More Evidence Emerges that the NIH Funded Coronavirus Gain-of-Function Research in China – Opinion

In the following: letter yesterday to Rep. James Comer (R–Ky.Yesterday to Rep. James Komer (R.Ky.). Through the EcoHealth Alliance the money was channelled to scientists who altered bat coronaviruses in order that they could “bind to the human ACE2 receptor” in a mouse model.

The Chinese researchers altered the spike protein in a coronavirus that was relatively benign so it could function as an entry point for the virus to enter humanized mice. It turns out that the COVID-19 virus is primarily transmitted to humans via binding to our ACE2 proteins.

Tabak called this “limited experiment” and tried to limit the risk of his research. But he admitted that the lab mice infected with the SHC014 W1V1 bat coronavirus—a synthetic viral construct designed to infect human cells—”became sicker than those infected with the W1V1 bat coronavirus.” Tabak stated that Tabak had informed the NIH that this research plan did not meet the criteria for “research involving enhanced pathogens with pandemic potential” (ePPP). The bat coronaviruses were not shown to cause disease in humans. ePPP refers to gain-of function research that “aims to increase the ability of infectious agents to cause disease by enhancing its pathogenicity or by increasing its transmissibility.”

Tabak’s claims mirror Anthony Fauci, Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases’ congressional testimony that in July this research was “not being gain of functionality” by competent staff from all levels of the chain. It is disingenuous to point out that bat coronaviruses have not yet been proven to infect humans. The Wuhan researchers clearly intended to modify the bat coronaviruses in order to infect people’s cells.

Tabak wrote in his letter that “out of an abundance caution,” the NIH grant mandated that “grantee immediately report a one log growth increase.” To quote directly from the document:

Notify your NIAID program officer and grant management specialist immediately if you discover a virus capable of achieving an enhanced growth rate by more than one log compared with wild types. Additional research on the potential pandemic pathogens may be required to be reviewed by the Department of Health and Human Services.

Mikolaj Raszek is the founder of Merogenomics Canada, a Canadian genomics analysis firm. He has written a detailed dissection of the NIH Progress Report on the EcoHealth Alliance Coronavirus Research Grant. Raszek points to the fact that “a log 1 of any number, is that exact number (21= 2 and log 1 indicates that there is no growth. According to the documents released today, the SHC014W1V1 virus caused mice to have much more viral load in their lungs. This would indicate that the experiments produced “growth of more than one log” compared with wild-type strains.

Tabak’s C.Y.A. Tabak’s C.Y.A. letter states that EcoHealth did not report the finding immediately as required under the grant. EcoHealth has been notified by the NIH that they will have five business days to provide any unpublished data arising from these experiments or the work done under the award. Why did top NIH officials take so long to ask EcoHealth and Wuhan Institute of Virology what they were doing, when the COVID-19 coronavirus was apparently discovered in the same city as NIH-funded research to increase the infectivity of these viruses?

Tabak made great efforts to emphasize that COVID-19 viruses are genetically distinct from other viruses in this experiment. This analysis shows that there was no way the EcoHealth Alliance grant-funded bat coronaviruses could have contributed to the spread of the virus. [COVID-19 virus]”it concluded. While this is true, it doesn’t take into consideration that the experiments provided training for researchers at the institute to modify the properties of coronaviruses. What did those scientists do with their skills? Did they modify coronaviruses in order to make them more capable of infecting humans in experiments that are not disclosed?

The NIH should release the data immediately it receives the EcoHealth information.

As Raszek concludes:

According to NIH grants, the research done in Wuhan and other institutions was aimed at creating coronaviruses that are more dangerous to human health. This would allow for future monitoring of potential threats. This information renders Wuhan less probable as the origin of the current pandemic. It is not a coincidence, given the dangerous and potentially deadly research that was conducted there.


Fauci’s testimony in Congress denying the funding of gain-of function research at Wuhan Institute by the NIH is a strong indication that you can expect more inquiries about what Fauci knew, and when he learned it. Richard Ebright is the Rutgers biologist and a frequent critic of gains-of-function research. made it clearWhat he thinks about the subject.

It is still unknown if the pandemic coronavirus was released from Wuhan’s laboratories. The fact that China’s government refuses to cooperate with the World Health Organization in its investigation of the viral origins will only fuel the suspicions.