top of page


Executive Summary SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus responsible for the COVID-19 disease and pandemic, was made in a laboratory in China as part of its biowarfare program. After two years from the start of the pandemic, no natural source of SARS-CoV-2 has been identified. In contrast, structures within the virus itself have been identified that prove its laboratory origin. It remains unclear how SARS-CoV-2 was released and when. It could have occurred either as a laboratory accident or as a deliberate open-air test by China’s People’s Liberation Army. There is circumstantial evidence that the virus began circulating in China as early as August 2019, but more likely the earliest cases occurred between mid-October and mid-November 2019. From the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, officials and scientists both in China and the United States have actively engaged in a cover-up of its origin and attempted to suppress any discussion that SARS-CoV-2 was not a natural disease transmission from animals to humans. Many of those engaged in the scientific censorship could be considered culpable for assisting in the laboratory creation of SARS-CoV-2 and, at least indirectly, contributing to China’s biowarfare program. Since the 2002-2004 SARS-CoV-1 pandemic, the Chinese military augmented its traditional biowarfare program to include weapons based on biotechnology. To achieve that end, China has fused military and civilian research and implemented a program of massive “scientific chain migration,” whereby Chinese scientists obtain positions in the United States and access American knowledge, skills, technology and research funding. The products from all of that effort is fed back into China’s biowarfare program. Thus, U.S. research laboratories have become little more than Chinese colonies, extensions of China’s fused military-civilian research program and fully-funded by the U.S. taxpayer. As of today, the U.S. government has done little or nothing to slow the massive infiltration of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and People’s Liberation Army (PLA) scientists into U.S. research programs. Three “Smoking Guns” - The Indisputable Evidence for the Laboratory Origin of SARS-CoV-2 SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus responsible for the COVID-19 disease and pandemic, possesses a number of unusual structural features, which make a natural origin highly unlikely. The spike protein, which extends outward from the body of the virus and modulates the binding and fusion of the virus with the human cells, has components that appear to be unique to SARS-CoV-2 and not a consequence of a normal evolutionary process. Foremost among the unusual genetic features of the virus is a small structure called a furin polybasic cleavage site, which can be considered one of the three major pieces of “smoking gun” evidence for the laboratory origin of SARS-CoV-2. Already in 2005, subsequent to the first 2002-2004 SARS pandemic (SARS-CoV-1), furin and other protein cleavage processes were known to increase both the transmissibility and pathogenicity of coronaviruses (1,2). The presence of the furin polybasic cleavage site may enhance the ability for SARS-CoV-2 to infect multiple human organ systems (3,4). Identified already by mid-February 2020 (5), the furin polybasic cleavage site in SARS-CoV-2 is a four amino acid sequence, Proline-Arginine-Arginine-Alanine or PRRA at the junction of the S1 and S2 components of the spike protein, a structure that is not found in any animal coronavirus from which SARS-CoV-2 could have evolved (4). Furthermore, the RR part pf the PRRA furin polybasic cleavage site is coded by the gene sequence CGG-CGG, an extremely rare double codon (6), not found elsewhere in SARS-CoV-2 (7) or in any coronavirus from which SARS-CoV-2 could have evolved (8), a fact even recognized by Chinese scientists by June 2020 (9). =========================================================================== This isolated section defined by equal signs “====” was added on February 23, 2022 as additional evidence that the PRRA segment of the furin polybasic cleavage site found in SARS-CoV-2 was artificially inserted into a bat coronavirus backbone. The information contained herein is based on an article published on February 21, 2022: Ambati Balamurali K., Varshney Akhil, Lundstrom Kenneth, Palú Giorgio, Uhal Bruce D., Uversky Vladimir N., Brufsky Adam M. MSH3 Homology and Potential Recombination Link to SARS-CoV-2 Furin Cleavage Site. Frontiers in Virology. VOLUME 2 (2022). Quoting directly from the article: “A BLAST search for the 12-nucleotide insertion led us to a 100% reverse match in a proprietary sequence (SEQ ID11652, nt 2751-2733) found in the US patent 9,587,003 filed on Feb. 4, 2016 (10) (Figure 1). Examination of SEQ ID11652 revealed that the match extends beyond the 12-nucleotide insertion to a 19-nucleotide sequence: 5′-CTACGTGCCCGCCGAGGAG-3′ (nt 2733-2751 of SEQ ID11652), such that the resulting mRNA would have 3′- GAUGCACGGGCGGCUCCUC-5′, or equivalently 5′- CU CCU CGG CGG GCA CGU AG-3′ (nucleotides 23547-23565 in the SARS-CoV-2 genome, in which the four bold codons yield PRRA, amino acids 681–684 of its spike protein). This is very rare in the NCBI BLAST database. The correlation between this SARS-CoV-2 sequence and the reverse complement of a proprietary mRNA sequence is of uncertain origin. Conventional biostatistical analysis indicates that the probability of this sequence randomly being present in a 30,000-nucleotide viral genome is 3.21 ×10−11 (Figure 2).” The patent mentioned above was filed by the vaccine-maker Moderna, patent number US9587003B2 ( The statistical analysis provided in the Ambati Balamurali K., Varshney Akhil, Lundstrom Kenneth et al. article, cited above, makes it virtually impossible that the PRRA insertion could have occurred naturally. The connections among Anthony Fauci of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Ralph Baric of the University of North Carolina, known for his “gain of function” research on coronaviruses, and Moderna on December 12, 2019 and likely earlier, prior to public knowledge of the COVID-19 outbreak, was discussed in detail in a February 27, 2021 article: Sellin L. HUGE EXCLUSIVE: US Dr. Ralph Baric Was Reviewing Moderna and Dr. Fauci’s Coronavirus Vaccine in December 2019! — What’s Going On? The Gateway Pundit, February 27, 2021. Likely interactions between Fauci, Baric, Moderna and scientists in China, suggest that information contained in the Moderna patent could have been used in the laboratory creation of SARS-CoV-2. =========================================================================== In 2007, PLA-linked scientists, Lanying Du, Yusen Zhou and Shibo Jiang, all of whom would later play prominent roles in the U.S.- China research activities leading up to the creation of SARS-CoV-2 (10), began studying the effect of cleavage sites at the S1-S2 junction on coronavirus infectivity using genetically-engineered “pseudo-viruses” combining the SARS-CoV-1 spike protein with the human immune deficiency (HIV) virus (11). In 2009, U.S. scientists confirmed that the artificial insertion of a furin polybasic cleavage site at the S1-S2 junction of the 2002-2004 SARS-CoV-1 virus enhanced its infectivity (12). In 2004, during the first SARS pandemic, an important patent entitled “Insertion of Furin Protease Cleavage Sites in Membrane Proteins and Uses Thereof” was filed (13, 14). As of today, there have only been 24 scientific citations of that patent. One is by Shibo Jiang and his PLA-trained colleague Shuwen Liu. In 2013, Shibo Jiang and Shuwen Liu, demonstrated the artificial insertion of a furin polybasic cleavage site similar to that found in SARS-CoV-2 (14, 15). That study was directly funded by the Chinese government and a private Chinese biotech company, while Shibo Jiang was also being funded by Anthony Fauci’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) to conduct U.S. biodefense research (16). In fact, during the 21 years (1997-2018) he was being funded by Anthony Fauci for over $17 million, Shibo Jiang maintained continuous research collaboration with the PLA. The above-cited facts alone provide sufficient evidence that the SARS-CoV-2 furin polybasic cleavage site is not a product of natural evolution and was artificially inserted into a coronavirus by Chinese scientists to increase its infectivity. In addition, during the course of the pandemic, mutations have occurred in the SARS-CoV-2 furin polybasic cleavage site making it more “polybasic,” which contributed to an increased infectivity in the Alpha (17), Delta (18) and Omicron (19) variants with mutations P681H, P681R and N679K and P681H, respectively. From the beginning, the SARS-CoV-2 virus appeared to be well-adapted (20), even pre-adapted (21) for binding to human cells because it did not undergo the same mutation and adaptation to humans over time as did the 2002-2004 SARS-CoV-1 virus, but was already, from the beginning, resembling late-stage SARS-CoV-1 infections (22). In fact, SARS-CoV-2 binds to human cells 15-times better than SARS-CoV-1 from the 2002-2004 pandemic (23). Such pre-adaption for human infection can be accomplished in the laboratory by repeatedly exposing coronaviruses to genetically-engineered mice that have the human receptor, a process known as serial passage (24). Serial passaging is the repeated re-infection within an animal or human population, which allows a virus to specifically adapt to the infected species. That process occurs in nature, but it can be greatly accelerated in the laboratory by deliberate serial passaging of viruses in cell culture systems or animals, potentially leaving few or no traces as to whether the