SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
pandemic
What Might the US Owe the World for Covid-19?
A US-funded laboratory origin of Covid-19 would certainly constitute the most significant case of governmental gross negligence in history. The people of the world deserve transparency and factual answers on vital questions.
Mar 16, 2024
The US government (USG) funded and supported a program of dangerous laboratory research that may have resulted in the creation and accidental laboratory release of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that caused the Covid-19 pandemic. Following the outbreak, the USG lied in order to cover up its possible role. The US Government should correct the lies, find the facts, and make amends with the rest of the world.
A group of intrepid truth-seekers—journalists, scientists, whistleblowers—have uncovered a vast amount of information pointing to the likely laboratory origin of SARS-CoV-2. Most important has been the intrepid work of the The Intercept and US Right to Know (USRTK), especially investigative reporter Emily Kopp at USRTK.
Based on this investigative work, the Republican-led House Committee on Oversight and Accountability is now carrying out an important investigation in a Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic. In the Senate, the leading voice for transparency, honesty, and reason in investigating the origin of SARS-Cov-2 has been Republican Senator Rand Paul.
The evidence of a possible laboratory creation revolves around a multi-year US-led research program that involved US and Chinese scientists. The research was designed by US scientists, funded mainly by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Department of Defense, and administered by a US organization, the EcoHealth Alliance (EHA), with much of the work taking place at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV).
The US owes the full truth, and perhaps ample financial compensation, to the rest of the world, depending on what the facts ultimately reveal.
Here are facts that we know as of today.
First, the NIH became the home for biodefense research starting in 2001. In other words, the NIH became a research arm of the military and intelligence communities. Biodefense funding from the Defense Department budget went to Dr. Anthony Fauci’s division, the National Institute for Allergies and Infectious Diseases (NIAID).
Second, NIAID and DARPA (in the Defense Department) supported extensive research on potential pathogens for biowarfare and biodefense, and for the design of vaccines to protect against biowarfare or accidental laboratory releases of natural or manipulated pathogens. Some of the work was carried out at the Rocky Mountain Laboratories of the NIH, which manipulated and tested viruses using its in-house bat colony.
Third, NIAID became a large-scale financial supporter of Gain of Function (GoF) research, meaning laboratory experiments designed to genetically alter pathogens to make them even more pathogenic, such as viruses that are easier to transmit and/or more likely to kill infected individuals. This kind of research is inherently dangerous, both because it aims to create more dangerous pathogens and because those new pathogens can escape from the laboratory, either accidentally or deliberately (e.g., as an act of biowarfare or terrorism).
Fourth, many leading US scientists opposed GoF research. One of the leading opponents inside the government was Dr. Robert Redfield, an Army virologist who would later be the Director of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) at the start of the pandemic. Redfield suspected from the start that the pandemic resulted from NIH-supported research, but says that he was sidelined by Fauci.
Fifth, because of the very high risks associated with GoF research, the US Government added additional biosafety regulations in 2017. GoF research would have to be carried out in highly secure laboratories, meaning at Biosafety Level 3 (BSL-3) or Biosafety Level 4 (BSL-4). Work in a BSL-3 or 4 facility is more expensive and time-consuming than work in a BSL-2 facility because of the added controls against an escape of the pathogen from the facility.
Sixth, one NIH-backed research group, EcoHealth Alliance (EHA), proposed to move some of its GoF research to the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV). In 2017, EHA submitted a proposal to the US Government’s Defense Advanced Research Projects (DARPA) for GoF work at WIV. The proposal, named DEFUSE, was a veritable “cookbook” for making viruses like SARS-CoV-2 in the laboratory. The DEFUSE plan was to investigate more than 180 previously unreported strains of Betacoronavirus that had been collected by WIV, and to use GoF techniques to make these viruses more dangerous. Specifically, the project proposed to add protease sites like the furin cleavage site (FCS) to natural viruses in order to enhance the infectivity and transmissibility of the virus.
Seventh, in the draft proposal, the EHA director boasted that “the BSL2 nature of work on SARSr-CoVs makes our system highly cost effective relative to other bat-virus systems,” prompting the lead scientist on the EHA proposal to comment that US scientists would “freak out” if they learned of US government support for GoF research at WIV in a BSL2 facility.
Eighth, the Defense Department rejected the DEFUSE proposal in 2018, yet NIAID funding for EHA covered the key scientists of the DEFUSE project. EHA therefore had ongoing NIH funding to carry out the DEFUSE research program.
Ninth, when the outbreak was first noted in Wuhan in late 2019 and January 2020, key US virologists associated with NIH believed that the SARS-CoV-2 had most likely emerged from GoF research, and said so on a phone call with Fauci on February 1, 2020. The most striking clue for these scientists was the presence of the FCS in SARS-CoV-2, with the FCS appearing at exactly the location in the virus (the S1/S2 junction) that had been proposed in the DEFUSE program.
Tenth, the top NIH officials, including Director Francis Collins and NIAID Director Fauci, tried to hide the NIH-supported GoF research, and promoted the publication of a scientific paper (“The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2”) in March 2020 declaring a natural origin of the virus. The paper completely ignored the DEFUSE proposal.
