Was SARS2 a Planned Mistake or an Honest Academic Crime?

Excerpt from Chapter 30 and a survey of 100 scientists from my book, COVID-19: Mystery Solved

“Trust but verify” is a Russian proverb falsely attributed to US President Ronald Reagan during the Cold War. DARPA was a legacy of the Cold War when a US Senator called it the “military-industrial-academic complex.” American culture is rooted in US academia—home to American football and the birthplace of the nuclear bomb.

Atomic power and virology are dual-use research of concern. In their pursuit of knowledge, Western virologists inadvertently created what some have likened to America’s Chernobyl. However, this biological bomb exploded in Wuhan. Within months, Covid had contaminated indoor air worldwide, confining humans to their homes, much like bats in their caves.

To unravel this biological puzzle, consider Ralph Baric, a man of his word. In 2018, he predicted that a novel coronavirus genome, 20% different from SARS1 and featuring a furin cleavage site, would emerge in Wuhan. By February 2020, Baric withheld this information during a technical presentation to members of Congress, omitting any mention of the furin cleavage site. In March, he misled US government officials in the Red Dawn emails about the restriction sites in the SARS2 genome.

Two secret meetings preceded both of Baric’s white lies. Baric testified he “was on a phone conference with [Fauci] on February 1st of 2020 that had to do with the origins.” On February 11, Baric and Fauci met at NIAID headquarters in building 31. According to Baric’s testimony, that meeting included “high-level staff,” such as Fauci, Hugh Auchincloss, and others from both the extramural and intramural programs.

During testimony, Fauci’s assistant, Greg Folkers, explained the difference: “Vincent Munster is an intramural scientist, and the others (i.e., Baric, Daszak) are grantees.” The Intramural Research Program of NIAID funded Baric and Munster’s 2018 Egyptian fruit bat research. This program operates as an $800 million slush fund for the Rocky Mountain Lab (RML) in Montana, allowing researchers to conduct studies without the formalities of an R01 or U01 grant.

In a private Slack message, Baric mentioned that their February 11 meeting covered “the outbreak and chimeras” and expressed his desire for Shi Zhengli to be arrested for publishing RaTG13, which exposed his furin cleavage site. A week after this meeting, Fauci boasted in an email about his ability to present Baric’s virology work.

In March 2020, during a joint presentation, Fauci discussed Baric’s research, yet Baric again failed to mention the furin cleavage site in SARS2. From 2015 to 2019, Baric studied furin cleavage sites under another R01AI110700 NIAID grant to UNC. Under oath, Fauci later claimed he did not know Baric.

However, Fauci never lied to Congress. He stated, “We have not funded gain-of-function research on this [SARS2] virus in the Wuhan Institute of Virology.” If NIAID had funded DARPA Defuse, Baric would have conducted gain-of-function research on the SARS2 genome at UNC. Fauci also noted that if Baric conducted gain-of-function research, “it is according to the guidelines and being conducted in North Carolina, not China!”

In July 2022, when Congress asked Fauci about funding DARPA Defuse, he testified, “We have never seen that grant, and we never funded that grant.” The phrase “that grant” was crucial in his prepared denial. Peter Daszak of EcoHealth broke up the hefty $14.2 million Defuse bid into three NIAID grants totaling $14.1 million:

• $3.2 million R01AI110964 in China, bid in October 2018

• $7.5 million U01AI151797 CREID, bid in June 2019

• $3.4 million R01AI163118 in Laos, bid in May 2020

Fauci did what he was paid to: fund a revised version of the Defuse proposal. We only know about the DARPA Defuse proposal because of American whistleblower Major Joseph Murphy. We learned about the furin cleavage site in SARS2 from Chinese whistleblower Shi Zhengli. Cross-referencing their evidence clarifies who created Covid.

Baric safeguarded his No See’m biotechnology from China. In July 2021, he told MIT Technology Review, “Let me make it clear that we never sent any of our molecular clones or any chimeric viruses to China.” This statement hints at the involvement of a third-party lab in the Wuhan incident.

In 2021, Congress interrogated Fauci about Shi’s BSL2 research. He defended himself by noting her research was limited to “only in vitro work.” He calls her $120,000 yearly R01 subgrant “pencil dust.” However, the current controversy centers on the $7.5 million U01 CREID grant. It involved live bat research (in vivo) conducted at Wuhan’s BSL4 lab. While Fauci may have parsed his words, these half-truths call for further clarification. These are seven follow-up questions:

1. Why did you invite Ralph Baric to the February 1, 2020, teleconference?

2. What was your CREID contractor, Dani Anderson, doing inside the Wuhan BSL4?

3. Why did her boss, Linfa Wang, resign as director of Duke’s EID program?

4. Why are Egyptian fruit bats (and NA white-tailed deer) a reservoir host species?

5. Why was the RaTG13 Chinese bat sample uploaded to an NIH server in 2018?

6. What is “HKU3r-CoVs” referenced in both the R01 and U01 grants?

7. What was RML doing with both DARPA PREEMPT and Defuse projects in 2018-19?

The winning DARPA team in Montana was much more interesting than the losing team in Wuhan. RML was an intramural facility researching self-spreading vaccines and was an original vendor on the DARPA Defuse proposal. In late 2018, after Baric’s DARPA Defuse proposal was not selected, he joined forces with the DARPA PREEMPT team in Montana, which had won two bids. Their goal was to carry out experiments similar to those proposed in the Defuse project involving live bats infected with the WIV1 Chinese strain. For instance, “We (UNC) thank Dr. Shi Zhengli of the WIV for access to bat CoV sequences and plasmid of WIV1-CoV spike protein.”

