Dr. Daszak will likely be protected by the DoD & CIA from additional penalties.

By John Leake

HHS Formally Debars EcoHealth Alliance, President Peter Daszak Fired.

On January 17, 2025—just three days before President Trump is to be sworn in—Congress issued a press release with the following statement:

Today, after an eight-month investigation, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) cut off all funding and formally debarred EcoHealth Alliance Inc. (EcoHealth) and its former President, Dr. Peter Daszak, for five years based on evidence uncovered by the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic.

As far as I can tell, the New York Times did not report this story, though the New York Post did.

More interesting than the superficial news reporting is the HHS ACTION REFERRAL MEMORANDUM  recommending that Dr. Peter Daszak be barred from participating in United States Federal Government procurement and nonprocurement programs.

The Memorandum also states:

Dr. Peter Daszak was the President and Chief Executive Officer of EHA from 2009 until his termination, effective January 6, 2025. Dr. Daszak was the Project Director (PD)/Principal Investigator (PI) for Grant Number 1R01AI110964-01.

I am not sure what to make of this document, which is written in such an arcane and convoluted style that it challenges the attention span of even the most focused reader.

I have been researching this story for four years, and I found the following paragraphs the most intriguing:

9. In a letter dated May 28, 2016, the NIAID contacted EHA concerning possible GoF research based on information submitted in its most recent Year 2 RPPR. The NIAID notified EHA that GoF research conducted under Grant Number 5R01AI110964-03 would be subject to the October 17, 2014, United States Federal Government funding pause, and that per the funding pause announcement, new United States Federal Government funding would not be released for GoF research projects that may be reasonably anticipated to confer attributes to influenza, MERS, or SARS viruses such that the virus would have enhanced pathogenicity and/or transmissibility in mammals via the respiratory route. In the letter, the NIAID requested that EHA provide a determination within 15 days of the date of the letter as to whether EHA’s research under Grant Number 5R01AI110964-03 did or did not include GoF work subject to the funding pause.

10. In a letter dated June 8, 2016, EHA provided a response to the NIAID’s May 28, 2016 letter. EHA explained that the goal of its proposed work was to construct MERS and MERS-like chimeric CoVs in order to understand the potential origins of MERSCoV in bats by studying bat MERS-like CoVs in detail. EHA stated that it believed it was highly unlikely that the proposed work would have any pathogenic potential, but that should any of these recombinants show evidence of enhanced virus growth greater than certain specified benchmarks involving log growth increases, or grow more efficiently in human airway epithelial cells, EHA would immediately: (1) stop all experiments with the mutant, (2) inform the NIAID Program Officer of these results, and (3) participate in decision-making trees to decide appropriate paths forward.

11. Based on the information provided by EHA, the NIAID concluded that the proposed work was not subject to the GoF research pause. In a letter dated July 7, 2016, however, the NIAID informed EHA that should any of the MERS-like or SARS-like chimeras generated under the grant show evidence of enhanced virus growth greater than 1 log over the parental backbone strain, EHA must stop all experiments with these viruses and provide the NIAID Program Officer and Grants Management Specialist, and WIV Institutional Biosafety Committee, with the relevant data and information related to these unanticipated outcomes.

Note that various statements in the above paragraphs are inconsistent with what Baric et al. state in their 2015 paper A SARS-like cluster of circulating bat coronavirus shows potential for human emergence—a research paper funded by the NIAID EcoHealth Grant “Understanding the Risk of Bat Coronavirus Emergence.”

As the authors state in the section on Biosafety and biosecurity:

Reported studies were initiated after the University of North Carolina Institutional Biosafety Committee approved the experimental protocol (Project Title: Generating infectious clones of bat SARS-like CoVs; Lab Safety Plan ID: 20145741; Schedule G ID: 12279). These studies were initiated before the US Government Deliberative Process Research Funding Pause on Selected Gain-of-Function Research Involving Influenza, MERS and SARS Viruses (http://www.phe.gov/s3/dualuse/Documents/gain-of-function.pdf). This paper has been reviewed by the funding agency, the NIH. Continuation of these studies was requested, and this has been approved by the NIH.

As I noted in my series of essays titled The Great SARS-CoV-2 Charade, one of the silliest lies told by Dr. Anthony Fauci has been his insistence that NIAID did not approve Gain-of-Function work by EcoHealth.

Fauci has repeatedly asserted this in a loud and vexed tone, as though he is outraged by the mere proposition. And yet, Ralph Baric and his colleagues—including Zhengli-Li Shi at the Wuhan Institute of Virology—plainly state in their 2015 paper that their Gain-of-Function experiments, performed in Baric’s UNC lab and Zhengli-Li Shi’s lab in Wuhan, were grandfathered in, given that they were funded before the 2014 Pause.

Another statement (in paragraph 11 of the recent HHS Action Referral Memo) that deserves special scrutiny is the following:

In a letter dated July 7, 2016, however, the NIAID informed EHA that should any of the MERS-like or SARS-like chimeras generated under the grant show evidence of enhanced virus growth greater than 1 log over the parental backbone strain, EHA must stop all experiments with these viruses and provide the NIAID Program Officer and Grants Management Specialist, and WIV Institutional Biosafety Committee, with the relevant data and information related to these unanticipated outcomes.

