Old news and new interviews
Revenge of the doctors
Best summary yet
Dr (Prof) Deepak Natarajan MBBS MD DM. Senior Consultant Interventional Cardiologist, The Heart Centre, Lajpat Nagar, Delhi. Practicing clinical medicine for 45 years. Cardiologist to Mr. Nelson Mandela!
The Kindle version of my book is now live for India et al. Please let me know how the format looks on your E-Reader? The big tables were formatted for my small Kindle.
This follow-up interview by a German woman with Prof Deepak discussed details (WA1, LAV, FCS, CFR, ACE2, mRNA, Dani’s innocence, Drosten’s PCR test):
Dr Peter McCullough's interview
is a pro on camera, unlike me. wrote:
What caught my interest is that even heavyweights like Peter McCullough are paying attention, which is surprising since their focus has been China, WIV, Fauci, and Daszak, and a US origin for the virus has not been entertained by these large influencers.
Who gets it?
Medical doctors picked up on the complex lab leak story quicker than I could. Here is an old interview by Dr Frank, an anesthesiologist who has gone MIA.
A German postdoc did most of the background research on contagious vaccines. I could never tell what DARPA meant by “novel” vaccine, but he figured it out (more below from DARPA’s Preempt manager who testified).
Paul vows to investigate as Senate panel’s new chair
Dr Rand Paul sought a Senate chairmanship in 2022, campaigning on promises to open new investigations into Fauci if he received subpoena power. However, he was hindered when Democrats held the Senate. Now that Republicans have the majority, he will lead the Senate’s government oversight panel and prioritize investigations into the coronavirus pandemic.
Summer Senate hearing on lab leak
interviewed Paul, who hinted at a Church Commission for Covid. Here was the main event from his lab leak hearing on June 18.Professor Bob Garry of Tulane is a fascinating character in my book. Before any of us even knew of a town named Wuhan, on Jan 31, 2020, Garry posted on Virological.org:
SARS2 has an insertion that adds a furin cleavage site - RRXR - at the boundary of S1 and S2 in the spike precursor. This is the same type of mutation that changes H5 influenza virus and other avian viruses into more pathogenic variants. The bottom line is a new furin site upstream of the fusion peptide in the (influenza) HA makes H5, etc, more fusogenic in more tissues. Likely a similar story in (SARS2). This furin site is not present in SARS1 or other bat viruses closely related to SARS2. More complex in 1918 flu - a different mutation in a different protein - but enhanced cleavage also contributed to enhanced spread. This novel insertion in nCoV adds a minipatch of o-linked glycans in the prefusion trimer. These glycans overlay the fusion peptide in the adjacent monomer of the trimer. The fusion peptide is likely to be a major neutralization epitope so this newly added minimucin patch probably makes a difference in virulence and at least perhaps will make it more challenging to develop a vaccine. Both the new furin site and the o-linked glycans are unique features of SARS2 and important. Haven’t seen this picked up yet by anyone else.
Unlike Bob Garry, Vincent Munster of RML missed the SARS2 furin cleavage site in his January 2020 paper. Munster studied furin cleavage sites in hemagglutinin (HA) of H5N1 alongside Ron Fouchier. Fouchier, who was also present at the February 1, 2020, teleconference, pressured Garry, Kristian Andersen, and Eddie Holmes during the call. In response to Fouchier’s assertions, Garry defended his analysis:
I really can’t think of a plausible natural scenario where you get from the bat virus (Shi’s RaTG13) or one very similar to it to SARS2 where you insert exactly 4 amino acids 12 nucleotide that all have to be added at the exact same time to gain this function—that and you don’t change any other amino acid in S2? I just can’t figure out how this gets accomplished in nature. Do the alignment of the spikes at the amino acid level—it’s stunning.
Insiders vs outsiders
That was one week after Shi Zhengli published RaTG13. At the same time Garry was ringing the biological fire alarm, lab leak antagonist, Professor Richard Ebright of Rutgers, was telling US and Chinese media:
Ebright, a critic of the aforementioned "gain-of-function research," told Caixin reporters that based on the current genetic sequence analysis of the virus, there is no substantial evidence to prove that the virus has been genetically edited (was engineered). But he also said it is important to distinguish whether the virus has been genetically edited (this possibility has been ruled out) from the possibility that the virus entered the human population due to a laboratory accident (which cannot be ruled out at present), said Ebright on Feb 5, 2020.
“Based on the virus genome and properties there is no indication whatsoever that it was an engineered virus,” said Ebright to the Washington Post on Jan 29, 2020.
