Before COVID, an NIH lab chief proposed making a SARS-like bat virus more infectious
Vincent Munster and Michael Letko (photos from NIH and WSU)
By Lewis Kamb | U.S. Right to Know | October 15, 2026
On a Sunday morning in October 2019, the chief of the virus ecology unit at the National Institutes of Health’s Rocky Mountain Laboratories emailed a postdoctoral scientist in his lab with an idea.
Vincent Munster and his postdoc, Michael Letko, had spent that year building a system to rapidly test whether dozens of SARS-related bat coronaviruses could infect human cells.
That week, Munster read a new preprint from prominent virologists Vineet Menachery and Ralph Baric’s lab groups showing that the protease trypsin could unlock entry for certain coronaviruses that otherwise would not infect human cells.
Letko had forwarded him the paper two days earlier with the note, “Seems like more groups will be converging on this idea soon.”
“You should be able to make S with a more broader cleavage signature (like furin-like) to enhance infectivity,” Munster wrote back on Oct. 6, 2019. “You can include a motif like this R-X-[K/R]-R↓ Might be cool to get some synthesized.”
In virology parlance, “S” is the coronavirus spike protein, which allows the virus to latch onto the cells it infects, and R-X-[K/R]-R is a furin cleavage site motif, which can make viruses better able to infect cells and spread.
Munster was suggesting that his postdoc engineer a furin site into a coronavirus spike protein to make it more infectious.
Eleven weeks later, a coronavirus carrying a similar furin cleavage site emerged in Wuhan, China, spawning the COVID-19 pandemic. It remains the only known sarbecovirus, the SARS-related group of coronaviruses that Munster and Letko were then screening, to have one.
The email exchange has never been made public before. It appears in a 270-page batch of records recently released by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to U.S. Right to Know in response to a request made under the Freedom of Information Act.
The request sought specific correspondence from Munster’s lab in Hamilton, Montana, from March 2019 through Jan. 22, 2020, the date when his group published one of the first papers showing that the new coronavirus used a human cell receptor called ACE2 as a doorway into cells.
Two new threads run through the records: Weeks before the pandemic began, a senior NIH virologist proposed in writing to build into a SARS-like spike protein the feature that would become the central argument for COVID-19’s laboratory origin: a furin cleavage site.
And, through the same year, his lab was asking virus hunters for unpublished bat coronavirus spike sequences, and getting them, including from researchers in the U.S.-funded consortium called PREDICT, whose New York-based lead partner, EcoHealth Alliance, had a long-standing collaboration with the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) to collect and study SARS-related viruses.
Each goes to a different key point in the origins debate. The furin cleavage site is the single genetic feature most cited in the arguments that SARS-CoV-2 did not arise entirely in nature.
Unpublished sequences are the other: because the pandemic virus matches nothing in the published scientific literature, most laboratory-origin scenarios depend on some lab having held a virus the rest of the world had never seen.
Nothing in the records shows that Letko followed through on Munster’s suggestion to insert a furin cleavage site in a SARS spike protein, however. In fact, the furin cleavage site found in SARS-CoV-2 differs from the motif, or short sequence of amino acids, that Munster suggested.
Nor do the documents indicate that Rocky Mountain Labs possessed SARS-CoV-2 or a close relative, or that either Munster or Letko directly communicated with researchers in Wuhan while working on their project.
Their research also used synthetic gene fragments, not live viruses, employing particles that cannot replicate or spread. Such work generally poses lower biosafety risks.
The two then-unpublished bat virus spike sequences obtained from PREDICT, one from Malaysia and one from Uganda and Rwanda, are also too distantly related to SARS-CoV-2 to have given rise to it.
Letko, who is now an associate professor at Washington State University, declined to comment for this story, saying in an email “(y)ou will write what you write, regardless of the truth or what I have to say.”
Munster did not respond to requests for comment. He was indicted earlier this year for bringing mpox specimens into the U.S. without proper documentation and giving false statements to law enforcement officials as part of unrelated NIH research. He has pleaded not guilty.
The NIH press office also declined to answer questions about why the agency had not previously told the public that its scientists had solicited and obtained unpublished SARS-like coronavirus spike sequences, or proposed inserting a furin cleavage site into a SARS-like spike, before the pandemic.
Converging on the idea
Munster’s suggestion to add a furin cleavage site is the second known instance of scientists proposing to insert this distinguishing feature into a SARS or SARS-like spike within roughly two years before COVID-19 emerged.
In 2018, EcoHealth Alliance, Baric’s lab and researchers at the WIV had proposed the same kind of modification to the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), in work that would have used live, replicating viruses. Their application, known as the DEFUSE proposal, was denied.
The concept is notable because the furin cleavage site that helped the virus cause the pandemic has become central to the debate over the pandemic’s origins.
Some proponents of a laboratory origin view DEFUSE as a blueprint for creating SARS-CoV-2, while prominent supporters of a natural origin have argued that deliberately engineering such a feature would have been unlikely and unnecessarily cumbersome. Munster’s email gives the lab-origin supporters another example of such a furin site proposal.
The revelation about Munster’s lab seeking unpublished sequences speaks to a different issue in the COVID-19 origins debate.
Because SARS-CoV-2 descends from no virus previously described in the scientific literature, any scenario in which it was engineered requires assuming that some laboratory held SARS-related sequences that had never been made public.
In a 2021 review of SARS-CoV-2 in Cell by 21 scientists called that implausible. “There is no rational experimental reason why a new genetic system would be developed using an unknown and unpublished virus,” they wrote.
But the records show a U.S. government laboratory doing just that two years earlier.
Letko’s platform was a new genetic system, and he sought unpublished sequences precisely because they were unpublished. Sharing them, he wrote in April 2019, “will surely increase the impact of our story by providing a proof of principle with unpublished sequences.”
Researchers in the U.S.-funded virus hunting program supplied two within eight weeks. One of the researchers, Simon Anthony, was also an author of the Cell review.
Alina Chan, a molecular biologist who has advocated for a thorough investigation of laboratory origin scenarios, recently reviewed the Munster-Letko email records at the request of U.S. Right To Know.
“What this shows is that different groups of virologists were converging on the idea of inserting cleavage sites in the spikes of potentially dangerous coronaviruses,” she said.
“Assuming a lab origin of COVID-19, if a lab in Wuhan hadn’t caused the pandemic, it’s plausible that a lab in the U.S. would’ve eventually followed the same path.”
Soliciting sequences
Munster’s emailed proposal didn’t come out of the blue. He and Letko were in the middle of a yearlong research project that the newly released records document from its start.
Seven months earlier, in March 2019, Munster and Letko set out to answer a question: of the hundreds of SARS-related coronaviruses in research databases worldwide, which ones could infect people?
Letko built a workaround that he and Munster described as a “rapid and scalable platform,” according to the records.
Rather than build each virus individually, they took only the receptor-binding domain — the fragment of the spike that grips onto the host cell’s receptor — and spliced it into a SARS-CoV spike backbone.
They then loaded these chimeric spikes onto harmless reporter particles and used them to infect cells expressing hACE2, the receptor SARS-CoV uses to enter the human airway.
A glow from the bioluminescent enzyme luciferase indicated successful cell entry. With Letko’s method, what typically had taken months to test now took about three weeks.
The limiting ingredient to test their method was the spike sequences. Letko had exhausted the SARS-like sequences already published. So, he and Munster started looking for others that hadn’t been, the records show.