In the Defuse bid, Linfa, Daszak, and Baric wrote, “At the Wuhan Institute of Virology, 20 adult wild Rhinolophus bats will be captured at our test cave site, housed within the ABSL3 (BSL4 was not operational yet). Then, bats will be...inoculated with WIV1.” Although the DARPA Defuse project did not proceed as planned, elements of its research were carried forward in Montana.

Fauci’s weekly teleconference with RML began in the “second week of January 2020,” coinciding with the publication of the SARS2 genome on January 10, 2020. At the same time, Linfa Wang resigned from his position as director of Duke’s bat program. Weeks later, Linfa advised Baric and Daszak, “There is no need for you to sign the [Lancet] statement.” They planned to “put it out in a way that doesn’t link it back to our collaboration.” Despite the public misconception, this collaboration was part of a 2019 NIAID U01 grant proposal, CREID, awarded before the 2020 pandemic.

The “fact checkers” confirm that NIAID awarded the CREID grant (i.e., Defuse TA2) in 2019. Fauci claimed his CREID grant began “about one-and-a-half years before” the 2020 pandemic. It’s crucial to distinguish EcoHealth’s new $7.5 million U01AI151797 CREID project (Dani’s BSL4) from their $3.2 million R01AI110964 project (Shi’s BSL2). Therefore, in 2019, Fauci was funding two projects in Wuhan, not just one.

The September 2021 FOIA obtained by the Intercept revealed those two 2019 projects: the R01 and U01 CREID documents. However, these revelations were soon overshadowed by the DARPA Defuse leak later that month. Ironically, Major Murphy exposed the DARPA Defuse documents after reading the FOIA.

Meanwhile, we have access to the $7.5 million NIAID CREID grant awarded to EcoHealth, but details such as subgrants to UNC and Duke remain elusive. UNC’s ongoing battle against a 2019 U.S. Right to Know FOIA hints at why. If Baric’s CREID documents are obtained, they will reveal the creation of SARS2...back in 2019...on US soil.

A U.S. Right to Know FOIA of Christopher Broder’s 2019 emails at the Uniformed Services University (USU) revealed that the CREID program was DARPA Defuse II. In June 2019, Daszak resubmitted his unsuccessful DARPA Defuse proposal to NIAID under the CREID grant framework. He acknowledged using “text from DARPA PREEMPT” and referred to this management plan as a “placeholder” from his previous DARPA proposal.

Essentially, the 2019 CREID submission featured the same team as the 2018 DARPA Defuse proposal. Defuse’s Technical Area 1 (TA1) team had already transitioned into the 2019 R01 grant from NIAID, while the Technical Area 2 (TA2) team became the U01 CREID grant recipients. In an early CREID draft bid, Baric referenced “Computational prediction of furin cleavage sites by a hybrid method and understanding mechanism underlying diseases.”

The CREID project was a beautiful division of labor. During Fauci’s 2013 Bethesda meeting, Baric said, “Sample sharing is critical for transfer between labs because it allows groups with very different technologies and expertise to work together in a complementary fashion, also allowing the research to move forward very fast. The NIH has put a lot of money behind the concept of U19 (CREID was a U01) to allow collaboration and expertise to come together.”

The CREID grant directed Southeast Asia contractors to ship samples to “Rocky Mountain Laboratories, where Principal Investigator Daszak and Co-Investigator Baric have ongoing collaborations. Similarly, some duplicate samples of animals…will be shipped to UNC for further characterization by Co-Investigator Baric.”

The only difference between Defuse (TA2) and CREID (U01) was the inclusion of RML in Montana. RML was an original partner in DARPA Defuse and a winning partner on two of the five DARPA PREEMPT teams. RML took the lead with its cutting-edge biodefense. Munster’s Montana team beat Baric’s team because they had 40% cheaper self-spreading vaccine technology. But this was 100% more dangerous than Baric’s humanized mice technology.

SARS2 does not infect humanized mice, since it’s Baric’s genome adapted to Munster’s lab animals. It is why Baric’s Chinese bat genome (i.e., SARS2) loves Munster’s lab bats (i.e., Egyptian fruit bats). NIAID’s October 2021 letter to Congress emphasized the 1200 nucleotide (4%) difference between RaTG13 and SARS2. But this was a design feature in the DARPA Defuse documents. Baric wanted a bat sample, like RaTG13 and Banal-52, to be less than 5% different from a consensus sequence, like SARS2.

Baric’s scope of work in Defuse was to lead the “targeted immune boosting” (i.e., vaccination) on “wild-caught captive” bats in Wuhan. SARS2, the bat virus, was always about live bats. But which bats? Egyptian fruit bats eat fruit, not insects like Chinese microbats, so they are easy for Westerners to feed and breed. US academia uses fruit bats for diabetes research because they eat twice their body weight in sugary fruit. Egyptian fruit bats made an excellent surrogate for developing Chinese bat vaccines. When Western virologists wanted to test an American-made bat vaccine on Chinese bats, they had to go to Wuhan. It was the live Chinese horseshoe bat capital of the world.

