As noted by Spiked reporter Matt Ridley,1<\/a> \u201cIt is completely normal to start inquiries into mass deaths by asking how they happened \u2014 so that you can stop them happening again …\u201d<\/p>\n Yet in the case of the COVID pandemic, all questioning and discussion about the origin of the virus have been dismissed as more or less irrelevant, and mainstream journalists have mysteriously steered clear of what could easily be one of the biggest stories of their lifetimes. As reported by Ridley:2<\/a><\/p>\n \u201cThe evidence that this virus probably came from the Wuhan Institute of Virology is now voluminous, detailed and strong.<\/em>3<\/a> That an outbreak caused by a bat sarbecovirus should happen in the one city in the world that had been collecting hundreds of bat sarbecoviruses and experimenting on them is striking enough.<\/em><\/p>\n That it happened one year after that lab proposed inserting the one feature that distinguishes SARS\u2011CoV\u20112 from all other viruses of the same kind makes it a heck of a coincidence.<\/em><\/p>\n That the virus was highly infectious from the start, highly attuned to human receptors and evolving comparatively slowly, implying it had been already trained on human cells, was a shock.<\/em><\/p>\n That the lab in question refuses to this day to release the database of the viruses it had been working on is as insulting as it is suspicious. The coincidences of time and place are truly spectacular …<\/em>4<\/a><\/p>\n Millions are dead around the world and the most likely cause is an accident during a risky experiment in a laboratory. Should we not be learning lessons from that?\u201d<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Evidence suggests the lab leak theory has been intentionally ignored because the individuals who had a hand in the creation of SARS-CoV-2 needed to cover up the fact that it was manmade to protect reputations and money flows.<\/p>\n The lesson to be learned is that we cannot afford to allow this kind of research to continue, and that\u2019s a public realization the scientific community is desperate to avoid. The reality, however, is that extremely risky research is being conducted, and the scientific community is playing fast and loose when it comes to safety.<\/p>\n In 2018, Peter Daszak, a British zoologist and president of EcoHealth Alliance, a U.S.-based research organization, submitted a grant proposal to the Pentagon\u2019s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), requesting $14 million for gain-of-function (GOF) research on bat sarbecoviruses.<\/p>\n His DEFUSE proposal5<\/a> 6<\/a> 7<\/a> specifically spelled out the intent to insert \u201chuman-specific cleavage sites\u201d into sarbecoviruses, a genus of coronavirus to which SARS-CoV belongs. This also happens to be one of the radically novel features that makes SARS-CoV-2 so infectious to humans. Of the 1,500 coronaviruses known to exist, none but SARS-CoV-2 has this cleavage site.<\/p>\n According to the proposal, the work was to be carried out either at a biosafety level 3 (BSL- 3) lab in Wuhan, the Duke-NUS Medical School in Singapore, Ralph Baric\u2019s lab at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, and\/or the U.S. Geological Survey National Wildlife Health Center.<\/p>\n It didn\u2019t specify which portions of the research would be done where, yet Daszak has insisted that the work was always intended to be carried out at the UNC, not the WIV.8<\/a><\/p>\n The DEFUSE proposal came to light after being leaked in the fall of 2021.9<\/a> In his defense, Daszak has argued that the Pentagon rejected the proposal, so the research was never carried out.10<\/a><\/p>\n However, at the end of December 2023, Emily Kopp with U.S. Right to Know (USRTK) received an early draft11<\/a> of the DEFUSE proposal with comments from Daszak and Baric in the margins, which reveal Daszak intentionally mislead DARPA about where the research was to be conducted.<\/p>\n In one comment, he even admits seeking to \u201cdownplay the non-U.S. focus of [the] proposal\u201d12<\/a> by not including the biographies of Shi Zhengli, the so-called \u201cbat lady\u201d at the WIV, and Duke-NUS Medical School Professor Linfa Wang, both of whom were going to be involved in the experiments. Baric, for his part, also stressed the risks involved.<\/p>\n \u201cRalph, Zhengli. If we win this contract, I do not propose that all of this work will necessarily be conducted by Ralph [Baric], but I do want to stress the US side of this proposal so that DARPA are comfortable with our team,\u201d<\/em> Daszak wrote,13<\/a> adding, \u201cOnce we get the funds, we can then allocate who does what exact work, and I believe that a lot of these assays can be done in Wuhan as well.\u201d<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Baric replied to Daszak\u2019s comment, stating:14<\/a><\/p>\n \u201cIn the US, these recombinant SARS-CoV are studied under BSL3 \u2026 In China, [we] might be growin[g] these virus[es] under BSL2. US [researchers] will likely freak out.\u201d<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n As noted by Justin Kinney, a quantitative biologist at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory and cofounder of Biosafety Now, the comments by Daszak and Baric are \u201cdamning.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cThese revelations are important because these specific experiments could, quite plausibly, have led to the genetic engineering and accidental release of SARS-CoV-2,\u201d<\/em> Kinney told Kopp.15<\/a><\/p>\n \u201cBSL-2 experiments are more convenient and less expensive than BSL-3 experiments \u2026 However, BSL-2 provides a far lower level of biosafety than BSL-3 does. This lower safety level is especially dangerous for experiments involving viruses that can be transmitted by air.