In a recent conversation with SARS-CoV-2 origin researcher Jim Haslam, he told me something I’d never heard before and that struck me as remarkable—namely, that when Wuhan Institute of Virology scientist Shi Zhengli published the genome for SARS Coronavirus RaTG13 on February 3, 2020, Ralph Baric told Matthew Frieman of the University of Maryland:

“Shi’s paper was not approved by the Chinese govt and she may be arrested for it.”

Frieman added:

“That’s not a good look for anyone.”

At that time Shi published the RaTG13 genome, it was the closest known relative of SARS-CoV-2. The genomes of the two viruses display a 96.1% match.

The most significant biological difference between the two viruses is that the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 contains a four-amino-acid (12-nucleotide) insertion, PRRA (proline–arginine–arginine–alanine) at the junction between its S1 and S2 subunits.

• QTQTNS_____RSVASQ (RaTG13 uploaded January 24, 2020)

• QTQTNSPRRARSVASQ (SARS2 uploaded January 10, 2020)

Leake continued:

I was already aware of these concerns when I discussed them with Jim Haslam. I also knew about RaTG13 and its similarity to SARS-CoV-2.

However, it was only when Jim related Baric’s remarks to Frieman that I was prompted to ask the question: did Shi Zhengli and Ralph Baric mention RaTG13 in their 2018 DEFUSE proposal?

I just reviewed the DEFUSE proposal, and to my astonishment, Baric and Shi do NOT once mention RaTG13 in the document.

In my twenty years of doing true crime investigations, I have often found that what is omitted from documents often speaks louder than what is included in them.

Given that it was almost certainly Baric who wrote the technical language in the DEFUSE proposal, it strikes me as very strange that he didn’t once mention RaTG13 as a shining example of a SARS Bat Coronavirus of concern for the work he proposed. It was a naturally occurring virus with some affinity to the human ACE2 receptor, found in a mine in which 6 men had fallen ill with pneumonia.

Jim Haslam has raised the suspicion that Shi published the RaTG13 genome (closely related to SARS-CoV-2, only without the decisively import furin cleavage site) as an insider’s message to Baric—something along the lines of, “My team at the WIV did NOT insert the furin cleavage site, so don’t even think about blaming us.”

FOCAL POINTS (Courageous Discourse™)

Intriguing Omission in SARS-CoV-2 Paper Trail

In a recent conversation with SARS-CoV-2 origin researcher Jim Haslam, he told me something I’d never heard before and that struck me as remarkable—namely, that when Wuhan Institute of Virology scientist Shi Zhengli published the genome for SARS Coronavirus RaTG13 on February 3, 2020, Ralph Baric told Matthew Frieman of the University of Maryland…

Read more

6 days ago · 124 likes · 60 comments · John Leake

Some reasons

Shi didn’t sequence RaTG13 and upload it to the NIH database until July 2018, while Baric wrote DEFUSE in March 2018. While drafting DEFUSE, EcoHealth’s Chinese liaison (Hongying Li) asked Shi for her unpublished samples.

Shi replied that her unpublished sequences (eg RaTG13) would be used in the Latinne et al. paper, ironically published during the pandemic.

In October 2018, Baric published the unique RaTG13 sequence, UGGUCGC. Peter Daszak later testified there was a “data dump” of sequences from Shi in November 2018:

RaTG13 was always Baric’s unicorn since its spike was 25% different from SARS1. In 2015, Baric said:

The SHC014 virus is part of a cluster of related coronaviruses, explained senior author Ralph Baric, a professor of epidemiology at UNC. Some are quite similar to the SARS virus while others are more distant relatives, varying in terms of their genetic structures by between 5 percent and 60 percent. SHC014 was about 12 percent different from SARS.

A coronavirus expert, Baric said if the viruses were too distantly related to SARS — more than 25 percent different — they would not be able to make a hybrid that would infect human cells. “Not all SARS-like coronaviruses have the inherent potential to replicate in mammalian cells and replicate in human cells.”

So how did RaTG13 wind up in Chapel Hill? As I wrote in Chapter 13, something similar happened with SHC014:

Around 2014, Shi emailed Baric the genomic sequence of SHC014. Baric then used his patented reverse genetic method to create an infectious clone of the virus in his UNC lab. This process involved synthesizing a live virus from the emailed sequence, a complex feat that Baric’s lab uniquely accomplished. To repeat, Baric’s lab at UNC created a live Chinese virus based on Shi’s email with a genomic sequence.

Before DEFUSE leaked, Baric stated during an interview:

Shi was gracious enough to send us (the SHC014) sequences almost immediately—in fact, before she’d published. That was her major contribution to the paper. And when a colleague gives you sequences beforehand, coauthorship on the paper is appropriate.

This is why Baric wanted Shi arrested for publishing RaTG13. He probably planned on adding her to an upcoming bat vaccine paper in Nature, but the test results leaked out of the WIV before they could be published.

John Leake on Baric, furin cleavage sites, and Moderna

Leake mentioned the 2016 Moderna cancer patent found in the SARS2 furin cleavage site.

https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/virology/articles/10.3389/fviro.2022.834808/full

Moderna’s CEO, Stéphane Bancel, also acknowledged finding this peculiar in a 2022 interview, but never followed up:

Kristian Andersen’s natural origin presentation

Andersen’s misleading slide claims no COVID antibodies before 2020. But the CDC found antibodies in West Coast blood donors in December 2019; at the same time, he claims the Wuhan wet market is the source.

Bat origins and genome size

The lab leak debate has turned me into an amateur bat immunologist. I now read a bat newsletter via Dan at the Bat Signal:

Until now, competing ideas have placed the origin of bats in either Africa or North America. This paper looks at the genetic sequences of 103 bat species representing all 21 recognized bat families. It includes 42 new bat genomes that had not been assembled before. The researchers – a consortium of 137 people in 64 countries – paired that genetic dataset with a fossil record spanning 44 extinct bat species and 699 anatomical traits measured across 65 species, living and extinct alike. Running all of that through statistical models designed to weigh fossils, family trees, and shifting continents together, the team pinpointed the geography and timing of the bat family tree’s oldest branches. The data show that bats started in Europe shortly after the dinosaurs went extinct. Then some early bats flew to Africa, and then from those two sources, bats dispersed to cover the rest of the world.

It seems that the demands of flight have caused bat genomes to shrink. The genome is a list of every letter of DNA in the body (e.g. ATGGCGTAGTC... etc.). Bats’ strings of letters are shorter than those in other mammals.

1. On average, bats have much smaller genomes than other mammals. Bats average about 2 billion letters, while most mammals are around 3.5 billion.

2. Birds show the same trend. So did pterosaurs. They have small genomes relative to land animals like dinosaurs, reptiles, and amphibians.

3. Flightless birds have larger genomes than other birds do, on average. That suggests that when birds don’t fly, evolutionary pressure for a smaller genome relaxes.

So it seems clear that flight makes genomes smaller, but why is still a mystery. Generally, the best guess I can find is that redundant bits of DNA can make a body heavier – not the DNA itself, but the extra proteins made by the body. When an animal flies, that extra weight is a burden, so among fliers, evolution favors animals with less extraneous DNA.

Bat immunology = SARS2 pathology

It’s no coincidence that Egyptian fruit bats feature prominently in bat research. They are being used as a model for Poly I:C research. While drafting DEFUSE, Baric also proposed using Poly I: C to develop his bat vaccine.

What are the differences between human and bat gene expression? As virologists interpret it, bats have a narrow, tailored response. “Human cells freak out.”

Utah mink farms

Bird flu is spreading on a Utah mink farm.

https://www.propublica.org/article/bird-flu-mink-farm-utah-human-risk

COVID circulating in mink was the clue that Rocky Mountain Lab created it

Big Pharma likes RML

Pharmaceutical company breaks ground on new facility in Hamilton

https://www.mtpr.org/montana-news/2026-10-14/pharmaceutical-company-breaks-ground-on-new-facility-in-hamilton

Early RML interview

According to RML director Marshall Bloom, Vincent Munster had his “antenna up, looking for new coronaviruses” in Wuhan.

I found this reference in Jim Olsen’s book, COVID WARS, written just blocks away from RML.

Subscribe now

Outside Wuhan, Western virologists were familiar with Shi. In late 2019, she traveled to Singapore, Sweden, Africa, and Paris. Shi organized a conference at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, where she oversees a BSL2 coronavirus lab. During this meeting, Shi presented on MERS, attracting several Western virologists who flew in to participate.

Wuhan’s appeal to Western virologists lies in its distance from Beijing, 700 miles away. A Chinese proverb encapsulates this distance: “The mountains are high, and the emperor is far away.” In February 2020, Cliff Lane from NIAID, a close colleague of Fauci, visited Beijing and reported on the tense atmosphere. He noted, “Nerves in China are very raw. High-level officials in Wuhan have been fired. We are in the middle of a political earthquake, and there will be enormous scrutiny of our work. Extraordinary measures, at great cost, have been put in place in China.”

According to The New York Times, Shi Zhengli is not affiliated with the Communist Party and is categorized as “nonpartisan,” a rarity for someone of her status as a state employee. The US State Department vetted Shi in May 2019 because of her role as a contractor for NIAID under the renewed EcoHealth grant. Peter Daszak remarked, “Shi’s also extremely indiscreet about how she speaks. She tells you things and expresses opinions that would get people into trouble in China.”

Most Chinese Communist Party-owned labs are in Beijing, while military labs are near the North Korean border. However, in the heart of the enormous country, Wuhan stands out with its concentration of civilian labs in a bustling college town. The pipeline of postdoctoral researchers from nearby universities has fueled cheap scientific inquiry, making Wuhan a prominent research hub near the bat caves where coronaviruses exist. Wuhan had become known as the world’s live Chinese horseshoe bat capital. Traveling to remote bat caves, capturing wild bats, and maintaining them in local labs for Western virology experiments was straightforward.

Shi Zhengli began her career as a research assistant at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) in 1990, advancing through the ranks. Daszak bragged in his NIAID grant, “Shi and Daszak have collaborated since 2002, running joint conferences, co-authoring papers, and shipping samples into and out of China.” Wuhan was also the only place on the planet with a BSL4 high-security lab with access to wild-caught Chinese horseshoe bats. These bats were the known reservoir host for SARS-like viruses, so they intrigued the rich biodefense world.

A NIAID employee, Ping Chen, based at the US Embassy in Beijing, visited Shi Zhengli multiple times. Her NIAID boss in the US referred to Chen as the “eyes and ears on the ground to support the scientific collaborations.” Chen’s visit reports detailed a strict Beijing biosecurity policy with Wuhan workarounds. In a 2016 email, she referenced live bats in WIV labs, noting, “We are talking about close animal-human contact in a densely populated city.” Among several labs in Wuhan, only Shi’s and Dani’s were focused on coronaviruses and bats.

In a 2017 email, Chen observed, “It is clear to me, by talking to the Wuhan BSL4 technicians, that there is certainly a need for training support since it’s the first one in China, and they have to learn from others.” The “others” likely referred to Dani, as Shi was occupied with other responsibilities.

Shi attended the opening ceremony for the new Wuhan BSL2 lab on December 12, 2019. The China CDC had built this lab on the north side of the Yangtze River, within 1,000 feet of the infamous Wuhan wet market. This was the only lab located north of the massive river that divides this modern metropolis of 8 million people. A scientist in the new BSL2 lab even uploaded a video in December 2019 showing him collecting bat samples from nearby bat caves.

The opening ceremony for the new BSL2 lab in Wuhan may have been the second superspreader event of 2019. In late December, sick patients filled Wuhan hospitals on the north side of the Yangtze River. However, in early December, Weibo (China’s Twitter) found SARS2 spreading on the river’s south side. Eleven of the twelve labs in Wuhan are south of the river, including the BSL4.

On December 30, 2019, Shi traveled to Shanghai for a conference. While she never specified the details, it is known that the University of North Carolina (UNC) sponsored a conference in Shanghai around that time. Shanghai is also home to East China Normal University, Linfa Wang’s alma mater, which functions as a NIAID subcontractor, shipping coronavirus samples to “US partners.” Additionally, NIAID sponsors a lab on the Fudan University campus in Shanghai.

On the same day, December 30, 2019, the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) received the first samples from Wuhan pneumonia patients and isolated the virus. The CIA disclosed that “China’s officials probably did not have foreknowledge that SARS2 existed before WIV researchers isolated it” on December 30. It is essential to distinguish between the relative ease of isolating a genome already present in humans, as done by WIV, and the much more complex task of creating a new coronavirus not found in nature, as could be undertaken by institutions like UNC.

In late December 2019, the early SARS2 samples came from Jinyintan Wuhan Hospital, north of the Yangtze River. This was at least two months after a potential October lab leak from the BSL4 facility. Around the same time, an Asian-American man visiting Wuhan was returning to Seattle, Washington, with the earliest known strain of SARS2, called WA1. This strain was older than the Wuhan wet market strains (Lineages A and B), making it closer to the SARS2 strain suspected of leaking from the BSL4. This individual’s WA1 isolate will eventually become crucial biological proof of a Wuhan lab leak and a US lab origin.

While in Shanghai, Shi received a call from her boss, Yuan Zhiming. Shi wondered, “Could SARS2 have come from our lab?” On her train ride back to Wuhan, Shi checked her pathogen database and found an old sample, RaTG13, close to SARS2 but not an exact match. Shi felt relieved, saying, “That really took a load off my mind. I had not slept a wink for days.” Shi’s BSL2 lab was one of two in Wuhan specializing in coronaviruses.

On January 6, 2020, Shi replied to Christian Drosten, a German virologist, about the cause of the outbreak: “Dear Christian, thank you for your understanding. I was involved in the beginning, but now China’s CDC has taken full responsibility. The situation is not as bad as it was 16 years ago; it should be over soon. Please read both of our (BSL2) Publications [on mouse-adapted SARS-like viruses]. I’m sorry I can’t say more. Shi Zhengli.”

Shi’s boss, Yuan Zhiming, the US-trained director of the WIV, was involved in the lab’s operations and international collaborations. In 2016, he sought advice from NIAID on disinfectants for airtight lab suits and indoor surfaces. In September 2019, he complained about low maintenance funds. However, he told NBC News, “There is no way this virus came from us,” citing that no WIV employees tested positive for SARS2 in early 2020.

The brand-new BSL4 lab was a 13-year project spearheaded by Yuan Zhiming. Beijing provided funding for the $42 million lab because the Chinese government felt embarrassed after the SARS outbreak in 2003. The French, who built the BSL4, faded from view in 2013 as Fauci’s NIAID stepped into view. NIAID supported Shi’s bat sample collection and paid to ship the samples to US labs. The University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston (UTMB) became the training center for WIV technicians, and UNC began reverse-engineering Chinese pathogens from 2015 to 2019.

The researchers did not use the BSL4 lab for everyday experiments. Only six of the WIV’s 300 scientists, including Shi, had received training to use it. Dani was one of the few others trained to use the BSL4. Dani was an “unpaid visiting scientist during regular short trips” to the WIV. Visitors described the new BSL4 as “state-of-the-art,” contrasting the aging WIV buildings where scientists wore coats indoors during winter due to scant heating.

Meanwhile, Dani wore a positive-pressure space suit while experimenting on airborne pathogens in the BSL4. Shi’s research office and the BSL2 lab were in the older downtown Wuchang campus, while the BSL4 facility was in the remote Jiangxia district, 20 miles south of downtown. Dani was the last and only Western scientist in Wuhan, working in the BSL4 lab until November 29, 2019.

The SARS2 sequence was published on January 10, 2020, but Shi Zhengli entered the world stage on January 23. In a preprint paper, her BSL2 team announced it had found a virus 96.2% identical to SARS2. Shi published the nearest bat sample collected by the WIV lab, RaTG13, to prove her innocence. RaTG13 was 1200 nucleotides different and decades away from evolving into SARS2. Linfa Wang told The Wall Street Journal that the difference between RaTG13 and SARS2 “would explode your calculator,” emphasizing the vast genetic gap. He stated, “If the best scientists all worked for me for the rest of my life, I would not be able to create it.” Nonetheless, Linfa had the best scientist working with him, not for him.

Shi uploaded the RaTG13 sequence on January 24, 2020, as Chinese authorities sealed Wuhan to quarantine SARS2. Evolutionary virologists worldwide downloaded her never-before-seen sample and aligned the natural RaTG13 genome with the unnatural SARS2 genome. The results were “stunning,” according to Professor Robert Garry of Tulane University. He recognized the furin cleavage site from the SARS2 genome uploaded on January 10, but he only suspected engineering after Shi shared her RaTG13 sequence. The SARS2 genome had a furin cleavage site, unlike the RaTG13 genome. Dani used the modified RaTG13 genome in her BSL4 live bat experiments, defining it by the four-letter amino acid sequence “PRRA.”

LTPTWRVYSTGSNVFQTRAGCLIGAEHVNNSYECDIPIGAGICASYQTQTNS_____RSVASQSIIAYTMSLGAENSVAYSNNSIAIPTNFTISVTTEILPVSMTKTSVDCTMYI (RaTG13)

LTPTWRVYSTGSNVFQTRAGCLIGAEHVNNSYECDIPIGAGICASYQTQTNSPRRARSVASQSIIAYTMSLGAENSVAYSNNSIAIPTNFTISVTTEILPVSMTKTSVDCTMYI (SARS2)

One week later, in a private message on February 2, 2020, she declared, “I, Shi Zhengli, guarantee with my life that it has nothing to do with the laboratory.” Shi guaranteed that SARS2 did not originate from “her BSL2 lab.” On March 5, Shi admitted she made this statement in desperation and anger, but it was telling. Shi’s attempt at transparency made her the top international suspect. Her lab had the closest (known) genetic match to SARS2, but her publication may be the bravest decision in this sordid tale of cowards.

When asked if there was an accidental release at the Wuhan Center for Disease Control BSL2 lab near the wet market, Shi answered, “Based on daily academic exchanges and discussion, I can rule out such a possibility.” Shi traveled to the wet market in March 2020 to collect samples, “but the detected numbers of viral genome copies were very low.” It was in her interest to find positive samples in the wet market or blame the Wuhan CDC BSL2 lab, but Shi did neither.

Science Magazine then specifically asked Shi about the BSL4 lab, but her answer was vague. She stated, “We have trained the scientific researchers in the BSL4 laboratory using the low pathogenic coronaviruses as model viruses, which aims to prepare for conducting the experimental activities of highly pathogenic microorganisms.” According to a May 2024 tweet from Peter Daszak, “We managed to get WIV to confirm” they had live bats in Dani’s BSL4.

When CGTN news questioned the new coronavirus’s origins, Shi maintained that before 2020, “we had never been in contact with or studied this [SARS2] virus, nor did we know of its existence.” She added, “We can never prove something that does not exist. All these attacks on us come from the US and are unfounded. We never had this novel coronavirus in our lab, let alone handled it. Before December 30, 2019, such a virus did not exist in our lab. There could not have possibly been a lab leak. So this kind of attack is invalid.”

The New York Times questioned Shi about the three sick WIV technicians in November 2019. She replied no but asked, “If possible, can you provide the three names to help us check?” Later, the three Asian names came to light. All three were postdocs from Shi’s BSL2 lab. However, one of the $10/hour technicians’ names was spelled backward, making it hard to believe this was a genuine medical record. US intelligence clarified, “We have no indications that any of these researchers were hospitalized because of symptoms consistent with Covid. One researcher may have been hospitalized in this timeline for treatment of a non-respiratory medical condition.”

By February 2020, Linfa and Dani had developed an antibody test, enabling them to “trace back patients who were previously infected.” Dani was adamant she was not sick during her June 2021 Bloomberg interview, stating that she was working on Ebola while in the Wuhan BSL4 lab. Her resume, which lists 100 published papers, shows no research on Ebola. Dani submitted her 2019 CREID resume to NIAID, mentioning “coronavirus replication” and “live bat research experience.” However, Dani has not spoken to the media since the DARPA Defuse grant leaked in September 2021, which outlined work in Wuhan similar to SARS2. Linfa described Dani as “very committed and dedicated,” likening her personality to Shi’s. “They’re both very blunt with such high moral standards.”