On March 8, 2019, Munster emailed EcoHealth Alliance President Peter Daszak, Vice President Kevin Olival and Columbia University virologist Simon Anthony, attaching a confidential abstract with a chart and figures illustrating their project.
“While we have now tested all of the variation(sic) currently published for lineage B beta-coronaviruses for their ability to enter primate cells, we are seeking additional, unpublished lineage B beta coronavirus sequences to test in our platform,” Munster wrote.
He asked them not to circulate the attachment, because the work was “still unpublished and quite competitive.”
Of the three recipients, only Anthony, then one of the core leaders on PREDICT, appears in the released correspondence. He replied later that evening: “Hey! Looks super cool.”
Two months of negotiation followed, the emails show. On April 5, Letko thanked Anthony “for agreeing to share betacoronavirus lineage B spike sequences with us,” adding that unpublished material “will surely increase the impact of our story.”
On May 2, Anthony reported back from a PREDICT meeting in Vancouver, British Columbia. His team had detected “around 5 or 6 novel 2b viruses,” he wrote, but had “only managed to get spikes for 2 of them so far.”
Because neither had been published, Letko’s paper “would be the first report of these viruses in the literature,” so long as he credited PREDICT and its partners as co-authors, Anthony said.
Letko agreed. Two days later, Anthony sent the sequences. He identified them as PREDICT_CoV-51, isolate PDF-0663, from Malaysia (which Anthony described as “SUPER divergent. Could be really interesting,”) and PREDICT_CoV-43, from Uganda and Rwanda.
“Absolutely stellar!” Munster replied. “Will keep you posted on the results!”
Anthony was generally correct. A small fragment of the Malaysian virus had been deposited in GenBank, the NIH’s public sequence database, in 2016, and referenced the following year in a survey paper Anthony co-authored with Daszak and others. But neither its full spike sequence nor its complete genome was public.
Nothing at all was public about the African virus. In neither case could anyone outside PREDICT obtain the spike sequence, the part that determines whether a virus can enter human cells and the only part Letko’s platform could use.
A step further
Five months later, after reading the new preprint about trypsin, Munster proposed taking Letko’s project a step further.
For a coronavirus to infect a host cell, binding the receptor is only the first step. The spike must then be cut open by one of the host’s own enzymes before the virus can fuse with the cell and get inside. These enzymes that cut protein apart are called proteases, and each one targets different spots.
The protease a spike is built for largely determines what tissues it can infect. SARS-CoV depends on proteases that are not available everywhere in the body. Furin, however, is expressed in the cells of most tissues.
The Menachery-Baric preprint that sparked Munster’s idea had shown that adding trypsin from the outside could unlock entry into human cells for coronaviruses that otherwise couldn’t infect them.
Trypsin is a far less selective protease, cutting a protein after common amino acids rather than requiring a particular short sequence, or motif. What Munster proposed to Letko — engineering a furin site into the spike itself — would let the virus cut itself open.
Instead of waiting for an outside enzyme to do the job, a furin site could clear the hurdle in one step to “enhance infectivity,” as Munster wrote.
The idea had been proposed before.
EcoHealth Alliance submitted the DEFUSE proposal to DARPA, under a program called PREventing EMerging Pathogenic Threats, or PREEMPT. Its key partners included Baric’s laboratory at the University of North Carolina (UNC) and Zhengli Shi, the leading coronavirologist at the Wuhan lab.
The proposal aimed to introduce human-specific proteolytic cleavage sites, including furin sites, into SARS-related bat coronavirus spikes to evaluate and enhance their ability to infect human cells. DARPA declined to fund it, faulting the proposal over the risks of “gain-of-function” research.
Munster was not named on the proposal submitted to DARPA. But according to official congressional correspondence, he had been part of the DEFUSE team two months earlier.
In April 2024, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), then ranking member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, wrote to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and DARPA saying he had obtained documents showing that “Vincent Munster of NIAID’s [National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases] Rocky Mountain Laboratory was listed as a partner in the DEFUSE proposal presented at the PREEMPT Proposers Day,” a January 2018 DARPA event at which Daszak pitched the project to representatives of at least 15 federal agencies.
Rocky Mountain Laboratories, Paul wrote, “was at one point listed as a partner” alongside the WIV, UNC, Columbia University’s Lipkin Lab and Duke-NUS, a disclosure Paul said appeared to contradict former National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases director Anthony Fauci’s testimony to Congress that NIH knew nothing of DEFUSE.
By the time the proposal reached DARPA that March, Munster and his lab were off it; the final list of partners included EcoHealth, the WIV, UNC, Duke-NUS, the USGS National Wildlife Health Center and Palo Alto Research Center.
Paul demanded from HHS records of “all communications between Vincent Munster and any individual from EcoHealth Alliance, WIV, University of North Carolina, Columbia University, or Duke-NUS.” Paul has not released his underlying documents, and neither HHS nor DARPA has publicly answered his requests.
The newly released NIH records show that about a year after DEFUSE was submitted, Munster asked EcoHealth for unpublished sarbecovirus sequences; that he received them from a virologist at Columbia’s Center for Infection and Immunity, the center Ian Lipkin directs; and that in October 2019 he proposed building a spike with a furin-like cleavage site to enhance infectivity.
Steven E. Massey, a professor of bioinformatics at the University of Puerto Rico and a researcher with DRASTIC, the independent group that first published the DEFUSE proposal, called Munster’s suggestion “significant,” saying it “shows the [furin site] idea was circulating outside the EHA-WIV-UNC group,” a reference to EcoHealth Alliance, the WIV and UNC.
Munster’s email does not mention DEFUSE. His idea appears instead as a reaction to the Menachery-Baric preprint, framed as a potential next experiment for his and Letko’s work.
And the motif he proposed is not the one found in the pandemic virus that emerged less than three months later. SARS-CoV-2’s site has alanine where Munster’s pattern called for lysine or arginine.
A suboptimal site
That difference is key. The furin site in SARS-CoV-2 substantially improves the virus’s ability to enter human airway cells and is widely regarded as a major contributor to its transmissibility. Its absence from every other sarbecovirus found in nature is also one of the observations lab-origin proponents cite most often.
The 2021 review in Cell also directly addressed whether the site could have been engineered. Its authors, including Kristian Andersen, Robert Garry and Simon, argued that the site’s own sequence weighs against a lab design.
SARS-CoV-2’s motif, RRAR, “does not match its canonical form (R-X-R/K-R),” they wrote, and is “suboptimal” compared with those of other human coronaviruses.
“There is no logical reason why an engineered virus would utilize such a suboptimal furin cleavage site, which would entail such an unusual and needlessly complex feat of genetic engineering,” the paper stated.
The only prior work inserting a furin site at that position in a SARS-CoV spike, they noted, had used an optimal sequence in a pseudotype system.
Massey disputes that framing. He said excessively efficient cleavage can destabilize the spike and reduce the virus’s ability to enter cells, so a site that looks suboptimal on paper may not be suboptimal for the virus.
The newly released records show Munster reasoning along the Cell authors’ lines nearly two years before their review appeared. The motif he proposed matches the canonical form they describe, not the one the pandemic virus carries, and his lab ran a pseudotype system of the kind they cite.
Read one way, the email corroborates their logic: that a scientist contemplating a furin-like site reached for the textbook motif, and SARS-CoV-2 does not have it.
