Developing And Using A Logic Model - Centers For Disease Control: Fill & Download for Free

Q: How does recent LSE research about the response to COVID-19 home isolation and Chinese data about low-air-pressure isolation hospitals (now being shut down) affect the predictions of the timescale and numbers of Western infected and dead?1 Answer: The purpose of this Answer is toput into context the recent LSE research (and other estimates) about the degree of public obedience to the home isolation policies and the temporary effect of thesecomment upon the different circumstances and observed results in the top ten COVIS-19 affected economies andcontrast and compare the effect of different COVID-19 national policies on short term and long term resultsThis provisional Answer is as usual a snapshot report on a developing situation. It reports upon one probably helpful Chinese-French-American drug trial which has reduced the infectiousness and helped cure the infected faster.2: The Effect of recent LSE research (and other estimates) about the degree of public obedience to the home isolation policies and the temporary effect of theseRecent research indicates that about 70% of the British may be conforming to the “Home Isolation” policy and about 30% continuing to behave as if the COVID-19 was no threat. That result is observed in the crowd behaviour of several nations and in best commented upon in each.But a 30% “Home Isolation” obedience level if maintained creates a temporary intermediate level of infections and deaths and lengthens the probable COVID-19 years of infection.3 The Top Ten COVID-19 affected nations.A comparison of the listed infections and deaths in the top ten most-effected nations is instructive both in overall world results and individual listings. Here’s the South China MP WHO-sourced report on the position on these nations on Thursday 19th and Saturday 21st March.The comparison between these two tables which are a mere two days apart shows the following:the growth of total cases is about 24% within two days - an enormous rate of growththe growth in Chinese cases is about 1% and the growth in Chinese deaths is 0.6%the growth in cases is mainly a non-Chinese “rest of the world” phenomenon because world infections have grown by 51,562 cases of which only 82 are Chinese so non-Chinese cases have grown by 51,480the growth in deaths is also mainly a non-Chinese “rest of the world” phenomenon because world deaths have grown by 2,329 of which only 277 are Chinese so non-Chinese deaths have grown by 2,052Deaths in Italy on Saturday 21 March at a total 4,032 now exceed the total number of 3,255 deaths in China and Italian COVID-19 deaths have grown by 35% in two daysIt is instructive to look at each of the top ten nations individually but here’s my best estimate of the most likely results of personal isolation policies:3.1 ChinaChina is the only nation which has ruthlessly implemented a successful policy of total lockdown and has ended the presence of COVID-19 in its people after a mere four months - from December 2019 to April 2020.During the last few days China has reported a zero increase in domestic infections. The increase in the number of infections is due to inbound visitors who are tested and found to be infected.I think some of these visitors are a new kind of tourist who may be visiting China so as to access the cheap and effective Chinese medical services which usually cure COVID-19 infections.The defeat of COVID-19 in China has occurred becauseonly in China the COVID-19 hospitals have built-in low-air-pressure “isolation chambers” which continually prevent infected air from entering the corridors and window-fan-drive infected air outsideonly in China has the experience of SARS in 2003 and has re-introduced the mothballed SARS hospitals and other new facilities to deal with the COVID-19 virus See George Tait Edwards's answer to How much was China's economy hit in the aftermath of the 2003 SARS outbreak? Do you expect a similar situation in the afterlife of the COVID-19 outbreak?Only in China has the Chinese Government led by President Xi Jinping thrown money at the problem in way the Austerity-dominated West is currently incapable of doing.Many usually American Quora questioners cast doubt upon the reliability of the Chinese data because the Chinese reality of defeating COVID-19 within four months is beyond their understanding, their knowledge and their prejudices. And the success of China in this regard is so far beyond the usual anti-Chinese Western media narrative that they find China’s success in this area incredible.Bur it has happened and each Quora writer needs to look at the evidence and rely less on inadequate Western media.3.2 ItalyItaly has attempted to to adopt a Chinese total lockdown policy but its people have not obeyed their Government’s instructions. Seeand an excerpt of that report:A lax approach to lockdown doesn’t work. I initially thought Italy could defeat the COVID-19 corona virus within twelve months. About 18 to 24 months is now much more likely.3.3 Spain and PortugalSpain is being advised about how to handle a total lockdown by its WHO/Chinese advisors.It remains to be seen how effectively Spain will implement the total lockdown its WHO/Chinese advisors suggest.Spain has an interesting map of COVID-19 risk:Portugal As Wikpedia reports“On 12 March 2020, the Portuguese government declared the highest level of alert because of COVID-19 and will maintain it until 9 April[2]Portugal enters a Mitigation Phase as Community Transmission is detected and there is a need to implement harsher measures.On 18 March, the President of the Republic, Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa, declared the entirety of the Portuguese territory in a state of emergency for the following fifteen days, with the possibility of renewal, the first since the Carnation Revolution in 1974.[3]”It also remains to be seen how effectively Portugal can implement the total lockdown its WHO/Chinese advisors suggest.3.4 IranThe increase of the COVID-19 coronavirus in Iran is developing at an enormous rate with the infected rate up by 13% from 17361 to 19644 and the death rate up by 265 % from 1135 to 1433 within two days.While looking for a map showing the locations of infection I came across the 9th March one below. The numbers are of course outdated but the geographical incidence of the infection is well indicated.Te Government of Iran is receiving lockdown advice from the UN/WHO/Chinese initiative and could end the COVID-19 virus. in Iran within 12 to 18 months.3.5 United StatesInfluenza is not a notifiable disease in the USA, but a CDC computer model estimates the incidence of influenza over the last six months. Here’s that estimate::It is very difficult to check the validity of that model and its possible error limits under current circumstances. But if we assume US deaths from influenza normally run at 15,000 a year, then this annual forecast of 44,000 to 110,000 deaths this year might imply a recorded-as-flu level of COVID-19 deaths of 29,000 to 95,000 for October 2019 to September 2020 and might imply (at 3.4% deaths of the infected) about 850,000 to 28m American infected.This lends some support the approximate estimate of 100,000 COVID-19 infected made by the chief nurse in Ohio (which only has a population of 8,000,000) which if projected to the entire 331m population of the USA suggests that maybe about 4.1m Americans could be COVID-19 -infected.Since infection occurs at an incidence of 18% of the population accessed by the virus this suggests that about 23m Americans have have had some contact. That’ s about a third of the 60m Americans likely to be infected quoted at para 3 above.The official figures for the US infected have grown from 8,024 to 17,251, a quite astonishing increase of 115% over two days.The growth of registered US COVID-19 infection is so high (the highest in these tables) that no safe prediction of the American infected by say Xmas 2020 can be made. The estimated number of US COVID-19 deaths derived from my interpretation of CDC tables are massively higher than the 201 recorded which in turn is 76% higher than the 114 suggested two days previously.Whatever figures one accepts, it is clear that the COVID-19 pandemic is raging out of control in the United States of America.The ONLY solution at present for the control of the American COVID-19 pandemic is the American adoption of the Chinese total lockdown policies. Nothing else ”works”Trump’s attempt to blame the COVID-19 virus on China and his statement that if he knew about it earlier he would have taken effective action, is derisible. He has known about it for months and he knows about it now but he has taken no effective action.Perhaps that’s because the very suggestion that he should learn from China is totally politically unacceptable to him, and he is prepared to fight to the last drop of blood of the potentially 60m infected Americans and their 2m dead rather than learn from China.The total cost in pain and suffering and deaths of an American policy of home isolation compared to the Chinese policy of lockdown is about 60m Americans infected and about 2m dead compared with China’s 81,000 infected and under 3,500 dead. Furthermore the economic costs to America of a three-year COVID-19 coronavirus will produce an great decline in the economic growth pa in the USA to about -1%, -4% and -7% from 2020 to 2022. See George Tait Edwards's answer to What is the economic effect of COVID-19 on the economies of the USA, the UK and the EU where a Diamond Princess policy of home isolation has been adopted?Sooner or later the USA must adopt the infection-limiting, death-minimising lockdown policies of China.Sooner would be better but that hardly seems possible under the ineffective leadership of POTUS Donald Trump whose assured place in history is as the President who failed to deal with the COVID-19 coronavirus.The above predictions could of course be changed by the Chinese/French/ American “successful drug trial” reported at 3.7 below but American responses to that development are not yet available.3.6 GermanyBoth infection and deaths are increasing rapidly in Germany, with infections up from 8,198 to 13,957 (a 70% increase) and COVID-19 deaths up from 24 to 44 (an 83% increase).Because Germany has an excellent public medical system and that could have partly explained why Germany’s mortality rates are so low at about 0.3%.Germany has a mortality rate of less than a third of the 1% rate on the Diamond Princess. The explanation of this result is given inWith Its COVID-19 Caseload Spiking Past 18,000, Here’s Why Germany Is Battling Coronavirus Better Than Italy (Updated)The German COVID-19 infected are “among the young and healthy” skiers who caught that disease while skiing in Italy. That report states“The German government's reporting authority is the Robert Koch Institut (RKI), the equivalent of America's Centers for Disease Control. Although the cases of infection are now spread throughout the country, the numbers from RKI still show a decided daisy-chain of three hotpoints, the very same hotpoints of ten days ago, namely, Baden Württemberg, North Rhineland-Westfalia, and Bavaria, which together account for 11,002, or 59%, of Germany's 18,610 cases. These three states are also where 48 of Germany's 55 deaths have been. (Updated: 3/22, 10:45 a.m. Central European Time)“There is one major difference between Germany's Covid-19 demographic and that of the pan-European hot zone of Italy. The first is that the onslaught of Covid-19 arrived in the teeth of Europe's ski season, so that many Germans who initially contracted the virus did so in Italy, which is why—for the moment—70% of all reported cases in Germany remain among the young, or more broadly, among the not-elderly, between the ages of 20 and 50.“The corollaries to extrapolate are that most (not all) people who ski are of average or above-average fitness, regardless of age, and that, in order to go skiing safely, there is a decided, natural fitness barrier that does exist as the skiers get older. Muscularly and in basic orthopedic terms, it's just not possible for every 70-to-90-year-old to ski. Put another way, this initial group of self-selected, relatively fit patients in Germany were in generally decent shape, and have to a large extent survived Covid-19. Obviously, the elder non-skiing demographic strata of Italy were exposed early and often, along with everybody else in the hot zones of the northern tier of that country.“Which brings us to the primary and most striking difference between the German patient population and that of the rest of the world: The mortality rate. Of the 16,662 cases to date, just 46 Germans have died. The most enviable German Covid-19 mortality rate stands at 0.29%, or about 30 times less than that of Italy. That’s a big difference. (Updated: 3/22, 10:45 a.m. Central European Time)”There’s the explanation.3.7 FranceSee Covid-19 in France: A second wave?France’s adoption of the severe lockdown facilities under President Macron and through UN/WHO/Chinese advice may shorten the duration of COVID-19 in France to about 18 months. But as de Gaulle observed, the French are almost ungovernable and whether the French will batten down and accept a severe lockdown is not clear.And the French as usual are brilliant. Seehttps://www.connexionfrance.com/French-news/French-researcher-in-Marseille-posts-successful-Covid-19-coronavirus-drug-trial-resultswhich says:“A renowned research professor in France has reported successful results from a new treatment for Covid-19, with early tests suggesting it can stop the virus from being contagious in just six days.Professor Didier Raoult from infection hospital l'Institut Hospitalo-Universitaire (IHU) Méditerranée Infection in Marseille (Bouches-du-Rhône, Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur), published a video explaining the trials on Monday March 16.Professor Raoult is an infectious diseases specialist and head of the IHU Méditerranée Infection, who has been tasked by - and consulted by - the French government to research possible treatments of Covid-19.He said that the first Covid-19 patients he had treated with the drug chloroquine had seen a rapid and effective speeding up of their healing process, and a sharp decrease in the amount of time they remained contagious.” and“We were able to ascertain that patients who had not received Plaquenil (the drug containing hydroxychloroquine) were still contagious after six days, but of those that had received Plaquenil, after six days, only 25% were still contagious.”“Chloroquine phosphate and hydroxychloroquine have previously been used to treat coronavirus patients in China, in ongoing Covid-19 clinical trials. and“US academic study concursA new academic study, published on Friday March 13 by US scientific researchers, also said that chloroquine appeared to be an effective treatment, and appears to align with the findings in France.It said: “Use of chloroquine (tablets) is showing favorable outcomes in humans infected with Coronavirus including faster time to recovery and shorter hospital stay…“Research shows that chloroquine also has strong potential as a prophylactic (preventative) measure against coronavirus in the lab, while we wait for a vaccine to be developed.“Chloroquine is an inexpensive, globally available drug that has been in widespread human use since 1945 against malaria, autoimmune and various other conditions…[it] can be prescribed to adults and children of all ages.”Very hopeful.3.8 South KoreaSouth Korea is running as successful programme of COVID-19 infection-testing and reduced mortality. The infected case numbers increased by 2.7% from 8,565 to 8799 while the deaths increased by 12% from 84 to 94,The mortality rate of the infected was 0.98% and 1.1%..See Coronavirus: South Korea’s success in controlling disease is due to its acceptance of surveillancewhich says:“South Korea has been widely praised for its management of the outbreak and spread of the coronavirus disease COVID-19. The focus has largely been on South Korea’s enormous virus testing programme.“What hasn’t been so widely reported is the country’s heavy use of surveillance technology, notably CCTV and the tracking of bank card and mobile phone usage, to identify who to test in the first place. And this is an important lesson for more liberal countries that might be less tolerant of such privacy invading measures but are hoping to emulate South Korea’s success.“While Taiwan and Singapore have excelled in containing the coronavirus, South Korea and China arguably provide the best models for stopping outbreaks when large numbers of people have been infected. China quarantined confirmed and potential patients, and restricted citizens’ movements as well as international travel. But South Korea accomplished a similar level of control and a low fatality rate (currently 1%) without resorting to such authoritarian measures. This certainly looks like the standard for liberal democratic nations.“The most conspicuous part of the South Korean strategy is simple enough: test, test and test some more. The country has learned from the 2015 outbreak of MERS and reorganised its disease control system. It has a good, large-capacity healthcare system and a sophisticated biotech industry that can produce test kits quickly.”These advantages explain the results.3.9 SwitzerlandIn the first report summarised at Section 3 above, Switzerland had 2,772 COVID-19 cases and 21 (or 0.76%0f infected) deaths.In the second report summarised at Section 3 above, Switzerland had 4,176 COVID-19 cases (up 51%) and 43 (or 1.03% of infected) deaths.It seems from these low mortality numbers that these infections have probably been caught by young and.middle-aged but very healthy.skiers.At New coronavirus: Current situation – Switzerland and international we can see today’s update:“Current situation in SwitzerlandConfirmed in Switzerland, 22.3.2020, 12 pm:Number of casesTested positive: 7014 peopleNumber who have died60 people”so a growth in cases of 68% and an increase in deaths of 40% but a continuing low mortality of the infected of 0.86%.As is often the case, the similarities between Germany and Switzerland are striking.3.10 The United KingdomWith respect to the COVID-19 outbreak, Britain is both badly led and.wrongly advised. I have covered that issue in detail atSee Is there any proof of immunity to the coronavirus for the Chief scientist to the British government to be saying that 60% of the British public need infecting with the virus in order to create a herd immunity?The temporary target resulting from 30% non-isolation is 3.6 m COVID-19 infected and about 150,000 deaths. But the disregard of home isolation is a moving frontier.Last Friday most of the Cafes and pubs on Whiteladies Road Bristol were open and the only difference I could find was that a few parking places were available. The Bristol Eye hospital was only a third as busy as normal and shut after last Friday.No-one in the near-normal crowd was wearing a mask. Given that there were about 2,626 recorded infections on Thursday 19th march in a UK population of 68 millions it does seem that the odds against against meeting someone with the COVID-19 coronavirus are about 25,000 to one against. So the. crowd behaviour is quite logical.These odds will drop massively as the numbers of COPVID-19 infections and deaths climb. That won’t take long in a UK where these infections are increasing at 52% within two days and COVID-19 deaths have increased from 103 to 177, or 72% within two days.A much lower 10% growth rate a day doubles the. infections within each week, so infected numbers increase by a factor of 2^9 or a thousand within nine weeks. So the current 3,983 cases could be about four million within two months, about a third of the way towards the 12m probable UK infections assuming the Diamond Princess model.Of course it will be difficult in the UK political circumstances to tell the 150,000 additional dead due to the further shortening of British lifespans because of Austerity cuts in living standards and the partial destruction of the NHS, from COVID-19 deaths. We will probably have to wait for the British actuaries to report upon “the trend, not the blip” of annually decreasing UK life expectancies in 2020.But Boris Johnson has assured the House of Commons that he will deal with that issue. and it would be churlish not to watch him and see how if, and when, he could possibly do that.I hae ma doots cos he cannae cut the mustard.For my readers in English, I mean that I doubt Johnson’s ability to tackle two such difficult problems as successfully defeating COVID-19 (which he said at a recent Press Conference would be over in 12 weeks) and reversing the three-year 2016–2018 trend of decreasing British life expectancy.4 Discussion4.1 Home isolation is generally against human nature and business developmentHome Isolation does not limit infections because it is not universally practised (that is, not at all by 30% of the population)Face Masks are useful when COVID-19 infections are widespread, becauseThey protect the infected from infecting others because the aerosol droplets caused by sneezes are caught the mask andThey protect the uninfected because aerosol droplets are caught by the mask and not breathed in5 Conclusions5.1 Only China has a proven and realistic total shut-down technology which ended COVID-19 within four months. Chinese actions limited the infections, deaths and economic damage to a comparatively very low level (about 5% as elsewhere) .5.2 The Seven UN/WHO-advised Semi-Total Shutdown Nations of France, Italy, Spain, Portugal, and Iran are finding it very difficult to adopt China’s policies. But they must try harder.5.3 The Failure of Home Isolation Policies is producing the observed pandemic growth of infections and deaths in many Western nations and the adoption of the more effective total lockdown should be considered everywhere.5.4 The development of COVID-19 helping healing and reduced contagion drugs by the Chinese, the French and the Americans is a very positive development. It seems that the infectiousness of 75% of COVID-19 sufferers can be ended within about six days and more rapid recovery can be brought about.