International virology is an “anarchical society.” Global BSL4 labs have “daily interactions with other labs within China and worldwide.” Virologists call this the “cold chain.” The division of knowledge and labor is as follows: Shi and Daszak collected bat samples in China, and Linfa and Dani collected them in Southeast Asia. They shipped them to Montana and North Carolina. Baric worked on the HKU3r-CoVs genome (in vitro), and Munster used Egyptian fruit bats (in vivo). Dani and Linfa tested the resulting bat vaccine in Wuhan (in vivo) on wild-caught Chinese horseshoe bats.

Remember that if a virus was engineered, where it spilled over into the human population does not tell us where it was engineered. A vaccine created on one continent can be tested on another. So, who was patient zero in Wuhan?

The three sick Wuhan lab technicians had intelligence behind them that was as dubious as the claims about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. A rumor started by a State Department employee suggested they were hospitalized with Covid, but it’s unlikely for young postdocs to be seriously affected. Did Shi’s postdoc, Ben Hu, earning just $10.95 an hour, insert an out-of-frame furin cleavage site into a novel coronavirus and then fall ill? Was Shi’s next move to publish the mysterious RaTG13 sample, which exposed the out-of-frame SARS2 furin cleavage site?

NNSYECDIPIGAGICASYQTQTNS_____RSVASQSIIAYTMSLGAENSVAYSNNSIA (RaTG13)

NNSYECDIPIGAGICASYQTQTNSPRRARSVASQSIIAYTMSLGAENSVAYSNNSIA (SARS2)

NNSYECDIPIGAGICASYQTQTNS_____RSVASQSIIAYTMSLGAENSVAYSNNSIA (Banal-52)

This bold move sparked engineering rumors and led to the February 1, 2020, teleconference. Shi, working for just $25.56 an hour, was part of the failed 2018 DARPA Defuse $14.2 million proposal, where WIV’s budget was under $1.2 million. From the $14.1 million NIAID allocated to EcoHealth, Shi’s lab received only $120,000 annually over five years—less than 5% of the total. Meanwhile, Dani’s BSL4 lab, funded through the $7.5 million CREID grant, accounted for 50% of the project.

Shi previously uploaded sequences of RaTG13 to the US database (Genbank) in 2018 but did not release those sequences until 2022. She republished RaTG13 on January 24, 2020, to GISAID, one week before the February 1 teleconference. She brought attention to the (PRRAR) furin cleavage site and said, “Not my lab!”

This event prompted Kristian Andersen to send Fauci the now infamous Friday night email, stating, “The unusual features of the virus make up a really small part of the genome (<0.1%), so one has to look really closely at all the sequences to see that some of the features (potentially) look engineered.” This marked the start of the WIV audit, which passed, but someone else failed.

Kristian wanted to call the FBI, but Fauci called Baric instead. The February 3, 2020, NASEM meeting was their coup d’état. Baric “attacked” Kristian for suggesting the genome was engineered. The White House, NASEM, FBI, and media consulted with Fauci, who funded DARPA Defuse, so he covered his biological tracks using those same organizations. There is nothing complicated or nefarious about this; it’s just a biological shell game.

Unlike Kristian, Munster and Baric overlooked the furin cleavage site in their initial papers. On January 22, 2020, Munster published a paper revealing SARS2’s affinity for ACE2 receptors, a discovery described by Kristian as “unbelievably fast, almost too fast to imagine.” But Munster omitted any mention of the furin cleavage site in this initial publication.

Baric acknowledged in late December 2020, stating, “SARS-CoV-2 probably emerged from bats, and early strains identified in Wuhan, China, showed limited genetic diversity, which suggests that the virus may have been introduced from a single source.” Because this bat vaccine, now known as SARS2, had accidentally jumped species into Dani Anderson’s lungs.

Unlike Shi, Dani was the only woman in Wuhan to change her story. In February 2020, Dani admitted to NBC News that she “works directly with coronavirus.” She reiterated this in a March 2020 interview with an Australian radio station. However, her story shifted in June 2021. Before the publication of DARPA Defuse and the CREID FOIA, Dani told Bloomberg that she had worked on Ebola in Wuhan. Yet, her CREID resume mentioned “coronavirus replication.”

Dani was adamant she “wasn’t sick” in the June 2021 Bloomberg article. Fauci’s CREID contractor was inside the Wuhan BSL4 and left for unknown reasons in November 2019. Dani’s role in the CREID project was to “co-lead the Duke-NUS team with a focus on international liaison and experiments involving animal samples.” Dani’s NIAID resume highlighted her “extensive experience designing animal experiments with…bats.”

In other words, Dani tested American-made bat vaccines on Chinese horseshoe bats in the Wuhan BSL4 lab. A world-class bat immunologist was inside the BSL4 when a bat vaccine emerged in Wuhan. Again, Dani’s boss, Linfa, resigned on January 10, 2020. It’s the born-on date for SARS2, so it does not take a virologist to figure out what happened. A Duke Blue Devil named Dani was our patient zero, working 20 miles south of Shi’s BSL2. These two Duke employees referenced Baric’s “consensus” sequence work on the infamous WIV1 strain in 2019.

In September 2021, Baric told CNN, “It’s not the BSL4 (of Dani’s) that concerns (me)—it’s coronavirus being worked on at lower biosafety level conditions, like (Shi’s) BSL2.” DARPA Defuse leaked two days after the CNN documentary aired with Dani and Baric. Dani and Baric also appear next to each other in DARPA Defuse and the CREID documents, but Baric did not bother to mention any of this.

Baric’s obsession with furin cleavage sites stemmed from their importance in unlocking a “jumping species” event. This design feature, not a bug, required the furin cleavage site for vaccine transmission. If Baric was playing with genomic “tinker toys,” Munster was playing with airborne Legos. Their furin cleavage site was not human-specific; it was animal-specific. Unfortunately, bat cells have furin just like us humans.

The virus’s origin remains a mystery without knowledge of its identity. A bat vaccine sounds implausible, but once understood, it offers clarity. Imagine taking a deep breath, feeling the rush of air into your nasal cavity, passing by your “similar” ACE2 receptor. Extend your arms with opposable thumbs and flap them like wings. Remember, bats aren’t birds; they’re furry mammals like us.

What if Covid infection was designed to promote natural immunity? Consider all the unusual pathologies observed in Covid: inflammation, Orf8, interferon, MHC-I, NLR3P, cytokine storm, and B and T cells. These odd terms align with concepts found in Western bat vaccine literature. SARS2 pathology reads like bat immunology!

From 2013 to 2017, Baric focused on mice, while Munster studied birds. Then, both transitioned into becoming bat immunologists, conducting research on live bats alongside Linfa and Dani. In 2017, Baric shifted his focus to bat immunology, referencing Linfa seven times and bats fifty times. For clarity, replace Baric’s humanized mice with Munster’s deer mice. Since 2016, American virologists at RML have been familiar with these small but formidable Rocky Mountain killers. Munster even used them to study T cells.

Remember when T cells became a political topic in 2020? In 2017, RML was already studying T cells in American bats and deer mice. They focused on MHC class I, which Baric and Munster examined in their infamous 2018 Montana bat paper. Superspreader events were also a hot topic among transmissible vaccine researchers in 2019. Self-spreading vaccines were a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Consider the implications of vaccinating against a vaccine: the adverse effects of the mRNA human vaccine and the Covid bat vaccine are strikingly similar. Both cause inflammation. Did you suffer a Covid reinfection? That was not a flaw but a design feature known as superinfection or “boosters.” Even the peculiar, asymptomatic nature of this “virus” (referring to immune evasion) was intentionally designed, not accidental. As DARPA whistleblower Major Joseph Murphy pointed out, an effective vaccine should not elicit symptoms. Self-disseminating vaccines even introduced a moral hazard concerning immune evasion.

Kevin Esvelt commented, “Transmissible vaccine research will create an incentive to explore ways of engineering viral vectors to evade the immune response, as any pre-existing immunity to the vaccine vector will slow the vaccine spread. While (Munster’s DARPA PREEMPT colleagues) propose that choosing a vector with a propensity for superinfection or little pre-existing immunity might be sufficient to circumvent this issue, the efficacy of these vectors could also be improved through immune evasion.”

A bat vaccine, designed to spread like a disease, can jump species like a bat virus. In your mind, replace ‘virus’ with ‘vaccine.’ Use ‘infection’ instead of ‘inoculation.’ Switch Shi with Dani. Also, replace ‘humans’ with ‘bats.’ Then, everything will make sense. This animal vaccine was ‘pre-adapted’ for American lab animals, but it was being tested on Chinese lab bats.

In 2018, Baric published a “national security” paper on live attenuated bat vaccines, Munster worked on DARPA PREEMPT, and Fauci discussed SARS. Fauci’s post-9/11 job description was to fund “research programs in biodefense.” The big biodefense money for virologists was to protect the warfighter stationed abroad. They thought they were defending their country. SARS2 was a story of bats and men, specifically American bats and Western men.

Baric designed the SARS2 genome to look natural (No See’m) to Chinese bats. Munster turned Baric’s genome into an airborne transmissible agent. This was an accident, a probable needlestick, an unintended consequence of decent intentions. SARS2 was an animal vaccine with a failed safety kill switch. They even told us a white lie: SARS2 came from bats since this contagious bat vaccine jumped species inside the Wuhan BSL4 (Duke didn’t use burner phones).

So, who is responsible? Linfa and Daszak have since pointed fingers at Baric, who went radio silent after Defuse leaked. In 2023, Baric’s lab published a controversial CREID-funded paper about pangolins being a potential SARS2 intermediary host. Baric concluded, “Although the pangolin strain provides an optimal model to evaluate the impact of a furin cleavage site at the S1/S2 border on replication, pathogenesis, and transmission, we urge constraint as such studies should require transparent, independent, and rigorous review.”

In late 2018, Baric and Munster combined forces. They infected live Egyptian fruit bats with WIV1 strains. But the Egyptian fruit bat was not any species from a roadside zoo. The Defuse bid mentioned Egyptian fruit bats as a potential model for their experiment. Their experiment failed, so Baric and Munster concluded they needed a furin cleavage site for bat vaccination. They wrote, “It is possible that the WIV1-CoV S glycoprotein is not processed by surface or intracellular proteases, which are important host restriction factors during coronavirus entry.”