adapted viruses are naturally-occurring or laboratory-manipulated. Since 2007, Chinese scientists have used humanized mouse models to experiment with coronaviruses, starting with the 2002-2004 SARS-CoV-1 (25), as a means to increase virulence or to pre-adapt coronaviruses for human infection (26). Dr. Chuan Qin is considered China’s foremost expert in animal models for increasing viral virulence and the use of humanized animals for testing natural or man-made viruses. The second “smoking gun” is an unusual structure within the spike protein near the furin polybasic cleavage site, not found in other bat coronaviruses from which SARS-CoV-2 could have evolved, which may make SARS-CoV-2 far more toxic than first realized (27). The approximately 20 amino acids surrounding SARS-CoV-2’s furin polybasic cleavage site possess sequence and structural elements comparable to those of Staphylococcal enterotoxin B (28). Staphylococcal enterotoxin B acts as a “superantigen” and immune system activator stimulating the release large amounts of cytokines, often called “cytokine storm” and capable of producing multi-organ hyperinflammation similar to toxic shock syndrome. The authors also state that SARS-CoV-2 mutations strengthen its “superantigen” character. As a confirmation of those observations, the same research group demonstrated that monoclonal antibodies directed against the Staphylococcal enterotoxin B “superantigen” inhibit the entry of SARS-CoV-2 into cultured cells (29). It may be no accident that the PLA’s Third Military Medical University has done extensive research on Staphylococcal enterotoxin B and “superantigens” (30) because that center has been implicated in the creation of SARS-CoV-2 (31) and is associated with the recent monoclonal antibody “cure” announced for SARS-CoV-2, which reduces inflammation (32) and may be targeting the Staphylococcal enterotoxin B component of the spike protein. The third “smoking gun” is the de facto scientific recipe for the laboratory creation of SARS-CoV-2 described in the 2018 research grant application to the U.S. Department of Defense’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) entitled “Project DEFUSE: Defusing the Threat of Bat-borne Coronaviruses” (33, 34). That grant application was submitted by Peter Daszak of the EcoHealth Alliance and his primary co-applicants: Zheng-Li Shi, the “bat woman” of the Wuhan Institute of Virology; Ralph Baric of the University of North Carolina; and Linfa Wang of Duke University-National University of Singapore, a Chinese scientist, who also worked at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. In the same year, all the applicants named in that DARPA research grant application participated in the 8th International Symposium on Emerging Viral Diseases in Wuhan, China, October 21-22, 2018. The application was ultimately rejected by DARPA because it involved dangerous “gain of function” experiments that created new human-infecting viruses and because the research had a clear potential for dual use within a bioweapons development program (35). Gain of function research is defined as when a naturally-occurring virus is genetically or otherwise manipulated to make it either more contagious, more lethal, or both. DARPA, however, left the door open for partial funding and it is very likely that experiments were already underway in the laboratories of the principal investigators at the time the application was submitted. The research proposal states that bat coronavirus samples, collected in southern China by the Wuhan Institute of Virology, would be isolated and genetically sequenced in Wuhan, in particular, the spike proteins, which is the binding element for initiating infection. In follow-up experiments conducted by Zheng-Li Shi of the Wuhan Institute of Virology and Linfa Wang of Duke University-National University of Singapore, spike proteins demonstrating “high risk” for human infection would be artificially combined with other bat coronavirus “backbones,” creating entirely new and potentially dangerous coronaviruses, which would then be tested for human infection by Ralph Baric of the University of North Carolina. The 2018 DEFUSE research grant application explicitly states the applicants’ intention to artificially insert furin polybasic cleavage sites into high abundance, but low risk bat coronaviruses found in China and testing the ability of those laboratory-created viruses containing an artificially inserted furin polybasic cleavage site to infect human cells: “We will analyze all SARS-CoV gene sequences for appropriately conserved proteolytic cleavage sites in S2 and for the presence of potential furin cleavage sites. SARSr-CoV S with mismatches in proteolytic cleavage sites can be activated by exogenous trypsin or cathepsin L. Where clear mismatches occur, we will introduce appropriate human specific cleavage sites and evaluate growth potential in Vero cells and HAE cultures. In SARS-CoV, we will ablate several of these sites based on pseudotyped particle studies and evaluate the impact of select SARSr-CoV S changes on virus replication and pathogenesis. We will also review deep sequence data for low abundant high risk SARSr-CoV that encode functional proteolytic cleavage sites, and if so, introduce these changes into the appropriate high abundant, low risk parental strain.” The 2018 DARPA grant application reads like a “confession,” in which the authors express their intention to artificially create a novel coronavirus that is highly infectious to humans, just like SARS-CoV-2. It is likely that sometime in 2018 the PLA, together with a tight circle of Chinese scientists both inside and outside the People’s Republic of China, hijacked that project design. The artificial insertion of the furin polybasic cleavage site into a bat coronavirus backbone could have been done under the supervision of Shibo Jiang in coordination with his military-trained colleague Shuwen Liu and others at the School of Pharmaceutical Science, Southern Medical University in Guangzhou, China. In addition to those named above, there are a number of other Chinese scientists who had the appropriate expertise and may have been involved in the creation of SARS-CoV-2. As is later discussed, the characteristics of SARS-CoV-2 align well with China’s military doctrine and the development of SARS-CoV-2 reflects the modern structure and operation of China’s biowarfare program focusing on novel “biotechnology” weapons with multiple effects. Possible Scenarios Related to an Accidental or Deliberate Release of SARS-CoV-2 Given the absence of any credible evidence that SARS-CoV-2 emerged naturally from animals and mutated to infect humans, the structural anomalies found in its spike protein, makes it logical to conclude that SARS-CoV-2 was made in a laboratory in China and that it was part of China’s biowarfare program. It is, however, yet to be resolved whether the release was accidental or deliberate, for which there is evidence to implicate both scenarios. There have been various reports based on circumstantial evidence that the first infection occurred anywhere between August 2019 (36) and November 17, 2019 (37). The first official documented infection occurred in December 1, 2019 (38), which suggests an exposure to SARS-CoV-2 sometime in late November 2019. It is possible that SARS-CoV-2 was circulating undetected in Wuhan weeks before the outbreak was first detected or that knowledge of an outbreak was officially suppressed. A laboratory accident resulting in human exposure could have occurred at any time under a variety of circumstances. Leaks out of Chinese laboratories occurred in two separate incidents in April 2004 involving researchers infected with the deadly coronavirus SARS-CoV-1, responsible for the 2002-2003 pandemic (39). A report from a confidential source, who was involved in the medical response in Wuhan during the early weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic and familiar with the activities of the PLA, provided information about possible accidental and deliberate release scenarios. According to the source (40):

  • A fully-formed or nearly fully-formed SARS-CoV-2 arrived at the Wuhan Institute of Virology from the PLA Eastern Theater Command in the early months of 2019 for transmission testing on non-human primates.

  • The test team of young virologists was led by Chao Shan (41), who earlier collaborated with the PLA and received training at the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston, where the U.S. Department of Defense funds the Center for Biodefense and Emerging Infectious Diseases with a high-containment Biosafety Level 4 facility for research on dangerous viruses (42).

============================================================================ This isolated section defined by equal signs “====” was added on September 8, 2022. There is now evidence recently acquired indicating that Chao Shan may not have been in China before the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic as originally reported by the source inside China, raising questions about the evidence supporting a deliberate release scenario. See: It may be that the information provided by the source inside China may have originated from second persons, who were not themselves involved, but were describing events that they believe took place. Additional clarification will be provided as new information becomes available. ============================================================================

  • The Wuhan Institute of Virology team was trained by the PLA in simulated coronavirus release and response exercises (43) at Wuhan’s Tianhe airport in September, 2019 for a subsequent live SARS-CoV-2 test release at the October 18–27, 2019 Wuhan World Military Games.