Re: “What is the most convincing argument regarding pro-gun/anti-gun?”A factual rather than emotional one.The American public’s right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed by the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.The United States of America is a nation borne from revolt against tyranny. That revolt could not have been successful had the American public not been armed with weapons at least equal to those used by the British Army soldiers and mercenaries that Americans had to face in battle. In reality, the rifles used by many Americans were actually longer ranged and more accurate — and thus qualitatively superior — to the muskets prevalently used by British soldiers and mercenaries.As a direct result of that national experience, the Founding Fathers institutionalized the right of the American public to keep and bear arms in the United States Constitution to ensure that the American ability to resist tyranny would never be compromised. In District of Colombia v. Heller, the US Supreme Court definitively ruled that the 2nd Amendment confers the individual right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, including self-defense.The rest of the contents of this answer are organized into sections as follows:Crime in America is not as rampant as portrayed in anti-gun propaganda;Public banning of firearms does not correlate with reduced crime rates;Public ownership of firearms does not correlate with increased crime rates;Firearm bans do not deny criminals access to firearms;Everything has a natural right to defend itself;Social approaches, not prohibitions, provide more effective solutions;Conclusion.Crime in America is Not As Rampant as Portrayed in Anti-Gun PropagandaAmerican deaths from firearms are actually at their lowest levels since 1993:Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware5 facts about crime in the U.S.2018 Preliminary Crime Statistics ReleasedThe image of America as a wild west in which everyone owns firearms, every home contains fully automatic military weapons and explosive ordinance, and machine guns are sold from corner drug stores with shootouts every weekend is strictly a fabrication of plotless Hollywood action films and anti-gun propaganda. In reality, most Americans will never even see a firearm used their entire lives. This is actually creating a real social problem with complete ignorance of firearm technology and history rendering segments of the public susceptible to factless propaganda and appeals to emotion.Banning Firearms Does Not Correlate with Reduced Crime RatesAmerica is not the country with the highest rates of firearm deaths. 30 other countries hold that distinction, many with gun control laws comparable to or stricter than the United States – especially in Latin America -- with “violent” firearm deaths per 100,000 people in 2016 as follows:1) El Salvador 40.292) Venezuela 34.773) Guatemala 26.814) Colombia 25.945) Honduras 20.566) Brazil 19.347) US Virgin Islands 18.838) Jamaica 16.459) Bahamas 14.1110) Trinidad and Tobago 13.0311) Cape Verde 8.1112) Philippines 7.4213) South Africa 5.7914) Lesotho 5.5215) Thailand 4.45…31) United States 3.85Gun Violence: How The U.S. Compares With Other CountriesThe UK’s experience with gun bans also contradicts anti-gun propaganda. According to official Parliamentary records, firearm homicide rates actually rose after the handgun ban in England and Wales in January 1997. The immediate effect was a 20.4% jump in firearm homicides that rose to an increase of 98% (almost doubled) in 2001. The only years in which the firearm homicide rate was actually lower than 1996 were 2008-2010. The overall trend for UK firearm homicides averaged an increase of 26%.Source below, Table 1, p. 11. Note that this is an official Parliamentary source, not a Fox News or NRA claim.http://researchbriefings.files.p...The same is true for the overall UK homicide rate. After the ban, there was only one year (2010) where the homicide rate was lower than it was in 1996. The homicide rate only began falling when there was a large increase in the number of police officers during 2003 and 2004. Despite the large increase in the number of police, the murder rate still remained slightly higher than the immediate pre-ban rate.Source below. See Table 1.01. Again, this is an official Parliamentary source, not a Fox News or NRA claim.https://www.gov.uk/government/up...The UK handgun ban did not reduce firearm homicides. It actually resulted in increased crime. The UK government has known this over the past 21 years. The UK returned its firearm crime rates to pre-ban levels by increasing its numbers of armed officers and police efforts, especially for the purpose of responding to terrorist attacks:Armed police to increase by 'up to 50 per cent'Scotland Yard deploys 600 new armed officers in wake of European terror attacksUK Terror Threat: More Armed Police For RegionsNow the tide has turned back the other way:'My kids don't see this side of me'Gun crime in London rises by 42%So the anti-gun supposition that “fewer guns equal less violence” is contradicted by real-world data.Public Ownership of Firearms Does Not Correlate with Increased Crime RatesLet's consider the reality of mass shooting incidents in countries on the European continent in 2016:January 2 Miass, Russia: 4 dead, 1 injuredJanuary 14 Marseilles, France: 0 dead, 6 injuredJanuary 31 Shlisselburg, Russia: 2 dead, 3 injuredFebruary 3 Odessa, Ukraine: 0 dead; 4 injuredFebruary 4 Loures, Portugal: 0 dead; 5 injuredFebruary 22 Tyumen, Russia: 0 dead; 4 injuredFebruary 24 Nice, France: 0 dead; 4 injuredMarch 13 Vahrenheide, Germany: 1 dead, 5 injuredMarch 15 Brussels, Belgium: 0 dead, 4 injuredMarch 25 London, United Kingdom: 0 dead, 5 injuredMarch 27 Yakovlevskoye, Russia: 1 dead, 3 injuredMarch 29 Lisbon, Portugal: 0 dead, 5 injuredApril 2 Marseille, France: 3 dead, 3 injuredApril 22 Naples, Italy: 2 dead, 3 injuredMay 8 Chelnokhovo, Russia: 5 dead, 0 injuredMay 22 Nenzig, Austria: 2 dead, 11 injuredJune 5 Moscow, Russia: 0 dead, 4 injuredJune 23 Ayia Napa, Cyprus: 3 dead, 2 injuredJuly 2 Zitiste, Serbia: 5 dead, 22 injuredJuly 22 Munich, Germany: 9 dead, 27 injuredJuly 26 Magas, Russia: 1 Dead, 4 injuredAugust 22 Ternopil, Ukraine: 3 dead, 1 injuredAugust 30 Solotvyno, Ukraine: 1 dead, 3 injuredSeptember 3 Yekaterinburg, Russia: 2 Dead, 7 InjuredSeptember 25 Malmo, Sweden: 0 dead, 4 injuredOctober 7 Copenhagen, Denmark: 1 Dead, 3 injuredOctober 26 Langladure, France: 0 dead, 4 injuredOctober 30 Yekaterinburg, Russia: 0 dead, 5 injuredDecember 4 Knyazychy, Ukraine: 4 dead, 0 injuredDecember 5 Stavropol, Russia: 0 dead, 4 injuredDecember 14 Olsha, Russia: 2 dead, 3 injuredDecember 18 Nikolaev, Ukraine: 0 Dead, 4 InjuredDecember 27 Moscow, Russia: 0 Dead, 5 InjuredEuropean countries with mass shooting incidents: Austria, Belgium, Cypress, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Portugal, Russia, Serbia, Sweden, UK, and the Ukraine.The countries notably absent from the above list: Switzerland and Finland, the two European countries with the highest number of firearms per capita of all of Europe.We see a similar dynamic in the United States with higher rates of public firearm ownership and lower crime rates in the Commonwealth of Virginia:Va. gun crime drops again as firearm sales soarSo the anti-gun supposition that "more guns equal more crime" is also contradicted by real-world data.Firearm Bans Do Not Deny Criminals Access to FirearmsFirearm technology is old and simple.Observe the image below:An array of ancient Roman surgical instruments discovered at Pompeii,...The image shows metal surgical instruments unearthed from Pompeii. Pompeii was destroyed by an eruption of Mount Vesuvius in 79 AD. Those metal instruments are nearly 2,000 years old, yet their manufacture and finish are quite high. Any modern surgeon would readily recognize and be able to use those instruments.Making metal objects is not difficult. Humans have been doing so for thousands of years.All that firearms require is a tube closed at one end, a projectile, and an explosive propellant. These technological problems were solved 750 years ago. All firearm development since then has just been refinements. Rifling was invented in 1498. Breech loading with revolving cylinders was invented in the 16th Century. Cased ammunition was invented from 1802 to 1850. The Bessemer steel process was developed in 1850. Fully automatic machine guns were invented in 1884. Everything necessary for modern firearms was developed before the 20th Century even started.Firearms are so simple that, in WWII, the British deliberately designed the fully automatic Sten submachine gun to be easily assembled with a little welding from parts readily available from hardware stores of the time, even in occupied countries.The Sten - Meet the $10 Submachine Gun That Helped the Allies Win WW2 - MilitaryHistoryNow.comSimilarly, the Australian Owen submachine gun of WWII was developed entirely by a private individual who simply liked tinkering with firearms:Owen SMG (Owen Machine Carbine) Submachine Gun (SMG) - AustraliaThe Polish were quite innovative with improvised weapons during WWII while they were occupied by the Germans. One of their innovations was a very simple but effective fully automatic submachine gun much like the Sten called the Blyskawica. The Blyskawica was a very rude shock to German troops during the Warsaw Uprising.Improvised Weapons used in the 1944 Warsaw UprisingTerrorists and criminals are finally learning that firearm technology is so simple that they can easily make their own, completely obviating any need to steal firearms or pay exorbitant black market prices. In Australia, 10% of firearms seized by police are homemade:Australian Police: 10% of firearms seized are homemade -Other examples:Impro GunsHomemade firearms include fully automatic submachine guns that are functionally equivalent to the historical Sten – cheap, easy to assemble, lightweight, compact, easily concealed, and effective. Examples include the Carlo used in Palestinian terrorist attacks in Israel and the West Bank:Say hello to ‘Carlo,’ the cheap, lethal go-to gun for terroristsand the Luty, a fully automatic submachine gun fabricated from readily available parts for which P.A. Luty wrote a book describing how to produce the exact same weapon in about a week:Expedient Homemade FirearmsHere is the Luty in successive stages of construction:Australian police seize homemade submachine gun during drug raid -And there are “ghost guns” – firearms made from assembled or machined parts:I Made an Untraceable AR-15 'Ghost Gun' in My Office—and It Was EasyThere is a growing black market in the US for ghost guns, especially in Northern California, where “enterprising entrepreneurs” are assembling and machining fully automatic assault rifles for sale to eager South American drug cartels:California black market surges for ‘ghost guns’The same trend of criminals resorting to improvised and homemade firearms is occurring in the UK:UK: criminals still get guns even after bansGuns are also made by hand in the Philippines:and Afghanistan:Beyond direct metal machining, firearms can also be manufactured by 3D printing:World's first 3D-printer gun firedAnd now we have 3D metal printing. Metal 3D printing will make fabrication of firearm parts with strong steel components trivial.Any expectation that firearm bans are even meaningful is irrelevant. Criminals and terrorists alike are learning from history while firearm ban advocates ignore it. The simplicity of firearm technology makes denying access to effective firearms to criminals and terrorists determined to have them simply impossible.Everything Has a Natural Right to Defend ItselfAll living organisms are equipped with natural mechanisms for self-defense, right down to the cellular level with immune systems. Each and every person typing here right now is alive to do so because their immune systems have successfully killed millions of other living organisms diligently trying to sicken or kill them for their own survival.The anti-gun argument implicitly advocates unilateral disarmament. The U.K. approach to self-defense is explicit unilateral disarmament with the only lawful instrument of self-defense being a rape whistle to loudly announce one's victimization.Q589: Are there any legal self defence products that I can buy?The biological expression of unilateral disarmament is AIDS. The U.K. approach to self-defense is a social form of AIDS.The reality of life is that there are living organisms that will try to take what other living things have. When attacked by another organism, whether microbial, animal, or human, any person not armed with at least equal resolve and means to defend itself is just a free lunch.The anti-gun Violence Policy Center's research paper “Firearm Justifiable Homicides and Non-Fatal Self-Defense Gun Use” of June 2015 was prepared and published as a deliberate attempt to trivialize the use of firearms for self-defense. However, the Table “Self-Protective Behaviors by Type of Crime, 2007-2011” on page 6 reveals that firearms were used for self-defense an average of (308,700 / 5) = 61,740 times per year from 2007 to 2011. The same research paper reveals that there were 230 justifiable homicides versus 8,275 criminal firearm homicides reported to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program in 2010.So the average annual use of firearms for self-defense in America is 7.5 times greater than annual firearm homicides. The dramatically low ratio of justifiable homicides to murders with firearms shows that law-abiding citizens wielding firearms in self-defense save lives.The actual data in the VPC paper establishes the absolute minimum frequency of firearm use for self-defense using statistics collected by the Bureau of Justice Statistics in the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS).The Center for Disease Control conducted surveys from 1996 to 1998 indicating that defensive gun uses number over 1 million per year:A Second Look at a Controversial Study About Defensive Gun UseCriminal uses of guns, in comparison, number about 300,000 (2008):That Time The CDC Asked About Defensive Gun UsesThe use of firearms for self-defense against crimes is far more frequent than their use for lethal crime and refutes the agenda-driven conclusions of the VPC “study.”The American right to keep and bear arms has resulted in members of the public defending the public from criminal acts in progress:11 times a good guy with a gun stopped a bad guy, saving livesI personally have known three individuals who have used their personal firearms to stop crimes in progress. One performed a citizen’s arrest of someone attempting to steal his car. The would-be thief went to jail. Two others stopped a total of three attempted assaults on themselves. The attempted assailants fled with no shots fired.Social Approaches, not Prohibitions, Offer Better SolutionsThe US should start by listening to what mass shooters actually say would have prevented them from committing their crimes:We asked 12 mass killers: 'What would have stopped you?'The US should enforce federal laws requiring states and government offices to report people with known histories of mental illness and domestic violence to the FBI's NICS database:Gun background check system riddled with flawsThe US should also listen to what sociologists and psychologists have to offer for genuinely effective solutions:Statement of APA President in Response to Texas Church ShootingsThe US should study the example of Scotland as a model for reducing its problems with violent crime by social solutions, not gun bans as commonly claimed:WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM Glasgow's Murder Rate Dropped by 60% SFI5K | Meme on ME.METhe US should abandon the failed War on Drugs, aka Prohibition 2. The First Prohibition promoted organized crime and criminal violence in wars over alcohol distribution and market access. The same thing is happening now with the War on Drugs. The US should have learned its lesson with the First Prohibition, but the US clearly failed to do so.ConclusionThis is a long post, but there is a considerable amount of material to cover in order to counter common suppositions, perceptions, and appeals to emotions to establish a basis in facts and logic.Meaningful discussion of social problems with the goal of identifying solutions that will be genuinely effective rather than emotionally appealing but ineffectual requires an honest and direct recognition of what are the real root causes for these problems. Unfortunately, the vast majority of discussion about “gun violence” is markedly deficient in real facts.This response provides reasons with sources for why gun prohibitions do not work and cannot work, why abolishing the Second Amendment is even more misdirected, and why social approaches offer better options for genuinely effective solutions.See also:Phil Boettge's answer to What is your argument for not banning AR 15 rifles and other military grade weapons, other than your 2nd amendment rights to bear arms?

https://vaccineliberationarmy.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/COVID-19-the-blog-TREACHERY-WITH-ANTHONY-FAUCI.pdfFauci is actually not what you think he is. Here is a very thorough document regarding Fauci and how the coronavirus started.Dr. Fauci’s COVID-19 TreacheryWith Chilling Ties to the Chinese Militaryby Peter R. Breggin MD and Ginger R. Breggin1EXECUTIVE SUMMARYThis report documents in detail how Dr. Anthony Fauci, head of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), has been the major force behind a series of research activities and other government actions that enabled the Chinese Communist Party to create lethal SARS coronaviruses, leading to the release of SARS-CoV-2 from the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Fauci continues to cover for the Chinese and for himself, denying the origin of SARS- CoV-2, and delaying and thwarting worldwide attempts to deal rationally with the pandemic.This report documents with more than 100 linked citations the following activities by Dr. Fauci:(1) Until stopped by President Trump in mid-April 2020, Fauci funded both individual Chinese researchers and the Wuhan Institute as collaborators with American researchers in creating lethal coronaviruses from harmless bat viruses. This collaboration and direct funding enabled the Chinese Communist Party and its military to make potential bioweapons on their own, including SARS-CoV-2. In April 2020, shortly after our disclosure of these US/Chinese collaborations, President Trump canceled funding for them. However, Fauci has recently unleashed a deluge of new funding that will almost certainly benefit Chinese scientists at universities and research facilities in this country who have close ties to the Chinese Communist Party.(2) The connection between SARS-CoV-2 and the Fauci-funded American and Chinese collaboration making coronaviruses was initially made in February 2020 in a scientific publication by an American-trained (Northwestern University and Harvard Medical School) Chinese researcher named Botao Xiao and his associate Lei Xiao. Perhaps because it was so cogently written and spot on, the Chinese Communist government forced the researchers to recant.(3) The Wuhan Institute is a center of China’s biowarfare/biodefense capacity and its director is China’s top military expert in biowarfare, and yet Fauci shared advanced biowarfare- related research with and actually funded the Wuhan Institute and its scientists.(4) Fauci has funded and continues to fund coronavirus “gain-of-function” researchprojects which turn benign animal viruses into human pathogens capable of causing pandemics. The stated purpose is to learn to prevent and treat future outbreaks; but research labs are the most common source of outbreaks from dangerous pathogens, including SARS-CoV-2, as well as two earlier accidental escapes by SARS viruses in 2004 from a research facility in Beijing.(5) In 2014, when blocked by an order from President Barak Obama from funding dangerous “gain-of-function” studies, Fauci outsourced the research to the Wuhan Institute of Virology. He also covertly continued to fund the major gain-of-function collaboration between US and Chinese Wuhan Institute researchers, led by Menachery et al. at the University of North Carolina. Fauci thus made a mockery of President Obama’s attempts to stop the potentially catastrophic research.(6) In order to outsource dangerous viral research from the US to China during the Obama moratorium, Fauci prematurely approved the Wuhan Institute as a highest level containment facility (known as BSL-4) capable of safely working with lethal viruses. He did thisBreggin and Breggin Report, p. 2while knowing the Institute had a very poor safety record and while also knowing that all such facilities in China are overseen by the military as part of its biowarfare program. Thus, Fauci created two grave worldwide threats, the accidental release of a deadly coronavirus and/or its use as a military weapon.(7) Without fanfare, toward the end of the first year of the Trump administration in 2017, Fauci and NIH canceled President Obama’s moratorium against building viral pathogens in US labs and openly restored gain-of-function research creating lethal viruses. The original moratorium was a direct order by President Obama on White House stationery while its undoing was a decision made within the National Institutes of Health and NIAID, probably withoutTrump’s knowledge.(8) From the initial outbreak of the pandemic in China and continuing to this day, Fauci has supported Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the corrupt Director-General of the World Health Association (WHO). Together, they initially minimized the dangers of COVID-19. Fauci and Tedros also delayed worldwide preparations for the pandemic while allowing the Chinese to spread the virus with thousands of international passenger flights.(9) Standing beside President Trump at a briefing, Fauci publicly undermined the President’s criticism of Director-General Tedros and China. Instead, Fauci reassured the world that Tedros was a trustworthy and “outstanding” man—implying that Tedros’s connections in China were similarly reliable and could be trusted.(10) We published our blog on April 14, 2020 and our video on April 15, 2020 revealing Fauci’s funding of US/Chinese collaborations that were building deadly coronaviruses and we described how the cooperative efforts enabled the Chinese to engineer coronaviruses. On April 17, President Trump announced his intention to cancel the collaborative funding. Fauci wasBreggin and Breggin Report, p. 3critical of the President’s actions and in October 2020 Fauci unleashed a surge of funding for gain-of-function research, supposedly without any Chinese involvement. However, some of the funding potentially involves Chinese researchers in the United States and some goes to theEcoHealth Alliance, which has been Fauci’s main conduit for funding Chinese researchers andthe Wuhan Institute of Virology.(11) Fauci holds himself out as the ultimate source of objective scientific information and science-based conclusions. In reality, he works with and empowers globalist pharmaceutical firms and globalist organizations such as WHO and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundations. Meanwhile, these globalists gained power and influence as their policies and practices,including the shutdowns, continue to worsen conditions throughout the world.(12) In a recent scientific publication Fauci has continued to dismiss the very high probability—the near certainty—that SARS-CoV-2 was created by Chinese researchers working with the military and released, accidentally or purposely, from the Wuhan Institute of Virology. By persistently and unequivocally claiming that SARS-CoV-2 emerged from nature untouched by lab manipulations, Fauci continues to protect himself and China, and their relationship, to the endangerment of America and the rest of the world.(13) Recently, in a new scientific publication, Fauci disclosed and advocated for his political agenda that aims at protecting the world from pathogens in nature by vastly reducing or stopping “human-made” “aggressive” interventions into nature. 2 Fauci’s utopian scheme, which overlaps with the Green New Deal, would permanently suppress and disrupt the activities and lives of the 7.8 billion people on Earth in the vain hope of reducing future pandemics. Thus the American official most responsible for the creation of SARS-CoV-2 in a Chinese lab instead blames its origins on human interventions into the environment and nature, thereby completelyBreggin and Breggin Report, p. 4exonerating himself while holding humanity responsible. Simultaneously, he is using the pretext of protecting us from viruses to impose a radical totalitarian agenda upon humanity. Indeed, the largest, most aggressive, and most dangerous human interventions into nature must include Fauci-funded gain-of-function research in which viruses are taken out of nature and engineered into pathogens.(14) Overall, Fauci has been and continues to be an extraordinarily destructive force in the world. Most damaging to humanity, he enabled China to create SARS-CoV-2 and other deadly viruses for use as biological weapons. At the same time, he developed chilling ties to the Chinese Communist Party and its military, even financing their activities through NIAID and helping them to obtain valuable US patents. Then, in collaboration with China and WHO, he initially hid the origins and dangers of the pandemic, so that it spread more rapidly around the world. Then he became the go-to scientist and management czar for the very pandemic that he helped to create, enormously increasing his power and influence, and the wealth of his institute and his global collaborators, including Bill Gates and the international pharmaceutical industry.(15) In his rise to power, Fauci has done a great deal of additional damage that we have already documented in earlier reports, for example, by suppressing the most effective, safest, and least expensive medication treatment (hydroxychloroquine in varied combinations), while manipulating his clinical research to promote an ineffective, dangerous, and highly expensive drug (remdesivir). Fauci has also been supporting inflated COVID-19 case counts and reported deaths from the CDC, then using the inflated estimates to justify oppressive public health measures that have no precedent and little or no scientific basis, but add to his influence and power and to the wealth of his globalist associates.Breggin and Breggin Report, p. 5These and additional damaging activities by Anthony Fauci are reviewed in existing blogs and videos on our Coronavirus Resource Center.3 Recently our work was capped by my extensive medical/legal report, COVID-19 & Public Health Totalitarianism: Untoward Effects on Individuals, Institutions and Society. The report was filed in federal court in Ohio on August 31, 2020 as part of a lawsuit and an injunction to stop the emergency measures being imposed on the citizens of that state.4 The lawsuit was brought by attorney Thomas Renz and is becoming a model for similar suits in other states.5,6,7,8This report focuses on Anthony Fauci as a central figure in a great deal of the world’ssuffering under COVID-19.End of Executive SummaryFor detailed documentation, continue to read the entire report.Breggin and Breggin Report, p. 6What is Your Risk of Death If You Catch COVID-19?Most people have very unrealistic fears about the risk of dying from COVID-19. This is due in part to the CDC and to Dr. Anthony Fauci who inflate the risk of COVID-19 deaths. We therefore begin by examining the most fundamental issue of all: If you or a loved one are afflicted with SARS-CoV-2, what is your risk of death? It is probably much lower than you think or imagine.The CDC bases its estimated death rates from COVID-19 on death certificates and this method is accepted as authoritative by Dr. Anthony Fauci and many others. However, the CDC has recently revealed that only 6% of COVID-19 death certificates list the disease as the sole cause of death, while 94% have two or three additional listed causes.9 Furthermore, there is no way to ascertain what the primary cause of death was among the 96% with multiple listed causes of death.Most people who die while being positive for SARS-CoV-2 are near to or past their average longevity. In addition to being old, the great majority are already ill with heart disease, cancer, or some other chronic illnesses that may in fact have caused them to die. But even usingthe CDC’s biased data, the risk of death for most people is too small to require them to sacrifice the quality of their lives as the government demands under the threat of catching COVID-19.Using their exaggerated data, CDC made a “best estimate” for the risk of dying after infection with COVID-19. The CDC reported the following estimates on September 10, 2020:10Current CDC Best Estimates for Infection Fatality Ratio0-19 years: 0.00003 (0.003%) or 3 in 100,000Breggin and Breggin Report, p. 7Breggin and Breggin Report, p. 820-49 years: 0.0002 (0.02%) 50-69 years: 0.005 (0.5%) 70+ years: 0.05 (5%)Remember that the overall risk of anyone dying from COVID-19 is infinitely less than these figures indicate. The above inflated numbers reflect the risk of dying after you become infected with SARS-CoV-2.The Risk for Death in Children with COVID-19The above CDC data states that the risk of infected children up to age 19 dying from COVID-19 is 0.00003 (0.003%)—or 3 in 100,000. But how many children are actually dying from COVID-19? The CDC makes it very difficult to figure this out.Fortunately, on October 10, 2020 the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’sHospital Association published data submitted from the individual states.11 Based on 42 statesreporting, they found that “0%-0.16% of all child COVID-19 cases resulted in death.” Sixteen of the 42 states reported no deaths among children.The age of the “children” went up to 17, 18, or 19, depending on the state’s criteria, making many of them young adults. The risk of death in children and young adults with COVID-19 is truly small.These risks do not justify drastic lockdown measures imposed on children and young adults. Most tragically, they do not justify keeping children and youngsters out of school. Yet Dr. Fauci and other public health officials continue to act as if there is a grave risk of exposing children and young adults to SARS-CoV-2, when there is not.The Risk of COVID-19 to the Elderly Is SeriousThe CDC data listed in the table (above) indicates that at age 50-69 years of age, the risk(5%). People 65 and older account for nearly all the deaths—70% to 94% of them, depending on the state.12The higher death rate among the elderly is tragic, but it considerably lower than most people imagine. Many elders seem to think that getting COVID-19 is a death sentence, when it certainly is not. A 5% death rate for people 70 and older, many of whom are very ill and near the end of life, does not demand the imposition of extraordinary, disabling shutdowns and other drastic transformations on the entire population, including the children.Our household includes a husband and wife who are 84 and 69 years old, and the wife’smother who is 94. None of us want to lockdown the nation or the world on account of us.There is a place for older people taking extra precautions and for the government offering special services; but that can be done without vastly impairing the lives of everyone else. We do not need to inflict such enormous harm on the economy and on society, and to spend such huge sums of money, in order to protect our vulnerable older population.The three epidemiologists from Harvard, Oxford and Stanford who wrote the Great Barrington Declaration13and the thousands of us who have signed it, agree with their statement:“We know that vulnerability to death from COVID-19 is more than a thousand-fold higher in the old and infirm than the young. Indeed, for children, COVID-19 is less dangerous than manyother harms, including influenza.” We agree that the death rates among children are too low tojustify measures that deprive them of a normal social life and their schooling.Breggin and Breggin Report, p. 9of dying when infected with SARS-CoV-2 is0.005 (0.5%) and for 70-plus years old it is 0.05Having established at the start that the risks associated with COVID-19 do not justify the measures being imposed on America, we can begin with the history of coronavirus epidemics, a history very familiar to Fauci but not to most people.SARS-CoV-1: The Hidden Epidemic and Earlier Accidental ReleasesSARS stands for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome. CoV stands for coronavirus, a type of virus that is found in many animals and humans in numerous varieties, usually benign.The “corona” refers to the appearance of a halo under an electron microscope. A few strains ofcoronavirus have been identified as a cause of mild and more occasionally moderate upper respiratory infections in humans, including many cases of the common cold.14Until 2002, with the advent of SARS-CoV-1 in southern China, coronaviruses have never been known to be deadly to humans. Many people do not realize that SARS-CoV-1 caused an epidemic that spread around world in 2003. Here is a 2004 official Chinese description of theepidemic: “SARS first emerged in late 2002 in Southern China and spread around the world to infect 8,000 people in nearly 30 countries, causing nearly 800 deaths worldwide in 2003. As the greatest victim of the virus, China suffered 349 deaths in 2003.”15The overall death rate for SARS-CoV-1 was in the range of 9%-10% and the death rate in people 65 and older was up to 40%-50% or more, both of which are extremely high and more than ten times that of SARS-CoV-2.16 The high death rate of the original SARS-CoV-1 accounts in part for the mistaken dire predictions initially made about SARS-CoV-2 in early 2020.However, both coronaviruses spared children and youth to a remarkable degree. In Hong Kong, where 298 people died from SARS-CoV-1, with a high percentage of death in the elderly,Breggin and Breggin Report, p. 10Breggin and Breggin Report, p. 11the mortality rate was 0% for children age 0–14 years. Rates for children are also at or near to zero in the US and around the world.During SARS-CoV-1 in 2003, only 8 people in the United States had “laboratory evidence” of the virus, and they had traveled from other infected areas, according to the CDC.17Because it made people so ill, and because it was less contagious, it was easier to contain than SARS-CoV-2.Most people, including some experts, do not know that in 2004 in China there were two separate contaminations with an unidentified SARS-CoV virus that was described as being obtained from patient samples during the 2003 epidemic. Two workers, on separate occasions, accidentally carried the virus or viruses from the National Institute of Virology in Beijing, infecting people outside the facility.18 The workers became ill, and were easily identified and isolated, limiting the known number of deaths.A 2004 report from the China Daily describes the leaks from the Beijing lab:19The small outbreak began in March and the World Health Organization declared it contained in May. ... Official investigation shows that it is an accident due to negligence.The cases had been linked to experiments using live and inactive SARS corona virus in the CDC's virology and diarrhea institutes... [bold added]Given the recognition by the Chinese government and WHO, and the available facts,20there is no doubt that the limited 2004 outbreak of a SAR-CoV virus originated in a Chinese laboratory as a result of contamination.That the 2004 outbreak was due to experimentation with a SARS-CoV virus raises some serious questions. What kinds of experiments were being conducted? What viruses wereBreggin and Breggin Report, p. 12involved? Was SARS-CoV-1 in fact created in a Chinese lab and leaked in 2002—or did it really emerge from nature?The original outbreak that began in China in later 2002 is generally considered an emergence from nature; but we do not know with certainty. Clearly, lab experimentation with SARS-CoV viruses is a much more common source of outbreaks than emergence from nature.Given his position in the world of viruses and epidemics, Fauci has known about thesetwo leaks in 2004 and, despite his denials, we shall see that he must know that SARS-CoV-2 was made as a result of a US/China research collaboration which he financed with the purpose of making deadly viruses out of harmless coronaviruses. It was essential to Fauci, the current WHO director-general, and other defenders of China to make believe that SARS-CoV-2 was anunanticipated natural disaster, a kind of “Act of God” in insurance company terms. When the public fully realizes that Fauci, through financing Chinese scientists and the Wuhan Institute of Virology, enabled China to engineer SARS-CoV-2, his credibility will be gone. Furthermore, WHO and China will be held responsible for their multiple deceptions and deadly actions surrounding SARS-CoV-2 and the disease it causes, COVID-19.Why It is Unsafe to Create Deadly Viruses in LabsBefore looking further into Chinese connections to Fauci’s new funding of Americaninstitutions, it is useful to further explore why it is basically and predictably unsafe to do laboratory research involving the creation of new, dangerous viruses. The Wuhan Institute, which in 2015 became China’s first laboratory to achieve the highest level of internationalbioresearch containment (known as BSL-4), had a well-known record of poor security, 21, 22making a leak highly probable. We have already documented that there were leaks of anunidentified SARS virus from Chinese labs shortly after what we now can call the SARS-CoV-1 epidemic of 2003. Numerous leaks of other pathogens were reported in December 2019 in China, around the time SARS-CoV-2 was leaked from the Wuhan Institutes.23Indeed, leaks and other mishaps involving dangerous infectious agents had been occurring at US CDC facilities,24,25,26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 as well as the United States Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases, in Fort Detrick, Md., which was temporarily shut down by the CDC.33The grave risks inevitably associated with making pathogens in labs, even in presumably safer US facilities, was well-known to Anthony Fauci and also to many scientists. It has also been described somewhat piecemeal in the public media. But Fauci and other defenders of dangerous viral research rarely if ever mention the multitude of mishaps that the public needs toknow about in assessing Fauci’s plans. Indeed, lab research is the most common source ofoutbreaks of dangerous pathogens such as SARS-CoV-2.Even excluding sabotage or theft, there is no way to prevent these invisible, difficult-to- detect, organisms from escaping containment by one route or another, such as physical mishaps, human contamination, accidentally sending a dangerous agent to the wrong place, and infiniteways we cannot anticipate in advance. Their “emergence” by accident or design from a labwhere humans are creating them is far more likely than a pathogenic virus emerging through the slow, haphazard process of evolution and then finding a human to attach to.In defiance of common sense, a 2017 paper ominously titled, “Jumping species—amechanism for coronavirus persistence and survival,” Menachery gave his rationalization for doing the dangerous research that we would highlight and that Trump would stop:34Breggin and Breggin Report, p. 13Zoonotic transmission [jumping from an animal to human] of novel viruses represents a significant threat to global public health and is fueled by globalization, the loss of natural habitats, and exposure to new hosts. For coronaviruses (CoVs), broad diversity exists within bat populations and uniquely positions them to seed future emergence events. In this review, we explore the host and viral dynamics that shape these CoV populations for survival, amplification, and possible emergence in novel hosts.It is astonishing that Menachery, and apparently all those associated with the research, claim to be heading off the rare event of a novel coronavirus jumping to and seriously harming humans, while they themselves intentionally make it happen—creating a “jumper” virus in thelab—while giving it wide distribution to labs around the world from Australia to Switzerland and including China.The ability of the project to make a pathogen out of the coronavirus in no way indicates that there is even the slightest chance of the same thing happening