Revelations in Dr. Fauci’s Newly Released Emails Support Lab Leak Theory

Advertisements
Photo Credit: Image by Miroslava Chrienova from Pixabay

On Tuesday, BuzzFeed News published over 3,200 pages of Dr. Anthony Fauci’s email communications from January through June 2020. The records were obtained via a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. The emails can be viewed here.

The Washington Post obtained and 896 additional pages of Fauci’s email messages from that period as well which can be viewed here.

Two of the emails will make it pretty hard for Fauci to deny he knew very early on that the virus was likely engineered in the Wuhan Institute of Virology lab.

The first is an email from Kristian G. Andersen, a professor in the Department of Immunology and Microbiology at Scripps Research Institute. On Jan. 31, 2020, Andersen wrote:

[Emphasis added]

“Hi Tony: Thanks for sharing. Yes, I saw this earlier today and both Eddie and myself are actually quoted in it. It’s a great article, but the problem is that our phylogenetic analyses aren’t able to answer whether the sequences are unusual at individual residues, except if they are completely off. On a phylogenetic tree the virus looks totally normal and the close clustering with bats suggest that bats serve as the reservoir.

“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.

“We have a good team lined up to look very critically at this, so we should know much more at the end of the weekend. I should mention 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.”

RedState’s Scott Hounsell reported that in a later paper, Andersen was on board with the “natural origin” theory. He also pointed out that Andersen “sits on a US committee called the “Standing Committee on Emerging Infectious Diseases and 21st Century Health” with Peter Daszak, whom we will meet in the next significant email. I suppose the scientific community is a rather small one and that they all know of each other, at the very least.

Hounsell wrote:

Andersen later published a paper identifying the result of the studies, and suddenly they were convinced that the virus was of a likely natural origin, stating that no virus could have been used as the backbone to SARS-CoV-2.  While I certainly am no virologist, you’d think that a virus that shares 96.4% of its genomic code as well as nearly 29,000 nucleotides, would have provided an excellent backbone for SARS-CoV-2.  That virus, RaTG13, was discovered in a bat-infested cave in China in 2013 after it infected several miners, killing three (meaning, it had already made the leap from bats to humans).

Additionally, according to the very article that Dr. Fauci sent to Andersen, Wuhan Institute of Virology scientists were able to create 5 genetically altered versions of RaTG13 in 2019, the year before the pandemic outbreak, including WIV2, WIV4, WIV5, WIV6 and WIV7. Could it be there was an additional virus created (SARS-CoV-2) and then accidentally released?  If we can say they were definitely conducting gain-of-function research on these new viruses, why is it so hard that they may have created SARS-CoV-2 at the same time?

Peter Daszak, is a zoologist and the president of EcoHealth Alliance. According to The Scientist, EcoHealth describes itself as “a global environmental health nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting wildlife and public health from the emergence of disease.”

Daszak was also a member of the team of World Health Organization investigators who traveled to Wuhan in February to determine if the virus had escaped from the lab. They concluded that it had likely originated in nature.

EcoHealth received a $3.7 million grant from the National Institutes of Health in 2014. His organization was involved with the WIV and it is believed that Daszak passed on some portion of that grant to subsidize WIV’s gain-of-function research.

In an email dated April 18, 2020, Daszak wrote to Fauci:

“As the Pl of the ROl grant publicly targeted by Fox News reporters at the Presidential press briefing last night, I just wanted to say a personal thank you on behalf of our staff and collaborators, for publicly standing up and stating that the scientific evidence supports a natural origin for COVID-19 from a bat-to-human spillover, not a lab release from the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

“From my perspective, your comments are brave, and coming from your trusted voice, will help dispel the myths being spun around the virus’ origins. Once this pandemic’s over I look forward thanking you in person and let you know how important your comments are to us all.”

On April 19, Fauci replied: “Many thanks for your kind note.”

Finally, there is a video recorded on Dec. 9, 2019, shortly before the world found out about the coronavirus, of Daszak being interviewed by virologist Vincent Racaniello. An article in a foreign science journal describes their discussion and provides the video. Daszak tells Racaniello, “You can manipulate them [coronaviruses] in the lab pretty easily.”

Daszak at the 29:54 mark appears to reveal that the goal of the GoF experiments was to develop a pan-coronavirus vaccine for many different types of coronaviruses.