Again, it’s tough to interpret this statement, given that Baric et al. had, by the own admission, already generated chimeras that “replicate efficiently in primary human airway cells and achieve in vitro titers equivalent to epidemic strains of SARS-CoV.”

Let’s review what Baric et al. state in their Abstract about the functionality of the chimeric virus (named SHCOI4-MA15) they claimed to have generated. Using humanized mice (genetically modified to have primary human airway cells) as their experimental animals, the authors state:

Using the SARS-CoV reverse genetics system², we 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. Additionally, in vivo experiments demonstrate replication of the chimeric virus in mouse lung with notable pathogenesis.

To this day, no legal authority that I am aware of has investigated the question: What became of the the chimeras SHC014-MA15 and WIV1-MA15? The latter chimera was documented by Baric et al. in their March 2016 paper titled SARS-like WIV1-CoV poised for human emergence—a chimera “that replaced the SARS spike with the WIV1 spike within the mouse-adapted backbone.”

What did the Wuhan Institute of Virology do with these chimeras? Did its researchers continue to modify and experiment with these chimeras?

Another exceedingly silly claim made by U.S. government officials—including members of Congress—is that the true origin of SARS-CoV-2 is likely to remain a mystery, given that the Chinese government and military will almost certainly never agree to perform a full and transparent investigation of their Wuhan Institute of Virology.

What did the U.S. government expect when it agreed to share cutting edge American biotechnology with the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which has long been known to be run by the Chinese military?

One grows weary of our U.S. government officials evading responsibility by pretending to be imbeciles or by revealing themselves to be true imbeciles.

If you found this post informative, please consider becoming a paid subscriber to our Substack. Penetrating the smoke and mirror show performed by the abominable U.S. government requires a great deal of time and effort.

Share

FDA Finally Bans Cancer-Linked Red No. 3 Food Dye

By Nicolas Hulscher, MPH

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced on Wednesday that it is banning the use of Red No. 3, a synthetic dye responsible for the vibrant cherry red color in foods and beverages, citing its association with cancer in animal studies:

The dye is still used in thousands of foods, including candy, cereals, cherries in fruit cocktails and strawberry-flavored milkshakes, according to the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a food safety advocacy group that petitioned the agency in 2022 to end its use.

Food manufacturers will have until Jan. 15, 2027 to reformulate their products. Companies that make ingested drugs, such as dietary supplements, will get an additional year.

This ban was LONG overdue. Unfortunately, the other synthetic food dyes that have also been linked to serious deleterious health effects still remain on the market. A few months ago, I summarized the harm linked to synthetic food dyes — outdated FDA standards expose Americans to toxic food dyes linked to cancer, neurobehavioral issues, and other health risks, demanding urgent regulatory action:

Synthetic Food Dyes: A Half-Century of Harm

Nicolas Hulscher, MPH · November 25, 2024

by Nicolas Hulscher, MPH

Read full story

Batada et al found that nearly half (43.2%) of grocery store products contained artificial food colorings (AFCs), with Red 40 (29.8%), Blue 1 (24.2%), Yellow 5 (20.5%), and Yellow 6 (19.5%) being the most common. Candies (96.3%), fruit-flavored snacks (94%), and drink mixes/powders (89.7%) had the highest prevalence of AFCs, while produce contained none.

Oliveira et al summarized the deleterious health effects linked to synthetic food colorings in children: neurobehavioral disorders, allergic reactions, carcinogenic and mutagenic potential, gastrointestinal and respiratory issues, toxicity, developmental and growth delays, and behavioral changes.

Sultana et al illustrated the specific health hazards associated with particular synthetic food dyes:

Miller et al conducted a systematic review of the potential neurobehavioral impacts (activity and attention) of food dye consumption. They included 27 clinical trials of children exposed to synthetic food dyes and found that 16 of 25 challenge studies (64%) demonstrated evidence of a positive association, with 13 studies (52%) reporting statistically significant findings. The authors concluded, “Current evidence from studies in humans, largely from controlled exposure studies in children, supports a relationship between food dye exposure and adverse behavioral outcomes in children, both with and without pre-existing behavioral disorders.” They also noted that:

“Animal toxicology studies were used by FDA as the basis for regulatory risk assessments of food dyes [25]. All current dye registrations were made between 1969 and 1986 based on studies performed 35 to 50 years ago. These studies were not designed to assess neurobehavioral endpoints. Dye registration was accompanied by derivation of an “acceptable daily intake” (ADI) based on these studies. FDA ADIs have not been updated since original dye registration, although there have been several reviews of specific effects since then, the latest in 2011.”

Synthetic food dyes, widely prevalent in U.S. products and lacking nutritional value, rely on outdated FDA approvals despite evidence of widespread toxicity, carcinogenicity, and adverse neurobehavioral effects, strongly warranting urgent regulatory action to protect public health.

While the FDA has finally made a decision that will benefit public health, they are still allowing the dangerous COVID-19 genetic injections to be administered to all individuals aged 6 months and older despite far exceeding criteria for a Class I recall. The immediate removal of unsafe and ineffective gene therapy injections should be the first priority before anything other product bans.

Nicolas Hulscher, MPH

Epidemiologist and Foundation Administrator, McCullough Foundation

www.mcculloughfnd.org

Please consider following the McCullough Foundation and Nicolas Hulscher on X (formerly Twitter) for further content.