Read another way, it establishes something the review did not address: by October 2019 the idea of adding such a furin cleavage site to a SARS-related spike to enhance infectivity was circulating not only in an unfunded DARPA proposal but also inside an NIH laboratory.
What was published
When Chinese scientists ultimately posted the genetic sequence of the novel coronavirus spreading in Wuhan on Jan. 10, 2020, Letko and Munster had everything they needed to test it in their system.
The platform did not require a live virus, only the sequence of the small piece of the spike that latches onto a human cell. Within hours of the sequence going up, Neeltje van Doremalen, another scientist in Munster’s lab, pasted it into an email to Letko and Munster.
Letko expected results by Jan. 26 or 27. They came back ahead of schedule. On Jan. 21, Munster decided where to send the final manuscript showing their research. “Nature it is,” he wrote to Letko. “Lets(sic) do 2 authors and speed this up.”
The paper went out that afternoon, to Nature and to the preprint server bioRxiv. Only 12 days had passed since the sequence appeared online.
The lab made the new method’s speed its selling point. Their method “reduces the time from the sequence being published to having real in vitro data to under 12 days,” the cover letter told Nature’s editors, “allowing the scientific community to gain critical information on virus tropism in almost real-time with the outbreak.”
The work drew notice at the top of NIAID.
“First data from my lab confirming ACE2 as the receptor for 2019-NCoV,” Munster emailed an NIAID coronavirus response list that afternoon.
Greg Folkers, then chief of staff to then-NIAID Director Anthony Fauci, replied: “When this hits bioRxiv might be worth a tweet.”
The paper that was submitted gives no sign that Letko took up Munster’s suggestion to engineer a cleavage site into a spike. But it does show that the scientists used the protease trypsin rather than the furin Munster had proposed.
The paper’s second figure is titled, “Trypsin enhances lineage B entry in various cell lines.” It reports that bat coronavirus spikes that could not get into human, primate or pig cells on their own did get in once the particles were bathed in the enzyme.
The trypsin experiments appear nowhere in the project before Munster and Letko’s October exchange about the Menachery-Baric preprint. They are also absent from the abstract that Munster previously circulated in the spring. The published paper cites the Menachery-Baric preprint that sparked their exchange conversation.
Neither of the sequences that Anthony sent in May 2019 appears in the paper, and neither he nor PREDICT are acknowledged. The only trace of PREDICT in the 18-page manuscript is a footnote citation.
The panel of viruses the paper did report testing consisted of 29 receptor-binding domains obtained from a public database administered by the NIH.
One of the two viruses resurfaced a year later, when Columbia’s Center for Infection and Immunity deposited its complete genome in GenBank on July 6, 2020, five and a half months after the preprint that was to have carried it.
In February 2021, the bat coronavirus from Uganda and Rwanda also appeared in the journal Virus Evolution, in a study of how SARS-related viruses acquired the ability to use the human ACE2 receptor.
Letko was second author, Munster was listed near the end, Anthony was the senior author and the Ugandan and Rwandan field scientists and PREDICT leadership were included as co-authors, as Anthony had said in 2019 would be required. Run through Letko’s platform, the virus could not enter human cells through ACE2 at all.
The Malaysian virus, which Anthony had called the more interesting of the two, has never appeared in a published study. Nothing in the records says why. Anthony, now a professor at the University of California, Davis, did not respond to requests for comment.
On May 24, 2021, two years after he emailed the virus’s spike sequence to the Montana lab, Columbia deposited its complete genome in GenBank on behalf of the PREDICT consortium, crediting Malaysia’s Sabah Wildlife Department and EcoHealth Alliance.
Lewis Kamb is an investigative reporter who specializes in using freedom of information laws and public records to uncover wrongdoing and hold the powerful accountable.
The Next Indictment Should Be Against Greg Folkers
Brownstone Institute | April 30, 2026
The Department of Justice does not need to wait for Dr. David Morens to turn on his colleagues; the evidence to charge the next key advisor to Dr. Anthony Fauci is already in the public record.
Greg Folkers was critical to the censorship operation at the heart of the Covid response. As Chief of Staff at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), Folkers oversaw operations for the agency’s $6 billion budget and later sought to evade FOIA requests by conspiring with Dr. Morens and intentionally misspelling key phrases such as “g#in-of-function.”
In January 2020, he sent the first email to Anthony Fauci warning that the NIAID had funded gain-of-function research on coronaviruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology through grants it made to EcoHealth Alliance, Peter Daszak’s organization. That research, Folkers cautioned, could be the source of Covid-19.
But instead of warning the public of the “lab leak” as it would come to be known, Folkers, Fauci, and Morens initiated the coverup.
Hours after Folkers’ initial warning, Fauci recruited virologists Kristian Andersen and Eddie Holmes to plant a cover story. This conspiracy prompted “Proximal Origin,” the infamous Nature article that stated that it was “implausible” that the virus was “laboratory-based,” even though Andersen and his colleagues made over 50 direct statements that expressed their belief that a lab leak was the likely origin of the virus.
While that article became the basis to censor any dissidents who questioned the origins of the virus, Folkers, Morens, and Fauci conspired to keep their role in the affair secret. “Tony doesn’t want his fingerprints on origin stories… Don’t worry… I will delete anything I don’t want to see in the New York Times,” Morens wrote to Peter Daszak.
Morens then coached his colleagues on how to avoid Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests (in defiance of federal law) by misspelling key phrases, using code words, deleting emails, and sending sensitive information to non-government accounts. “I learned from our foia lady here how to make emails disappear after i am foia’d but before the search starts, so i think we are all safe,” he wrote in February 2021.
This is the crime that led to Tuesday’s charges against Dr. Morens, which include “conspiracy against the United States; destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in federal investigations; concealment, removal, or mutilation of records; and aiding and abetting.” FBI Director Kash Patel spoke out against the “illegal obfuscation of…communications” and vowed that “if you have engaged in activity conspiring against the United States, we will not stop until you face justice.”
The US Government already has concrete proof that Folkers conspired to evade FOIA requests on at least three occasions in June 2021 alone.
On June 4, 2021, in an email exchange discussing Peter Daszak’s gain-of-function research, he intentionally misspelled “EcoHealth” as “Ec~Health.” Three days later, in an email to Dr. Morens, Folkers attempted to hide his reference to Kristian Andersen by typing his last name as “anders$n.” Dr. Morens forwarded the message to his personal email account.
Three weeks later, Folkers intentionally misspelled “gain-of-function” to be “g#in-of-function” in another email to Dr. Morens.
While President Joe Biden (or his autopen) granted a startlingly broad pardon to Anthony Fauci in the final days of his administration, there is still ample opportunity to bring his co-conspirators to justice. Greg Folkers was a central figure in the Covid operation. He knew of NIAID’s culpability, he served as Dr. Fauci’s liaison, and he helped orchestrate a massive coverup. In the process, he partook in the same crimes that now support the indictment against Dr. Morens.
There are many more besides, among whom the heads of the Cybersecurity Inflation Security Agency, which divided the population between essential and nonessential and masterminded the censorship regime, the employees of the Department of Health and Human Services who worked to close medical services to non-Covid-related diagnostics, and the people at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention who used the crisis to push for mail-in ballots.
May all this come in time. We’ve got a good start. Much more needs to be done.
