COVID 19 Scandal
Wednesday, June 10, 2026
Wednesday, April 29, 2026
The Man Who Managed Fauci's Emails Has Been Charged With Destroying Them
The Man Who Managed Fauci's Emails Has Been Charged With Destroying Them
Inside the federal indictment that turns an administrative violation into an epistemic crime.
Federal prosecutors in Maryland have criminally charged David Morens, a former senior scientific advisor to Anthony Fauci at the National Institutes of Health, with hiding records about COVID-19's origins from the public. The indictment, unsealed this morning by the Department of Justice, alleges conspiracy, destruction of federal records, obstruction, and making false statements — all tied to communications Morens allegedly moved off official systems and deleted to evade FOIA requests.
David Morens deleted the emails after a colleague told him FOIA was “just waiting to pounce.”
That detail — buried in the indictment the DOJ unsealed this morning — is the one that matters most, and not for the reason you might think. The emails themselves, whatever they contained about COVID origins and NIH grants to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, are gone. We will probably never know exactly what was in them. What we do know is the reasoning: a senior NIAID official allegedly understood that federal transparency law was a threat to be managed, and acted accordingly.
That is not a lapse in judgment. That is a revealed preference about what science governance has become.
I’ve been building the evidentiary case for this pattern since January 2020 when I first proposed the lab origin idea: The selective publication, the hypothesis filtering that never makes it into a paper, the grant language engineered to obscure rather than illuminate. What the Morens indictment does is something different. It makes the mechanism visible. It names a person. It attaches a legal consequence to what has previously been treated as an unfortunate feature of how large institutions operate under political pressure. For the first time, the behavior has a face and a charge sheet.
The four counts matter in sequence. First, conspiracy. Second, destruction of federal records. Third, obstruction of a federal investigation. Fourth, making false statements. Read them together and what you’re looking at is not a single bad actor’s moment of panic. You’re looking at an allegedly coordinated, multi-step effort to ensure that the deliberative record — the internal emails where doubts are expressed, hypotheses rejected, funding decisions justified, narratives constructed — would never be subject to the audit that FOIA exists to perform.
This is why I keep returning to what FOIA actually is, because it is almost universally misunderstood. It is not a bureaucratic nuisance. It is not a journalist’s research tool. It is a post-hoc peer review mechanism for institutions that operate outside the normal scientific accountability structures. When a senior official at NIAID exchanges emails with external researchers about how to frame an origin question, those emails are data. They are the primary record of how a scientific conclusion was reached. Destroy them, and what remains is the published paper — the curated endpoint — with no way to reconstruct the reasoning that produced it.
At that point, you cannot distinguish science from messaging. The outputs look identical. The process is not auditable. And the public, which funded every dollar of it, has no recourse.
With Moren’s indictment, they are finally empowered.
I’ve watched this pattern long enough to recognize the defenses before they arrive. The first will be: everyone uses personal email for work. True and irrelevant — intent and context define misconduct, not prevalence. The second will be: no underlying scientific conclusions were affected. Unverifiable, because the record was allegedly altered. You cannot demonstrate that the destruction changed nothing when you no longer have what was destroyed. The third will be: this is politically motivated prosecution. Possibly. But the politicization of enforcement does not change the underlying conduct. A compromised archive cannot defend itself by pointing to the politics of whoever noticed it was compromised.
What this case actually tests is something I think most people haven’t articulated clearly. It tests whether the United States government is willing to treat epistemic corruption — the manipulation of the knowledge-production process itself — as a prosecutable public harm, not merely an administrative irregularity. Outcome fraud, data fabrication, result manipulation: those have established legal frameworks. Process fraud — shaping the evidentiary record so that no outcome fraud is ever detectable — has been treated as a gray area. If this prosecution holds, that gray area has an edge.
The structural fix is straightforward and has been ignored for decades. Tamper-evident mirrored archiving of all official communications, with automatic FOIA reconciliation across official and personal channels. Criminal liability that explicitly covers scientific record tampering, not just general obstruction. Prospective transparency design — systems built to be auditable from day one, not reconstructed retroactively after a subpoena. None of this is technically difficult. All of it requires institutional will that has been absent.
I’ve written before about what I call entropy in evidence systems — the way that each undocumented step in a scientific process increases uncertainty, irreversibility, and dependence on authority rather than traceability. Once enough entropy accumulates, an institution no longer stores knowledge. It simulates coherence. What the Morens indictment alleges is the active acceleration of that entropy — not drift, but deliberate deletion.
The origin question is not resolved by this indictment. It may never be resolved, precisely because of what is alleged here. But the indictment does something the origin debate itself has been unable to do: it establishes, in a legal filing with named parties and specific charges, that the people responsible for producing and protecting the scientific record had reasons to want parts of it to disappear.
That is what a curated endpoint looks like from the inside.
Readers who’ve been following the broader failure of institutional science governance will recognize this pattern across at least a dozen different domains we’ve documented here. The mechanism is always the same: information control becomes rational behavior when incentive structures reward narrative stability over honest uncertainty. The Morens case is unusual only in that someone is being held accountable. The behavior it describes is not unusual at all.
What happens next in this prosecution will be worth watching closely. I intend to.
https://popularrationalism.substack.com/p/the-man-who-managed-faucis-
Sunday, December 8, 2024
Monday, September 20, 2021
Fauci: Vaccine Recommendation for Children
Fauci: Officials Will Decide on COVID-19 Vaccine Recommendation for Children Aged 5 to 11 Soon
Biden administration COVID-19 adviser Anthony Fauci said that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will likely make a decision on whether to recommend COVID-19 vaccines for children under the age of 12 in the fall.
Regulators should have data in the coming weeks to see whether shots for children aged 5 and 11 are needed, he told ABC News’ “This Week” on Sept. 19.
“Sometime in the next few weeks, as we get into October, we’ll be able to see the vaccines for children get enough data to be presented for safety and immunogenicity,” said Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, who has conducted hundreds of media interviews since the pandemic began in early 2020.
Fauci has received significant criticism in recent months over whether his agency knowingly provided funding to gain-of-function researchers working at a virology lab in Wuhan, China.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) authorized vaccinations for children aged 12 and older earlier in 2021. Some school districts, including the one overseeing public schools in Los Angeles, have made it mandatory for children returning to class to get fully vaccinated.
Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla said that the firm, which makes one of the most widely used COVID-19 vaccines in the world, will likely release clinical data on vaccines for children aged 6 months to 5 years in October. COVID-19 vaccine data for children aged 5 to 11 will come sooner, he said.
Federal government health officials have argued that younger children should get vaccinated due to the spread of the Delta variant of COVID-19.
“Currently, there are still trials ongoing, and so the agency has to wait for the company to submit the data for those trials,” FDA vaccine regulator Peter Marks said Aug. 23. “We certainly want to make sure that we get it right.”
On Sept. 17, the FDA’s vaccine advisory panel voted overwhelmingly against recommending booster shots for the general public and instead voted to recommend them to individuals aged 65 and older. During that meeting, a number of scientists expressed concern for booster-associated side-effects among younger people and children.
Dr. James Hildreth, a voting member on the FDA expert panel, said that he has “a serious concern of myocarditis in young people.” Another expert, Dr. Melinda Wharton, said she does “not feel comfortable” with recommending boosters to younger people due to the risk of myocarditis.
Researchers discovered in August that COVID-19 vaccines used in the United States are more likely to land teenage boys in the hospital than COVID-19 itself. When analyzing reports submitted to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), scientists discovered that males between the ages of 12 and 15 without a serious underlying health condition were up to six times more likely to be hospitalized after getting their second Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna COVID-19 vaccine dose than from a COVID-19 infection.
Wednesday, May 26, 2021
Wuhan Lab Caught Deleting Files Proving Fauci Funding
Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola Fact Checked May 26, 2021
When Paul asks Fauci if the NIAID funded Dr. Ralph Baric’s GoF research, Fauci claims Baric “does not do gain-of-function research, and if it is, it is according to the guidelines and is being conducted in North Carolina.” Paul shoots back, saying:
“You don’t think him turning a bat virus spike protein, that he got from the Wuhan Institute into the SARS virus, is gain-of-function? You’d be in a minority, because at least 200 scientists have signed a statement from the Cambridge Working Group that it is gain-of-function.”
In the video above, Jimmy Dore reviews the apparent lies dished out by Fauci during the Senate hearing. In the Truth in Media report below, investigative journalist Ben Swann lays out some of the proof, showing Fauci’s dishonesty.