Based on his response, it is evident that just before the start of the pandemic, the WIV was modifying coronaviruses in the lab. “You can manipulate them in the lab pretty easily.” What he then mentioned has become the telltale trait of SARS-CoV-2, its spike protein: “Spike protein drives a lot of what happens with the coronavirus, zoonotic risk.”

Daszak mentions the WIV’s collaboration with Baric: “and we work with Ralph Baric at UNC [University of North Carolina] to do this.” As has been suggested by proponents that SARS-CoV-2 is a chimera made in a lab, he speaks of inserting the spike protein “into a backbone of another virus” and then doing “some work in the lab.”

So, did they all know that the virus had likely been engineered in a lab, but decided to keep the world from finding out? Did a small group of leaders at the top of the world scientific community make a judgment call about what we should and should not be told regarding the origins of this virus?

Why did they try to hide it? Were they worried that government funding for gain-of-function research would stop if the world heard the truth or were they protecting China? Why were they protecting China?

Dr. Fauci, Peter Daszak, Tedros Adhanom Gebreyesus, the director of the World Health Organization, and so many others need to be questioned under oath about the newly discovered information.

The growing body of circumstantial evidence supporting the lab leak theory has now reached epic proportions.

Washington Post Admits Wuhan Lab Leak Theory Was Dismissed Because it was Supported by Trump

Advertisements
Photo Credit: Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay

At a Jan. 30, 2020 hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton, a Republican told colleagues: “This coronavirus is a catastrophe on the scale of Chernobyl for China. But actually, it’s probably worse than Chernobyl, which was localized in its effect. The coronavirus could result in a global pandemic. I would note that Wuhan has China’s only biosafety level-four super laboratory that works with the world’s most deadly pathogens to include, yes, coronavirus.”

Cotton was widely mocked by the liberal media over those remarks and similar ones to follow.

Looking back to the early days of the coronavirus, anyone who mentioned that the virus may have escaped from a lab in Wuhan was labeled a conspiracy theorist. Saying the virus may have been created in that lab was even worse.

In recent weeks, however, journalists who once scoffed at such a notion are opening to the possibility.

The Washington Post’s “fact-checker,” Glenn Kessler, who was himself the subject of a fact-check involving remarks about Republican Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina, actually admits that the legacy media’s anti-Trump bias may have been behind their rejection of the lab leak theory.

Kessler excuses both himself and his colleagues from performing their due diligence by saying that the lab leak theory “often got mixed up with speculation that the virus was deliberately created as a bioweapon,” which he finds preposterous. (When the truth finally comes out, he may be proven wrong about that as well. But I digress.) Surely any journalist worth his or her salt would be able to separate the two, and investigate both theories. Did the virus escape accidentally from the lab that was tied to the CCP’s military or was it intentionally released?

It was China’s “lack of transparency” and “renewed attention to the activities of the Wuhan lab” that finally opened their eyes to the possibility that the virus may have leaked from the lab, the only lab in China that is known to work with this specific pathogen.

He finally gets around to the real reason: former President Donald Trump. Here too, Kessler tries hard to absolve himself and the rest of the media. He writes: “The Trump administration also sought to highlight the lab scenario but generally could only point to vague intelligence. The Trump administration’s messaging was often accompanied by anti-Chinese rhetoric that made it easier for skeptics to ignore its claims.”

I’m sure by now, nearly a year and a half after the coronavirus reached our shores, U.S. intelligence agencies have more solid information about its origins. But in those early days, all Trump had to go on was vague intelligence.

As for his anti-Chinese rhetoric making it easier to ignore his claims, wouldn’t a serious investigative journalist be able to put the President’s comments aside and look at the facts? Isn’t that a journalist’s job?

Isn’t Kessler essentially saying that the theory was dismissed mostly because of its connection to Trump?

Kessler takes readers through a COVID-19 timeline. Most of the early reactions were based on the lab leak theory and left the door open to the possibility that it could have been intentional.

Later in January, The Daily Mail and The Washington Times published articles making the connection between the virus and the Wuhan lab.

On Feb. 6, “Botao Xiao, a molecular biomechanics researcher at South China University of Technology, posts a paper stating that ‘the killer coronavirus probably originated from a laboratory in Wuhan.’ He pointed to the previous safety mishaps and the kind of research undertaken at the lab. He withdrew the paper a few weeks later after Chinese authorities insisted no accident had taken place,” according to The Post.