Eleventh, some US officials began to point their fingers at WIV as the source of the laboratory leak while hiding the NIH-funding and EHA-led research program that may have led to the virus.
Twelfth, the above facts have come to light only as a result of intrepid investigative reporting, whistleblowers, and leaks from inside the US Government, including the leak of the DEFUSE proposal. The Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services determined in 2023 that NIH did not adequately oversee the EHA grants.
Thirteenth, investigators have also realized in retrospect that researchers at Rocky Mountain Labs, together with key scientists associated with EHA, were infecting the RML Egyptian fruit bats with SARS-like viruses in experiments closely linked to those proposed in DEFUSE.
Fourteenth, the FBI and Department of Energy have reported their assessments that the laboratory escape of SARS-CoV-2 is the most likely explanation of the virus.
Fifteenth, a whistleblower from inside the CIA has recently charged that the CIA team investigating the outbreak concluded that SARS-CoV-2 most likely emerged from the laboratory, but that senior CIA officials bribed the team to report a natural origin of the virus.
The sum of the evidence – and the absence of reliable evidence pointing to a natural origin (see here and here) – adds up to the possibility that the US funded and implemented a dangerous GoF research program that led to the creation of SARS-CoV-2 and then to a worldwide pandemic. A powerful recent assessment by mathematical biologist Alex Washburne reaches the conclusion “beyond reasonable doubt that SARS-CoV-2 emerged from a lab…” He also notes that the collaborators “proceeded to mount what can legitimately be called a disinformation campaign” to hide the laboratory origin.
A US-funded laboratory origin of Covid-19 would certainly constitute the most significant case of governmental gross negligence in world history. Moreover, there is a high likelihood that the US Government continues to this day to fund dangerous GoF work as part of its biodefense program. The US owes the full truth, and perhaps ample financial compensation, to the rest of the world, depending on what the facts ultimately reveal.
We need three urgent actions. The first is an independent scientific investigation in which all laboratories involved in the EHA research program in the US and China fully open their books and records to the independent investigators. The second is a worldwide halt on GoF research until an independent global scientific body sets grounds rules for biosafety. The third is for the UN General Assembly to establish rigorous legal and financial accountability for governments that violate international safety norms through dangerous research activities that threaten the health and security of the rest of the world.
Keep ReadingShow Less
We Know What Works to Fight Poverty—Now Let’s Do It
After a stunning experiment in reducing poverty through pandemic relief programs, we’re seeing a return to pre-pandemic conditions.
Oct 06, 2023
This fall, the Census Bureau released new poverty data showing a stunning reversal in economic security over the course of last year. The findings included a record jump in the Supplemental Poverty Measure just one year after hitting a record low. Child poverty doubled.
Some 12.4% of Americans were poor last year, according to that measure. But when you crunch the numbers fully, the number of poor and low-income people in this country rose to more than 135 million. That’s over 40% of the nation’s population.
If this sounds like a bigger number than we usually hear about, that’s because it is.
Only when we appreciate the breadth and depth of this insecurity can we develop the appropriate social and policy response.
The 135 million figure includes everyone living below the poverty line and everyone living precariously right above it. We need to pay attention to this bigger number for two reasons: First, it shows that poverty is more widespread than the official numbers reflect. And second, it shows what measures can be taken to address poverty once and for all.
To be counted as “poor,” a household’s income must fall below a certain threshold. For an adult under the age of 65, that’s just over $15,000. For a two-adult, two-child household, it’s just under $30,000.
These numbers are absurdly low. They mean that someone earning $20,000 wouldn’t be considered poor, nor would a family with an income of $40,000—even though just one medical emergency, car accident, climate disaster, or lay-off would push those households into financial ruin.
To get a better sense of economic insecurity in the nation, researchers often look at everyone whose incomes fall both below those thresholds and right above them. This broadens the count from 40 million people who are “poor” to 135 million people who are “poor or low-income,” just one emergency away from economic despair.
That number includes Americans of every color. But the racial disparities are stark.
While nearly half (61.8 million) of those 135 million were white, other groups faced much higher rates of hardship. Under this definition, some 60% of Latinos (38 million), 54% of Black non-Latinos (22.5 million), and 58% of American Indian or Alaskan Natives (2.3 million) were poor or low-income.
Being poor can have life-threatening consequences. According to research from the University of California, Riverside, poverty was the fourth leading cause of death in 2019, accounting for between 500 and 800 deaths a day. This was before the pandemic wrought even greater havoc on poor communities.
Only when we appreciate the breadth and depth of this insecurity can we develop the appropriate social and policy response. As Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote in 1967, “the prescription for the cure rests on an accurate diagnosis of the disease.”
Here too, the Census Bureau’s SPM report is illuminating.
It shows the impact of government programs like Social Security, stimulus payments, unemployment insurance, and the expanded Child Tax Credit on poverty and economic hardship. In 2021, those programs brought the poor and low-income population down from 139 million to 112 million.