“What’s insane about this exchange is that Fauci is clearly and provably lying … to Congress, which is a crime … and he’s lying to the American public,” Swann says.
STORY AT-A-GLANCE
- The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) — a division of the National Institute of Health (NIH) headed by Dr. Anthony Fauci since 1984 — has, for years, provided grants to the EcoHealth Alliance and others to conduct gain-of-function (GoF) research on coronaviruses
- In a May 11, 2021, Senate hearing, Fauci denied ever having funded GoF research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV). This despite clear documentation proving otherwise
- In March 2021 the WIV deleted mentions of its collaboration with the NIAID/NIH and other American research partners from its website. It also deleted descriptions of GoF on the SARS virus
- The NIH/NIAID has funded GoF research to the tune of at least $41.7 million. Up until 2014, this research was conducted by Ralph Baric at the University of North Carolina (UNC). After 2014, when federal funding of GoF was banned, such research was funneled to the WIV via the EcoHealth Alliance
- In August 2020, the NIAID announced a five-year, $82-million investment in a new global network of Centers for Research in Emerging Infectious Diseases that will conduct GoF experiments to "determine what genetic or other changes make [animal] pathogens capable of infecting humans"
As reported in several previous articles, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) — a division of the National Institute of Health (NIH) headed by Dr. Anthony Fauci since 1984 — has, for years, provided grants to the EcoHealth Alliance and others to conduct gain-of-function (GoF) research on coronaviruses.
EcoHealth Alliance, in turn, farmed out some of this research to the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), from whence SARS-CoV-2 appears to have emerged. In a May 11, 2021, Senate hearing, Sen. Rand Paul questioned Fauci on the NIAID’s funding of GoF research on bat coronaviruses, some of which was conducted at the WIV.
Fauci denied the charge, saying “The NIH has not ever, and does not now, fund gain-of-function research in the Wuhan Institute.”1 It’s a curious denial, considering the NIH’s funding of such research has been thoroughly documented and can be easily double-checked.
Fauci is clearly and provably lying … to Congress, which is a crime … and he’s lying to the American public. ~ Ben SwannWhen Paul asks Fauci if the NIAID funded Dr. Ralph Baric’s GoF research, Fauci claims Baric “does not do gain-of-function research, and if it is, it is according to the guidelines and is being conducted in North Carolina.” Paul shoots back, saying:
“You don’t think him turning a bat virus spike protein, that he got from the Wuhan Institute into the SARS virus, is gain-of-function? You’d be in a minority, because at least 200 scientists have signed a statement from the Cambridge Working Group that it is gain-of-function.”
In the video above, Jimmy Dore reviews the apparent lies dished out by Fauci during the Senate hearing. In the Truth in Media report below, investigative journalist Ben Swann lays out some of the proof, showing Fauci’s dishonesty.
“What’s insane about this exchange is that Fauci is clearly and provably lying … to Congress, which is a crime … and he’s lying to the American public,” Swann says.
NIH/NIAID Has Funded Gain-of-Function Research
As reported by Swann, the NIH/NIAID has funded GoF research to the tune of at least $41.7 million. Up until 2014, this research was conducted by Baric at the University of North Carolina (UNC). In 2014, the U.S. government issued a moratorium on federal gain-of-function research funding due to safety, ethical and moral concerns raised within the scientific community.
It was at this point, in 2014, that funding for GoF research started being funneled through the EcoHealth Alliance to the WIV. Swann reviews documents proving Fauci lied to Congress, including a paper2 titled “SARS-Like WIV1-CoV Poised for Human Emergence,” submitted to PNAS in 2015 and subsequently published in 2016. In this paper, the authors state that:
“Overall, the results from these studies highlight the utility of a platform that leverages metagenomics findings and reverse genetics to identify prepandemic threats.
For SARS-like WIV1-CoV, the data can inform surveillance programs, improve diagnostic reagents, and facilitate effective treatments to mitigate future emergence events. However, building new and chimeric reagents must be carefully weighed against potential gain-of-function (GoF) concerns.”
At the end of that paper, the authors thank “Dr. Zhengli-Li Shi of the Wuhan Institute of Virology for access to bat CoV sequences and plasmid of WIV1-CoV spike protein.” They also specify that the research was supported by the NIAID under the grant awards U19AI109761 and U19AI107810, which together total $41.7 million.