NIAID/NIH and USDA Fund Bioengineered Chimeric Influenza Viruses Built Using Pandemic H1N1 Components: Journal ‘Science Advances’
100% infection in exposed animals—mutations associated with immune evasion arise
By Jon Fleetwood | April 4, 2026
A new peer-reviewed study published last month in Science Advances says that U.S. government–funded researchers engineered chimeric influenza viruses using components from the 2009 pandemic H1N1 strain—and achieved a 100% infection rate in exposed animals.
The engineered viruses mutated during infection, generating changes associated with immune evasion.
The work was funded in part by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), along with support from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).
The research was conducted within the Center of Excellence for Influenza Research and Response (CEIRR/CEIRS), a federally backed network focused on influenza surveillance, vaccine development, and pandemic preparedness.
You can contact NIAID here, the NIH here, HHS here, and the USDA here to voice opposition to taxpayer-funded chimeric research on pandemic pathogens—particularly after Congress, the White House, the Department of Energy, the FBI, the CIA, and Germany’s Federal Intelligence Service (BND) all acknowledged that the deadly COVID-19 pandemic was “likely” the result of a laboratory incident.
Meanwhile, President Donald Trump recently signed legislation into law allocating at least $5.5 billion in taxpayer funding for a future influenza pandemic.
Fauci’s Replacement at NIAID a Cheerleader for Gain-of-Function Research
By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | April 29, 2025
A virologist who supports gain-of-function research and believes COVID-19 evolved naturally is the new acting director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), the agency Dr. Anthony Fauci led for 38 years.
Jeffery Taubenberger, M.D., Ph.D., a 19-year veteran of NIAID and chief of the institute’s Viral Pathogenesis and Evolution Section, replaced Dr. Jeanne Marrazzo, who was placed on leave last month by the Trump administration.
Citing an email from Dr. Matthew Memoli, deputy director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Science reported that Taubenberger’s first day as acting director was April 25. Taubenberger will head an institute with a $6.56 billion budget, making it the second-largest NIH branch, overseen by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Several researchers told Science that Taubenberger has a commendable track record, highlighting his work sequencing the Spanish flu virus of 1918.
Adolfo Garcia-Sastre, Ph.D., a virologist at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, said Taubenberger “has made many critical contributions to the field of influenza, both in pathogenesis, animal models, human data, and vaccines.”
But critics point to Taubenberger’s public support of gain-of-function research and the zoonotic theory of COVID-19’s origins, which holds that the virus crossed over naturally from animals to humans.
They also criticized his past ties to Fauci and other controversial virologists, and his prior work on COVID-19 vaccines.
Gain-of-function research, which increases the transmissibility or virulence of viruses, is often used in vaccine development. Such research was conducted at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China, prompting fears that the virus was developed at the lab and subsequently leaked.
Concerns over the safety of gain-of-function research previously led the U.S. government to implement a moratorium on such projects between 2014 and 2017.
“Gain-of-function research, if made safe, is a tremendous tool for forecasting the evolution of pathogens,” said Karl Jablonowski, Ph.D., senior research scientist for Children’s Health Defense. “The problem is that there is no such thing as a leak-proof laboratory, just as there is no such thing as an unsinkable ship. A lab leak is not inevitable, but it is a risk — one that we witness surprisingly often.”
Rutgers University molecular biologist Richard Ebright, Ph.D., a critic of gain-of-function research, said, “Taubenberger is part of the problem at NIAID, not part of the solution.”
Ebright said Taubenberger’s track record is at odds with HHS’ “Make America Healthy Again” agenda:
“Taubenberger’s views on the need for transparency and accountability at NIAID management, on the need for re-prioritization of NIAID funding to match disease burden, on the cause and cover-up of COVID, on reckless gain-of-function research and pathogen-resurrection research, and on biosafety, biosecurity, and biorisk management all appear to be diametrically opposed to those of HHS Secretary Kennedy.
“As such, Taubenberger’s appointment as acting director of NIAID is baffling.”
In a 2014 interview with the journal EMBO Reports, Taubenberger downplayed the risks of gain-of-function research, claiming it’s what “virologists have done for a hundred years.”
In a 2013 letter to the journal mBio, Taubenberger suggested that gain-of-function research replicates natural processes. He argued that Influenza A viruses “continually undergo ‘dual use experiments’ as a matter of evolution and selection.”
According to the American Society for Microbiology, dual-use research is a type of gain-of-function research that raises “important biosafety and/or biosecurity concerns.” It requires “a higher level of review” and is “subject to strict protocols.”
Jablonowski said Taubenberger’s dismissal of concerns over the safety of gain-of-function research overlooks its inherent risks.
“The problem with the argument is actually a problem with the policy it argues — it assumes an ill-willed actor intent on ‘deliberate misuse’ as the risk. Recent history has taught us that lab leaks pose a real and serious risk, no ill-willed actor needed. … Advocates of gain-of-function research do not include a realistic assessment of pathogen escape as part of a risk-benefit balance,” Jablonowski said.
While Taubenberger has been lauded for his role in sequencing the 1918 Spanish flu virus, some scientists were critical of this work, with Ebright calling the reconstruction of the 1918 virus “reckless.”
“Taubenberger … exhumed victims of the 1918 Spanish flu from the Alaskan permafrost to sequence and reconstruct the virus,” Jablonowski said. “It is a virus that killed 50 million people in two short years, and with its resurrection, could have reinitiated a pandemic.”
Taubenberger downplayed connections between COVID, lab leak
Taubenberger has sought to downplay any connection between gain-of-function research and the origins of COVID-19, instead claiming the virus emerged naturally.
In July 2020, Taubenberger and Fauci associate Dr. David Morens co-authored an op-ed in the American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, suggesting that COVID-19 is “a virus that emerged naturally.”
In a later email to a Science reporter, on which Taubenberger was copied, Morens described the article as a publication that “defends Peter and his Chinese colleagues” — referring to zoologist Peter Daszak, Ph.D., former president of the EcoHealth Alliance, which collaborated with Wuhan scientists on gain-of-function research.
Jablonowski said the authors of the 2020 op-ed “are unfit for office at a scientific institution — not because they got the origins of COVID-19 wrong, but because they played the game of deceiving the world. One of the villains of COVID-19 was EcoHealth Alliance, and Taubenberger’s narrative casts it as the hero.”
In their op-ed, Fauci and Morens called for the development of “broadly protective vaccines” and suggested that the role of organizations like the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) “should be extended and strengthened.”
In 2021, CEPI launched its “100 Days Mission” to develop infrastructure capable of delivering a vaccine for a future pandemic within 100 days. CEPI’s supporters include the Gates Foundation, World Economic Forum and Wellcome Trust.
According to his NIAID biography, Taubenberger has overseen research aimed at developing “broadly-protective coronavirus vaccines in pre-clinical animal studies.”
“Taubenberger is wrong about the dangers of gain-of-function research and also about the ‘zoonotic theory,’” said immunologist and biochemist Jessica Rose, Ph.D. “He needs to read EcoHealth Alliance’s DEFUSE proposal.”
Project DEFUSE, a 2018 grant developed by Daszak and co-authored by U.S. and Wuhan scientists, proposed engineering high-risk coronaviruses of the same species as SARS-CoV-2.
Although the U.S. government’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency rejected the proposal, some scientists have likened DEFUSE to a blueprint for generating SARS-CoV-2 in the lab, noting the similarities between the proposed work and key characteristics of SARS-CoV-2 that are not found elsewhere in nature.