In the DARPA Defuse draft, Baric wrote, “Either extracellular protease or intracellular protease have to clip protein once or twice so that virus can fuse to the cell membrane. Viruses can’t enter cells without protease. In the lab, if protease is added exogenously, strains that otherwise would not enter the cell can now.”

The Defuse bid mentioned Egyptian fruit bats as a potential model for their experiment. It’s now the SARS2 reservoir bat with four other Rocky Mountain Lab animals. We will find the intermediary species, but it will be in the Montana lab. NIAID released a 2023 statement to a Montana newspaper:

“Recent online coverage has erroneously characterized a research study conducted in December 2016 at Rocky Mountain Laboratories and published in 2018. In the study, RML researchers studied WIV-1, a coronavirus, in Egyptian fruit bats. WIV-1 differs from the SARS-CoV-2 virus that was involved in the COVID-19 pandemic. The virus used in these experiments was not shipped from China. Rather, it was generated using common laboratory techniques based on genetic information publicly shared by Chinese scientists. The research was conducted at the highest level of biosafety, BSL4. As noted in the published manuscript, the virus did not replicate well in the bats.”

However, SARS2 replicated well in Egyptian fruit bats. The fact-checkers pounced on the WIV1 genome but solidified Baric’s point. They highlighted the 20% genomic difference between WIV1 (i.e., SARS1) and SARS2, but this was a design feature. In DARPA Defuse, Baric proposed creating a novel genome like SARS2. It was a “chimeric S glycoprotein gene into the HKU3 genome backbone (~25% different than SARS-CoV, group 2b sarbecoviruses) and recovered viable viruses (HKU3-S mix).”

In NIAID’s R01 subgrant to UNC from 2019, “We repeated this virus characterization approach with chimeras using HKU3r-CoV S proteins that are ~25% divergent from SARS-CoV S.” Importantly, HKU3r-CoVs refers to the SARS-CoV-2-like genome—the only group 2b sarbecovirus with a furin cleavage site. Baric’s novel genome was intended for testing in Wuhan but was developed in Montana.

Covid has more to do with Erasmus University than the University of North Carolina. SARS2 has more to do with the University of North Carolina than Duke University. However, Linfa Wang denied that any US lab sent his Duke employees an “HKU3r-CoVs” genome. Despite this, Linfa and Dani referenced Baric’s “consensus” sequence work in late 2018, while Munster tested Baric’s genome in Egyptian fruit bats.

If a vaccine was engineered and then spilled over into the human population, the location of the spill-over does not indicate where it was originally engineered. SARS2 efficiently transmits in only five animal species. All five are found in Montana under research conditions at RML. This, therefore, becomes biological proof of a Wuhan area lab leak and a Montana lab origin.

Researchers named the “progenitor” SARS2 strain from Wuhan WA1. It efficiently transmits through American mink, American deer, American deer mice, Syrian hamsters, and Egyptian fruit bats. This exclusive list of American lab animals was only available at RML before the 2019 outbreak in Wuhan. No virologists, online or offline, can explain it. Only a few experts responded, claiming not to be experts, and the majority stayed quiet. Vincent Munster was even asked to name a sixth animal—an alibi of sorts.

If a virologist could identify a sixth animal, the hypothesis could be retracted, but the silence is telling. Except this is not a hypothesis; it’s an answer to a question: Why does this Old World virus love New World lab animals?

To be blunt, we should not care when and where SARS2 leaked; we should only care where it went: Montana. Don’t search for a (Wuhan) needle in a (Montana) haystack. It was an R&D accident involving a few people. No classified intel is required for this riddle since we gathered everything above from publicly available evidence. But we were looking for evidence in the wrong hemisphere. It’s the reason this Old World virus has found a New World home.

So, was SARS2 a planned mistake or an honest academic crime? It was an unintended consequence of good intentions. Most, if not all, involved in the cover-up assumed their creation would burn out, but underestimated how far modern virology had progressed. Covid was a Shakespearean tragedy, and the rich US biodefense world was on its stage. It was worse than a crime; it was a blunder. But it’s always the cover-up, never the crime.

Postscript

On June 3, 2024, Fauci walked into his 300th Congressional hearing with audience members calling him a “mass murderer” and claiming it was “Nuremberg 2.0.” One person suggested, “My grandmother is dead because of you.” Fauci began by lying in his written testimony, listing every virologist except Ralph Baric on the February 1, 2020, teleconference.

The Covid committee focused on the irrelevant Robert Redfield. Then, the discussion went off the rails with bioweapons and attempts to pronounce Zhou Yusen’s name. Yusen, a Beijing scientist allegedly thrown from a rooftop, had filed a vaccine patent after the pandemic began. However, NIAID had created a vaccine before the pandemic, initially called HKU3r-CoVs, but now known as SARS-CoV-2.

The committee even debated Al-Qaida and anthrax, but it was a Fort Detrick virologist who mailed the Amerithrax letters. Like anthrax, Covid was an inside job, and Covid’s creator was sitting in front of congressional members. A congressman claimed humanized mice were used in Wuhan, but Fauci laughed off the theory. Another mentioned the CIA, to which Fauci joked about a Jason Bourne movie.