Did any journalists wonder why Xiao withdrew the paper? That researchers who didn’t acquiesce to the CCP’s version of events had a way of disappearing?

On Feb. 9, Cotton struck back via Twitter against China’s ambassador who had said his remarks were “absolutely crazy.”

Following more criticism from The Washington Post, Cotton responded with the following Twitter thread:

The hypotheses include: “1. Natural (still the most likely, but almost certainly not from the Wuhan food market); 2. Good science, bad safety (eg, they were researching things like diagnostic testing and vaccines, but an accidental breach occurred); 3. Bad science, bad safety (this is the engineered-bioweapon hypothesis, with an accidental breach); 4. Deliberate release (very unlikely, but shouldn’t rule out till the evidence is in); Again, none of these are ‘theories’ and certainly not ‘conspiracy theories.’ They are hypotheses that ought to be studied in light of the evidence.”

The turning point in the debate over COVID’s origins came on Feb. 19 when a group of public health scientists published a joint statement, which was scolding in its nature, in the elite medical journal Lancet.

It read: “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. Scientists from multiple countries have published and analysed genomes of the causative agent, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2),1 and they overwhelmingly conclude that this coronavirus originated in wildlife.”

According to The Post, “the statement was drafted and organized by Peter Daszak, president of EcoHealth Alliance,which funded research at WIV with U.S. government grants. (Three of the signers have since said a laboratory accident is plausible enough to merit consideration.)”

These so-called “experts” did the world a great disservice by signing on to this statement. They provided China with an excuse to escape blame for the virus. It was this letter that did more than anything else to turn the tide away from the lab leak theory.

The media would point to this letter from the “experts” and ridicule anyone who mentioned the lab leak theory.

So, why now are they changing their tune? Why did PolitiFact retract their earlier fact check (which debunked the lab leak theory) last week? Unfortunately, we have no way of knowing. Perhaps they’re privy to something that hasn’t been made public yet. Or maybe it’s because there is growing circumstantial evidence that points to the lab leak theory.

Whatever the reason, Kessler’s article was a feeble attempt to explain why the vast majority of journalists, once again, failed to do their jobs.

A version of this article was posted in The Western Journal.

PolitiFact Deletes Fact Check on Wuhan Lab Leak Theory

Advertisements
Photo Credit: Image by Oberholster Venita from Pixabay

The thing about “experts” in any field, and the fact-checkers who validate (or invalidate) their conclusions, is that being human, they each have their own (sometimes hidden) opinions. biases and sets of unique life circumstances which combine to shape their personal agendas. Before we can consider and ultimately accept their “facts,” we need to remember that, above all else, they are human beings, heavily influenced and motivated by their agendas.

Until now, experts, including the ubiquitous Dr. Anthony Fauci, President Joe Biden’s chief medical advisor and the Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, or NIAID, and fact-checkers have told us the coronavirus had zoonotic origins, meaning that it jumped from an animal to a human, possibly at the Wuhan, China, wet market.

Those who thought it was possible the virus may have escaped from the nearby Wuhan Lab of Virology where gain-of-function research was being conducted and that the disease may have been enhanced (intensified, made more lethal) during their lab experiments, were called conspiracy theorists.

The left claimed that blaming China for the virus was racist and xenophobic.

In September, Fox News’ Tucker Carlson invited Dr. Li-Meng Yan, a virologist and former postdoctoral fellow at the University of Hong Kong, onto his show. She said, “This virus, COVID-19 SARS-CoV-2 virus, actually is not from nature. It is a man-made virus created in the lab.”

Carlson asked Yan to “give us, for a non-scientific audience, a summary of why you believe this virus came from a lab in Wuhan.”

“I can present solid scientific evidence to our audience that this virus, COVID-19 SARS-CoV-2 virus, actually is not from nature,” Yan replied. “It is a man-made virus created in the lab.”

She said that, previously, the bat coronavirus could not affect people, but after the [lab] modifications, it became a very harmful virus.

Carlson says, “You’re saying that the Chinese government manufactured this virus if I’m hearing you correctly?”

“Yes, exactly…,” Yan says.

She explained how the evidence that it was man-made could be found in the genome itself and that “big suppression” was coming from the Chinese Communist Party.