What kickstarted Fauci’s coverup?
Ebright claimed his harmless Jan 31, 2020, quote scared Fauci.
The Science article that kicked off the discussion, however, contained a prominent quote by Fauci’s old antagonist, Dr. Richard Ebright. Ebright was quoted in the article as saying that the early data was “consistent with entry into the human population as either a natural accident or a laboratory accident.”
But Bob Garry and Kristian Andersen (who wanted to call the FBI) always spooked Fauci.
Post lab leak hearing
Rand Paul hosted Ebright and Dr Steven Quay in an interesting post-committee debrief.
While discussing DARPA Defuse, Rand Paul quoted George Carlin: “You don't need a formal conspiracy when interests converge.”
Rocky Mountain Lab?
In a summer interview with Glenn Greenwald, Paul mentioned Rocky Mountain Lab. During Paul’s July hearing, he also mentioned RML during an RFK Jr. podcast (he is the current HHS director nominee). During his summer Senate hearing, RML came up again.
In early 2021, Carrie Wolinetz introduced me to the virology term “chimera” in a Twitter exchange (2+ viruses combined to create a new one).
Rand Paul documentary on lab leak
The Covid origins debate should be an apolitical, bipartisan, international issue (virologists had 5 years to find a wet market animal). But Paul mentioned Democrats (and some Republicans) love of big government solutions, which Fauci personified.
Rand Paul’s latest under Trump admin
https://nypost.com/2024/11/25/us-news/rand-paul-says-feds-sitting-on-gain-of-function-research-docs/
Lab leak debate December 6-7
https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/usfcovid/information.html
Revenge of the Covid Contrarians
They’re angry at the public health establishment and are now in control of it. Is the mRNA inventor and vaccine skeptic Dr Robert Malone being considered for a top spot?
Covid committee’s final report
has a good summary:While discussing the January 31 call on Origins and listing the attendees, they failed to mention Barics's name, despite Baric himself telling them he was on that call listening in. Sometimes, it's not what they say that’s important but what they omit.
https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/12.04.2024-SSCP-FINAL-REPORT.pdf
The 557-page report has nothing new since it barely mentions Baric. There are new friendly emails between Daszak and Shi (pg 97). Daszak had testified, “We do have access to (her) sequences,” but not actual samples (pg 107). Shi would upload the bat sequences for Baric to download and resurrect in North Carolina to create countermeasures. The objective in DARPA Defuse was testing Baric’s synthesized genomes in live Chinese bats.
James Gimlett of DARPA, the 2018 program manager during EcoHealth’s bid, testified. He described Technical Area 1 (TA1) as “sampling the hotspot areas of the globe” and TA2 as any “ideas on how to preempt, literally, a spillover at the vector.” Gimlett said, “There were ideas being circulated (in 2018) about self-disseminating vaccines.”
DARPA testimony
Gimlett claimed that NIH was part of the DARPA Defuse decision-making process:
So for PREEMPT and most of my programs, we try to get at least two DARPA program managers as part of that three-person review, and then sometimes there's a third reviewer that may come from another government agency. And in PREEMPT's case, there were folks from NAMRU, which is the Naval Academy of Medical Research -- or Naval Medical Research Unit, I think -- who also has a lot of local experience with pandemic potential pathogens. Possibly USAMRIID. We've worked with them on some of these, and they might have had some participation in the review process. BARDA, NIH, and sometimes CDC. So, all of those might have been part of the process. So my memory is hazy on exactly who were participating, but I'm pretty sure that there was someone from NIH, and someone from BARDA, and someone from NAMRU (pg 14).
https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Gimlett_Final_Redacted.pdf
Committee: I'm going to shift and talk more DEFUSE-specific. And when I say DEFUSE, you know I'm talking about the EcoHealth, UNC, Wuhan Institute geographical survey. There might have been one more submission.
Gimlett: Yeah. Those were the three major ones, but PARC (i.e. USGS bat spray) I think was part of it too.
Committee: All right. Had DARPA worked with EcoHealth prior to PREEMPT?
Gimlett: I don't know about DARPA in general. I hadn't heard of DARPA ever working with them before and I had not personally.
Committee: What about the Wuhan Institute?
Gimlett: No.
Committee: Do you recall if NIH's Rocky Mountain Labs were involved at all in that proposal?
Gimlett: They were involved in one proposal, but I don't think it was DEFUSE.
Munster at RML was an original Defuse bid member but was removed for unknown reasons.
