IV. EVIDENCE OF A LAB LEAK COVER-UP
In addition to the events previously discussed (sequence database taken offline, road closures during the MWG, etc.), there are several additional incidents that suggest the PRC, WIV researchers, and others were actively working to suppress and discredit early conversations that the virus could have been man-made or that it could have leaked from a WIV facility.
In April 2012, six miners working in a copper mine located in Yunnan province of the PRC fell ill. Between the ages of 30 and 63, the workers presented to a hospital in Kunming with “persistent coughs, fevers, head and chest pains and breathing difficulties.” [139] [Stanway, David. “Explainer: China's Mojiang Mine and Its Role in the Origins of COVID-19.” Reuters, 9 June 2021, http://www.reuters.com/business/healthc ... 021-06-09/.] Three of the six eventually died. Researchers from the WIV were asked to investigate and test samples from the sick miners. They also began collecting samples from bats in the cave that housed the mine, which led to the discovery of several new coronaviruses. As a result, the WIV began a long-term study of the mine, collecting samples each year. Despite this, Shi maintains the miners were killed by a fungus growing on bat feces not from a virus. [140] [Qiu, Jane. “How China's 'Bat Woman' Hunted Down Viruses from SARS to the New Coronavirus.” Scientific American, 1 June 2020, http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... onavirus1/]
ID4991 vs. RaTG13: SARS-CoV-2’s “Closest Relative”
A 2016 paper published by PRC researchers (most of whom are affiliated with the WIV) describes these efforts as researchers conducting “surveillance of coronaviruses in bats in an abandoned mineshaft in Mojiang County, Yunnan Province, China, from 2012–2013.” [141] [Ge, Xing-Yi et al. “Coexistence of multiple coronaviruses in several bat colonies in an abandoned mineshaft.” Virologica Sinica, 3 Feb. 2016; 31(1): 31-40. https://dx.doi.org/10.1007%2Fs12250-016-3713-9] Shi and Hu are listed as coauthors. WIV researchers identified two new betacoronaviruses – HiBtCoV/3740-2 and RaBtCoV/4991. The study concluded, “RaBtCoV/4991 showed more divergence from human SARSCoV than other bat SL-CoVs and could be considered as a new strain of this virus lineage.” [142] [Ibid.] Shi designed and coordinated the study, drafted the manuscript, and is listed as the corresponding author.
Four years later and after the initial reports of an unknown SARS-like coronavirus in Wuhan, Shi and 28 other PRC scientists submitted an article to Nature for publication entitled, “A pneumonia outbreak associated with a new coronavirus of probably bat origin,” [143] [Zhou, P., et al. “A pneumonia outbreak associated with a new coronavirus of probable bat origin.” Nature, 3 Feb 2020, 579: 270–273. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2012-7] on January 20, 2020. It was published in early February. It should be noted that this manuscript was submitted on the same day the PRC’s National Health Commission first issued a statement confirming human-to-human transmission – one month after local health officials warned the CCP human-to-human transmissions were occurring. [144] [Wang, Yanan. “Human-to-Human Transmission Confirmed in China Coronavirus.” AP NEWS, 20 Jan. 2020. https://apnews.com/14d7dcffa205d9022fa9ea593bb2a8c5] It is highly unlikely Shi and her coauthors would have written this paper the same day they submitted it, meaning they were aware for days or perhaps weeks that the virus was spreading via from human-to-human transmission and did not alert the world. According to a study by researchers at the University of Southampton, implementing appropriate restrictions based on human-to-human transmission just one week before this paper was published would have reduced the number of cases in Wuhan by 66%. [145] [Lai, Shengjie, et al. “Effect of Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions for Containing the COVID-19 Outbreak in China.” MedRxiv, 2020, https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101 ... 20029843v3.] This would have made a significant difference in the spread of the virus, especially in conjunction with the significant travel that occurred during the Spring Festival, which ran from January 10 to January 23, 2020, when the city of Wuhan was locked down.
Shi is listed as the corresponding author for the article, which states that COVID-19 “has now progressed to be transmitted by human-to-human contact.” [146] [Zhou (2020).] The researchers conclude that RaTG13, an allegedly naturally occurring bat coronavirus, is the closest relative to SARS-CoV-2 (emphasis added):
We then found that a short region of RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp) from a bat coronavirus (BatCoV RaTG13)—which was previously detected in Rhinolophus affinis from Yunnan province—showed high sequence identity to 2019- nCoV. We carried out full-length sequencing on this RNA sample (GISAID accession number EPI_ISL_402131). Simplot analysis showed that 2019-nCoV was highly similar throughout the genome to RaTG13 (Fig. 1c), with an overall genome sequence identity of 96.2%. Using the aligned genome sequences of 2019-nCoV, RaTG13, SARS-CoV and previously reported bat SARSr-CoVs, no evidence for recombination events was detected in the genome of 2019-nCoV. Phylogenetic analysis of the full-length genome and the gene sequences of RdRp and spike (S) showed that—for all sequences—RaTG13 is the closest relative of 2019-nCoV and they form a distinct lineage from other SARSr- CoVs (Fig. 1d and Extended Data Fig. 2)…The close phylogenetic relationship to RaTG13 provides evidence that 2019-nCoV may have originated in bats. [147] [Ibid.]
A close examination of the paper, and the corrections published months later, reveal inconsistences in the researchers’ claims. Several of the statements made in the above quotation are simply false. After months of criticism and questioning about RaTG13, Shi and the other researchers were forced to publish an addendum on November 17, 2020. That addendum reveals that RaTG13 was actually ID4991, the sample collected years prior in 2012 or 2013, and that the full-length genomic sequence was obtained in 2018, not in January 2020 as the paper originally stated. [148] [Zhou, P., et. al. “Addendum: A pneumonia outbreak associated with a new coronavirus of probable bat origin.” Nature, 17 Nov. 2020, 588: E6. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2951-z]
Unfortunately, no other labs can confirm the genomic sequence of RaTG13 – Shi said in an interview published in Science Magazine that the entire sample was used up after genomic sequencing. [149] [Shi, Zheng-li. “Reply to Science Magazine.” Science Magazine, https://www.sciencemag.org/sites/defaul ... 0Q%26A.pdf] The inability of outside researchers to verify the genome of RaTG13, and the above efforts to obfuscate when the WIV collected and sequenced RaTG13, raises multiple questions:
• Why leave out of the February 2020 article that the virus sequence was renamed?