Because SARS-CoV-2 was designed for plausible deniability, infections could not be easily traced back to China and it could also be attributed to a natural origin. The source explained that the subsequent outbreak in Wuhan was entirely unexpected. That is, there was unintended spread among the Chinese population of Wuhan because they had underestimated its transmissibility. There have been persistent rumors of COVID-19-like symptoms among the athletes who attended the Wuhan World Military Games, an issue which has been investigated by the U.S. Congress (44). There is direct evidence from primary sources that the U.S. Department of Defense ordered military athletes not to speak to anyone, especially the news media, about COVID-19-like symptoms they may have experienced during or after the October 2019 Wuhan World Military Games. An accidental release scenario occurring within the same time frame also involves Chao Shan and his team from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, who were charged by the PLA to conduct transmissibility studies of SARS-CoV-2 on non-human primates. Those non-human primate experiments were probably not conducted in the high containment Biosafety Level-4 facility at the new Wuhan Institute of Virology campus in Jiangxia District, 11 miles south of Wuhan, but at the Wuhan University’s Animal Biosafety Level-3 (ABSL-3) laboratory in Wuchang District, which was in the city center. Even the “Bat Woman” Zheng-Li Shi of the Wuhan Institute of Virology said that the Jiangxia Biosafety Level-4 facility did not use non-human primates before the outbreak (45). In contrast, the Wuhan University Animal Experiment Center and the ABSL-3 facility does have the capability to conduct non-human primate experiments. In addition, the presumed leader of the SARS-CoV-2 non-human primate experiments, Chao Shan, lists his professional address, not at the Biosafety Level-4 laboratory in Jiangxia District, but at the Wuhan Institute of Virology’s Biosafety Level-3 facility on Keji Road, close to Wuhan University’s ABSL-3 laboratory. The Wuhan University’s ABSL-3 facility is inside the epicenter of the early COVID-19 outbreak and nearby a major PLA hospital complex and the Wuhan Institute of Virology’s Biosafety Level-3 facility. Additional evidence emerged supporting the contention that the COVID-19 virus might have been released from the Wuhan University’s ABSL-3 animal laboratory while conducting transmissibility studies, perhaps infecting workers in that facility. Although previously honored in 2016 as a Leading Talent of the National “Ten Thousand Talents Program,” on May 6, 2020, Hongliang Li was abruptly removed as Director of the Animal Experiment Center of Wuhan University and as the Director of the ABSL-3 laboratory of Wuhan University, according to the report: “After investigation, no falsification was found, but many papers were found to have the misuse of images, reflecting a lack of rigorous processing of experimental data.” Afterward, an extensive series of safety inspections of Wuhan University’s ABSL-3 laboratory were undertaken and new safety protocols were announced on August 24, 2020, specifically addressing coronavirus research (46). The U.S. Joins China’s Cover-Up of the Origins of the COVID-19 Pandemic They gave away the game early. If COVID-19 was simply a blameless natural transmission of a disease from animals to humans, then why the intentional cover-up? Why the heavy-handed attempts to control the narrative regarding the origin of SARS-CoV-2, largely by the deliberate dissemination of disinformation and the censoring of open, science-based discussion? The lies began immediately. SARS-CoV-2 was circulating in Wuhan for at least six weeks before (47) the Chinese government on December 31, 2019 acknowledged there was an epidemic (48). Astonishingly, the Chinese government initially claimed on January 14, 2020, at least two months from the onset of the outbreak, that there was no human-to-human transmission of SARS-CoV-2, an obvious lie, which China was forced to acknowledge less than a week later (49). Chinese authorities also intentionally underestimated the number SARS-CoV-2 cases in Wuhan in January 2020 to hide the extent of the outbreak (50). Another lie perpetrated by China starting in January 2020 was that SARS-CoV-2 was naturally transmitted from animals to humans and originated in a Wuhan market (51): “Experts from the Chinese Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) said tests confirmed the virus first jumped from animals to humans inside the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market in the heart of city, according to China’s state-owned Xinhua news agency.” After months and endless regurgitation of CCP talking points by mainstream media outlets, China’s claim that the Wuhan Seafood Market was the source for animal-to-human transmission of COVID-19 was totally discredited, even by the Chinese Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (52). The main Chinese lie that SARS-CoV-2 was a naturally-occurring disease transmitted from animals to humans has been more persistent, primarily due to the support provided by China’s allies within governments and among members of the scientific community, all eagerly propagated by the left-wing media. In January 2020, at the same time the CCP was promoting its lie about the natural origin of SARS-CoV-2, scientists in the United States were plotting their own propaganda and censorship campaign to support China’s false claim and to hide their own potential culpability for assisting China in the laboratory creation of SARS-CoV-2. By January 13, 2020, there were already comments on the internet that SARS-CoV-2 was manufactured in a laboratory in China and that U.S. scientists may have helped Chinese scientists obtain the knowledge to do so, specifically in the laboratory of Dr. Zheng-Li Shi at the Wuhan Institute of Virology with the assistance of Dr. Ralph Baric at the University of North Carolina (53). On January 26, 2020, investigative reporter and defense expert, Bill Gertz, who had received the information from Israeli intelligence expert Dany Shoham and Chinese whistleblower Dr. Li-Meng Yan, wrote in a Washington Times article (54): “The deadly animal-borne coronavirus spreading globally may have originated in a laboratory in the city of Wuhan linked to China’s covert biological weapons program.” Already in January 2020, evidence was appearing in the scientific literature that SARS-CoV-2 was created in a Chinese laboratory. On January 31, 2020, infectious disease expert, Kristian Andersen from the Scripps Institute, a scientist who would eventually play a pivotal role in the cover-up of the laboratory origin of SARS-CoV-2, wrote an email to Anthony Fauci, director of the NIAID (55). In that email, Andersen said that COVID-19 appeared to be “engineered” and possessed a “genome inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory.” In other words, SARS-CoV-2 was man-made. It was then that the plot to conceal the true laboratory origin of SARS-CoV-2 by a groups of U.S. government officials and U.S. scientists was conceived (56). =========================================================================== This isolated section defined by equal signs “====” was added on December 3, 2022. A series of ten Twitter comments by Florin_Uncovers posted on December 3, 2022 has provided smoking gun evidence for the collusion between U.S. government officials and scientists mentioned here to cover up the laboratory origin of the COVID-19 virus. Florin @Florin_Uncovers I found evidence on Feb 3 Fauci likely colluded with OSTP Dir. Droegemeier to use NASEM to quash the lab leak hypothesis & misled Trump about the pandemic origin! The OSTP letter copied pro-zoonosis text from Farrar's email to Fauci concluding their Feb 1 call with Andersen. 1/10 2:18 AM ∙ Dec 3, 2022116Likes64Retweets =========================================================================== Within days of his January 31, 2020 email to Anthony Fauci, Kristian Andersen would completely reverse his opinion about the origin of SARS-CoV-2. In a February 4, 2020 email (57) discussing a draft letter to the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, Anderson ridiculed “crackpot theories” that COVID-19 was “somehow engineered with intent and that is demonstrably not the case,” opinions he himself expressed just days earlier. In his February 4, 2020 email addressed to Peter Daszak of the EcoHealth Alliance, who worked on coronaviruses with the “bat woman” Zheng-Li Shi of the Wuhan Institute of Virology prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, Andersen stressed the importance of suppressing “fringe theories” and described any discussion not consistent with a natural origin of SARS-CoV-2 as those of “conspiracy theorists.” Andersen’s adoption of CCP propaganda that SARS-CoV-2 was naturally-occurring played out within the context of a larger effort by U.S. government officials and U.S. scientists directly linked to China’s coronavirus research programs to control the narrative related to the origin of SARS-CoV-2. No doubt encouraged by Anthony Fauci and National Institutes of Health Director Francis Collins, Kelvin Droegemeier, a product of the Republican establishment and then Director of the White House’s Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), wrote the February 3, 2020 letter (58) to Dr. Marcia McNutt, president of the National Academy of Sciences, asking: “the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) to rapidly examine information and identify data requirements that would help determine the origins of 2019-nCoV, specifically from an evolutionary/structural biology standpoint.” Oddly, according to his letter, Droegemeier’s concern was precipitated by an obscure, non-peer-reviewed and already retracted Indian study “Uncanny similarity of unique inserts in the 2019-nCoV [SARS-CoV-2] spike protein to HIV-1 gp120 and Gag,” published on January 31, 2020 (59), which Droegemeier probably did not read, but was suggested to him as a scientific strawman by Fauci and Collins. The motive for the subterfuge was likely a desire not to be forced to confront China for creating SARS-CoV-2 and to protect U.S. government officials and U.S. scientists from culpability for helping China do it. Nevertheless, based on the scientists enlisted to formulate a response (60) to OSTP’s request, the outcome of Droegemeier’s inquiry was preordained, that is, the complete absolution of China’s responsibility for the COVID-19 pandemic. Those scientists were Kristian G. Andersen (Scripps Research Institute), Ralph Baric (University of North Carolina), Trevor Bedford (Fred Hutchinson Cancer Institute, Seattle, Washington), Aravinda Chakravarti (New York University School of Medicine), Peter Daszak (EcoHealth Alliance), Gigi K. Gronvall (Johns Hopkins University’s Bloomberg School of Public Health), Tom Inglesby (Johns Hopkins University’s Center for Health Security), and Stanley Perlman (University of Iowa). By citing a scientific article (61) from the Wuhan Institute of Virology stating the disease outbreak “started from a local seafood market,” the National Academy of Science’s letter to OSTP unequivocally supported the contention made by CCP government that the COVID-19 pandemic was a naturally-occurring transmission from animals to humans. Additionally, the three presidents of the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine recommended that the United States continue to work closely with China, in particular, the Chinese Academy of Sciences and the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Most of the scientists consulted for the National Academy of Science response had long histories of collaboration with China and/or were later associated with a robust support of China and the theory that SARS-CoV-2 originated as a naturally-occurring disease. In some important respects, the final National Academy of Sciences response dated February 6, 2020 (60), bears little resemblance to the original draft, dated February 4, 2020 (57). According to the email exchanges between the National Academy of Science and the consultant scientists, there appeared to be a clear effort by the scientists to support the naturally-occurring theory and to eliminate or downplay any mention that SARS-CoV-2 was engineered, had unique human binding characteristics, might mutate towards higher infectivity and possessed a furin polybasic cleavage site not found in any related bat coronavirus. Subsequently, scientists consulted for National Academy of Sciences response began their own public relations campaign to support China and the theory that SARS-CoV-2 was a natural transmission from animals to humans. On March 7, 2020, Peter Daszak led a group of like-minded scientists, who published an article (62) in the British medical journal The Lancet, which stated “We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that SARS-CoV-2 does not have a natural origin.” In addition to Daszak, many of the authors of The Lancet article could be considered complicit in the laboratory origin of SARS-CoV-2 and, therefore, want to suppress any objective investigation, or, for financial and professional reasons, have a vested interest in uninterrupted research collaboration with China. The list of U.S. authors on The Lancet article includes: Dennis Carroll of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), who designed and supervised the PREDICT project with Jonna Mazet of the University of California, Davis, global director of the PREDICT project; Rita Colwell of the University of Maryland; James M. Hughes of Emory University; William B Karesh of the World Organization for Animal Health in New York; Gerald T Keusch of Boston University; Larry Madoff of Massachusetts Medical School; Peter Palese of the Icahn School of Medicine, Mt Sinai Hospital, New York; Stanley Perlman of the University of Iowa; and Linda Saif of Ohio State University. At least some of the USAID funding to support the PREDICT project was devoted to collaboration with Chinese scientists (63, 64, 65, 66, 67), upon which the success and continuation of the PREDICT project largely depended. One coronaviruses research study supported by USAID PREDICT funding involved Peter Daszak and Hume E. Field, another author of The Lancet article, and the “bat woman” Zheng-Li Shi of the Wuhan Institute of Virology, but, strangely, no one from the PREDICT project itself (68). Such a financial arrangement is reminiscent of layers of shell companies participating in money laundering. In any case, funding for the PREDICT program was ended in the autumn of 2019 just prior the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic (69). On March 17, 2020, Kristian G. Andersen appeared as senior author on the article “The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2,” which claimed that SARS-CoV-2 was “not a purposefully manipulated virus” (70). On September 21, 2020, Gigi K. Gronvall was part of a Johns Hopkins University team that wrote a criticism (71) of Chinese whistleblower Dr. Li-Meng Yan, who presented evidence (31) that SARS-CoV-2 was created in a laboratory. It is also well-known that Ralph Baric has been a long-time collaborator with Zheng-Li Shi, the “bat woman” from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, including conducting experiments involving highly dangerous gain of function research. As described by Neil Patel in the Daily Signal (72), Peter Daszak, the sole U.S. representative on the World Health Organization team investigating the origin of SARS-CoV-2, is also a close associate of Zheng-Li Shi and was a key figure in directing American taxpayer funds to the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Daszak even organized a public relations campaign (72) to paint the lab leak hypothesis as a “conspiracy” before any thorough investigation had been conducted. His spokesperson later said the goal was to protect the lab’s scientists, but ultimately and, perhaps intentionally, the beneficiaries were China, international financial interests, the global scientific establishment and, in particular, members of the scientific community, like Peter Daszak, who could be considered culpable for the COVID-19 pandemic. Scientists potentially culpable for the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic were not the only ones reinforcing the CCP’s propaganda campaign that SARS-CoV-2 was naturally-occurring. ============================================================================ This isolated section defined by equal signs “====” was added on September 8, 2022 as a further explanation of the origin of the article “No credible evidence supporting claims of the laboratory engineering of SARS-CoV-2” described below. As described above, in late January and early February of 2020, U.S. government officials, including Anthony Fauci of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, colluded with a select group of U.S. scientists led by Peter Daszak of the EcoHealth Alliance to promote the Chinese Communist Party’s narrative that the COVID-19 virus was a natural transmission from animals to humans and also to suppress all discussion of the laboratory origin as a conspiracy theory. The U.S. government officials and U.S. scientists involved in the cover-up of the laboratory origin of COVID-19 were likely doing so to protect their careers from accusations of complicity in or culpability for the creation of an artificial virus that, so far, has infected over 600 million people and killed 6.4 million of them. In parallel, there were separate attempts by Chinese scientists working in the U.S. to echo China’s naturally-occurring theory as the cause of the COVID-19 pandemic. In contrast to the U.S. government officials and U.S. scientists, the efforts by Chinese scientists in the U.S. may have been influenced by direct or indirect instructions emanating from the Chinese Communist Party. Some of the following information came from a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request by U.S. Right to Know. At an unknown date before February 11, 2020, a time when there was no conclusive evidence regarding the origin of COVID-19, Shan Lu, a professor at the University of Massachusetts Medical School and Editor of the Chinese journal “Emerging Microbes and Infections” based in Shanghai, asked two other Chinese immigrant scientists, Shan-Lu Liu of Ohio State University and Lishan Su, then at the University of North Carolina, to write an opinion article mirroring the Chinese Communist Party’s contention that COVID-19 came from nature. After emigrating to the United States from Communist China, all three, Shan Lu, Shan-Lu Liu and Lishan Su maintained an active virus research collaboration with scientists of China’s People’s Liberation Army, while also being funded by the U.S. National Institutes of Health. Between February 11, 2020 and February 13, 2020, the title of the article changed, becoming more favorable to the narrative promoted by the Chinese Communist Party, evolving from “Is 2019-nCoV of laboratory origin?” to “SARVS-CoV-2: no evidence of a laboratory origin” to the final title “No credible evidence supporting claims of the laboratory engineering of SARS-CoV-2.” During those two days, two other authors enthusiastically joined the effort, Linda Saif, also of Ohio State University, and Susan R. Weiss of the University of Pennsylvania, both long-established research collaborators with Chinese scientists. Well-known “gain of function” scientist Ralph Baric of the University of North Carolina reviewed and corrected the article prior to publication, but asked the authors not to reveal his participation in preparing the manuscript for submission. The article was submitted to the Chinese journal “Emerging Microbes and Infections” at 10:58 PM U.S. Eastern Time on February 12, 2020. It was accepted for publication the next morning on February 13, 2020 at 9:49 AM U.S. Eastern Time, no doubt the fastest manuscript acceptance in the history of science. There was only one reviewer, perhaps the Editor Shan Lu himself, who wrote likely the shortest and most ridiculous review in the history of science: “This is a timely commentary. It is perfectly written. All four authors are well established virologists. I suggest to publish it right away.” Publication of the article (shown below) “No credible evidence supporting claims of the laboratory engineering of SARS-CoV-2” was obviously politically-motivated. Months later, there were continuing discussions on a private Chinese language WeChat group to encourage Chinese scientists to publish articles supporting the Chinese Communist Party’s contention that COVID-19 originated from nature, not from a laboratory. ============================================================================ Linda Saif, who appears in Peter Daszak’s February 2020 email exchanges, and Shan-Lu Liu, her China-trained colleague at Ohio State University, wrote an article (73) in which they praised Chinese virologists, supported China’s claim that SARS-CoV-2 was a natural outbreak originating in the Wuhan market and recommended that scientific collaboration between the U.S. and China continue uninterrupted. That article was followed on February 22, 2020 by a second even more strongly-worded article backing the arguments of the CCP. Joined by Susan Weiss