 

 

The show went viral. The next day, PolitiFact published a fact-check with the title, “Tucker Carlson guest airs debunked conspiracy theory that COVID-19 was created in a lab.”

PolitiFact’s Daniel Funke wrote that “the claim is inaccurate and ridiculous. We rate it Pants on Fire!”

“The genetic structure of the novel coronavirus, which has been shared by thousands of scientists worldwide, rules out the possibility that it was manipulated in a lab,” Funke told readers. “Public health authorities have repeatedly said the virus was not created in a lab. Scientists believe the coronavirus originated in bats before jumping to humans. Experts have publicly rebuked Yan’s paper, and it’s unclear whether it was peer reviewed.”

Funke makes a heroic effort to disprove Yan’s claims, citing an endless number of experts, researchers and health officials. He points out that Facebook and Instagram had both flagged the video as “false information.”

“But how do we know Yan’s claims about the coronavirus are wrong — and where do they come from? Let’s review the facts,” asks Funke rhetorically.

His answer: Because “scientists worldwide have publicly shared the genetic makeup of the coronavirus thousands of times. If the virus had been altered, there would be evidence in its genome data.”

“But there isn’t. In March, several microbiology, infectious disease and evolutionary biology experts wrote in Nature — a respected scientific journal — that the genetic makeup of the coronavirus does not indicate it was altered.”

“Instead, scientists have two plausible explanations for the origin of the virus: natural selection in an animal host, or natural selection in humans after the virus jumped from animals.”

Funke never quite explains how “the genetic structure of the novel coronavirus rules out laboratory manipulation.” Just that it does.

His entire argument boils down to: ‘Because experts say so. And they’ve said so repeatedly.’

Very recently, an “awakening” if you will, seems to have begun among people who, for over a year, have refused to even consider the possibility that the coronavirus may have escaped from the Wuhan lab. “Experts” are quietly reversing their earlier positions.

Two weeks ago, pushed hard by Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky during a Senate hearing, even Dr. Fauci opened the door to the lab leak theory.

Are these people trying to cover themselves ahead of a future revelation? Maybe.

Last week, PolitiFact retracted their September fact check about Yan’s remarks on Tucker Carlson’s show. An editor’s note read: “When this fact-check was first published in September 2020, PolitiFact’s sources included researchers who asserted the SARS-CoV-2 virus could not have been manipulated. That assertion is now more widely disputed. For that reason, we are removing this fact-check from our database pending a more thorough review. Currently, we consider the claim to be unsupported by evidence and in dispute. The original fact-check in its entirety is preserved below for transparency and archival purposes. Read our May 2021 report for more on the origins of the virus that causes COVID-19.”

Now, it’s looking more likely than ever that the virus originated in the lab.

Last week, Republican members of the House Intelligence Committee released a report to Fox News, which said there is growing “circumstantial evidence” that the virus came from a lab.

An article published by The Wall Street Journal on Sunday reported that a “State Department fact sheet, issued during the final days of the Trump administration,” said three researchers from the Wuhan Lab fell ill in November 2019 and were hospitalized “with symptoms consistent with both Covid-19 and common seasonal illness.”

Conservatives have been suspicious all along due to the fact that a lab that had been conducting research on the virus was located nearby and that we are dealing with China, who cannot be trusted. But experts and the media told us we were wrong and the fact checkers went to town.

The parade of experts, researchers and renowned scientists, each with their own agendas, never offered an explanation for why the coronavirus couldn’t have come from the lab or why it couldn’t have been modified. Just that it couldn’t. And we were supposed to accept it.

“Pants on Fire?” I don’t think so.

In the video below, Fox News contributor and radio host Dan Bongino “gives the fact checkers at PolitiFact the verbal beatdown they deserve.”

 

This article was originally published by The Western Journal.

Former Trump Official Makes Extraordinary Claim About Fauci, Gain of Function Research and Wuhan Lab

Advertisements
Photo Credit: Image by Miroslava Chrienova from Pixabay

One of the biggest stories of the week was Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul’s fiery exchange with Dr. Anthony Fauci, the Director of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) during a Senate health committee hearing on Tuesday. In the video below, Paul asks Fauci if NIAID funded gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Lab of Virology (WLV).