• Why lie about when the full-length sequence was obtained?
• Why only issue a correction almost ten months later?
• Why was this sample destroyed via testing when others weren’t?
In December 2020, reporters from BBC News attempted to visit the cave in Yunnan where RaTG13 was collected. They found themselves followed by plain-clothes police officers and stopped at checkpoints where they were told to stay out of the area. [150] [Sudworth, John. “Covid: Wuhan Scientist Would 'Welcome' Visit Probing Lab Leak Theory.” BBC News, 21 Dec. 2020, http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-55364445.] A French publication, Envoye Special, produced a video in which they reported conversations with villagers who lived near the mine. According to one of those villagers, the mine was closed and monitored via surveillance cameras. That villager also alleged several people were arrested for venturing too close to the mine. [151] [Asis, Francisco de. “Quite Important the Conversation with Danaoshan Inhabitant.- He Pointed towards the Location We Already Knew for the Mine.- The Roadblocks Are Probably the Diverted Traffic We Already Observed Too.Rest of the Story Is Just Incredible! Pic.twitter.com/kzHz7v5rSg.” Twitter, Twitter, 12 Mar. 2021, https://twitter.com/franciscodeasis/sta ... 88641?s=20.]
It is important to note that in March 2020, American, British, and Australian researchers published “The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2” in Nature Magazine. [152] [Andersen, Kristian G et al. “The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2.” Nature Medicine, 17 March 2002, 26(4):450-452. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7095063/] Regarding RaTG13, they found, “Although RaTG13, sampled from a Rhinolophus affinis bat, is ~96% identical overall to SARSCoV- 2, its spike diverges in the RBD, which suggests that it may not bind efficiently to human ACE2.” [153] [Ibid.] “RBD” is an abbreviation for receptor-binding domain, part of the virus’ spike protein. This is the same part of the virus’ genome that Shi, Hu, and other WIV researchers were genetically modifying and replacing as far back as 2015.
If SARS-CoV-2 was genetically modified, this could represent a viable model for how. RaTG13’s RBD, or full spike protein, could be replaced using the WIV’s reverse genetic system. If one of the many unpublished coronaviruses in the WIV’s possession was modified, and the resulting chimeric virus was then exposed to hACE2 expressing mice or civets, the resulting virus could become better adapted to infecting humans – just like SARS-CoV-2.
According to scientists – including those working at the WIV – ID4991/RaTG13 is more closely related to SARS-CoV-2 than any other publicly identified virus. It’s now clear WIV researchers had this virus as early as 2013, several years before the WIV began genetically modifying other coronaviruses found in the wild. Given the largest difference between RaTG13 and SARS-CoV-2 is at the spike protein – precisely where the WIV modified various coronaviruses for years – and that WIV researchers renamed the virus and lied about when they sequenced, ID4991/RaTG13 could be a source of genetic material if SARS-CoV-2 was indeed genetically modified.
According to emails obtained by Buzzfeed News, it appears Kristian G. Andersen, the lead and corresponding author of the abovementioned article, initially considered this a viable theory. In a January 31, 2020 email to Dr. Anthony Fauci, the director of NIAID, Andersen stated that parts of the virus were possibly engineered and inconsistent with evolutionary theory:
Fig. 8: Andersen Email Suggesting SARS-CoV-2 was Genetically Modified [154] [Andersen, Kristian G. Email to Anthony Facui and Jeremy Farrar. 31 Jan. 2020. https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/ ... emails.pdf]
From: Kristian G. Andersen [DELETE]
Sent: Friday, January 31, 2020 10:32 PM
To: Fauci, Anthony (NIH/NIAID) [E] [DELETE]
Cc: Jeremy Farrar [DELETE]
Subject: Re: FW: Science: Mining coronavirus genomes for clues to the outbreak's origins
Hi Tony,
Thanks for sharing. Yes, I saw this earlier today and both Eddie and myself are actually quoted in it. It's a great article, but the problem is that our phylogenetic analyses aren't able to answer whether the sequences are unusual at individual residues, except if they are completely off. On a phylogenetic tree the virus looks totally normal and the close clustering with bats suggest that bats serve as the reservoir. The unusual features of the virus make up a really small part of the genome (<9,1%) so one has to look really closely at all the sequences to see that some of the features (potentially) look engineered.
We have a good team lined up to look very critically at this, so we should know much more at the end of the weekend. I should mention that after discussions earlier today, Eddie, Bob, Mike, and myself all find the genome inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory. But we have to look at this much more closely and there are still further analyses to be done, so those opinions could still change.
Best,
Kristian
The WIV’s intentionally misleading February 2020 paper regarding RaTG13 was uploaded as a preprint on January 23rd. [155] [Zhou, Peng, et. al. Preprint of “Discovery of a novel coronavirus associated with the recent pneumonia outbreak in humans and its potential bat origin.” 23 Jan. 2020, bioRxiv, https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101 ... 2.914952v2] Given that Andersen and his coauthors cited it in their March 2020 paper, it is all but certain that Andersen, Dr. Fauci, and the others would have seen it before Andersen sent this email. The day after Anderson emailed Dr. Fauci on February 1, 2020, Dr. Fauci, Andersen, and others debated this issue via teleconference. Previously, they had agreed to keep the debate confidential. Following this discussion, Andersen abandoned his claims that the virus was genetically modified. [156] [Young, Alison. “'I Remember It Very Well': Dr. Fauci Describes a Secret 2020 Meeting to Talk about COVID Origins.” USA Today, 18 June 2021, http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2 ... 737494002/.] It is unclear what was said on this call that led to Anderson doing so.