of the University of Pennsylvania and China-trained Lishan Su of the University of North Carolina, Linda Saif and Shan-Lu Liu published an article in the China-controlled journal Emerging Microbes and Infections entitled “No credible evidence supporting claims of the laboratory engineering of SARS-CoV-2” (74). In that article, the authors unequivocally endorsed the CCP’s narrative that SARS-CoV-2 was “generated in nature,” calling any suggestions that SARS-CoV-2 originated in a laboratory “speculations, rumors and conspiracy theories.” Both China-trained scientists Shan-Lu Liu (75) and Lishan Su (76) have had research collaboration with the PLA while being funded by Anthony Fauci’s NIAID (77). The cover-up of the laboratory origin of SARS-CoV-2 continues to this day, perpetrated by U.S. government officials and U.S. scientists, who could be considered culpable in the creation of SARS-CoV-2 and the initiation of the COVID-19 pandemic or have professional and financial interests in sustaining research collaboration with China. There are also Chinese scientists, who have migrated to the United States, but maintain allegiance to and assist in efforts to propagate CCP propaganda in the United States. Furthermore, the characteristics of SARS-CoV-2 aligns well with China’s military doctrine and its development was reflective of the biotechnology-weapons approach of China’s biowarfare program. The Evolution of China’s Military Doctrine Underlying Biotechnology Weapons The origin and traditional core of China’s biowarfare program is not medical, but veterinary and to some extent agricultural. Officially known by the name the Epidemic Prevention and Water Purification Department of the Kwantung Army in Manchuria, Unit 731 was actually a covert biological and chemical warfare research and development program of the Imperial Japanese Army during World War Two. When the CCP subjugated mainland China in 1949, the PLA took control of Unit 731 and the Institute of Horse Disease, Continental Academy of Sciences, also founded by the Imperial Japanese Army in Manchuria. According to the memoirs of the Japanese Kwantung Army, veterinary research and military horse healthcare were used as covers to hide the true purpose of the Manchurian facilities, the study and production of biological weapons. It appears that the Chinese PLA adopted, not only its resources, but also the modus operandi of the Imperial Japanese Army. In 1953, the four PLA Veterinary Universities in China were merged into a single large institution in Changchun, a mere 140 miles south of the former location of Unit 731. The Institute of Military Veterinary Research encompassed research departments within the nearby universities in Jilin Province. In parallel and like its Imperial Japanese Army namesake, “Warhorse Health Institutes” were established in Beijing, Chengdu, Guangzhou, Nanjing and Yunnan, roughly corresponding with the regional military commands. That veterinary research network, led by the PLA and supervised by the Chinese Academy of Military Medical Sciences, is a core command and control element for China’s biowarfare program that has been responsible for the collection of bacteria and viruses with potential use as bioweapons In recent years, two military veterinarians, Xianzhu Xia and Ningyi Jin have provided the leadership. They are both members of the Academic Advisory Committee of the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and worked together at the Institute of Military Veterinary Research and the Institute of Zoonotic Diseases in Changchun. At least four associates of Xianzhu Xia and Ningyi Jin have been engaged in a massive domestic and international virus collection effort for over eight years: Biao He, Quanshui Fan, Changchun Tu and Zhiqiang Wu. Biao He, together with Changjun Wang of the Third Military Medical University, played a key role in the isolation of bat coronaviruses ZC45 and ZXC21, claimed by Chinese whistleblower Dr. Li-Meng Yan as the viral backbones for SARS-CoV-2 (31). The onset of the first SARS-CoV-1 pandemic in 2002 caused a major shift in the virus research activities of the PLA, its doctrinal approach to biowarfare and its exploitation of Chinese scientists who had migrated to U.S. laboratories and became contributors to China’s biowarfare programs. PLA strategists began writing articles about new forms of biowarfare (78). In 2005, Colonel Ji-Wei Guo of the Third Military Medical University in Chongqing, described a new type of bioweapon (79). Colonel Guo rejected the clumsy, traditional biological weapons that produced mass destruction, ones that, in his words: “depend on microbiology, especially bacteriology, which uses destructive bacteria, viruses, and toxic living bodies obtained directly from the natural world. These weapons are subject to nature, are difficult to control, and have irreversible effects.” China would use biotechnology to create new forms of designed “biotechnology weapons” that would be “controllable” and “recoverable” for which China would have sole possession of the vaccine or antidote. Such weapons would be highly contagious, but of low lethality, capable of being deployed in “pre-war” conditions to obtain strategic advantage for China without the destructive effects of conventional or nuclear weapons on infrastructure. In the PLA’s own words, bioweapons should be used in a way that can avoid global condemnation. According to Chinese military doctrine, a primary consideration in the choice of a bioweapon is “plausible deniability.” Bioweapons should be deployed covertly and if suspected, the biowarfare agent can be disguised in such a way that even the most sophisticated analysis would be inconclusive as to its origin. That is, the bioweapon can be blamed on nature, just like SARS-CoV-2. In his 2008 book, “Biological Outlook on War and Foresight of Biotechnology Supremacy,” Colonel Guo elaborated on the application of biotechnology in bio-based war, representing the “Third Leap” in military strategy: “The third leap includes biotechnology and related sciences that develop and grow on the basis of information technology (including advanced computer and communication), nano-science and other convergence technologies, where biotechnology and biomedical science (including genetic engineering), cognitive science (including cognitive neuroscience) are comprehensively applied. It will cause huge quantitative changes in the combat environment, combat methods, space-time relationship, military structure and function, and will eventually cause new qualitative changes, which will bring about profound changes in modern military history. The operational level change brought by this military transformation is the further extension of the theory of power control with modern biotechnology as the main feature.” Between 2010 and 2018, Colonel Guo and his PLA colleagues wrote a series of articles in Chinese military journals about biotechnology weapons and bio-based warfare (80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86). Colonel Guo’s comments did not just represent the random musings of one particular Chinese military officer, but were concepts embraced by China’s PLA and became embedded in its military doctrine (87). In his 2012 article “Development of military biotechnology and the future of bio-based war,” Major General Fu-Chu He wrote: “As an emerging technology, military biotechnology expands the concept of weaponry and equipment, and becomes an important driving force behind the weaponry and equipment development. In recent years, great breakthroughs have been made in many fields of military biotechnology, such as synthetic biology, brain-computer interface and brain control, biological materials, bio-inspired machinery, bio-fuels, bio-electronics, bio-computing and non-lethal weapons, leading to the birth of new operational concepts. In future wars, military biotechnology will promote the bio-based weaponry and equipment, bio-based forces and bio-based combat style.” Major General Fu-Chu He was President of the Academy of Military Medical Sciences (88), Vice President of China’s Academy of Medical Sciences, an Alternate Member of the 18th Central Committee of the CCP (89) and Vice Director of Scientific and Technical Committee affiliated to Central Military Commission (90), which is China’s equivalent of the U.S. Department of Defense’s DARPA, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. Major General Chen Wei is presently the Director of the Institute of Biotechnology, Academy of Military Medical Sciences and presumed head of China’s biological warfare program. She was placed in command of the “clean up” operation in Wuhan after local authorities lost control of the COVID-19 outbreak. She also led China’s effort to create a COVID-19 vaccine. Published in 2014, Major General Chen Wei co-authored the book “Biotechnology Development Yearbook, 2013,” which described the major biotechnological advances and their impact on military medical science (91). The book contained 10 sections with 25 specific biotechnological topics including gene manipulation, synthetic biology, gene sequencing, biotherapeutics, biomaterials, bioinformatics, bio-imaging, cloning, and neurobiology. All of China’s research and development resources have been marshalled for biotechnology dominance. In 2016, the Thirteenth Five-Year Plan’s Science and Technology Military-Civilian Fusion Program was launched by the Scientific and Technical Committee affiliated with the Central Military Commission (92) with a focus on “synthetic biology” (93). That is, “making biology easier to engineer” as China’s research partner Gigi Gronvall of Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security has stated (94), and who is also member of the plot to cover up the laboratory origin of SARS-CoV-2 (57, 71). That program incorporated all Chinese universities, pharmaceutical companies and “civilian” research centers, like the Wuhan Institute of Virology, into the PLA’s biotechnology warfare effort. It is not then surprising that Major General Chen Wei’s predecessor as Director of the Institute of Biotechnology and retired Vice President of the Academy of Military Medical Sciences, Major General Pei-Tang Huang became an independent director of Hualan Biological Bacterin Inc. on April 26, 2019 (95). Given the intensity of the military-civilian research fusion program, perhaps it is no coincidence that in the two to three months after Pei-Tang Huang’s appointment, the chief executive officers of 23 multinational and domestic pharmaceutical companies across China resigned or retired, including Sanofi, Roche, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb and General