Gimlett explained why China:
In their case, it was they have their feet on the ground in a very hotspot for zoonotic spillover, with access to bats and bat caves and even a whole repertoire of prior samples that they've collected and only partially analyzed. So that was attractive.
Gimlett testified it's okay to have a Chinese partner:
DARPA does rely on researchers outside of the country. They're often teamed with US researchers as well. But DARPA goes where the expertise is, or in this case where the samples exist.
More importantly, Wuhan was the only BSL4 on the planet with access to live Chinese horseshoe bats. The potential offshoring of UNC to WIV came up.
Committee: There's a comment at the very bottom from Dr. Daszak that reads, "Ralph, Zhengli. If we win this contract, I do not propose that all of this work will necessarily be conducted by Ralph, but I do want to stress the US side of the proposal so that DARPA are comfortable with our team. Once we get the funds, we can then allocate who does what exact work, and I believe that a lot of these assays can be done in Wuhan as well..." He says "assays" in the comment. The comment is on Ralph Baric's name, who was reverse-engineering spike proteins in this proposal. But I want to ask just a few questions about kind of like process and then the document more specifically. After something is proposed and accepted, are principal investigators allowed to go back and shift work responsibilities?
Gimlett: At the abstract phase, yes. At the proposal phase, no.
Committee: So proposing that the assays would be done at UNC, while this comment certainly implies the intent of shifting that after getting the money, that would be kind of uncommon?
Gimlett: That would be very uncommon.
Daszak testified that assays are like harmless PCR tests. Gimlett confirmed the same:
The word "assays" is a funny one. So, if assays refer to doing deep sequencing of viruses found in bats, then I don't think it's inconsistent. It's just that the comment about reverse engineering spike protein was attached to the sentence. So I made that leap, but it may not be legitimate -- if they're talking about assays, meaning doing sequence analysis, then I think the two are not inconsistent.
The draft and final DARPA Defuse proposal included the exact same scope of work.
DARPA Defuse draft above; final bid below
Here is the important part of Baric’s proposal:
Committee: Was the proposal of taking 20% divergent SARS-related coronaviruses, dropping in a furin cleavage site at S1/S2, and testing pathogenicity not in the original Proposers Day or abstract?
Gimlett: It wasn't at the abstract or Proposers Day that I would remember, no. That's why I kind of hedged a little bit, surprising…And reading the proposal is the first time that they did talk about engineering chimeric viruses, albeit still just taking components of wild virus found in bat caves, but mixing and matching to potentially gain -- probably to gain ability to even culture in, like, human cell cultures. So I understood the rationale, but it didn't quite map to what I was looking for, and I wasn't sure how that would help necessarily in producing probabilistic risk map, and they didn't go through clearly that motivation and how they were going to use that data. So all of these were concerns, particularly the claim that since this is a wild bat virus, gain-of-function, dual use, none of it is relevant, and we don't have to go any further. That was not what the (request for proposals) specified.
Gimlett questioned the need for Baric’s fancy engineering “and that all might be extremely useful for vaccine development.” He continued, “Engineering is kind of a funny business because you don't know whether you're making a more fit virus or a less fit virus, and virus figures that out pretty naturally by itself. And you might be wasting a lot of time finding combinations that just don't work.”
In the book, I conclude that the younger DARPA program managers (who serve only five years) were uncomfortable with Baric’s GoF research. But the older NIAID managers (i.e., Fauci) was very comfortable with GoF.
The committee put words in Gimlett’s mouth, claiming DARPA could afford the $14.2M Defuse project. For reference, Gimlett awarded Vincent Munster’s bid of $8M because of his cheaper (i.e., more dangerous) transmissible technology. Gimlett wrote in 2018, “There are several components of great interest in this (EcoHealth) effort that are potentially fundable should additional funding become available.”
Munster won 2 of 5 DARPA Preempt bids because of his cheap self-spreading vaccine technology. The great irony is that if Fauci had funded DARPA Defuse “as is,” there would have been no pandemic. But Fauci included his aerosol specialist, Munster, in the winning CREID bid.
The committee previously asked Daszak if he had submitted this DARPA Defuse proposal to other funding agencies? Daszak rambled, then added, “I forgot the question, though.” He resubmitted TA1 for the 2019 R01 renewal and TA2 for the 2019 CREID project. Fauci testified that he signs off on all NIAID grants without reviewing them. Maybe I’m biased, but the final report indicates the committee knows that Fauci funded Defuse.
