news
Newly released documents and internal messages about a 2018 coronavirus research proposal show the Chinese lab currently at the center of a COVID-19 lab leak rumor is considered a security risk by U.S. authorities This reveals the concerns of scientists that this may be the case.
Drafts and memos on a grant proposal called Project DEFUSE, co-authored by U.S. researchers and scientists from the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Published by U.S. Right to Know Monday, via a Freedom of Information Act request.
The proposal, which was ultimately rejected and denied funding by the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), was submitted by the now controversial EcoHealth Alliance, which aims to transmit bat coronaviruses to humans. The aim is to genetically engineer and test them in a way that makes them easier to test. .
The researchers proposed introducing “appropriate human-specific cleavage sites” into the spike protein of SARS-related viruses in the lab.
The draft proposal was published in 2021, sparking speculation that the coronavirus pandemic was caused by infected research technicians or improper disposal of hazardous waste from facilities in Wuhan.
Now, messages and memos between the proposal’s authors and an earlier draft released this week add another layer to the theory.
New documents show researchers plan to conduct some of their research in a lab in Wuhan where safety measures do not meet U.S. standards, according to the nonprofit public health research group US Right to Know. It is said that it was standing upright.
“Ralph, Seirei. Even if we win this contract, I’m not saying that all of this work will necessarily be done by Ralph, but we want to make sure that DARPA is happy with our team and that we are working with the U.S. side on this proposal.” “I would like to emphasize that,” wrote Peter Daszak of the EcoHealth Alliance. It was addressed to Ralph Barrick, a North Carolina-based researcher, and Zheng Lishi, a Wuhan scientist who is central to the lab leak theory.
“Once we have the funding, we can allocate who does exactly what work. And we believe that many of these tests can be done in Wuhan as well…”
He also said he wanted to “downplay” China’s involvement in research in hopes of receiving funding from DARPA.
“I will be using my resume and Ralph’s resume,” Daszak wrote. “Rinfa/Jenley, I know your resume is also very impressive, but let’s downplay the non-US focus of this proposal so DARPA doesn’t see this as a negative. I am.”
In an earlier version of the draft, researchers said the project would be “very cost-effective” because it would only require a biosafety level 2 (BSL-2) laboratory. Ta. (BSL-4) is the most stringent level of safety standard.
“Due to BSL-2 properties against SARSr-CoVs, our system is very cost effective.
The proposal was later edited, and BSL-2 was changed to BSL-3, noting that the lower level of biosafety standards was “likely to surprise” U.S. scientists.
“In the United States, these recombinant SARS-CoVs are being studied under BSL3 rather than BSL2, which is particularly important for those that can bind and replicate in primary human cells,” Barrick commented on the original document. . “These viruses may be growing in China (sic).” [sic] It’s under bsl2.American researchers [sic] He’ll probably go crazy. ”
EcoHealth Alliance said in a statement Tuesday that DARPA did not fund the study and the study was never conducted.
“As this work was not selected for funding, claims about these details are by definition based on a review of incomplete information and are highly misleading,” the statement said. .
But some scientists said that two years after the draft was rejected, research engineers had seen enough facts to believe it was the cause of the global pandemic.
“This breach makes it almost certain that it came from a lab,” biologist Matt Ridley tweeted. “This reckless experiment, known at the time as reckless, probably caused the deaths of millions of people. Scientists and the media conspired to hide the evidence.”
Load more…
{{#isDisplay}}
{{/isDisplay}}{{#isAniviewVideo}}
{{/isAniviewVideo}}{{#isSRVideo}}
{{/isSR video}}