November 5, 2020, U.S. Right to Know (USRTK), an investigative public health and wellness not-for-profit team, submitted a legal action1 versus the National Institutes of Health after the firm stopped working to reply to its July 10, 2020, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) demand.
The USRTK’s suit looked for accessibility to nonexempt documents of gain-of-function experiments associating with the COVID-19 pandemic from the Wuhan Institute of Virology and also the Wuhan Center for Disease Control and also Prevention, along with the EcoHealth Alliance, which partnered with and also moneyed the Wuhan Institute.2
In a November 18, 2020, write-up,3,4 USRTK reports that e-mails gotten confirm EcoHealth Alliance workers lagged the story to cover the laboratory beginning of SARS-CoV-2 by providing a clinical declaration condemning such queries as “conspiracy theory”:
“Emails gotten by U.S. Right to Know reveal that a declaration5 in The Lancet authored by 27 noticeable public health and wellness researchers condemning ‘conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin’ was arranged by workers of EcoHealth Alliance, a charitable team that has actually obtained countless bucks of U.S. taxpayer financing to genetically control coronaviruses with researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
The e-mails gotten using public documents demands reveal that EcoHealth Alliance President Peter Daszak composed the Lancet declaration, which he meant it to ‘not be identifiable as coming from any one organization or person’6 however instead to be viewed as ‘simply a letter from leading scientists.’7 Daszak created that he desired ‘to avoid the appearance of a political statement.’8
The researchers’ letter showed up in The Lancet on February 18, simply one week after the World Health Organization introduced that the illness triggered by the unique coronavirus would certainly be called COVID-19.
The 27 writers ‘strongly condemn[ed] conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin,’ and also reported that researchers from several nations ‘overwhelmingly conclude that this coronavirus originated in wildlife.’
The letter consisted of no clinical recommendations to shoot down a lab-origin concept of the infection. One researcher, Linda Saif, asked using e-mail whether it would certainly be useful ‘to add just one or 2 statements in support of why nCOV is not a lab generated virus and is naturally occuring? Seems critical to scientifically refute such claims!’9 Daszak reacted, ‘I think we should probably stick to a broad statement.’10”
USRTK mention that numerous of the writers of that Lancet declaration likewise have straight connections to the EcoHealth Alliance that were not revealed as disputes of passion.
“Rita Colwell and James Hughes are members of the Board of Directors of EcoHealth Alliance, William Karesh is the group’s Executive Vice President for Health and Policy, and Hume Field is Science and Policy Advisor,” USRTK composes.11
Daszak Leads Lancet Investigation Into SARS-CoV-2 Origin
This bombshell searching for is even more vital in light of the reality that Daszak is currently leading The Lancet’s COVID-19 Commission billed with obtaining to the base of SARS-CoV-2’s beginning.12
The election was suspicious from the beginning, for nothing else factor than EcoHealth Alliance has actually obtained many gives from the National Institutes of Health for coronavirus study that was after that farmed out to the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
Daszak had actually likewise taken place the document specifying he’s persuaded that the infection is all-natural in beginning. With that, his disputes of passion were currently clear, however the searching for that he managed The Lancet declaration condemning “conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin” suggests The Lancet Commission’s examination is little bit greater than a whitewash procedure.
If they intend to preserve any kind of form of integrity going forward, Daszak would certainly require to be changed with a person much less polluted by disputes and also individual gain capacity. Five various other participants of The Lancet Commission likewise authorized the February 18, 2020, declaration in The Lancet,13 which places their integrity concerned also.
Daszak has every factor to see to it SARS-CoV-2 winds up being proclaimed all-natural, due to the fact that if it becomes a lab-creation, his resources goes to risk. It would certainly be naïve to think that protecting the extension of hazardous gain-of-function study wouldn’t be an effective incentive to maintain the zoonotic beginning story.
If you intend to see simply exactly how deeply the mainstream media remains in total collusion with Daszak and also is being utilized to strengthen this phony story, you can watch the “60 Minutes” meeting with him listed below that was transmitted previously this year.
Lab Escapes Are Commonplace
For the previous years, there have actually been warnings increased in the clinical neighborhood regarding biosecurity violations in high control organic laboratories in the U.S. and also around the world.14
There were legitimate fears that a lab-created superflu might escape the confines of biosecurity labs where researchers are conducting experiments. It’s certainly a reasonable fear, considering the many biosafety breaches on record.15,16,17,18 For example, in 2014, six glass vials of smallpox virus were accidentally found in a storeroom in the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s lab at the National Institutes of Health.19
It was the second time in one month mishandling of potential deadly infectious agents was exposed. One month before this shocking discovery, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention20 realized as many as 84, and possibly 86, of its scientists had been exposed to live anthrax.21,22
The live pathogen had been sent from another, higher-security facility, which failed to follow biosafety protocols. The anthrax sample was supposed to have been inactivated prior to transfer, but for a variety of reasons it wasn’t dead on arrival.