The committee report details how the R01 renewal (DARPA Defuse TA1) was canceled (pg 124). From April 17-24, 2020, Trump's chief of staff called the head lawyer at HHS, who called the head of NIH, who called NIAID, which canceled the EcoHealth grant.
Fauci FOIA
On April 14, 2020, Fauci received an update on this R01 grant (DARPA Defuse TA1):
Zhengli Shi has received a sub-award from the parent award To Peter Daszak EcoHealth Alliance. Surveillance studies in bats. No gain-of-function. The $3.7 million figure might be a total award to Daszak.
The entire amount of the new Daszak grant (year 6 funded in FY19) is about $3.64M. The total amount that will go to WIV will be about $750K. ($76,301 was already sent to Wuhan in year 1, according to the NOA). The bat sampling work mentioned in the article (during years 2011-2015) was probably supported by Years 1-5 of the Daszak grant but could also have been supported by the USAID Predict program (which was also funding the Wuhan lab)
G#in-of-function = CGG-CGG
Fauci’s scientific advisor, David Morens, used encrypted Proton email to avoid FOIA. Fauci’s other assistant, Greg Folkers, intentionally misspelled “g#in-of-function” in this email to Morens. One month after the above email, Fauci was asked about the CGG-CGG double codon in the SARS2 furin cleavage site.
CGG-CGG was patented for attenuated animal vaccines. In 2010, Baric studied human coronavirus (HCoV-HKU1) and its HKU1b proteolytic cleavage sites using CGG-CGT codons; just one nucleotide off the infamous CGG-CGG furin cleavage site.
“Ralph’s Figure C” in the 2018 DARPA Defuse draft came from a 2016 HKU1 paper. The NIH ‘070 mRNA patent team extensively studied the HKU1 furin cleavage site.
Reader Q&A on my claim HKU3r-CoVs = SARS-CoV-2
(as FYI reply to Substack & it filters into my email)
Why didn't HKU3r-CoVs use the ACE2 receptor or be able to be cultivated in human cell lines? I'm still confused by since SARS-CoV-2 does both.
Good point—I missed that detail. You're referencing the U01 grant (bottom), constrained by bid space. However, Baric elaborated on these ideas in the 2R01 grant (top), which Trump canceled in April 2020. Baric noted, “The ability to infect people, and their receptor binding target, remain unknown.”
Bob Garry continued in his Feb 1, 2020 email:
If you were doing gain-of-function research, you would NOT use an existing clone of SARS or MERS. These viruses are already human pathogens. What you would do is clone a bat virus that has not yet emerged. Maybe then pass it in human cells to lock in the RBD. Then you reclone and put in the mutations you are interested in — one of the first being a polybasic (furin) cleavage site.
By 2018-19, Baric was searching for a receptor binding domain—not RaTG13 (Shi's collection) but Laos Banal-52 (collected by the US military). HKU3-Smix served as a 2018 placeholder for patents and grants, with SARS2 fine-tuning in 2019.
In the R01 and U01 documentation, Baric called it "a diverse HKU3-related CoVs (179 sequences).” Baric even presented the SARS2 genome (HKU3 + 279) during a 2014 GoF meeting.
Baric et al in Japan this week
Christian Drosten (on Feb 1 call), George Gao (called Fauci on Jan 31), Edward Holmes (Feb 1 call), Vineet Menachery (covered SARS2 genomic tracks with Baric), Stanley Perlman (responded to book survey), Stefan Pöhlmann (Feb 1 call), David Robertson (contagious vaccines), Zhengli Shi, and Linfa Wang.
https://www.csh-asia.org/?content/2439
READDI was Fauci’s $65M hush money to Baric.
A cracker of a book.
Incredibly readable and packed with humongous information.
I would rate it amongst the best thrillers that I have read, which include Crime and Punishment, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, and The Spy Who Came in From the Cold.
The cherry is this: this is not fiction but the real stuff, an attempted good deed by vain scientists gone horribly wrong.
The origin of the "Virus" that locked down the entire planet, infected billions, and triggered a "vaccine" that in turn killed millions and injured hundreds of millions is a MUST read for every health care worker on the planet.
World law enforcement agencies must arrest Walensky, Birx, Fauci, Daszak and all DOD, CIA, CDC, NIH, WHO, FDA, HHS and big pharma and big tech. executives involved.
Fraud and homicide are ...not included in the total immunity from legal liability agreement under the PREP Act for the big Pharma criminals!
Nuremberg Code and RICO laws apply now! The DOJ better wake the Fk Up and get busy!