Additional Cover-Up Activities by Scientists at the WIV
As more investigative work continues on the type of research being conducted at the WIV, CCP censors and WIV researchers have been deleting or scrubbing references to coronavirus research that could be related to the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic. As previously discussed, Ben Hu received a Youth Science Fund Project award to test the pathogenicity of two novel SARS-related coronaviruses beginning in 2019. In some publicly facing PRC websites, Hu’s name has now been struck from the grant.
Fig. 9: Ben Hu’s Name Removed From 2019 Grant [157] [2019 Natural Science Foundation Query and Analysis System. https://journal.medsci.cn/m/nsfc.do? u=%E4%B8%AD%E5%9B%BD%E7%A7%91%E5%AD%A6%E9%99%A2%E6%AD%A6%E6%B1%89%E7%97%85%E6%AF%9 2%E7%A0%94%E7%A9%B6%E6%89%80]
CO10802 / To study the mechanism of baculovirus Ac34 protein inhibiting the nuclear pathway of mammalian CRM1 / Mu Jingfang / Wuhand Institute of Virology, Chinese Academy of Sciences
C010802 / Pathogenicity of two new bat SARS-related coronaviruses to transgenic mic expressing human ACE2 / -- / Wuhan Institute of Virology, Chinese Academy of Sciences
H1904 / Study on the mechanism of enterovirus 71 type 3A protein antagonizing RNAI antiviral immunity / Qiu Yang / Wuhan Institute of Virology, Chinese Academy of Sciences
Of the almost 80 WIV grants listed in the database, the one awarded to Ben Hu is the only one that does not identify the principal investigator.
A December 12, 2017, interview with Hu was pulled offline after it began circulating on Twitter. In the article, Hu discusses monitoring and collecting samples from the bat cave in Yunnan and his work using the reverse genetic system to insert spike proteins into live coronaviruses. Interestingly, he discusses how Shi Zheng-li “often personally leads the team to take samples.” [158] [“Hunting bat viruses, tracking the origin of SARS, an interview with Dr. Hu Ben, Wuhan Institute of Virology, Chinese Academy of Sciences.” First Author, 12 Dec. 2017, https://archive.vn/sVHmq#selection-45.79-45.215] It is likely that this article was pulled down for drawing attention to the cave where RaTG13 was collected.
Similarly, a 2018 article written by Hu and published on the website for the Wuhan Branch of the Chinese Academy of Sciences has also been removed. [159] [Hu, Ben. “The Wuhan Institute of Virology's "Research on Chinese Bats Carrying Important Viruses" won the first prize of the 2018 Hubei Provincial Natural Science Award.” Wuhan Branch, Chinese Academy of Sciences, 13 April 2018, archived: https://web.archive.org/web/20210107222 ... 91050.html] While the article broadly discusses the work of Shi and other researchers at the WIV, it does not offer any unique insight or evidence of dangerous research. So why was it removed?
Perhaps most incriminating are Shi’s repeated lies about activities taking place at the WIV. In August 2020, after the publication of the Committee Minority Staff’s interim report, the China Global Television Network interviewed Shi about our work. In the resulting article, Shi denied that Major General Chen Wei took over the BSL-4 lab:
Liu Xin: The report actually went further and said that the lab has been taken over by the Chinese military. It says that Major General Chen Wei has succeeded Yuan Zhiming as the Director of the WIV and Chen Wei is a Chinese military medical sciences expert.
Shi Zhengli: This is a rumor; there is no such thing.
Liu Xin: You absolutely deny that the Chinese military has taken over the WIV.
Shi Zhengli: Yes, it is a rumor. [160] [Xin, Liu. “Exclusive Interview: CGTN's Liu Xin Talks to China's 'Bat Woman'.” CGTN, 26 Aug. 2020, https://news.cgtn.com/news/2020-08-22/C ... index.html.]
This is demonstrably false. As previously discussed, posts made on CCP-controlled forums announcing Chen’s arrival acknowledged her takeover of the lab. The report stated, “PLA Maj. Gen. Chen Wei has been in Wuhan for more than 10 days. She took over the P4 lab as if it were a ‘reassurance pill.’” [161] [Guli.]
During the same interview, and in response to Committee Minority Staff raising questions about a possible lab leak, Shi again lied, claiming that all of the WIV’s research has been published and their samples available for review:
Another piece of evidence that I can give you is that our lab has been doing research for 15 years, and all our work has been published. We also have a library of our own genetic sequences, and we have experimental records of all our work related to the virus, which are accessible for people to check. [162] [Xin.]
This, again, is demonstrably false. The WIV’s sequence library was taken offline in September 2019 and is not “accessible for people to check.” Given the previously discussed undisclosed coronavirus research and military activities at the WIV, it is obvious that not “all” of the WIV’s work has been published. Daszak confirmed this in an interview with Nature: “we have data that we’ve gathered over 15 years of working in China — 5 years under a previous grant from the NIH — which haven’t been published yet.” [163] [Subbaraman, Nidhi. “'Heinous!': Coronavirus Researcher Shut down for Wuhan-Lab Link Slams New Funding Restrictions.” Nature News, 21 Aug. 2020, http://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02473-4.]
In a June 2021 interview, Shi told the New York Times, “my lab has never conducted or cooperated in conducting GOF experiments that enhance the virulence of viruses.” [164] [Qin, Amy, and Chris Buckley. “A Top Virologist in China, at Center of a Pandemic Storm, Speaks Out.” The New York Times, 14 June 2021, http://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/14/world ... -leak.html] This is a bizarre claim given the years of published research, often designed and led by Shi, that explicitly sought to make coronaviruses more infectious to humans. In the same interview, Shi lied about WIV researchers falling ill in the fall of 2019 – “The Wuhan Institute of Virology has not come across such cases.” This is despite the State Department’s January 15th 2021 fact sheet and confirmation from a Dutch virologist on the WHO’s investigative team that several researchers were sick. [165] [Gordon, Michael R., et al. “WSJ News Exclusive | Intelligence on Sick Staff at Wuhan Lab Fuels Debate on Covid-19 Origin.” The Wall Street Journal, 23 May 2021, http://www.wsj.com/articles/intelligenc ... 19-origin- 11621796228.]
Cover-Up Activities by the Chinese Communist Party
According to a WHO internal document from August 2020, the PRC put little effort into determining the source of the SARS-CoV-2 after January 2020:
Following extensive discussions with and presentation from Chinese counterparts, it appears that little had been done in terms of epidemiological investigations around Wuhan since January 2020. The data presented orally gave a few more details than what was presented at the emergency committee meetings in January 2020. No PowerPoint presentations were made and no documents were shared. [166] [Kirchgaessner, Stephanie. “China Did 'Little' to Hunt for Covid Origins in Early Months, Says WHO Document.” The Guardian, 23 Feb. 2021, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/f ... o-document]
Given the large amount of financial resources devoted by the PRC in the years prior for locating, sampling, identifying, and experimenting with coronaviruses, it is odd that little effort would be put into determining the source of the virus, if the source was unknown. In mid-February 2020, the PRC’s Ministry of Science and Technology issued new guidelines for laboratory research in the PRC. Official PRC sources stressed:
The mention of biosafety at labs by the ministry has nothing to do with some saying that the coronavirus leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. [167] [Caiyu, Liu, and Leng Shumei. “Biosafety Guideline Issued to Fix Chronic Management Loopholes at Virus Labs.” Global Times, 16 Feb. 2020, http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1179747.shtml.]
Experts interviewed in February 2020 by The Global Times stated that PRC labs paid “insufficient attention to biological disposal.” [168] [Ibid.] This included disposing of lab materials into sewage systems. [169] [Ibid.] Given that these new guidelines were issued after the PRC stopped searching for the source of the outbreak, it raises questions as to what prompted the PRC to stop its search.
Shortly thereafter, on February 25, 2020, the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention issued supplementary regulations affecting how PRC scientists work on research related to COVID- 19. The guidelines prohibit researchers from sharing data or samples and requires them to receive permission prior to conducting research or publishing the results.
Fig. 10: Excerpt from China CDC Regulations Issued on February 25th [170] [Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention. “On the Supplementary Regulations on Strengthening the Management of Science and Technology During the Emergency Response to the Novel Coronavirus.” 25 Feb. 2020. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... -Regs.html]
3. No one can, under their own name or in the name of their research team, provide other institutions and individuals with information related to the COVID-19 epidemic on their own, including data, biological specimens, pathogens, culture, etc.
4. Before publishing papers and research results related to the COVID-19 epidemic, you must first report them to the Science and Technology Group/Department for preliminary review, and if necessary, submit it to the Emergency Leading Group or the Department of Science and Education of the National Health Commission for approval.
Papers that have been submitted but not yet reviewed by the Science and Technology Group/Department should be withdrawn as soon as possible and redone according to these regulations.
A full copy of the regulations is included in the Appendix.
On February 27, 2020, Health Times, published remarks from an interview with Yu Chuanhua, who referenced health data from February 25th. Yu is the Vice President of the Hubei Health Statistics and Information Society and Professor of Epidemiology and Health Statistics at Wuhan University, and was running a database of confirmed COVID-19 cases in early 2020. In the interview, Yu stated he had evidence of COVID-19 cases as early as September 2019:
Professor Yu Chuanhua said, “For example, there is data on a patient who became ill on September 29. The data shows that the patient has not undergone nucleic acid testing. The clinical diagnosis (CT diagnosis) is a suspected case. The patient has died. This data has not been confirmed and there is no time to death. It may also be wrong data." With the research of the database, Professor Yu Chuanhua found more and more case data before December 8. There were two cases in November, and the onset time was November 14 and November 21, 2019. Before December 8, there were also five or six cases. Among them, one patient who became ill at the end of November was hospitalized on December 2 and was clinically diagnosed with pneumonia. [171] [Wang, Zhenya. “Experts Judge the Source of the New Crown: December 8 Last Year May Not Be the Earliest Time of Onset.” Health Times, 27 Feb. 2020, http://www.jksb.com.cn/index.php?m=wap& ... &id=160018.]
Before the interview was published on February 27th, Yu called the reporter and tried to retract the information regarding the two sick patients in November. [172] [Ibid.] It is likely that this was done to comply with the China CDC gag order that was issued two days prior.
Nine days later, on March 5, 2020, the Joint Prevention and Control Mechanism (JPCM) of the State Council Novel Coronavirus Pneumonia Scientific Research Group issued a confidential memo, obtained by the Associated Press, entitled, “Notice on the Standardization of the Management and Publication of Novel Coronavirus Scientific Research.” [173] [Joint Prevention and Control Mechanism of the State Council Novel Coronavirus Pneumonia Scientific Research Group. “Notice on the Standardization of the Management and Publication of Novel Coronavirus Scientific Research.” 3 Mar. 2020. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... tions.html] The notice announced the research group was taking control of all publication work related to the pandemic for “coordinated deployment.” [174] [Ibid.] It also required units publishing research to notify the JPCM’s propaganda team, which was tasked to work with a special public opinion team to coordinate publication of research with public opinion and “social concerns.” [175] [Ibid.]
Fig. 11: Excerpt from JPCM Memo
Each member work unit of the scientific research team will gather scientific research information within their own unit and systems, review and check the content and form of its publication, and report it to the scientific research team for approval in a timely manner. The scientific research group's dedicated teams of professionals and various experts are responsible for reviewing the publication's content and format and giving expert opinions, and when necessary, arranging expert assessment. Aft the scientific research group approves, the publishing work unit should, according to work requirements, arrange publication via press conferences, official websites, state social media, news media and other platforms, and notify the propaganda and scientific research teams of the Joint Prevention and Control Mechanism of the State Council. In principle, COVID-19 scientific research should be published first in the form of an official authoritative publication. The special group on public opinion should strengthen communication with the propaganda team, take into account the trend of public opinion and social concerns, and strengthen guidance of the publication of scientific research and information.