in nature. After all, it took a multi-million dollar several-year collaborative research effort involving many extraordinary technologies and a large numbers of scientists from two nations to purposely turn this harmless virus into a virulent one. Along the way, the process required many intermediate steps, each step requiring careful reasoning and considerable trial and error, all with a very specific purpose in mind.How likely is it that, in the natural evolution of bats, one of their viruses would mindlessly and without purpose take a multiple array of steps by chance to become a pathogen with pandemic potential and then find a human to infect? The human lab can accomplish in a relatively short time what it would take millions of years to happen by chance throughBreggin and Breggin Report, p. 14evolution—if it would ever happen at all. Any increase in the rate of appearance of new pathogens here on Earth is far more likely to be caused by accidental or purposeful release from a lab that is in the process of making ordinary viruses into pathogens.There is agreement among many scientists that odds of a natural pandemic vs. a manmade one are very small. Concerned scientists have argued in statistical detail that the risk of an epidemic coming out of a lab producing dangerous viruses is high compared to a rare emergence from nature.35 As already noted with multiple citations from 2014-2020, there have been many accidental releases and other accidents involving potentially deadly viruses fromlaboratories in recent times, including the CDC’s labs. The escape of a manmade virus,intentionally or not, is infinitely more likely than a lone bat virus evolving into a pathogen in nature and then finding a human host.In nature, a novel virus attacking a human, causing a unique disease, and becoming an epidemic must begin with a rare chance of a genetic variation through biological evolution which is a very slow, hit-and-miss process, usually involving extraordinary periods of time. Then the chance variation among the many millions of bats flying around must have an equally rare chance to meet and to infect a suitable human host, who must then infect at least one other human before dying, etc. These bats live in rural caves hundreds of miles away from Wuhan, adding to the unlikelihood of such an event. All of this makes a jump from nature to humans extremely unlikely compared to the accidental escape of one of the SARS-CoV viruses already stored or being created at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.As this report has already suggested, there is a more frightening risk associated with making viruses that are potentially deadly to humanity—they can fall into the wrong hands and become bioweapons. What Fauci has been doing is doubly catastrophic, first, in the making ofBreggin and Breggin Report, p. 15deadly viruses and, second, in collaborating with China in mutually creating obvious bioweapons.How the COVID-19 Outbreak Was Intentionally Inflicted on the WorldThe Wuhan Institute has been known as “a center of China’s declaredbiowarfare/biodefense capacity.”36 Its director comes from China’s biological warfare program, as confirmed in a report stating “China ‘appoints its top military bio-warfare expert to take oversecretive virus lab in Wuhan’.”37 No one can hold high positions or conduct research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology without being closely involved with and supervised by the military.Breggin and Breggin Report, p. 16Although we still do not know if the release of SARS-CoV-2 at Wuhan was originally intentional, we do know that the Chinese Communist Party intentionally halted domestic flights to and from Wuhan, a city of 11 million people, and the surrounding province of Hubei, while intentionally promoting flights from that region to the rest of the world. The same also happened in other cities, including Shanghai and Beijing—shutdowns of domestic flights while pushing international flights.38,39 The Economic Times summed up the Chinese lockdown:While China continued to protest against international travel bans it successfully quarantined Wuhan and other affected cities. The total domestic lockdown of Hubei province and the flight ban imposed inside China had immediate effect. As per data from Tom Tom traffic index Wuhan had a traffic density of 60% in January whileShanghai and Beijing had nearly 80% density. After the total lockdown the average traffic density fell to below 10% in Wuhan and Shanghai during February and below 5% in Beijing. While implementing a total domestic lockdown in February, China kept assuring the world that the situation was not serious and fully under control.Breggin and Breggin Report, p. 17Air traffic only gradually picked up. The BBC News reported at the end of August that “Air travel has been picking up gradually since the coronavirus grounded the majority of planes inFebruary.”40China continued in early February to demand that other countries stop banning flights from China or Wuhan, even though they had already implemented a ban on domestic flights and other forms of travel to and from Wuhan!41 In the face of increasing bans on flights to China byother nations, China continued for months afterward to operate and to press for increased flights from China to the world.42The Chinese locked down Wuhan on January 16, 2020; but through all of January 2020, an estimated 4,000 people flew directly from Wuhan to the United States.43 Nineteen largely filled flights went to San Francisco and New York, with no enhanced screening.Additionally in January, there were over 1,300 direct passenger flights from all of China to the United States, for a total of 381,000 travelers. About one-quarter were Americans returning home. In addition, a large uncounted number of people flew from China to the US through intermediate stops.In sum, China flooded the US and the world with potentially infected people during January 2020 until President Trump stopped all flights from China at the end of January. Meanwhile, Fauci was against curtailing traffic from China, stating it would do little good (see next section).Fauci, Tedros, and ChinaIn its nefarious activities at the start of the pandemic in Wuhan, China was backed by World Health Organization (WHO) Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, a patentlyBreggin and Breggin Report, p. 18corrupt totalitarian politician from Ethiopia,44,45,46 who, ironically, has been accused of covering up devastating cholera outbreaks in his own country by The New York Times47 and other sources.48 Tedros, who has had a conflicted relationship with the US, is closely allied to China,which is WHO’s second biggest donor after the US.Meanwhile, Anthony Fauci, like the Director-General of WHO, was against Trump’s banon air travel. Fauci called the ban “irrelevant” because it could not prevent the virus fromeventually spreading worldwide.49 In the same interview during which Fauci resisted any travel bans to and from China, he suggested that the virus might diminish (like the flu) when the weather changed:The wild card here is that this is a brand new virus, this novel coronavirus, and we donot know if it’s going to diminish as the weather gets warm. We can’t count on that.Anthony Fauci has been outspoken in his support of WHO’s Tedros. On March 25, 2020, at a critical moment early in the crisis, while standing beside President Trump at a nationally televised Coronavirus Task Force presentation, Fauci openly and publicly underminedTrump’s concerns about Tedros.The following pithy, revealing excerpt from the official White House transcript50 of thetelevised discussion demonstrates Fauci’s willingness to undermine the President. Fauci refusesto comment on the lack of transparency from China, a problem that led to China’s covertinfliction of the pandemic on the world. Fauci describes how he has known Tedros since Tedroswas in Ethiopia—a time during which Tedros was accused of extraordinary corruption and even indifference toward an Ethiopian epidemic in homeland. Fauci gives us a big hint about just how he close he is with Tedros, saying he had just gotten off the phone with him a few hours earlierBreggin and Breggin Report, p. 19in the day when he was leading a WHO phone call. “Tedros is really an outstanding person,”Fauci announces. This brief exchange is extraordinarily revealing about Fauci:PRESIDENT TRUMP: But the fact is that I have heard for years that [WHO] is very much biased toward China, so I don’t know. Doctor, do you want to you — do you want me to get you into this political mess?DR. FAUCI: No, I don’t want you to do that. But I will. (Laughs.) So, Tedros isreally an outstanding person. I’ve known him from the time that he was the Minister of Health of Ethiopia. I mean, obviously, over the years, anyone who says that the WHO has not had problems has not been watching the WHO. But I think, under hisleadership, they’ve done very well. He has been all over this. I was on the phone with him a few hours ago leading a WHO call.QUESTION FROM THE PRESIDENT. Praising China’s transparency, sir?DR. FAUCI: No. No, I’m not — I’m not talking about China. You asked me about Tedros.QUESTION FROM THE PRESIDENT. The World Health Organization was praising China for its transparency and leadership on their response to the pandemic. DR. FAUCI: You know, I can’t comment on that because — I mean, I don’t haveany viewpoint into it. I mean, I don’t — I don’t even know what your question is.It is telling—even chilling—that a few hours before the Task Force meeting, Fauci wason the phone with Tedros. The ominous connections among the triad of Tedros’ WHO, China, and Anthony Fauci’s NIAID help to explain how China initially was praised rather than condemned for its handling of the coronavirus.Breggin and Breggin Report, p. 20We shall see that in his most recent scientific publication, Fauci continues to wholly exonerate the Chinese Communist Party and the Wuhan Institute of Virology of any possible wrongdoing. He continues to promote the discredited claim51 that the coronavirus infection originated in a Wuhan wet market, where in fact no bats are sold, and none can be found for hundreds of miles. 52, 53, 54 Meanwhile, simultaneously and coincidentally, the Wuhan Institute of Virology was making deadly coronaviruses in close proximity to this supposed “leap fromnature,” as this report will demonstrate.While unleashing the virus on the world, China’s government, the Communist Party, also intentionally withheld the existence of the internal epidemic, then claimed the virus came from the wet food market, while initially denying it could be transmitted by humans.55 However, on February 20, 2020, two Chinese researchers published a study proposing that the novel coronavirus was manmade, probably in a Chinese laboratory:56We noted two laboratories conducting research on bat coronavirus in Wuhan, one of which was only 280 meters from the seafood market. We briefly examined the histories of the laboratories and proposed that the coronavirus probably originated from a laboratory.Other experts confirmed the probability that SARS-CoV-2 originated from the Wuhan Institute,57 where the Chinese were known to be engineering SARS-like bat coronaviruses into virulent human pathogens, similar to SARS-CoV-2.Trump Stops Fauci’s Funding of the US/Chinese CollaborationFor many years Anthony Fauci was funding collaborative research with China on how to engineer benign bat CoV viruses into highly infectious viruses, like SARS-CoV-2. As thisreport documents, that funding definitely contributed to China’s ability to turn benign batcoronaviruses into deadly viruses similar to or the same as SARS-CoV-2. Fauci continued to fund the deadly US collaboration with the Chinese until mid-April 2020.In March or early April 2020 we discovered published scientific papers from 2015 and 2016 describing the collaborative research and we were astounded by it. How could we be helping China down a path that inevitably would lead to their ability to make bioweapons out of coronaviruses? The thought was so preposterous that we double checked the authenticity of the papers.On April 14 we published our first report about the US/China collaboration, followed the next day by a video that almost overnight had 40,000 downloads.58 We immediately sent the report and the video to the media and to people as close to the President as we could get.59 On April 17, a Newsmax reporter asked Trump about collaboration with China at a press conference. The President described how he was aware of the project, and replied “We will end that grantvery quickly.”60 In less than 48 hours President Trump went over Fauci’s head and stopped the funding.61The funding that was canceled went far beyond the collaborative US/China research led by Menachery et al. (2015 and 2016) on creating viruses able to infect humans. It included a broad range of viral research being conducted with Chinese scientists and the Wuhan Institute.62,63 In the media, the canceled activities were collectively referred to as “the project” or“the grant” and identified as being funded by Fauci’s NIAID through the EcoHealth Alliance. We have not found any information about how many similar projects may still exist. It appears that some of the funds came directly from NIAID, without going through EcoHealth Alliance,Breggin and Breggin Report, p. 21because NIAID is identified as a source of funding in various published papers and EcoHealth Alliance in others.In the meanwhile, Trump’s order to stop the research has focused on collaboration withChina, which reportedly has been stopped. But the President’s order apparently has not addressed funding of gain-of-function research done here in the United States and in collaboration with countries other than China.Meanwhile, Fauci has sought ways to get around the President’s ban on collaborating with China and continued to fund potentially deadly gain-of-function research (see next section).Fauci Awards Huge Grants for Dangerous International and Collaborative Viral ResearchBreggin and Breggin Report, p. 22On August 29, 2020, Maria Godoy from NPR wrote a reported aptly titled, “Group Whose NIH Grant For Virus Research Was Revoked Just Got a New Grant.” Her report summarized:The National Institutes of Health has awarded a grant worth $7.5 million over five years to EcoHealth Alliance, a U.S.-based nonprofit that hunts emerging viruses. The award comes months after NIH revoked an earlier grant to EcoHealth, a move scientists widely decried as the politically motivated quashing of research vital to preventing the next coronavirus pandemic.EcoHealth Alliance is one of 11 institutions and research teams receiving grantsfrom NIH, announced this week, to establish the Centers for Research in Emerging Infectious Diseases. The global network will monitor pathogens that emerge in wildlife and study how and where they go on to infect humans.Peter Daszak, President of EcoHealth Alliance, told NPR that none of the new money was going to China. Daszak also claimed that China’s research into viruses has been stopped by Trump’s withdrawal of funds from it, an outcome that seems extremely unlikely. While webelieve that Fauci and the US enabled China to accelerate its efforts, we have no illusions that the Chinese Communists cannot proceed without us.A recently escaped Chinese scientist says that China now has the world’s largeststockpile of coronaviruses suited for biowarfare and has no technical problems in turning benign ones into virulent ones;64 and an informed former US military officer takes the scientist’swarning seriously.65Most concerning, Daszak describes how his Fauci funding will be used for the controversial gain-of-function research originally stopped by President Obama and quietly reinstated by NIH and Fauci. Daszak told NPR:“The next step in that research is to sequence the whole genome of those viruses andsay, could they bind to human cells? Does this look like a virus that could potentially emerge?"How do researchers determine if a virus found in nature can become a pathogen, i.e.,“bind to human cells”? They laboratory engineer it into a pathogen and use their success toclaim it could also emerge naturally from nature—a conclusion which makes no sense (see ahead). This is the research that we shall see was canceled by President Obama and then reinstated by Fauci in President Trump’s first term, without his involvement or knowledge, and then stopped by the President in April 2020. But President Trump only stopped the collaboration with China, not the so-called “gain-of-function” research itself that led to the creation of SARS- CoV-2.Breggin and Breggin Report, p. 23Here is the process of engineering a harmless virus into a pathogen. First, the genome of the virus is mapped. Then an attempt is made to see if the virus has the potential to invade human cells. This cannot be determined by simply eyeballing the virus. This can only be done—and was done in the research with China canceled by President Trump—by physically modifying the coronavirus in the lab to enable it to gain entry to human lung cells in a lab preparation. This demonstration is one of the major steps in making the harmless virus into a SARS-CoV capable of producing a Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome in humans.If the virus can be engineered to successfully attack cells in human lung cell preparations, it is given to a mouse or other small animal to see if will attack the lungs of a living mammal. When it does cause SARS in the mice, as it did in the studies that Trump canceled, the researchers have reached near certainty that they have created a SARS-CoV, a virus that is potentially harmful or deadly to humans.Put simply, Fauci, along with his partners around the world, have done an end run around President Trump and his predecessor President Obama, to continue research aimed at creating pandemic viruses—while probably finding a backdoor to working with China.Fauci Funds Close Connections to China in the USAlmost a week after the PRN article announcing Fauci’s massive new funding of viralresearch, on September 6, 2020 Col. Lawrence Sellin (Ret.) of the Citizen’s Commission onNational Security warned about the overall NIAID grant, totaling $82 million, which includes many institutions in addition to EcoHealth Alliance. Sellin cited virology research at University of Texas that specifically involves multiple Chinese-connected researchers.66 As a retired military officer concerned with security, this did not seem like a good idea to Col. Sellin.Breggin and Breggin Report, p. 24The grant, which was officially announced by NIAID on August 27, 2020,67 will indeed fund Peter Daszak of the EcoHealth Alliance, Inc. for its Emerging Infectious Diseases-South East Asia Research Collaboration Hub. Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance has been Fauci’s main source of collaboration with the Chinese, which President Trump canceled. This new grant strongly suggests that Fauci is continuing to fund collaboration with China on viral research, if only through other nations that depend on the Communist giant or, as we will now see, through Chinese already working in American universities and laboratories.We agree with Col. Sellin who believes that these new grants require investigation and will present some of our initial new discoveries about them.American/Chinese Collaborative Research that Led to the Engineering of SARS-CoV-2The decade of research that ultimately led directly to the laboratory creation of SARS- CoV-2 was highlighted in two scientific papers with lead researchers from the University of North Carolina, along with two Chinese virologists from the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The senior author of the two papers was Vineet D. Menachery, PhD (Menachery et al., 201568 and Menachery et al. 201669).The title of the 2015 paper indicates that they were working with SARS-CoV viruses: “ASARS-like cluster of circulating bat coronaviruses shows potential for human emergence.” The phrase, “shows potential for human emergence” was highly misleading and promotional. The article describes how they created a SARS-CoV virus capable of infecting humans.This American/Chinese collaboration published its initial results in 2015 and 2016 when it described putting a protein “spike” on an innocuous bat coronavirus that turned it into SARS- CoV pathogen able to attach to and invade cells lining the human lung. The new SARS-CoVBreggin and Breggin Report, p. 25was deadly to mice, especially older or physically compromised animals, and was remarkably harmless to younger animals. It was shown to attack human lung tissue in the lab. The virus seemed immune to current treatments and a successful vaccine could not be made. With so many similar clinical features, this chimerical virus presaged the engineering of SARS-CoV-2.In both the 2015 and the 2016 papers, the first listed source of funds was Fauci’s http://NIAID.In the first one, the Chinese government is also listed as funding the project. This work was a testimonial to globalism without regard for the safety of the United States—or even that of the world.Chinese Involvement in the CollaborationsThe collaboration with the Chinese was intimate and critical. The two Chinese authors were researchers Xing-Yi Ge and Zhengli-Li Shi. In the 2015 paper, both identified themselves as from the “Key Laboratory of Special Pathogens and Biosafety, Wuhan Institute of Virology,Chinese Academy of Sciences, Wuhan, China.” The acknowledgements describe how the Chinese researchers as members of the team worked actively with the virus in their own Wuhan Institute laboratory.Although no Chinese authors are listed on the 2016 publication, the Acknowledgements thank “Dr. Zhengli-Li Shi of the Wuhan Institute of Virology” who provided, among other things, materials to make the “spike protein” used to enable the virus to infect human cells. This is the same Dr. Zhengli-Li Shi who was a coauthor of the 2015 paper. Her continued involvement confirms the ongoing close relationship between the American and Chinese researchers. She is director of the specific Wuhan Institute lab that extracts viruses from bats and makes them pathogenic for humans. After COVID-19 broke out of China, she would beBreggin and Breggin Report, p. 26featured admiringly in the American scientific media as the “bat lady,” accompanied by her self- serving denials that SARS-CoV-2 had escaped from her facility.70The other Chinese author of the 2015 paper, Xing-Yi Ge, is also a very importantresearcher in China’s virology programs. Ge was the lead author among about 20 researchers in 2013, most of them directly involved with the Wuhan Institute, who published a seminal article in the research chain leading up to SARS-CoV-2.71 Titled “Isolation and characterization of abat SARS-like coronavirus that uses the ACE2 receptor,” it studied the capacity of thecoronavirus to be engineered into a pathogen that could be made to connect to the ACE2 human receptor. It too was funded in part by the Chinese and by Fauci’s NIAID and, in this case, multiple other U.S. agencies.72 Peter Daszak, who heads EcoHealth Alliance, the organization that was separately funneling money from Fauci’s institute to Chinese gain-of-function research,73 was listed as an author.Daszak and his organization is funded not only by Fauci’s NIAID but many other NIH- affiliated organizations, the CDC, the National Science Foundation, and other government agencies.74 Its list of partners and consultants spans the world including the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundations; and many great universities in the US, England, and China. Multiple countries and international agencies are involved and the word “global” is used 14 times in thefew descriptive pages of this nonprofit.The Wuhan Institute of Virology: Origins and American Funding$3.7 million over six years for research that included some gain-of-function work. TheAccording to the April 27, 2020 Newsweek:75Breggin and Breggin Report, p. 27In 2019, with the backing of NIAID, the National Institutes of Health committedBreggin and Breggin Report, p. 28program followed another $3.7 million, 5-year project for collecting and studying bat coronaviruses, which ended in 2019, bringing the total to $7.4 million. ...The NIH research consisted of two parts. The first part began in 2014 and involved surveillance of bat coronaviruses, and had a budget of $3.7 million [fromFauci’s NIAID]. The program funded Shi Zheng-Li, a virologist at the Wuhan lab, and other researchers to investigate and catalogue bat coronaviruses in the wild. This partof the project was completed in 2019.A second phase of the project, beginning that year, included additionalsurveillance work but also gain-of-function research for the purpose of understanding how bat coronaviruses could mutate to attack humans. The project was run by EcoHealth Alliance, a non-profit research group, under the direction of President Peter Daszak, an expert on disease ecology. NIH canceled the project just this past Friday, April 24th, Politico reported. Daszak did not immediately respondto Newsweek requests for comment.Peter Daszak and his EcoHealth Alliance, as we noted above, were also well-knownconduits for additional money from Fauci’s NIH Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases.76Newsweek also commented, “SARS-CoV-2 , the virus now causing a global pandemic, isbelieved to have originated in bats. U.S. intelligence, after originally asserting that the coronavirus had occurred naturally, conceded last month that the pandemic may have originatedin a leak from the Wuhan lab.” Newsweek would never make the connection, but the inexorable process was apparent—Fauci funding ultimately led directly to the making of SARS-CoV-2.The research connections between the US and China are deep and complex, includingFauci’s NIAID funding for gain-of-function studies going to U.S. projects that influenced China,to U.S./Chinese collaborations, to Chinese researchers in their own projects, and to the Wuhan Institute itself.Fauci and NIAID Were Central to the Chain of Activities that Led to SARS-CoV-2Our focus is on the role of NIH and particularly Fauci and his NIH Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases, in helping to bring about this chain of events leading to the pandemic. This is a series of events requiring enormous manpower and funding, and the overcoming of political obstacles, in which Americans collaborated with and financially supported Chinese researchers and the Wuhan Institute of Virology under the watchful eye of Fauci, culminating inChina’s ability to engineer SARS-CoV-2 from bat viruses.Efforts to enhance the virulence of viruses are euphemistically called “gain-of-function”studies—perhaps to hide their deadliness. Fauci is a strong advocate of vaccines and he works closely with Bill Gates and his foundation where he is on Gates’ elite international vaccine board called the Leadership Council.77It is telling that Fauci was so key to enabling the Chinese to make SARS-CoV-2 and then became the international management czar for the worldwide affliction that he helped to create—and now he wants to lead us down the road of worldwide public health totalitarianism to save usfrom “human-made” environmental destruction that allegedly encourages the emergence ofpathogens from nature.78In 2014 the US Government Stops Fauci’s Gain-of-Function ResearchThere were key moments when Fauci could have turned back and stopped funding our collaborative research with Chinese researchers and the military-controlled79 Wuhan Institute.Breggin and Breggin Report, p. 29Instead he was temporarily stopped by a Presidential decree. In 2014, President Obama declared a moratorium on research exactly like that being conducted by Menachery et al. in collaborationwith China on “gain-of-function” research. At that time, the Menachery studies, which wereactively moving along, should have come to a halt. Here is the opening of the October 17, 2014 declaration from the “White House: President Barack Obama”:80Doing Diligence to Assess the Risks and Benefits of Life Sciences Gain-of-Function ResearchSummary:The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and Department ofHealth and Human Services today announced that the U.S. Government is launching a deliberative process to assess the potential risks and benefits associated with a subsetof life sciences research known as “gain-of-function” studies.Following recent biosafety incidents at Federal research facilities, the U.S.Government has taken a number of steps to promote and enhance the Nation’sbiosafety and biosecurity, including immediate and longer term measures to review activities specifically related to the storage and handling of infectious agents. ...Because the deliberative process launching today will aim to address key questions about the risks and benefits of gain-of-function studies, during the period of deliberation, the U.S. Government will institute a pause on funding for any new studies that include certain gain-of-function experiments involving influenza, SARS, and MERS viruses. Specifically, the funding pause will apply to gain-of-function research projects that may be reasonably anticipated to confer attributes toBreggin and Breggin Report, p. 30influenza, MERS, or SARS viruses such that the virus would have enhancedpathogenicity and/or transmissibility in mammals via the respiratory route.That description exactly fits the collaborative studies between U.S. researchers and Chinese scientists from the Wuhan Institute who were only months away from publishing a scientific paper on the creation of a gain-of-function virus by engineering a bat virus to make it virulent and able to infect humans. No other research has surfaced which so perfectly fits what President Obama was trying to stop—but Fauci would avoid stopping it!The Obama government’s description of the moratorium continues:During this pause, the U.S. Government will not fund any new projects involving these experiments and encourages those currently conducting this type of work –whether federally funded or not – to voluntarily pause their research while risks and benefits are being reassessed.This White House order could not be clearer. During the time when the government was investigating the risks of “gain-of-function” research, it would not start funding any new projectsand it asked all on-going projects to “voluntarily pause their research while the risks and benefitsare being assessed.”Menachery et al. Struggle to Keep their Research AliveIn their 2015 publication, Menachery et al. acknowledged the existence of the moratorium on gain-of-function studies, but expressed the belief that it did not necessarily cover them because they did not initially anticipate that they could have succeeded in creating a virulent virus! However, a November 9, 2015 interview,81 given while Menachery’s study wason the way to publication, indicates he had been stopped, temporarily at least:Breggin and Breggin Report, p. 31Breggin and Breggin Report, p. 32He [Menachery]and his co-authors noted they had to stop some of their work because of US government policies. The US has a moratorium on so-called gain-of-function research, which includes some research that enhances the ability of a pathogen such as a virus to infect people or spread among them.There is in fact no evidence that they slowed down their research because they published their results shortly thereafter in December 2015 and again in 2016 without indicating any interference with it.By the end of 2015 NIH granted an exception to the dangerous Menachery study, allowing it to continue. According to Nature: 82The latest study was already under way before the US moratorium began, and the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) allowed it to proceed while it was under review by the agency, says Ralph Baric, an infectious-disease researcher at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and a co-author of the study. The NIH eventually concluded that the work was not so risky as to fall under the moratorium, he says.(bold added).In short, the National Institutes of Health decided that Fauci’s pet project—the epitome of a gain-of-function study—was not really dangerous enough to be stopped under PresidentObama’s edict. The result was a continuation of the research leading to SARS-CoV-2.NIH Strikes BackDecember 19, 2017, under the Trump Administration, NIH announced that it was lifting the ban set by President Obama on gain-of-function research, while adding new restrictions to the research.83,84 Unlike Obama’s ban which came from the White House on the President’sofficial stationery, there is no indication that Trump was involved in the lengthy analysis that predated him. The New York Times commented, “There has been a long, fierce debate about projects — known as “gain of function” research — intended to make pathogens more deadly ormore transmissible.”85 Fauci simply did an end run on the dissent, ignoring it, and quietly lifting the ban.In the various establishment analyses we have read about the controversy surrounding gain-of-function research, including one in Lancet in early 2018,86 there is no hint that any of the studies involved funding China. Even more striking, no mention is made of the most important gain-of-function studies of all, the American/Chinese collaboration by Menachery, published in 2015 and 2016. A New York Times article on the same subject,87 mistakenly claimed that underObama’s ban, all research was halted, including that on SARS, when in fact the SARS research by Menachery et al. rushed ahead to publication during that time. It then mentions exceptions that were allowed to proceed, but none are SARS-related. It’s as if an invisible curtain had been placed over this extremely dangerous research that eventually helped the Chinese capacity to engineer SARS-CoV-2.The Times article does warn against publishing dangerous information, comparing it to the risk of publishing atomic secrets. But it fails to mention we were actually collaborating with China, creating a much greater risk than merely publishing information about the research. It is no exaggeration to say that collaborating with China on building virulent, epidemic viruses was at least as dangerous as collaborating with them or the Russians on building atomic weapons.Meanwhile, the research of Menachery et al. seems to have been unaffected by all of these political machinations. We believe this demonstrates the determination of NIH, andBreggin and Breggin Report, p. 33especially Fauci’s NIH Institute for Allergy and Infectious Disease, to maintain their “gain-of-function” research despite all opposition and all reason.Ignoring the Elephant in the RoomThe elephant in the room is that the U.S. funded and supported China’s efforts to build upits capacity for biological warfare. We could find no mention or discussion of this threat on the part of the Obama or Trump administration or anyone else in a position of responsibility or authority, or in the major media.A number of less-than-major media described Fauci as outsourcing his gain-of-function ambitions to China during the controversy over banning it in the U.S. The Asia Times88published an analysis with this disturbing headline, “Why US outsourced bat virus research to Wuhan,” followed by the subhead, “US-funded $3.7 million project approved by Trump's Covid-19 guru Dr. Anthony Fauci in 2015 after US ban imposed on 'monster-germ' research.”In April 2020, as COVID-19 spread, the British newspaper Daily Mail Online quoted aUS lawmaker’s outrage over directly funding the Wuhan Institute:89US Congressman Matt Gaetz said: “I'm disgusted to learn that for years the US government has been funding dangerous and cruel animal experiments at the Wuhan Institute, which may have contributed to the global spread of coronavirus, and research at other labs in China that have virtually no oversight from US authorities.”An analysis90 published in May 2020 by M. Dowling in the Independent Sentinel, again described Fauci as outsourcing gain-of-function research to China. It helped break ground as we had done a month earlier, by pointing to the danger of giving biological weapons to China:TRUSTING MAOISTSBreggin and Breggin Report, p. 34Breggin and Breggin Report, p. 35Dependency on Communists, trusting Communists, what could possibly go wrong?President Trump’s administration is investigating the $3.7 million in tax dollars that went to the Wuhan lab and Matt Gaetz called for an immediate end to NIH funding of Chinese research. Whether anything will come of it is questionable.The ban on GOF [Gain-of-Function] research in the USA has been lifted. Maybethe USA shouldn’t do it either. When mankind plays with nature, it usually doesn’t gowell.Unfortunately, our press doesn’t investigate or even ask pertinent questions. Somereporters are just too stupid or biased to bother.Imagine if President Trump said our CDC is incompetent so I will pay Russia to do our GOF research?When the original research paper was published in 2015, it did not go unnoticed. The dangers inherent in creating new human coronavirus pathogens in the Menachery research were discussed in a commentary by Jef Akst in The Scientist on November 16, 2015, along withNIH’s decision to allow the research to continue.91 Unfortunately, as so often continues to happen, the danger of the Chinese collaboration went unmentioned! Instead, there is an addendum added to the original report trying to dismiss any such association or concern:Update (March 11, 2020): On social media and news outlets, a theory has circulated that the coronavirus at the root of the COVID-19 outbreak originated in a research lab. Scientists say there is no evidence that the SARS-CoV-2 virus escaped from a lab.Notice that in the update, the Wuhan Institute is not even mentioned, and instead the article refers to “escaped from a lab.” Reports from Nature, The Scientist, and Scientific American among many others, confirm that the progressive media and the scientific community were desperately trying to avoid throwing suspicion on the Chinese Communists for any role in COVID-19, including avoiding any mention that the US government was collaborating with the Wuhan Institute in turning routine bat viruses into pathogens deadly to humans, directly helping the Chinese Communist Party develop bioweapons.Here we see the influence of globalism. People knew each other, people made money from each other, science trumped national security—any kind of funded collaborative research with China was almost untouchable and beyond criticism.If asked, some of the individual scientists would probably have said that “science” is pureand should be shared among competing and even hostile nations for the sake of science and peace. But that innocence is not what rules globalism. The prevailing attitude among globalists seems to be: Never put America first, put our global friends and interests ahead of everything.Of all the technologies we have given to China, how to make highly infectious and lethal viruses from bat viruses may be the most dangerous. Yet, there was a nearly total blackout on US funding for China building biological weapons displayed by the media, science commentators, and politicians. This confirmed the pervasiveness of the globalist viewpoint that has no special interest in protecting American interests or seemingly even in America’s survival,and perhaps not even in the world’s survival, while fortunes are being made and power is beingaccrued.Globalists, when using science to justify totalitarian control, talk about “science” as if it were a universal spirit or god. Since science is a creation of human beings, it is neither perfectBreggin and Breggin Report, p. 36nor pure, but always depends on the human source with all the biases and corruptions and, yes, idealism that humans live by. 92 Meanwhile, we must make sure that Donald Trump’s April 2020 halt of funding for Menachery’s research remains in place and becomes expanded to all gain-of function research, much as President Obama’s declaration originally set out to do. Fauci and his NIH Institute for Allergy and Infectious Disease will do everything they can to get around it. And we must recognize the danger that China now poses as a nation well-armed with the resources to produce innumerable kinds of SARS-CoV pandemics.Escaped Chinese Scientist Confirms the WorstOn April 28, 2020, Li-Meng Yan (MD, PhD), an experienced Chinese virologist at the Hong Kong School of Public Health, escaped to the United States.93,94 Dr. Yan explained to the media that she left China in order to tell the world about China’s coverup about the real source of the deadly pandemic, the Wuhan Institute. She has remained in hiding since, while talking to newspapers and appearing on Tucker Carlson on the Fox News Channel on September 15, 2020.95 She told Tucker, “This virus, COVID-19 SARS-CoV-2 virus, actually is not from nature. It is a manmade virus created in the lab.”On September 14 ,2020 Dr. Yan and three colleagues put online a prepublication version of their new paper, confirming that SARS-CoV-2 is a manmade product of Chinese laboratories.96To describe China’s background in developing the spike protein, Yan et al. explained that this method has been “repeatedly” used in laboratories to create “human-infecting”coronaviruses of non-human origin. To document their observation, the authors cite four research publications. Two of the four citations are to the 2015 and 2016 Menachery papers thatBreggin and Breggin Report, p. 37involved collaborations with Chinese researchers. A third paper is also American in origin and does not involve Chinese researchers; but like the first two, it too is supported by Fauci’sInstitute.97 This array of three papers shows the direct connection between Fauci-funding andChina’s ability to build SARS-CoV-2. The fourth paper involved neither US researchers nor US funding.Yan et al. also cite the 2015 Menachery paper