Coronavirus Grant Documents Revealed Through FOIA: Read Them For Yourself
The debate over the origins of the Coronavirus variant that spawned Covid-19 into a worldwide pandemic will probably never be settled with the Chinese government uncooperative, but FOIA lawsuits are trying to find out any information the United States government and the National Institute of Health might have about the Coronavirus pandemic origins.
The documents were released in connection with ongoing Freedom of Information Act litigation by The Intercept against the National Institutes of Health. The Intercept is making the full documents available to the public.
“This is a roadmap to the high-risk research that could have led to the current pandemic,” said Gary Ruskin, executive director of U.S. Right To Know, a group that has been investigating the origins of Covid-19.
One of the grants, titled “Understanding the Risk of Bat Coronavirus Emergence,” outlines an ambitious effort led by EcoHealth Alliance president Peter Daszak to screen thousands of bat samples for novel coronaviruses. The research also involved screening people who work with live animals. The documents contain several critical details about the research in Wuhan, including the fact that key experimental work with humanized mice was conducted at a biosafety level 3 lab at Wuhan University Center for Animal Experiment — and not at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, as was previously assumed. The documents raise additional questions about the theory that the pandemic may have begun in a lab accident, an idea that Daszak has aggressively dismissed.
The bat coronavirus grant provided the EcoHealth Alliance with a total of $3.1 million, including $599,000 that the Wuhan Institute of Virology used in part to identify and alter bat coronaviruses likely to infect humans. Even before the pandemic, many scientists were concerned about the potential dangers associated with such experiments. The grant proposal acknowledges some of those dangers: “Fieldwork involves the highest risk of exposure to SARS or other CoVs, while working in caves with high bat density overhead and the potential for fecal dust to be inhaled.”
Alina Chan, a molecular biologist at the Broad Institute, said the documents show that the EcoHealth Alliance has reason to take the lab leak theory seriously. “In this proposal, they actually point out that they know how risky this work is. They keep talking about people potentially getting bitten — and they kept records of everyone who got bitten,” Chan said. “Does EcoHealth have those records? And if not, how can they possibly rule out a research-related accident?”
According to Richard Ebright, a molecular biologist at Rutgers University, the documents contain critical information about the research done in Wuhan, including about the creation of novel viruses. “The viruses they constructed were tested for their ability to infect mice that were engineered to display human type receptors on their cell,” Ebright wrote to The Intercept after reviewing the documents. Ebright also said that the documents make it clear that two different types of novel coronaviruses were able to infect humanized mice. “While they were working on SARS-related coronavirus, they were carrying out a parallel project at the same time on MERS-related coronavirus,” Ebright said, referring to the virus that causes Middle East Respiratory Syndrome.
Asked about the grant materials, Robert Kessler, communications manager at EcoHealth Alliance, said, “We applied for grants to conduct research. The relevant agencies deemed that to be important research, and thus funded it. So I don’t know that there’s a whole lot to say.”
The grant was initially awarded for a five-year period — from 2014 to 2019. Funding was renewed in 2019 but suspended by the Trump administration in April 2020.
The closest relative of SARS-CoV-2, which causes Covid-19, is a virus found in bats, making the animals a focal point for efforts to understand the origins of the pandemic. Exactly how the virus jumped to humans is the subject of heated debate. Many scientists believe it was a natural spillover, meaning that the virus passed to humans in a setting such as a wet market or rural area where humans and animals are in close contact. Biosafety experts and internet sleuths who suspect a lab origin, meanwhile, have spent more than a year poring over publicly available information and obscure scientific publications looking for answers. In the past few months, leading scientists have also called for a deeper investigation of the pandemic’s origins, as has President Joe Biden, who in May ordered the intelligence community to study the issue. On August 27, Biden announced that the intelligence inquiry was inconclusive.
Biden blamed China for failing to release critical data, but the U.S. government has also been slow to release information. The Intercept initially requested the proposals in September 2020.
“I wish that this document had been released in early 2020,” said Alina Chan, who has called for an investigation of the lab-leak origin theory. “It would have changed things massively, just to have all of the information in one place, immediately transparent, in a credible document that was submitted by EcoHealth Alliance.”
Read the Coronavirus lab grant documents for yourself here:
coronavirus
This is becoming one of those things where an accident which implicates corporate/bureaucratic/technocratic structural dominance has to be suppressed by the technocratic structure for the good of the whole.
The Intelligence Community report (as embarrassing as it is) is pretty clear that they are trying to suggest that their goal was to determine whether this was a deliberate attempt by China at Bio-terrorism… which is *not* the question anyone is asking them to determine.
On the question of whether this was a accidental lab-leak – they have NO actual intelligence and resort to a shrug.