Who is this Batwoman? Shi Zhengli was born in 1964 in a small village in Henan province. Shi grew up in a region of extreme poverty within one of the world’s most impoverished nations. Shi recalled to MIT Technology Review that rural China seeded her fascination with bats. “Bats are a symbol of blessing in traditional Chinese culture. In remote villages, we often see bat motifs in jewelry, ceramics, and buildings.” Based on a recent NIAID-funded study, most Chinese peasants near these rural bat caves live on less than $1,500 per year.

In the 1980s, during mass urbanization, Shi moved five hours south to the growing opportunities in Wuhan. Known as the “City of a hundred lakes,” Wuhan had 30 remaining lakes after urban growth.

In 1985, Wuhan was still a backwater when Professor James LeDuc of UTMB Galveston visited the WIV. He was trying to assist with a drug efficacy trial for the Hantavirus, a life-threatening disease transmitted by rodents. “China was emerging from the Cultural Revolution. Everyone was on bicycles,” he recalled to ProPublica. “I can remember giving a talk—the screen was a sheet one of us had to hold. The windows were broken out.”

Shi graduated with a biology degree from the prestigious Wuhan University in 1987. There, Shi met her husband, a professor at a nearby university. Shi received a master’s degree in virology from the Wuhan Institute of Virology in 1990. She began her career as a WIV research assistant, studying aquatic diseases like fish and shrimp viruses.

In 2000, Shi left Wuhan to pursue a PhD in virology in France and then returned home. Wuhan would grow with her, transforming from a sleepy backwater of wet markets into a modern metropolis filled with 34 Walmarts, fifty Starbucks, and a GM car plant. Over the past 30 years, Wuhan’s population has doubled to 8 million people.

During the early part of her career, Shi focused on studying aquatic diseases in a city prone to flooding. Half of her 125 published papers were about aquatic diseases. From 1994 to 2005, every paper listed in her Curriculum Vitae focused on Chinese shrimps, crabs, and diseases such as white spot syndrome. By 2002, her future collaborators in North Carolina had patented a reverse genetic system for coronavirus engineering, setting the stage for her eventual shift in research focus.

Shi’s career changed after the 2003 SARS outbreak when she met Linfa Wang, a Chinese virologist educated in America. Their collaboration led to her first bat research paper in 2005. At the time, Linfa was leading the “Bat Pack” lab in Australia and had gained recognition for linking the local Hendra horse virus to bats. He also investigated the origins of SARS in China and proposed bats as the source. Linfa recalled to Science Magazine, “Shi was the only virologist who believed in me and was willing to collaborate with me.” Colleagues also knew them for their karaoke duets.

Their quest to link SARS to bats spanned a decade and was characterized by challenging fieldwork. Chinese horseshoe bats often roost in deep, narrow caves on steep terrain, limiting the field team to collecting only a dozen bats per expedition. Those who have met Shi in person describe her as petite and thin, which enabled her to climb deep into the bat caves. The remote location of horseshoe bats made a contagious animal vaccine a cost-effective solution. Proponents, funded by NIAID, used “cost as the primary value of self-spreading vaccines.”

In 2004, Shi’s team collected samples from just 408 bats across China. After seven years of searching, they discovered a coronavirus strain from Chinese horseshoe bats. This strain, known as WIV1, was 97% identical to SARS1 from the 2003 wet markets (but ~20% different from SARS2). This discovery put Shi on the Western virologists’ radar, for better or worse, becoming known as the “Batwoman.”

The WIV1 bat sample was significant because it was one of only three coronavirus samples isolated from bat dung. This was a fantastic feat that only Shi’s lab could perform before the pandemic. In 2016, Chinese researchers sent the WIV1 bat sample to North Carolina for an in vitro test on human airway cells. By 2018, UNC scientists had sent the same sample to Montana for in vivo testing on live Egyptian fruit bats. The same supply chain and collaboration continued in 2019, contributing to the creation of the SARS2 pandemic.

In 2003, Shi visited Linfa at his BSL4 lab in Australia, where Shi met Dani for the first time. Around 2005, Linfa attempted to infect horseshoe bats with SARS1 in his BSL4 lab. He struggled to keep the high-maintenance horseshoe bats alive in captivity, famously giving up due to the difficulty in feeding and breeding them. Like Chinese Pandas, Chinese bats are hard to sustain in captivity. Linfa eventually turned to Shi for future live bat experiments. A 2009 Wuhan newspaper article quoted Shi’s postdoc, noting they “captured a few bats from the wild to be used as experimental animals, but they need to be fed every day,” so Shi “took on the task of raising bats.”

Fauci’s NIAID and the US State Department program USAID Predict financed most of Shi’s bat expeditions, using EcoHealth as an intermediary. The plan was to ship all the Chinese bat samples to US labs “for further characterization.” The idea was “bio-surveillance,” and the aim, Daszak said, is “to find out which of the viruses in the wild could infect people so we know where they are. We can stop them from emerging.”

Linfa, Daszak, and Shi partnered with NIAID and USAID Predict around 2010. This initiative was designed as an “early warning system” for future pandemics, but it inadvertently contributed to the emergence of a new pandemic. They collected thousands of bat samples in China and identified hundreds of new viruses “poised for human emergence.” Both programs funded the transportation of these samples to America, where US-based researchers analyzed them. The small international team of Linfa, Shi, and Daszak expanded over time:

• 2004: Shi meets Daszak and Linfa while seeking a SARS progenitor.

• 2005: Shi, Daszak and Linfa find SARS in Rhinolophus bats.

• 2008: NIAID awards Daszak first of many R01 subgrants for WIV.

• 2010: WIV issues first progress report to NIAID.

• 2013: Baric visits Wuhan to discuss research strategies.

• 2013: Baric writes a letter of support for Daszak’s R01 grant.

• 2015: Baric seeks SARS-like genomes <25% different.

• 2015: Munster travels to Wuhan.

• 2015: Baric and Shi traveled to Beijing for a MERS presentation.

• 2016: Dani starts part-time research in Wuhan.

• 2016: Baric shares his humanized (hACE2) mice with Shi.

• 2016: Daszak hosts PBS (BBC of US) in China and Shi’s lab.

• 2017: Shi and Dani attend a Colorado conference with Munster.

• 2017: Shi, Daszak, and Linfa attend a US conference with Fauci.

• 2018: Shi travels to UTMB Galveston and meets Baric.

• 2018: Shi uploads parts of RaTG13 to the NCBI database.

• 2018: Baric, Daszak, Chris Broder, Linfa, and Dani met in Wuhan.

• 2019: Shi collaborates with Rocky Mountain Lab.

• 2019: Daszak R01AI110964-05 progress report referenced DARPA.

• 2019: NIAID adds Baric to an ongoing R01 project in Wuhan.

Shi’s collaboration with Baric represents the global network of virologists focusing on bat-borne viruses. In 2013, Shi shared reagents, Chinese bat kidney cells, and bat samples with her US academic partners, including an unpublished bat sample called SHC014. It was 10% different from SARS. Unable to isolate the virus herself, Shi sent Baric the genomic sequence of SHC014 via email. Baric then used his patented reverse genetic method to create an infectious clone of the virus in his lab at the University of North Carolina (UNC). This process involved synthesizing a live virus from the emailed sequence, a complex feat that Baric’s lab uniquely accomplished. To repeat, Baric’s lab at UNC created a live Chinese virus based on Shi’s email with a genomic sequence.

The collaboration resulted in a controversial paper published in 2015, where Baric’s lab “resurrected” the virus based on the genomic sequence provided by Shi. This showed Baric’s lab’s ability to create a 30,000-nucleotide coronavirus genome, a task he claimed no other lab could achieve. In 2013, an American colleague asked him if any lab could do it. Baric answered no, “Coronaviruses are more complex. We can synthetically resurrect the virus in our lab, and it’s identical to the natural isolate.”

Baric started a two-way collaboration with Shi in 2013. He tasked her with finding genomes less than 25% different from SARS. Shi climbed through the jungles of China’s mountains to reach bat caves. There, she caught horseshoe bats that carry SARS-like viruses. Then, Shi would share her bat samples with Baric. He then used his fancy reverse genetic system to create new coronaviruses. Their work was published in prestigious journals like Nature Medicine and the Journal of Virology, with Baric crediting Shi as a co-author for her field contributions. This collaboration thrived on the principle of “publish or perish,” benefiting both parties.

According to Daszak, Shi had already conducted a “data dump” in November 2018 containing SARS-like sequences. The 2018 DARPA Defuse Technical Area 1 (TA1) and 2019 NIAID R01 documents detail parallel fieldwork in Yunnan Province, southwest China, focusing on monitoring bat populations to collect data on SARS-related coronaviruses (SARSr-CoVs). This research involved continuous monitoring of bat populations to detect and isolate SARSr-CoVs and track changes in viral prevalence over time. Both initiatives aimed to establish baseline data to understand the dynamics of SARS-CoV interactions within bat hosts. Collaboration spanned the WIV, UNC, and Duke University, each contributing to distinct aspects of the collective research.

By July 2019, Baric became involved in her R01 research. That new R01 grant was part of Daszak’s revised DARPA Defuse grant for collecting bat samples in southern China. Their joint paper, “Origin and cross-species transmission of bat coronaviruses in China,” by Latinne et al., was submitted in October 2019. It emphasized Rhinolophus bats in Yunnan Province, employing Bayesian models referenced in DARPA Defuse.

In October 2019, Shi had a “NIAID SARS-CoV call” with Daszak, Baric, Linfa, and the rest of the team. The R01 project in Shi’s BSL2 did not include Dani’s BSL4 bat research or Baric’s BSL3 furin cleavage site research. From 2004 until 2019, this was a win-win high tide, lifting all boats’ collaboration until suddenly, it was not. What was a longtime collective enterprise quickly turned into a subtle finger-pointing game.

During the 2020 pandemic, Shi communicated with her Western collaborators, including institutions such as UNC, Rocky Mountain Lab, the University of Minnesota, Ohio State University, Colorado State University, and the Food and Drug Administration. In April 2020, James LeDuc of the UTMB contacted Shi with inquiries about a potential lab leak. Shi responded, “Due to the complicated situation, I do not think it is the right time to communicate, but I can tell you that the [SARS2] virus did not leak from our lab or any other labs.”

Shi clarified that her work at the downtown Wuchang campus only involved “low pathogenic” coronaviruses. LeDuc then requested permission in March 2020 to send Shi an infectious clone of SARS2, showing that Shi could not clone the SARS2 genome due to the limitations of her Bacterial Artificial Chromosome (BAC) reverse genetic system.

Daszak, commenting early in the pandemic, explained the complex supply chain involved in their research. He mentioned that the genetic sequences of bat viruses discovered in China were made available online through databases like GenBank and GISAID, facilitating drug testing, such as for remdesivir, without the need to culture or ship viruses internationally.

The RaTG13 sample, collected by Shi’s team in 2013 with NIAID funds, came from an abandoned copper mineshaft 1,000 miles southwest of Wuhan. The sample’s name, RaTG13, represents the bat species Rhinolophus affinis (Ra), the location of Tongguan (TG), and the year of discovery (13). It was a perfect match for Baric’s 25% criteria.

Shi uploaded fragments of the RaTG13 sequence to NIAID’s GenBank database in 2016 and 2018, although they were not released until 2022. On January 24, 2020, Shi circumvented NIAID’s GenBank embargo by releasing the complete sequence, which marked her as a whistleblower in the Wuhan lab controversy.

Shi then re-uploaded RaTG13 to GISAID. It was a password-protected database accessible to professional evolutionary virologists. One week later, on January 31, 2020, rumors of SARS2 engineering reached Fauci’s inbox, keeping the 79-year-old head of NIAID awake until 3:00 AM the following day. Baric met with Fauci two weeks later to discuss “chimeras and the outbreak.” During the NIAID meeting, Baric expressed a desire for Shi to be arrested for publishing RaTG13, since it implicated him.

In April 2020, Shi sent a blunt email to Baric stating, “We have nothing to conceal.” At the same time, another UTMB professor spread the rumor that “China is insisting the virus came from the US. But, as you can see, China is shutting down access to early samples. Seems like if we sent it over there, you’d want everyone to examine it to prove we did wrong.”

When contacted by Professor Pei-Yong Shi of UTMB, Shi Zhengli suggested they discuss the matter with “Tony Fauci.” Professor Thomas Ksiazek of UTMB replied, “I don’t think they were working with live bats; I don’t think they would have been doing this in the BSL4. From Pei-Yong’s discussions with the “bat lady,” Dr. Shi, I don’t believe that they had this virus in the lab before this started. A lot of people don’t appreciate that most of the viruses identified in bats have not been able to be grown. There are a few exceptions, but most publications are done by PCR and NGS sequencing.”

Shi never isolated the RaTG13 bat sample; it was just a genomic sequence. Although Shi was not listed on Fauci’s CREID project, she worked on the bat sample collection through an R01 grant awarded by NIAID in July 2019, which marked the formal start of DARPA Defuse. Shi’s job description in the grant was to share bat sequences with US labs. While Dani Anderson spent the next four months in Wuhan’s BSL4 lab, Shi was mostly out of the country for international conferences.

Fauci summarized Shi best: “I don’t know her. I’ve never met her. But I’ve talked to virologists who interact with her, and they say Shi’s a very talented scientist, has high integrity, and is someone whose major purpose is to prevent outbreaks from occurring. She is one of the investigators who discovered the ultimate connection of SARS-CoV-1 to the animal kingdom. I don’t think very many people recognize that. She is a member of the American Academy of Microbiology. Dr. Shi is a very well-recognized scientist.”

Shi told the BBC, “All our research results are published in English journals as papers. Virus sequences are saved in the US-run GenBank database, too. It is completely transparent. We have nothing to hide.” And “I would personally welcome any visit based on an open, transparent, trusting, reliable and reasonable dialogue. But the specific plan is not decided by me.” In the summer of 2021, Shi told The New York Times, “My lab was not involved in gain-of-function, and I did nothing wrong, so I have nothing to fear.”

Share

Bat virologists also love bats but must dissect them for biodefense research. Conversely, bat biologists view things differently. They consider bats more than “sky puppies” but as contributors to ecology. These winged creatures are insectivorous, consuming insects each night, saving humans billions of dollars in pest control. It’s worth noting that Chinese horseshoe bats are insectivorous but challenging to feed and breed in captivity.

Read more

Rand Paul and fellow Republicans have withheld his UNC emails for nearly three years. So what are they hiding?

One commenter joked: Looks like Dr. Rand Paul (👓) is better than Dr. Ralph Baric (🦠) with “no see em” technology.

I’ve argued that Baric’s emails are “explosive.” They raise questions about FBI contacts and post-DARPA DEFUSE funding.

Jon Fleetwood covered our Carolina Flu petition and asked me for comment, which I gladly provided.

JonFleetwood.com

Open Letter Demands UNC Release Coronavirus Research Records as Investigator Warns of ‘Explosive’ Baric Emails

An open letter organized by independent researchers Jim Haslam and George Howard is calling on the University of …

Read more

9 days ago · 59 likes · 8 comments · Jon Fleetwood

In an October 8 Twitter/X post, I wrote:

“If the American public read the Toni & Ralph Baric emails behind this congressional letter, J6 would look like recess.”

The Republicans have had Baric’s emails for years, but they've released only this one, which made Baric look good. But Baric sent this CYA email from his Gmail. He was diverting attention from Dani Anderson’s BSL4 to Shi’s BSL2.

In the book, I claimed Baric selectively released this email to Congress, but Congress selectively redacted and released the only one of hundreds that made Baric look good.

Is Paul’s Selective Transparency Just Another D.C. Con?

Senator Paul loves playing the righteous crusader for pandemic truth on cable news. For years, we have watched him grill health officials, positioning himself as the lone wolf fighting a massive bureaucratic cover-up.

But in D.C., “transparency” isn’t a principle. It’s a release schedule. And Senator Paul is wielding it like a seasoned swamp creature, selectively filtering a million-page lab leak archive to maximize his television airtime while keeping the most damning evidence locked away.

While Paul hounds Fauci’s secretary over deleted emails, he quietly sits on a mountain of unreleased emails from Baric. His pre-pandemic communications are the obvious prize. UNC was so embarrassed by them that it retired Baric and handed his emails to Congress years ago.

Leaked fragments paint a damning picture of a systemic cover-up. Evidence shows that Baric’s wife manipulated the FOIA pipeline from within UNC, filtering public records requests and routing state-funded work to a private Yahoo account. Early in the pandemic, Baric and his proteges moved their communications to private Gmail accounts to evade public oversight.

Meanwhile, Baric ghostwrote the Lancet letter behind the scenes, dismissing the lab leak hypothesis as a crackpot “conspiracy theory.” He then used that letter to mislead the UNC president.

Paul knows all of this. Yet he withholds Baric’s emails from the public. Why? Because a full document dump would end the reality-TV drama. It turns out that his lab leak deception implicates the entire scientific and political establishment, not just Paul’s favorite political targets.

By hoarding these files, Senator Paul has turned an investigation into a partisan fundraising tool. He has become the very thing he claims to hate: a bureaucratic gatekeeper who is gatekeeping the truth.

We don’t want a curated reality show; we want accountability. Senator Paul needs to stop playing political games, stop protecting the academic elite, and release the complete, unredacted Baric files immediately. Let the public see the raw evidence, or admit the theater was the whole point.

Business Op-ed by Haslam and Howard

https://businessnc.com/op-ed-unc-scientific-research-is-a-vital-risky-asset-requiring-close-oversight/

Much has been published and said elsewhere about UNC’s possible involvement in the pandemic’s origins. Those claims cannot be left unexamined. An independent investigation should test them and, if the evidence warrants, disprove them. Leaving allegations unresolved lets suspicion linger and risks erosion of UNC’s reputation — and North Carolina’s.

A leaked 2018 DEFUSE proposal by the federal Department of Defense identified UNC Professor Ralph Baric as a participant in proposed coronavirus research involving SARS-like viruses and cleavage sites — a feature unique to Covid-19. It does not establish that the research occurred or that SARS-CoV-2 was created in a laboratory. It does warrant investigation.

For several years, we have examined coronavirus research associated with UNC and its foreign and domestic collaborations. Our investigation began with COVID-19’s origins, which remain murky. It spawned a broader question: Who verifies independently that potentially high-consequence research at America’s public universities has been properly managed, disclosed and overseen?

Our hypothesis about Covid-19’s origin as a well-intended vaccine gone unintentionally awry remains contested and unproven. Examining the evidence does not imply support for our theory, or any other. The evidence in its entirety deserves an open and neutral investigation.

North Carolina’s biotechnology and research economy depends on trust among funders, companies, investors, researchers and surrounding communities. Credible scrutiny strengthens that trust.

The fact is that Baric and his UNC laboratory spent years developing methods for studying and genetically modifying SARS-like coronaviruses, including in bats. UNC researchers also collaborated with scientists associated with the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

Italian virologist discussed Baric

Professor Giorgio Palù discussed Baric’s 2014 interview, in which Baric declared that no transmission models for coronaviruses existed. Five years later, Baric and Vincent Munster solved that problem.

Raszek uploaded his Patreon video to YouTube

Read through the comments. Many viewers seem to grasp the evidence, or at least are asking the right questions.

Raszek summarized the bat vaccine theory best: “But the entire premise checks out for me. Very fascinating (even if unpopular theory because it wasn’t evil enough)”

Subscribe now

Professor Linfa Wang’s day on December 9, 2019, epitomized his Eastern Hemisphere leadership in emerging infectious diseases. After leaving the Singapore conference center, he appeared on Singaporean television advocating for Nipah virus vaccines. He highlighted the virus’s potential to cause severe epidemics and called for increased subsidies from the Singapore government. His advocacy followed a $10 million Singapore grant for his “Learning from Bats” project. His live bat research and animal vaccine development expanded his research team, known as the “Linfa lab” on campus.

Read more

It was December 31, 2019, when Baric had forwarded a ProMed alert: “Maybe as many as 27 cases with 7 severe in Wuhan--ARDS like pneumonia.” Both scientists found this late 2019 news perplexing. Two months earlier, they had a conference call with the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) under the auspices of “NIAID’s SARS-CoV” program. Daszak quickly replied to Baric that Hongying Li from EcoHealth was already on the case and was gathering more information. He shared the ProMed alert on his Twitter account and reassured Baric: “Hongying is hearing from good sources that they have found a candidate virus in some samples, and results will be sent out soon.” Daszak also included Linfa Wang and Danielle Anderson from Duke University in the email reply.