As noted by Swann, this paper clearly spells out that the NIAID spent $41.7 million on GoF research, with the aim of determining how bat coronaviruses can be made more pathogenic to humans, and that this research continued after the 2014 moratorium on such funding was implemented.
NIAID Viewed Baric’s Research as GoF
What’s more, a letter3,4 from the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) to the director of proposals at UNC Chapel Hill, discussing grant U19AI107810, also spells this out in black and white. The October 21, 2014, letter states, in part:
“NIAID has determined that the above referenced grant may include Gain of Function (GoF) research that is subject to the recently-announced U.S. Government funding pause … The following specific aims appear to involve research covered under the pause: Project 1: Role of Uncharacterized Genes in High Pathogenic Human Coronavirus Infect — Ralph S. Baric, PhD — Project Leader.
Specific Aim 1. Novel Functions in virus replication in vitro. Specific Aim 3. Novel functions in virus pathogenesis in vivo … As your grant is currently funded, this pause is voluntary.”
In other words, the NIAID authorized the continuation of what it admitted was gain-of-function research — simply because the grant had already been funded — and it did so after the ban on such funding was put into place.
NIAID Authorized GoF Research, Bypassing Review Board
But that’s not all. After the moratorium was lifted in 2017, a special review board, the Potential Pandemic Pathogens Control and Oversight (the P3CO Review Framework), was created within the DHHS to evaluate whether grants involving dangerous pathogens are worth the risks. The review board is also responsible for ensuring proper safeguards are in place for approved research.5
According to Rutgers University professor Richard Ebright, an NIH grant for research involving the modification of bat coronaviruses at the WIV was sneaked through because the NIAID didn’t flag it for review.6 In other words, the WIV received federal funding from the NIAID without the research first receiving a green-light from the HHS review board.
The NIAID apparently used a convenient loophole in the review framework. As it turns out, it’s the funding agency’s responsibility to flag potential gain-of-function research for review. If it doesn’t, the review board has no knowledge of it.
According to Ebright, the NIAID and NIH have “systemically thwarted — indeed systematically nullified — the HHS P3CO Framework by declining to flag and forward proposals for review.”7
NIAID Is Also Committed to Continued GoF Research
Lastly, Fauci is also clearly committed to continuing GoF research, seeing how the NIAID, back in August 2020, announced a five-year, $82-million investment in a new global network of Centers for Research in Emerging Infectious Diseases.8
Daszak's EcoHealth Alliance will receive $7.5 million9 from this grant, and planned research will include GoF-type experiments that the NIAID says10 will "determine what genetic or other changes make [animal] pathogens capable of infecting humans."
Wuhan Lab Deleted Documents Showing Fauci’s NIAID Funding
All of that basically serves as backstory to the latest development. It’s now been discovered that the WIV quietly deleted all mentions of its collaboration with Fauci’s NIAID, the NIH and other American research partners from its website shortly after Fauci testified in a Senate hearing in March 2021,11 when he went head to head with Sen. Rand Paul on mask-wearing. As reported May 15, 2021, by The National Pulse:12
“March 21st, 2021, the lab’s website listed six U.S.-based research partners: University of Alabama, University of North Texas, EcoHealth Alliance, Harvard University, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the United States, and the National Wildlife Federation.13
One day later, the page was revised to contain just two research partners — EcoHealth Alliance and the University of Alabama.14 By March 23rd, EcoHealth Alliance was the sole partner remaining.15
EcoHealth Alliance is run by long-standing Chinese Communist Party-partner Dr. Peter Daszak, who National Pulse Editor-in-Chief Raheem Kassam has repeatedly claimed will be the first ‘fall guy’ of the Wuhan lab debacle …
Beyond establishing a working relationship between the NIH and the Wuhan Institute of Virology, now-deleted posts16 from the site also detail studies bearing the hallmarks of gain-of-function research conducted with the Wuhan-based lab.”
Altered WIV Page Admits GoF Research With American Partners
Indeed, a now-deleted WIV web page titled “Will SARS Come Back?” stated that:17
“Prof. Zhengli Shi and Xingyi Ge from WIV, in cooperation with researchers from University of North Carolina, Harvard Medical School, Bellinzona Institute of Microbiology … examine the disease potential of a SARS-like virus, SHC014-CoV, which is currently circulating in Chinese horseshoe bat populations.
