Edited by Fauci, the “Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2” paper was accessed more than 6.7 million times and cited by over 2,000 media outlets. But was it accurate?
Story at a Glance
- In January 2022, House Oversight Committee Republicans released a batch of emails sent to and from the National Institutes of Health (NIH). A Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit brought by Jimmy Tobias at The Intercept also forced the release of unredacted NIH correspondence.
- The emails reveal there was great concern among NIH leadership, as SARS-CoV-2 appeared to be a genetically engineered virus that somehow escaped from the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) in China.
- The emails show they were nervous about the possibility that they’d funded the creation of this virus, and that they were determined to suppress questions about its origin.
- A group of scientists convened by Dr. Jeremy Farrar, director of the Wellcome Trust, published a paper in which they claimed the virus was decidedly not the result of intentional engineering. They did admit accidental creation in a lab could not be ruled out, but that natural evolution was the most likely scenario. Some of these same scientists had previously shared details indicative of genetic engineering in emails to Fauci.
- The “Proximal Origin” paper, which was edited by Fauci and “debunked” the lab leak theory without any evidence, became the most read published paper in history. More than 2,000 media outlets have cited it to support their propaganda.
The emails reveal what many had suspected all along, namely that SARS-CoV-2 appeared to be a genetically engineered virus that somehow escaped from the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) in China. (In a Jan. 17, 2023, Twitter thread, [5] molecular biologist Richard Ebright, who holds a doctorate in microbiology and molecular genetics, summarized the lab-origin hypothesis.)
Summary of Key Findings
“Excerpts of emails released today reveal the following:
- Jan. 27, 2020: Dr. [Anthony] Fauci knew NIAID had funded EcoHealth Alliance, the WIV was a subgrantee of EcoHealth, and EcoHealth was not in compliance with its grant reporting, in particular, a grant that NIAID knew had gain-of-function potential on novel bat coronaviruses.
- Feb. 1, 2020: Dr. Fauci, [then-NIH director] Dr. [Francis] Collins, and at least 11 other scientists convened a conference call to discuss COVID-19. On the conference call, Drs. Fauci and Collins were first warned that COVID-19 may have leaked from the WIV and may have been intentionally genetically manipulated.
- Feb. 4, 2020: After speaking with Drs. Fauci and Collins, four participants of the conference call abandoned their belief the virus originated from the Wuhan lab and authored a paper [7] entitled ‘The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2.’ Prior to final publication in Nature Medicine, the paper was sent to Dr. Fauci for editing and approval.
- April 16, 2020: More than two months after the original conference call, Dr. Collins emailed Dr. Fauci expressing dismay that the Nature Medicine article—which they saw prior to publication and were given the opportunity to edit—did not squash the lab leak hypothesis and asks if the NIH can do more to ‘put down’ the lab leak hypothesis.
- April 17, 2020: After Dr. Collins explicitly asked for more public pressure, Dr. Fauci cited the Nature Medicine paper from the White House podium likely in an effort to further stifle the hypothesis COVID-19 leaked from the Wuhan lab.”
Fauci Tipped Off About Lab Leak Possibility
On Jan. 31, 2020, Fauci received an email from Dr. Jeremy Farrar, director of the Wellcome Trust, asking him to call Kristian Andersen, who holds a doctorate in immunology and is an evolutionary biologist and professor in the department of immunology and microbiology at the Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, California. As reported by The Intercept on Jan. 19, 2023: [8]“Fauci had his phone call with Andersen that night, and what he heard clearly disturbed him. In an email to Farrar after the call, he wrote the following:
“'I told [Andersen] that as soon as possible he and Eddie Holmes should get a group of evolutionary biologists together to examine carefully the data to determine if his concerns are validated. He should do this very quickly and if everyone agrees with this concern, they should report it to the appropriate authorities.
“I would imagine that in the USA this would be the FBI and in the UK it would be MI5' … What were Andersen’s concerns? And why were they so dire they might merit a call to the FBI?
“Andersen laid them out plainly in an email to Fauci that same evening. ‘The unusual features of the virus make up a really small part of the genome (<0.1 percent) so one has to look really closely at all the sequences to see that some of the features (potentially) look engineered,’ Andersen wrote in the email.
NIH Funded Risky Research at the WIV
The following day, Feb. 1, 2020, at 2 p.m., Fauci, Farrar, Collins, Andersen, and several other virologists had their conference call, and Andersen clearly wasn’t the only one who had noticed tell-tale signs of genetic engineering. Farrar himself wrote, “On a spectrum, if zero is nature and 100 is release—I am honestly at 50!”[9]According to The Intercept, [10] Fauci spent that morning “brushing up on what sorts of grants and collaborations his agency was involved in with research institutions in China.”