Read more

Two years ago, Raszek thought DEFUSE was fake. But after reading the book twice, he endorsed its conclusions: COVID was a contagious bat vaccine developed at Rocky Mountain Lab.

New USRTK article on RML

https://usrtk.org/covid-19-origins/before-covid-an-nih-lab-chief-proposed-making-a-sars-like-bat-virus-better-at-infecting-people/

Vincent Munster and his postdoc, Michael Letko, had spent that year building a system to rapidly test whether dozens of SARS-related bat coronaviruses could infect human cells. That week, Munster read a new preprint from prominent virologists Vineet Menachery and Ralph Baric’s lab groups showing that the protease trypsin could unlock entry for certain coronaviruses that otherwise would not infect human cells. Letko had forwarded him the paper two days earlier with the note, “Seems like more groups will be converging on this idea soon…”

“You should be able to make S with a more broader cleavage signature (like furin-like) to enhance infectivity,” Munster wrote back on Oct. 6, 2019. “You can include a motif like this R-X-[K/R]-R↓ Might be cool to get some synthesized.”

In virology parlance, “S” is the coronavirus spike protein, which allows the virus to latch onto the cells it infects, and R-X-[K/R]-R is a furin cleavage site motif, which can make viruses better able to infect cells and spread. Munster was suggesting that his postdoc engineer a furin site into a coronavirus spike protein to make it more infectious.

Eleven weeks later, a coronavirus carrying a similar furin cleavage site emerged in Wuhan, China, spawning the COVID-19 pandemic. It remains the only known sarbecovirus, the SARS-related group of coronaviruses that Munster and Letko were then screening, to have one.

The email exchange has never been made public before. It appears in a 270-page batch of records recently released by NIH to U.S. Right To Know in response to a request made under the Freedom of Information Act. The request sought specific correspondence from Munster’s lab in Hamilton, Montana, from March 2019 through January 22, 2020, the date when his group published one of the first papers showing that the new coronavirus used a human cell receptor called ACE2 as a doorway into cells.

Munster’s postdoc, Michael Letko, emailed him in March 2019 with a message that reads remarkably like Baric’s DEFUSE proposal.

Compare the above email to Baric’s Technical Area 1 in DARPA DEFUSE:

via USRTK files

In February 2019, Baric sent his chimeras to Rocky Mountain Lab. They used an MERS-like FCS (R-X-[K/R]-R) in SARS2 (RRAR).

https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/2024.01.29-_-Response-04.16.2024.pdf

Baric’s February 2019 experiments used a MERS-like furin cleavage site in SARS2 (PRRAR).

And the reference to MERS-MA30 above (PRRVR).

Letko and DEFUSE

Fireworks in Hamilton

NIH has placed a gag order on Rocky Mountain Lab. Jim Olsen then critiqued my book and proposed a soft succession plan for Hamilton. “We don’t have a military,” so sue and surround RML with local checkpoints (15-17 min).

https://ravalli-mt.granicus.com/player/clip/2579

Letter to Jay Bhattacharya and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Subject: If Quay is out at NIAID, what’s your backup plan?

According to STAT News, Dr. Steven Quay is “no longer the leading candidate” to head Fauci’s NIAID. Quay is a qualified biotech entrepreneur, the kind of outsider the stagnant NIH needs. He’s also a prominent lab leak theorist, a stance NIAID will fight.

Quay’s appointment would challenge the prevailing narrative inside an institution that has spent years defending it. Why? Because NIAID’s Building 31 created COVID.

But it appears the Building 31 snakes have already bitten Quay. So what’s Plan B? Richard Ebright? Peter McCullough? Martin Kulldorff?

Take a page from Trump’s playbook: troll your haters. Your instincts were right. Don’t retreat. Double down.

Jay, remember when the scientific establishment dismissed you as a “fringe epidemiologist” for challenging its COVID policies?

What if SARS-CoV-2’s epidemiology points to Montana, not China? My letter to WHO argues that transmission in specific New World lab animals points to research at NIAID’s Rocky Mountain Lab, linking to Fauci’s bat vaccine development. Don’t carry Fauci’s water; demand an independent investigation.

RFK Jr., remember how Fauci and his allies treated you as an anti-vax crank rather than engaging with your arguments. What if the virus was the vaccine?

You both handed the Fauci files over to Rand Paul, and look at the crazy stuff that’s come out. It’s only the tip of the biological iceberg. You know you’re over the target when you’re taking flak. Don’t mistake institutional resistance for a reason to retreat.

You both can reform these institutions, not just change the names on their doors.

New NIAID director’s schedule

Dr. Quay, I’ve taken the liberty of scheduling your first week for the NIAID position!

Monday: release Rocky Mountain Lab’s PRD-12-143 grant, which created COVID

Tuesday: release all of Vincent Munster and Heinz Feldmann’s emails

Wednesday: release emails from Fauci’s #2, Hugh Auchincloss, with RML because he offered Munster early tenure in 2016 for setting up an Egyptian fruit bat colony.

Thursday: publish the unpublished RML results on Egyptian fruit bats, aka the SARS2 reservoir host.

Friday: release Steve Holland’s emails with RML because Munster complained about not making enough $$$ and being used as a fall guy

10 questions for Rocky Mountain Lab

Peter is the free man beyond the lab leak wall

In his memoir, Fauci called RML his “satellite campus.” He wrote them at work, using a daily email on his NIAID computer. Jay released those emails to Rand Paul last year, and Paul posted them this year.

Fauci’s diaries

Over a year ago, I told Rand Paul to his face that Baric chopped up the DEFUSE bid and resubmitted it to Fauci. Paul replied, I get it, but never asked Fauci. According to his recently released diary, it’s the ONLY thing Fauci was nervous about.

https://www.paul.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/2026.10.07_Missing-Pages-Diary_Full-Package.pdf

Fauci found this 2022 Project Veritas video, based on Major Murphy’s letter:

When confronted about funding the DARPA DEFUSE grant, Fauci gave a prepared denial, saying, “We have never seen that (DEFUSE) grant, and we have never funded that grant.” The word “that” did a lot of work.

Fauci’s response to the above hearing is written below.

Notice the legalese USRTK lawyers made them use in their RML article:

Nothing in the records shows that Letko followed through on Munster’s suggestion to insert a furin cleavage site in a SARS spike protein, however. In fact, the furin cleavage site found in SARS-CoV-2 differs from the motif, or short sequence of amino acids, that Munster suggested.

I turned against Paul partly because he had legal immunity to do this for us and backed down. I believe his ties to Duke University explain his reluctance on this subject.

Carolina Flu. And Duke, too?

Sign up if you haven’t, because Congress won’t help us.

https://carolinaflu.org/#duke-home-heading

Subscribe now

What is a chimera? A chimera is a combination of two or more viruses, created in the lab, to make a new virus. “Chimera" or "chimeric" appears 34 times in DARPA Defuse and 16 times in Fauci’s CREID.

Read more

Five years ago, Major Murphy figured it out. Baric and Daszak split the 2018 DEFUSE bid and resubmitted it under Fauci’s NIAID. The Intercept published the 2018-19 grants on September 9, 2021. Murphy read them and wrote the undated letter below.

One year ago I told Senator Paul the same, but he sits on Baric’s emails proving this.

From: Murphy, Joseph P. Maj USMC, DARPA, DIRO (USA)

To: Capt xxxxx (redacted)

Thanks for responding

I’m reaching out to communicate information about COVID that I don’t believe you or your director is aware of. You probably saw earlier this week [of September 2021] that more official documents linking NIH and EcoHealth Alliance to the Wuhan Institute of Virology were published by The Intercept. I came across additional incriminating documents and produced an analysis after leaving DARPA last month. This report was routed to the Department of Defense Inspector General’s office.

I’m unsure whether those who received the report understand the significance of what I communicated. Decisions concerning the vaccines do not appear to be informed by analysis of the documents. The main points are that SARS-CoV-2 matches the SARS vaccine variants the NIH-EcoHealth program was making in Wuhan, that the Department of Defense (DoD) rejected the program proposal because vaccines would be ineffective, and because the spike proteins being inserted into the variants were deemed too dangerous (gain-of-function): and that the DoD now mandates vaccines that copy the spike protein previously considered to be too risky. To me and those who informed my analysis, this situation meets gain-of-function criteria regarding the vaccines until the toxicity of the spike protein can be investigated. There’s also information within the documents about which drugs effectively treat the program’s SARS-CoVs.

Thus, I’m reaching out. I’m trying to provide as much information as possible to help leadership grapple with the vaccines and the mandate. I wanted to push this information your way.

Several of the documents referenced in the Inspector General report have since been downgraded. Please reach out to me with questions.

V/R,

Major Joe Murphy, USMC Marine Program Liaison

Office of Naval Research

My notes

Major Joseph Murphy from the US military was frustrated at the lack of response to his August letter (below). So, he wrote an undated cover letter (above) sometime after September 9, 2021, but before he leaked the DARPA Defuse documents by September 21, 2021. In 2020, The Intercept sued NIAID to obtain two 2019 EcoHealth grants: the $3.2 million R01 and the $7.5 million U01.

On September 9, 2021, The Intercept published 900 pages of documents related to these two NIAID grants. Murphy noticed that the same personnel involved in the NIAID R01 and U01 grants—Peter Daszak, Ralph Baric, Linfa Wang, Dani Anderson, and Shi Zhengli—were also listed in the 2018 DARPA Defuse document.

The 2021 Intercept Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) revealed the NIAID documents, though they were overshadowed by DARPA Defuse news in Fall 2021. Ironically, Major Murphy leaked the DARPA Defuse documents after reading The Intercept FOIA.

The Intercept noted the U01 CREID proposal, “written in 2019, often seems prescient, focusing on scaling up and deploying resources in Asia in case of an outbreak of an emergent infectious disease and referring to Asia as the hottest of the EID hotspots.” The Intercept also highlighted, “Instead of sending viral samples to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which is not a partner on this CREID project, the scientists will send the collected [coronavirus] samples to the [Rocky Mountain Lab where Baric and Daszak have ongoing collaborations], the National Emerging Infectious Diseases Laboratories in Boston, and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.” Weeks later, The Intercept also published the DARPA Defuse documents. Months later, Project Veritas published Murphy’s letter.

The leaked documents and Major Murphy’s revelations have shed light on the potential origins of SARS2, suggesting that a well-intentioned but high-risk research project inadvertently led to a global pandemic. Murphy found the DARPA Defuse document in a top-secret US government folder.

The renewed $3.2 million NIAID R01 grant added Baric in 2019. The new $7.5 million U01 CREID grant was undergoing testing for most of 2019. In early 2020, Daszak bid on another $3.4 million NIAID grant in Laos, bringing his total to $14.1 million from NIAID to cover the $14.2 million Defuse bid. These three NIAID grants covered China and Southeast Asia with the same scope of work.

Murphy’s original August 2021 letter continues below, referencing the 2019 grant ($3.2M) canceled by President Trump in April 2020. Trump truthfully claimed the grant started in 2015 under the Obama administration, but Fauci renewed it in 2019 with DARPA Defuse language. None of us knew it at the time; it partially funded the creation of Covid-19 on US soil. On a personal note, when Major Joseph Murphy wrote his August 2021 letter, I believed that Covid was a self-spreading PLA-made biodefense vaccine intended for Chinese troops. Murphy attempted to explain to US military doctors that the human virus was, in fact, an airborne bat vaccine!

Murphy’s letter to DoD Inspector General

13 August 2021

From: COMMANDANT OF THE MARINE CORPS FELLOW, DARPA

TO: INSPECTOR GENERAL

Subject: SARS-CoV-2 ORIGINS INVESTIGATION WITH US GOVERNMENT PROGRAM UNDISCLOSED DOCUMENT ANALYSIS

1) SARS-CoV-2 is an American-created recombinant bat vaccine or its precursor virus. It was created by an EcoHealth Alliance program at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), as suggested by the reporting surrounding the lab leak hypothesis. The details of this program have been concealed since the pandemic began. These details can be found in the EcoHealth Alliance proposal response to the DARPA PREEMPT program Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) HR001180017, dated March 2018 - a document not yet publicly disclosed.

The proposed program’s contents are extremely detailed. Peter Daszak outlines step-by-step what the organization intends to do by phase and location. The primary scientists involved, their roles, and their institutions are indicated. The EcoHealth plan for the Wuhan Institute of Virology work is in the attached DARPA Defuse document.

SARS-CoV-2’s form, as it emerged, is likely as a precursor, deliberately virulent, humanized recombinant SARSr-CoV that was to be reverse-engineered into a live attenuated SARSr-CoV bat vaccine. Its nature can be determined from the analysis of its genome with the context provided by the EcoHealth Alliance proposal. Joining this analysis with US intelligence collections on Wuhan will aid this determination.

When synthesized with the EcoHealth Alliance proposal, US collections confirm that EcoHealth Alliance performed the proposed work. The analysts produce their reports in a vacuum absent the context the proposal provides. As a fellow at DARPA, I can see both and do the synthesis. For instance, WIV personnel identified in intelligence reports are named in the proposal; these people use the lexicon of the proposal in the collections, and the virus variants proposed for experimentation are identical to those gleaned by collections. Moreover, I am also privy to information obtained by congressional office investigators and DRASTIC, which further corroborates that the program detailed in the BAA response was conducted until it was shut down in April 2020.

The purpose of the EcoHealth program, “DEFUSE” in the proposal, was to inoculate bats in the Yunnan China caves where confirmed SARS-CoV were found. Ostensibly, doing this would prevent another SARS-CoV pandemic: the bats’ immune systems would be reinforced to prevent a deadly SARS-CoV from emerging. The specific language used is “inoculate bats with novel chimeric polyvalent spike proteins to enhance their adaptive immune memory against specific high-risk viruses.” Being defense-related, it makes sense that EcoHealth submitted the proposal first to the Department of Defense before it settled with NIH/NIAID. The BAA response is dated March 2018 and was submitted by Peter Daszak, president of EcoHealth Alliance.

DARPA rejected the proposal because the work was too close to violating the gain-of-function (GOF) moratorium, despite what Peter Daszak says in the proposal (that the work would not). As is known, Dr. Fauci with NIAID did not reject the proposal. The work took place at the WIV and several US sites, which are identified in detail in the proposal.

The EcoHealth Alliance response to the PREEMPT BAA is placed along with other proposal documents in the PREEMPT folder on the DARPA Biological Technologies Office UWICS (top secret share drive, address: Network/filer/BTO/CI Folder/PREEMPT)

This folder was empty for a year. The files, completely unmarked with classification or distribution data, were placed in this folder in July 2021, which conspicuously aligns with media reporting, my probing, and Senator Paul’s inquiry into NIH/NIAID gain-of-function programs. The unmarked nature combined with the timing signals that the documents were being hidden. No files at DARPA go unmarked in classification or distribution, including proprietary documents. Furthermore, PREEMPT is an unclassified program. The files are also now held by the Marine Corps Intelligence Activity (MCIA). They are identified in the reference block above.

2) SARS-CoV-2, hereafter referred to as SARS-CoV-WIV, is a synthetic spike protein chimera engineered to attach to human ACE2 receptors and inserted into a recombinant bat SARSr-CoV backbone. It is likely a live vaccine that has not yet been engineered to a more attenuated state than the program sought to create with its final version. It leaked and spread rapidly because it was aerosolized so it could efficiently infect bats in caves, but it was not ready to infect bats yet, so it does not appear to infect bats. The disease is confusing because it is less a virus than engineered spike proteins hitch-hiking a ride on a SARSr-CoV quasi-species swarm. The closer it is to the final live attenuated vaccine form, the more likely it has been de-attenuating since its initial escape in August 2019.

The utility of certain countermeasures can be extrapolated from the documents:

• The team selected SARSr-CoVs that were the most monoclonal antibody and vaccine-resistant.

• It is not practical to inoculate bats directly with shots, nor can bats get respiratory infections from droplets. Hence, the team developed an aerosol to deliver the inoculations directly into the caves. To ensure it worked well, they developed the aerosol against masked civets.

• The proposal notes that interferon, remdesivir, and chloroquine phosphate inhibit SARSr-CoV viral replication.

Because of its (now) known nature, the SARSr-CoV-WIV illness is readily resolved with early treatment that inhibits the viral replication that spreads the spike proteins around the body (which induces a harmful overactive immune response as the body tries to clear the spikes from the ACE receptors). Many of the early treatment protocols ignored by the authorities work because they inhibit viral replication or modulate the immune response to the spike proteins. This makes sense within the context of what EcoHealth was creating. Some of these treatment protocols also inhibit the action of the engineered spike protein. For instance, Ivermectin (identified as curative in April 2020) works throughout all illness phases because it inhibits viral replication and modulates the immune response. Of note is that chloroquine phosphate (Hydroxychloriquine, identified April 2020 as curative) is identified in the proposal as a SARSr-CoV inhibitor, as is interferon identified May 2020 as curative).

The gene-encoded, or mRNA, vaccines work poorly because they are synthetic replications of the already-synthetic SARSr-CoV-WIV spike proteins and possess no other epitopes. The mRNA instructs the cells to produce synthetic copies of the SARSr-CoV-WIV synthetic spike protein directly into the bloodstream, spreading and producing the same ACE2 immune storm that the recombinant vaccine does. Many doctors in the country have identified that the symptoms of vaccine reactions mirror the symptoms of the disease, which corroborates with the similar synthetic nature and function of the respective spike proteins. The vaccine recipient has no defense against bloodstream entry, but their nose protects them from the recombinant spike protein quasi-species during “natural infection” (better termed as aerosolized inoculation).

Furthermore, the EcoHealth proposal states that a “vaccine approach lacks sufficient epitope coverage to protect against quasi-species of coronavirus.” Consequently, they tried to make vaccines work by “targeted immune boosting via vaccine inoculators using chimeric polyvalent recombinant spike proteins.” The nature of using a spike protein vaccine with one epitope against a spike protein vaccine with quasi-species may explain the unusual (and potentially detrimental) antibody response amongst the vaccinated to the new COVID variants. Fundamentally, the knowledge the proposal provides signals that the risk of Antibody-Dependent Enhancement (ADE from vaccination should be evaluated with high priority, on top of the reality that single-epitope vaccines will have little effect against SARS-CoV-WIV, as indicated in the proposal.

The potential for SARSr-CoV-WIV to de-attenuate requires immediate attention. Live vaccines have been found to de-attenuate in the past. Suppose this is the case with SARS-CoV-WIV. Then, the mass vaccination campaign performs an accelerated gain-of-function. Since it is designed for bats from a human-susceptible SARS-CoV, vaccinating humans against it returns its function towards a more de-attenuated human-susceptible form. Improving the SARSr-CoV-WIV spike protein to gain robustness against monoclonal vaccines is one of the steps of the DEFUSE program. The mechanism to improve the SARSr-CoV-WIV spike protein (other than direct engineering) is challenging it against animals with spike protein-only antibodies. The attenuated virus will either die or adapt its form to neutralize the spike protein-only antibodies. The intent was to perform this task against humanized mice and then “batified” mice. Instead, it was done with the world’s population.

SARS-CoV-WIV is not meant to kill the bats but to immunize them. This nature may explain its general harmlessness to most people and its harmfulness to the old and co-morbid, who are generally more susceptible to vaccine reactions. The asymptomatic nature is also explained by the bat vaccine’s creators’ intention (a good vaccine does not generate symptoms). Such effects would be expected of an immature vaccine or a vaccine being reverse-engineered from a more virulent form into an attenuated form. The spike protein effect on ACE receptors exacerbates the harmfulness of age and comorbidity. The nature of SARSr-CoV-WIV’s de-attenuation will also indicate future virulence, though knowing its nature, at last, neutralizes the threat as effective treatments can be applied with confidence.

3) DRASTIC and other scientists will clean up my description of SARS-CoV-WIV’s nature and progression within the DEFUSE program. This information is sufficient for an investigative report and enough to correct the existing pandemic strategy. Previously, the nation did not know itself, nor the adversary in the pandemic conflict. Now it knows both. The problem can be framed appropriately and specifically against a confirmed hypothesis. Limiting disease transmission can be dropped as the implied strategic end, as it is neither the actual problem nor feasible. The strategy will then align early treatment protocols and prevention with the known curatives as ways and means. This course of action will achieve the strategic end of clinical resolution for those susceptible to SARS-CoV-WIV inoculation’s adverse effects.

4) I will inevitably be asked how I figured this out and discovered the documents. The pandemic response became the predominant focus of my fellowship efforts. DARPA worked on many pandemic innovations, and much of its team was familiar with biodefense. I had the opportunity to “sit in the back row” per se and observe and listen in on the government’s efforts. My obligation-light fellowship also allowed me to observe and read the field. This observation grew in scope to the point that it became a series of reports like a military scout would prepare when tasked to investigate a problem.

These reports served as iterative thinking against the problem over many months. Eventually, I concluded that what leaked from the WIV could be a bat vaccine or its precursor. It was feasible that the US would try to avoid a SARS-CoV outbreak by stopping it at its source, not by halting its infections amongst people, but by halting its infections amongst the bats. Americans are creative, even if imprudent, and technologically confident enough to try it. This concept seemed to fit within the PREEMPT program construct as well, and DRASTIC had discovered that some earlier specimens within the USAID PREDICT program were obtained in Africa and sent to the WIV. Moreover, the unusual nature and pathology of the virus hinted that it could be a vaccine or be vaccine-like.

A technological challenge as difficult as inoculating bats in China would be tried at DARPA first. The massive “Manhattan Project”-level of information suppression executed by the government and the Trusted News Initiative indicates that it would be covered up if something bad happened. The lab-leak hypothesis and squabbling between Senator Paul and Dr. Fauci indicated that the cover-up was more localized. Further, an actual cover-up would be more disciplined with its paperwork. So, I presumed that unclassified files would be concealed on a higher network and found them where I expected them. I understood what they were and their content, pushed the files off-site, and compiled this report.

Semper Fi

U.S. Marine Corp Major Joseph Murphy

Murphy attached the DARPA Defuse bid

24 March 2018

From: Peter Daszak, President, EcoHealth Alliance

To: DARPA PREventing EMerging Pathogenic Threats (PREEMPT)

Subject: Project Defuse

Amount of the Requested Proposal: $14,209,245 across 3.5 years

The book author’s comments are italicized, and important evidence is bolded:

• Security concerns across Asia make the region a potential deployment site for US warfighters. Troops face increased disease risk from SARSr-CoVs, which are shed via urine and feces as bats forage at night.

• Our work in Yunnan, China shows that: 1) bat SARSr-CoVs exist that can infect human cells, produce SARS-like illness in humanized mice, and are not affected by monoclonal or vaccine treatment; and 2) bat SARSr-CoV host-jump into local human populations is frequent. These viruses are therefore a clear and present danger to US defense forces in the region and global health security.

• Our goal is to analyze, predict, then “DEFUSE” the spillover potential of novel bat-origin high-risk SARSr-CoVs in Southeast Asia and across these virus distributions. This will safeguard the US warfighter, reduce risk for local communities and their livestock, improving food and global health security.

• Our strategy is based on immune parameters found across all bat taxonomic groups. If successful, the DEFUSE approach can be adapted to MERS-CoV in the Middle East, other SARSr-CoVs in Africa, and other high-impact bat-origin viruses (e.g., Hendra, Nipah, Ebola, Marburg viruses). No technology exists to reduce exposure to novel bat CoVs.

• Our team has conducted pioneering research modeling disease emergence understanding CoV virology, bat immunity, and wildlife vaccine delivery. Previous work provides proof of concept for: 1) predictive hotspot modeling, 2) upregulating bat immune response through the STING interferon pathway, 3) recombinant chimeric spike-proteins from SARSr-CoVs; 4) molecule delivery to wildlife including bats.

• DEFUSE approach is based on immunological patterns found across bat families, therefore will be broadly effective, scalable, economical and achievable in the allotted time frame. It poses little environmental risk, and presents no threat to the warfighter, or non-target populations.

• Immune modulation (via self-spreading vaccines) is more likely to be effective than CRISPR-Cas9 gene drives (sexual transmission) because bats are relatively long-lived, highly mobile, and have long inter-generational periods (2-5 years) with low progeny (1-2 pups).

Host-Pathogen Prediction (TA1) or NIAID 2R01AI110964 in Shi’s BSL2:

• Integrated field sampling, viral characterization, modeling: In-depth sampling of bat SARSr-CoVs in high-risk sites of active spillover, Yunnan, China. Spatial models using bat and viral data to estimate SARSr-CoV jump potential across Asia. Spatial viral spillover risk Mobile App of background viral jump risk across Asia.

• Experimental assays to test jump potential: Sequence quasispecies spike protein similarity to high-risk SARSr-CoVs, model spike structure to assess ACE2 binding, then in vitro and ACE2 humanized mouse experiments. Use results to test machine learning genotype to phenotype model predictions of viral spillover risk.

Intervention Development (TA2) or NIAID U01Al151797 in Dani’s BSL4:

• Broadscale immune boosting: inoculate bats with immune modulators to upregulate their naturally inhibited innate immunity and suppress viral replication, transiently reducing viral shedding/spillover risk.

• Targeted immune boosting: In concert with the above, inoculate bats with novel chimeric polyvalent recombinant spike proteins to enhance their adaptive immune memory against specific, high-risk viruses.

• Viral dynamics: Develop stochastic simulation models to estimate the frequency, efficacy, and population coverage required for intervention approaches to effectively suppress the viral population.

• Field trial: Use team expertise in wildlife vaccine delivery (transdermal nanoparticles, raccoon poxvirus vector) to develop effective molecule delivery via automated aerosolization onto bats at the roost entrance at our three test cave sites in a cave complex in Yunnan, China, where SARSr-CoVs have infected people.

Technical Approach: Our goal is to defuse the potential for spillover of novel bat-origin high zoonotic risk SARS-related coronaviruses in Asia. In Technical Area 1 (TA1) or NIAID 2R01AI110964 awarded in 2019, we will intensively sample bats at our field sites where we have identified high spillover risk SARSr-CoVs. We will sequence their spike proteins, reverse engineer them to conduct binding assays, and insert them into bat SARSr-CoV (WIV1, SHC014) backbones (these use bat-SARSr-CoV backbones, not SARS-CoV, and are exempt from-dual-use and gain of function concerns) to infect humanized mice and assess capacity to cause SARS-like disease. Our modeling team will use these data to build machine learning genotype-phenotype models of viral evolution and spillover risk. We will uniquely validate these with serology from previously collected human samples via LIPS assays that assess which spike proteins allow spillover into people. We will build host-pathogen spatial models to predict the bat species composition of caves across Southeast Asia (R01AI163118 in Chapter 21) with a full inventory of host-virus distribution at our field test sites, three caves in Yunnan Province, China and a series of unique global datasets on bat host-viral relationships discussed in Chapter 17.

In Technical Area 2 (TA2) or NIAID U01Al151797 evaluated in 2019, we will evaluate two approaches to reduce SARSr-CoV shedding in cave bats: (1) Broadscale immune boosting, in which we will inoculate bats with immune modulators to upregulate their innate immune response and downregulate viral replication; (2) Targeted immune boosting, in which we will inoculate bats with novel chimeric polyvalent recombinant spike proteins plus the immune modulator to enhance innate immunity against specific, high-risk viruses. We will trial inoculum delivery methods on captive bats, including a novel automated aerosolization system, transdermal nanoparticle application, and edible adhesive gels. We will use stochastic simulation modeling informed by field and experimental data to characterize viral dynamics in our cave test sites, maximize timing, inoculation protocol, delivery method, and efficacy of viral suppression. The most effective biologicals will be trialed in our test cave sites in Yunnan Province, with a reduction in viral shedding as proof of concept discussed in Chapter 18.

We and others have demonstrated proof of concept of this phenomenon: Experimental Marburg virus infection of Egyptian fruit bats at the US CDC, a natural reservoir host, resulted in wide tissue distribution yet low to moderate viral loads, brief viremia, low seroconversion, and a low antibody titer that waned quickly, suggesting no long-term protection is established. Similarly, poor neutralizing antibody responses occur after experimental infection of bats with Tacaribe virus and in our studies with SARS-CoV experimentally infected Chinese bats (Linfa Wang, unpublished 2005 data). Indeed, we successfully showed bat interferon can inhibit bat SARSr-CoVs. We hypothesize that if we can use immune modulators that upregulate bats’ naturally low innate immunity to their viruses, we can transiently suppress viral replication and shedding, reducing the risk of spillover. We will evaluate two immune modulation approaches to defuse spillover of SARSr-CoVs from bats to humans: 1) Broadscale Immune Boosting strategies (Wang, Duke-NUS): we will apply immune modulators like TLR-ligands, small molecule Rig like receptor agonists or bat interferon in live bats, to upregulate their innate immunity and assess suppression of viral replication and shedding; 2) Targeted Immune Priming (Baric, UNC): the broadscale immune boosting approach will be applied in the presence and absence of chimeric immunogens to boost clearance of high-risk SARSr-CoVs discussed in Chapter 11.

Broadscale immune boosting (led by Wang, Duke-NUS). We will work on the following key leads to identify the most effective approach to upregulate innate immunity and suppress viral loads. Toll-like receptor (TLR)/Rig-I Like Receptor ligands: We have begun profiling bat innate immune activation in vivo in response to various stimuli. Our work indicates a robust response to TLR-stimuli like polyI:C when delivered in vivo, as measured by transcriptomics on spleen tissue (Figure 8) which is discussed in Chapter 12.

Dr. Danielle Anderson is the Scientific Director of the Duke-NUS Animal BSL3 laboratory and is an expert in RNA virus replication. Dr Anderson has extensive experience in both molecular biology and animal models and will lead the animal studies via U01Al151797 discussed in Chapter 10.

Prof. Shi is the director of the Center for Emerging Infectious Diseases of the Wuhan Institute of Virology, Chinese Academy of Sciences. She got PhD training in Virology in Montpellier University II from 1996 to 2000, biosafety training at Australian Animal Health Laboratory in May 2006 and at Lyon P4 in October 2006. She is now in charge of the scientific activity in BSL3 and BSL4 of the WIV via 2R01AI110964 discussed in Chapter 13.

Subcontracts:

1. Prof. Baric, UNC, will oversee reverse engineering of SARSr-CoVs, BSL-3 humanized mouse experimental infections, design and testing of targeted immune boosting treatments.

2. Prof. Wang, Duke-NUS, to oversee broadscale immune boosting, captive bat experiments, and analyze immunological and virological responses to immune modulators.

3. Dr. Shi, WIV, will conduct PCR testing, viral discovery, isolation from bat samples collected in China, spike protein binding assays, humanized mouse work, and experimental trials on Rhinolophus bats.

4. Dr. Rocke, US Geological Service (USGS), National Wildlife Health Center (NWHC) in Wisconsin, will refine delivery mechanisms for immune boosting treatments. Dr. Rocke will use a captive colony of bats at NWHC for initial trials and oversee cave experiments in the US and China.

5. Dr. Unidad, Palo Alto Research Center (PARC), will develop an innovative aerosol platform into a field deployable device for large scale inoculation of bats.

6. NIH Rocky Mountain Lab (RML) - Vincent Munster removed from Defuse bid for unknown reasons but added in NIAID’s U01Al151797.

Prof. Baric (UNC) will lead the targeted immune boosting work. We will develop recombinant chimeric spike-proteins from known SARSr-CoVs, and those characterized by DEFUSE. Using details of SARS Spike protein structure and host cell binding, we will sequence, reconstruct, and characterize spike trimers and receptor binding domains of SARSr-CoVs, incorporating them into nanoparticles or raccoon poxvirus-vectors for delivery to bats. In combination with immune-boosting small molecules, we will use these to boost immune memory in adult bats previously exposed to SARSr-CoVs, taking the best candidate forward for field testing. Recombinant Spike glycoprotein-based constructs with immunogenic blocks from across group 2B SARSr-CoVs should induce broadscale adaptive immune responses that reduce heterogeneous virus burdens in bats and transmission risk to people. Innate immune damping is highly conserved in all bat species tested so far. We will use the unique Duke-NUS Asian cave bat (Eonycteris spelaea) breeding colony to conduct initial proof of concept tests extended to small groups of wild-caught Rhinolophus sinicus bats at WIV discussed in Chapter 14.

Targeted immune boosting (UNC). To boost targeted adaptive immunity (immune memory) in wild bats chronically exposed to circulating SARSr-CoV quasispecies, we will inoculate with chimeric glycoproteins in the presence of the broadscale immune boosting agonists above. We have developed novel group 2b SARSr-CoV chimeric Spike glycoproteins that encode neutralizing domains from phylogenetically distant strains (e.g. Urbani, HKU3, BtCoV 279, ~25% diversity). The chimeric Spike protein (~4,000 nucleotides) programs efficient expression when introduced in the HKU3 backbone full length genome (~30,000 nucleotides) and elicits protective immunity against multiple group 2b strains. We will develop robust expression systems for SARSr-CoV chimeric Spike using ectopic expression in vitro. Given the breadth of SARSr-CoV circulating in natural settings, chimeric immunogens will be designed to increase the breadth of neutralizing epitopes across the group 2b phylogenetic subgroup. Using synthetic genomes and structure guided design, we fused the NTD of HKU3 with the SARS-CoV RBD with the remaining BtCoV 279/04 Spike glycoprotein molecule, introduced the chimeric Spike glycoprotein gene into the HKU3 genome backbone (25% different than SARS-CoV, clade 2 virus) and recovered viable viruses (HKU3-Smix) that could replicate in Vero cells. We inserted the HKU3mix Spike glycoprotein gene into VEE virus replicon vectors (VRP-Spike chimera) and demonstrated that VRP vaccines protect against lethal SARS-CoV challenge and virus growth. VRP-SHKU3 and VRP-S279 both protect against HKU3mix challenge and growth in vivo, demonstrating that neutralizing epitopes in the HKU3mix Spike glycoprotein provide broad cross protection against multiple SARSr-CoV strains. In addition to using these immunogens as a targeted broad-based boosting strategy in bats, we will produce other chimeras for more focused immune targeting of known high risk strains discussed in Chapter 22.

UNC will characterize Spike expression and provide virus vectors to Prof. Wang for immune boosting trials at Duke-NUS and, if successful, in the field (Prof. Shi). The human codon optimized HKU3-Spike S014 and HKU3-Smix recombinant chimeric spike glycoproteins will be expressed and purified by the UNC proteomics core, producing mg quantities for inclusion in nanoparticle and microparticle carriers in collaboration with Dr. Ainslie of UNC. We will produce WIV-S S014, and HKU3-Smix glycoprotein expression will be validated by Western blot and by vaccination of mice, allowing us to determine if the recombinant protein elicits neutralizing antibodies that protect against lethal SARS-CoV and SHC014 challenge. We will produce enough material for in vivo testing in mice and in bats discussed in Chapter 23.

Recovery of Full length SARSr-CoV. To recover full length viruses, UNC will first compile the sequence data from a panel of closely related strains (<5% nucleotide variation) and compare the full length genome sequences, scanning for unique SNPs which might represent sequencing errors as previously described by our groups. We will identify the best consensus candidate and synthesize the genome using commercial vendors (e.g., BioBasic, etc.) as six contiguous cDNA pieces linked by unique restriction endonuclease sites that do not disturb the coding sequence but allow for full length genome assembly. Full length genomes will be transcribed into RNA and electroporation is used to recover full length recombinant viruses. Using the full length genomes, we will re-evaluate virus growth in primary human airway epithelial cells at low and high multiplicity of infections and in vivo in hACE2 transgenic mice, testing whether backbone genome sequence alters full length SARSr-CoV pre-epidemic or pathogenic potential in models of human infection. We anticipate recovering 2-5 full length genomes per year, reflecting strain differences in antigenicity, receptor usage, growth in human cells and pathogenesis covered in Chapter 24.

Proteolytic Cleave and Glycosylation Sites. In some instances, recombinant chimeric viruses may be predicted to replicate efficiently because of matched RBD-ACE2 interfaces, yet fail to replicate. After receptor binding, cell surface or endosomal proteases cleave the SARS Spike glycoprotein to activate fusion mediated entry. Massive changes in Spike structure occur to mediate membrane fusion and entry. The absence of Spike cleavage prevents SARS-CoV entry via R01AI110700. A variety of proteases, including TMPRSS2, TMPRSS11a, HAT, trypsin, and cathepsin L, carry out these processes on the SARS Spike glycoprotein (Figure C at the S1/S2 interface). In some instances, tissue culture adaptations introduce a furin cleavage site, which can direct entry processes as well, usually by cleaving Spike at positions 757 and 900 in S2 of other coronaviruses, but not SARS. For SARS-CoV, a variety of key cleavage sites in Spike have been identified, including R667/S668, R678/M679 for trypsin and cathepsin L, respectively, R667 and R792 for TMPRSS2, and R667 for HAT. Discussed in Chapter 23, since R667 is the S1/S2 interface of SARS1 and RRAR/SVAS for SARS2.

Organization leading task: University of North Carolina

SARSr-CoV Spike gene sequences will be analyzed for the presence of these appropriately conserved proteolytic cleavage sites in S2 and the presence of potential furin cleavage sites (R-X-[K/R]-R↓), which can be predicted computationally. Importantly, SARSr-CoV with mismatches in proteolytic cleavage sites can be activated by exogenous trypsin or cathepsin L, providing another strategy to recover non-cultivable viruses. In instances where clear mismatches occur in these S2 proteolytic cleavage sites of SARSr-CoV, we will introduce the appropriate human specific cleavage sites and evaluate growth potential in Vero and Human Airway Epithelial (HAE) cultures. In SARS-CoV, we will ablate several of these sites based on pseudotype particle studies and evaluate the impact of select SARSr-CoV changes on virus replication and pathogenesis (e.g., R667, R678, R797). Experimental outcomes from these studies will be incorporated into risk management models to identify high and low risk SARS-like CoV covered in Chapter 22.

Baric has already generated SARS-like chimeras w/ RBD from a group of bat viruses called 293 for S1 (typo per Baric), which is 20% different from epidemic strains (SARS1), and the S2 region from HK3 (HKU3 per Baric), which is 20% different from SARS1 and discussed in Chapter 23 and Post DARPA Defuse Bibliography.

Viral infection models in Eonycteris species (Duke-NUS) and wild-caught Rhinolophus species (WIV) bats: To test and compare the efficacy of the immune modulating approaches above, we will use our cave nectar fruit bats (Eonycteris spelaea) breeding colony infected with Melaka virus (family Reoviridae) which infects this species. First, we will take wing punch biopsies from three individuals to sequence their ACE2 receptor genes. This will be inserted into human cell lines to pre-screen viral strains for binding. Those that bind will be used for in vivo experiments. We will use two coronaviruses (SARSr-CoV WIV1 at RML and MERS-CoV) in animal BSL3. SARS and MERS infection studies are underway in Eonycteris and Pteropus cell lines and primary immune cells. Our cave nectar fruit bat colony has reached a sustainable population for infection experiments and the animal BSL3 facility has been outfitted with bat-specific cages. The planned pilot in vivo infection of Eonycteris bats with Melaka Virus and MERS will be completed by July 2018. Previous infection studies were completed in Pteropus and Rhinolophus bats in Australia by Linfa Wang at CSIRO, AAHL, and an additional Pteropus infection trial is currently planned through the University of Queensland in Australia. At WIV, 20 adult wild Rhinolophus species bats (10 of each sex) will be captured at our test cave site, housed within animal BSL3, ACE2 receptor genes sequenced and used to pre-screen spikes as above. Bats will be tested using PCR and serology for current and prior exposure to SARSr-CoVs, and inoculated with WIV1 experiment at RML, WIV16 or SHC014. For all experiments, viral loads will be measured by qPCR, titration of produced virus, NGS transcriptomics and viral-specific nanostring probes added to the immune profiling panel. Antibody responses will be measured by LIPS assay, as described previously. In addition to direct in vivo delivery of ligands, aerosolized and liquid-phase deployment methods suitable for a cave-like environment will be tested in collaboration with UNC, NWHC, and PARC. This approach allows us to test our immune-boosting strategies in a safe and controlled environment prior to expanding to field-based evaluation discussed in Chapter 26.

Finally, work on a field delivery method will be overseen by Dr. Tonie Rocke at USGS, NWHC, who has proven capacity to develop and take animal vaccines through to licensure. Using locally acquired insectivorous bats like Tadarida brasiliensis or Eptesicus fuscus as proxies, Dr. Rocke will further develop and assess delivery vehicles (mediums) and methods of delivery for the molecules, inocula proposed above, including: 1) transdermally applied nanoparticles; 2) sticky edible gels that bats will groom from themselves and each other; 3) aerosolization via sprayers that could be used in cave settings; and 4) automated sprays triggered by timers and movement detectors at critical cave entry points in Chapter 27-28.

Summary of post-pandemic test results:

1. SARS2 genome (i.e., HKU3mix or HKU3r-CoV) is 20% different from SARS1.

2. SARS2 is the only group 2b coronavirus with a furin cleavage site.

3. RaTG13 and Banal-52 are less than 5% nucleotide variation from SARS2.

4. Covid antibodies provide protection against Laos Banal infection.

5. SARS2 has six contiguous cDNA pieces linked by five restriction sites.

6. Mexican free-tailed bats (Tadarida brasiliensis) are infected with SARS2.

7. Egyptian fruit bats (Rousettus aegyptiacus) are a reservoir host for SARS2.

Share

Years later, with millions dead, there is still no definitive answer to the origins of COVID-19. Like the Texas Killing Fields, I thought it was a cold case that would never be solved. I was interested in the origins debate, but my background and backyard are in the local oil and gas industry. We might, however, find answers in U.S. documents.

Read my full editorial on RCS:

https://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2026/10/08/why_covid-19_may_have_started_at_the_university_of_north_carolina_1210178.html

Why would an engineer question a virologist?

My story starts with oil and gas sales. The lab equipment used to develop drilling fluids measures viscosity. The thicker, the better—but if a fluid becomes too thick, the pumps can’t move it. As a mechanical engineer, I know that particle movement in a fluid is foundational science. But the ultimate fluid is the air we all breathe.

If we study the (lab) animals that transmit SARS-CoV-2, we can reverse-engineer the scientist who trained the pathogen to spread through the air. There are 5,000 mammalian species on this planet, but only five have shown efficient transmission. All five mammals have been used in vaccine research at Baric’s partner lab, Rocky Mountain Lab (RML) in Montana.

I have since started a blog, written a book, debated the World Health Organization, and had U.S. government investigators reference my findings. My theory holds that SARS-CoV-2 was developed as an animal vaccine in U.S. labs (UNC and RML), then shipped to Wuhan for testing, where it accidentally escaped.

For years, the public has been told to choose between natural spillover and a Chinese lab leak. That is a false choice. The more important question is whether American animal-vaccine research helped create the virus.

I began this investigation seeking answers in Wuhan. Instead, I found myself looking at U.S. laboratories and government grants. My evidence does not end the investigation, but it tells us where to begin.

I couldn’t get local Texas newspapers to publish it, but hopefully fellow Texan Rand Paul reads it.

Paul, Part 3

Last week’s post featured an image of Rand Paul running toward the TV cameras to present irrelevant evidence against Fauci. This week, Paul did the same, fanning the flames over a “weaponized” bacterium.

Before the Russian lab tech died of "pneumonia of unknown etiology," she told doctors she broke a test tube containing plague, a treatable bacterium, not a contagious virus. No one tested positive for Yersinia pestis, the bacterium that caused the Black Death.

Paul claimed he was flying blind, but he has an expensive, taxpayer-funded piece of software that lets him search Fauci’s files. Instead of searching for his favorite Chinese scientist, Zhou Yusen, or Russian bioweapons, he could have searched for Yersinia pestis and found it in Fauci’s inbox.

From my May 2026 post on Fauci’s secrets

In 2011, Rocky Mountain Lab quietly broke one of the most serious rules in U.S. biosecurity. A Principal Investigator engineered Yersinia pestis, a plague bacterium resistant to multiple antibiotics. Such work requires prior approval from the US CDC’s Division of Select Agents and Toxins (DSAT). RML never had it.

The violations weren’t covert because published papers openly listed the unauthorized plague strains in their methods sections. They came to light only during a DSAT inspection in November 2011, when CDC inspectors asked about the resistant strains. Days later, RML’s biosafety officer admitted they existed but claimed they’d already been destroyed.

By December 2011, DSAT referred the case to the HHS Inspector General, citing violations of 42 CFR 73.13. The NIH Director, Francis Collins, didn’t hear about it from his own agency. Collins first learned of the problem from an email in the CDC Director’s morning briefing, sent by Tom Frieden. Only then did Fauci scramble to explain that RML’s work had been “an unfortunate situation,” not deliberate misconduct.

Meanwhile, the CDC had just given RML a glowing safety review, praising its oversight as “highly laudatory.” In other words, plague strains were illegally engineered, yet Fauci himself dismissed the incident as little more than a bureaucratic hiccup.

Early next year, in 2012, Fauci received an email from the NIAID public relations department regarding an incident:

Dr. Fauci, in case the situation at RML becomes public, we have prepared the language below for possible use in response to media/congressional inquiries, should we receive them. We may not need this, but we should be prepared.

In 2025, that research continued on immune-evasion mechanisms of the plague. Paul, like many, thinks COVID was a bioweapon because of immune evasion (asymptomatic spread), but that is typical animal vaccine research.

Bioweapon research?

A logical point I repeatedly make in the early chapters of the book was well summarized by :

What about engineered viruses and bacteria? In reality, biological weapons are essentially useless as weapons. They are uncontrollable once released, far more lethal to old people than military-age men, and expensive and difficult to develop and deliver. And they face an inevitable tradeoff between lethality and contagiousness.

Rudimentary biological weapons were popular hundreds of years ago but went out of favor by 1900. Modern kinetic weapons are far more lethal for the price, chemical weapons are easier to make and use, and nuclear are the only doomsday/balance-of-power devices that nation-states need. No terrorist group has ever managed to develop biological weapons, despite diligent efforts.

So, as usual, bioweapons and infectious disease scientists are trying to exploit a crisis (if not outright create one) to justify the billions of dollars in annual funding they receive.

Baric’s unpublished emails

Ralph Baric spent the entire day in his small UNC office, drafting emails and grant proposals. UNC handed most of these records over to Congress and Rand Paul, who has chosen not to release them.

Paul’s computer has taxpayer-funded software called Everlaw. Type in "From: Baric" and "To: Daszak," and the screen lights up. But he wants to talk about monkeys at Fort Detrick or bioweapons in Russia, so I want to talk about Paul.

My Open Letter to the Conservative Elite & Liberal Media

I’m going to move to remove Senator Paul from the lab leak committee.

A few of you have contacted me privately, which gives me confidence to walk the plank on this one-man mutiny. His young staff is great, but Paul has failed us on Fauci. He even teamed up with a Marxist professor to carry Baric’s water.

Instead of releasing the Baric emails showing Fauci funded DEFUSE, Paul went after Fauci’s innocent secretary. The first rule of business is don’t mess with the secretary. The first rule of investigation is don’t sit on the evidence.

U.S. Right to Know spent years fighting for Baric’s emails, but they sat in Paul’s inbox the whole time. UNC cooperated with the Republican-led Congress, which refuses to cooperate with the public.

Reporters, you don’t need to like me or Paul’s politics. Part of why I got into this lab leak debate was that a bunch of men ganged up on an innocent woman, Shi Zhengli. The same is happening to Fauci’s secretary.

So ask one question: why hasn’t Paul released Baric’s emails?

Then came Baric’s 2026 testimony. Paul didn’t show up. He left his young staff to face the dungeon master alone. As Baric was chaperoned out of the Senate hallways, he hinted to those around him that he’d gotten away with murder.

Baric told a story about playing Dungeons & Dragons. He enjoys taking characters to the brink of death, only to save them from his own creation.

In D.C., the villains seem to always win. But the game isn’t over until the people investigating Baric decide to stop playing.

Paul has stopped playing. I’m asking you to help me put someone in his seat who won’t.

Why protect Baric?

As best I can tell, most members of Congress, and more importantly, their staffers, genuinely believe Baric is innocent. The idea is that they could get Baric into a SCIF (top-secret setting), and he would spill the beans on China.

But how long do you get to keep your job as a politician or staffer if you accuse a fellow American of creating COVID? When Paul releases Baric’s emails, I think the American public will be appalled.

Like Paul, virologists try to defend Baric

https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/jvi.00890-26

UNC still building $8M BSL3 lab for a retired Baric

The new biolab funding came from the $65M slush fund called READDI, which Fauci funneled to Baric before leaving NIAID. The BSL3 lab will have aerobiology equipment in 10,000 square feet of lab space on the 9th floor of the UNC campus.

https://facilities.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/256/2025/12/cip-26137-burnett-womack-bsl3-project-brief.pdf

Dr Quay to take Fauci’s old office?

A few months ago, Dr. Steven Quay gave an interview about his lab leak book, and it has already received a critical review.

Open rumors suggest Quay is taking Fauci’s old NIAID position. That now seems like a formality.

https://www.science.org/content/article/anti-fauci-lab-leak-proponent-listed-nih-directory-denies-being-hired

Science obtained images of an entry in NIH’s Enterprise Directory naming Steven Quay, a doctor and biotech entrepreneur known for unproven theories on the origin of COVID-19, as an employee in the office of the director of the NIAID. But after inquiries from Science yesterday, Quay’s entry in the directory disappeared.

Quay declined to answer repeated queries about whether he was offered any job at NIAID, NIH, or the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), NIH’s parent agency. But he told Science he has “been in discussions with senior HHS and NIH officials about possible government service.”

Would Quay accept the NIAID director job? “I would give it serious consideration,” he says. “I am willing to devote the next chapter of my career to working within HHS and NIH to help restore trust in science and to move the amazing work our HHS scientists conduct into the clinic for the benefit of the American people.” But, Quay adds, “I would not commit to accepting a hypothetical position without knowing its mandate, authority, responsibilities, and terms.”

Quay reads the blog and knows our bat vaccine theory well. So well done, Jay Bhattacharya and Robert Kennedy. But watch your six, Quay, because Building 31 is full of (Munster & Feldmann) snakes.

Munster’s trial update?

Delayed until 2027. Maybe by then Paul will release all the emails between Baric and Munster, because there are a lot of them.

Brownstone republished our Major Murphy article

https://brownstone.org/articles/new-clarity-on-the-creation-of-the-virus-vaccine/

I forwarded my Brownstone article to Jim Gimlett of DARPA, who in 2017 emailed Daszak with the dumb idea of vaccinating Chinese bats in Wuhan.

Why Wuhan?

I often tell readers to avoid the wet market debate like the plague. But one question natural-origin scientists can never answer: why Wuhan? Baric, Daszak, Fauci, and Gimlett answer it, but if they want to debate the Wuhan wet market, see below.

NIH director Jay Bhattacharya announced that Kristian Andersen gave a natural-origin presentation at NIH. No link to the talk, but Andersen did post his slides.

https://andersen-lab.com/files/2026.10.06_Andersen_NIH.pdf

Andersen’s misleading slide above claims there were no COVID antibodies before 2020. But the CDC found antibodies in West Coast blood donors in December 2019; at the same time, Andersen claims the Wuhan wet market is the source.

https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/72/12/e1004/6012472?login=false

These findings indicate that SARS-CoV-2–reactive antibodies were detected in 106 specimens, a small percentage of blood donations from California, Oregon, and Washington, as early as 13–16 December 2019.

CREID funded again

Remember, Fauci’s CREID grant for Baric, Daszak, Linfa Wang, and Dani Anderson funded DARPA DEFUSE. It was canceled, but now it’s back on.

https://www.science.org/content/article/nih-revives-network-study-emerging-diseases-its-new-restrictions-baffle-scientists

Earlier this year, academic lobbyists renewed it. Nothing lasts longer than a temporary government program. Ironically, that line came from Ronald Reagan, who appointed the judge who overturned it.

A federal judge in Massachusetts ordered the NIH to restore the roughly 900 grants named in the lawsuits, including many focused on studying vaccine hesitancy, LGBTQ+ health, and diversity, equity, and inclusion in the medical field. U.S. District Judge William Young, whom President Ronald Reagan appointed, ruled the terminations void and unlawful, stating during a hearing that in all his years on the bench, he’d “never seen” discrimination by the government to this extent.

An American moral panic = $50B bureaucracy

Where did the $50 billion NIH budget come from? A moral panic about the Soviets nuking Americans from outer space:

Mission Lost: How NIH Leaders Stole Its Promise to America

The NIH describes its mission as to advance research that will “enhance health, lengthen life, and reduce illness” for Americans. But is NIH delivering on that promise? That worthy objective has worked to insulate the NIH from scrutiny of its spending by both the executive branch and Congress, leading to an ever- growing budget over the past six decades. Yet, this increased spending has been accompanied by a slowdown in the improvement of longevity, which has grown only half as fast as before.

The United States government’s 150-year history of modest funding of peacetime research ended on October 4, 1957, when the Soviet Union launched Sputnik, the first artificial satellite. That traumatized America. As President Lyndon B Johnson later recalled that day, “Now, somehow, in some new way, the sky seemed almost alien. I also remember the profound shock of realizing that it might be possible for another nation to achieve technological superiority over this great country of ours.”

In 1958, in urgent response to Sputnik and its associated challenges, the federal government launched three vast initiatives and three smaller but still large ones:

1. NASA was created to challenge the Russians in space.

2. The National Defense Education Act was passed to boost the education of many more scientists.

3. The Advanced Research Projects Agency (later DARPA) was created

4. After 1958, the National Science Foundation’s (NSF) budgets were increased manyfold. The NSF was deemed to have failed America—the Russians were in space!—but over the next few years, its budgets were nevertheless increased nearly 10-fold to boost the training of scientists and reinforce the National Defense Education Act of 1958.

5. The Small Business Investment Act of 1958

6. Although NIH was not directly tied to the space program, the general flurry of activity to close the science gap with the Soviet Union resulted in a fourfold increase in the NIH budget in four years.

https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/2025-11/Working-Paper-85.pdf

An interview with Pete from Hamilton, Montana

Subscribe now

As a DARPA fellow, Murphy had taken part in their SARS2 origin meetings and revealed the details of the unsuccessful Defuse bid. In his August 2021 letter to the Inspector General at the Department of Defense, Murphy was unequivocal: “SARS-CoV-2 is an American-created recombinant bat vaccine.”

As unbelievable as that sounds, virologists who once claimed natural origins now claimed a Wuhan lab leak was a possibility:

Read more

From: Murphy, Joseph P. Maj USMC, DARPA, DIRO (USA)

To: Capt xxxxx (redacted)

Thanks for responding

I’m reaching out to communicate information about COVID that I don’t believe you or your director is aware of. You probably saw earlier this week [of September 2021] that more official documents linking NIH and EcoHealth Alliance to the Wuhan Institute of Virology were published by The Intercept. I came across additional incriminating documents and produced an analysis after leaving DARPA last month. This report was routed to the Department of Defense Inspector General’s office.

I’m unsure whether those who received the report understand the significance of what I communicated. Decisions concerning the vaccines do not appear to be informed by analysis of the documents. The main points are that SARS-CoV-2 matches the SARS vaccine variants the NIH-EcoHealth program was making in Wuhan, that the Department of Defense (DoD) rejected the program proposal because vaccines would be ineffective, and because the spike proteins being inserted into the variants were deemed too dangerous (gain-of-function): and that the DoD now mandates vaccines that copy the spike protein previously considered to be too risky. To me and those who informed my analysis, this situation meets gain-of-function criteria regarding the vaccines until the toxicity of the spike protein can be investigated. There’s also information within the documents about which drugs effectively treat the program’s SARS-CoVs.

Thus, I’m reaching out. I’m trying to provide as much information as possible to help leadership grapple with the vaccines and the mandate. I wanted to push this information your way.

Several of the documents referenced in the Inspector General report have since been downgraded. Please reach out to me with questions.

V/R,

Major Joe Murphy, USMC Marine Program Liaison

Office of Naval Research

My notes

Major Joseph Murphy from the US military was frustrated at the lack of response to his August letter (below). So, he wrote an undated cover letter (above) sometime after September 6, 2021, but before he leaked the DARPA Defuse documents by September 21, 2021. In 2020, The Intercept sued NIAID to obtain two 2019 EcoHealth grants: the $3.2 million R01 and the $7.5 million U01.

On September 6, 2021, The Intercept published 900 pages of documents related to these two NIAID grants. Murphy noticed that the same personnel involved in the NIAID R01 and U01 grants—Peter Daszak, Ralph Baric, Linfa Wang, Dani Anderson, and Shi Zhengli—were also listed in the 2018 DARPA Defuse document.

The 2021 Intercept Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) revealed the NIAID documents, though they were overshadowed by DARPA Defuse news in Fall 2021. Ironically, Major Murphy leaked the DARPA Defuse documents after reading The Intercept FOIA.

The Intercept noted the U01 CREID proposal, “written in 2019, often seems prescient, focusing on scaling up and deploying resources in Asia in case of an outbreak of an emergent infectious disease and referring to Asia as the hottest of the EID hotspots.” The Intercept also highlighted, “Instead of sending viral samples to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which is not a partner on this CREID project, the scientists will send the collected [coronavirus] samples to the [Rocky Mountain Lab where Baric and Daszak have ongoing collaborations], the National Emerging Infectious Diseases Laboratories in Boston, and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.” Weeks later, The Intercept also published the DARPA Defuse documents. Months later, Project Veritas published Murphy’s letter.

The leaked documents and Major Murphy’s revelations have shed light on the potential origins of SARS2, suggesting that a well-intentioned but high-risk research project inadvertently led to a global pandemic. Murphy found the DARPA Defuse document in a top-secret US government folder.

The renewed $3.2 million NIAID R01 grant added Baric in 2019. The new $7.5 million U01 CREID grant was undergoing testing for most of 2019. In early 2020, Daszak bid on another $3.4 million NIAID grant in Laos, bringing his total to $14.1 million from NIAID to cover the $14.2 million Defuse bid. These three NIAID grants covered China and Southeast Asia with the same scope of work.

Murphy’s original August 2021 letter continues below, referencing the 2019 grant ($3.2M) canceled by President Trump in April 2020. Trump truthfully claimed the grant started in 2015 under the Obama administration, but Fauci renewed it in 2019 with DARPA Defuse language. None of us knew it at the time; it partially funded the creation of Covid-19 on US soil. On a personal note, when Major Joseph Murphy wrote his August 2021 letter, I believed that Covid was a self-spreading PLA-made biodefense vaccine intended for Chinese troops. Murphy attempted to explain to US military doctors that the human virus was, in fact, an airborne bat vaccine!

Murphy’s letter to DoD Inspector General

13 August 2021

From: COMMANDANT OF THE MARINE CORPS FELLOW, DARPA

TO: INSPECTOR GENERAL

Subject: SARS-CoV-2 ORIGINS INVESTIGATION WITH US GOVERNMENT PROGRAM UNDISCLOSED DOCUMENT ANALYSIS

1) SARS-CoV-2 is an American-created recombinant bat vaccine or its precursor virus. It was created by an EcoHealth Alliance program at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), as suggested by the reporting surrounding the lab leak hypothesis. The details of this program have been concealed since the pandemic began. These details can be found in the EcoHealth Alliance proposal response to the DARPA PREEMPT program Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) HR001180017, dated March 2018 - a document not yet publicly disclosed.

The proposed program’s contents are extremely detailed. Peter Daszak outlines step-by-step what the organization intends to do by phase and location. The primary scientists involved, their roles, and their institutions are indicated. The EcoHealth plan for the Wuhan Institute of Virology work is in the attached DARPA Defuse document.

SARS-CoV-2’s form, as it emerged, is likely as a precursor, deliberately virulent, humanized recombinant SARSr-CoV that was to be reverse-engineered into a live attenuated SARSr-CoV bat vaccine. Its nature can be determined from the analysis of its genome with the context provided by the EcoHealth Alliance proposal. Joining this analysis with US intelligence collections on Wuhan will aid this determination.