to show that the Wuhan Institute ofVirology has been working on studies to make these “human-infecting viruses.” This directly links the Chinese success in gain-of-function research to their collaboration with the U.S. project funded by Fauci.Yan et al. then go on to make that chilling observation that the Wuhan Institute nowpossesses “the world’s largest collection of coronaviruses.” They follow this with anotherchilling observation that there is no longer any “technical barrier” to the Chinese turning theseviruses into infectious ones through “engineering” a virus to give it “gain-of-function,” that is,the ability to infect humans.This means that the Chinese now have the unlimited ability to keep manufacturing pandemic viruses. This should not be a surprise given their collaboration with the US, plus their own independent publications, and the inevitable desire of the Communist Party of China to create and stockpile biological weapons.Finally, Yan and her colleagues link the engineering history of SARS-CoV-2 directly toChina’s military. Here is one of seven references to the military’s involvement in developments leading to SARS-CoV-2:The genomic sequence of SARS-CoV-2 is suspiciously similar to that of a bat coronavirus discovered by military laboratories in the Third Military MedicalBreggin and Breggin Report, p. 38University (Chongqing, China) and the Research Institute for Medicine of NanjingCommand (Nanjing, China).Yan and her colleagues took great risks in putting their scientific paper online, linking SARS-CoV-2 to the Chinese military. In her personal interviews, many in August 2020, she has been very direct in blaming the Chinese Communist Party and its military. The headline of one interview makes Yan’s view unmistakably clear: 98Li-Meng Yan: Coronavirus was developed in Chinese military lab:The Chinese virologist, who claims she fled to the U.S. after receiving threats due to her research, has accused the Chinese military of creating Covid-19In the first week of October 2020, Dr. Yan reported to several media that her mother had been imprisoned in China in retaliation for her criticism of the Communist government.Breggin and Breggin Report, p. 39On October 8, 2020, Dr. Yan and her colleagues put online a second prepublication article.99 The thrust of the highly technical publication is that China not only created SARS- CoV-2, it prepared the way by creating fake viruses as supposed natural precursors. According to Yan et al., from this and other manipulations of science and scientific publications, the Chinese demonstrate their intention to purposely release the virus as a bioweapon against humanity. As we go to publication, and having reviewed some of the critiques of the article, we do not feel able to conclude from the article whether China intentionally released the virus as a bioweapon (see Col. Sellin’s observations in the next section).Col. Lawrence Selling (Ret) Evaluates the work of Dr. YanThe Citizens Commission on National Security (CCNS) is an organization primarily organized and run by high-ranking military officers including many generals and well-knownconservatives, including Lt. General Thomas McInerney (Ret.) and Former Congressman and Army Lieutenant Colonel Allen West (Ret.). Its stated purpose is to “Strengthen America’s National Security.” As noted earlier, one of its members, Col. Lawrence Sellin (Ret.),100 has been writing detailed analyses of many of the issues addressed in this and in our earlier report, and his writings on COVID-19 are a valuable resource.101On August 4, 2020 Sellin evaluated the publication by Yan et al. (above) after the senior author escaped from China, citing an August review of her interviews titled: 102Refugee Hong Kong Virologist Links COVID-19 to Chinese Military LaboratorySellin provides a good summary of a central portion of Yan’s argument:Breggin and Breggin Report, p. 40SARS-CoV-2 has signs of serial passaging and the direct genetic insertion of novel amino acids sequences for which no natural evolutionary pathway has been identified. Although SARS-CoV-2 appears to have the “backbone” of bat coronaviruses, its spikeprotein, which is responsible for binding to the human cell and its membrane fusion-driven entry, has sections that do not appear in any closely-related bat coronaviruses. SARS-CoV-2’s receptor binding domain, the specific element that binds to the human cell, has a ten times greater binding affinity than the first SARS virus that caused the 2002-2003 pandemic.Furthermore, SARS-CoV-2 appears to be “pre-adapted” for human infection and hasnot undergone a similar natural mutation process within the human population that was observed during the 2002-2003 SARS outbreak.Those observations plus the inexplicable genetic distance between SARS-CoV-2 and any of its potential bat predecessors suggest an accelerated evolutionary process obtainedPerhaps most important, Sellin cites a summary of interviews given by Dr. Yan, including live quotes from the doctor, that provides a very valuable resource worth reviewing in depth.103 Sellin summarizes Yan’s detailed disclosures:Li-Meng Yan, a Chinese virologist who says she fled the country after receiving threats due to her concerns about the origins of COVID-19 and accuses the Chinese Communist Partyoverseen by the People’s Liberation Army.An October 1, 2020, following the same line of reasoning, Sellin examined the question,“Is the COVID-19 Pandemic a Case of Vaccine Research Gone Wrong?”104 In this report, he looks at the intricacies of the engineering involved in creating SARS-CoV-2, turning the bat virus into one highly infectious in human beings, and suggests the virus was attenuated by Chinese research at the Wuhan Institute:In an attempt to dominate global vaccine research and development, China may have hurriedly and recklessly applied genetic engineering techniques, creating and leaking a highly infectious and deadly coronavirus causing a worldwide pandemicOn October 8, 2020, Sellin addressed the second prepublication by Yan and her colleagues.105He introduced his article with the following reasonable observation:Breggin and Breggin Report, p. 41by laboratory-based serial passaging through genetically-engineered mouse models containing humanized receptors previously developed by China.of a cover-up, claimsthat the novel coronavirus originated in a military laboratorySince the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Chinese Communist Party supported by some Western scientists and a politically-motivated media have desperately tried to convince the world that the COVID-19 virus originated as a batAfter reviewing the article by Yan et al., Sellin concludes, “article adds one more nail in the coffin of China’s false theory that the COVID-19 pandemic wasnaturally-occurring.” He does not address whether or not Yan et al. prove that the Chinese military necessarily released the virus as a bioweapon against the world and humanity.We do not wholly reject the possibility that China intentionally released SARS-CoV-2; but we are certain that the Communists arranged to make COVID-19 much more damaging to the world than it needed to be. They did this, among other ways, by withholding information about its existence and its origin in their own labs, by delaying the truth that it was highly infectious, and by shutting down most internal travel in China while flooding the world with airplane travelers who potentially carried the virus. Now we hear from Yan et al. with some confirmation by Col. Sellin that China also created fake viruses in a failed attempt to show that SARS-CoV-2 evolved in nature, thereby delaying a scientific and political understanding of the nature and origin of the virus.The great weight of evidence demonstrates that SARS-CoV-2 was engineered by researchers under the watchful eyes of the Chinese Communist Party and its military.Furthermore, the weight of evidence is that Fauci’s moral, political and financial help enabledthe Chinese to develop SARS-CoV-2, ultimately unleashing COVID-19. The recipients ofBreggin and Breggin Report, p. 42beta-coronavirus which underwent a natural mutation process and was then acquired by humans after exposure to infected animals.Undoubtedly, such subterfuge is meant to protect certain vested interests, including the potentially devastating political and economic consequences for China, global corporate and private investment in China and a negative effect on scientific collaboration and research funding of major Western research laboratories.Dr. Yan’s second scientificFauci’s NIAID support and funding include Chinese collaborating with American researchers, individual Chinese researchers, the Wuhan Institute of Virology, Chinese universities, multiple business intermediaries and, in too many cases, individuals closely related to the Chinese armed forces. The next few sections are deeply disturbing in respect to Fauci and his Chinese connections.Fauci and NIAID’S Relationships with the Chinese MilitaryOn September 6, 2020, Col. Sellin published a blog titled “Did Fauci’s NIH Institute Financially Assist China’s Military?”106 Sellin drew upon his military intelligence background tomake observations on Fauci’s funding of the Chinese military. With his permission, here is the entiretext of his blog, with the links included:Breggin and Breggin Report, p. 43Did Fauci’s NIH Institute Financially Assist China’s Military?by Col. Lawrence Sellin (Ret.) September 6, 2020A disturbing pattern of cooperation between Dr. Anthony Fauci’s NIAID and theChinese military raises questions about technology transfer and the origins of the current COVID-19 pandemic.U.S. patent number 8933106 entitled “2-(4-substituted phenylamino) polysubstituted pyridine compounds as inhibitors of non-nucleoside HIV reverse transcriptase, preparationmethods and uses thereof” is assigned to the Institute of Pharmacology and Toxicology,Academy of Military Medical Sciences of China’s People’s Liberation Army.One of the inventors of that patent, Shibo Jiang, is a graduate of the First and FourthMedical University of the People’s Liberation Army, Xi’an, China. He is a long-time collaborator with institutions associated with the Chinese military and, since 1997, aBreggin and Breggin Report, p. 44recipient of U.S. government research grants from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), headed by Dr. Anthony Fauci.In one of the two scientific references used to support the above-mentioned patent“Discovery of diarylpyridine derivatives as novel non-nucleoside HIV-1 reversetranscriptase inhibitors,” Shibo Jiang is listed as a co-author, along with the four other inventors on the patent.In the Acknowledgments section of that scientific publication, which supports the patent application, three separate NIAID grants are cited, two of which, AI46221 and AI33066, were awarded to co-inventors on the patent, Shibo Jiang and Kuo-Hsiung Lee, respectively.Shibo Jiang and Kuo-Hsiung Lee are co-inventors on another U.S. patent, 8309602, also assigned to the Institute of Pharmacology and Toxicology, Academy of Military Medical Sciences of China’s People’s Liberation Army.Although no scientific publications are listed in the 8309602 patent, you can comparethe chemical compounds with those in “Diarylaniline Derivatives as a Distinct Class ofHIV-1 Nonnucleoside Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitors,” which has as co-authors all the co-inventors of the patent.That research was also supported by three separate NIAID grants, two of which, AI46221 and AI33066, were awarded to co-inventors on the patent, Shibo Jiang and Kuo- Hsiung Lee, respectively.NIAID funding of China’s military research programs does not appear to be restricted to those two patents.Breggin and Breggin Report, p. 45Since 2004, Shibo Jiang has had scientific collaboration with Yusen Zhou, who was a professor at the State Key Laboratory of Pathogen and Biosecurity, Institute of Microbiology and Epidemiology, Academy of Military Medical Sciences in Beijing.It is unclear whether Yusen Zhou also received his education at one of China’s militarymedical universities, but his early scientific work was associated with the Department of Infectious Disease, 81st Hospital of the People’s Liberation Army, Nanjing MilitaryCommand and the Fourth Medical University of People’s Liberation Army, Xi’an, Shibo Jiang’s alma mater.Shibo Jiang and Yusen Zhou are listed as co-inventors on at least eight U.S. patents, the references supporting those patents, for example, 9889194, was research funded by NIAID.Until his recent death, Yusen Zhou’s collaboration with Shibo Jiang continued into the COVID-19 pandemic, publishing a July 30, 2020 Science article together with institutionsassociated with China’s military.In a 2014 article, Shibo Jiang was working with the Institute of Biotechnology, Academy of Military Medical Sciences, Beijing.In 2017, he conducted research with the Translational Medicine Center, People’sLiberation Army Hospital No. 454 and the Department of Epidemiology, Medicinal Research Institute, Nanjing Military Command.Between 2012 and 2020, Shibo Jiang has published twelve scientific articles with the Wuhan Institute of Virology and eleven articles between 2013 and 2020 with the University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB), Galveston Texas.Breggin and Breggin Report, p. 46The UTMB has been designated one of the ten Centers for Research in Emerging Infectious Diseases newly funded by a NIAID grant totaling $82 million. UTMB has at least two permanent faculty members trained at China’s Military Medical Universities, has hadconnections to or former employees from the Wuhan Institute of Virology and Yusen Zhou’sState Key Laboratory of Pathogen and Biosecurity, Institute of Microbiology and Epidemiology, Academy of Military Medical Sciences in Beijing, as well as other Chineseinstitutions.Another new center is the EcoHealth Alliance, a long-time collaborator with theWuhan Institute of Virology, which has been awarded $7.5 million.Given the history described above and before any new funding is allocated, aninvestigation and auditing of previous NIAID grants should be undertaken to determineexactly how much U.S. taxpayer money has benefitted China’s military.We Follow Up on Sellin’s Concerns about University of Texas and ChinaAfter reading the report by Col. Sellin, we began our own search into the connections between China and the University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB), Galveston. We quickly landed on an April 15, 2020 UTMB press release with the arresting title, “The Galveston National Lab and Wuhan Institute of Virology.”107 It was a bit of a shock to see such a proud headline pairing of the American lab with its Chinese equivalent. Here is are excerpts:April 16, 2020 -- The Galveston National Laboratory, located on the campus of the University of Texas Medical Branch, is one of two university-based maximum containment (BSL-4) laboratories in the U.S. focused on the study of highly infectiousdiseases and the development of medical countermeasures. ... The lab is part ofBreggin and Breggin Report, p. 47National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) Biodefense LaboratoryNetwork... Through our Biosafety Training Center, UTMB has provided laboratory safety and security training for scientists and operations personnel in more than 45 countries, including China. The relationship with Wuhan Institute of Virology and the GNL dates back to 2013 and has been facilitated through an ongoing dialogue co- sponsored by the Chinese Academies of Science and U.S. National Academies ofScience, Engineering and Medicine, with cooperation from the Chinese CDC and others.In recent years, we have provided training to scientists, biosafety and engineering professionals, including many from China. [bold is in the original]For many years, the federal government has expressed a growing concern about the infiltration of American scientific programs by the Chinese students and scientists. It turns out that the Galveston National Lab at UTMB, the source of new funding by Fauci, has been an object of special concern because of its many ties to China. For example, a detailed Fox News report108 headlines, “Prominent university bio lab urged to reveal extent of relationship with Wuhan lab at center of coronavirusoutbreak.”As Fauci pumps money into research programs in America such as the Galveston National Lab and lesser programs, how hard will it be determine where that money ends up and how much information related to our national security will continue to flow to China?Here is an excerpt from an April 24, 2020 letter from the General Counsel of the U.S. Department of Education insisting on more information from UTMB and its Galveston National Lab about its complex ties to China and its Wuhan Institute of Virology:109Between June 6, 2014, and June 3, 2019, UT reported approximately twenty-four contracts with various Chinese state-owned universities and ten contracts with Huawei Technologies, all purportedly worth a reported total of $12,987,896. It is not clear, however, whether UT has in fact reported all gifts from or contracts with or relating to the Wuhan MCL, the Wuhan Institute of Virology, and/or all other foreign sources, including agents and instrumentalities of the government of the Peoples’Republic of China. Therefore, to verify UT’s compliance with Section 117, theDepartment requests that your Institution produce the following records...(underline added)The letter from the General Counsel of the U.S. Department of Education to the University of Texas also demands information about almost two dozen specific Chinese businesses, universities and other entities. The list concludes with this ominous demand for information about the University, its Galveston National Lab—and its relationship to the Communist Party of China:The Communist Party of China, its agents, employees, representatives, and instrumentalities (including but not limited to the agents, employees, representatives,and instrumentalities of entities such as the Communist Party of China’s CentralCommittee, Central Office, and Politburo Standing Committee; the General Office of the Central Military Commission; the Chinese Ministry of Education; the ChineseMinistry of Science and Technology; the People’s Liberation Army; the ChineseMinistry of State Security; the Chinese Ministry of Industry and Information Technology; the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs; the Chinese Ministry of NationalBreggin and Breggin Report, p. 48Defense; the Central Bank of the People’s Republic of China; and any People’sRepublic of China province, autonomous region, or municipality).Sellin was right to focus on new Fauci funding for the Galveston National Lab with its multiple and probably inextricable and at times obscure ties to China. If Fauci does not wish to lose his much-valued and carefully cultivated relationship with the Chinese Communist Party, then he may have picked the right place in America to award funding for viral research.At this time, it is probably impossible to fund virus-related research at American universities and facilities while guaranteeing that the Chinese government will not be gaining information relevant to our national security and even to humanity’s survival.Chinese Researchers, Now Suppressed, Identified the COVID-19 Outbreak with the Fauci- Sponsored ResearchBotao Xiao and Lei Xiao are Chinese scientists with numerous scientific publications. Botao Xiao110 received his Ph.D. from Northwestern University in 2011. He then became a postdoctoral Research Fellow at Harvard Medical School from 2011 to 2013. From 2017 to the present, he has been professor at the highly ranked South China University of Technology.Botao Xiao’s research was partly supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation ofChina. Lei Xiao is a published researcher at the Hubei University of Technology in Wuhan. In skeptical discussions of their important paper implicating the Wuhan Institute of Virology as the source of SARS-Cov-2 and ultimately leading back to Fauci, we have never seen any emphasis on their very significant credentials.In a publication on February 6, 2020 published on ResearchGate,111 Xiao and Xiao made the connections that we have been laboriously documenting between China’s capacity to createBreggin and Breggin Report, p. 49Breggin and Breggin Report, p. 50SARS-CoV-2 and research funded by Anthony Fauci and his Institute. The Chinese authors, one of whom lives in Wuhan, begin by rejecting the idea that the virus came from a bat at the city’s food market: “The probability was very low for the bats to fly [more than 900 kilometers] to the market. According to municipal reports and the testimonies of 31 residents and 28 visitors, thebat was never a food source in the city, and no bat was traded in the market.”With citations to the literature, Xiao and Xiao go to document that the Wuhan Institute was working with Chinese horseshoe bats as a source of coronaviruses that can cause severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV). They observed that the Wuhan “principleinvestigator,” Xing-Yi Ge,112 had already succeeded in making a SARS-CoV virus with “the potential for human emergence.” They concluded, “A direct speculation was that SARS-CoV or its derivative might leak from the laboratory.”Xing-Yi Ge, whose work focused on making deadly viruses from bats, was cited by them as doing his original work in the Menachery et al. study. Thus, without intending to, Xiao and Xiao linked the new pandemic to the main “gain-of-function” project funded by Fauci as anAmerican/Chinese collaboration. In other words, Fauci funding of the work of Xing-Yi Ge, who was a coauthor of the American/Chinese collaborative research by Menachery et al., probably led to Ge creating SARS-Cov-2 in the Wuhan lab from which it escaped.Xiao and Xiao punctuate their conclusions, stating, “the killer coronavirus probablyoriginated from a laboratory in Wuhan” and they urge greater safety measures.Xiao and Xiao also say, “In summary, somebody was entangled with the evolution of 2019-nCoV coronavirus.” The America “somebody” who was most “entangled” in the evolutionof what turned out to SARS-CoV-2 was Anthony Fauci, the man who covertly continued to fund this research even after President Obama put a moratorium on it, the man who then overturnedObama’s moratorium on deadly virus research during President Trump’s first year in thepresidency, the man who in October 2020 began more massive funding of this dangerous research in the United States at a university facility with multiple ties to the Chinese, the man who continues to lie by saying unequivocally the virus came out of nature without human engineering, and the man who now blames the epidemic on human progress interfering with nature rather than on himself for his direct, persistent and grandiose support and funding of the projects that led to the Chinese creating at and releasing SARS-CoV-2.Breggin and Breggin Report, p. 51Fearing that Xiao had been “disappeared” by the Chinese Communist Party, we searched the news and have found nothing about him since he reportedly sent a brief email to the Wall Street Journal113 on February 26, 2020 saying he had withdrawn his paper because it was “not supported bydirect proofs.” No one should believe that his remarks were voluntary and we can only hope that he and his coauthor, brave and honorable scientists, are alive and well.Fauci’s Self-Serving Misdirection and Grandiose Political AmbitionsIn a recent “scientific” article in Cell authored with one of his assistants, Fauci lied, claiming without reservation or qualification that COVID-19 emerged from nature on its own and not from laboratory tinkering.114 Then he did more than ignore his own role in funding the engineering of coronaviruses with China, he blamed us—you and me, humanity—for causing the virus by disrupting nature:SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONSSARS-CoV-2 is a deadly addition to the long list of microbial threats to the humanspecies. It forces us to adapt, react, and reconsider the nature of our relationship to the natural world. Emerging and re-emerging infectious diseases are epiphenomenaof human existence and our interactions with each other, and with nature. As human societies grow in size and complexity, we create an endless variety of opportunities forgenetically unstable infectious agents to emerge into the unfilled ecologic niches we continue to create. There is nothing new about this situation, except that we now live in a human-dominated world in which our increasingly extreme alterations of the environment induce increasingly extreme backlashes from nature.Science will surely bring us many life-saving drugs, vaccines, and diagnostics; however, there is no reason to think that these alone can overcome the threat of ever more frequent and deadly emergences of infectious diseases. Evidence suggests that SARS, MERS, and COVID-19 are only the latest examples of a deadly barrage of coming coronavirus and other emergences. The COVID-19 pandemic is yet another reminder, added to the rapidly growing archive of historical reminders, that in a hu- man-dominated world, in which our human activities represent aggressive, damaging, and unbalanced interactions with nature, we will increasingly provoke new disease emergences. We remain at risk for the foreseeable future. COVID-19 is among the most vivid wake-up calls in over a century. It should force us to begin to think in earnest and collectively about living in more thoughtful and creative harmony withnature, even as we plan for nature’s inevitable, and always unexpected, surprises.Fauci declares that COVID-19 is the result of the “human-dominated” world in which welive and he promotes an extreme progressive ideology that massive changes must be made in how we relate to nature. He wants a vast progressive political program to evaluate and change human activity on a global basis:Breggin and Breggin Report, p. 52Disease emergence reflects dynamic balances and imbalances, within complex globally distributed ecosystems comprising humans, animals, pathogens, and the environment. Understanding these variables is a necessary step in controlling future devastating disease emergences.Fauci blames humanity, this “human-dominated” environment, for causing COVID-19, when he is precisely the single man who contributed most to development of lethal, potentially epidemic coronaviruses. He is also among the men to most benefit from the catastrophe through the growth of his Institute and his close relationships to Bill Gates and the pharmaceutical industry.Fauci’s stated position may be one of the most colossal misdirections in history—the American most responsible for enabling the Chinese Communists to engineer SARS-CoV-2 in their Wuhan Institute is blaming COVID-19 on humanity’s indiscretions in nature instead of hisown nefarious activities in funding Chinese and American laboratories. Working with China, Fauci himself has funded and promoted taking viruses out of nature and engineering them to become pandemic viruses; but now he wants us to take his advice on transforming widespread human activity in nature to make us less disruptive!Fauci is the Great Disruptor, whose work enabled China to unleash COVID-19 on the world. He is also among the great benefactors of the epidemic that he helped create, vastly increasing his influence and power, and the wealth of the institute he directs.Now Fauci is announcing himself as radical totalitarian with his new political vision:Living in greater harmony with nature will require changes in human behavior as well as other radical changes that may take decades to achieve: rebuilding the infrastructures of human existence, from cities to homes to workplaces, to waterBreggin and Breggin Report, p. 53and sewer systems, to recreational and gatherings venues. In such a transformation we will need to prioritize changes in those human behaviors that constitute risks for the emergence of infectious diseases. Chief among them are reducing crowding at home, work, and in public places as well as minimizing environmental perturbations such as deforestation, intense urbanization, and intensive animal farming. Equally important are ending global poverty, improving sanitation and hygiene, and reducing unsafe exposure to animals, so that humans and potential human pathogens havelimited opportunities for contact. ... Since we cannot return to ancient times, can weat least use lessons from those times to bend modernity in a safer direction? These are questions to be answered by all societies and their leaders, philosophers, builders, and thinkers and those involved in appreciating and influencing the environmental determinants of human health.In Fauci’s world, concerns such as democracy, the US Constitution and Bill of Rights, or liberty as a primary political principle, simply do not exist. Indeed, something even more basic, the importance of love and human relationship, seems beyond his concern or understanding.dimensional world in which the whole of life is organized around disease avoidance. And there is an additional presumption here that our bodies (via the immune system) have not evolved alongside viruses for a million years. No recognition of that reality.Instead the sole goal is to make “social distancing” the national credo. Let us speakBreggin and Breggin Report, p. 54Jeffrey A. Tucker of the American Institute for Economic Research (AIER) finds Fauci’svision as dangerous and appalling as we do.115 In a report titled, “Lockdown: The NewTotalitarianism,” he characterizes Fauci’s philosophy and the lockdowns very eloquently:116This is sheer fanaticism, a kind of insanity wrought by a wild vision of a one-Breggin and Breggin Report, p. 55more plainly: what this really means is forced human separation. It means the dismantlement of markets, cities, in-person sports events, and the end of your right to move around freely. ...The lockdowns are looking less like a gigantic error and more like the unfolding of a fanatical political ideology and policy experiment that attacks core postulates ofcivilization at their very root. It’s time we take it seriously and combat it with the samefervor with which a free people resisted all the other evil ideologies that sought to strip humanity of dignity and replace freedom with the terrifying dreams of intellectuals and their government sock puppets.Time for Us to ActPresident Trump and the US Congress, as well as the American people, need to know that Anthony Fauci—working in the service of global interests other than the United States—funded research that eventually unleashed COVID-19 upon the world. In addition, this same Fauci- funding has enabled China to possess the largest store of coronaviruses in the world, along with the technology to continue turning them into human-infecting agents. Meanwhile, despite its obvious dangers, Fauci continues to fund gain-of-function research that creates deadly viruses which can leak from labs or be released as biological weapons. It is time to fire Fauci, to investigate this entire disaster, and to consider what needs to be done to protect the US and the world from future lab-generated pandemic disasters, whether accidental or intentional.ENDNOTES1 Although I have written this report in its entirety and take full responsibility for it, I am deeply grateful for the contributions of my coauthor, Ginger Breggin. I could not have written this report without her daily research efforts and insights, including lengthy conversations, both for months before it was written and during the writing, as wellas her editing, making it a truly joint effort. We are both grateful for critique of the report in early stages generously provided by Meryl Nass, MD. My interview of Meryl on The Dr. Peter Breggin Hour radio/TV can be found here:https://outlook.live.com/mail/0/inbox2 Morens, D. and Fauci, A. (2020, September 3). Emerging Pandemic Diseases: How We Got to COVID-19. Cell 182, 1099-1091. https://www.cell.com/action/showPdf?pii=S0092-8674%2820%2931012-63 Coronavirus Resource Center by Peter R. Breggin MD and Ginger Ross Breggin. Coronavirus Resource Center resource-center/4 My August 30, 2020 report, COVID-19 & Public Health Totalitarianism: Untoward Effects on Individuals, Institutions and Society, submitted as a medical expert report for the injunction in federal court to stop the continuation of the emergency edict in Ohio. Our report and further information about the lawsuit are available http://athttps://breggin.com/coronavirus/NEW-COVID-19-LEGAL-REPORT.pdf It is a comprehensive political and scientific document, 134 pages with hundreds of linked references.6 Ohio Stands Up! HOME | Ohio Stands Up!7 Dr. Breggin’s COVID-19 Totalitarianism Legal Report and Resource Center for the Case to Stop Emergency Declaration in Ohio and Elsewhere. Dr. Breggin’s COVID-19 Totalitarianism Legal Report9 National Center for Health Statistics. 2020, Weekly Updates by select demographic and geographic characteristics: Provisional death counts for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), CDC, Under “Comorbidities.”11 American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association, 2020, October 10, Children and COVID-19:State-Level Data Report. Error | AAP infections/children-and-covid-19-state-level-data-report/12 Freed, M. et al., 2020, July 24. KFF Coronavirus Stats (based on CDC data up to July 22, 2020).What Share of People Who Have Died of COVID-19 Are 65 and Older – and How Does It Vary By State? older-and-how-does-it-vary-by-state/ CDC data at https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra- precautions/older-adults.html13 Kulldorff, M., Gupta, S. and Bhattacharya, J. 2020, October 4, Great Barrington Pledge. https://gbdeclaration.org/14 CDC, 2020, February 13, Common Human Coronaviruses, Centers for Disease http://Control.https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/general-information.html16 Sørensen, M. D.; Sørensen, B.; Gonzalez-Dosal, R.; Melchjorsen, C. J.; Weibel, J.; Wang, J.; Jun, C. W.; Huanming, Y.; Kristensen, P. (May 2006). Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS): development of diagnostics and antivirals. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 1067 (1): 500– http://505.https://nyaspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1196/annals.1354.072SARS escaped Beijing lab twice19 Zhang, F., (2004, July 2),21 Kelly, M. & Cahlan, S., 2020, Was the new coronavirus accidentally released from a Wuhan lab? It’s doubtful.,Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/05/01/was-new-coronavirus-accidentally- released-wuhan-lab-its-doubtful/Breggin and Breggin Report, p. 565Special to Richland Source, 2020, September 2. Ohio Stands Up! files lawsuit to remove DeWine's COVID-19 emergency order. Richland http://Source.https://www.richlandsource.com/news/ohio-stands-up-files-lawsuit-to-remove-dewines-covid-19-emergency-order/article_2da0891a-ec56-11ea-8eff-0fc7814ecd5e.html8Thomas Renz interview by Peter Breggin, 2020, September 30, COVID-19 Lawsuit Update with Attorney Tom Renz on The Dr. Peter Breggin Hour, radio/TV on YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIaVZfYv0mI and Thomas Renz interview by Peter Breggin, 2020, September 2, COVID-19 Totalitarianism, The Dr. Peter Breggin Hour radio/TV on YouTube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B671X_0OKIcOctober 10,Weekly Updates by Select Demographic and Geographic Characteristics10 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 2020, Sept. 10, COVID-19 Pandemic Planning Scenarios, CDC. Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)15 Zhang, F., (2004, July 2), Officials punished for SARS virus leak, China Daily.Officials punished for SARS virus leak17 CDC, 2017, December 6, SARS Basics Fact Sheet, Centers for Disease Control.SARS | Basics Factsheet | CDC18Walgate, R., 2004, April 25, SARS escaped Beijing lab twice: Laboratory safety at the Chinese Institute of Virology under close scrutiny, The Scientist.Officials punished for SARS virus leak, China Daily.Officials punished for SARS virus leak20Walgate, R., 2004, April 27, SARS escaped Beijing lab twice, Genome Biology, 4, spotlight-20040427-03 (2004).SARS escaped Beijing lab twice https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/gb- spotlight-20040427-0322Rogin, J. 2020, April 14, State Department cables warned of safety issues at Wuhan lab studying bat coronaviruses, Washington Post.https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/04/14/state-department-cables-warned-safety-issues-wuhan-lab- studying-bat-coronaviruses/23News, 2019, December 17, Chinese institutes investigate pathogen outbreaks in lab workers, Nature. Students and staff at two research institutes have tested positive to the Brucella bacterium, which can lead to serious complications.Chinese institutes investigate pathogen outbreaks in lab workers24Young, A., 2017, January 4, CDC keeps secret its mishaps with deadly germs, US http://Today.https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/01/04/cdc-secret-lab-incidents-select-agents/95972126/New York Times. A Federal Ban on Making Lethal Viruses Is Lifted (Published 2017)27 Bender, J., 2014, July 14, Here Are 5 Times Infectious Diseases Escaped from Laboratory Containment. Business Insider. https://www.businessinsider.com/5-terrifying-times-pandemics-e28 Martin Furmanski MD Scientist’s Working Group on Chemical and Biologic Weapons Center for Arms Controland Nonproliferation February 17, 2014. https://armscontrolcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Escaped- Viruses-final-2-17-14-copy.pdf29 Bender, J. 2014, There are 5 times infectious diseases have escaped from laboratory containment, Business Insider. Here Are 5 Times Infectious Diseases Escaped From Laboratory Containment32 Husseini, S.,2020, May 5, The Long History of Accidental Laboratory Releases of Potential Pandemic Pathogens Is Being Ignored In the COVID-19 Media Coverage. Independent Science http://News.https://www.independentsciencenews.org/health/the-long-history-of-accidental-laboratory-releases-of-potential- pandemic-pathogens/35Klotz, L. and Sylvester, E. The Consequences of a Lab Escape of a Potential Pandemic PathogenFront Public Health. 2014; 2: 116. Published online 2014 Aug 11. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2014.00116PMCID: PMC4128296PMID: 25157347; The Consequences of a Lab Escape of a Potential Pandemic Pathogen36 Husseini, S.,2020, May 5, The Long History of Accidental Laboratory Releases of Potential Pandemic Pathogens Is Being Ignored In the COVID-19 Media Coverage, Independent Science http://News.https://www.independentsciencenews.org/health/the-long-history-of-accidental-laboratory-releases-of-potential- pandemic-pathogens/The Economic Times. How China locked down internally for COVID-19, but pushed foreign travel internally-for-covid-19-but-pushed-foreign-travel/Breggin and Breggin Report, p. 5725 Marin, D., 2014, July 11, CDC Botched Handling of Deadly Flu Virus: The third recent mistake in handling ofpathogens is a “wake-up call,” says Centers for Disease Control head, Scientific http://America.https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cdc-botched-handling-of-deadly-flu-virus/26McNeil Jr., D., 2017, December 19, A Federal Ban on Making Lethal Viruses Is Lifted,30 Young, A. 2017, January 4, CDC keeps secret its mishaps with deadly germs, USA http://Today.https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/01/04/cdc-secret-lab-incidents-select-agents/95972126/31 Piper, K., 2019, March 20, How deadly pathogens have escaped the lab—over and over again, http://Vox.https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/3/20/18260669/deadly-pathogens-escape-lab-smallpox-bird-flu33 Grady, D., 2019, April 5, Deadly Germ Research Is Shut Down at Army Lab Over Safety Concerns, The New York Times. Deadly Germ Research Is Shut Down at Army Lab Over Safety Concerns (Published 2019)34 Vineet D Menachery, Rachel L Graham, and Ralph S Baric. Jumping species—a mechanism for coronavirus persistence and survival Curr Opin Virol. 2017 Apr; 23: 1–7.Published online 2017 Mar31. doi: 10.1016/j.coviro.2017.01.002 Jumping species—a mechanism for coronavirus persistence and survival37 Thomson, B., 2020, China ‘appoints its top military bio-warfare expert to take over secretive virus lab in Wuhan’,sparking conspiracy theories that coronavirus outbreak is linked to Beijing's army. Daily Mail. A small-print note statesit was published February 2020, China's military bio weapon expert 'take over virus lab in Wuhan' weapon-expert-secretive-virus-lab-Wuhan.html38Sen, S. , 2020, April 30. How China locked down internally for COVID-19, but pushed foreign travel39Levenson, M., 2020, Jan. 22, Scale of China’s Wuhan Shutdown Is Believed to Be Without Precedent. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/22/world/asia/coronavirus-quarantines-history.html. January 23, 2020 is often cited in the press as the day of the shutdown of Wuhan, but the actual date, as indicated in this article, was the Thursday before the news came out, or January 16, 2020.40 BBC - Homepage., 2020, August 27, Coronavirus: Flights within China to 'fully recover' next month, BBC http://News.https://www.bbc.com/news/business-5392798041 Nebehay, S., 2020, February 3, WHO chief says widespread travel bans not needed to beat China virus, http://Reuters.https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-health-who-idUSKBN1ZX1H345 Ghitis, F., 2017, October 25. Another week, another scandal at the United Nations, Washington http://Post.https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/democracy-post/wp/2017/10/25/another-week-another-scandal-at-the- united-nations/Candidate to Lead the W.H.O. Accused of Covering Up Epidemics (Published 2017)48 Ross, C., 2020, March 24, “Fully Complicit” in the terrible suffering: Health professionals accused him of covering up the previous epidemic to shield two African regimes. The National Interest: Blog complicit-terrible-suffering-tedros-adhanom-ghebreyesus-blamed-2017-cholera49Higgins-Dunn, N. 2020, February 26,2020. Travel restrictions ‘irrelevant’ if coronavirus becomes a pandemic,top US health official says, http://CNBC.https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/26/fauci-travel-restrictions-irrelevant-if- coronavirus-becomes-a-pandemic.htmlhttps://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-vice-president-pence-members- coronavirus-task-force-press-briefing-11/51 Morens, D. and Fauci, A. (2020, September 3). Emerging Pandemic Diseases: How We Got to COVID-19. Cell 182, 1099-1091. https://www.cell.com/action/showPdf?pii=S0092-8674%2820%2931012-652 Areddy, J., 2020, updated May 26, China Rules Out Animal Market and Lab as Coronavirus OriginThe Wallstreet Journal. https://www.wsj.com/articles/china-rules-out-animal-market-and-lab-as-coronavirus-origin- 1159051750855 Page, J. et. al., 2020, March 6, Missteps, The Wallstreet Journal. https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-it-all-started- chinas-early-coronavirus-missteps-1158350893256 Xiao, B. and Xiao, L., 2020, February, The possible origins of 2019-nCoV http://coronavirus.https://web.archive.org/web/20200214144447/https:/www.researchgate.net/publication/339070128_The_possible origins_of_2019-nCoV_coronavirus58 Breggin, P. and Breggin, G. Written report and video, April 14 & 15, 2020, 2015 Scientific Paper Proves US & Chinese Scientists Collaborated to Create Coronavirus that Can Infect Humans. Published on Home andon Dr. Breggin’s YouTube Channel. Find both at: https://breggin.com/us-chinese-scientists-collaborate-on- coronavirus/59 Breggin, P. and Breggin, G. Written report and video, April 14 & 15, 2020, 2015 Scientific Paper Proves US & Chinese Scientists Collaborated to Create Coronavirus that Can Infect Humans. Published on http://www.breggin.com andon Dr. Breggin’s YouTube Channel. Find both at: https://breggin.com/us-chinese-scientists-collaborate-on- coronavirus/Breggin and Breggin Report, p. 5842 Cheng, E. 2020, February 4. China’s aviation authority to allow more foreign flights after the U.S. bans Chinese carriers, CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/04/china-to-allow-more-foreign-flights-after-us-bans-chinese- carriers.html43 Source of all data: Eder, S. et al., published April 4, 2020 and Updated April 15, 2020; 430,000 People Have Traveled from China to U.S. Since Coronavirus Surfaced, New York http://Times.https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/04/us/coronavirus-china-travel-restrictions.html44 OPride Staff, 2017, May 11, he case against WHO director-general candidate Tedros, OPride.https://www.opride.com/2017/05/11/case-director-general-candidate-tedros-adhanom/46 Chakraborty, B. 2020, March 25, WHO chief's questionable past comes into focus following coronavirus response, Fox News. WHO chief's questionable past comes into focus following coronavirus response47 McNeil Jr., D., 2017, May 13, Candidate to Lead the W.H.O. Accused of Covering Up Epidemics, New York Times.50 White House Briefing, 2020, March 25. Remarks by President Trump, Vice President Pence, and Members of the Coronavirus Task Force in Press Briefing. The White House.53 Cohen, J. Wuhan seafood market may not be source of novel virus spreading globally. 2020, January 26, Science Magazine. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/01/wuhan-seafood-market-may-not-be-source-novel-virus- spreading-globally54 St. Cavish, C., 2020, March 11. Commentary: No, China’s fresh food markets did not cause coronavirus, LosAngeles Times. https://www.latimes.com/food/story/2020-03-11/coronavirus-china-wet-markets57 Mishra, A. and Mondal, D. 2020, April 25. Corona leaked likely from Wuhan Institute of Virology: Experts, Sunday Guardian Live. https://www.sundayguardianlive.com/news/corona-leaked-likely-wuhan-institute-virology- experts60 Owermohle, S., 2020, April 27, 07:02 PM EDT, Trump cuts U.S. research on bat-human virus transmission over China ties, Politico. https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/27/trump-cuts-research-bat-human-virus-china-21307661Breggin, P. and Breggin, G. 2020, May 1, A report and a video, Trump Cancels Funding of US/China Research Making Epidemic Viruses. On http://www.breggin.com. Find both https://breggin.com/trump-cancels-funding-of-us- china-research-making-epidemic-viruses/https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/nih-cancels-funding-for-bat-coronavirus-research-project-6748665 Sellin, L., 2020, August 4, Refugee Hong Kong Virologist Links COVID-19 to Chinese Military Laboratory, CCNS. https://ccnationalsecurity.org/refugee-hong-kong-virologist-links-covid-19-to-chinese-military-laboratory laboratory /66Sellin, L. , 2020, September 6, Did Fauci’s NIH Institute Financially Assist China’s Military? http://CCNS.https://ccnationalsecurity.org/did-faucis-nih-institute-financially-assist-chinas-military/68 Vineet D Menachery, Boyd L Yount Jr, Kari Debbink1, Sudhakar Agnihothram, Lisa E Gralinski, Jessica A Plante, Rachel L Graham, Trevor Scobey, Xing-Yi Ge, Eric F Donaldson, Scott H Randell, Antonio Lanzavecchia, Wayne A Marasco, Zhengli-Li Shi & Ralph S Baric. A SARS-like cluster of circulating bat coronaviruses shows potential for human emergence. Nature Medicine, 21 (12), 1508-1514. December 2015. With follow-up letter included: https://www.nature.com/articles/nm.3985 https://doi.org/10.1038/nm.398569 Vineet D Menachery 1, Boyd L Yount Jr 1, Amy C Sims 1, Kari Debbink 2, Sudhakar S Agnihothram 3, Lisa E Gralinski 1, Rachel L Graham 1, Trevor Scobey 1, Jessica A Plante 1, Scott R Royal 1, JesicaSwanstrom 1, Timothy P Sheahan 1, Raymond J Pickles 4, Davide Corti 5, Scott H Randell 6, Antonio Lanzavecchia 7, Wayne A Marasco 8, Ralph S Baric 9. (2016) SARS-like WIVl-CoV poised for human emergence. Proc Natl Acad Sci US A 113, 3048-53 (2016). Note that the original novel virus is now called http://WIV1-CoV.https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26976607/ Also obtainable http://athttps://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/113/11/3048.full.pdf70 Qiu, J., 2020, June 1, How China’s ‘Bat Woman’ Hunted Down Viruses from SARS to the New Coronavirus,Scientific American. A comment attached to the article defends China: “71 Xing-Yi Ge, Jia-Lu Li1 , Xing-Lou Yang, Aleksei A. Chmura , Guangjian Zhu , Jonathan H. Epstein , Jonna K. Mazet, Ben Hu , Wei Zhang , Cheng Peng , Yu-Ji Zhang , Chu-Ming Luo , Bing Tan , Ning Wang , Yan Zhu , Gary Crameri , Shu-Yi Zhang , Lin-Fa Wang, Peter Daszak & Zheng-Li Shi. Isolation and characterization of a bat SARS-like coronavirus that uses the ACE2 receptor. Nature, 503 (28), November 2013, pp. 535 http://ff.https://www.nature.com/articles/nature1271172 Xing-Yi Ge, Jia-Lu Li1 , Xing-Lou Yang, Aleksei A. Chmura , Guangjian Zhu , Jonathan H. Epstein , Jonna K. Mazet, Ben Hu , Wei Zhang , Cheng Peng , Yu-Ji Zhang , Chu-Ming Luo , Bing Tan , Ning Wang , Yan Zhu , Gary Crameri , Shu-Yi Zhang , Lin-Fa Wang, Peter Daszak & Zheng-Li Shi. Isolation and characterization of a bat SARS-like coronavirus that uses the ACE2 receptor. Nature, 503 (28), November 2013, pp. 535 http://ff.https://www.nature.com/articles/nature1271174 EcoHealth Alliance Partners. Undated, retrieved October 2, 2020 fromhttps://www.ecohealthalliance.org/partners64 Chakraborty, B. & Diaz, A., 2020, July 10, EXCLUSIVE:ChinesevirologistaccusesBeijingofcoronaviruscover-up,fleesHong Kong:'Iknowhowtheytreatwhistleblowers'. http://FoxNews.https://www.foxnews.com/world/chinese-virologist-coronavirus-cover-up-flee-hong- kong-whistleblowerBreggin and Breggin Report, p. 5962 Aizenman, N., 2020, April 29, Why the U.S. Government Stopped Funding A Research Project on Bats and Coronaviruses, NPR. https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/04/29/847948272/why-the-u-s-government- stopped-funding-a-research-project-on-bats-and-coronaviru63Williams, S., 2020, April 28, NIH Cancels Funding for Bat Coronavirus Research Project. The Scientist.67 NIH News Release, 2020, August 27, NIH establishes Centers for Research in Emerging Infectious http://Diseases.https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/nih-establishes-centers-research-emerging-infectious-diseasesEditor’s Note (4/24/20): This article wasoriginally published online on March 11. It has been updated for inclusion in the June 2020 issue of ScientificAmerican and to address rumors that SARS-CoV-2 emerged from Shi Zhengli’s lab in China.”https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-chinas-bat-woman-hunted-down-viruses-from-sars-to-the-new-coronavirus1/73 Subbaraman, N., 2020, August 21, ‘Heinous!’: Coronavirus researcher shut down for Wuhan-lab link slams new funding restrictions: Peter Daszak, president of the research organization EcoHealth Alliance, describes how he has been caught in political cross-hairs over his partnership with a virology lab in China, http://Nature.https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02473-4Breggin and Breggin Report, p. 6075 Guterl, F., 2020, April 27. Dr. Fauci Backed Controversial Wuhan Lab with U.S. Dollars for Risky Coronavirus Research, Newsweek. https://www.newsweek.com/dr-fauci-backed-controversial-wuhan-lab-millions-us-dollars- risky-coronavirus-research-150074176 Subbaraman, N., 2020, August 21, ‘Heinous!’: Coronavirus researcher shut down for Wuhan-lab link slams new funding restrictions: Peter Daszak, president of the research organization EcoHealth Alliance, describes how he has been caught in political cross-hairs over his partnership with a virology lab in China, http://Nature.https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02473-477 Press Release, 2010, Global Health Leaders Launch Decade of Vaccines Collaboration. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. https://www.gatesfoundation.org/Media-Center/Press-Releases/2010/12/Global-Health-Leaders- Launch-Decade-of-Vaccines-Collaboration78 Morens, D. and Fauci, A. (2020, September 3). Emerging Pandemic Diseases: How We Got to COVID-19. Cell 182, 1099-1091. https://www.cell.com/action/showPdf?pii=S0092-8674%2820%2931012-680 Obama, Barack, 2014, October 17, From the White House, Doing Diligence to Assess the Risks and Benefits of Life Sciences Gain-of-Function Research https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2014/10/17/doing-diligence- assess-risks-and-benefits-life-sciences-gain-function-researchEngineered bat virus stirs debate over risky researchNew York Times. A Federal Ban on Making Lethal Viruses Is Lifted (Published 2017)86 Burki, T. Ban on gain-of-function studies ends. The US moratorium on gain-of-function experiments has been rescinded, but scientists are split over the benefits—and risks—of such studies, http://www.thelancet.com/infection Vol 18 February 2018, pp. 148-9. https://www.thelancet.com/action/showPdf?pii=S1473-3099%2818%2930006-987 McNeil Jr., D., 2017, December 19, A Federal Ban on Making Lethal Viruses Is Lifted, New York http://Times.https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/19/health/lethal-viruses-nih.html88 Lin, C. 2020, April 22. Why US outsourced bat virus research to Wuhan US-funded $3.7 million project approved by Trump's Covid-19 guru Dr Anthony Fauci in 2015 after US ban imposed on 'monster-germ' research, Asia Times. https://asiatimes.com/2020/04/why-us-outsourced-bat-virus-research-to-wuhan/90 https://www.independentsentinel.com/report-fauci-funded-gof-research-in-wuhan-due-to-incompetence-at-cdc/91Akst, J., 2015, Lab-Made Coronavirus Triggers Debate, The Scientist. https://www.the-scientist.com/news- opinion/lab-made-coronavirus-triggers-debate-3450279 Thomson, B., 2020, China ‘appoints its top military bio-warfare expert to take over secretive virus lab in Wuhan’, sparking conspiracy theories that coronavirus outbreak is linked to Beijing's army. Daily Mail. A small-print notestates: “PUBLISHED: 06:39 EDT, 14 February 2020 | UPDATED: 13:41 EDT, 14 February 2020,” which is when we first found out about it—long before the new article tries to indicate with its fresh http://headline.https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8003713/China-appoints-military-bio-weapon-expert-secretive-virus-lab- Wuhan.html81Branswell, H., 2015, November 9. SARS-like virus in bats shows potential to infect humans, study finds, http://STAT.https://www.statnews.com/2015/11/09/sars-like-virus-bats-shows-potential-infect-humans-study-finds/82Butler, 2015, April 12, engineered bat virus stirs debate over risky research, Nature.83 NIH Director, 2017, December 19, NIH Lifts Funding Pause on Gain-of-Function Research, Office of the Director of http://NIH.https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/who-we-are/nih-director/statements/nih-lifts-funding-pause-gain-function-research;also, Schnirring, L. 2017, December 19. Feds lift gain-of-function research pause, offer guidance, CIDRAP http://News.https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2017/12/feds-lift-gain-function-research-pause-offer-guidance.83Akst, J., 2015, Lab-Made Coronavirus Triggers Debate, The Scientist. https://www.the-scientist.com/news- opinion/lab-made-coronavirus-triggers-debate-3450284 Schnirring, L. 2017, December 19. Feds lift gain-of-function research pause, offer guidance, CIDRAP http://News.https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2017/12/feds-lift-gain-function-research-pause-offer-guidance85McNeil Jr., D., 2017, December 19, A Federal Ban on Making Lethal Viruses Is Lifted,89 Owen, G. 2020, April 11, Wuhan lab was performing coronavirus experiments on bats from the caves where thedisease is believed to have originated - with a £3m grant, Daily Mail Online.https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8211257/Wuhan-lab-performing-experiments-bats-coronavirus-caves.htmlBreggin and Breggin Report, p. 6192 For a more detailed analysis of the corruption of COVID-19 science, see Breggin, P. and Breggin, G., 2020, August 3, Why COVID-19 Clinical Trials Cannot Be Trusted: The “Gold Standard” for Science Is Gold for the Drug Companies, http://www.breggin.com. Find at: https://breggin.com/why-covid-19-clinical-trials-cannot-be-trusted/95 Carlson, T., 2020, September 19, TV appearance on Tucker Carlson of Li-Meng Yan, Fox News Channel.96 Yan, Li-Meng Yan ; Kang, Shu; Guan, Jie; Hu, Shanchang. (2020, September 14). Unusual Features of the SARS- CoV-2 Genome Suggesting Sophisticated Laboratory Modification Rather Than Natural Evolution and Delineation of Its Probable Synthetic Route. Prepublication. http://breggin.com/coronavirus/The_Yan_Report.pdf. To confirm the date it was put up and to follow the progress of the paper through publication, go to here:https://zenodo.org/record/4028830#.X2R2T5NKiuV97 Becker, M.M. et al. Synthetic recombinant bat SARS-like coronavirus is infectious in cultured cells and in mice. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 105, 19944-9 (2008).https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C33&q=Becker%2C+M.M.+et+al.+Synthetic+recombinant+ bat+SARS- like+coronavirus+is+infectious+in+cultured+cells+and+in+mice.+Proc+Natl+Acad+Sci+U+S+A+105%2C+19944 - 9+%282008%29.&btnG=98 Naveira, P., 2020, August 4, Li-Meng Yan: Coronavirus was developed in Chinese military lab, AS English.https://en.as.com/en/2020/08/03/latest_news/1596459547_022260.html99 Yan, Li-Meng; Kang, Shu; Guan, Jie; Hu, Shanchang. 2020, October 8, SARS-CoV-2 Is an Unrestricted Bioweapon: A Truth Revealed through Uncovering a Large-Scale, Organized Scientific Fraud. http://Prepublication.https://zenodo.org/record/4073131#.X4OpJOaSk2x “You can cite all versions by using theDOI 10.5281/zenodo.4073130. This DOI represents all versions, and will always resolve to the latest one.”100 Sellin, L. (undated) Brief bio on the CCNS website states, “101 Sellin, L., Blogs on CCNS. https://ccnationalsecurity.org/?s=sellin+blogs102 Sellin, L., 2020, August 4, Refugee Hong Kong Virologist Links COVID-19 to Chinese Military Laboratory, CCNS. https://ccnationalsecurity.org/refugee-hong-kong-virologist-links-covid-19-to-chinese-military-laboratory laboratory /103Jones, K., 2020, August 1, [C-19 Disclosure] Who, When, Where, What, How, Why (from Dr. Li Meng Yan), Aug 1, 2020. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6lNtUBiqAw&feature=youtu.be. This is a very valuable resource that in great detail discusses the engineering of SARS-CoV-2 by the Chinese Communist Party and its http://militaryhttps://en.as.com/en/2020/08/03/latest_news/1596459547_022260.html104 Sellin, L., 2020, October 1, Is the COVID-19 Pandemic a Case of Vaccine Research Gone Wrong? http://CCNS.https://ccnationalsecurity.org/is-the-covid-19-pandemic-a-case-of-vaccine-research-gone-wrong/106 Sellin, L. , 2020, September 6, Did Fauci’s NIH Institute Financially Assist China’s Military? CCNS.https://ccnationalsecurity.org/did-faucis-nih-institute-financially-assist-chinas-military/https://www.utmb.edu/gnl/news/2020/04/16/the-galveston-national-lab-and-wuhan-institute-of-virology93 Chakraborty, B. & Diaz, A., 2020, July 10, EXCLUSIVE:ChinesevirologistaccusesBeijingofcoronaviruscover-up,fleesHong Kong:'Iknowhowtheytreatwhistleblowers'. http://FoxNews.https://www.foxnews.com/world/chinese-virologist-coronavirus-cover-up-flee-hong- kong-whistleblower94 Bowen, E. 2020, July 10. Chinese virologist in hiding after accusing Beijing of coronavirus cover-up, New York Post. https://nypost.com/2020/07/10/chinese-virologist-flees-after-accusing-beijing-of-covid-19-cover-up/Lawrence Sellin is a retired U.S. Army Reserve colonelwith branch qualifications and assignments in Special Forces, Infantry, Chemical and Medical Services. He served inAfghanistan and Iraq and participated in a humanitarian mission to West Africa. Sellin holds a Master’s Degree in StrategicStudies from the U.S. Army War College and received training in Arabic, Kurdish and French from the Defense LanguageInstitute. He had a distinguished civilian career in medical research and international business after completing a Ph.D. inphysiology. Sellin retired from IBM, where he was a manager and subject matter expert in telecommunications and commandand control systems. He is the author of numerous national security articles.” https://ccnationalsecurity.org/team/col-lawrence-sellin-ret/105 Sellin, L., 2020, October 9. Dr. Li-Meng Yan reveals China’s fake science and the COVID-19 cover-up, http://WION.https://www.wionews.com/opinions-blogs/dr-li-meng-yan-reveals-chinas-fake-science-and-the-covid-19-cover-up- 333982Permission to reproduce this blog in its entirely was kindly given by the author, Col. Lawrence Sellin.107 In the News, 2020, April 16. The Galveston National Lab and Wuhan Institute of Virology, Galveston National Laboratory, University of Texas Medical Branch.Breggin and Breggin Report, p. 62108 Lynch, D. and McKay, H., 2020, May 1, Prominent university bio lab urged to reveal extent of relationship with Wuhan lab at center of coronavirus outbreak. https://www.foxnews.com/us/university-texas-biolab-wuhan- connection109 Rubinstein, R., Principal Deputy General Counsel, 2020, April 24, Letter to James B. Milliken, Chancellor the University of Texas System: Notice of 20 U.S.C. § 1011f Investigation and Record Request/University of Texas System from U.S. Department of Education. https://www2.ed.gov/policy/highered/leg/ut-apr24-2020.pdf110 Botao Xiao Biography, through 2017, School of Biology and Biological Engineering, South China University of Technology. http://www2.scut.edu.cn/biology_en/2017/0614/c5951a169022/page.htm111 Xiao, B. and Xiao, L., 2020, February, The possible origins of 2019-nCoV coronavirus, Research Gate. [removed from the website] https://chanworld.org/wp-content/uploads/wpforo/default_attachments/1581810860-447056518- Originsof2019-NCoV-XiaoB-112 Ge XY, Li JL, Yang XL, et al. Isolation and characterization of a bat SARS-like coronavirus that uses the ACE2 receptor. Nature 2013; 503(7477): http://535-8.https://www.nature.com/articles/nature12711?fbclid=IwAR1oxB4btiYVmSzncbfTPLtCEORxqfdJygsxayF7cklj3my 1pUF1vC-PUnU113 Areddy, J. 2020, March 5, Coronavirus epidemic draws scrutiny to labs handling deadly pathogens. Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/articles/coronavirus-epidemic-draws-scrutiny-to-labs-handling-deadly-pathogens- 11583349777114 Morens, D. and Fauci, A. (2020, September 3). Emerging Pandemic Diseases: How We Got to COVID-19. Cell 182, 1099-1091. https://www.cell.com/action/showPdf?pii=S0092-8674%2820%2931012-6115 Tucker, J.A. interview, 2020, October 21, Remarkable New Insights On COVID-19, The Dr. Peter Breggin Hour, radio/TV at https://www.youtube.com/user/PeterBreggin116 Tucker, J. A., 2020, October 1, Lockdowns: The New Totalitarianism, American Institute for Economic Research (AIER). https://www.aier.org/article/lockdown-the-new-totalitarianism/https://vaccineliberationarmy.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/COVID-19-the-blog-TREACHERY-WITH-ANTHONY-FAUCI.pdf