The memo concludes with a warning: “Those who fail to apply for approval in accordance with the prescribed procedures and publish unconfirmed false information on scientific research, thereby causing serious adverse social impacts, shall be held accountable.” [176] [Ibid.] A full copy of the memo is included in the Appendix. These documents are clear evidence of the CCP’s effort to restrict research on SARS-CoV-2, so that the only research published supports the Party’s official story on the origins and emergence of COVID-19.
After the release of the Committee Minority Staff’s interim report on the origins of COVID-19, China Global Television Network, a PRC state-owned media outlet, released a propaganda video aimed at undermining this investigation. Entitled, “Clearing up confusion in McCaul report on COVID-19,” the approximately 45-minute video labels the report “misinformation.” [177] [“The Point: Clearing up Confusion in the McCaul Report On Covid-19.” CCTV News, 25 July 2020, https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=n5qYogMTZOw.] It also discusses what they call the “tired old theory that the virus could have leaked from a lab” [178] [Ibid.] and reveals that Shi Zheng-li was interviewed about our report. [179] [Ibid.] The piece also claims the BSL-4 lab space at the WIV was never taken over by Maj. Gen. Chen Wei. [180] [Ibid.] As discussed earlier, this statement is demonstrably untrue.
In June 2021, Jesse Bloom published a preprint entitled, “Recovery of deleted deep sequencing data sheds more light on the early Wuhan SARS-CoV-2 epidemic.” Bloom is a Principal Investigator and Associate Professor for Basic Sciences and the Herbold Computational Biology Program at Fred Hutch, a cancer research center. Bloom was able to recover multiple deleted viral sequences collected from patients in Wuhan in early December 2020. These sequences were originally uploaded to the NIH’s Sequence Read Archive by researchers in Wuhan, but later deleted at their request.
Oddly, these samples more greatly diverge from SARS-CoV-2’s bat coronavirus ancestor – “the earliest SARSCoV-2 sequences were collected in Wuhan in December, but these sequences are more distant from RaTG13 than sequences collected in January from other locations in China or even other countries.” [181] [Bloom, Jesse D. Preprint: “Recovery of deleted deep sequencing data sheds more light on the early Wuhan SARS-CoV-2 epidemic.” bioRxiv, 29 June 2021, https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101 ... 8.449051v2] Bloom concludes (emphasis added):
The fact that this informative data set was deleted suggests implications beyond those gleaned directly from the recovered sequences. Samples from early outpatients in Wuhan are a gold mine for anyone seeking to understand spread of the virus. Even my analysis of 13 partial sequences is revealing, and it clearly would have been more scientifically informative to fully sequence all 34 samples rather than delete the partial sequence data. There is no obvious scientific reason for the deletion: the sequences are concordant with the samples described in Wang et al. (2020a,b), there are no corrections to the paper, the paper states human subjects approval was obtained, and the sequencing shows no evidence of plasmid or sample-to-sample contamination…. Even though the sequencing data were on the Google Cloud (as described above) and the mutations were listed in a table in the Small paper by Wang et al. (2020b), the practical consequence of removing the data from the SRA was that nobody was aware these sequences existed. Particularly in light of the directive that labs destroy early samples (Pingui 2020) and multiple orders requiring approval of publications on COVID-19 (China CDC 2020; Kang et al. 2020a), this suggests a less than wholehearted effort to maximize information about viral sequences from early in the Wuhan epidemic. [182] [Ibid.]
The PRC’s efforts to obfuscate the origins of COVID-19 were not limited to destroying samples and silencing doctors, but featured a sustained disinformation campaign as well. As discussed in our previous report, Lijian Zhao, an official within the PRC’s Foreign Ministry, shared an article on Twitter that claimed the virus was brought to the PRC by the U.S. military. [183] [Zhao, Lijian. “This Article Is Very Much Important to Each and Every One of Us. Please Read and Retweet It. COVID-19: Further Evidence That the Virus Originated in the US. Https://T.co/LPanIo40MR.” Twitter, 13 Mar. 2020, http://www.twitter.com/zlj517/status/12 ... 3427906560] The article was from the Global Times research.ca, a website that pushes pro-Putin propaganda and has reported ties to Russian state media. [184] [Thomas, Elise, and Aspi. “Chinese Diplomats and Western Fringe Media Outlets Push the Same Coronavirus Conspiracies.” The Strategist, 30 Mar. 2020, http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/chines ... spiracies/.] His tweet was amplified by the Chinese Embassy in South Africa. [185] [Chinese Embassy in South Africa. “More Evidence Suggests That the Virus Was Not Originated at the Seafood Market in Wuhan at All, Not to Mention the so Called ‘Made in China’. Https://T.co/8cRxkSZB3z.” Twitter, 16 Mar. 2020, http://www.twitter.com/ChineseEmbSA/sta ... 3689587712]
Fig. 12: PRC Spokesman Tweet Suggesting COVID-19 Arrived in Wuhan via the Military World Games
Lijian Zhao @zlj517 Mar 12, 2020
China government official
2/2 CDC was caught on the spot. When did patient zero being in US? How many people are infected? What are the names of the hospitals? It might be US army who brought the epidemic to Wuhan. Be transparent! Make public your data! US owe us an explanation!
1:03
From Global Times
Get the facts about COVID-19
To further drive this narrative, CCP-controlled media outlets accused Maatje Benassi, a member of the U.S. Army Reserve, as being “patient zero.” Benassi competed at the Military World Games without becoming ill, yet has been repeatedly targeted for harassment. Videos pushing the theory have been uploaded to WeChat, Weibo, and Xigua – PRC based sites. Two weeks after Zhao tweeted that the U.S. army brought the virus to Wuhan, the Global Times amplified the narrative, urging the U.S. government to release athletes’ health info and repeated the claim about Benassi. [186] [Shumei, Leng, and Wan Lin. “US Urged to Release Health Info of Military Athletes Who Came to Wuhan in October 2019.” Global Times, 25 Mar. 2020, http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1183658.shtml.]