As many of those programs expired in 2021, those numbers increased by 20% in 2022 to 135 million.
In short, after a stunning experiment in reducing poverty through pandemic relief programs, we’re seeing a return to pre-pandemic conditions—when millions of people were facing eviction, hunger, low-wages, and health crises, and when wealth inequality was at historic highs.
For poor and low-income people, this isn’t new news. It’s a reminder that the nation’s return to “normal” comes at the expense of their lives and well-being.
For policymakers, this should be a wake-up call. We know what works—now let’s do it.
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Threat of Another Pandemic Haunts Our Sleep
We need to curb the wildlife and exotic pet trades, better protect tropical forests, and markedly improve practices in intensive poultry and pig farming.
Sep 19, 2023
For most of us, it almost seems like the Covid-19 pandemic never happened. It’s like a bad dream that we woke up from and desperately want to forget—so much so that most governments stopped tracking current caseloads. In the U.S., hospitalizations and deaths are increasing, but obtaining an actual count of infections is not a priority.
Three years ago, much of the world was in a different place, grappling with lockdowns amid deep uncertainty about the Covid-19 pandemic. Governments had set up teams to hunt down supplies of face masks, oxygen, and ventilators—the wealthy nations were more successful than low- and middle-income nations. Anthony Fauci predicted that 100,000 Americans could die, and people thought he was crazy. We now know that over 1 million died from Covid-19 in the United States alone with global estimates now reaching 25 million people.
The virus has also found a home in many other species, including dogs, cats, white-tailed deer, mink, and bats. It will continue to evolve and could later spill back into humans in new and unpredictable forms.
The greatest risk may be from the crowded conditions the poultry and pig industries have “perfected” to grow meat as fast and cheaply as possible in factory farms—especially in the U.S.
Most pandemics and countless other local outbreaks of new diseases, in fact, are the result of viruses that live “out there” in wildlife and then somehow find their way into people. This can happen when people come into contact or consume wildlife directly and deliberately, such as through the exotic pet trade or in wild meat markets. Inadvertent contact also happens when people move into forested regions, especially in the tropics, to clear vegetation to grow food or for logging and mining.
The next pandemic could start closer to home. The greatest risk may be from the crowded conditions the poultry and pig industries have “perfected” to grow meat as fast and cheaply as possible in factory farms—especially in the U.S. Tens of thousands of highly stressed animals with potentially weakened immunity living in very close contact with each other make the perfect environment for new diseases to spread and evolve.
The next deadly flu pandemic could start with one of these unfortunate creatures being infected by a new virus that then quickly spreads, mutates, and finds its way into farm laborers—most of whom wear biohazard suits when working inside the barns.
Most people assume it is the job of government to protect us all from these dangers. However, with their uncanny abilities to focus only on what people want to hear, politicians seem to be studiously avoiding any talk of pandemics.
The next attempt from those government officials committed to keeping pandemics high on the political agenda will be at the U.N. General Assembly in New York City on September 20, where we hope at least some heads of state will gather with ministers to issue a high-level declaration on pandemics. Months of negotiations have produced a 16-page document filled with good yet toothless intentions, with the only specific proposed follow-up action being–drum roll–another meeting in 2026.
Meanwhile, in Geneva, the home of the World Health Organization, negotiations are grinding along as governments work to develop a global accord, with potentially important binding commitments and provisions to help prevent and prepare for future pandemics. This process began with much enthusiasm and energy at the height of the pandemic but has now descended into the usual acrimony of disagreement between rich and poor countries. Some of the former refuse to relax patents on vaccines and medicines and the latter refuse to commit to actions for which they say additional funding and resources are needed first.
It gets even worse when considering where the pandemics come from. Big meat producers like the United States, Brazil, and China are concerned about provisions that might affect this industry even though it is a major source of risk of new diseases. China seems keen to avoid any language on wildlife trade and markets.
In Washington D.C., the World Bank, home of The Pandemic Fund, is struggling to raise meaningful resources to help governments tackle future pandemics. The fund, propelled initially by the White House and Brussels, had aimed to disburse about $10 billion annually. So far it has commitments of $2 billion, and this year will get only about $300 million out the door, at best, spreading funds thinly to dozens of countries. At least half these funds will likely end up covering the administration costs and salaries of international civil servants as they pass through the hands of various agencies on their way to the ground globally.
Even worse, these processes largely ignore the underlying causes of pandemics, the human actions and behaviors that heighten the risk of spillover of viruses from wildlife to humans and our livestock in the first place.
We need to curb the wildlife and exotic pet trades, better protect tropical forests, and markedly improve practices in intensive poultry and pig farming. Vested interests, siloed policymaking and funding, and narrow views of what constitutes prevention and public health have stymied progress on these underlying drivers of new disease emergence.
Covid-19 cannot be forgotten. It will happen again. And like a bad night’s sleep, the next time could be more nightmarish, especially if governments, funders, and the public health establishment do not redouble efforts to address the underlying causes of viral spillover.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular