fauci

Former National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases director Anthony Fauci, EcoHealth Alliance boss Peter Daszak, and
elements of their inner circle were far from the only people in the Western medical establishment who actively downplayed the possibility that COVID-19 leaked from a lab where the likely patients zero executed dangerous experiments on coronaviruses with American taxpayer dollars.

Early in the pandemic, multiple scientific publications ran articles decrying “conspiracy theories” that suggested the virus may have originated in the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Various authors argued, instead, that it was more likely that the virus made a cross-species leap into humans, possibly at a Chinese wet market.

Now that it’s abundantly clear that the lab origin theory was all along the
most likely explanation, molecular biologist Dr. Richard H. Ebright of Rutgers University and dozens of other scientists are seeking accountability for perceived efforts to cure the origins narrative. They have sent open letters to the editors of the journals Science, Emerging Microbes & Infections, and Nature Medicine, requesting the retraction of “scientifically unsound papers” concerning the origins of the virus.

“Scientists have a responsibility to science and the public to point out scientific misconduct, particularly scientific fraud, when they discover it,” Dr. Ebright told Blaze News. “This is especially true for scientific misconduct on matters of high public importance, like the origin of COVID-19.”

Emerging Microbes & Infections

The first of the four papers of interest was published online in Emerging Microbes & Infections on Feb. 26, 2020, and authored by
Shan-Lu Liu and Linda Saif of Ohio State University; Susan Weiss of the University of Pennsylvania; and Lishan Su of the University of Maryland.

The paper, entitled, “No credible evidence supporting claims of the laboratory engineering of SARS-CoV-2,” stated, “There are speculations, rumours and conspiracy theories that SARS-CoV-2 is of laboratory origin. Some people have alleged that the human SARS-CoV-2 was leaked directly from a laboratory in Wuhan where a bat CoV (RaTG13) was recently reported, which shared ∼96% homology with the SARS-CoV-2.”

After downplaying a number of possible lab-made culprits, including a
chimeric coronavirus that could replicate in human airway cells and possibly transmit to humans, the authors concluded, “There is currently no credible evidence to support the claim that SARS-CoV-2 originated from a laboratory-engineered CoV.”

The
June 14 open letter to the editors of the journal stated, “The authors’ and editor’s private email communications, obtained through an Ohio Public Records Act request, provide compelling evidence that there is clear basis to infer the paper may be the product of scientific misconduct, up to and including fraud.”

When Weiss, for instance, expressed uncertainty about how the
furin cleavage site could possibly end up in the virus naturally, her colleague Liu “completely agree[d]” but signaled a greater eagerness to dispel the notion that the “furin site may be engineered.”

Despite publicly suggesting there was no credible evidence of a lab origin, Weiss noted days before the publication of her paper:

Henry and I have been speculating- how can that site have appeared at S1/S2 border- I hate to think it was engineered- among the MHV strains, the cleavage site does not increaser (sic) pathogenicity while it does effect entry route (surface vs endosome). so for me the only significance of this furin site is as a marker for where the virus came from- frightening to think it may have been engineered.

Concealed doubts and persuasive counterpoints were not the only things said to have compromised the integrity of the paper.

University of North Carolina virus expert
Ralph Baric has long toyed with coronaviruses. Years ahead of the pandemic, he expressed an interest in continuing to experiment with a chimeric virus that could infect human lung cells. He even shared transgenic mice with the Wuhan lab where Chinese virologist Zhengli Shi was executing radical experiments.

In violation of publisher Taylor and Francis’ authorship policies, “Ralph Baric and Shi Zhengli, despite clear conflicts of interest, made substantial contributions to the manuscript but were not credited as authors or acknowledged,” said the letter.

Besides secretly involving people with potential conflicts, Su, Liu and the journal’s editor-in-chief Shan Lu reportedly also had “privileged information about a SARS-CoV-2 infection in a Beijing lab in 2020,” but decided to keep this under wraps.

Su wrote to Lieu on Feb. 14, 2020: “Your former colleague was infected with sars2 in the lab?”

“Yes,” responded Liu. “He was infected in the lab!”

“I actually am very concerned for the possibility of SARS-2 infection by lab people. It is much more contagious than SARS-1. Now every lab is interested in get a vial of virus to do drug discovery. This can potentially [be] a big issue. I don’t think most people have a clue,” wrote Shan Lu.

Despite weighing in heavily on the paper, Lu elected not to be included in the coauthorship, stating in a Feb. 12, 2020, message, “I definitely will not be an author as you guys did everything. It can also keep things somewhat independent as the editor.”

Extra to collapsing the distance between author and editor, Lu subsequently admitted he accepted the paper with “basically no review.”

— (@)

“Taken together, the authors’ and editor’s private communications indicate the paper is a product of scientific misconduct, up to and including fraud, by the authors and by the Editor-in-Chief of
Emerging Microbes & Infections, Shan Lu,” said the open letter. “Now that these documents have come to light, we urge Emerging Microbes & Infections to issue an Expression of Editorial Concern for this paper and to initiate a retraction process.”

Taylor and Francis, the publisher of the journal, said in a statement to Blaze News, “We can confirm that the Editor of the journal forwarded the open letter to Taylor & Francis on 14th June and that our Publishing Ethics & Integrity team are investigating the concerns raised, in accordance with the Committee on Publication Ethics guidelines and our Editorial Policies.”

Nature Medicine

The journal Nature Medicine published the controversial paper “The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2” on March 17, 2020, which Fauci used on multiple occasions to suggest to the American public that COVID-19 was not a lab leak but rather an animal virus that jumped to a human.

Blaze News
previously reported that despite privately discussing the prospect that the natural-origins theory was rubbish, the paper’s four official authors — Kristian Andersen, W. Ian Lipkin, Edward Holmes, and Robert Garry — concluded, “We do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible.”

Andersen, a Danish evolutionary biologist and Scripps Research Institute immunology professor, was especially doubtful in private about the conclusion he gave his name to.

On Jan. 31, 2020, Andersen
wrote to Fauci, “You have to look very closely at the genome to see features that are potentially engineered. … I should mention that after discussions earlier today, Eddie [Holmes], Bob [Garry], Mike [Farzan], and myself all find the genome to be inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory.”

On Feb. 8, Andersen
stated, “Passage of SARS-like CoVs have been ongoing for several years, and more specifically in Wuhan under BSL-2 conditions. … The fact that Wuhan became the epicenter of the ongoing epidemic caused by nCoV is likely an unfortunate coincidence, but it raises questions that would be wrong to dismiss out of hand. Our main work over the last couple of weeks has been focused on trying to disprove any type of lab theory, but we are at a crossroad where the scientific evidence isn’t conclusive enough to say that we have high confidence in any of the three main theories considered.”

Andersen also
expressed concern about a paper penned by Ralph Baric and Zhengli Shi concerning the apparent insertion of furin cleavage sites into SARS, which he and his colleagues figured for a “how-to-manual for building the Wuhan coronavirus in a laboratory.”

Last month, Ebright and five others
wrote to Joao Montiero, the chief editor of Nature Medicine, requesting a retraction. They noted that documentation obtained through public records requests along with congressional testimony from Andersen and Garry “provide conclusive evidence of misconduct.”

The letter does not mention Fauci’s
alleged involvement in the development of the paper but instead World Health Organization scientist Jeremy Farrar’s unacknowledged role in the “paper’s development, including its prompting, organizing, editing, and approval.”

‘It is imperative that this misleading and damaging product of scientific misconduct be removed from the scientific literature.’

“This omission of a significant role played by the head of a funding agency, allegedly to maintain his ‘independence,’ represents a serious breach of publishing ethics that completely undermines the credibility of the journal and calls into question the motivation behind the paper,” said the letter. “The classification of the paper as an ‘opinion’ rather than a ‘research article’ further exacerbates the issue, as the authors’ intentional withholding of Farrar’s involvement damages public trust in the editorial process.”

Ebright and scores of other scientists
pressed Nature Medicine last year for a retraction as well, noting in an open letter dated July 26, 2023, “It is imperative that this misleading and damaging product of scientific misconduct be removed from the scientific literature. We, as STEM and STEM-policy professionals, call upon Nature Medicine to publish an expression of editorial concern for the paper and to begin a process of withdrawal or retraction of the paper.”

Blaze News reached out to Montiero for comment, but he did not respond by deadline.

Science

Ebright, Stanford University epidemiologist
Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, and dozens of other scientists signed another open letter on June 14 to the editors of the journal Science with regards to two papers: “The Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market in Wuhan was the early epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic,” and “The molecular epidemiology of multiple zoonotic origins of SARS-CoV-2,” both of which named Jonathan Pekar of the University of California, San Diego, as an author along with Andersen, Holmes, Garry, evolutionary biologist Andrew Rambaut, and Michael Worobey of the University of Arizona.

Blurbs leading into the papers, which were both largely funded by Fauci’s NIAID — whose parent agency
supported and financed research at the Wuhan lab — and published on July 26, 2022, stated, “The precise events surrounding virus spillover will always be clouded, but all of the circumstantial evidence so far points to more than one zoonotic event occurring in Huanan market in Wuhan, China, likely during November–December 2019.”

According to the scientists seeking retractions, the analyses and the premises of “Worobey et al. 2022 and Pekar et al. 2022 are unsound,” and the papers may be “products of scientific misconduct, up to and including scientific fraud.”

“Phylogenomic evidence, epidemiological evidence, and documentary evidence all indicate that SARS-CoV-2 entered humans in July-November 2019,” says the letter. “Arguments based on data for the Huanan Seafood Market on or after mid- to late December 2019 — as in Worobey et al. 2022 and Pekar et al. 2022 — cannot, even in principle, shed light on spillover into humans that occurred one to five months earlier, in July-November, 2019.”

— (@)

The open letter noted that Andersen, Garry, Holmes, and others knew full well that the “premises and conclusions of their paper were invalid at the time the paper was drafted.”

A spokesman for American Association for the Advancement of Science, the publisher of the Science family of journals, confirmed to Blaze News that it had received the letter.

“We follow COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) processes to address any concerns raised on published papers and are doing so here,” said the spokesman.

The AAAS spokesman noted in a subsequent email, “We will follow up when we make a final decision.”

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Read More

The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases under Anthony Fauci funded deadly gain-of-function research on coronaviruses at the likely epicenter of the pandemic. Although millions of Americans died from COVID-19, the NIAID apparently did not learn its lesson.

According to congressional investigators, the NIAID received approval to execute radical gain-of-function experiments on MPXV, the virus that causes monkeypox.

Monkeypox is endemic in various African regions but made a global play in April 2022. The New England Journal of Medicine indicated on the basis of diagnoses in 16 countries that 98% of the persons infected with the virus were homosexual.

Those infected with monkeypox often experience a painful rash that can look like pimples or blisters, respiratory problems, exhaustion, fever, swollen lymph nodes, and chills. Like COVID-19, monkeypox can be spread via respiratory droplets, through “direct contact with a rash or sores of someone who has the virus,” and through “contact with clothing, bedding, and other items used by a person” with the virus.

While it’s unclear what nightmarish symptoms a lab-engineered version of monkeypox could produce, it’s clear that some of Fauci’s people were eager to find out.

Over the past two years, the House Committee on Energy and Commerce — which has jurisdiction over public health agencies — has been looking into a particular research project that was “planned and/or conducted” at the NIAID prior to Fauci’s retirement.

Committee members were alerted to the experiment by a Sept. 15, 2022, interview in Science magazine, in which Dr. Bernard Moss, a NIAID pox virologist, revealed that his team was working on endowing a West African variant of monkeypox responsible for the global outbreak at the time, “clade 2,” with genes from a far more deadly variant, “clade 1.”

Whereas clade 2 has roughly a 1% mortality rate, clade 2 reportedly has a mortality rate ranging from 10%-15%.

Congressional investigators noted that Moss’ admission troubled some of his peers.

Epidemiologist Thomas Inglesby, director of the Center for Health Security at the Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, told the magazine the following month that if a more powerful version of the outbreak strain ever escaped the NIAID lab, it could trigger an “epidemic with substantially more lethality.”

The committee noted in an interim staff report Tuesday, “If the experiment transferred genes from clade IIb MPXV — which caused the 2022-2023 mpox epidemic — into clade I virus, the resulting chimeric virus could have a reproductive number (R₀) of 1.10 to 2.40 coupled with a case fatality rate of 10 – 15 percent in the unvaccinated.”

According to the interim report, the Department of Health and Human Services, the National Institutes of Health, and the NIAID “repeatedly obstructed and misled” the committee about the experiment referenced by Moss in Science.

‘NIAID cannot be trusted to oversee its own research of pathogens responsibly.’

Whereas HHS and the NIH denied that that the experiment(s) had been proposed, planned, approved, or conducted, the committee noted that internal NIH documents “show this experiment was formally proposed and received approval before the NIH’s Institutional Biosafety Committee (IBC) on June 30, 2015.”

HHS Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs Melanie Egorin confirmed in a March 19 letter to the committee that the experiment was greenlit.

The committee has been unable to confirm whether or not the dangerous experiment actually took place but indicated there was a window of time between June 2015 and May 2023 when researchers could have done so.

In the first three years, there were reportedly no requirements imposed on the experiment. In 2018, scientists were asked only to notify the NIH’s IBC when getting ready to make clade 2 more potent.

Science indicated that at the very least, part of the experiment was conducted. Researchers moved genes from clade 2 to clade 1.

“The deliberate, prolonged effort to deceive the Committee is unacceptable and potentially criminal,” said the interim report. “HHS, the NIH, and NIAID continue to insist the GOFROC experiment transferring material from clade I into clade II was never conducted, despite being approved for a period of over eight years. However, HHS has repeatedly refuse to produce any documents to corroborate this claim.”

The report suggested that the refusal to cough up evidence might suggest “that the information not produced was unfavorable” and that the HHS is effectively lying.

Despite painting HHS as obstructionist, the report emphasized that the “NIAID is the agency that bears the most responsibility for misleading the Committee.”

The primary conclusion drawn at this point in the investigation is that NIAID cannot be trusted to oversee its own research of pathogens responsibly. It cannot be trusted to determine whether an experiment on a potential pandemic pathogen or enhanced potential pandemic pathogen poses unacceptable biosafety risk or a serious public health threat. Lastly, NIAID cannot be trusted to honestly communicate with Congress and the public about controversial GOFROC experiments.

Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.) said of the report, “In order to start rebuilding trust in our government health agency guidance, agencies like the NIH must be honest and transparent with Congress and the American people.”

“This report demonstrates a disturbing lack of judgment and accountability from HHS, the NIH, and particularly, NIAID. It is unacceptable and demonstrates the clear need for reform,” added Rodgers.

Justin Goodman, senior vice president of the White Coat Waste Project — a watchdog that helped expose EcoHealth Alliance’s and Fauci’s ties to the gain-of-function experiments at the Wuhan Institute of Virology — told Blaze News, “These treacherous monkeypox gain-of-function experiments are the latest example of Fauci’s rampant waste, fraud, and abuse and disregard for taxpayers and lawmakers.”

“Even though Fauci is gone from government, his atrocious animal testing legacy is alive and well, and we’re working with Republicans and Democrats to cut NIH’s reckless spending,” continued Goodman. “The solution is simple: Stop the money. Stop the madness.”

An HHS spokesman said in a statement, “The committee is looking for an issue where there isn’t one. HHS and its divisions, including NIH, follow strict biosafety measures as our scientists work to better understand and protect the public from infectious diseases — like mpox.”

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Read More