“The IC assesses that SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, probably emerged and infected humans through an initial small-scale exposure that occurred no later than November 2019 with the first known cluster of COVID-19 cases arising in Wuhan, China in December 2019. In addition, the IC was able to reach broad agreement on several other key issues. We judge the virus was not developed as a biological weapon. Most agencies also assess with low confidence that SARS-CoV-2 probably was not genetically engineered; however, two agencies believe there was not sufficient evidence to make an assessment either way. Finally, the IC assesses China’s officials did not have foreknowledge of the virus before the initial outbreak of COVID-19 emerged.”
What follows is no different from the Post I made a couple months ago simply outlining reasonable possibilities; what’s interesting if you read corporate CYA speak is that while the report is attempting to massage, manage, and discount any prospect of institutional failure, they at least have to acknowledge:
“One IC element assesses with moderate confidence that the first human infection with SARS-CoV-2 most likely was the result of a laboratory-associated incident, probably involving experimentation, animal handling, or sampling by the Wuhan Institute of Virology”
At stake are the annual $B’s that the NIH controls through it’s grant process and who receives those grants. That’s the power of the NIH and like disrupting the revenue stream that ran through Afghanistan, there are huge institutional incentives to make sure no one is implicated in an error of prudence. This implicates EcoHealth, Peter Daszak, Lancet, NIH and Fauci just to name the obvious. Recused all should be from any response to this situation.
We also have to recognize that Biden (and Harris) are Institutionalists first and foremost… its why Biden won’t discipline the Military nor will he discipline the NIH and/or any other institutions that might require disciplining. In fairness to Biden, however, I recognize that we might be past a time where our institutions can be managed at all.Report
The IC was tasked to look at bio terrorism. Accidental lab leaks are not their swim lane.
As to disciplining the institutions – I suspect Biden may well do so. He was never in favor of the DoD after they blew smoke on the surge when he was VP and I suspect he still isn’t convinced they did their best. What we are likely to see is a series of senior level retirements in swift succession, all of them done by someone writing someone’s retirement memo, the president handing it to them in the Oval, and then everyone moving on. He’s not gonna go all Trump and scream “you’re fired” on tv.
Oh, and I’m not sure the NIH needs disciplining over any of this. They funded what the science peer review process said was important well thought out science. That’s sort of their job.Report
Sure, that’s the way the process works… ask the question you want answered, not the question that needs answering. Even though, as you say, they were asked about bio-terrorism… they still then veered into Accidental lab leaks because accidental lab leak is likely and the only question worth pursuing.
There’s debate among the peer reviewers whether the science is worth the risk. The Institution (and Fauci specifically) favor the per reviewers who feel it is worth the risk; it is possible that this outbreak is the risk we need to assess for whether the research is indeed worth it.
Accountability of institutions and their leaders who do make risk assessments and who potentially get them wrong is a baseline of having institutions at all. If you can’t manage that, your institutions will get much worse.Report
I was thinking that the only thing this is missing is a grassy knoll and a shadowy man smoking a cigarette and whispering “Follow the money”. That is. a festering pustule that attracts swarms of Internet Autodidacts.
I mean, its great that we are being invited to read the Actual Source Documents and Form Our Own Conclusions rather than trusting in the government like a buncha rubes.
Documents which are conveniently provided by the government. Very thoughtful of them!Report
The point isn’t a conspiracy, its the fact that an event which happened multiple times with SARS-1 (but was contained) probably happened here… the only really interesting question is whether it was a natural strain that escaped or whether the strain had been part of the research of what ‘could’ happen if it were modified (to simulate natural mutation) to better infect human tissue: i.e. Gain of Function research that was being funded. On that particular point? I’m agnostic. But on that issue, I simply point out that many institutional actors have it in their clear interest not to remain agnostic and ‘follow the science’ but to make sure the science is pre-narrated and only questions about bio-terrorism are asked.
That’s how corporate politics work… we have dozens/hundreds/thousands of examples of how this plays out daily. What’s strange is your thinking that it couldn’t possibly be the case here… what with documents being destroyed, access denied, data pulled, etc. etc.Report
No I agree it could be any one of the theories, from wet market transmission to a bio-weapon.
I really honestly don’t know and most importantly don’t have a preference for any one theory.
My point is that this subject is practically a genetically engineered pheromone for conspiracists, for all the reasons you list.Report
Conspiracy Theory as anti-fashion.
The problem isn’t whether the conspiracists are accurate.
It’s that they claim that being accurate is more important than being in good standing.Report
COVID-19 has had it’s DNA sequenced and shows no indications of any “gain of function” alteration.
