Tweet
The intelligence agencies always knew......
Period.
Period.
-
100% agree. Full Stop!! -
Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Mao Ning’s Regular Press Conference on January 27, 2025
Updated: January 27, 2025 18:42
...
Bloomberg: Yesterday, the Central Intelligence Agency in America said that they now believe that the COVID-19 pandemic likely originated from lab leak rather than from a natural source. Does the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs have any response to this new development?
Mao Ning: Origins-tracing is a matter of science and any judgment on it should be made in a science-based spirit and by scientists. It is “extremely unlikely” that the pandemic was caused by a lab leak—this is the authoritative conclusion reached by the experts of the WHO-China joint mission based on science following their field trips to the lab in Wuhan and in-depth communication with researchers. The conclusion has been widely acknowledged by the international community, including the science community.
The US needs to stop politicizing and weaponizing origins-tracing at once, and stop scapegoating others. The U.S. should respond as quickly as possible to the international community’s legitimate concerns, voluntarily share its data with the WHO about suspected early cases in the U.S., clarify the questions concerning relevant U.S. biological labs, and give a responsible explanation to the world.
...
Comment
-
There were pneumonia outbreaks up and down the Yangzte river starting in the summer of 2019. No re-writing of history will change that. Please see:
China - COVID-19 - 1st known case traces back to November 2019 - FluTrackers documentation of possible early 2019 outbreak trend
Thread started March 14, 2020, 06:36 PM
-
-
Here we go....watch China seize American assets in China as retaliation.....
U.S. Judge Finds China Liable for Covid Missteps, Imposes $24 Billion Penalty
The judgment was issued in a case brought by the Missouri attorney general. The Chinese government did not respond to the claims in court.
March 7, 2025
A federal judge in Missouri found the Chinese government responsible for covering up the start of the Covid-19 pandemic and hoarding protective equipment in a ruling on Friday. He entered a judgment of more than $24 billion that Missouri officials vowed to enforce by seizing Chinese assets.
The lawsuit, filed by the Missouri attorney general’s office in April 2020, during the early months of the pandemic, accused the Chinese government of withholding information about the existence and spread of the virus and then of cutting off the supply of personal protective equipment, or P.P.E., from the rest of the world. Chinese officials said Friday that they did not accept the judge’s decision.
In his ruling, Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh Jr. wrote that “China was misleading the world about the dangers and scope of the Covid-19 pandemic” and had “engaged in monopolistic actions to hoard P.P.E.” Those actions, he said, hampered the early response to the pandemic in the United States and made it impossible to purchase enough equipment for medical providers responding to the virus.
more.... https://archive.is/PeCUHComment
-
Related to Sharon's post above:
Missouri Attorney General Attorney General Andrew Bailey Secures Historic $24 Billion Judgment Against China for Unleashing the COVID-19 Pandemic.
...
JEFFERSON CITY Mo. – Today, Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey secured a historic $24 billion judgment against the Chinese Communist Party for unleashing the COVID-19 pandemic — six times more than the previous largest judgment in Missouri history.
“This is a landmark victory for Missouri and the United States in the fight to hold China accountable for unleashing COVID-19 on the world,” said Attorney General Bailey. “China refused to show up to court, but that doesn’t mean they get away with causing untold suffering and economic devastation. We intend to collect every penny by seizing Chinese-owned assets, including Missouri farmland.”
The Federal court ruled that Missouri “has established this claim of damages through evidence satisfactory to the court,” proving that China caused and exacerbated the COVID-19 pandemic, harming Missourians. The ruling follows former Attorney General Eric Schmitt’s 2020 lawsuit against the Chinese Communist Party for obstructing the production, purchase, and export of critical medical equipment, including PPE, during the pandemic.
Missouri will now move to collect the $24 billion judgment and, if necessary, will work with the Trump Administration to identify and seize Chinese-owned assets — a critical step in protecting Missouri’s economy and national security.
A full copy of the judgment can be read here.
-------------------------------------------
From the link above:
(Screenshots)
...
...
Comment
-
Posted on the White House site - I believe today.
THE ORIGIN
“The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2” publication — which was used repeatedly by public health officials and the media to discredit the lab leak theory — was prompted by Dr. Fauci to push the preferred narrative that COVID-19 originated naturally.
1.
The virus possesses a biological characteristic that is not found in nature.
2.
Data shows that all COVID-19 cases stem from a single introduction into humans. This runs contrary to previous pandemics where there were multiple spillover events.
3.
Wuhan is home to China’s foremost SARS research lab, which has a history of conducting gain-of-function research (gene altering and organism supercharging) at inadequate biosafety levels.
4.
Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) researchers were sick with COVID-like symptoms in the fall of 2019, months before COVID-19 was discovered at the wet market.
5.
By nearly all measures of science, if there was evidence of a natural origin it would have already surfaced. But it hasn’t.
House Oversight Report DownloaD
PROXIMAL ORIGIN PUBLICATION:
“The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2” publication — which was used repeatedly by public health officials and the media to discredit the lab leak theory — was prompted by Dr. Fauci to push the preferred narrative that COVID-19 originated in nature.
GAIN-OF-FUNCTION RESEARCH:
A lab-related incident involving gain-of-function research is the most likely the origin of COVID-19. Current government mechanisms for overseeing this dangerous gain-of-function research are incomplete, severely convoluted, and lack global applicability.
ECOHEALTH ALLIANCE INC. (ECOHEALTH):
EcoHealth — under the leadership of Dr. Peter Daszak — used U.S. taxpayer dollars to facilitate dangerous gain-of-function research in Wuhan, China. After the Select Subcommittee released evidence of EcoHealth violating the terms of its National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) commenced official debarment proceedings and suspended all funding to EcoHealth.
New evidence also shows that the Department of Justice (DOJ) has opened an investigation into EcoHealth’s pandemic-era activities.
NIH FAILURES:
NIH’s procedures for funding and overseeing potentially dangerous research are deficient, unreliable, and pose a serious threat to both public health and national security. Further, NIH fostered an environment that promoted evading federal record keeping laws — as seen through the actions of Dr. David Morens and “FOIA Lady” Marge Moore.
HHS OBSTRUCTION:
The Biden Administration’s HHS engaged in a multi-year campaign of delay, confusion, and non-responsiveness in an attempt to obstruct the Select Subcommittee’s investigation and hide evidence that could incriminate or embarrass senior public health officials. It appears that HHS even intentionally under-resourced its component that responds to legislative oversight requests.
ECOHEALTH OBSTRUCTION:
EcoHealth President Dr. Peter Daszak obstructed the Select Subcommittee’s investigation by providing publicly available information, instructing his staff to reduce the scope and pace of productions, and doctoring documents before releasing them to the public. Further, Dr. Daszak provided false statements to Congress.
DR. DAVID MORENS:
Dr. Fauci’s Senior Advisor, Dr. David Morens, deliberately obstructed the Select Subcommittee’s investigation, likely lied to Congress on multiple occasions, unlawfully deleted federal COVID-19 records, and shared nonpublic information about NIH grant processes with EcoHealth President Dr. Peter Daszak.
NEW YORK OBSTRUCTION:
New York’s Executive Chamber — led presently by Governor Kathy Hochul — redacted documents, offered numerous illegitimate privilege claims, and withheld thousands of documents without an apparent legal basis to obstruct the Select Subcommittee’s investigation into former Governor Cuomo’s pandemic-era failures.
WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION (WHO):
The WHO’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic was an abject failure because it caved to pressure from the Chinese Communist Party and placed China’s political interests ahead of its international duties. Further, the WHO’s newest effort to solve the problems exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic — via a “Pandemic Treaty” — may harm the United States.
SOCIAL DISTANCING:
The “6 feet apart” social distancing recommendation — which shut down schools and small business across the country — was arbitrary and not based on science. During closed door testimony, Dr. Fauci testified that the guidance “sort of just appeared.”
MASK MANDATES:
There was no conclusive evidence that masks effectively protected Americans from COVID-19. Public health officials flipped-flopped on the efficacy of masks without providing Americans scientific data — causing a massive uptick in public distrust.
LOCKDOWNS:
Prolonged lockdowns caused immeasurable harm to not only the American economy, but also to the mental and physical health of Americans, with a particularly negative effect on younger citizens. Rather than prioritizing the protection of the most vulnerable populations, federal and state government policies forced millions of Americans to forgo crucial elements of a healthy and financially sound life.
NEW YORK PANDEMIC FAILURES:
Former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo’s March 25 Order — which forced nursing homes to accept COVID-19 positive patients — “was medical malpractice.” Evidence shows that Mr. Cuomo and his Administration worked to cover up the tragic aftermath of their policy decisions in an apparent effort to shield themselves from accountability.
COVID-19 MISINFORMATION:
Public health officials often mislead the American people through conflicting messaging, knee-jerk reactions, and a lack of transparency. Most egregiously, the federal government demonized alternative treatments and disfavored narratives, such as the lab leak theory,
in a shameful effort to coerce and control the American people’s health decisions.