For decades, Fauci has owned Congress, “busting” his $6 billion budget to twice the size of DARPA, and continued to outshine the inferior competition. Fauci dismissed the $120,000/year R01 subgrant to Wuhan as “pencil dust,” equating it to one-third of his yearly pension. Fauci relied on a “molecularly impossible” defense, but funding the $14.2 million Defuse bid was molecularly possible in creating Covid. However, there were no inquiries into the $14.1 million in NIAID grants awarded to Peter Daszak.

During his January 2024 testimony, Fauci said, “I don’t recall when I heard about [the Defuse proposal], but I heard through the press that Daszak and a couple of others had submitted a proposal to DARPA to do some experiments. I heard it through the press. I think there was confusion that [Defuse] was an NIH proposal, and it wasn’t.”

Yes, it was. After Major Murphy leaked the Defuse proposal in September 2021, Fauci freaked out in October 2021, telling David Morens to buy a burner phone and use his Gmail. Despite this, Fauci distanced himself from Daszak’s friend Morens, claiming to barely know him. Fauci stated that Morens was not in his office building, but Morens detailed Fauci’s bodyguards in their NIAID office. Morens’ numerous emails to Fauci are signed off from Building 31 on the seventh floor.

Fauci testified, “Let me state for the record, to the best of my knowledge, I have never conducted official business using my personal email.” However, he contacted a reporter in October 2021 via his Gmail address. Gerald Keusch from Boston University supported Morens’ October 2021 claim that Fauci told Morens to buy a burner phone and use Fauci’s Gmail to shield himself. Why? Because Fauci funded Daszak’s Defuse grant—not “that” grant but three revised NIAID grants.

During testimony, Fauci repeated, “The NIH did not fund gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.” In reality, Fauci funded the creation of SARS-CoV-2 in North Carolina and Montana. Fauci claimed, “The first I heard about the [Defuse] proposal was from the newspapers, not Dr. Baric.” No, it was not. The fact is this: Fauci’s biodefense lab in Montana was an original vendor on the Defuse proposal and CREID grant.

This connection explains why Fauci’s response to the pandemic had a militaristic tone. Every congressional question about schools, lockdowns, social distancing, masks, beagles, and mandates could have been answered with one question: What was your $82 million CREID contractor doing inside that Wuhan BSL4?

Daszak admitted there were live bats in Dani Anderson’s BSL4 lab, where she was the first victim of many. Fauci’s aerosol specialist, Vincent Munster, had sent her an airborne bio-bomb. Covid exploded in Wuhan but quickly traveled back to Fauci’s biodefense lab in Montana.

What made Wuhan special? It was the live Chinese horseshoe bat capital of the world. This tiny bat was the reservoir species for SARS, which ironically inflated Fauci’s biodefense budget over the past two decades so he could afford to fund a risky project like DARPA Defuse.

America’s biodefense czar departed “The Hill,” as it’s known in Washington, D.C., escorted by his army of bodyguards. The 5-foot-7-inch five-star biogeneral ruled the biological competition. During Fauci’s book tour, the US media posed tougher questions than Congress.

DARPA Defuse was featured in The New York Times on the same day that Fauci conquered Congress. The article claimed, “Defuse was never funded by the United States,” but Fauci’s paycheck proved he was the US government. He dismissed the author of the piece as “fuzzy,” although Fauci’s memory of his own actions was fuzzier.

100 Scientists

The following email was sent in July 2024 from the same Gmail address that elicited a response from Linfa Wang and the US CDC bat lab:

Email Subject: WA1 reservoir hosts

Professor/Dr.,

As part of a published survey, please provide a biological explanation for why American mink, deer mice, deer, and lab bats (i.e., Egyptian fruit bats) are reservoir hosts for WA1, which is the best-known ancestral strain of SARS-CoV-2.

Thanks,

Jim Haslam

References:

Sharun et al., “SARS-CoV-2 in Animals: Potential for Unknown Reservoir Hosts and Public Health Implications.” May 2021.

Fagre et al., “SARS-CoV-2 Infection, Neuropathogenesis and Transmission Among Deer Mice: Implications for Spillback to New World Rodents.” August 2020.

Cool et al., “Infection and Transmission of Ancestral SARS-CoV-2 and Its Alpha Variant in Pregnant White-Tailed Deer.” August 2021.

Schlottau et al., “SARS-CoV-2 in Fruit Bats, Ferrets, Pigs, and Chickens: An Experimental Transmission Study.” September 2020.

Doremalen et al., “SARS-Like Coronavirus WIV1-CoV Does Not Replicate in Egyptian Fruit Bats.” December 2018.

Varrelman et al., “Transmissible Vaccines in Heterogeneous Populations: Implications for Vaccine Design.” February 2019.

Schreiner et al., “When to Vaccinate a Fluctuating Wildlife Population: Is Timing Everything?” November 2019.

*Also asked to confirm (or deny) HKU3r-CoVs = SARS-CoV-2 and if the $14.2M Defuse bid was resubmitted to NIAID under three grants (2R01AI110964, U01AI151797, R01AI163118) totaling $14.1M?