And it’s not exactly subtle or hard to find. The tools for doing so leave obvious markers, by the very nature of how they work. Speculating that they were doing “gain of function” research when we can tell COVID-19 has had NO GAIN OF FUNCTION WORK DONE ON IT is just low-key conspiracy theorizing, to a conspiracy theory already proven false.
(It’s worth noting one of the very first virologists to openly wonder about it and suggest that it might have escaped from a lab and that should be researched — looked at the DNA sequence and went “Nope, no gain of function here. This is all natural”).
The only thing the “gain of function” people have left is a single FCS that they’re gonna pop a blood vessel trying to strain through — well, and the WSJ op-ed page because WTF not.
So that’s a non-starter, which leaves the “lab” theory down to: “They were studying a natural, already human-transmissible COVID variant they’d found in the wild and it got out”.
Which is, to be blunt, different in any practical way to the wet market theory — because either way, this human transmissible variant existed and was widespread enough for people to run into, which means it would have gotten out anyways.
The wet-market theory, however, is a happier fit to Occam’s Razor — and this sort of zoonotic jump is exactly why virologists have been agitating against wet markets for ages. It’s a long standing problem.Report
I don’t see how you can say it isn’t different. The lessons we need to apply are going to vary if the origin is wet market jump versus some sort of lab incompetence. The solution for the former is tougher and there may not be much we can do. But if it’s the latter then the Chinese need to be forced to prove they can safely participate in these international programs and if they can’t or won’t they should be kicked out.Report
“I don’t see how you can say it isn’t different. The lessons we need to apply are going to vary if the origin is wet market jump versus some sort of lab incompetence.”
Well it’s really simple. Both ways meant there was a COVID virus circulating in the area capable of making the zoonotic jump to people. All on it’s own. (because the “gain of function” stuff is pure BS based on nothing but people wanting to deny this can happen. Someone must be to blame!)
Which meant that, given there were wet markets in the area that had those very same animals, meant it was going to get out.
If it was circulating in bats widely enough for the local labs to pick it up to look for, it was circulating in bats widely enough to end up at a wet market.
Either way it would have gotten out.
So what’s the effing difference there?
Hell, the whole purpose of that lab was to hopefully get a jump on the stupid things before they jumped to people, in the fond hopes they could either lock it to the region or — best case — crack down on things until it had burned through whatever local animal population it was wandering around in.
So what’s sort of DIFFERENT LESSON would we learn here if it was one or the other?
Seriously?
“But if it’s the latter then the Chinese need to be forced to prove they can safely participate in these international programs and if they can’t or won’t they should be kicked out.”
So you’re of the belief that if the Chinese stop looking for these viruses, they won’t exist? Talk about burying your head in the sand!
Here’s an actual lesson we should try to force the Chinese to adopt: Shut down wet markets and institute some effing health and safety protocols. That would actually reduce the chances of these viruses making the jump to humans.Report
I don’t have a problem with shutting down those markets but that’s fundamentally out of our control.
Re: the lab, you realize that if they aren’t up to snuff the next thing that gets out could be something far worse than covid, regardless of origin, right? If that’s what’s going on why would we cooperate with it and why wouldn’t we use what influence we have to deter others from doing so? Respectfully, if my head is in the sand, it sounds like yours is stuck pretty far up your own back side.Report
You know the best way to sound like a crazy person?
Read off a list of the things that the CIA has admitted to doing (but, to be sure, has said that they’ve stopped doing).
Did you know that the Kennedy files came up for release under Trump and he tried to release them but the intelligence community fought to keep a number of the files classified?
It’s true!Report
Honest question here- Why do you believe that the CIA did those things?
That is, what was your trustworthy source of information?
What I’m getting at of course, is that no matter how skeptical a person claims to be, they always, always, have a set of sources they rely on because, well, how else to function?
Yet their source, whether it is the NYT or Fox News or PatriotEagle1776 on Facebook, is never a reliable narrator. Such a thing never exists.
Most people assess verity by using the Consensus Model; If the NYT, Fox, Facebook posts and Twitter are all talking about something, and all the stories have factors in common, the main structure of the story is probably the truth, even if all the sources have errors and biases.
Internet Autodidacts use a different model, of arbitrary and ever-shifting sources of Truth. For example, a clutch of raw source documents combined with an opinion piece of a blog, all interpreted by themselves as the expert while rejecting the authority of actual experts.
We see it right here when we get those swarms of troll posts who confidently spew medical jargon and statistics and links to shadowy sources, while demanding that we reject the opinions of actual medical and public health professionals.Report
Well, my source, that I linked to, was Wikipedia.
Wikipedia links to reports and journalism from such places as counterterrorism websites published by the government, reports from the government, and congressional testimony.
Seriously, I linked to it.
“What’s your source?” you asked, in response to the comment that I linked to a Wikipedia page that has dozens and dozens and dozens of sources.