In all likelihood, he discovered (if he was somehow previously unaware, which seems doubtful) that the NIH had provided research grants to the EcoHealth Alliance, which in turn subcontracted coronavirus experiments to the WIV—including an experiment involving humanized mice that were infected with chimeric hybrids of SARS-related bat coronaviruses. [11]
NIH-Linked Scientists Suspected Lab Leak From the Start
On Feb. 2, 2020, Farrar circulated a set of notes summarizing the discussion, which he said was to be treated “in total confidence.” [12] Michael (Mike) Farzan, who holds a doctorate in pathology and is an expert on the entry processes of enveloped viruses, was bothered by the presence of a furin cleavage site—a novel feature that allows SARS-CoV-2 the ability to infect cells in the human airways.“… the likely explanation could be something as simple as passage SARS-live CoVs in tissue culture on human cell lines (under BSL-2) for an extended period of time, accidentally creating a virus that would be primed for rapid transmission between humans via gain of furin site (from tissue culture) and adoption to human ACE2 receptor via repeated passage …
“… I aligned the nCoV with the 96 percent bat CoV sequenced at WIV. Except for the RBD [receptor binding domain], the S proteins are essential [sic] identical at the amino acid level—well all but the perfect insertion of 12 nucleotides that adds [sic] the furin site.
“S2 is over its whole length essentially identical. I really can’t think of a plausible natural scenario where you get from the bat virus or one very similar to it to nCoV where you insert exactly four amino acids 12 nucleotide [sic] that all have to be added at the exact same time to gain this function—that, and you don’t change any other amino acids in S2?
“I just can’t figure out how this gets accomplished in nature. Do the alignment of the spikes at the amino acid level—its [sic] stunning. Of course, in the lab it would be easy to generate the perfect 12 base insert that you wanted.
The Cover-Up Begins
In a Feb. 2, 2020, email, Collins stated that he was “coming around to the view that a natural origin is more likely,” and warned that “voices of conspiracy will quickly dominate” lest they convene a panel of experts to address the matter, and that such conspiracies could do “great potential harm to science and international harmony.”Dutch virologist Ron Fouchier, who participated in the call, also warned his colleagues that continuing the discussion about a lab leak “would unnecessarily distract top researchers from their active duties and do unnecessary harm to science in general and science in China in particular.” [15]
“Like all of us, I do not know how this evolved, but given the concerns of so many people and the threat of further distortions on social media, it is essential that we move quickly.”According to The Intercept, Fauci, Farrar, and Collins alerted officials at the World Health Organization (WHO) in the hopes they'd convene an expert panel to investigate, but “WHO apparently declined to do so at the time.” The group was well aware of the risks involved, though, were the lab leak theory to gain legs, so a plan to discourage further “accusations” was apparently hatched.
Hastily Written Paper Sought to Discourage Bioweapon Idea
Just two days later, on Feb. 4, 2020, Fauci and Collins received the first draft of the article, “The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2,” later published in Nature Medicine. [17]Three of the authors, Andersen, Robert Garry of Tulane University, and Edward Holmes of the University of Sydney, were on the Feb. 1, 2020, conference call. Andersen, Garry, and another “Proximal Origin” author, W. Ian Lipkin of Columbia University, have also received large NIH grants in recent years, [18] so this paper was not written by disinterested and independent parties.
The original draft is still secret. All we have is an email reply from Fauci, in which he appears to flag the inclusion of serial passage through humanized mice. This suggests the issue of animal passage was raised, but then immediately scrapped.
“Although the evidence shows that SARS-CoV-2 is not a purposefully manipulated virus, it is currently impossible to prove or disprove the other theories of its origin described here.
Lab Origin Was Never Ruled Out
The “other theories of its origin” described in the “Proximal Origin” paper was the possibility that it might have been the result of “selection during passage,” which is a routine laboratory practice. In other words, it seems they were most concerned with dispelling any rumors about it being intentionally created, which would place it in the category of a bioweapon.“The scientists seem by this point to have made a sharp distinction between a scenario in which the virus was deliberately engineered in a lab and a scenario in which the virus was generated during serial passage experiments in a lab.
“‘Eddie would be 60:40 lab side,’ Farrar added. ‘I remain 50:50.’
“‘Yes, I’d be interested in the proposal of accidental lab passage in animals (which ones?),' Collins wrote.
“‘?? Serial passage in ACE2-transgenic mice,’ Fauci responded.
“‘Exactly!’ Farrar replied.
“‘Surely that wouldn’t be done in a BSL-2 lab?’ wrote Collins, referring to biosafety level 2 labs, which do not have the most stringent safety protocols.
“‘Wild West,’ was Farrar’s response, an apparent reference to lab practices in China or possibly to the Wuhan Institute of Virology itself.
“In the above exchange, the health officials seem to be contemplating the possibility that the repeated passage of a coronavirus through genetically modified mice in an insufficiently secure lab could have resulted in the accidental emergence and release of SARS-CoV-2.
“Can someone help me with one question: Didn’t we congregate to challenge a certain theory, and if we could, drop it? Who came up with this story in the beginning? Are we working on debunking our own conspiracy theory?”Andersen’s reply read:
“Our main work over the last couple of weeks has been focused on trying to disprove any type of lab theory, but we are at a crossroad where the scientific evidence isn’t conclusive enough to say that we have high confidence in any of the three main theories considered.
