 flu. ‘There are a couple passage of H5N1 in chicken papers—the furin site appears in steps.'”

Similarly, there’s this exchange between virologist Christian Drosten and Andersen on Feb. 8, 2020. [21] Drosten wrote:

“I need your help with one question. Were we not there to challenge an idea and, if necessary, to abandon it? Who invented this story? Is it possible to discredit our own conspiracy theory?”

Andersen’s reply read:

“We have spent the past few weeks attempting to disprove all types of lab theories. But, now we are at a crossroads and the scientific evidence isn’t strong enough to support any of these main theories.

“As to publishing this document in a journal, I am currently not in favor of doing so. I believe that publishing something that is open-ended could backfire at this stage.”

Andersen’s reluctance notwithstanding, the paper was accepted for publication a month later on March 17, 2020—and the possibility of the virus being the result of serial passage remained.

The influence of “Proximal Origin” Paper cannot be understated. The Intercept reported that paper is a valuable resource. [22] It’s been accessed more that 5.7 million time and cited more than 2000 media outlets making it one the most read papers. This propaganda piece was a success. “milked for all its worth” To maintain the illusion of natural evolution consensus

The paper was also exaggerated by most media outlets. Although it didn’t present any evidence supporting natural evolution, and acknowledged that the virus could have been created by serial passingaging in a laboratory, outlets such as ABC News boldly stated, “Sorry, Conspiracy Theorists. Study Concludes COVID-19 ‘Is Not a Laboratory Construct,'” [23] As if this issue was settled by scientific evidence.

Collins criticized the Nature Medicine article for not stopping the flow of questions in an email to Fauci in April 2020.

“Wondering if there is something NIH can do to help put down this very destructive conspiracy, with what seems to be growing momentum … I hoped the Nature Medicine article on the genomic sequence of SARS-CoV-2 would settle this. But probably didn’t get much visibility. Anything more we can do? Ask the National Academy to weigh in?”

Fauci replied, “I would not do anything about this right now. It is a shiny object that will go away in times [sic].” Of course, he was wrong. The reason why questions didn’t disappear was because emerging evidence kept supporting the lab leak theory while there is no support for natural evolution.

Sergei Pond is a computational virologist at Temple University. He told The Intercept. [24] “There was no data then, and there is no data now, that would definitively indicate that a lab origin like the one contemplated in ‘Proximal Origin’ is not at least plausible.” David Relman (a Stanford University professor of medicine, microbiology, and immunology) added that he had read all the emails. [25]

“When I first saw it [the ‘Proximal Origin’ paper] in March 2020, the paper read to me as a conclusion in search of an argument. Among its many problems, it failed to consider in a serious fashion the possibility of an unwitting and unrecognized accidental leak during aggressive efforts to grow coronaviruses from bat and other field samples.

“It is also believed that Wuhan’s researchers told the world every virus sequence and every sequence they found in 2019 as well. These are the facts. [unredacted emails] The authors actually provided evidence that they considered additional scenarios in the lab early on in their discussions.

“But then they rushed to judgment, and the lab scenarios fell out of favor. It appears as if a combination of a scant amount of data and an unspoken bias against the [lab origin] scenario diminished the idea in their minds.”

According to The Washington Post [26] Virologists are being examined like never before by the NIH. “preparing an overhaul of the policies on government-funded research.” Recommendations in draft [27] These were published by the biosecurity advisory panel on January 20, 2023.

Paranoia is evident and has a reason. We have unredacted emails from the NIH that show there were serious concerns about COVID-19 being a result of a laboratory leak. “allayed” Passing propaganda “science,” However, researchers also published research indicating that they are conducting gain-offunction research on SARS/CoV-2. [28]

Is that really a good idea? It is important to get to the bottom of SARS-CoV-2’s origins because reckless dual-use research into deadly pathogens continues daily. If this type of research led to COVID-19 then we must make sure it does not happen again.

One of the main reasons the lab leak theory is so controversial is that Congress would have to acknowledge it as true in order to regulate the research industry. It is a serious threat to humanity as a whole, and we can’t afford to ignore it. [29]

Surprisingly, the U.S. Office of Inspector General published a report on January 25, 2023 [30] Exemplifying the failure of NIH to properly monitor and evaluate potentially dangerous coronavirus research. Daily Mail reported: [31]

“EcoHealth Alliance was awarded $8 million in government research grants between 2014 and 2021, which it subcontracted to research facilities. The WIV was one of eight teams awarded grants at that time.

“Today’s audit revealed that there was a lack in oversight by EcoHealth and NIH at the Chinese facility, as well as other labs that received government grants.

“The report said: ‘Despite identifying potential risks associated with research being performed under the EcoHealth awards, we found that NIH did not effectively monitor or take timely action to address EcoHealth’s compliance with some requirements.

“‘Although NIH and EcoHealth had established monitoring procedures, we found deficiencies in complying with those procedures limited NIH and EcoHealth’s ability to effectively monitor federal grant awards and subawards to understand the nature of the research conducted, identify potential problem areas, and take corrective action’ …

“Investigators say EcoHealth also did not submit proper progress reports on the use of its fund in a timely manner, with information coming in two years late. It also says the NIH failed to terminate its grant with EcoHealth after the nonprofit broke protocols.”

Justin Goodman, White Coat Waste Project senior vice president for Advocacy and Public Policy, made comments on the report [32]

“This audit confirms what we have been documenting since early 2020 when we first exposed NIH’s funding of the Wuhan lab: EcoHealth Alliance shipped tax dollars to Wuhan for dangerous animal experiments that probably caused the pandemic, violated federal laws and policies, and wasted tax dollars.

“The Wuhan lab is still eligible for taxpayer money to conduct animal tests. EcoHealth has received at least $46million in federal funds from USAID, DoD and NSF since the pandemic.

We are the group that exposed EcoHealth’s scandalous partnership with the Wuhan animal laboratory. We call on Congress to end this rogue organization. It is unacceptable for taxpayers to be required to finance reckless white coats that waste money, violate the law and put public health at risk. Stop the madness, stop the money.”

As investigators try to get to the truth, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is doing everything it can to prevent it from coming out. As reported by Gary Ruskin, [33] executive director and co-founder of U.S. Right to Know (USRTK), in 2022, as the HHS was slammed with FOIA requests relating to COVID-19, they added four extra layers of legal review within the HHS legal department.

These attorneys scoured each and every document to make sure anything potentially incriminating was properly redacted before release. “This clearly indicates that this is an attempt to delay or block the release of documents regarding COVID-19’s origin.” Ruskin wrote. “What is HHS hiding from us? We hope Congress will investigate.”

The good news is, the Republican House now has the ability to launch such investigations, and I hope they will. The problem is that it would be dangerous to prove a cover-up, as it would turn everything upside down. Health agencies, universities, and any number of other agencies would have to be retooled. So getting to the bottom of this affair will require people who believe the truth is worth the pain.

Originally published on Feb. 1, 2023, on Mercola.com.

◇ References