When those efforts failed, the Biden Administration resorted to “outright censorship—coercing and colluding with the world’s largest social media companies to censor all COVID-19-related dissent.”
Comment
-
So much of that is just crazy. I fear for our scientists.Comment
-
The White House social media/marketing person should be fired. This is an example of how to take a decent argument and ruin it with the presentation.Originally posted by Chicagogal View Post
Comment
-
Covid-19 prevention, control and origins tracing
Source: XinhuaEditor: huaxia2025-04-30 15:25:15
BEIJING, April 30 (Xinhua) -- China's State Council Information Office on Wednesday issued a white paper titled "Covid-19 Prevention, Control and Origins Tracing: China's Actions and Stance."
Apart from preface and conclusion, the document contains three chapters: "Contributing Chinese Wisdom to the Study of the Origins of SARS-CoV-2," "China's Contribution to the Global Fight Against Covid-19," and "The Mismanaged Response of the US to the Covid-19 Pandemic."
...
-------------------------------------------------------------
Home - White Papers
Full text: Covid-19 Prevention, Control and Origins Tracing: China's Actions and Stance
Xinhua | April 30, 2025
China's State Council Information Office on Wednesday released a white paper titled "Covid-19 Prevention, Control and Origins Tracing: China's Actions and Stance."
Covid-19 Prevention, Control and
Origins Tracing:
China's Actions and Stance
The State Council Information Office of
the People's Republic of China
April 2025
Contents
Preface
I. Contributing Chinese Wisdom to the Study of the Origins of SARS-CoV-2
II. China's Contribution to the Global Fight Against Covid-19
III. The Mismanaged Response of the US to the Covid-19 Pandemic Conclusion
Conclusion
Comment
-
Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Guo Jiakun’s Regular Press Conference on April 30, 2025
Updated: April 30, 2025 19:06
...
Bloomberg: Just before this press conference began, China published a white paper on the origins of COVID and tracing the origins of the pandemic. And in that, it repeats the statements that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has repeatedly made about the U.S. Fort Detrick military facility, asking a bunch of questions about why wouldn’t the U.S. provide more explanation, and what is the U.S. hiding at this facility. Can you explain to me how U.S. government officials saying that China needs to explain better what happened in Wuhan is fundamentally different to how China's saying that the U.S. needs to explain what happened in Fort Detrick?
Guo Jiakun: China has repeatedly stated its position on the origins-tracing of COVID-19. Origins-tracing is a matter of science and any judgment on it should be made in a science-based spirit and by scientists. It is “extremely unlikely” that the pandemic was caused by a lab leak—this is the authoritative conclusion reached by experts based on science following their field trips to relevant lab and in-depth communication with researchers. The conclusion has been widely acknowledged by the international community, including the science community. This is also the scientific basis for China’s position.
...
-
The Chinese government did not let any independent researchers into the affect market and environs for a year. The market had been cleaned and reopened in that time. The real "evidence" was long gone.
-
-
Excerpts from the report issued by the French National Academy of Medicine on April 1, 2025. The report has 23 pages.
Translation Google
A report expresses the official position of the French National Academy of Medicine.
At its meeting on Tuesday, April 1, 2025, the Academy adopted the text of this report by 67 votes in favor, 2 votes against, and 3 abstentions.
From the Origin of SARS-CoV-2 to the Risks of Zoonoses and Dangerous Virus Handling
...
Christine ROUZIOUX (Rapporteur) on behalf of a working group of the French National Academy of Medicine.
Working group members: Patrick BERCHE, Patrice BINDER, François BRICAIRE, Yves BUISSON, Bernard CHARPENTIER, Etienne DECROLY, Jean-François DELFRAISSY
Summary: Five years after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, the origin of the SARS-CoV-2 virus remains an enigma. The hypothesis of a natural origin is opposed to that of a virus manipulated in a laboratory in Wuhan, China, the starting point of the pandemic.
Knowing the history of the pandemic allows for risk analysis. Zoonotic risks remain significant and are persisting or even increasing; it is therefore necessary to establish recommendations for epidemiological surveillance. The risks associated with genetic manipulation of viruses are also increasing, and researchers and students must be made aware of their scientific and ethical responsibilities related to the purpose of their work and the risks of laboratory accidents/incidents. The current context of technological development in biology, including AI, can lead to serious consequences in the absence of control and reflection on their possible impacts, particularly in terms of biosafety.
...
VI – CONCLUSIONS:
Five years after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, whether or not there has been any dangerous manipulation of the virus, the findings show that neither the intermediate animal nor the progenitor virus have been identified in nature. