10 Questions for Linfa Wang
The Bat Man now sits on the WHO's origins panel.
MSM on Baric and Munster
The Atlantic joined the lab leak party and piled on:
One contingent thinks that Baric might have been the creator of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. On April 15, the NIH, which has in the past provided Baric’s lab with hundreds of millions of dollars in research funds, referred him for debarment from all federal contracts for at least three years.
The Atlantic linked to our co-authored article on Jeff Sachs’ website. The article then outlines Munster’s involvement via the whistleblower letter.
That document describes Munster as a “Fauci acolyte and all around egotistical, arrogant foreigner that joined his research project (to aerosolize covid virus) to Ralph Baric’s project (to weaponize it).” I could find no evidence that Munster, who is a Dutch citizen, ever worked on a project to “aerosolize” SARS-CoV-2. In the meantime, Senator Rand Paul has linked Munster’s name to an early draft of a Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency grant application, with Baric listed as a principal investigator, that proposed to gauge the spillover risk associated with bat coronaviruses. The project’s ultimate goal was to limit that threat but involved altering the viruses in ways that might have made them more infectious—and more like SARS-CoV-2. (The final version of that proposal does not mention Munster, and the extent to which he knew its details are unclear.)
Sachs has since uploaded our WHO SAGO letter to his website, so the MSM now has access to the peer-reviewed in vivo evidence that Munster aerosolized SARS2.
The Atlantic article called Fauci the “final boss” and added:
The science that he championed appears to be unfettered; the scientists he funded are at risk of ending up in chains.
Read the rest:
Nearly five years ago, the same author wrote a good article after DEFUSE leaked. At the time, Linfa Wang told us who did it: Ralph Baric.
10 questions for Linfa
In May 2026, the WHO Scientific Advisory Group for the Origins of Novel Pathogens (SAGO) announced its second panel of experts investigating the origins of SARS2. Christian Drosten remains the most recognizable member from the first panel, but one addition immediately caught my attention: Linfa Wang.
For years, Linfa has occupied a unique position in coronavirus research, collaborating with scientists in China, Singapore, Australia, Europe, and the US. If SAGO hopes to answer outstanding questions about the pandemic, then his role deserves careful examination. Here are ten questions we hope Linfa will answer.
Why are you on this SAGO committee? Your presence draws more attention to your undeclared experiments at the Wuhan BSL4.
Why did you travel to the Wuhan BSL4 in November 2019?
Why did you resign as Duke’s EID director on January 10, 2020?
Will you release all shipping records for biological materials sent to or received from U.S. labs during 2019?
How did Dani Anderson transport samples to and from the Wuhan BSL4?
Why did Dani claim to be working on Ebola when her name is on DEFUSE? You and Dani were editing Peter Daszak’s DEFUSE bid in June 2019!
Will Dani release her 2020 antibody test results, not her 2021 results?
Will you release all your 2018-20 emails with Munster and Baric?
My Chapter 12 focused on your Figure 7 in DEFUSE. Why did your 2018 “pathway analyses” align with many of the immunological features of COVID-19? These include Cardiac Hypertrophy, Death Receptor Signaling, cAMP-mediated signaling, Retinoic Acid, Glioblastoma Multiforme, Interferon, Nitric Oxide, eNOS signaling, HMGB1, IL-8 signaling, RIG-I, Colorectal cancer, AMPK signaling, Renin-Angiotensin, etc. Your former postdoc claimed I was circulating “stolen data.” If so, what is the correct interpretation of Figure 7 vs COVID-19?
I previously sent you and Dani the smoking gun email because I did not believe either of you was responsible for the pandemic. Munster’s aerosolized agent would have leaked from a BSL5. Did you ever serve as an intermediary on his coronavirus research? If so, in what capacity?
DEFUSE draft with “immune boosting agents.”
WHO SAGO’s second term presents another opportunity to address questions that have remained unresolved since 2020. Whether or not SAGO agrees with my conclusions, greater transparency about pre-pandemic collaborations, sample transfers, and experimental work would help clarify the historical record.
TWIV helped solve the origins of COVID
The above phrase, “immune boosting agents,” confused virologists like Vincent Racaniello. It’s Wang, Munster, and Baric’s fancy phrase for a bat vaccine. Listen to them debate the merits of such a proposal.
Just 20 minutes earlier, the virologists were debating the merits of an attenuated (rabies) bat vaccine that could jump species, or revert like a polio vaccine (& SARS2).
TWIV on bat vaccine theory
Angie Rasmussen and Vincent Racaniello appear nervous that Fauci may have created COVID. They claim there are many “gaps” and “chasms” in our bat vaccine theory. She summarizes the theory well but awkwardly ends the conversation after admitting that Egyptian fruit bats (Rousettus) are the SARS2 reservoir host.
Rasmussen still thinks SARS2 was a virus, hence her talk of pathogenesis, when it was a vaccine. The irony is that Racaniello previously highlighted Fauci’s editing of an EcoHealth bat vaccine paper on January 8, 2020!
The EcoHealth grant from Fauci’s NIAID was explicitly for a contagious (Nipah) bat vaccine for Munster at RML. Munster proposed Egyptian fruit bats and Syrian hamsters, which are also transmission models for SARS2.
Another irony is that I couldn’t prove the smoking gun email until Racaniello told us that Tony Schountz at CSU raised the Egyptian fruit bats for Munster at RML.
In other words, the exact breeding colony of bats Munster used to aerosolize SARS2 in 2019 is referenced in the 2020 smoking gun email below.
This was the email I sent Dani and Linfa to alleviate any concerns on their end, so hopefully, they will help clarify things on our end. Dani’s job description was similar in the Wuhan BSL4. She would inoculate one Chinese bat and see whether SARS2 would spread to the next bat. Well, we all got a taste of those test results.
Free audiobook of COVID-19: Mystery Solved
Dan (DW Shumway) is reading my book on his Substack. Chapters 1-4 have been uploaded so far.
Round 2 in Hamilton
Hamilton “resident dissident” Peter discussed Major Murphy and donated my book to the public library. The commissioner was told to read Chapters 6 and 26. I sent Peter several paperback copies of my book to refill his info war, so if anyone else wants to do the same, let me know.
RML director Marshall Bloom sat in the back left row and listened closely to Peter. Bloom then took the stand to provide an update on Munster (nothing new), shipping pathogens to/from RML (ignorant), and GoF/DURC (postponed until he’s on home turf at RML).
Bloom then repeats his favorite line: RML was built on a tick. He celebrates the millions Congress has recently allocated for additional tick research. This was an unintended consequence of another popular RML book, Bitten, which claimed that Lyme disease resulted from bioweapon research at RML. But ultimately, it funneled more money to RML for its study.
The Atlantic! once might have been a decent magazine - and I must say, the woman reporter whose husband nurse got so sick from the jabs, put me on track. I decided not to jab, and cancelled (with some difficulty) my almost finished subscription to their rag.
Hi Jim,
I see you have posted Dani Andersen et al. Endotoxin experiments using "Universal Bat Interferon".
Ingenuity Pathway Analysis (IPA) software (Ingenuity Systems Inc., Redwood City, CA) was used for enrichment and pathway analysis.
Interested in the Qiagen company that was established in 2014 and fit with PREEMPT and DEFUSE timelines. Have you written about the shareholders ?
https://digitalinsights.qiagen.com/ja/about-us-qiagen-digital-insights/