The next year, in 2015, the Pentagon realized a Dugway Proving Ground laboratory had been sending incompletely inactivated anthrax (meaning it was still live) to 200 laboratories around the globe for the past 12 years. According to a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report23 issued in August 2016, incompletely inactivated anthrax was sent out on at least 21 occasions between 2003 and 2015.
In 2017, the BSL 4 lab on Galveston Island was hit by a massive storm and severe flooding, raising questions about what could happen were some of the pathogens kept there to get out.24 As recently as 2019, the BSL 4 lab in Fort Detrick was temporarily shut down after several protocol violations were noted.25
Between October 2014 and December 2017, a moratorium on dangerous gain-of-function experiments was in effect in the U.S.26,27 The moratorium was initially issued after a rash of “high-profile lab mishaps” at the CDC and “extremely controversial flu experiments” in which the bird flu virus was engineered to become more lethal and contagious between ferrets.
The goal was to see if it could mutate and become more lethal and contagious between humans, causing future pandemics.
According to Francis Boyle, who drafted the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, the West Africa Ebola pandemic likely originated out of a BSL-4 facility in Sierra Leone. He believes they were testing a live Ebola vaccine, thereby causing the outbreak.
Asia Times28 lists several other examples of safety breaches at BSL3 and BSL4 laboratories, as does a May 28, 2015, article in USA Today,29 an April 11, 2014, article in Slate magazine30 and a November 16, 2020, article in Medium.31
SARS Lab Escapes
The Medium article,32 written by Gilles Demaneuf, reviews SARS lab escapes specifically. No less than three out of four reappearances of SARS have been attributed to safety breaches. In the first incident, which took place in September 2003 in Singapore, an inexperienced doctoral student was infected with SARS. The case was blamed on “inappropriate laboratory standards” and cross-contamination.33
Other shortcomings that contributed included “inadequate record-keeping procedures, totally inadequate training, inexistent virus stock inventory, patchy maintenance records plus a variety of structural problems including the absence of gauges to indicate the pressure differentials, the lack of a freezer to store samples, problems with HEPA filters and air supply, and other equipment deficiencies.”34
The second accident took place in December 2003 at the Level 4 lab at the Taiwan Military Institute of Preventive Medical Research (IPMR) of the National Defense University.
A lieutenant-colonel working with SARS was infected as a result of negligence when disinfecting an accidental spill. The third incidence took place between February and April 2004 in Beijing, resulting in nearly 1,000 people being medically quarantined.
Why Tracking Down Origin of SARS-CoV-2 Is Crucial
As noted by the National Review,35 getting to the bottom of the origin of SARS-CoV-2 is crucial if we are to prevent a similar pandemic to erupt in the future:
“If it originated from a person eating bat or pangolin at a wet market, then we need to take steps to ensure that bat and pangolin consumption and trade stops everywhere in the world … Bat guano is used as fertilizer in many countries, and that guano can be full of viruses … If this is the source of the virus, we need to get people to stop going into caves and using the guano as fertilizer …
In a strange way, the ‘lab accident’ scenario is one of the most reassuring explanations. It means that if we want to ensure we never experience this again, we simply need to get every lab in the world working on contagious viruses to ensure 100 percent compliance with safety protocols, all the time.”
We’re told gain-of-function research is necessary in order to stay ahead of the natural evolution of viruses. A pathogen that mutates and jumps species, for example, may end up posing a severe threat to mankind. However, by manipulating pathogens, turning nonlethal viruses into lethal ones, for example, we are creating the very risk we’re supposedly trying to avoid.
And, as long as we are creating the risk, the benefit will always be secondary. Any scientific or medical gains made from this kind of research pales in comparison to the incredible risks involved if these creations are released. This sentiment has been echoed by others in a variety of scientific publications.36,37,38,39
Considering the potential for a massively lethal pandemic, I believe it’s safe to say that BSL 3 and 4 laboratories pose a very real and serious existential threat to humanity.
U.S. biowarfare programs employ some 13,000 scientists,40 all of whom are hard at work creating ever-deadlier pathogens, while the public is simply told to trust that these pathogens will never be released, either involuntarily or voluntarily.
Historical facts tell us accidental exposures and releases have already happened, and we only have our lucky stars to thank that none have turned into pandemics taking the lives of millions.
Considering safety breaches at these labs number in the hundreds, it’s only a matter of time before something really nasty gets out. Consider the ramifications if a souped-up Ebola or Spanish flu were to get out, for example. Is SARS-CoV-2 the product of gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology? It might be. There’s certainly compelling evidence to suggest it.
But even if such suspicions turn out be wrong, we must ask the question and do a proper investigation. We absolutely need to know how this virus came about, and if it was a lab creation, how it got out.
Naturally, there will be resistance. As mentioned, many thousands of scientists stand to lose their careers were this kind of research to be banned. As Antonio Regalado, biomedicine editor of MIT Technology Review, told Boston Magazine,41 “If it turned out COVID-19 came from a lab it would shatter the scientific edifice top to bottom.”
Some might be looking at an even worse fate. With sufficient evidence, certain researchers and also public health authorities might face life behind bars for their involvement, which is the penalty for bioterrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act. All things considered, there’s virtually no benefit to gain-of-function research, but plenty of threat.