Last year, HHS suspended all funding for EcoHealth Alliance after finding the organization failed to properly monitor risky coronavirus experiments.
The suspension came two weeks after a U.S. House of Representatives committee investigating the COVID-19 pandemic called for a criminal investigation of Daszak and a month after the U.S. Senate launched an investigation into 15 federal agencies that were briefed about Project DEFUSE in 2018 but said nothing.
Taubenberger collaborated closely with Fauci
According to U.S. Right to Know, “Most of the NIAID employees who helped Daszak maintain funding amid the pandemic still retain positions of influence at NIAID” — including Taubenberger and Morens, formerly a key aide to Fauci who is under investigation for allegedly using his personal email address to evade Freedom of Information Act requests for communications related to the origins of COVID-19.
Ebright said that Taubenberger has maintained longstanding collaborations with such figures, noting that he co-authored 14 papers with Fauci and 66 papers with Morens.
According to U.S. Right to Know, Taubenberger also collaborated with researchers who played a key role in promoting the zoonotic theory of COVID-19’s origins — including Daszak and several co-authors of “The proximal origin of SARS-Cov-2,” a March 2020 editorial published in Nature Medicine promoting the natural origin of COVID-19 that was later used to discredit proponents of the lab-leak theory.
Earlier this month, the Trump administration launched a revamped version of the government’s official COVID-19 website, presenting evidence that COVID-19 emerged following a leak at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The CIA, FBI, U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. Congress and other intelligence agencies have endorsed this theory.
In a 1998 interview on PBS’ “American Experience,” Taubenberger suggested that a flu pandemic was inevitable. “The odds are very great, practically a hundred percent, that another pandemic will occur,” he said.
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
The Pandemic Planners Come for Hoof and Hen… and Us Again
By Clayton J. Baker, MD | Brownstone Institute | January 4, 2025
On December 31, 2024, the world received a year-end parting gift from the good folks at NIAID, Anthony Fauci’s old fiefdom at the National Institutes of Health. NIAID – the same unaccountable and secretive agency that Fauci used to fund the gain-of-function research of Ralph Baric at UNC Chapel Hill and the Bat Lady in Wuhan that resulted in Covid – has a new director, one Dr. Jeanne Marrazzo.
Marrazzo and another NIAID colleague, Dr. Michael G. Ison, wrote a year-end editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine that accompanies a research paper on recent H5N1 Bird flu cases in the United States, as well as a case report of a lone case of severe illness associated with Bird flu in British Columbia.
Marrazzo and Ison summarize the findings of the research paper and case report as follows:
Investigators now report in the Journal a series of human cases from the United States and Canada. The former series involves 46 case patients with generally mild, self-limited infection with [Influenza type] A(H5N1): 20 with exposure to poultry, 25 with exposure to dairy cows, and 1 with undefined exposure.…Most case patients presented with conjunctivitis, almost half with fever, and a minority with mild respiratory symptoms, and all recovered. The only hospitalization occurred in the case patient with undefined exposure, although hospitalization was not for respiratory illness.
They elaborate on the single case of serious illness:
In Canada, a 13-year-old girl with mild asthma and obesity presented with conjunctivitis and fever and had progression to respiratory failure…After treatment that included oseltamivir, amantadine, and baloxavir, she recovered.
In other words:
- Over an eight-month period, from March to October 2024, 46 cases of human bird flu occurred in the United States, a country of 336 million people.
- There were zero deaths.
- 45 out of 46 infected persons had known exposure to animals.
- The majority of the cases consisted of conjunctivitis (commonly known as “pink eye”).
- Only one US patient was hospitalized, but this was not due to pneumonia – the principal life-threatening complication of influenza – and the patient recovered.
- One severe case was identified in Canada, a country of 40 million people, in an asthmatic, morbidly obese girl. She was treated successfully with respiratory support and existing antiviral medications, and she recovered.
Does this sound to you like a public health emergency worthy of the legacy media’s recent exhumation of discredited Covid-era fear-mongers like Dr. Leana Wen and Dr. Deborah “Scarf Lady” Birx? Does it justify their hair-on-fire pronouncements on cable news shows everywhere, pushing for indiscriminate PCR testing of animals and emergency authorization of more mRNA vaccines for humans?
Does this sound to you like justification to continue to kill and destroy (pro tip: “cull” means kill and destroy) millions upon millions of farm animals, when most animals who contract Bird flu survive, recover, and develop immunity?
Does this sound to you like justification for another Emergency Use Authorization of another mRNA vaccine?
No? Me neither.
But wait, there’s more.
In their editorial, NIAID experts Marrazzo and Ison fail to mention the following:
- There have been zero cases of human-to-human transmission of this virus.
- The current circulating clade of the virus has been determined by independent researchers to very likely have originated at a US Government gain-of-function laboratory, namely the USDA Southeast Poultry Research Laboratory (SEPRL) in Athens, GA.
- Multiple bioweapons laboratories, including the Yoshihiro Kawaoka lab at the University of Wisconsin, and the Ron Fouchier lab in the Netherlands (both of which have been affiliated with NIAID and with work done at SEPRL) have been doing gain-of-function research on Bird flu for many years, including experiments so outrageously dangerous that their work prompted President Obama’s ultimately unsuccessful ban of gain-of-function research in 2014.
- In 2019, NIAID reapproved and resumed funding Kawaoka and Fouchier’s dangerous work at increasing human transmissibility of Bird flu – the very same gain-of-function research that had prompted Obama’s ban.
- According to its package insert, Audenz, the current Bird flu vaccine, was associated with death in 1 out of every 200 recipients, compared to 1 in 1,000 placebo recipients.
- According to openthebooks.com, and as reported in the New York Post, NIH scientists received royalties totaling $325 million from pharmaceutical companies and foreign entities over more than a decade.
So, what are our friends at NIAID’s recommendations?
For one, they stress the “urgent need for vigilant surveillance of emerging mutations and assessment of the threat of human-to-human transmission.”
Are they advocating for the willy-nilly testing of entire livestock herds, as promoted by Birx, which is sure to create a preponderance of false positives?
Are they calling for the continued mass killing and destruction of millions upon millions of farm animals, whenever a fraction of the animals test positive for the virus?
Instead of PCR-swabbing every cow, chicken, and farm worker on Earth, how about we stop creating new mutant variants of H5N1 in the labs, since that’s where the current problem originated? How about we stop funding such utter madness with our tax dollars, funneled through corrupt government agencies like NIAID?
After all, you don’t save Tokyo by creating Godzilla.
But Marrazzo and Ison make no mention of this common-sense, sane approach.
Instead, they also stress the need for more – you guessed it – vaccines. They write:
we must continue to pursue development and testing of medical countermeasures…Studies have shown the safety and immunogenicity of A(H5N1) vaccines…studies are ongoing to develop messenger RNA–based A(H5N1) vaccines and other novel vaccines that can provide protection against a broad range of influenza viruses, including A(H5N1).”
Aside from attesting to the “safety” of a product where 1 in 200 users die, the use of the word “countermeasures” is extremely telling. It is a military term, not a medical one. We have already seen this game played with Covid. The gain-of-function lab research is done to produce a lab-manipulated, weaponized version of a virus, a version that is transmissible among and toxic to humans – in other words, a bioweapon. The vaccine is the countermeasure to the bioweapon. The vaccine is the intellectual property of those who created the bioweapon, and it is worth a fortune once the weapon has been unleashed. It is as simple as that.