Another tweet by Zhao actually suggests the pandemic did start in September, as is suggested in this addendum, but that it began in the United States. [187] [Zhao, Lijian. US CDC Admitted Some #COVID19 Patients Were Misdiagnosed as Flu during 2019 Flu Season. 34 Million Infected & 20000 Died. If #COVID19 Began Last September, & US Has Been Lack of Testing Ability, How Many Would Have Been Infected? US Should Find out When Patient Zero Appeared. Twitter, 22 Mar. 2020, https://twitter.com/zlj517/status/12417 ... 39168?s=20.]
Fig. 13: PRC Spokesman Tweet Suggesting the COVID-19 Pandemic Started in September 2019.
Lijian Zhao @zlj517 Mar 22, 2020
China government official
US CDC admitted some #COVID19 patients were misdiagnosed as flu during 2019 flu season. 34 million infected & 20000 died. If #COVID19 began last September, & US has been lack of testing ability, how many would have been infected? US should find out when patient zero appeared.
It is important to note that this tweet was sent in March 2020. The previously discussed Harvard study suggesting the pandemic began in September was not published until the second half of 2020. This accusation came ten days after Zhao repeated his theory that the U.S. military brought COVID- 19 to Wuhan. If the CCP realized an investigation would show an uptick in visits of patients with symptoms similar to COVID-19 in September, October, and November of 2019, this would likely be the actions they would take to coverup the source of those illnesses.
WIV Disinformation Campaign Involving Peter Daszak
As we have previously explained, Peter Daszak was heavily involved in the gain-of-function research taking place at the WIV, including research that was done at BSL-2 levels and that was done while the United States had a moratorium in place on funding gain-of-function research. In addition, we have uncovered strong evidence that suggests Peter Daszak is the public face of a CCP disinformation campaign designed to suppress public discussion about a potential lab leak. Emails obtained by a third-party organization show that Daszak organized a February 19, 2020, statement in the Lancet “condemn[ing] conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin.” [188] [Calisher, Charles et al. “Statement in support of the scientists, public health professionals, and medical professionals of China combatting COVID-19.” Lancet, 7 Mar. 2020, 395(10226): e42-e43. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32087122/] The statement continued, “Conspiracy theories do nothing but create fear, rumours, and prejudice that jeopardise our global collaboration in the fight against this virus.” [189] [Ibid.] The emails show Daszak’s effort to organize a large group of scientists to sign onto a statement that he personally drafted. One email concludes with Daszak stating, “Please note that this statement will not have EcoHealth Alliance logo on it and will not be identifiable as coming from any one organization or person, the idea is to have this as a community supporting our colleagues.” [190] [Daszak, Peter. Email to Linda Saif, Hume Field, JM Hughe, Rita Colweel, Alison Andrew, Aleksei Chmura, Hongying Li, William B. Karesh, and Robert Kessler. 6 Feb. 2020. https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/20 ... 2.6.20.pdf]
The emails, sent from Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance email account, also reveal the statement was drafted in response to a request by WIV researchers with whom Daszak had worked (emphasis added):
You should know that the conspiracy theorists have been very active, targeting our collaborators with some extremely unpleasant web pages in China, and some have now received death threats to themselves and their families. They have asked for any show of support we can give them. [191] [Daszak, Peter. Email to Rita Colwell. 8 Feb. 2020. https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/20 ... ls_Daszak- 2.8.20.pdf]
In a separate email, Daszak states that Linfa Wang (who did not sign the statement) pushed for Daszak and Baric to not sign the statement, effectively hiding their involvement. As previously discussed, Linfa Wang, who is copied on several other emails about the statement, was a coauthor of multiple Daszak/Shi/Hu papers. Wang is currently the Director and Professor of the Program in Emerging Infectious Diseases at the Duke-NUS Graduate Medical School in Singapore. He is a PRC national who received his B.S. in biochemistry from the East China Normal University in Shanghai, PRC [192] [Wang, Linfa. “Curicullum Vitae.” https://globalhealth.duke.edu/sites/def ... an2017.pdf] before completing a Ph.D. in molecular biology at the University of California, Davis in the United States.
In January 2020, Wang was at the WIV in Wuhan, visiting researchers he worked with. Given his previous publications, this likely included a vsiit with Hu and Shi, with whom he has authored dozens of papers. He departed the city on January 18th, [192] [Kupferschmidt, Kai. “This Biologist Helped Trace SARS to Bats. Now, He's Working to Uncover the Origins of COVID-19.” Science, 9 Sept. 2020, http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/09/ ... s-covid-19.] less than three weeks before Daszak externally circulated his draft Lancet statement. Wang is included on the email soliciting cosigners. [193] [Daszak (6 Feb.)]
In the email, Daszak states, (emphasis added):
I spoke with Linfa last night about the statement we sent round. He thinks, and I agree with him, that you, me and him should not sign this statement, so it has some distance from us and therefore doesn't work in a counterproductive way... We'll then put it out in a way that doesn't link it back to our collaboration so we maximize an independent voice. [194] [Daszak, Peter. Email to Ralph Baric, Toni Baric, Alison Andre, and Aleksei Chmura. 6 Feb. 2020. https://usrtk.org/wpcontent/ uploads/2021/02/Baric_Daszak_email.pdf]
Copies of these emails are included in the Appendix.
While pushing for Daszak and Baric, the WIV’s most prominent American collaborators, to hide their efforts to organize this statement, Wang was serving as the Chair of the Scientific Advisory Board for the Center for Emerging Diseases at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, of which Shi Zheng-li is the Director. [195] [Wang.]
Baric agreed and chose not to sign. It is unclear why Daszak ultimately changed his mind and signed the statement. Despite Daszak’s role as the organizer of the Lancet statement, Charles Calisher is listed as the corresponding author. Oddly, the email address listed for Calisher is a generic one (COVID19statement@gmail.com [196] [Calisher.]) that appears to have been created specifically for this statement, an unusual practice for scientific publications.