Using the SARS-CoV reverse genetics system, the scientists generated and characterized a chimeric virus expressing the spike of bat coronavirus SHC014 in a mouse-adapted SARS-CoV backbone.
The results indicate that group 2b viruses encoding the SHC014 spike in a wild-type backbone can efficiently use multiple orthologs of the SARS receptor human angiotensin converting enzyme II (ACE2), replicate efficiently in primary human airway cells and achieve in vitro titers equivalent to epidemic strains of SARS-CoV.
Evaluation of available SARS-based immune-therapeutic and prophylactic modalities revealed poor efficacy; both monoclonal antibody and vaccine approaches failed to neutralize and protect from infection with CoVs using the novel spike protein.
On the basis of these findings, they synthetically re-derived an infectious full-length SHC014 recombinant virus and demonstrate robust viral replication both in vitro and in vivo …”
Again, while Fauci insists Baric is “not doing any kind of GoF research,” and “if he is,” then he’s doing it at UNC and not in China, the WIV’s web page clearly refutes this. GoF research was done at the WIV, in partnership with UNC researchers, of which Baric is a leading one.
The WIV’s deletions of American research partners from its website (with the exception of EcoHealth Alliance), and its deletion of the article discussing genetic research on the SARS virus raise a host of questions and appears to be yet another attempt at a cover-up. The surprising thing is that they’re now covering up American involvement and not just their own.
Chinese-American GoF Research Example
The WIV and the Wuhan University School of Public Health are both listed as subcontractors for EcoHealth Alliance under a $3.7-million NIH grant titled, "Understanding the Risk of Bat Coronavirus Emergence."18
The two institutions also worked as collaborators under another $2.6-million grant to research the "Risk of Viral Emergence from Bats,"19 and under EcoHealth Alliance's largest single source of funding, a $44.2 million sub-grant from the University of California at Davis for the PREDICT project (2015-2020).20
Part of the PREDICT grant went to funding GoF experiments by WIV scientist Zhengli and Baric with the UNC.21,22,23 In this experiment, Zhengli and Baric used genetic engineering and synthetic biology to create a "new bat SARS-like virus … that can jump directly from its bat hosts to humans." A request by Zhengli and Baric to continue their research during the moratorium on GoF was approved by the NIH. Daszak described Zhengli and Baric’s work in a 2019 interview:24
"You can manipulate them [coronaviruses] in the lab pretty easily. Spike protein drives a lot of what happens with the coronavirus, zoonotic risk. So, you can get the sequence, you can build the protein, and we work with Ralph Baric at UNC to do this. Insert it into a backbone of another virus, and do some work in the lab."
The research was published in the journal Nature in 2015.25,26 As a condition of publication, Nature, like most scientific journals, requires27 authors to submit novel DNA and RNA sequences to GenBank, the U.S. National Center for Biotechnology Information Database. Curiously, the new SARS-like virus Zhengli and Baric published in 2015 wasn't deposited in GenBank until May 2020.28
Fauci Has Accomplished Great Deal of Harm
It remains to be seen whether Daszak is in fact being groomed as the fall guy in this saga. Clearly, he’s innocent in the lab origin cover-up. He somehow ended up on two separate commissions charged with investigating the origin of SARS-CoV-2 — one by the WHO29 and one by The Lancet30 — having already played a central role in the plot to obscure the lab origin of SARS-CoV-2 by crafting a scientific statement condemning such inquiries as “conspiracy theory.”31,32
Letting Fauci off the hook is not an option, however. Like Daszak, Fauci has spent the last year denouncing the possibility that COVID-19 could be the result of a lab leak,33 all while knowing the kinds of research his agency funded there.34
He’s been a longtime defender and promoter of GoF research on animal viruses in general, saying while he was working on GoF with bird-flu viruses such research is worth the risk because it allows scientists to prepare for pandemics.35 However, this kind of research clearly has not improved governments’ pandemic responses one whit.
Fauci has also flip-flopped endlessly when it comes to mask recommendations, and helped suppress one of the most effective, safest and least expensive COVID-19 remedies, hydroxychloroquine, despite his knowledge of a 2005 study showing it’s an effective remedy against SARS coronavirus.36,37
The study was published in Virology Journal, which is the official publication of the NIH, so it’s hard to believe he was unaware of it. But rather than protect public health and save lives using hydroxychloroquine, Fauci promoted the ineffective, dangerous and expensive drug remdesivir and COVID-19 gene therapies instead.