“Pandemic preparedness” is a gigantic, deadly protection racket. I have described it in the past as arsonists running the fire department. That is precisely what happened with Covid, and that is what is being attempted with H5N1 Bird flu.
Moving forward to a new administration that has expressed a commitment to rooting out corruption in the pharmaceutical/medical/public health realm, improving the health of citizens, and restoring trustworthiness in medicine, I recommend the following steps to combat the H5N1 Bird flu, and to end the “pandemic preparedness” racket that threatens to hold the world hostage again and again, as it did during Covid.
- Immediately end and outlaw all gain-of-function and other bioweapons research in and funded by the United States, and apply all possible diplomatic pressure to eradicate it from the Earth.
- Eliminate all special protections from liability for vaccines, including the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act and the PREP Act.
- Refocus Infectious Disease research on new therapeutics, rather than power-seeking and profit-driven vaccine development.
- Completely reform the National Institutes of Health, and close the incorrigibly corrupt NIAID altogether.
The fear pornographers must be discredited. We must make realistic and sensible decisions about our food supply.
We must learn the lessons of Covid, and live in knowledge rather than in fear.
We must end the protection rackets, confidence games, and shakedowns that government insiders impose on us like mafiosi.
Happy New Year!
NIAID Declares Mpox Vaccine ‘Safe’ for Teens, Opening the Door for Vaccine’s Approval for Kids as Young as 12
By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | October 18, 2024
The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) this week announced Bavarian Nordic’s mpox (monkeypox) vaccine is “safe and generates a robust antibody response in adolescents.”
The announcement drew criticism from doctors and scientists who cited the lack of any evident control group in the clinical trials and any publicly available data.
The results of the NIAID study, funded by the National Institutes of Health, could open the door for the vaccine’s approval for 12- to 17-year-olds in the U.S., a month after European regulators approved the vaccine for the same age group.
According to the Oct. 16 announcement, the modified vaccinia Ankara-Bavarian Nordic (MVA-BN), marketed as Jynneos in the U.S., “generated antibody levels in adolescents equivalent to those observed in adults at day 43 and found that the vaccine was well tolerated through study day 210.”
The results are based on a pair of Phase 2 clinical trials of the MVA-BN vaccine. One trial included 229 participants between 18 and 50 years old, while the other trial tested the vaccine on 315 adolescents between ages 12 and 17.
Based on the findings, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) last month approved the MVA-BN, marketed as Imvanex in Europe and the United Kingdom, for 12- to 17-year-olds.
“The immune response in adolescents was similar to adults. … According to the submitted data, the safety profile of Imvanex in adolescents was comparable to that seen in adults and no additional risk has been identified,” the EMA stated in its Sept. 19 announcement.
Last month, the World Health Organization (WHO) approved MVA-BN for adults — and said it can be used for babies, children, teens and pregnant women if they are in “outbreak settings where the benefits of vaccination outweigh the potential risks.”
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in September 2019 approved the Jynneos vaccine for adults, for the prevention of both mpox and smallpox and added it to the Strategic National Stockpile.
The approvals went through even though no data on the MVA-BN clinical trial results for the 12-17 age group have been publicized.
‘The complete void of any transparency in this clinical trial is stunning’
Critics of the vaccine cited the lack of data for 12- to 17-year-olds, the lack of a control group in the clinical trials, and questioned the necessity and safety of administering the mpox vaccine to children.
“The complete void of any transparency in this clinical trial is stunning,” said Brian Hooker, Ph.D., chief scientific officer for Children’s Health Defense. He added:
“Also, the clinical trial had no unvaccinated control group for comparison, which is a fatal flaw even if they would have made the trial results public. These are supposedly the premiere clinical researchers worldwide, yet they make 9th-grade mistakes in running their experiments.”
A spokesperson for NIAID who spoke with The Defender directed the public to the study protocol for the two clinical trials. However, the protocol does not indicate a control group and contains no findings.
“Short-term antibody responses in a study with an undisclosed sample size and no reported safety data are not sufficient for an NIAID press release,” cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough told The Defender.
McCullough said:
“The Jynneos monkeypox vaccine has been used for years and carries a risk of myocarditis or heart damage. This study is not reassuring on safety or theoretical efficacy. The NIAID should take this post down and wait for the full peer-reviewed manuscript to be published.”
Internist Dr. Meryl Nass questioned the need for the MVA-BN clinical trials and NIAID’s claims of insufficient data for people 18 and younger. She told The Defender the studies were performed “after the U.S. government already gave hundreds of thousands of Americans both doses in mid-2022 and collected data on them.”
“One wonders what the purpose of this tiny trial was,” Nass said.
Data indicate a potentially high risk of severe adverse events
According to the NIAID announcement, “The overall frequency of adverse events was comparable between the study groups. Reports of dizziness were more common in adolescents than adults, but similar to the frequency of dizziness reported when other vaccines are administered in adolescents.”
The study results for the 18- to 50-year-old group indicated a rate of severe adverse events exceeding 1%. For Nass, a “1% SAE [severe adverse event] rate for a vaccine is very high,” though she added, “We need to know more to make any safety judgment.”
Nass suggested the actual number of severe adverse events may have been underreported.
“NIAID claims that only two of the 229 subjects had a serious adverse event. However, their definition of serious has been made more and more restrictive over the years,” Nass said.
According to Nass, while NIAID’s definition of a serious adverse event once “included an ER [emergency room] visit after vaccination,” the current NIAID definition is narrower, referring, in part, to “inpatient hospitalization or prolongation of existing hospitalization” instead of an ER visit.
The two reported severe adverse events in the 18-50 age group involved cases of cystitis — an inflammation of the bladder — and euglycemic diabetic ketoacidosis, an “uncommon diabetic complication.”
Nass also noted that severe adverse event data were “collected only for the first 57 days of the study.” In the event NIAID determined the adverse event was related to vaccination, further data were collected through day 181 — even though “blood was drawn at day 365 also.”
“Why were SAEs not collected through day 365 for everyone? That is how you learn what the SAEs related to a vaccine actually are,” Nass said.
Data from the U.S. government’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) as of Sept. 27 indicate 2,115 reports of adverse events related to MVA-BN, including 19 reports for people under 18.
According to Managed Healthcare Executive, “Bavarian Nordic is preparing for a clinical trial to assess the safety of MVA-BN in children 2 to 12 years of age.”
The trial will be partially funded by the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, which previously announced its intention to develop “pandemic-busting vaccines in 100 days.”
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
Fauci’s institute hid mpox gain-of-function plans from Congress and the media
By Emily Kopp | U.S. Right To Know | June 11, 2024
For nearly nine years Anthony Fauci’s institute concealed plans to engineer a pandemic capable mpox virus with a case fatality rate of up to 15 percent, congressional investigators revealed in a new report Tuesday.
In June 2015, a scientist at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases received formal approval from the National Institutes of Health’s Institutional Review Board for experiments expected to engineer an mpox virus with high transmissibility and moderate mortality.
NIAID — the institute Fauci oversaw for nearly four decades and which underwrites most federally funded gain-of-function research — concealed the project’s approval from investigators with the House Committee on Energy and Commerce over the course of a 17 month-long investigation.
A new interim report describes the obstruction and secrecy around the mpox proposal as a case study in how the institute “oversees and accounts for the monitoring of potentially dangerous gain-of-function research of concern.”