1. Dr. Tony Fauci, MD (NIAID retired director)*

2. Dr. Jeanne Marrazzo, MD, (NIAID director)*

3. Dr. Lawrence Tabak, DDS, PhD (NIH director)*

4. Dr. Francis Collins, MD, PhD (NIH retired director)*

5. Dr. Hugh Auchincloss, MD (NIAID)*

6. Dr. Emily Erbelding, MD, (NIAID)*

7. Dr. Steven Holland, MD (NIAID)*

8. Erik Stemmy, PhD (NIAID)*

9. Dr. Michael Lauer, (NIH)*

10. Prof. Christopher Broder, PhD (USU)*

11. Dr. Gerald Keusch, MD (Boston)*

12. Peter Daszak, PhD (EcoHealth)*

13. Jonathan Epstein, PhD (EcoHealth)*

14. Kevin Olival, PhD (EcoHealth)*

15. Billy Karesh, PhD (EcoHealth)*

16. Prof. Ralph S Baric, PhD (UNC)*

17. Amy Sims, PhD (PNNL)*

18. Prof. Timothy Sheahan, PhD (UNC)*

19. Boyd Yount (UNC)*

20. Sir Jeremy Farrar, MD, PhD (Wellcome Trust, WHO)

21. Prof. Richard H Ebright, PhD (Rutgers)

22. Alina Chan, PhD (MIT)

23. Angela A Rasmussen, PhD (Saskatchewan)

24. Prof. George Fu Gao, DVM, DPhil (China CDC)

25. Prof. Christian Drosten, PhD (Charite)

26. Prof. Kristian G Andersen, PhD (Scripps)

27. Prof. Ron Fouchier, PhD (Erasmus)

28. Vincent J Munster, PhD (RML)

29. Emmie de Wit, PhD (RML)

30. Kyle T Rosenke, PhD (RML)

31. Neeltje van Doremalen, PhD (RML)

32. Sonja Best, PhD (RML)

33. Dr. Heinz Feldmann, MD, PhD (RML)

34. Dr. Marshall Bloom, MD, PhD (RML)

35. Prof. Jesse Bloom, PhD (Fred Hutch)

36. Michael Letko, PhD (Washington State)

37. Dr. David A Relman, MD (Stanford)

38. Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, MD (Stanford)