Fauci also knew (and has admitted) that using a PCR test with a cycle threshold (CT) above 35 renders it useless because at that point, you’re just detecting dead nucleotides. No live virus can be detected at CTs that high.38 As early as March 2020, he knew up to 90% of positive PCR tests were false positives and that these people really weren’t sick,39 yet he said and did nothing.
Now, as COVID-19 vaccines are taking their toll, with vaccine injury reports that show they are possibly disabling and killing tens of thousands around the world, Fauci is defending the universal use of the shots and downplaying their lethality.
According to Fauci, deaths from the vaccines have to be “put into context with the population they occurred in.”40 What he’s referring to are cases where old people died shortly after receiving their COVID shots. Old people die, so therefore you shouldn’t blame it on the vaccine.
This is hypocrisy at its finest. When seniors die before vaccination, it’s due to COVID-19 and something must be done to prevent it, but when they die after vaccination, they die of natural causes and no preventive action is necessary. Fauci’s dismissal of vaccine deaths also overlooks the fact that many young, healthy people have reported serious adverse reactions or even died within hours or days of their vaccinations.41
Gain-of-Function Research Is the Real Threat
I believe GoF research cooperation and sharing between nations is such that blame will ultimately be shared by multiple parties. The key issue, really, if SARS-CoV-2 did in fact come from a lab, is how do we prevent another lab escape? And, if it turns out to have been a genetically manipulated virus, do we allow gain-of-function research to continue?
I believe the answer is to ban research that involves making pathogens more lethal to humans. As it stands, the same establishment that is drumming up panic by warning of the emergence of new, more infectious and dangerous variants is also busy creating them. They just never tell you about that part.
Already, scientists have figured out a way to mutate SARS-CoV-2 such that it evades human antibodies. Were this mutated virus to ever get out, we’d be in serious trouble. While mankind has created several outbreaks, nature seems to have a way of NOT mutating animal viruses into global killers. So, the hypocrisy needs to end.
World leaders need to realize that funding and defending gain-of-function research is the real threat here. I believe Fauci’s lies are a pathetic attempt to hide his agency’s involvement with GoF research that may have resulted in a global crisis.
Sources and References
- 1 Daily Mail May 11, 2021
- 2 PNAS March 15, 2016; 113(11): 3048-3053
- 3 Nicholasblanton.com, Don’t Trust the Experts
- 4 Gateway Pundit April 2020, DHHS letter dated October 21, 2014
- 5, 6, 7 Daily Caller April 4, 2021
- 8, 10 NIAID August 27, 2020
- 9 EcoHealth Alliance August 27, 2020
- 11 MSNBC March 19, 2021
- 12 National Pulse May 15, 2021
- 13 Web Archive WIV research partners March 21, 2021
- 14 Web Archive WIV research partners March 22, 2021
- 15 Web Archive WIV research partners March 23, 2021
- 16, 17 Web Archive WIV Will SARS Come Back? December 4, 2015
- 18 USASpending.gov, Grant Summary
- 19 Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools, Project Number 1R01AI079231-01
- 20 GovTribe Cooperative Agreement AIDOAAA1400102
- 21, 25 Nature Medicine November 9, 2015; 21: 1508-1513
- 22, 26 Nature Medicine April 6, 2016
- 23 Organic Consumers Association August 26, 2020
- 24 YouTube May 18, 2020
- 27 Nature Research Reporting Standards
- 28 Nature Medicine 2020 volume 26, page1146
- 29 WHO.int Origins of the SARS-CoV-2 Virus
- 30 The Lancet October 10, 2020; 396(10257: 1102-1124
- 31 USRTK November 18, 2020
- 32 GM Watch November 19, 2020
- 33, 35 Newsweek April 28, 2020
- 34 Dr. Fauci’s COVID-19 Treachery October 19, 2020 (PDF)
- 36 Virology Journal 2005; 2: 69
- 37 Tradition in Action Fauci Knew About HCQ in 2005
- 38 Jon Rappoport’s Blog November 6, 2020
- 39 The Colorado Herald March 5, 2021
- 40 CNN January 19, 2021
- 41 Science, Public Health Policy and the Law Vol. 2:59-80 May 2021