Electric Healthcare (96). Today, China’s biowarfare program exists at three levels: There is a core, secret military level, which is composed of military research institutes and military hospitals. The second level includes all Chinese universities and “civilian” research centers, like the Wuhan Institute of Virology. That second level allows the core secret military level to access knowledge, skills, technology and research funding from the third level of China’s biowarfare program, international universities and research centers, particularly those in the United States. PLA scientists also affiliate themselves with second level Chinese universities, often agricultural, and also “civilian” research centers, which allows them to collaborate with and sometimes work in U.S. research laboratories, while deliberately hiding their true positions as members of the China’s military. The three-level structure of China’s biowarfare program has created a massive support network of scientists and research centers both inside China and connected to Chinese scientists based in the United States, who access American knowledge, skills and technology, all of which is fed back into China’s biowarfare program. One example of China’s three-level biowarfare program is research on Flaviviruses. Although also RNA viruses like SARS-CoV-2, they are far more lethal, including some of the hemorrhagic fever viruses; dengue virus, yellow fever virus, tick-borne encephalitis virus, Zika virus, West Nile virus, and several other viruses which may cause encephalitis. The organization of China’s flavivirus biowarfare program illustrates the fusion of military and civilian research and its links to U.S. personnel and resources as shown in the following images. Level 1 – Core, secret military bioweapons program involved in Flavivirus research. Level 2 – Chinese universities and civilian research centers involved in Flavivirus research. Level 3 – Scientists from the People’s Republic of China working in the U.S. and funded by Anthony Fauci’s NIAID conducting Flavivirus research with scientists in the People’s Republic of China, some from the PLA. The extensive research links between Pei-Yong Shi of the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston and the Chinese PLA have been described in detail (97, 98). The Thirty-Year “Scientific Chain Migration” to the United States of Chinese scientists loyal to the People’s Republic of China The growth of China’s biotechnology sector and biowarfare program was dependent on accessing knowledge, skills and technologies from outside China (99, 100), particularly from universities in the United States, which would be eager to collaborate with China and accept CCP money. To achieve that end, CCP leader, Deng Xiaoping and U.S. president Jimmy Carter (101), in 1979, signed (102) an historic agreement for science and technology exchange of which the China-United States Biochemistry Examination and Application (CUSBEA) program was a part (103). That program involved over 60 U.S. universities and soon afterwards thousands of Chinese students and scholars began flooding into the United States, many obtaining permanent positions and becoming U.S. citizens., but maintaining allegiance to the CCP. In a process one can call “scientific chain migration,” successive waves of CCP and PLA scientists would establish themselves in U.S. research institutions and then invite other CCP and PLA scientists into their U.S. laboratories to access American knowledge, skills, technologies and U.S. government funding, which, in turn, would be fed into China’s research and development programs, including those of China’s military. President Bill Clinton expanded the Carter-Deng Xiaoping agreement openly inviting Chinese military scientists into U.S. Department of Defense research centers including the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases at Fort Detrick (104). Some of those invited into U.S. military facilities, like Liang-Ming Liu and Dai-Zhi Peng were clearly identified as PLA officers, other CCP scientists and PLA officers hid their backgrounds. But no one in the Clinton Administration bothered to check. Jing-Ning Huan, also known as Jing-Ning Xun, lists his educational institution as the Shanghai Second Medical University. It is actually the Second Military Medical University of the PLA. Jing-Ning Huan eventually landed in the laboratory of Dr. Allan Z. Zhou at the University of Pittsburgh (105). We do not know the full background of Dr. Zhou, but he has since returned to China at the School of Biomedical and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Guangdong University of Technology (106). The educational background of Guo-Ping Li is unclear, but she held a permanent position with Bell-Northern Research Ltd. in Canada before accepting a temporary research position studying advanced laser technologies under the same U.S. Army program that brought the PLA officers to the U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command (104). It is also unclear why Guo-Ping Li is wearing a U.S. Army uniform while studying advanced laser technologies at the U.S. Army Medical Research Detachment in San Antonio, Texas, or what happened to her afterward. There is a Guo-Ping Li now working for the Chinese space program using laser technologies (107) for radio telescopes (108). Under the same Pentagon program, the Clinton Administration recruited Chunyuan Luo and Chunsheng Xiang (104). Immediately prior to becoming an employee of the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, Chunyuan Luo worked at the Institute of Pharmacology and Toxicology, Academy of Military Medical Sciences in Beijing, an element of China’s chemical warfare program (109). For more than ten years at Walter Reed, Chunyuan Luo studied issues related to chemical warfare including direct collaboration with the US Army Medical Research Institute of Chemical Defense at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland (110). After leaving Walter Reed in 2012, Chunyuan Luo became a patent examiner for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office covering the areas of his expertise. Chunyuan Luo appears on a talent database some consider as an indication of the CCP’s interest or friendship (111). Chunsheng Xiang, a citizen of the People’s Republic of China and a CCP member, lied about his nationality being Canadian. Nevertheless, he was assigned to the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases, where he studied the highly pathogenic and potential biological warfare agent, the Ebola virus. Chunsheng Xiang is now a professor at Zhejiang University and well-connected to the higher echelons of the CCP and the PLA. In 2011, President Barack Obama extended, indefinitely, the Carter-Deng Xiaoping scientific exchange agreement. A partial estimate of China’s infiltration of U.S. research programs and industries resulting from the CUSBEA program can be seen online (103). Xiao-fan Wang and his wife Xin-nian Dong are graduates of Wuhan University, who came to the United States under the CUSBEA program and are now professors at Duke University (101). Xiao-fan Wang is a “foreign” member of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and Xin-nian Dong is a member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. Qi-Jing Li is a research collaborator of Xiao-fan Wang, who was part of the “scientific chain migration” from China and is now an Associate Professor at Duke University. Both Xiao-fan Wang and Qi-Jing Li have received more than $22.5 million (112) and $7.4 million (113), respectively, from the U.S. National Institutes of Health, including Dr. Anthony Fauci’s NIAID. Both Xiao-fan Wang and Qi-Jing Li have also maintained an active research collaboration with the Chinese military for at least the last ten years involving dozens of PLA scientists. Those activities include training PLA scientists at Duke University (114), over twenty joint publications with the PLA, much of which was partially funded by the U.S. government (115). Qi-Jing Li, for example, is listed as affiliated simultaneously with Duke University and the PLA Third Military Medical University (116). Xiao-fan Wang and Qi-Jing Li conducted research with the PLA’s Second (Shanghai) (117), Third (Chongqing) (118, 119) and Fourth (Xi’an) (119) Military Medical Universities and with the Academy of Military Medical Sciences in Beijing (119). Xiao-fan Wang and Qi-Jing Li are also involved with a present or former PLA officer, Haiyang Wu (120), in a Chinese company, TCRCure (121), which is also operating with them at Duke University (122). Qi-Jing Li is a co-founder (123) of TCRCure and Xiao-fan Wang is the co-chair (124) of the advisory team. According to the website, TCRCure is developing clinical translational research and conducting human clinical trials with the PLA Cancer Research Institute at the Third Military Medical University (125). This company has locations in Los Angeles and Durham, North Carolina and two in China, Guangzhou and Chongqing (126), where the Third Military Medical University is situated. Xiao-fan Wang is also Director of the International Executive Committee of Performance Evaluation for the Wuhan Institute of Virology (127), a fact that was purged (128) from the Wuhan Institute of Virology website in 2020. In a 2010 Chinese language article (129), Xiao-fan Wang said “I will do more to promote the education and science of the motherland“ (China). Xiao-fan Wang has done so. In 2017, Xiao-fan Wang made recommendations for the further development of China’s Talents programs, like “Thousands Talents Plan” and The National Science Fund for Distinguished Young Scholars (130). Lastly, having contributed to it, in 2021, Xiao-fan Wang remarked about the future supremacy of China (131): “Influenced by the domestic political and economic situation in the U.S. and the new cooperative and competitive relationship between China and the U.S. in the field of science and technology, one foreseeable change is that the channels for doctoral studies and postdoctoral research training in the U.S. are likely to be gradually narrowed, and the number of young talents who have received rigorous research training from top U.S. academic institutions will likely decline significantly after a few years.””…leading to talents ‘Made in China’.” Today, U.S. research laboratories are de facto extensions of the CCP’s fused military-civilian research program, in which Chinese scientists working in the United States work with scientists in China including those connected to China’s biowarfare program. In essence, China colonized U.S. research programs, colonies that were financed by U.S. taxpayers, likely amounting to billions of dollars. To this day, there is virtually nothing that happens in U.S. research laboratories about which China’s military is not intimately aware. And the U.S. government is doing nothing about it (132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140). References 1. Bergeron E, Vincent MJ, Wickham L, et al. Implication of proprotein convertases in the processing and spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2005;326(3):554-563. 2. Sellin L. How China could have made COVID-19 while hiding its origin. WION News, April 23, 2020. 3. Mallapaty S. Why does the coronavirus spread so easily between people? Nature. 2020 Mar;579(7798):183. 4. Sellin L. Explained: The conceptual basis for a bioengineered COVID-19. WION News, April 28, 2020. 5. Wang, Q., Qiu, Y., Li, JY. et al. A Unique Protease Cleavage Site Predicted in the Spike Protein of the Novel Pneumonia Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Potentially Related to Viral Transmissibility. Virol. Sin. 35, 337–339 (2020). 6. Segreto, R. & Deigin, Y. Is considering a genetic-manipulation origin for SARS-CoV -2 a conspiracy theory that must be censored? Research Gate (2020). 7. Postnikova OA, Uppal S, Huang W, Kane MA, Villasmil R, Rogozin IB, Poliakov E, Redmond TM. The Functional Consequences of the Novel Ribosomal Pausing Site in SARS-CoV-2 Spike Glycoprotein RNA. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2021; 22(12):6490. 8. Sellin L. Chinese scientist says covid-19 was created by China’s military. WION News, September 16, 2020. 9. Li, Xin, et al. "A furin cleavage site was discovered in the S protein of the 2019 novel coronavirus." Chinese Journal of Bioinformatics (2020): 103-108. 10. Sellin L. Yes, COVID-19 Was a Biological Attack by the Chinese Communist Party – Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D. The Gateway Pundit, April 1, 2021. 11. Du L, Kao RY, Zhou Y, He Y, Zhao G, Wong C, Jiang S, Yuen KY, Jin DY, Zheng BJ. Cleavage of spike protein of SARS coronavirus by protease factor Xa is associated with viral infectivity. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2007 Jul 20;359(1):174-9. 12. Belouzard, Sandrine, Victor C. Chu, and Gary R. Whittaker. "Activation of the SARS coronavirus spike protein via sequential proteolytic cleavage at two distinct sites." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106.14 (2009): 5871-5876. 13. Brown, Dennis T. "Insertion of furin protease cleavage sites in membrane proteins and uses thereof." U.S. Patent No. 7,223,390. 29 May 2007. 14. Sellin L. How US expertise may have inadvertently contributed to COVID-19. WION News, May 4, 2020. 15. Zhou Y, Wang J, Zhou I, Lou H, Li CZ, Chen ZR, Zhang ZH, Liu S, Wu S, Tan W, Jiang S, Zhou C. Simultaneous expression of displayed and secreted antibodies for antibody screen. PLoS One. 2013 Nov 11;8(11):e80005. 16. Shibo Jiang, National Institutes of Health research grants. 17. Davies NG, Abbott S, Barnard RC, et al. Estimated transmissibility and impact of SARS-CoV-2 lineage B.1.1.7 in England. MedRxiv 2021. 18. Public Health England. SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern and variants under investigation in England. Technical briefing 14. June 3, 2021. Available at: 19. European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. Implications of the emergence and spread of the SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1. 529 variant of concern (Omicron), for the EU/EEA (26 November 2021). Available at: (Accessed on December 1, 2021). 20. Piplani S, Singh PK, Winkler DA, Petrovsky N. In silico comparison of spike protein-ACE2 binding affinities across species; significance for the possible origin of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.06199. 2020 May 13. 21. Sellin L. Evidence indicates COVID-19 was artificially adapted to infect humans. WION News, May 18, 2020. 22. Zhan SH, Deverman BE, Chan, YA. SARS-CoV-2 is well adapted for humans. What does this mean for re-emergence? May 2, 2020 23. Khatri I, Staal FJT, van Dongen JJM. Blocking of the High-Affinity Interaction-Synapse Between SARS-CoV-2 Spike and Human ACE2 Proteins Likely Requires Multiple High-Affinity Antibodies: An Immune Perspective. Published 2020 Sep 17. 24. Sellin L. Unless true origin of coronavirus is identified, another Chinese pandemic is in the offing. WION News, August 13, 2020. 25. Yang XH, Deng W, Tong Z, Liu YX, Zhang LF, Zhu H, Gao H, Huang L, Liu YL, Ma CM, Xu YF, Ding MX, Deng HK, Qin C. Mice transgenic for human angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 provide a model for SARS coronavirus infection. Comp Med. 2007 Oct;57(5):450-9. 26. Sellin L. Report: China’s Military Weapon COVID-19 Was Constructed Completely Under the Command and Control of the Chinese Military. The Gateway Pundit, May 18, 2021. 27. Sellin L. EXCLUSIVE… Lawrence Sellin: Evidence Indicates COVID-19 is a Designed Bioweapon with a Toxic Structure that MAY BE REPLICATED IN VACCINES. The Gateway Pundit, December 3, 2021. 28. Cheng MH, Zhang S, Porritt, RA et al., An insertion unique to SARS-CoV-2 exhibits superantigenic character strengthened by recent mutations. bioRxiv, May 21, 2020. 29. Cheng MH, Porritt RA, Rivas MN et al. A monoclonal antibody against staphylococcal enterotoxin B superantigen inhibits SARS-CoV-2 entry in vitro. Structure 29, 951–962, September 2, 2021. 30. Liu Y, Song Z, Ge S et al. Determining the immunological characteristics of a novel human monoclonal antibody developed against staphylococcal enterotoxin B. Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics, Volume 16, 2020. 31. Yan LM, Kang S, Hu S. Unusual Features of the SARS-CoV-2 Genome Suggesting Sophisticated Laboratory Modification Rather Than Natural Evolution and Delineation of Its Probable Synthetic Route. Zenodo, September 14, 2020. 32. Wang X, Hu A, Chen X et al. A human monoclonal antibody potently pan-neutralizes SARS-CoV-2 VOCs by targeting RBD invariant sites. bioRxiv November 30, 2021. 33. Sellin, L. New Pentagon Papers Show COVID Is Bioweapon Made in China Paid for and Developed by US Scientists Who Then Covered It Up While Pushing Flawed Public Health Policies. The Gateway Pundit, January 12, 2022. 34. Project DEFUSE: Defusing the Threat of Bat-borne Coronaviruses 35. Defuse Project Rejection by DARPA 36. Brown L, Republican investigation reportedly ‘proves’ COVID leaked from Wuhan lab. New York Post, August 2, 2021. 37. Reich, A. On This Day: COVID-19 patient zero reportedly diagnosed in China in 2019, Jerusalem Post, November 17, 2021. 38. Huang C, Wang Y, Li X et al. Clinical features of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan, China, The Lancet, Volume 395, Issue 10223, 2020, Pages 497-506. 39. Walgate R. SARS escaped Beijing lab twice. The Scientist, April 25, 2004 40. Sellin L. We Know COVID-19 Was Created in a Laboratory – New Revelations from Inside China Indicate Actual Location of its Military Origin. The Gateway Pundit, May 20, 2021. 41. Shan C, Yao YF, Yang, XL et al. Infection with novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) causes pneumonia in Rhesus macaques. Cell Res 30, 670–677 (2020). 42. Züst R, Li S-H, Xie X, Velumani S, Chng M, Toh Y-X, et al. Characterization of a candidate tetravalent vaccine based on 2'-O-methyltransferase mutants. (2018) PLoS ONE 13(1): e0189262. 43. Sellin L. More Evidence Leaked from China on the Deliberate Release of COVID-19 by the Chinese Military. The Gateway Pundit, July 23, 2021. 44. Rogin J. Congress is investigating whether the 2019 Military World Games in Wuhan was a covid-19 superspreader event. Washington Post, June 23, 2021 45. Shi Zhengli Written Response to Science Magazine Questions. Health Commentary, Undated. 46. The A3 laboratory of our school accepts the unannounced inspection by the expert group of the National Health Commission (Chinese), August 24, 2020 47. Ma J. Coronavirus: China’s first confirmed Covid-19 case traced back to November 17. South China Morning Post, March 13, 2020. 48. Pneumonia of unknown cause reported to WHO China Office, December 31, 2019. 49. Wang Y, Moritsugu K. Human-to-human transmission confirmed in China coronavirus. Associated Press, January 20, 2020. 50. Dewan A. China's coronavirus cases likely grossly underestimated, study says. CTV News Canada, January 18, 2020. 51. Tests confirm source of deadly coronavirus outbreak in Wuhan. January 28, 2020. 52. Woodward A. The Chinese CDC now says the coronavirus didn't jump to people at the Wuhan wet market — instead, it was the site of a superspreader event. Business Insider, May 29, 2020. 53. Olson S. COVID-19: BORN IN NORTH CAROLINA, SOLD TO WUHAN LAB, OPTIMIZED FOR PANDEMIC SPREAD. January 13, 2020. 54. Gertz B. Coronavirus link to China biowarfare program possible, analyst says. Washington Times, January 26, 2020. 55. Kerr A. Infectious Disease Expert Told Fauci In January 2020 That COVID-19 Looked Potentially ‘Engineered’. Daily Caller, June 2, 2021. 56. Sellin L. New Evidence Shows U.S. Government and the American Scientific Establishment Involved in Cover Up of COVID-19’s Origin. The Gateway Pundit, March 1, 2021. 57. U.S. Right to Know. Baric Emails, February 17, 2021. 58. Office of Science and Technology Policy Science Coronavirus Request to the National Academy of Science, Engineering and Medicine February 6, 2020. 59. Pradhan P, Pandey AM, Mishra A et al. Uncanny similarity of unique inserts in the 2019-nCoV spike protein to HIV-1 gp120 and Gag. January 31, 2020. 60. National Academy of Science, Engineering and Medicine Response to Office of Science and Technology Policy Science re: Coronavirus, February 6, 2020. 61. Zhou P, Yang XL, Wang XG et al. A pneumonia outbreak associated with a new coronavirus of probable bat origin. Nature 579, 270–273 (2020). 62. Calisher C, Carroll D, Colwell R et al. Statement in support of the scientists, public health professionals, and medical professionals of China combatting COVID-19. The Lancet, VOLUME 395, ISSUE 10226, E42-E43, MARCH 07, 2020. 63. Wu D, Zhang Y, Zhouhui Q, et al. Chikungunya virus with E1-A226V mutation causing two outbreaks in 2010, Guangdong, China. Virol J. 2013;10:174. 64. Lam, TY, Wang, J, Shen, Y et al. The genesis and source of the H7N9 influenza viruses causing human infections in China. Nature 502, 241–244 (2013). 65. Cui J, Mary Tachedjian M, Wang L Discovery of Retroviral Homologs in Bats: Implications for the Origin of Mammalian Gammaretroviruses. Journal of Virology Vol. 86, No. 8 2012. 66. De W, Jing K, Huan Z, Qiong ZH, Monagin C, Min ZJ, et al. Scrub Typhus, a Disease with Increasing Threat in Guangdong, China. 2015, PLoS ONE 10(2): e0113968. 