<\/em><\/p>\n It is very concerning that Daszak and Baric appear to have considered it legitimate to move high-risk experiments from BSL-3 to BSL-2. It is also concerning that they appear to have considered doing so in secret, instead of disclosing this important change of experimental plans and biosafety precautions in their grant proposal.\u201d<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n As for whether the research detailed in the DEFUSE proposal was ever carried out, it\u2019s possible, but evidence is still lacking. According to Ridley,16<\/a> \u201cthere is every chance the work went ahead with funding from the Chinese Academy of Sciences.\u201d<\/p>\n USRTK also notes that even though the Pentagon didn\u2019t fund it, Daszak may have had the ability to do the research using an earlier grant from the National Institutes of Health:17<\/a><\/p>\n \u201cA progress report<\/em>18<\/a> for that NIH grant for the year ending in May 2018 shows that the Wuhan Institute of Virology and EcoHealth Alliance conducted gain-of-function research on coronaviruses and tested them in mice engineered to express human receptors.\u201d<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n The NIH research grant in question, called \u201cUnderstanding the Risk of Bat Coronavirus Emergence,\u201d was originally awarded in 2014. In 2019, it was renewed until 2026, but was temporarily suspended between April and July 2020, due to EcoHealth\u2019s ties to the WIV.<\/p>\n Four days after the grant was suspended, Daszak wrote an email stating his \u201cplan is to continue this work, unfunded for now …\u201d19<\/a> As noted by USRTK, \u201cHis email … seems to contrast with his public statements that work on the grant came to a halt without funding.\u201d Could the same be true for the DEFUSE experiments?<\/p>\n \u201cThe contrast between Daszak\u2019s email and public statements about unfunded work raises questions about his statements on a second controversial EcoHealth grant proposal that had the potential to lead to the existence of SARS-CoV-2,\u201d<\/em> Kopp writes.20<\/a><\/p>\n \u201cThis second proposal, called DEFUSE, was never funded. It was submitted to the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, and proposed adding something called a cleavage site to the spike proteins of SARS-related coronaviruses. SARS-CoV-2 has a furin cleavage site in its spike protein, but no other viruses closely related to it have this site.<\/em><\/p>\n The WIV was a partner on the proposal. Though DEFUSE was rejected, similarities between the proposed research and SARS-CoV-2 generated speculation on whether any of the planned work had been carried out.<\/em><\/p>\n When asked, Daszak responded, \u2018\u2026 we would not be doing that research before we submit the proposal. That\u2019s not how it works.\u2019 According to Richard Ebright, a professor of chemistry and chemical biology at Rutgers University, investigators do often perform research before submitting their grant proposals.<\/em><\/p>\n \u2018In the molecular life sciences, it is the norm to begin, and often make substantial progress on, new lines of research before seeking and obtaining funding for the research,\u2019 said Ebright.<\/em><\/p>\n \u2018It would be unusual for a research group with multiple current lines of funding not to have started a new line of research before obtaining funding for it, and it would be almost unheard of for a group with multiple current lines of support not to proceed with a new line of research simply because an application for an additional line of funding application was not approved.\u2019\u201d<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n In a December 2023 interview21<\/a> with investigative journalist Paul Thacker, Dr. Robert Kadlec \u2014 who has worked to counter the proliferation of biological weapons for more than 30 years, and helped write much of the U.S. biodefense legislation \u2014 confirmed what now seems obvious.<\/p>\n Namely that federally funded scientists have engaged in a \u201ccolossal misdirection\u201d to hide evidence showing the pandemic began in a Wuhan lab funded by American tax dollars. As for their motive, he believes it\u2019s to protect reputations and the access to federal grant money.<\/p>\n Aside from Daszak and Baric, other individuals who appear to have played central roles in this misdirection include22<\/a> Scripps researcher Kristian Andersen, who in a February 1, 2020, email to Dr. Anthony Fauci stated that \u201csome of the features\u201d of SARS-CoV-2 \u201clook engineered,\u201d and that he and three other researchers all found \u201cthe genome inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory.\u201d<\/p>\n Shortly thereafter, he published an article in Nature Medicine refuting the idea that the virus might be manmade. Similarly, Fauci in a February 1, 2020, email to Dr. Francis Collins and several others noted there were mutations in the virus that were unlikely to have evolved naturally in bats, and that the experts he\u2019d been in contact with suspected the mutation may have been \u201cintentionally inserted.\u201d<\/p>\n Publicly, however, Fauci dismissed the lab leak theory as unfounded conspiracy theory. Within weeks, several other virologists who echoed Andersen\u2019s concerns also mysteriously ended up putting their names to papers refuting the lab leak theory.<\/p>\n That included virologist Eddie Holmes, who also happens to have been a guest professor at the Chinese Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Beijing \u2014 a fact he did not disclose and has since deleted from his publicly available CV.<\/p>\n All of these papers are highly suspect. One of them was cosigned by Jeremy Farrar, who put together the February 1 call with Fauci. Another was ghostwritten by Baric and Zhengli,23<\/a> and the third paper was pushed through to publication by Fauci and Farrar.