The revelations land amid global concerns about whether coronavirus gain-of-function research — research that might generate pathogens with increased pathogenicity or transmissibility — may have contributed to the worst pandemic in a century.
The committee, in conjunction with the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, is also investigating coronavirus gain-of-function research underwritten by NIAID at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, and faces similar stonewalling in that investigation, a committee aide said.
NIAID’s lack of transparency surrounding the proposed mpox experiment for nearly a decade undermines Fauci’s assurances at a congressional hearing last week that any biosecurity breach at the Wuhan lab could not have any connection to his former institute. Investigators continue to pursue documentation from EcoHealth Alliance, an NIAID contractor whose funding was recently suspended for failing to properly oversee coronavirus experiments exported to Wuhan.
Mpox, formerly known as monkeypox, caused a public health emergency in the U.S. from August 2022 to February 2023. It is endemic in Africa. The more deadly clade circulates in Central Africa (clade I) while the more transmissible clade circulates in West Africa (clade II). Mpox has infected more than 20,000 people and caused more than 1,000 deaths in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where clade I predominates, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention — though some experts believe that is an undercount of true cases. A strain of the clade II virus drove the American outbreak.
The mpox experiment first came to light in a September 2022 article in Science.
The gain-of-function project proposed by NIAID virologist Bernard Moss would splice genes conferring high pathogenicity from the clade I virus into the more transmissible clade II virus. The new “chimeric” (combined) virus could have retained up to a 15 percent fatality rate and a 2.4 reproductive number, a measure of transmissibility indicating every sick person could infect up to 2.4 people on average, giving it pandemic potential.
The committee’s attempts to learn more about the experiment were met with stonewalling.
NIAID maintains the experiment was never conducted, but has never provided any contemporaneous documents to support that claim such as emails or lab notebooks, according to the committee’s report.
The lack of engagement from NIAID, the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Health and Human Services does not comport with the idea the experiment was never conducted and that there is nothing to hide, according to the committee.
HHS and NIH misled congressional investigators for nearly a year and a half, falsely denying that Moss had obtained formal approval for this gain-of-function experiment.
The committee launched its investigation in October 2022 but was only permitted to view key documents in camera in March 2024, which confirmed NIH’s formal approval of the experiment.
The committee lays blame with officials at NIAID, who fund most federally underwritten gain-of-function research, have the subject matter expertise, and may have misled their bosses at HHS and NIH.
For months NIAID and Moss had reported to the committee that the mpox experiment had not moved forward and that Moss had simply been spitballing with the Science reporter in 2022 without serious intention.
However amid the committee’s investigation in May 2023 an approval from the Federal Select Agent Program for a chimera involving both clade I and clade II of the mpox virus was revoked.
NIAID also misled Science and STAT News in saying the gain-of-function mpox experiment was never approved, according to the committee.
Committee aides say they will continue to press for full accountability and transparency, and hope for a culture change at NIAID away from secrecy under new leadership.
Fauci retired after 38 years as the head of NIAID in December 2022; Jeanne M. Marrazzo now serves as director of the institute. Former NIH Director Francis Collins retired in December 2021; Monica Bertagnolli now serves as director of the NIH.
The revelations also come amid a debate about the future of gain-of-function research regulation.
New policy unveiled last month by the White House Office and Science and Technology Policy maintains a largely self-regulatory framework, vesting the responsibility for initiating increased regulation with the researchers and funding agencies such as NIAID.
The vast majority of gain-of-function research that could generate epidemic and pandemic capable viruses is likely to be exempted from more rigorous scrutiny under the new protocols, according to the committee.
Many of the world’s most public virologists have dismissed the theory that the COVID-19 pandemic may have resulted from a lab accident as a conspiracy theory and have chafed at the idea that the work should be regulated by an outside agency, subject to public input or not pursued at all.
That culture extends to NIAID, too, according to the committee’s investigators, who have also uncovered that top administrators may have illegally evaded federal record retention and transparency law.
Concerns were raised by a committee aide that NIAID exerted undue influence at OSTP to preserve the laissez-faire status quo.
“The new OSTP policy continues to give funding agencies, like NIAID, primary responsibility for oversight of GOFROC and DURC experiments involving potentially dangerous pathogens,” the committee’s report reads. “In almost any other scientific field or industry, this arrangement would be immediately recognized as a conflict of interest, necessitating independent review and oversight.”
Policy improvements suggested by the committee’s report include codifying public input through a community oversight board, which already exist for high-containment biosafety level four laboratories, as well as moving final approval for gain-of-function research out of NIAID.
According to the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, the number of labs capable of growing orthopoxviruses like mpox and smallpox from scratch currently stands at less than 100, but could increase significantly as DNA synthesis and engineering techniques improve and become cheaper.
Fauci aide allegedly boasted about ability to ‘make emails disappear’ including ‘smoking guns’
By Emily Kopp | U.S. Right To Know | May 16, 2024
A longtime aide to former National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Anthony Fauci allegedly boasted in emails about his ability to evade public records requests and his intention to delete any potential “smoking guns,” a congressional hearing revealed Thursday.
Former National Institutes of Health Acting Director Lawrence Tabak testified before the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic, which has been investigating an American research organization at the center of suspicions that the COVID-19 pandemic may have resulted from a lab accident in Wuhan.
The hearing follows an announcement Wednesday that this organization — EcoHealth Alliance, helmed by President Peter Daszak — has had its federal funding suspended and could be on track to be debarred from federal funding for years. The enforcement action stems from EcoHealth’s failure to adequately oversee the research it subcontracted to the Wuhan Institute of Virology. This research included experiments that made SARS-related coronaviruses more dangerous. Daszak testified before the committee earlier this month.
EcoHealth’s research was underwritten by NIAID — placing Fauci and his aides in the spotlight too. The scrutiny of EcoHealth and NIAID has revealed that Daszak had a close connection to Fauci’s inner circle in the senior advisor to the NIAID director, David Morens.
Morens told the committee in a transcribed interview that Daszak is one of his oldest friends.
Now evidence has surfaced suggesting that Morens evaded the Freedom of Information Act — which requires that records from federal agencies be made public with limited exceptions — and that an unidentified public records official with the NIH helped him to do so.
NIH and NIAID did not immediately reply to request for comment.
Morens boasted about the ability to “make emails disappear” even after a FOIA request had been submitted, according to the committee.
The emails were revealed in questions by House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer, R-Ky.
“Dr. David Morens, a senior advisor to Fauci for decades, wrote in an email to Dr. Daszak, ‘I learned from our FOIA lady here how to make emails disappear after I am FOIA’d but before the search starts. So I think we are all safe. Plus I deleted most of those earlier emails after sending them to Gmail,’” Comer said Thursday. “Is that consistent with NIH document retention policies?”
“It is not,” Tabak answered.
Asked if the NIH FOIA office instructs employees on how to evade FOIA, Tabak answered, “I certainly hope not.”
U.S. Right to Know is among the organizations that have submitted FOIAs to the NIH for emails from Morens about information with potential relevance to the origins of COVID-19 and is litigating against the NIH over its failure to comply with a January 2022 FOIA request for Morens’s records.
In a separate email, Morens said that he intended to delete any records or emails that might constitute a “smoking gun.”