When synthesized with the EcoHealth Alliance proposal, US collections confirm that EcoHealth Alliance performed the proposed work. The analysts produce their reports in a vacuum absent the context the proposal provides. As a fellow at DARPA, I can see both and do the synthesis. For instance, WIV personnel identified in intelligence reports are named in the proposal; these people use the lexicon of the proposal in the collections, and the virus variants proposed for experimentation are identical to those gleaned by collections. Moreover, I am also privy to information obtained by congressional office investigators and DRASTIC, which further corroborates that the program detailed in the BAA response was conducted until it was shut down in April 2020.

The purpose of the EcoHealth program, “DEFUSE” in the proposal, was to inoculate bats in the Yunnan China caves where confirmed SARS-CoV were found. Ostensibly, doing this would prevent another SARS-CoV pandemic: the bats’ immune systems would be reinforced to prevent a deadly SARS-CoV from emerging. The specific language used is “inoculate bats with novel chimeric polyvalent spike proteins to enhance their adaptive immune memory against specific high-risk viruses.” Being defense-related, it makes sense that EcoHealth submitted the proposal first to the Department of Defense before it settled with NIH/NIAID. The BAA response is dated March 2018 and was submitted by Peter Daszak, president of EcoHealth Alliance.

DARPA rejected the proposal because the work was too close to violating the gain-of-function (GOF) moratorium, despite what Peter Daszak says in the proposal (that the work would not). As is known, Dr. Fauci with NIAID did not reject the proposal. The work took place at the WIV and several US sites, which are identified in detail in the proposal.

The EcoHealth Alliance response to the PREEMPT BAA is placed along with other proposal documents in the PREEMPT folder on the DARPA Biological Technologies Office UWICS (top secret share drive, address: Network/filer/BTO/CI Folder/PREEMPT)

This folder was empty for a year. The files, completely unmarked with classification or distribution data, were placed in this folder in July 2021, which conspicuously aligns with media reporting, my probing, and Senator Paul’s inquiry into NIH/NIAID gain-of-function programs. The unmarked nature combined with the timing signals that the documents were being hidden. No files at DARPA go unmarked in classification or distribution, including proprietary documents. Furthermore, PREEMPT is an unclassified program. The files are also now held by the Marine Corps Intelligence Activity (MCIA). They are identified in the reference block above.

2) SARS-CoV-2, hereafter referred to as SARS-CoV-WIV, is a synthetic spike protein chimera engineered to attach to human ACE2 receptors and inserted into a recombinant bat SARSr-CoV backbone. It is likely a live vaccine that has not yet been engineered to a more attenuated state than the program sought to create with its final version. It leaked and spread rapidly because it was aerosolized so it could efficiently infect bats in caves, but it was not ready to infect bats yet, so it does not appear to infect bats. The disease is confusing because it is less a virus than engineered spike proteins hitch-hiking a ride on a SARSr-CoV quasi-species swarm. The closer it is to the final live attenuated vaccine form, the more likely it has been de-attenuating since its initial escape in August 2019.

The utility of certain countermeasures can be extrapolated from the documents:

• The team selected SARSr-CoVs that were the most monoclonal antibody and vaccine-resistant.

• It is not practical to inoculate bats directly with shots, nor can bats get respiratory infections from droplets. Hence, the team developed an aerosol to deliver the inoculations directly into the caves. To ensure it worked well, they developed the aerosol against masked civets.

• The proposal notes that interferon, remdesivir, and chloroquine phosphate inhibit SARSr-CoV viral replication.

Because of its (now) known nature, the SARSr-CoV-WIV illness is readily resolved with early treatment that inhibits the viral replication that spreads the spike proteins around the body (which induces a harmful overactive immune response as the body tries to clear the spikes from the ACE receptors). Many of the early treatment protocols ignored by the authorities work because they inhibit viral replication or modulate the immune response to the spike proteins. This makes sense within the context of what EcoHealth was creating. Some of these treatment protocols also inhibit the action of the engineered spike protein. For instance, Ivermectin (identified as curative in April 2020) works throughout all illness phases because it inhibits viral replication and modulates the immune response. Of note is that chloroquine phosphate (Hydroxychloriquine, identified April 2020 as curative) is identified in the proposal as a SARSr-CoV inhibitor, as is interferon identified May 2020 as curative).

The gene-encoded, or mRNA, vaccines work poorly because they are synthetic replications of the already-synthetic SARSr-CoV-WIV spike proteins and possess no other epitopes. The mRNA instructs the cells to produce synthetic copies of the SARSr-CoV-WIV synthetic spike protein directly into the bloodstream, spreading and producing the same ACE2 immune storm that the recombinant vaccine does. Many doctors in the country have identified that the symptoms of vaccine reactions mirror the symptoms of the disease, which corroborates with the similar synthetic nature and function of the respective spike proteins. The vaccine recipient has no defense against bloodstream entry, but their nose protects them from the recombinant spike protein quasi-species during “natural infection” (better termed as aerosolized inoculation).

Furthermore, the EcoHealth proposal states that a “vaccine approach lacks sufficient epitope coverage to protect against quasi-species of coronavirus.” Consequently, they tried to make vaccines work by “targeted immune boosting via vaccine inoculators using chimeric polyvalent recombinant spike proteins.” The nature of using a spike protein vaccine with one epitope against a spike protein vaccine with quasi-species may explain the unusual (and potentially detrimental) antibody response amongst the vaccinated to the new COVID variants. Fundamentally, the knowledge the proposal provides signals that the risk of Antibody-Dependent Enhancement (ADE from vaccination should be evaluated with high priority, on top of the reality that single-epitope vaccines will have little effect against SARS-CoV-WIV, as indicated in the proposal.

The potential for SARSr-CoV-WIV to de-attenuate requires immediate attention. Live vaccines have been found to de-attenuate in the past. Suppose this is the case with SARS-CoV-WIV. Then, the mass vaccination campaign performs an accelerated gain-of-function. Since it is designed for bats from a human-susceptible SARS-CoV, vaccinating humans against it returns its function towards a more de-attenuated human-susceptible form. Improving the SARSr-CoV-WIV spike protein to gain robustness against monoclonal vaccines is one of the steps of the DEFUSE program. The mechanism to improve the SARSr-CoV-WIV spike protein (other than direct engineering) is challenging it against animals with spike protein-only antibodies. The attenuated virus will either die or adapt its form to neutralize the spike protein-only antibodies. The intent was to perform this task against humanized mice and then “batified” mice. Instead, it was done with the world’s population.

SARS-CoV-WIV is not meant to kill the bats but to immunize them. This nature may explain its general harmlessness to most people and its harmfulness to the old and co-morbid, who are generally more susceptible to vaccine reactions. The asymptomatic nature is also explained by the bat vaccine’s creators’ intention (a good vaccine does not generate symptoms). Such effects would be expected of an immature vaccine or a vaccine being reverse-engineered from a more virulent form into an attenuated form. The spike protein effect on ACE receptors exacerbates the harmfulness of age and comorbidity. The nature of SARSr-CoV-WIV’s de-attenuation will also indicate future virulence, though knowing its nature, at last, neutralizes the threat as effective treatments can be applied with confidence.

3) DRASTIC and other scientists will clean up my description of SARS-CoV-WIV’s nature and progression within the DEFUSE program. This information is sufficient for an investigative report and enough to correct the existing pandemic strategy. Previously, the nation did not know itself, nor the adversary in the pandemic conflict. Now it knows both. The problem can be framed appropriately and specifically against a confirmed hypothesis. Limiting disease transmission can be dropped as the implied strategic end, as it is neither the actual problem nor feasible. The strategy will then align early treatment protocols and prevention with the known curatives as ways and means. This course of action will achieve the strategic end of clinical resolution for those susceptible to SARS-CoV-WIV inoculation’s adverse effects.

4) I will inevitably be asked how I figured this out and discovered the documents. The pandemic response became the predominant focus of my fellowship efforts. DARPA worked on many pandemic innovations, and much of its team was familiar with biodefense. I had the opportunity to “sit in the back row” per se and observe and listen in on the government’s efforts. My obligation-light fellowship also allowed me to observe and read the field. This observation grew in scope to the point that it became a series of reports like a military scout would prepare when tasked to investigate a problem.

These reports served as iterative thinking against the problem over many months. Eventually, I concluded that what leaked from the WIV could be a bat vaccine or its precursor. It was feasible that the US would try to avoid a SARS-CoV outbreak by stopping it at its source, not by halting its infections amongst people, but by halting its infections amongst the bats. Americans are creative, even if imprudent, and technologically confident enough to try it. This concept seemed to fit within the PREEMPT program construct as well, and DRASTIC had discovered that some earlier specimens within the USAID PREDICT program were obtained in Africa and sent to the WIV. Moreover, the unusual nature and pathology of the virus hinted that it could be a vaccine or be vaccine-like.

A technological challenge as difficult as inoculating bats in China would be tried at DARPA first. The massive “Manhattan Project”-level of information suppression executed by the government and the Trusted News Initiative indicates that it would be covered up if something bad happened. The lab-leak hypothesis and squabbling between Senator Paul and Dr. Fauci indicated that the cover-up was more localized. Further, an actual cover-up would be more disciplined with its paperwork. So, I presumed that unclassified files would be concealed on a higher network and found them where I expected them. I understood what they were and their content, pushed the files off-site, and compiled this report.

Semper Fi

U.S. Marine Corp Major Joseph Murphy

Murphy attached the DARPA Defuse bid

24 March 2018

From: Peter Daszak, President, EcoHealth Alliance

To: DARPA PREventing EMerging Pathogenic Threats (PREEMPT)

Subject: Project Defuse

Amount of the Requested Proposal: $14,209,245 across 3.5 years

The book author’s comments are italicized, and important evidence is bolded:

• Security concerns across Asia make the region a potential deployment site for US warfighters. Troops face increased disease risk from SARSr-CoVs, which are shed via urine and feces as bats forage at night.

• Our work in Yunnan, China shows that: 1) bat SARSr-CoVs exist that can infect human cells, produce SARS-like illness in humanized mice, and are not affected by monoclonal or vaccine treatment; and 2) bat SARSr-CoV host-jump into local human populations is frequent. These viruses are therefore a clear and present danger to US defense forces in the region and global health security.

• Our goal is to analyze, predict, then “DEFUSE” the spillover potential of novel bat-origin high-risk SARSr-CoVs in Southeast Asia and across these virus distributions. This will safeguard the US warfighter, reduce risk for local communities and their livestock, improving food and global health security.

• Our strategy is based on immune parameters found across all bat taxonomic groups. If successful, the DEFUSE approach can be adapted to MERS-CoV in the Middle East, other SARSr-CoVs in Africa, and other high-impact bat-origin viruses (e.g., Hendra, Nipah, Ebola, Marburg viruses). No technology exists to reduce exposure to novel bat CoVs.

• Our team has conducted pioneering research modeling disease emergence understanding CoV virology, bat immunity, and wildlife vaccine delivery. Previous work provides proof of concept for: 1) predictive hotspot modeling, 2) upregulating bat immune response through the STING interferon pathway, 3) recombinant chimeric spike-proteins from SARSr-CoVs; 4) molecule delivery to wildlife including bats.

• DEFUSE approach is based on immunological patterns found across bat families, therefore will be broadly effective, scalable, economical and achievable in the allotted time frame. It poses little environmental risk, and presents no threat to the warfighter, or non-target populations.

• Immune modulation (via self-spreading vaccines) is more likely to be effective than CRISPR-Cas9 gene drives (sexual transmission) because bats are relatively long-lived, highly mobile, and have long inter-generational periods (2-5 years) with low progeny (1-2 pups).

Host-Pathogen Prediction (TA1) or NIAID 2R01AI110964 in Shi’s BSL2:

• Integrated field sampling, viral characterization, modeling: In-depth sampling of bat SARSr-CoVs in high-risk sites of active spillover, Yunnan, China. Spatial models using bat and viral data to estimate SARSr-CoV jump potential across Asia. Spatial viral spillover risk Mobile App of background viral jump risk across Asia.

• Experimental assays to test jump potential: Sequence quasispecies spike protein similarity to high-risk SARSr-CoVs, model spike structure to assess ACE2 binding, then in vitro and ACE2 humanized mouse experiments. Use results to test machine learning genotype to phenotype model predictions of viral spillover risk.

Intervention Development (TA2) or NIAID U01Al151797 in Dani’s BSL4:

• Broadscale immune boosting: inoculate bats with immune modulators to upregulate their naturally inhibited innate immunity and suppress viral replication, transiently reducing viral shedding/spillover risk.

• Targeted immune boosting: In concert with the above, inoculate bats with novel chimeric polyvalent recombinant spike proteins to enhance their adaptive immune memory against specific, high-risk viruses.

• Viral dynamics: Develop stochastic simulation models to estimate the frequency, efficacy, and population coverage required for intervention approaches to effectively suppress the viral population.

• Field trial: Use team expertise in wildlife vaccine delivery (transdermal nanoparticles, raccoon poxvirus vector) to develop effective molecule delivery via automated aerosolization onto bats at the roost entrance at our three test cave sites in a cave complex in Yunnan, China, where SARSr-CoVs have infected people.

Technical Approach: Our goal is to defuse the potential for spillover of novel bat-origin high zoonotic risk SARS-related coronaviruses in Asia. In Technical Area 1 (TA1) or NIAID 2R01AI110964 awarded in 2019, we will intensively sample bats at our field sites where we have identified high spillover risk SARSr-CoVs. We will sequence their spike proteins, reverse engineer them to conduct binding assays, and insert them into bat SARSr-CoV (WIV1, SHC014) backbones (these use bat-SARSr-CoV backbones, not SARS-CoV, and are exempt from-dual-use and gain of function concerns) to infect humanized mice and assess capacity to cause SARS-like disease. Our modeling team will use these data to build machine learning genotype-phenotype models of viral evolution and spillover risk. We will uniquely validate these with serology from previously collected human samples via LIPS assays that assess which spike proteins allow spillover into people. We will build host-pathogen spatial models to predict the bat species composition of caves across Southeast Asia (R01AI163118 in Chapter 21) with a full inventory of host-virus distribution at our field test sites, three caves in Yunnan Province, China and a series of unique global datasets on bat host-viral relationships discussed in Chapter 17.

In Technical Area 2 (TA2) or NIAID U01Al151797 evaluated in 2019, we will evaluate two approaches to reduce SARSr-CoV shedding in cave bats: (1) Broadscale immune boosting, in which we will inoculate bats with immune modulators to upregulate their innate immune response and downregulate viral replication; (2) Targeted immune boosting, in which we will inoculate bats with novel chimeric polyvalent recombinant spike proteins plus the immune modulator to enhance innate immunity against specific, high-risk viruses. We will trial inoculum delivery methods on captive bats, including a novel automated aerosolization system, transdermal nanoparticle application, and edible adhesive gels. We will use stochastic simulation modeling informed by field and experimental data to characterize viral dynamics in our cave test sites, maximize timing, inoculation protocol, delivery method, and efficacy of viral suppression. The most effective biologicals will be trialed in our test cave sites in Yunnan Province, with a reduction in viral shedding as proof of concept discussed in Chapter 18.

We and others have demonstrated proof of concept of this phenomenon: Experimental Marburg virus infection of Egyptian fruit bats at the US CDC, a natural reservoir host, resulted in wide tissue distribution yet low to moderate viral loads, brief viremia, low seroconversion, and a low antibody titer that waned quickly, suggesting no long-term protection is established. Similarly, poor neutralizing antibody responses occur after experimental infection of bats with Tacaribe virus and in our studies with SARS-CoV experimentally infected Chinese bats (Linfa Wang, unpublished 2005 data). Indeed, we successfully showed bat interferon can inhibit bat SARSr-CoVs. We hypothesize that if we can use immune modulators that upregulate bats’ naturally low innate immunity to their viruses, we can transiently suppress viral replication and shedding, reducing the risk of spillover. We will evaluate two immune modulation approaches to defuse spillover of SARSr-CoVs from bats to humans: 1) Broadscale Immune Boosting strategies (Wang, Duke-NUS): we will apply immune modulators like TLR-ligands, small molecule Rig like receptor agonists or bat interferon in live bats, to upregulate their innate immunity and assess suppression of viral replication and shedding; 2) Targeted Immune Priming (Baric, UNC): the broadscale immune boosting approach will be applied in the presence and absence of chimeric immunogens to boost clearance of high-risk SARSr-CoVs discussed in Chapter 11.

Broadscale immune boosting (led by Wang, Duke-NUS). We will work on the following key leads to identify the most effective approach to upregulate innate immunity and suppress viral loads. Toll-like receptor (TLR)/Rig-I Like Receptor ligands: We have begun profiling bat innate immune activation in vivo in response to various stimuli. Our work indicates a robust response to TLR-stimuli like polyI:C when delivered in vivo, as measured by transcriptomics on spleen tissue (Figure 8) which is discussed in Chapter 12.

Dr. Danielle Anderson is the Scientific Director of the Duke-NUS Animal BSL3 laboratory and is an expert in RNA virus replication. Dr Anderson has extensive experience in both molecular biology and animal models and will lead the animal studies via U01Al151797 discussed in Chapter 10.

Prof. Shi is the director of the Center for Emerging Infectious Diseases of the Wuhan Institute of Virology, Chinese Academy of Sciences. She got PhD training in Virology in Montpellier University II from 1996 to 2000, biosafety training at Australian Animal Health Laboratory in May 2006 and at Lyon P4 in October 2006. She is now in charge of the scientific activity in BSL3 and BSL4 of the WIV via 2R01AI110964 discussed in Chapter 13.

Subcontracts:

1. Prof. Baric, UNC, will oversee reverse engineering of SARSr-CoVs, BSL-3 humanized mouse experimental infections, design and testing of targeted immune boosting treatments.

2. Prof. Wang, Duke-NUS, to oversee broadscale immune boosting, captive bat experiments, and analyze immunological and virological responses to immune modulators.

3. Dr. Shi, WIV, will conduct PCR testing, viral discovery, isolation from bat samples collected in China, spike protein binding assays, humanized mouse work, and experimental trials on Rhinolophus bats.

4. Dr. Rocke, US Geological Service (USGS), National Wildlife Health Center (NWHC) in Wisconsin, will refine delivery mechanisms for immune boosting treatments. Dr. Rocke will use a captive colony of bats at NWHC for initial trials and oversee cave experiments in the US and China.

5. Dr. Unidad, Palo Alto Research Center (PARC), will develop an innovative aerosol platform into a field deployable device for large scale inoculation of bats.

6. NIH Rocky Mountain Lab (RML) - Vincent Munster removed from Defuse bid for unknown reasons but added in NIAID’s U01Al151797.

Prof. Baric (UNC) will lead the targeted immune boosting work. We will develop recombinant chimeric spike-proteins from known SARSr-CoVs, and those characterized by DEFUSE. Using details of SARS Spike protein structure and host cell binding, we will sequence, reconstruct, and characterize spike trimers and receptor binding domains of SARSr-CoVs, incorporating them into nanoparticles or raccoon poxvirus-vectors for delivery to bats. In combination with immune-boosting small molecules, we will use these to boost immune memory in adult bats previously exposed to SARSr-CoVs, taking the best candidate forward for field testing. Recombinant Spike glycoprotein-based constructs with immunogenic blocks from across group 2B SARSr-CoVs should induce broadscale adaptive immune responses that reduce heterogeneous virus burdens in bats and transmission risk to people. Innate immune damping is highly conserved in all bat species tested so far. We will use the unique Duke-NUS Asian cave bat (Eonycteris spelaea) breeding colony to conduct initial proof of concept tests extended to small groups of wild-caught Rhinolophus sinicus bats at WIV discussed in Chapter 14.