Do you want me to fish out individual ones?Report
I can’t tell if you are pulling my leg or not.Report
There’s a way you can test that:
Click on the link that I provided that you went on to respond to by asking for citations.
See if the link that I provided you has citations that include reports and journalism from such places as counterterrorism websites published by the government, reports from the government, and congressional testimony.
If the link does contain those citations, then I was not pulling your leg.
Additionally, you can see examples of the things that you could have dismissed as conspiracy theories if only the CIA had not admitted to having done them at one time but, seriously, they do not do them anymore.Report
If “missing the point” equals “pulling my leg,” the answer is easy enough.Report
For my part, my point is that the journey between “it’s wrong (if not racist!) to say that it came from a lab leak” and “it doesn’t matter where it came from” is always an interesting one to watch in real time.
And I suspect that we’ll be somewhere else entirely shortly.
But I base that on such things as the documents unearthed by the FOIA reveal.Report
Whether you missed your point is something only you might know. It’s always hard to figure out what your point is. It wasn’t that hard to figure out what Chip’s point was, and your response had nothing to do with that. But since Chip is the aggrieved party, I’ll leave it to him whether he wants to clear things up.Report
I am the bemused party.
Which, as I learned from the internet, is a portmanteau of “Bespoke” and “Amused”.
But most so-called linguistics experts don’t want you to know that.Report
Chip’s point seemed to be something like this:
“How deep and dark of a conspiracy can it be if the *GOVERNMENT* provided these documents?”
And my counter-point was something like “if you read off a list of the stuff the government has admitted to, you’d sound like a crazy conspiracy theorist”.
And he pointed out that the conspiracy theorists always say that the media doesn’t cover stuff but they learn about it *FROM THE MEDIA* in the first place!
Which has nothing to do with the whole stuff that the government admitted to in the original documents.
Which, Chip would like to point out, doesn’t matter to him. He is not a conspiracy theorist.Report
Back before the Internet was a Thing, I recall the late, but then very much alive, Lars Erik-Nelson, then the D.C. Bureau Chief of the N.Y. Daily News (not then a particularly liberal paper) on C-Span listening patiently while a caller excoriated the mainstream media for failing to cover Clinton scandals that he set forth chapter and verse (like Whitewater, a front-page story broken by Pulitzer Prize winner Jeff Gerth of the N.Y. Times). When the caller took a breath, Erik-Nelson congratulated him on the breadth of his information and then asked: “How did you learn about them?” Did the caller have private sources of information? Agents who found things out for him? The point, of course, is that everything he thought he knew, and claimed wasn’t being covered, came to his attention either proximately or ultimately through the reporting of the Mainstream Media (even if he, personally, heard it from a radio talk show blowhard).Report
In the wake of Watergate and the Pentagon Papers there were all sorts of explosive scandal stories about the intelligence agencies including the Exploding Cuban Cigar and LSD trials.
All of which may very well have been true.
But not very many people thought how odd it was that the main picture they painted of the intelligence agencies was that they were fearsome, ruthless, and utterly unaccountable and therefore Not To Be Trifled With.
Especially by you, Senator Frank Church.Report
600+ attempts to kill Fidel Castro just screams fearsome and ruthless.Report
Honestly, what I remember is how dumb they looked. They (and I am not making this up) had a plan to make his beard fall out.Report
Dick Cavett related a story about how the FBI was on the hunt for campus anti-war radicals, and interviewed some graybearded old line Trotskyite professor, who discussed the targeted radicals and commented offhandedly about how they were doctrinaire .
And the FBI thereupon went on a search for a mysterious “Dr. Nair.”
I don’t know if this is true, but it should be.
ETA: One of the things that made Terry Gilliam’s movie Brazil so devastatingly accurate is that it showed how incompetence by security agencies actually enhances their effectiveness- if they can make your life a living hell just by confusing Tuttle with Buttle, better to never speak out, and prevent your friends from doing the same.Report
I do recall, about a decade back, some guy I knew trying to tell me the “real truth” about the Civil War, as he went on and out about the Lost Cause stuff he claimed “the schools wouldn’t teach you”.
I finally had to tell him that they did, in fact, teach that crap. I was right next to him in class when he learned it, and it was a damn shame.
It’s not like he’d picked up a history book in the 20 years since 7th grade.
“The things they won’t tell you/teach you” is like conspiracy 101, because it’s a delicious sauce that makes people want to believe whatever comes next — the forbidden knowledge makes them feel so special, and so they remember.
Even stuff they were actually taught, told, or otherwise regularly informed of.Report
There’s a very simple clue almost everyone has missed. Ivermectin works because Wuhan is at 30.59° N, placing it squarely in the horse latitudes.Report