Most Read Propaganda Paper Ever
The influence of the “Proximal Origin” paper cannot be overstated. As reported by The Intercept, [22] it’s been accessed more than 5.7 million times and cited by more than 2,000 media outlets, making it one of the most read papers ever published. It’s fair to say this propaganda piece was “milked for all its worth” to uphold the illusion of a natural evolution consensus.Questions Could Not Be Quelled
The Nature Medicine article didn’t stem the flow of questions, though, a fact decried by Collins in a mid-April 2020 email to Fauci:“Wondering if there is something NIH can do to help put down this very destructive conspiracy, with what seems to be growing momentum … I hoped the Nature Medicine article on the genomic sequence of SARS-CoV-2 would settle this. But probably didn’t get much visibility. Anything more we can do? Ask the National Academy to weigh in?”Fauci replied, “I would not do anything about this right now. It is a shiny object that will go away in times [sic].” He was wrong, of course, and the reason questions didn’t go away was that emerging evidence kept strengthening the lab leak theory, while there is nothing with which to support natural evolution.
“When I first saw it [the ‘Proximal Origin’ paper] in March 2020, the paper read to me as a conclusion in search of an argument. Among its many problems, it failed to consider in a serious fashion the possibility of an unwitting and unrecognized accidental leak during aggressive efforts to grow coronaviruses from bat and other field samples.
“It also assumed that researchers in Wuhan have told the world about every virus and every sequence that was in their laboratories in 2019. But these [unredacted emails] actually provide evidence that the authors considered a few additional lab-associated scenarios, early in their discussions.
Virologists Under the Microscope
As reported by The Washington Post, [26] virologists are now under the microscope like never before, and the NIH is said to be “preparing an overhaul of the policies on government-funded research.” Draft recommendations [27] from the biosecurity advisory board were released on Jan. 20, 2023.Clearly, paranoia is high, and there’s a good reason for that. Not only do we have the unredacted NIH emails showing there were grave concerns about COVID-19 being the result of a lab leak, and that those concerns were “allayed” by passing propaganda for “science,” but researchers have also published research showing they’re now conducting gain-of-function research on SARS-CoV-2. [28]
Who in their right mind would think that was a good idea? The fact that reckless dual-use research into dangerous pathogens is taking place on the daily is precisely why getting to the bottom of the origin of SARS-CoV-2 is so important. If this kind of research contributed to COVID-19, then clearly we need to make sure it cannot happen again.
Inspector General Report Blasts NIH for String of Errors
Interestingly, on Jan. 25, 2023, the U.S. Office of Inspector General released a report [30] detailing the NIH’s failure to properly monitor and review potentially hazardous coronavirus research. As reported by the Daily Mail: [31]“EcoHealth Alliance was awarded $8 million in government research grants between 2014 and 2021, which it subcontracted to research facilities. The WIV was one of eight teams awarded grants at that time.
“Today’s audit said there was a lack of oversight by the NIH and EcoHealth at the Chinese facility and other labs that benefited from government grants.
“The report said: ‘Despite identifying potential risks associated with research being performed under the EcoHealth awards, we found that NIH did not effectively monitor or take timely action to address EcoHealth’s compliance with some requirements.
“‘Although NIH and EcoHealth had established monitoring procedures, we found deficiencies in complying with those procedures limited NIH and EcoHealth’s ability to effectively monitor federal grant awards and subawards to understand the nature of the research conducted, identify potential problem areas, and take corrective action’ …
“This audit confirms what we have been documenting since early 2020 when we first exposed NIH’s funding of the Wuhan lab: EcoHealth Alliance shipped tax dollars to Wuhan for dangerous animal experiments that probably caused the pandemic, violated federal laws and policies, and wasted tax dollars.
“Yet the Wuhan lab remains eligible for even more taxpayer money for animal tests and just since the pandemic began, EcoHealth has raked in at least $46 million in new federal funds from the DoD, USAID, NIH, and NSF.
US Government Stonewalls FOIA Requests
As investigators try to get to the truth, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is doing everything it can to prevent it from coming out. As reported by Gary Ruskin, [33] executive director and co-founder of U.S. Right to Know (USRTK), in 2022, as the HHS was slammed with FOIA requests relating to COVID-19, they added four extra layers of legal review within the HHS legal department.These attorneys scoured each and every document to make sure anything potentially incriminating was properly redacted before release. “This plainly appears to be an effort to delay or block release of documents about the origin of COVID-19,” Ruskin wrote. “What is HHS hiding? We hope Congress will investigate.”
The good news is, the Republican House now has the ability to launch such investigations, and I hope they will. The problem is that it would be dangerous to prove a cover-up, as it would turn everything upside down. Health agencies, universities, and any number of other agencies would have to be retooled. So getting to the bottom of this affair will require people who believe the truth is worth the pain.