67. De W, Huanying Z, Hui L et al. Phylogenetic and molecular characterization of coxsackievirus A24 variant isolates from a 2010 acute hemorrhagic conjunctivitis outbreak in Guangdong, China. Virol J 9, 41 (2012). 68. Latinne A, Hu B, Olival KJ et al. Origin and cross-species transmission of bat coronaviruses in China. Nat Commun 11, 4235 (2020). 69. McNeil DG. Scientists Were Hunting for the Next Ebola. Now the U.S. Has Cut Off Their Funding. New York Times, October 25, 2019. 70. Andersen KG, Rambaut A, Lipkin WI et al. The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2. Nat Med 26, 450–452 (2020). 71. Warmbrod KL, West RM, Connell ND, Gronvall GK. In Response: Yan et al Preprint Examinations of the Origin of SARS-CoV-2. September 21, 2020. 72. Patel N. How the COVID-19 Censors Killed the Truth, Daily Signal, February 19, 2021. 73. Liu SL, Saif L. Emerging Viruses without Borders: The Wuhan Coronavirus. Viruses. 2020;12(2):130. Published 2020 Jan 22. 74. Liu SL, Saif LJ, Weiss SR, Su L. No credible evidence supporting claims of the laboratory engineering of SARS-CoV-2. Emerg Microbes Infect. 2020;9(1):505-507. Published 2020 Feb 26. 75. Qiu X, Lei Y, Yang P, Gao Q, Wang N, Cao L, Yuan S, Huang X, Deng Y, Ma W, Ding T, Zhang F, Wu X, Hu J, Liu SL, Qin C, Wang X, Xu Z, Rao Z. Structural basis for neutralization of Japanese encephalitis virus by two potent therapeutic antibodies. Nat Microbiol. 2018 Mar;3(3):287-294. 76. Bian Y, Zhang Z, Sun Z, Zhao J, Zhu D, Wang Y, Fu S, Guo J, Liu L, Su L, Wang FS, Fu YX, Peng H. Vaccines targeting preS1 domain overcome immune tolerance in hepatitis B virus carrier mice. Hepatology. 2017 Oct;66(4):1067-1082. 77. Sellin L. Chinese Communist Party Cadre May Already be in Place in the U.S. for a Planned Takeover. The Gateway Pundit, April 11, 2021. 78. Sellin L, Chen A. New Report Reveals COVID-19 Was a Planned Bioweapon by China’s People’s Liberation Army. The Gateway Pundit, October 11, 2021. 79. Guo Ji-wei, Yang Xue-sen. Ultramicro, Nonlethal and Reversible Looking Ahead to Military Biotechnology. March-April 2018. 80. ZHOU Zhi-jian,GUO Ji-wei,SUN Shi-jun. Construction of bio-micro-frontier based on theory of biotechnology supremacy. 2010. 81. Zhang Xiaoying, Guo Jiwei, Zhou Zhijian. Theoretical research of "military bio-security." 2011. 82. XU Chi, LOU Tie-zhu, BO Xiao-chen, XUE Quan, MAO Jun-wen, HE Fu-chu. Development of military biotechnology and the future of bio-based war. 2012. 83. Huo Kun, Guo Jiwei. Extension effect of biotechnology on non-lethal weapon development. 2013. 84. Guo Jiwei. Military Biotechnology Offensive and Defensive in Military Transdormation. 2014. 85. Li Hongjun, Guo Jiwei. Evolution of forms of warfare promoted by modern biotechnology. 2016. 86. Guo Jiwei. NOVOCHOK Nerve Agent and binary chemical weapons. 2018. 87. Sellin L, Chen A. China’s Military Declares Biotechnology Warfare as its Fundamental Guiding Principle. The Gateway Pundit, October 22, 2021. 88. 89. 90. 91. Chen Wei, Cao Cheng. Yearbook of Biotechnology Development. 2014. 92. "Thirteenth Five-Year Plan" Special Plan for Military-Civil Integration Development of Science and Technology Released. 2017. 93. Sellin L. The Chinese Communist Party Has an Extensive Research Network Supporting Biowarfare. The Gateway Pundit, April 20, 2021. 94. Sellin L. Is Johns Hopkins University Conducting Its Own Biowarfare Foreign Policy with the Chinese Communist Party? The Gateway Pundit, February 14, 2022. 95. 96. Executives of 23 pharmaceutical companies, including Bayer Roche, Sanofi, etc., leave. 2019. 97. Sellin L, Chen A. Uncovered – A Direct Link Between the Chinese Military and a Major Pentagon-Funded Virus Research Center. The Gateway Pundit, May 14, 2021. 98. Sellin, L. Dr. Anthony Fauci Funded Research That Led to Patents for the Chinese Military. The Gateway Pundit, May 15, 2021. 99. Sellin L, Chen A. EXPLOSIVE REPORT ON SCIENTIFIC TREASON: U.S. Traitors, Driven by Greed, are Betting on the Success of China. The Gateway Pundit, November 6, 2021. 100. Sellin L, Chen A. SELLIN EXCLUSIVE: Chinese Communist Party Scientists in the U.S. are Bleeding America of Vital Biotechnology. The Gateway Pundit, December 28, 2021. 101. Sellin L, Chen A. How Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama Facilitated China’s Colonization of U.S. Research Programs. The Gateway Pundit, November 21, 2021. 102. Jimmy Carter And Deng Xiaoping, Exchange Of Comments And Toasts At The White House, Jan. 29, 1979. 103. Chang Z. The CUSBEA program: Twenty years after. May 26, 2009. 104. Sellin L, Chen A. Clinton Administration Invited the Chinese Army into Sensitive U.S. Military Biodefense Centers. The Gateway Pundit, May 27, 2021. 105. Huan J-N, Li J, Han Y et al. Adipocyte-selective Reduction of the Leptin Receptors Induced by Antisense RNA Leads to Increased Adiposity, Dyslipidemia, and Insulin Resistance. METABOLISM AND BIOENERGETICS, VOLUME 278, ISSUE 46, P45638-45650, NOVEMBER 2003 106. Yang M, Qiu S, He Y, Li L, Wu T, Ding N, Li F, Zhao AZ, Yang G. Genetic ablation of C-reactive protein gene confers resistance to obesity and insulin resistance in rats. Diabetologia. 2021 May;64(5):1169-1183. 107. Yong Zhang, Jie Zhang, De-Hua Yang, Guo-Hua Zhou, Ai-Hua Li, Guo-Ping Li. An active reflector antenna using a laser angle metrology system. Research in Astron. Astrophys. 2012 Vol. 12 No. 6, 713–722. 108. Dehua Yang, Yong Zhang, Guohua Zhou, Aihua Li, Kunxin Chen, Zhenchao Zhang, Guoping Li, Yingxi Zuo, Ye Xu. An active surface upgrade for the Delingha 13.7-m Radio Telescope. Proceedings Volume 8444, Ground-based and Airborne Telescopes IV; 84444B (2012). 109. Luo Chunyuan. Progress in the studies of structures and functions of acetylcholinesterase and the reactivation mechanism of organophosphate-inhibited enzyme. Sheng wu hua xue yu Sheng wu wu li jin Zhan, 01 Jan 1996, 23(4):329-333,355. 110. Chunyuan Luo, Haim Leader, Zoran Radic, Donald M. Maxwell, Palmer Taylor, Bhupendra P. Doctor, Ashima Saxena. Two possible orientations of the HI-6 molecule in the reactivation of organophosphate-inhibited acetylcholinesterase, Biochemical Pharmacology, Volume 66, Issue 3, 2003, Pages 387-392. 111. Chinese Communist Party Talent Database. 112. Xiao-fan Wang. National Institutes of Health research grants. 113. Qijing Li. National Institutes of Health research grants. 114. Xiang H, Yuan L, Gao X, Alexander PB, Lopez O, Lau C, Ding Y, Chong M, Sun T, Chen R, Liu SQ, Wu H, Wan Y, Randell SH, Li QJ, Wang XF. UHRF1 is required for basal stem cell proliferation in response to airway injury. Cell Discov. 2017 Jun 13;3:17019. 115. Jia Q, Wu W, Wang Y, et al. Local mutational diversity drives intratumoral immune heterogeneity in non-small cell lung cancer. Nat Commun. 2018;9(1):5361. 116. Jia Q, Wu W, Wang Y, Alexander PB, Sun C, Gong Z, Cheng JN, Sun H, Guan Y, Xia X, Yang L, Yi X, Wan YY, Wang H, He J, Futreal PA, Li QJ, Zhu B. Local mutational diversity drives intratumoral immune heterogeneity in non-small cell lung cancer. Nat Commun. 2018 Dec 18;9(1):5361. 117. Zhang Y, Yang P, Sun T et al. miR-126 and miR-126* repress recruitment of mesenchymal stem cells and inflammatory monocytes to inhibit breast cancer metastasis. Nat Cell Biol 15, 284–294 (2013). 118. Xiang H, Yuan L, Gao X, Alexander PB, Lopez O, Lau C, Ding Y, Chong M, Sun T, Chen R, Liu SQ, Wu H, Wan Y, Randell SH, Li QJ, Wang XF. UHRF1 is required for basal stem cell proliferation in response to airway injury. Cell Discov. 2017 Jun 13;3:17019. 119. Zheng M, Zhang X, Zhou Y, Tang J, Han Q, Zhang Y, Ni Q, Chen G, Jia Q, Yu H, Liu S, Robins E, Jiang NJ, Wan Y, Li QJ, Chen ZN, Zhu P. TCR repertoire and CDR3 motif analyses depict the role of αβ T cells in Ankylosing spondylitis. EBioMedicine. 2019 Sep;47:414-426. 120. Xiang H, Yuan L, Gao X, Alexander PB, Lopez O, Lau C, Ding Y, Chong M, Sun T, Chen R, Liu SQ, Wu H, Wan Y, Randell SH, Li QJ, Wang XF. UHRF1 is required for basal stem cell proliferation in response to airway injury. Cell Discov. 2017 Jun 13;3:17019. 121. TCR Cure. 122. Christian LS, Wang L, Lim B, Deng D, Wu H, Wang XF, Li QJ. Resident memory T cells in tumor-distant tissues fortify against metastasis formation. Cell Rep. 2021 May 11;35(6):109118. 123. TCR Cure Founder. 124. TCR Cure Advisory Board. 125. TCR Cure work with the People’s Liberation Army’s Third Military Medical University 126. TCR Cure office located in the same city as the People’s Liberation Army’s Third Military Medical University 127. Xiaofan Wang is Director of the International Executive Committee of Performance Evaluation of the Wuhan Institute of Virology. 128. Scrubbed version of the Wuhan Institute of Virology website. 129. Duke University professor Wang Xiaofan: I will do more for the science and education of the motherland. 2010. 130. Xiaofan Wang. The overall layout of China's scientific and technological talent plan urgently needs to be adjusted and improved. Science and Technology Review, 2017, 35(2): 11-11. 131. Xiaofan Wang: Establish a more complete and independent scientific education system to achieve "Made in China" for leading talents. 2021. 132. Sellin L, Chen A. China has Infiltrated the U.S. Military Biodefense Program at Fort Detrick. The Gateway Pundit, May 23, 2021. 133. Sellin L, Chen A. Emory University is Training Ground for Chinese Military Scientists Linked to Biowarfare Research with Funding from Dr. Fauci. The Gateway Pundit, November 16, 2021. 134. Sellin L. Anthony Fauci Directly Funds Research by Chinese Military Scientists. The Gateway Pundit, December 31, 2021. 135. Sellin L. U.S. University Laboratories have Opened Their Doors to China’s Military and No One in the U.S. Government is Challenging It. The Gateway Pundit, January 10, 2022. 136. Sellin L. While the FBI hunts patriotic Americans, China’s “Scientific Double Agents” Operate Freely in U.S. Universities. The Gateway Pundit, January 19, 2022. 137. Sellin L. China’s Scientific Spies Operating in the U.S. Have Chinese State Security Code Names – Why is US Allowing This? The Gateway Pundit, January 24, 2022. 138. Sellin L. Chinese Communist Party Agents Have Infiltrated US Media, Politics, Science, and Military and Yet Biden Regime Does Nothing. The Gateway Pundit, January 27, 2022. 139. Sellin L, Yuan J. Lawrence Sellin Identifies Chinese Science Mole at the Highest Level of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The Gateway Pundit, February 3, 2022. 140. Sellin L. National Institutes of Health (NIH) Spent $Billions Supporting Research in China Including Its Biowarfare Program. The Gateway Pundit, February 5, 2022.

Subscribe to Lawrence Sellin’s Newsletter Launched a year ago Provides expert analysis on issues affecting U.S. national security

6 views0 comments
bottom of page