Targeted immune boosting (UNC). To boost targeted adaptive immunity (immune memory) in wild bats chronically exposed to circulating SARSr-CoV quasispecies, we will inoculate with chimeric glycoproteins in the presence of the broadscale immune boosting agonists above. We have developed novel group 2b SARSr-CoV chimeric Spike glycoproteins that encode neutralizing domains from phylogenetically distant strains (e.g. Urbani, HKU3, BtCoV 279, ~25% diversity). The chimeric Spike protein (~4,000 nucleotides) programs efficient expression when introduced in the HKU3 backbone full length genome (~30,000 nucleotides) and elicits protective immunity against multiple group 2b strains. We will develop robust expression systems for SARSr-CoV chimeric Spike using ectopic expression in vitro. Given the breadth of SARSr-CoV circulating in natural settings, chimeric immunogens will be designed to increase the breadth of neutralizing epitopes across the group 2b phylogenetic subgroup. Using synthetic genomes and structure guided design, we fused the NTD of HKU3 with the SARS-CoV RBD with the remaining BtCoV 279/04 Spike glycoprotein molecule, introduced the chimeric Spike glycoprotein gene into the HKU3 genome backbone (25% different than SARS-CoV, clade 2 virus) and recovered viable viruses (HKU3-Smix) that could replicate in Vero cells. We inserted the HKU3mix Spike glycoprotein gene into VEE virus replicon vectors (VRP-Spike chimera) and demonstrated that VRP vaccines protect against lethal SARS-CoV challenge and virus growth. VRP-SHKU3 and VRP-S279 both protect against HKU3mix challenge and growth in vivo, demonstrating that neutralizing epitopes in the HKU3mix Spike glycoprotein provide broad cross protection against multiple SARSr-CoV strains. In addition to using these immunogens as a targeted broad-based boosting strategy in bats, we will produce other chimeras for more focused immune targeting of known high risk strains discussed in Chapter 22.

UNC will characterize Spike expression and provide virus vectors to Prof. Wang for immune boosting trials at Duke-NUS and, if successful, in the field (Prof. Shi). The human codon optimized HKU3-Spike S014 and HKU3-Smix recombinant chimeric spike glycoproteins will be expressed and purified by the UNC proteomics core, producing mg quantities for inclusion in nanoparticle and microparticle carriers in collaboration with Dr. Ainslie of UNC. We will produce WIV-S S014, and HKU3-Smix glycoprotein expression will be validated by Western blot and by vaccination of mice, allowing us to determine if the recombinant protein elicits neutralizing antibodies that protect against lethal SARS-CoV and SHC014 challenge. We will produce enough material for in vivo testing in mice and in bats discussed in Chapter 23.

Recovery of Full length SARSr-CoV. To recover full length viruses, UNC will first compile the sequence data from a panel of closely related strains (<5% nucleotide variation) and compare the full length genome sequences, scanning for unique SNPs which might represent sequencing errors as previously described by our groups. We will identify the best consensus candidate and synthesize the genome using commercial vendors (e.g., BioBasic, etc.) as six contiguous cDNA pieces linked by unique restriction endonuclease sites that do not disturb the coding sequence but allow for full length genome assembly. Full length genomes will be transcribed into RNA and electroporation is used to recover full length recombinant viruses. Using the full length genomes, we will re-evaluate virus growth in primary human airway epithelial cells at low and high multiplicity of infections and in vivo in hACE2 transgenic mice, testing whether backbone genome sequence alters full length SARSr-CoV pre-epidemic or pathogenic potential in models of human infection. We anticipate recovering 2-5 full length genomes per year, reflecting strain differences in antigenicity, receptor usage, growth in human cells and pathogenesis covered in Chapter 24.

Proteolytic Cleave and Glycosylation Sites. In some instances, recombinant chimeric viruses may be predicted to replicate efficiently because of matched RBD-ACE2 interfaces, yet fail to replicate. After receptor binding, cell surface or endosomal proteases cleave the SARS Spike glycoprotein to activate fusion mediated entry. Massive changes in Spike structure occur to mediate membrane fusion and entry. The absence of Spike cleavage prevents SARS-CoV entry via R01AI110700. A variety of proteases, including TMPRSS2, TMPRSS11a, HAT, trypsin, and cathepsin L, carry out these processes on the SARS Spike glycoprotein (Figure C at the S1/S2 interface). In some instances, tissue culture adaptations introduce a furin cleavage site, which can direct entry processes as well, usually by cleaving Spike at positions 757 and 900 in S2 of other coronaviruses, but not SARS. For SARS-CoV, a variety of key cleavage sites in Spike have been identified, including R667/S668, R678/M679 for trypsin and cathepsin L, respectively, R667 and R792 for TMPRSS2, and R667 for HAT. Discussed in Chapter 23, since R667 is the S1/S2 interface of SARS1 and RRAR/SVAS for SARS2.

Organization leading task: University of North Carolina

SARSr-CoV Spike gene sequences will be analyzed for the presence of these appropriately conserved proteolytic cleavage sites in S2 and the presence of potential furin cleavage sites (R-X-[K/R]-R↓), which can be predicted computationally. Importantly, SARSr-CoV with mismatches in proteolytic cleavage sites can be activated by exogenous trypsin or cathepsin L, providing another strategy to recover non-cultivable viruses. In instances where clear mismatches occur in these S2 proteolytic cleavage sites of SARSr-CoV, we will introduce the appropriate human specific cleavage sites and evaluate growth potential in Vero and Human Airway Epithelial (HAE) cultures. In SARS-CoV, we will ablate several of these sites based on pseudotype particle studies and evaluate the impact of select SARSr-CoV changes on virus replication and pathogenesis (e.g., R667, R678, R797). Experimental outcomes from these studies will be incorporated into risk management models to identify high and low risk SARS-like CoV covered in Chapter 22.

Baric has already generated SARS-like chimeras w/ RBD from a group of bat viruses called 293 for S1 (typo per Baric), which is 20% different from epidemic strains (SARS1), and the S2 region from HK3 (HKU3 per Baric), which is 20% different from SARS1 and discussed in Chapter 23 and Post DARPA Defuse Bibliography.

Viral infection models in Eonycteris species (Duke-NUS) and wild-caught Rhinolophus species (WIV) bats: To test and compare the efficacy of the immune modulating approaches above, we will use our cave nectar fruit bats (Eonycteris spelaea) breeding colony infected with Melaka virus (family Reoviridae) which infects this species. First, we will take wing punch biopsies from three individuals to sequence their ACE2 receptor genes. This will be inserted into human cell lines to pre-screen viral strains for binding. Those that bind will be used for in vivo experiments. We will use two coronaviruses (SARSr-CoV WIV1 at RML and MERS-CoV) in animal BSL3. SARS and MERS infection studies are underway in Eonycteris and Pteropus cell lines and primary immune cells. Our cave nectar fruit bat colony has reached a sustainable population for infection experiments and the animal BSL3 facility has been outfitted with bat-specific cages. The planned pilot in vivo infection of Eonycteris bats with Melaka Virus and MERS will be completed by July 2018. Previous infection studies were completed in Pteropus and Rhinolophus bats in Australia by Linfa Wang at CSIRO, AAHL, and an additional Pteropus infection trial is currently planned through the University of Queensland in Australia. At WIV, 20 adult wild Rhinolophus species bats (10 of each sex) will be captured at our test cave site, housed within animal BSL3, ACE2 receptor genes sequenced and used to pre-screen spikes as above. Bats will be tested using PCR and serology for current and prior exposure to SARSr-CoVs, and inoculated with WIV1 experiment at RML, WIV16 or SHC014. For all experiments, viral loads will be measured by qPCR, titration of produced virus, NGS transcriptomics and viral-specific nanostring probes added to the immune profiling panel. Antibody responses will be measured by LIPS assay, as described previously. In addition to direct in vivo delivery of ligands, aerosolized and liquid-phase deployment methods suitable for a cave-like environment will be tested in collaboration with UNC, NWHC, and PARC. This approach allows us to test our immune-boosting strategies in a safe and controlled environment prior to expanding to field-based evaluation discussed in Chapter 26.

Finally, work on a field delivery method will be overseen by Dr. Tonie Rocke at USGS, NWHC, who has proven capacity to develop and take animal vaccines through to licensure. Using locally acquired insectivorous bats like Tadarida brasiliensis or Eptesicus fuscus as proxies, Dr. Rocke will further develop and assess delivery vehicles (mediums) and methods of delivery for the molecules, inocula proposed above, including: 1) transdermally applied nanoparticles; 2) sticky edible gels that bats will groom from themselves and each other; 3) aerosolization via sprayers that could be used in cave settings; and 4) automated sprays triggered by timers and movement detectors at critical cave entry points in Chapter 27-28.

Summary of post-pandemic test results:

1. SARS2 genome (i.e., HKU3mix or HKU3r-CoV) is 20% different from SARS1.

2. SARS2 is the only group 2b coronavirus with a furin cleavage site.

3. RaTG13 and Banal-52 are less than 5% nucleotide variation from SARS2.

4. Covid antibodies provide protection against Laos Banal infection.

5. SARS2 has six contiguous cDNA pieces linked by five restriction sites.

6. Mexican free-tailed bats (Tadarida brasiliensis) are infected with SARS2.

7. Egyptian fruit bats (Rousettus aegyptiacus) are a reservoir host for SARS2.

Share

I’m going to do something different: release the relevant information and let the public decide what it means.

Baric’s wife screens FOIAs

Ralph Baric emails constantly. I initially assumed he didn’t, because so few of his emails have been released. Then I started reading what UNC released to congressional investigators, who won’t release what they have.

Baric’s UNC-employed wife, Toni, forwarded work-relevant Gmail to a Yahoo account and helped screen U.S. Right to Know Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.

Paul is now going after Fauci’s secretary over deleted emails. But if email deletion and FOIA avoidance warrant congressional scrutiny, why does that scrutiny stop when the trail leads to Ralph Baric’s wife at UNC?

Baric’s wife misled FBI

Toni repeatedly forwarded emails she characterized as threatening to an FBI agent assigned to handle online harassment directed at the Barics. She was buttering up the FBI agent to gain sympathy for these non-threatening emails.

The emails amounted to little more than “fuck you.” And, according to the FBI agent, they contained no direct threats.

Then came the DARPA documents.

Only after the DEFUSE documents became public in September 2021 did Toni forward them to the FBI agent. Days later, the story reached the media, and the agent wanted to interview Ralph Baric.

What happened next is interesting.

Toni delayed the interview for weeks and arranged only a 45-minute meeting between the FBI agent and Ralph Baric. By comparison, she had previously scheduled reporter David Quammen for two 90-minute sessions.

Deleted emails?

It appears Toni deleted Ralph’s emails about the mysterious BSEG (CIA) meeting.

Baric’s shifting alibi

In 2024 testimony, Baric was asked why he “attacked” Kristian Andersen for suggesting SARS2 looks engineered. He used a BSEG meeting as an alibi for claiming he thought the same.

Andersen: “I should mention that Ralph Baric pretty much attacked me on the call with NASEM, “ National Academies of Science, “essentially calling anything related to potential lab escape ludicrous, crackpot theories. I wonder if he, himself, is worried about this, too.”

Baric: I don’t recall this. So because of this, I’m going to at least say one thing that I gave in the BSEG meeting on January 25th or 26th. My summary of the origin of the pandemic was the following. There are three potential causes for, that pandemic. First is natural origin, second was laboratory escape, and the third was genetically engineered.

Baric’s January 2020 BSEG presentation doesn’t reflect the full story.

It contains a single line on a single slide mentioning Shi Zhengli’s BSL2 research. It doesn't discuss the SARS2 furin cleavage site or Baric’s DEFUSE proposal to introduce a furin cleavage site into a coronavirus. In follow-up questioning, Baric was never asked why he omitted the site from his early pandemic presentations.

In February 2020, Baric gave a one-hour technical presentation to Congressional staff. He should have mentioned the pandemic potential of the SARS2 furin cleavage site while comparing the genome to SARS1, which lacked a furin cleavage site.

Baric’s Proximal Origins paper?

Baric edited Rachel Graham’s May 2020 cover-up paper. They cited Anderson’s Proximal Origin “arguments as compelling.” Baric also added references to Shi’s BSL2 lab to draw attention away from Dani Anderson’s BSL4 lab.

Baric misled UNC executives

Early in the pandemic, Baric gave UNC senior administrators an incomplete picture.

In February 2020, for example, Baric sent UNC President Bill Roper and Vice Chancellor for Research Don Hobart the Lancet letter claiming lab leak was a “conspiracy theory” and referenced the Proximal Origin paper.

If you remember, Baric started the Lancet letter with Linfa Wang and Peter Daszak.

Baric abused Gmail

Very few Baric emails emerged after the U.S.R.T.K. initial FOIA in 2020. That’s because Baric switched over to Gmail. For example, I had always assumed that Baric intentionally released this UNC email to Vanity Fair to divert attention away from Dani Anderson’s BSL4. Still, I had no idea he sent it from his Gmail account, since that Gmail address was redacted.

Baric Jr used Gmail

And then there is Tim Sheahan, who is “Baric Jr.”

According to Daszak’s emails to Baric, Sheahan also used Gmail during the cover-up.

Baric started engineering SARS2 in 2017

In early 2015, Baric was introduced to USAID Predict, and Daszak planned to visit UNC. Baric told Daszak he wanted group 2b spike (e.g., RaTG13, BANAL, SARS2, etc.) from abroad. For example, in February 2017, UNC received a new Uganda spike near HKU3 (~30%). Baric replied that it’s easy to engineer increased ACE2 usage with a few mutations. That Uganda spike later appeared in a Fang Li FOIA and was now 20% different from SARS1, just like SARS2.

UNC and RML collaboration

Baric mentions that UNC has a scientist with “visiting privileges” at RML, likely Alexandra Schäfer. She co-authored the 2018 WIV Egyptian fruit bat paper.

RML was on U01 CREID grant

In June 2019, while recycling text from DARPA Defuse, Baric replaced Rocky Mountain Lab with Boston’s NEIDL for select agent (bat) experiments. Baric needed to include the new Boston lab to get the grant funded. I always thought the below was a U01 CREID grant typo, but it was intentional.

Ironically, this 2020 CREID grant also funded Baric’s 2018 furin cleavage site idea from DARPA DEFUSE. Due to space constraints, it was cut from the final draft submitted in June 2019.

The 2020 SE Asian R01 grant

Baric was heavily involved in drafting the NIAID R01AI163118 grant, but withdrew due to “constant shit scrutiny.” Daszak used R01AI163118 to replace the money lost from Shi’s canceled 2R01AI110964 grant. The grant included Baric’s HKU3r-CoV chimera (aka HKU3-Smix) and funded DARPA DEFUSE.

Baric’s unpublished grants are incriminating

In one of them, Baric admits SARS2 spike is 24.7% different from SARS1. HKU3r-CoV was 25% different. Another example is the $40M grant (HHSN272201100018I) from NIAID to UNC, awarded around 2019, which describes: “Finally, we have recovered a distant zoonotic SARS-like virus (HKU3-SRBD) that differs by as much as 20% amino acid sequence of the spike glycoprotein from epidemic SARS-CoV.” Again, SARS1 differs from SARS2 by 20%.

Baric’s proprietary chimeras (e.g. HKU3-Smix)

While drafting DARPA DEFUSE, Baric referenced his patented chimeras like HKU3-Smix.

So chimeric immunogens as vaccine platforms for coronaviruses are potentially proprietary. Having said that not likely a big market for control of bats coronaviruses in caves and the potential human markets are uncertain. So I would have to say fundamental research at this point as this was certainly my intent. ralph

Daszak vs Baric style

Unlike Daszak, Baric hates first-person singular pronouns: “I am uncomfortable saying I, I, I when that is not the case. I have used we or my group throughout. A few places I have used I. I don’t want to see this again. ralph”

Fauci, Baric, & Daszak’s relationship pre-pandemic

In May 2019, Fauci received a list of potential Kinyoun Lecturers. It included Baric, who was “well known to us.” It also included Daszak, who is “a good friend of NIAID and an expert in global disease emergence.” They picked a scientist from Scripps Institute.

Blockers vs Seekers

Is Rand Paul now a blocker?

Subscribe now

(Any FOIA journalist can contact me for Toni Baric’s Yahoo email address)

Read more

The virus’s origin remains a mystery without knowing its true identity. SARS-CoV-2 was an animal vaccine with a failed safety kill switch. The design originated in Singapore, creation took place in North Carolina, development occurred in Montana, and testing was conducted in Wuhan. This is where it leaked accidentally, but the creation and coverup were not accidents.

Read more

My libertarian blood boils at those who use the state’s power to prosecute innocent bystanders, so I’m going to cross-examine Paul.

Open Letter

Senator Paul: Do you want to run for President and win?

Then stop harassing Fauci’s secretary. Go back on camera and tell the American public that the reservoir host (source) of SARS-CoV-2 has been identified. Not at the WIV or the Wuhan wet market, but at Fauci’s biodefense lab in Montana.

You once grilled Fauci for hours over gain-of-function funding, and you were closer than anyone knew at the time.

COVID-19 was created by Fauci’s favorite foreigners: Dutchman Vincent Munster and German guru Heinz Feldmann, whom Fauci recruited to run the Rocky Mountain Lab BSL4 in the 2010s.

Why them? Their GoF research had drawn too much heat in the Netherlands and Canada, so Fauci brought them in-house.

In March 2019, they received Ralph Baric’s SARS2-like genome via PRD-12-143 and serial passaged it in 5 lab animals used exclusively for self-spreading vaccine research.

They shipped it off to Wuhan for an “experimental inoculation study using Chinese horseshoe bats.”

Those 5 lab animals, mainly Egyptian fruit bats, now show reservoir host “status” for SARS-CoV-2. None are native to China. All are found in RML.

Senator, you’ve built a career on asking hard questions others were afraid to ask. This is the hardest one left. Tell it to the people — or someone else will beat you to the presidency by explaining it first.

A Duke COI?

A year ago, I told Senator Paul that Dani Anderson from Duke-NUS was Patient 0.

Paul, a Duke alum, seemed noticeably uncomfortable. I could tell he was nervous because he kept asking me specific questions about her role in CREID versus DEFUSE.

But instead of calling Dani to testify, Paul wants to question Fauci’s secretary or focus on Zhou Yusen. He’s a Chinese military scientist whose work was based in Beijing, not Wuhan.

Notice the slippery wording: Paul says “China,” not “Wuhan,” when making his PLA allegation. Paul’s timeline regarding Zhou Yusen doesn’t hold up under scrutiny.

Then Paul rants about Baric’s hACE2 mice, even though I had specifically told him about Dani’s work at the Wuhan BSL-4. He seems to be conflating two completely different things: a viral chimera and a transgenic mouse model. One is a viral construct; the other is an animal model used to study infection.

Plenty of people are worth questioning about COVID’s origins besides Fauci’s secretary, and Dani should be one of them.

Paul and bats

Unfortunately, Paul carried Fauci’s water after the hearing by claiming COVID doesn’t infect bats. It infects Fauci’s bats kept in his biodefense lab in Montana. This is why Fauci invoked the 5th and was pardoned.

Only one person is covering this up right now, and it ain’t Fauci or his secretary deleting emails.

Highlights from Baric & Munster’s unpublished emails

In the spirit of transparency that Paul himself claims to seek, I’m going to start sharing Baric and Munster’s emails that Congress has been hiding for years.

Baric’s evasiveness

From 2021 to 2024, congressional staffers negotiated with Baric (via UNC’s Washington, D.C., lobbyist) and grew frustrated by his (non)answers. Before Defuse leaked in September 2021, congressional staff asked Baric: Are you aware of the WIV using related techniques to achieve the same result?

Baric truthfully answered:

Per their published papers, the WIV used “no-see’m enzymes” to introduce other natural Sarbecovirus bat spike genes into their WIV1 baculovirus molecular clone. The WIV1 chimeric clone and chimeric viruses derived from it still contain the —10 marker signature mutations encoded in the original WIV1 clone, plus the unique spike glycoprotein from some unrelated bat SARS-CoV. This means their WIV1 clone is identifiable and traceable to the WIV lab.