The best definition of gain-of-function research comes from an article in Hot Air. “By making the viruses more infectious to humans in the lab, scientists can see how viruses might mutate into something dangerous out in the wild. Then they can start producing therapies and vaccines to treat them now, before they cause a pandemic. They’re trying to get ahead of natural evolution in a laboratory setting, in other words, and anticipate how a dangerous pathogen might be suppressed. The problem is, by tinkering, they’re creating precisely the sort of virus that could cause a pandemic if it escaped the lab.”

Here are the highlights from the video:

Paul: “For years, Dr. Ralph Baric, a virologist in the U.S., has been collaborating with Dr. Shi Zhengli from the Wuhan Virology Institute, sharing his discoveries about how to create superviruses. This gain-of-function research has been funded by the NIH. … Dr. Fauci, do you still support funding of the NIH lab in Wuhan?”

Fauci: “With all due respect, you are entirely and completely incorrect. The NIH has not ever and does not now fund gain-of-function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology.”

Paul: “Do you fund Dr. Baric’s gain-of-function research?”

Fauci: “Dr. Baric is not doing gain-of-function research, and if it is, it is according to the guidelines and is being conducted in North Carolina. … If you look at the grant and if you look at the progress reports, it is not gain-of-function, despite the fact that people tweet that, write about it.”

Paul: “Will you categorically say that the COVID-19 could not have occurred through serial passage in a laboratory?”

Fauci: “I do not have any accounting of what the Chinese may have done, and I am fully in favor of any further investigation of what went on in China. However, I will repeat again, the NIH and NIAID categorically has not funded gain-of-function research to be conducted in the Wuhan Institute of Virology.”

The correct answer to Paul’s question falls into a grey area. NIAID is “one of the 27 institutes and centers that make up the National Institutes of Health (NIH), an agency of the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).”

NIH did provide a grant (or a series of grants) to a nonprofit called EcoHealth Alliance which was connected to the WLV. EcoHealth Alliance, according to The Scientist, describes itself as “a global environmental health nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting wildlife and public health from the emergence of disease.”

Peter Navarro served in the Trump Administration as the Assistant to the President and the Director of Trade and Manufacturing Policy.  The National Pulse published an exclusive article written by Navarro which alleges that the WLV deleted “Fauci’s NIH and gain of function mentions from old web pages in early 2021.”

“The Wuhan Institute of Virology scrubbed the U.S. National Institutes of Health as one of its research partners from its website in early 2021. The revelation comes despite Dr. Anthony Fauci insisting no relationship existed between the institutions,” claimed Navarro.

Moreover, he wrote: “Archived versions of the Wuhan lab’s site also reveal a research update – ‘Will SARS Come Back?’ – appearing to describe gain-of-function research being conducted at the institute by entities funded by Dr. Anthony Fauci’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID).”

If true, this is a huge story.

Navarro runs through nine points to make the case that Fauci “used NIH grant money to help fund the WLV.” and that the money was funneled to the Wuhan Lab through [Dr.] Peter Daszak” and EcoHealth Alliance. Daszak, a British zoologist, is the President of EcoHealth Alliance.

Among the most explosive allegations Navarro makes is that: “Fauci, together with NIH Director Francis Collins, went behind the back of the Trump White House in December 2017 to overturn a 2014 Obama Administration decision to ban the use of “gain of function” tools to increase the lethality of viruses – Australian journalist Sharri Markson has revealed Fauci used a “low level” White House meeting to fly below the radar.”

Read Navarro’s extraordinary article at the National Pulse.

Although it’s important to determine if the U.S. provided funding for this research, the critical issue is to determine the origin of COVID-19. If, as many believe, including the former CDC Director, Dr. Robert Redfield, that the virus escaped from the WLV, we need to know about that.

Speaking to Dr. Sanjay Gupta, CNN’s chief medical correspondent in March, Redfield said, “If I was to guess, this virus started transmitting somewhere in September, October in Wuhan. That’s my own feelings. And only opinion. I’m allowed to have opinions now.”

“I still think the most likely ideology of this pathogen in Wuhan was from a laboratory, escaped,” he told Gupta.

“The other people don’t believe that,” Redfield noted. “That’s fine. Science will eventually figure it out. It’s not unusual for respiratory pathogens that are being worked on in a laboratory to infect the laboratory worker.”

He added, “I am a virologist. I have spent my life in virology. I do not believe this somehow came from a bat to a human and, at that moment in time the virus came to the human, became one of the most infectious viruses that we know in humanity for human transmission.”