“He also later wrote Dr. Daszak, ‘We are all smart enough to know to never have smoking guns. And if we did we wouldn’t put them in emails. And if we found them we would delete them,’” Comer said. “Is that consistent with NIH document retention policies?”
“It is not,” Tabak again replied.
According to Comer, Daszak and Morens also collaborated in crafting public messages in response to emails set to be released by NIH under FOIA.
The emails described by Comer undermine Tabak’s prepared testimony at the hearing in which he claimed the NIH is committed to transparency and following the science on the question of the origin of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Tabak’s testimony sets the stage for Morens to testify next week. Morens supplied the committee with 30,000 emails the day before Daszak testified before the committee on May 1.
Morens wrote in an email to Daszak in 2021 that he communicates on Gmail “because my NIH email is FOIA’d constantly,” The Intercept previously reported.
“Just send to any of my addresses and I will delete anything I don’t want to see in the New York Times,” Morens wrote.
Looped into this email chain were several virologists who have cast the lab origin hypothesis as a conspiracy theory in the press. These virologists included University of Sydney virologist Edward Holmes, Scripps Institute virologist Kristian Andersen, and Tulane University virologist Robert Garry, who have also been investigated by the committee for their role in an influential paper that dismissed the idea SARS-CoV-2 could have been engineered without disclosing the involvement of Fauci and former NIH Director Francis Collins.
The committee released emails earlier this month showing that Daszak informed Morens of his intention to voluntarily release only enough records to stave off a subpoena for more. The committee is now demanding more documents from Daszak, according to Subcommittee Chair Brad Wenstrup, R-Ohio.
The committee’s investigation is building up to the testimony of Fauci on June 3.
Tabak confirmed Thursday that the NIAID did indeed fund gain-of-function research on coronaviruses in Wuhan through EcoHealth Alliance according to the colloquial understanding.
According to the policy in place from 2014 to 2018 — the “U.S. Government Gain-of-Function Deliberative Process and Research Funding Pause on Selected Gain-of-Function Research Involving Influenza, MERS, and SARS viruses” — the definition of gain-of-function research at the time of the experiments involving the Wuhan Institute of Virology included “research that improves the ability of a pathogen to cause disease.”
Grant reports demonstrate that “chimeric” or combined coronaviruses studied by EcoHealth and the Wuhan Institute of Virology caused more severe disease in mice engineered to express human receptors than the backbone virus.
However, Tabak downplayed the risk posed by these chimeric viruses because they were bat coronaviruses, though the public literature described one of these viruses as “poised for human emergence.”
Fauci repeatedly denied that NIAID funded gain-of-function research in Wuhan in high-profile exchanges with Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., in 2021.
“Sen. Paul, you do not know what you are talking about, quite frankly, and I want to say that officially,” Fauci said in a July 2021 hearing.
Tabak confirmed in the hearing Wednesday that in October 2021 the NIH communications office changed the definition of “gain-of-function research” on the NIH website.
Asked to identify which scientist at NIH made or vetted the decision, Tabak could not identify any particular official.
IS BIRD FLU THE NEXT COVID?
The Highwire with Del Bigtree | May 2, 2024
As America faces an unlikely bird flu ‘outbreak’ in chickens and cows, many are speculating on when this rare illness will jump to humans. Jefferey Jaxen looked into the previous gain-of-function lab work on H5N1 funded by Tony Fauci and NIAID, and found something very interesting.
Featured Video
Revive Iran’s MOU Deal or Face a Forever War /John Mearsheimer
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
New Book
The Garlic Book — 2026
Lies are Unbekoming | November 5, 2026
What The Garlic Book shows
The book is in four parts.
Part One, The Record, treats the history of garlic as evidence. From the clay garlic bulb placed in an Egyptian grave nearly six thousand years ago, through the Ebers Papyrus, through Hippocrates, Dioscorides, Pliny and Galen, the Arab physicians under Avicenna, the medieval herbals, Culpeper, and the plague years, to the last era in which Western physicians prescribed garlic as a matter of course, which ran from 1850 to 1945. It closes with the living traditions that never stopped using it, and with the folklore of charms, vampires and the evil eye.
Part Two, The Chemistry and the Evidence, sets out what is known about why a clove has no smell until it is cut, and why the order of crush, rest and heat changes the medicine. It then reads the clinical evidence against the historical record — bacteria, blood and vessels, cancer epidemiology, metals and fatigue — and names the trials that went against garlic as directly as the trials that went for it, including the 2007 Stanford trial funded by the US National Institutes of Health which found that raw garlic, garlic powder and aged garlic extract moved LDL cholesterol no more than placebo did. It then turns to onion, garlic’s closest relative, and reads the newer evidence published since 2015, before closing with the whole of the record through the terrain lens.
Part Three, Why Medicine Set It Aside, asks the question directly. One chapter contrasts the pharmaceutical model of isolating a single active compound with the folk model of combining whole plants, and reports what the garlic evidence says about which model works better. One chapter examines the economics of research on a plant that cannot be patented. One chapter — Fire Cider — tells the story of a folk preparation whose name was taken into a United States trademark by a Massachusetts company in 2012, and won back by three herbalists in 2014 who documented forty years of prior use through Rosemary Gladstar and her students into the older tradition.
Part Four, Garlic in Practice, is the working manual — the kitchen pharmacy, traditional uses by body system, a full chapter on safety and interactions, and a complaint-by-complaint practical guide. The book closes with The Trial That Was Never Run — a one-chapter reading of the whole evidential architecture.
At the back: two appendices (a traditional list of uses, and a preparation quick-reference), a full bibliography, and a live index.
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Revive Iran’s MOU Deal or Face a Forever War /John Mearsheimer
- Kafr Qasim at 70: The massacre Israel still hasn’t owned up to
- Would President Vance really ditch Israel?
- LAPD Pilot Will Track Vehicles In San Fernando Valley
- Britain’s Online Censorship Law Now Comes With a Crisis Plan for Your Posts
- NATO’s “Nordic model” brings Arctic confrontation closer to Russia’s nuclear bases
- Using nuclear weapons, the US-Israeli alliance still can’t beat Iran
- Sunset on the Quality of Western Propaganda: Arrival of the Dr Strangelove Moment
- Ukrainian general accused of protecting crime bosses
- US-‘Israel’ alliance faces growing rupture after midterms
- If Americans Knew
- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
- No Tricks Zone
- New Study: The Net Fossil Fuel Contribution To Rising Atmospheric CO2 Has Been Zero For 500 Years
- Germany’s Green Energy Transition Becoming Increasingly Expensive…Another 6 Trillion Euros!
- Sudden Stratospheric Warming, Powerful El Niño Combination May Lead To Extreme Europe Cold, Energy Crisis!
- Two New Studies Find Thwaites Glacier Melt Cannot Be Driven By Human Activity Or A Warming Ocean
- E-Cars Reduce CO2 Emissions By Only 41% Compared To Internal Combustion Engine Vehicles
- Predictions Made By Renowned Climate Professor Over Past Decades Have Been Proven To Be Poor
- New Study Suggests Large Regions Of The Pacific Ocean Have Been Cooling For The Last 80 Years
- Germany’s Green Energy Debacle: High Energy Costs Force Kahla Porzellan to Close After 182 Years!
- New Study: 50 Years Of The Most Aggressive ‘Net Zero’ Policies Can Only Affect The Global Climate By 0.03°C
- US September “Heat” Was No Record…Many Records Set Decades Ago