After Defuse leaked, the emails grew tense and confrontational. Baric wanted all questions submitted before granting any interview. Baric’s team delayed responding to interview requests, frustrating congressional staff and prompting them to ask UNC to go on record in January 2024:

It is my understanding, based on our conversation, that the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC-Chapel Hill) is unwilling to continue cooperating with our ongoing inquiry. On the call, I requested that you please put in writing UNC-Chapel Hill’s position regarding its ongoing cooperation (or lack thereof) with our requests stemming from our initial inquiry dating back to 2021. We want to make sure that there is no daylight between our understanding of UNC-Chapel Hill’s apparent refusal to cooperate with our ongoing inquiry and the university’s official position. Therefore, could you please confirm, in writing, that UNC-Chapel Hill does not intend to respond to our inquiries, including concerning the recently uncovered information related to Dr. Baric’s work with Dr. Peter Daszak of EcoHealth Alliance and Dr. Zhengli Shi of the Wuhan Institute of Virology on chimeric coronaviruses and the DEFUSE grant proposal?

The UNC lobbyist replied:

To the extent that you imply that the University has failed to cooperate in this matter, suffice it to say that we disagree. The University has, for multiple years, been responsive and cooperative with you and your colleagues on multiple lines of inquiry related to Covid-19.

Baric wrote all of Defuse (& NIAID grants)

Baric wrote the entire section of Technical Area 1 and Technical Area 2 in DARPA Defuse. He also wrote 2R01 & U01 CREID grants because Daszak said Baric was good at winning NIAID grants. In October 2018, Daszak and Baric turned a lost DARPA Preempt email thread into a soon-to-be-won NIAID 2R01 grant. The WIV was even asking Baric questions about his 2R01 focus on 10-25% different genomes.

Baric & Munster’s collaboration

An early 2018 draft of DARPA Defuse was very incriminating:

Subcontracts: #1 to Prof. Baric, UNC, to oversee reverse engineering of SARSr-CoVs, BSL-3 and select BSL4 humanized mouse experimental infections at the NIH RML in collaboration with Dr. Munster, design and testing of targeted immune boosting treatments; #2 to Prof. Wang, Duke-NUS, to oversee broadscale immune [boosting]

For unknown reasons, Munster left the DARPA team, but they were reunited under NIAID in 2019.

DRASTIC later accessed and leaked these emails, but Congress withheld them for years.

Daszak is innocent

Daszak appears to have been caught off guard by Baric’s furin cleavage site plans when the DARPA Defuse proposal became public in September 2021. Days before DRASTIC published it, he sent a panicked email to Baric, who replied evasively.

Baric later testified that the idea of inserting a furin cleavage site was “clearly mine.” Again, Congress will not release this important email between Daszak and Baric.

Baric & Munster’s collaboration

Baric and Munster were brainstorming VRP vaccines (referenced in Defuse) for MERS and camels as early as 2015. By Dec 2015, Baric sent HKU4 & HKU5 spikes to Munster at RML. By 2016, Munster was experimenting with a UNC chimera in Egyptian fruit bats. Their later emails are “missing” on the 2018-19 chimera research in Egyptian fruit bats.

Again, independent investigators later obtained some of these emails, but Congress sat on them for years.

Munster’s alibi?

The above was highly detailed, so Munster’s alibi, given below, doesn’t hold up. He was asked the following questions:

Question: Did you receive copies of the documents distributed on [DARPA PREEMPT] proposer’s day?

Munster’s Answer: No (nor did I attend)

Q: Were you aware that EcoHealth listed NIAID personnel as a potential collaborator? Please see page 33 of the slides and page 7 of the profile document.

A: No

Q: Did you ever discuss the potential proposal with anyone at EcoHealth or with the other possible collaborators listed?

A: No

Q: DARPA, ASL, and OLPA understand that these are potential proposals, but do you know why EcoHealth may have listed Dr. Munster on the pre-proposal? OLPA understands that Dr. Munster and RML were not listed on the formal proposal submitted to DARPA. OLPA is checking with DARPA to confirm this.

A: No, although they might have thought that adding one of the world’s premier institutes of infectious diseases and a USG institute might give the proposal directed to the USG DoD more weight. That’s obviously very speculative, as I have never, in any capacity, been part of this proposal, nor have I been informed that my name would have been on the slides.

RML was nervous

A large meeting was held in early 2024 to discuss the negative news about their connection to the Wuhan lab. Munster said, “I will be there!”

Munster & Wuhan

Munster’s postdoc, Michael Letko, emailed Shi Zhengli asking for Chinese bat cells from her lab. Letko would publish several papers with WIV from 2022 to 2024. Munster and Letko also discussed the Daszak and Shi antibody paper.

Munster and Wang

Linfa Wang was sharing bat samples (cDNAs) with Munster by 2015, as well as bat cells.

Munster and DARPA

They had a working relationship that began in 2015 with the DARPA Thunder project, which, along with the Ebola outbreak, led Munster to establish a bat lab. He wrote:

Dr. Munster has specific and unique expertise working with bat cells and bats with BSL-4 pathogens, which is extremely unique. To our knowledge, there are no other investigators in private sector with this skill set, which makes this unique team of researchers privileged for this particular project.

NIAID and Saudi Arabia

Like China, the Saudis were ready to collaborate and fund NIAID research to manage their MERS outbreak. Munster served as their point person and collected camel and bat samples. The importation of camel tissue was an issue, so CSU was going to dissect a small camel for Munster, or “put the word out to see if we can find a baby camel with some problems that they need to euthanize,” and “We’re very unlikely to euthanize a camel that has not been challenged with MERS CoV ($7K a pop). I can put the word out to see if we could find a camel with a broken leg or such, but I would not be optimistic.”

Munster reminded a fellow scientists, “Dromedary camel = 1 hump, bactrian = 2 humps ;-) Hope you didn’t cut yourself carving.”

They named one of the CSU camels “Ralph.”

Dick Bowen of CSU wrote regarding camel nasal inoculation, “The technique I’ve used in the past with cattle is to insert a tampon into their nostril, leave for a few minutes, then remove and squeeze out secretions. I’ll bet that would not be difficult in a camel under xylazine and would be fun for the public.”

Munster wrote, “We cannot import samples from dromedary camels into the US. Serum samples would require irradiation at Plum Island before being released. Trying to obtain a US camel is the best; in addition, one would need lab facilities to directly prepare and properly freeze the materials (-135°C).”

In 2016, Fauci and Munster gave a joint presentation discussing Munster’s camel vaccine.

If Fauci and Munster wanted to vaccinate camels against MERS in Colorado, would they also vaccinate bats against SARS in Wuhan?

A limited number of bats was a problem

Munster wanted a large number of bats for his extensive research, but Tony Schountz of CSU was stingy with AJ’s, as only one pup was produced per 6 months. Munster called AJ’s the “flying” mouse model for bat research.

Shipping pathogens (and bats) was the name of the game

Ian Lipkin from Columbia sent Munster approximately 600 samples of Asian bat urine. Jon Epstein of EcoHealth collected these samples and has frozen them since 2007. By 2011, Epstein was shipping bat samples to RML, but the cold chain had issues (including dry vs. wet ice, liquid nitrogen, and dry shippers).

However, most of this required liquid nitrogen, which is either expensive or unavailable in some developing countries. Munster then found a mini liquid nitrogen plant that could be shipped on site. A colleague replied, “In-country LN2 production. The holy grail!” Otherwise, they had to use dry shippers that needed recharging every few days.

In 2018, Munster’s lab wanted to import bats from Australia (flying fox), Ghana (Eidolon), and the hammer-headed bat from the Congo. They asked the US CDC for advice, which previously imported Egyptian fruit bats from Uganda for their Atlanta, GA breeding colony. Munster supported an R01 bid with Jon Epstein of EcoHealth, stating, “We are going to import Vampyrus (sero-positive and negative) [large flying fox bat] and do experimental infections.”

Munster’s lab would time their bat collection trips in the Congo with a new moon (dark) since some bats have a lunar phobia. They also budgeted for thermal imaging cameras to see the bats at night.

Munster’s bat cells

Munster wasn’t just collecting every bat on the planet; he wanted bat cells.

Let me know if you need anything more specific. I think the idea is that we need primary cell lines because of the 1:1 species match, functionality with respect to the innate pathways and the ability to acquire cells of particular importance – interest for our work e.g. DCs

Generation of primary cell lines from bats collected in field settings.

Research into the cellular and molecular interaction of Ebola viruses relies heavily on in vitro techniques such as tissue culture. Typically tissue culture in laboratory settings are using immortalized cell lines, one of the major drawbacks for working with immortalized cell lines is the potential impairment of specific pathways, such as the ability to mount an efficient innate response. For example, Vero E6 cells, derived from African green monkeys, standardly used for in vitro studies with Ebolaviruses, have an impaired type I INF response (Emeny JM, Morgan MJ (1979) Regulation of the interferon system: evidence that Vero cells have a genetic defect in interferon production). A second drawback is the limited amount of cell lines available for respective bat species of interest and a third drawback is that virtually all bat cell lines are of fibroblast origin.

Here we propose to generate primary cell lines of specific bat species of interest. Besides typical tissues utilized for generating primary cell lines such as kidney and liver, we will focus on trying to perform bone marrow extraction to isolate and culture dendritic cells from bats. We have successfully generated cell lines using these techniques in the Republic of the Congo.

That's why Munster and Baric wanted a furin cleavage site: to bypass these biological barriers.

Munster’s foreign visitors

Jun Lu from China paid $25,000 for a visiting scholarship to RML, which allowed him to access BSL2; however, he couldn’t access BSL4 without U.S. citizenship.

Munster’s bat vaccine

In March 2018, Munster started with a VSV vaccination in Rousettus. “We are trying to determine what the glycan composition would be in antibodies from actual bats rather than the ones we express in the lab.”

His assistant, Stephan Seifert, told Munster during an Ebola bat trial in Jamaican fruit bats that “showing transmission between bats” isn’t essential. They were limited in the number of bats they could use per experiment because they had only 1 pup per year.

Munster saw transmission research as a competitive advantage in his aerosol equipment and BSL4.

Munster admits WA1 smoking gun?

From: Munster, Vincent (NIH/NIAID)

To: Wickenhagen, Arthur (NIH/NIAID)

Subject: RE: Omicron entry data Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2024

It’s only the WA1 which is a bit weird, the other ones do match quite well

From: Wickenhagen, Arthur (NIH/NIAID)

To: Munster, Vincent (NIH/NIAID)

Yes, I am working on the JN.1 to include. Hamster data can be separated. Was more out of curiosity to take it along. Also, whats not clearly mentioned in in the graph, its hamster ACE2 with human TMPRSS2.

They didn’t mention their “weird” WA1 results in their published paper.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-55938-3

Subscribe now

Read more

Read more

The virologists have more or less folded under the onslaught of bat vaccine evidence, but my fellow lab leakers still want to fight. Ground Zero for current misinformation isn’t UNC or NIAID, but Rutgers University.

Competing theories will always be unfriendly. And Richard Ebright from Rutgers will always be my nemesis. I literally wrote the book because of him. While I never mention Ebright, I allude to him in the back: Like most things in modern life, this offline book started as an online argument.

I’ve never met Ebright in person, only engaged in nasty Twitter arguments. Ebright thinks Baric’s innocent, and anyone who claims otherwise is this:

For four years, I've claimed Shi’s the whistleblower for publishing RaTG13. He thinks the answers for the origin are in Wuhan; I know they are in Chapel Hill.

Ebright’s fellow lab leak professor from Rutgers, Bryce Nickels, was at the Fauci hearing last month but didn’t get in.

We met twice in a Senate hallway—before and after the Fauci hearing. After about 20 minutes of arguing, we agreed to disagree. I told him, however, that fighting is fun. Others can safely sit on the sideline and decide for themselves.

Nickels believes we can regulate these virologists. I don’t. I believe we should identify the people responsible, Baric and Munster, and let the chips fall where they may. That means defunding risky research, not asking the people who created the problem to regulate themselves.

Nickels claimed I “lie all the time,” so I asked for one example. He gave me one.

I then asked him if he knew what a molecular clone is. He said no. Molecular clones are basically the mold that virologists use to create synthetic viruses using DNA plasmids. And it’s how virologists work around the Select Agent “rules.”

Nickels claimed to understand regulatory capture. That makes Taubenberger a useful example. Taubenberger appears comfortable treating the 1918 influenza virus as a select agent, but not necessarily the molecular clone used to recreate it.

From natural-origin virologist Angie Rasmussen:

DGOF: Uses reconstituted 1918

Hypocrisy Level: Obvious. 1918 was reconstituted twenty years ago, so it stopped being extinct in 2005. These studies are not themselves DGOF, although it’s debatable whether using 1918 at all would qualify, since it was resurrected from sequences using reverse genetics. Bringing back 1918 now, however, would be absolutely forbidden by the Executive Order. What about using 1918 now since it has already been brought back? Grants including 1918 work are likely being evaluated for DGOF compliance on a case by case basis since 1918 is also a Select Agent, but I would be very surprised if many researchers are submitting grants proposing any type of 1918 work. The only researcher in the country whose 1918 research is unaffected may be Taubenberger.

In other words, Taubenberger can create the 1918 flu without permission, because he already has the molds (molecular clone) to make it.

Like Taubenberger, Baric also decided his select agent rules. He proposed constructs as bat viruses rather than human viruses. In DEFUSE, that allowed his work to be treated as “exempt from dual-use and gain of function concerns.” Why? Because they’re bat viruses, not human ones.

Baric basically added an “r” to SARS and called it related and not GoF. Who decided? Baric. Call it a bat virus, and suddenly the regulatory problem becomes a bat problem.

Ebright and Nickels will not disclose their conflict of interest, so I’ll share it. They work in gene-drive research and have reason to worry that the gain-of-function controversy could eventually reach their CRISPR funding.

Their CRISPR funding comes from the same government pot of gold that supports Baric’s bat vaccines. Self-spreading vaccine research competes with gene-drive and CRISPR applications. For example, deer mice, which are reservoir hosts for SARS2, are used in self-spreading vaccine research alongside CRISPR modeling. Baric even discussed CRISPR in his DARPA bid but said it’s too slow.

Gene drives are transmitted through sexual reproduction, while self-spreading vaccines spread like viruses. While self-spreading vaccine research infected all of us, gene drives could make a specific species extinct. The professorial lab leak debate is essentially a turf war over who gets to engineer nature.

Nickels tried to defend Matt Ridley, but he conflated the two by saying “infectiously.” Self-disseminating vaccines have their roots in the Australian effort to create sterilizing vaccines for small mammal control.

Nickels then correctly said I’m selfish. Of course I am. Everyone is. The barber doesn’t cut my gray hair for free. But the barber’s selfishness doesn’t have the externality of a gene-driver like Nickels or a gain-of-function freak like Baric.

NIH and DARPA fund both gain-of-function research and gene-drive research. The more regulations placed on gain-of-function research, the freer its evil twin sister—CRISPR—may become.

I asked Nickels whether he would insert a furin cleavage site for $14 million.

He said no.

I said yes.

Nickels kept asking about my agenda in the Senate hallway, as if everyone has one like him. I told him that if the story ended with Baric’s furin cleavage site, I would never have written a blog or book or bothered showing up in D.C. But that self-spreading vaccine research leads to Fauci’s biodefense lab in Montana, and I will mindfuck people who get in my way.

My real argument with Nickels concerned the term bioweapon, which Ebright and other lab leakers often used. These two biology professors see COVID circulating efficiently in humans and assume it was designed specifically for humans. That overlooks the inconvenient fact that humans are not the only mammals on the planet.

I also called 24 SAGO scientists “Darwin deniers” if they refused to answer the WA1 question in the back of my book. Nickels was part of that question and did not answer it.

Nickels has not read my book. He believes Baric is innocent (i.e. did not create the SARS2 genome). Instead, he promotes Ebright’s pet theory that Baric somehow taught Shi Zhengli how to create it. These two professors have clearly never tried to teach anyone anything from afar. Their theory requires a remarkable chain of events with remarkably little biological evidence from two biology professors.

I asked Nickels for one piece of biological evidence supporting a lab leak.

He couldn’t provide one.

Like Ebright, Nickels is defending a man in Baric who refuses to defend himself.

I apologized for my online hostility and offered to buy him a beer.

He doesn’t drink.

Never trust a man who doesn’t drink. But they all drink from the same government trough. They are both blocked on Twit but can come in here and defend themselves, since both are closet readers of the blog.

Nickels left the Senate lobby to lobby Rand Paul for the Risky Research Act. He tried to give me advice, although I’m still not entirely sure what it was.

Rand Paul’s father had a great line about auditing the Federal Reserve. We need to audit our own labs. That is how we end risky research. But it’s obvious that none of them want that. Their CRISPR labs would be audited.

Rutgers GoF conference

They probably mention “bioweapon” 100 times in part 1.

Science From the Fringe

Scientific Responsibility in Research on Dangerous Pathogens — Part 1: How We Got Here

On September 11, 2026, I hosted the inaugural event of The Purpose of Science Lecture Series at Rutgers University: Scientific Responsibility in Research on Dangerous Pathogens…

Listen now

2 months ago · 12 likes · 1 comment · Science From The Fringe and Bryce Nickels

Part 2 was telling, though.

Science From the Fringe

Scientific Responsibility in Research on Dangerous Pathogens — Part 2: COVID-19 and What Came Next

On September 11, 2026, I hosted the inaugural event of The Purpose of Science Lecture Series at Rutgers University: Scientific Responsibility in Research on Dangerous Pathogens…

Listen now

2 months ago · 7 likes · 1 comment · Science From The Fringe and Bryce Nickels

Ebright still can’t get the timeline right. SARS2 genome was published on January 10, 2020, and no one suspected engineering. On January 24, Shi uploaded RaTG13, and everyone, except Ebright, suspected engineering.

Notice Ebright doesn’t mention Baric on the February 1 call. If it wasn’t for Neil Harrison from Columbia, this Rutgers convention would have been pure propaganda (to protect Baric and US funding for risky research).

But in the end, Ebright still shifts the convo back to Wuhan.

George Howard interview

https://nsjonline.com/article/2026/09/alum-author-want-uncs-ties-to-pandemic-investigated/

Howard said in 2020 he was “shocked” the university didn’t voluntarily issue a public accounting of what occurred between the school, EcoHealth Alliance and the Wuhan Institute of Virology given the “extraordinary worldwide interest in understanding how the pandemic began.”

In discussions with North State Journal, Howard said CarolinaFlu.org is an effort to “help end six years without a full, independent public accounting from Carolina on a matter of global and historical importance.”

Howard has done something I never could: get Dani Anderson in the news.

Howard also mentioned a woman named Danielle Anderson as “relevant as a possible witness and as part of a testable hypothesis,” but not as someone “against whom we claim to have established wrongdoing.”

“She was a Duke-NUS scientist with regular access to the Wuhan Institute of Virology’s high-containment laboratory, and DEFUSE materials identify her with the Duke-NUS work associated with the proposed field-testing component,” Howard said of Anderson.

“To our knowledge, she has never been publicly questioned under oath by an investigation with access to the underlying institutional records. We believe she should be given an opportunity to explain exactly what work was performed, what she observed and what she knew before the outbreak.”

Are Munster’s colleagues nervous?

https://missoulacurrent.com/montana-scientists-campaign/

Scientists like Vincent Munster are indispensable for figuring out the source of pandemic viruses, whether bats, pigs, rats, or some other animal, Kristian Andersen said.

Munster “is the person who goes out to Africa to get samples of bad viruses from people,” said Stanley Perlman from the University of Iowa. “He’s done lots of things that needed to be done, and he does them well.”

Munster and his laboratory of viral ecology are known as the “go-to group for highly dangerous viruses” such as Middle East respiratory syndrome, Nipah, Ebola, and bird flu, Peter Daszak said, whose work has also been targeted in recent years. Munster “goes into red zones,” gets samples from sick people, and makes diagnostic tests that help assess an outbreak and how to stop it, Daszak said.

The article missed one important FBI detail:

https://archive.org/details/munster_202608

My interview with Lee

An interview with my newest reader, Lee, who’s an ex-pharma exec and discovered our bat vaccine theory after my appearance at the Fauci hearing.

If any of my readers want to do something similar, on or off camera, let me know!

Get 5% off for 1 year

Wuhan’s history spans over 3,500 years, thanks to its strategic location as a key port along the Yangtze River, called Da Jiang (Great River) or simply Jiang (the River). Called the “Chicago of China” by an American magazine in 1900, Wuhan has grown from its days of exporting tea and silk to the West.

Read more