39. Stephen A Goldstein, PhD (Utah)

40. Prof. Edward C Holmes, PhD (Sydney)

41. Prof. David L Robertson, PhD (Glasgow)

42. Dr. Robert Kadlec, MD (HHS retired)

43. Prof. Martin Beer, PhD (FLI)

44. Prof. Simon J. Anthony, PhD (UC Davis)

45. Prof. Wendy S. Barclay, PhD (Imperial)

46. Prof. Vincent Racaniello, PhD (Columbia)

47. Prof. Susan R. Weiss, PhD (UPenn)

48. Prof. Michael Worobey, PhD (Arizona)

49. Prof. Robert F. Garry, PhD (Tulane)

50. Prof. Andrew Rambaut, PhD (Edinburgh)

51. Jonathan E Pekar (UCSD)

52. Prof. Moritz Kraemer, PhD (Oxford)

53. Dr. Arturo Casadevall, MD, PhD (Johns Hopkins)

54. Prof. Nikolai Petrovsky, PhD (Flinders)

55. Lisa Hensley, PhD (USDA)

56. Vineet D. Menachery, PhD (UTMB)

57. Prof. Scott Randell, PhD (UNC)

58. Prof. Matthew B. Frieman, PhD (Maryland)

59. Dr. Mark Denison, MD (Vanderbilt)

60. Dr. Peter Hotez, MD, PhD (Baylor)

61. Prof. Rita Colwell, PhD (Maryland)

62. Prof. Shan-Lu Liu, PhD (Ohio)

63. Prof. Yoshihiro Kawaoka, PhD (Wisconsin)

64. Prof. Scott L. Nuismer, PhD (Idaho)

65. Prof. Michael Jarvis, PhD (Plymouth)

66. Tonie Rocke, PhD (USGS)

67. Dr. Andrew Bowman, DVM, PhD (Ohio)

68. Prof. Linda J. Saif, PhD (Ohio)

69. Prof. Tony Schountz, PhD (Colorado State)

70. Dr. Jonna Mazet, DVM, PhD (UC Davis)

71. Prof. Fang Li, PhD (Minnesota)

72. Prof. Raina Plowright, PhD (Cornell)

73. Dr. Chris Karp, MD (Gates Foundation)

74. Dr. Dan Wattendorf, MD (Gates Foundation)

75. Prof. Jack Nunberg, PhD (Montana State)

76. Prof. Christine Kreuder, PhD (UC Davis)

77. Tierra Smiley Evans, PhD (UC Davis)

78. Prof. Brian H Bird, PhD (UC Davis)

79. Dr. Victor Dzau, MD (Duke)

80. Prof. Gregory Koblentz, PhD (George Mason)

81. Prof. Ian Lipkin, MD, PhD (Columbia)

82. Prof. Michael Osterholm, PhD (Minnesota)

83. Prof. Gerald Parker, PhD (Texas A&M)

84. Brett Forshey, PhD (GEIS)

85. Prof. Trevor Bedford, PhD (Fred Hutch)

86. Prof. Gigi K Gronvall, PhD (Johns Hopkins)

87. Prof. Thomas V. Inglesby, PhD (Johns Hopkins)

88. Prof. Marc Lipsitch (Harvard)

89. Prof. Roger Pielke, PhD (Colorado)

90. Prof. Daniel Streicker, PhD (Glasgow)

91. Prof. Francois Balloux, PhD (UCL)

92. Florence Débarre, PhD (CNRS)

93. Benjamin Pierce, PhD (Imperial College)

94. Dr. Arati Prabhakar, PhD (White House OSTP)

95. Eun-Chung Park, PhD (NIAID)

96. Dr. Cliff Lane, MD (NIAID)

97. Birger Sorensen, PhD (Immunor)

98. Dr. Angus Dalgleish, MD (SGUL)

99. Dr. Robert Redfield, MD (US CDC)

100. Dr. Jonathan Yewdell, MD, PhD (NIAID, replied who are you?)

101. Prof. Michael Imperiale (Michigan, replied not my expertise)

102. Prof. Martin Wikelski (Max Planck, replied not my expertise)

103. Prof. John Moore, PhD (Cornell)**

104. Prof. Marc Johnson, PhD (Missouri)**

105. Dr. Julian L Leibowitz, MD, PhD (Texas A&M)**

106. Prof. Stanley Perlman, PhD (Iowa)**

107. Prof. Stuart Neil, PhD (King’s College)**

108. Prof. Jeremy Kamil, PhD (LSU)**

109. Prof. Carl Bergstrom, PhD (Washington)**

110. Prof. Pat Fidopiastis, PhD (CalPoly)**

111. Prof. Bill Gallaher, PhD (LSU)**

112. Dr. Craig Wilen, PhD (Yale)**

113. Prof. Marion Koopmans, PhD (Erasmus)**

114. Prof. Rich Condit (Florida)**

115. Dr. Michael Garvin, PhD (ORNL)**

116. Dr. Rustom Antia, PhD (Emory)**

117. Prof. Bryce Nickels, PhD (Rutgers)***

**Designated a professional reply, typically following a “broad host range” explanation. In other words, SARS2 infects a wide range of species, including hippos and cats. The return note highlighted that only five species (and their ACE2 receptor) efficiently transmit the ancestral WA1 strain. Three of these species (deer, deer mice, and fruit bats) were referenced in 2019 transmissible vaccine research. One professor proposed that hamsters are an intermediary species, but Munster referenced them in his 2018 DARPA PREEMPT transmissible bat vaccine project. Another professor countered that the ancestral WA1 strain was not that special, but it represented the type of virus that leaked from the Wuhan lab.

***Posed the question to their Twitter followers, who astutely pointed out it was a trick question (since RML has not published the WA1 transmission data on Egyptian fruit bats).

One professor argued that Egyptian fruit bats were experimentally infected with SARS2 in a lab setting, similar to laboratory mice. He said, “SARS2 has never been isolated from Egyptian fruit bats in the wild, so they are not considered a natural reservoir for the virus.”

Yes, this is consistent with American deer being the only confirmed “wildlife reservoir” of SARS2. But wild deer are easier to catch and test than bats. While lab mice, when infected, do not exhibit reservoir host characteristics, Egyptian fruit bats in lab experiments “showed characteristics of a reservoir host.”

The response from a pro-lab leak scientist echoed the prevailing lab leak theory, which suggested that a Chinese scientist engineered SARS2 specifically for humans. They usually claim an “unnatural human-adapted furin cleavage site” and a completely unnatural “preference for human ACE2.” The response referenced Baric and Munster’s research, showing bats had a “similar” ACE2 receptor to humans, and explored the role of furin cleavage sites in bat cells. American scientists engineered SARS2 for Chinese bats and, unfortunately, humans.

One scientist asked how SARS2 is related to contagious vaccines since none of the major vaccines are live viruses. The return note highlighted Baric’s 2018 LAV bat vaccine paper and Munster’s Egyptian fruit bat paper.

The follow-up email was:

On behalf of 8 billion people, could you explain why Egyptian fruit bats are a non-natural reservoir host for SARS-CoV-2?

The best response was, “I do not understand what you mean by ‘non-natural reservoir host.’ The phrase makes no sense to me. A genuine reservoir would be natural, as I see it. The paper you cite suggests that Egyptian fruit bats are unlikely to be a reservoir host for SARS2 since the Baric lab could not establish an infection in these bats with SARS1. These bats can host other SARS-like viruses, but there are many SARS-like viruses and a lot of variation among them, so it is no surprise that the bats may host some and not others.”

The only surprise from the survey? Every scientist knew of Baric’s involvement, but not even Munster’s closest colleagues knew what he was researching. I even spent hours on the phone with his DARPA colleague, who didn’t know who Munster was. He was the creator of Covid, and his own lab animals ratted him out.

One government scientist, who had been debating the role of American mink in a FOIA exchange, said he was no longer working on the question. A professor simply replied, “This is one of many open scientific puzzles.” Another professor stated that he would publish an answer in a scientific journal. Until then, I consider the origins of SARS-CoV-2 to be solved.

https://www.amazon.com/COVID-19-Mystery-Solved-leaked-Chinese/dp/B0DLVDB9CL