<\/p>\n \u201cHow do we get three papers bubble up into the academic literature, within six weeks, that all come to the complete opposite conclusion of what virologists privately speculated on February 1?\u201d Thacker asks.<\/p>\n \u201cI’d like to know, too,\u201d<\/em> Kadlec replies. \u201cI wish I could explain that … Fauci got this other group, with Jeremy Farrar, and his buddies. And this group privately says they have concerns, and then publicly say there’s no way a lab accident could happen. That’s the chain of events …<\/em><\/p>\n [Fauci] is a real operator, man. I’m not saying that HE misled us, but somehow we went from one story to the other. The cabal seems to be Jeremy Farrar, Francis Collins and Fauci. They seem to be the center of what was going on.<\/em><\/p>\n Then you have these researchers, Kristian Anderson, Robert Garry and the others being included. Mike Worobey wasn’t part of these conversations, but he became a public mouthpiece for a lot of this. I’m very suspect of what happened. As much as you would like to think Fauci is behind this, I think Collins may be the guy …<\/em><\/p>\n I think what was driven here was reputational risk to NIH and to the two people that both advocated \u2014 Fauci and Collins \u2014 for unfettered, scientific research, meaning gain-of-function research. NIH funded gain-of-function research may have resulted in this accident\u00a0…<\/em><\/p>\n [Y]ou can’t make a cogent, convincing argument that it came naturally from an animal. What they were trying to do is make the argument that it\u2019s zoonotic, and there’s no evidence to support that …<\/em><\/p>\n It looks like an information operation to me. That’s … how I view this. Misdirection. It’s like denial and deception … The motivation seems to be obvious, right? It\u2019s reputational risk and institutional risk to these funders.\u201d<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n 1<\/a><\/p>\n Spiked December 20, 2023<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n 2<\/a><\/p>\n Spiked December 20, 2023<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n 3<\/a><\/p>\n Wall Street Journal February 26, 2023<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n 4<\/a><\/p>\n BBC March 1, 2023<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n 5<\/a><\/p>\n DEFUSE Proposal March 27, 2018<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n 6<\/a><\/p>\n The Intercept September 23, 2021<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n 7<\/a><\/p>\n Disinformation Chronicle Substack December 22, 2023<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n 8<\/a><\/p>\n Science March 8, 2023<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n 9<\/a><\/p>\n The Intercept September 23, 2021<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n 10<\/a><\/p>\n The Intercept March 11, 2022<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n 11<\/a><\/p>\n USRTK December 18, 2023<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n 12<\/a><\/p>\n USRTK Peter Daszak comment 2<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n 13<\/a><\/p>\n USRTK Peter Daszak comment 1<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n 14<\/a><\/p>\n USRTK Ralph Baric comment 1<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n 15<\/a><\/p>\n USRTK December 18, 2023<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n 16<\/a><\/p>\n Spiked December 20, 2023<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n 17<\/a><\/p>\n USRTK December 18, 2023<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n 18<\/a><\/p>\n The Intercept September 9, 2021<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n 19<\/a><\/p>\n USRTK Daszak Emails<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n 20<\/a><\/p>\n USRTK December 18, 2023<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n 21<\/a><\/p>\n Disinformation Chronicle Substack December 20, 2023<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n 22<\/a><\/p>\n Disinformation Chronicle Substack December 20, 2023<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n 23<\/a><\/p>\n Disinformation Chronicle Substack January 11, 2022<\/a><\/p>\n Originally published by\u00a0Mercola.com<\/a>\u00a0and republished on his\u00a0Private Substack<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n <\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" There’s evidence suggesting that the lab leak theory has been intentionally ignored – here’s why.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":687,"featured_media":168525,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"sfsi_plus_gutenberg_text_before_share":"","sfsi_plus_gutenberg_show_text_before_share":"","sfsi_plus_gutenberg_icon_type":"","sfsi_plus_gutenberg_icon_alignemt":"","sfsi_plus_gutenburg_max_per_row":"","_genesis_hide_title":false,"_genesis_hide_breadcrumbs":false,"_genesis_hide_singular_image":false,"_genesis_hide_footer_widgets":false,"_genesis_custom_body_class":"","_genesis_custom_post_class":"","_genesis_layout":"","footnotes":"","_ppma_block_editor_authors":""},"categories":[200,461,439],"tags":[],"ppma_author":[657],"class_list":["post-251767","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-pestilences","category-darpa","category-national-institute-of-health-nih","entry"],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\tAn Intentional Coverup<\/h2>\n
\n
\u201cThe lesson to be learned is that we cannot afford to allow this kind of research to continue, and that\u2019s a public realization the scientific community desperately wants to avoid.\u201d<\/em><\/h3>\n<\/blockquote>\n
Leaked Document Shows Daszak Intended to Deceive DARPA<\/h2>\n
Damning Commentary<\/h2>\n
Was the Risky GOF Research Still Carried Out?<\/h2>\n
Colossal Misdirection<\/h2>\n
Was the Pandemic a Result of NIH-Funded Research?<\/h2>\n
\nSources:<\/h2>\n
\n
\n