The February 2021 Lancet statement declared the authors had “no competing interest,” despite Daszak organizing the letter on behalf of WIV researchers who he funded and with whom he collaborated. In June 2020, after public concerns regarding Daszak’s connection to the WIV, “the Lancet invited the 27 authors of the letter to re-evaluate their competing interests.” [197] [Editors of The Lancet. “Addendum: competing interests and the origins of SARS-CoV-2.” The Lancet, 26 June 2021, 397: 2449-50. https://www.thelancet.com/action/showPd ... %2901377-5] Daszak submitted a revised disclosure statement which, while transparent about his prior work with PRC researchers, fails to reference the WIV or disclose that he drafted the statement at the request of PRC researchers. [198] [Ibid.]
The emails also reveal that Daszak helped edit a letter sent on February 6, 2020 by the Presidents of the U.S. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy regarding the origins of COVID-19.
While not included in the final version, the last draft edited by Daszak and the other experts who were consulted included a line stating, “The initial views of the experts is that the available genomic data are consistent with natural evolution and that there is currently no evidence that the virus was engineered to spread more quickly among humans.” Daszak actually pushed for broader language, as he believed “this is a bit too specific, because there are other conspiracy theories out there.” It is unclear why the sentence was removed by the Presidents of the U.S. National Academies before the letter was sent to the White House. Daszak specifically sought to time the publication of his statement in The Lancet for after this letter was released. And the statement references the letter as proof of the virus’ natural origin, without disclosing that Daszak helped edit it. It is highly likely that senior government officials, including Dr. Fauci, would have seen both the letter from the U.S. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine and the statement published in The Lancet, shaping their opinion and stifling debate within the U.S. federal government regarding the origins of COVID-19.
Sixteen months after sending this initial letter, the Presidents of the U.S. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine released an updated statement on June 15, 2021, titled, “Let Scientific Evidence Determine Origin of SARS-CoV-2, Urge Presidents of the National Academies.” [199] [McNutt, Marcia, et al. “NASEM Response to OSTP Re Coronavirus_February 6, 2020.” Received by Kelvin Droegemeier , National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine, 6 Feb. 2020, Washington, District of Columbia. https://www.nationalacademies.org/docum ... 5521A660F4 0FD8D752FFB82A8E21FA8D3C29976D/NASEM%20Response%20to%20OSTP%20re%20Coronavirus_February%206%2C%202020.pdf? hide=thumbs+breadcrumbs+favs+props+nextprev+sidebar+pin+actions&scheme=light&fitwidth] This updated statement acknowledges there are scenarios that the origin of the pandemic could have resulted from a lab leak, stating (emphasis added):
However, misinformation, unsubstantiated claims, and personal attacks on scientists surrounding the different theories of how the virus emerged are unacceptable, and are sowing public confusion and risk undermining the public’s trust in science and scientists, including those still leading efforts to bring the pandemic under control… In the case of SARS-CoV-2, there are multiple scenarios that could, in principle, explain its origin with varying degrees of plausibility based on our current understanding. These scenarios range from natural zoonotic spillover (when a virus spreads from non-human animals to humans) to those that are associated with laboratory work. [200] [Ibid.]
Unlike the letter to the White House, this statement does not state which, if any, outside experts were consulted when drafting the statement.
Interestingly, three weeks later, in July 2021, Daszak and his colleagues released an update to their February 2020 statement with a very similar title: “Science, not speculation, is essential to determine how SARS-CoV-2 reached humans.” The second statement was signed by 24 of the original 27 authors and reflects a major step back from those authors’ original position (emphasis added):
The second intent of our original Correspondence was to express our working view that SARS-CoV-2 most likely originated in nature and not in a laboratory, on the basis of early genetic analysis of the new virus and well-established evidence from previous emerging infectious diseases, including the coronaviruses that cause the common cold as well as the original SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV. Opinions, however, are neither data nor conclusions. Evidence obtained using the scientific method must inform our understanding and be the basis for interpretation of the available information. [201] [Calisher, Charles H et al. “Science, not speculation, is essential to determine how SARS-CoV-2 reached humans.” Lancet, 5 July 2021, 398:209-211. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8257054/]
This is quite different from Daszak’s words in the first border-line propaganda statement “condemn[ing] conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin.” [202] [Calisher (Feb.)] Despite this softening, the authors continue to accuse those who seek to investigate the lab leak hypothesis of being the source of the PRC’s unwillingness to cooperate with an international investigation:
Allegations and conjecture are of no help, as they do not facilitate access to information and objective assessment of the pathway from a bat virus to a human pathogen that might help to prevent a future pandemic. Recrimination has not, and will not, encourage international cooperation and collaboration. [203] [Calisher (July)]
Whereas the first statement cited the letter from the Presidents of the U.S. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (which Daszak helped edit), the second cites the Presidents’ statement released just weeks prior. This raises the question of whether Daszak, or any of the authors, assisted in drafting or editing the June 15th statement issues by the National Academies.
It should also be noted that Daszak was the only representative of the United States on the WHO-China Joint Study team in early 2021. The United States put forth a list of experts to be considered, none of whom were chosen. Daszak was not on that list but was nevertheless selected and approved by the CCP. [204] [Testimony from former senior U.S. official received by Committee Minority Staff.] The annexes of the WHO’s report on the origins of COVID-19, issued in March 2021, include multiple examples of CCP disinformation that have been repeated by Daszak. This include a discussion of “conspiracy theories,” [205] [Joint Report - ANNEXES.] which include the lab leak hypothesis and questions regarding the possible genetically modified nature of SARS-CoV-2. It also refers to the WIV’s sequence database that was taken offline as a “rumour about missing data.” [206] [Ibid.] This is similar language to that which Daszak used during his Chatham House interview – despite the database remaining offline. [207] [Ibid.] Committee Minority Staff was unable to determine whether Daszak assisted in the drafting or editing of the WHO report.
Peter Daszak has taken several additional concerning actions in regard to the origins of COVID-19, including inexplicably lying about the work conducted by EcoHealth Alliance in the months following the emergence of SARS-CoV-2. In an August 21, 2020, interview with Nature, after the NIH suspended the grants he was using to fund research at the WIV, Daszak claimed “The grant isn’t used to fund work on SARS-CoV-2. Our organization has not actually published any data on SARSCoV- 2.” [208] [Subbaraman.] This is despite the fact that four days later Nature Communications published “Origin and cross-species transmission of bat coronaviruses in China.” [209] [Latinne, Alice et al. “Origin and cross-species transmission of bat coronaviruses in China.” Nature Communications, 25 Aug. 2020, 11(1):4235, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7447761/] Daszak, Shi, Hu, and Wang are all listed as authors, with Shi and Daszak both being listed as corresponding authors. The preprint for the article was uploaded on May 31, 2020, almost three months before Daszak’s interview with Nature. The paper includes a phylogenetic analysis “suggesting a likely origin for SARS-CoV-2 in Rhinolophus spp. bats.” [210] [Ibid.] Daszak, Shi, three EcoHealth Alliance affiliated researchers, and Linfa Wang are credited with designing the study, conducting fieldwork, and establishing collection and testing protocols.
The research was funded by the NIH (grant no. R01AI110964) and USAID’s PREDICT project (cooperative agreement number GHN-A-OO-09-00010-00), as well as the Strategic Priority Research Program of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (grant no. XDB29010101) that Shi was directing. It also received support from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grants no. 31770175 and 31830096). The paper notes:
All work conducted by EcoHealth Alliance staff after April 24th 2020 was supported by generous funding from The Samuel Freeman Charitable Trust, Pamela Thye, The Wallace Fund, & an Anonymous Donor c/o Schwab Charitable. [211] [Ibid.]
April 24th was the day the NIH terminated the project Understanding the Risk of Bat Coronavirus Emergence, which was funded under grant R01AI110964, [212] [Lauer, Michael. Email to Peter Daszak. 24 April 2020. https://www.sciencemag.org/sites/defaul ... 202020.pdf] which is cited in the paper as funding this work. [213] [Latinne.] The grant Daszak told Nature was not being used to fund work on SARS-CoV-2 is cited in a paper presenting research on SARS-CoV-2.
Earlier, in March 2020, Peter Daszak and two other EcoHealth Alliance affiliated researchers published “A strategy to prevent future epidemics similar to the 2019-nCoV outbreak.” [214] [Daszak, Peter et al. “A strategy to prevent future epidemics similar to the 2019-nCoV outbreak.” Biosafety and Health, March 2020, 2(1): 6-8. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7144510/] While the paper lacked lab experimentation, it discussed SARS-CoV-2 and claimed that “wildlife trade has clearly played a role in the emergence of” [215] [Ibid.] the virus. This work was also funded by the same NIH grant (grant no. R01AI110964), as well as the same cooperative agreement with USAID’s PREDICT Project.
In December 2020, Daszak stated in a tweet that the suspension of the aforementioned NIH grant directly prevented him from accessing samples at the WIV. If the grant did not support EcoHealth Alliance’s work on SARS-CoV-2, how could it be related to their inability to access SARS-CoV-2 samples?
Why did Daszak claim the NIH grant “isn’t used to fund work on SARS-CoV-2” [216] [Subbaraman.] when his own published research and statements show that it was?
Another concerning example of Daszak’s behavior comes from a March 10, 2021 discussion with Chatham House. In response to a question about the WIV taking down its viral sequence and sample database in September 2019 and whether the WHO investigative team requested to see the data, Peter Daszak stated (emphasis added):
I asked the question in front of the whole team, both sides, while we were at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, about the so-called missing database. And what we were told, by Shi Zheng-li, was that there had been hacking attempts on it, about 3,000 hacking attempts, and they took down this excel spreadsheet-based database. Absolutely reasonable. We did not ask to see the data, and as you know, a lot of this work is work that has been conducted with EcoHealth Alliance, and I’m also part of those data, and we do basically know what’s in those databanks. And I shared, I gave a talk to both sides about the work we’ve done with the Wuhan Institute of Virology and explained what’s there. There is no evidence of viruses closer to SARS-CoV-2 than RaTG13 in those databases. It’s as simple as that. [217] [“Sustaining the Response: Inside the WHO-China Mission.” Chatham House, 10 March 2021, https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=GMllEF58944&t=3249s.]
This is a stunning claim given the database contained more than 22,000 samples and was inaccessible by anyone outside of the WIV after September 2019. It was physically impossible for Daszak to remotely access the database after the SARS-CoV-2 genome was released in January 2020 in order to compare the genome to samples in the database. If not, given that no one outside of the WIV knew RaTG13 was closely related to SARS-CoV-2 prior to publication in February 2020, how could Daszak claim to know there is not a closer match in one of the 22,000 plus samples when he could not access the data? This raises the question of whether he has copy of the database.
Daszak has also been, at best, incorrect about how the WIV handed RaTG13. In an April 21, 2020 interview with the New York Times, he stated (emphasis added):
We found the closest relative to the current SARS-CoV-2 in a bat in China in 2013. We sequenced a bit of the genome, and then it went in the freezer; because it didn’t look like SARS, we thought it was at a lower risk of emerging. With the Virome project, we could have sequenced the whole genome, discovered that it binds to human cells and upgraded the risk. And maybe then when we were designing vaccines for SARS, those could have targeted this one too, and we would have had something in the freezer ready to go if it emerged. [218] [Kahn, Jennifer. “How Scientists Could Stop the Next Pandemic Before It Starts.” The New York Times, 21 Apr. 2020, http://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/21/magaz ... ccine.html.]
This is, of course, untrue. Researchers at the WIV fully sequenced RaTG13’s genome in 2018. [219] [Zhou, (Nov. 2020).] Either Daszak knew this was untrue, and lied to the New York Times, or he was being kept in the dark about the work being conducted at the WIV. If the later is true, it raises more questions about Daszak’s March 2021 claim to know everything in the WIV’s database that was taken offline.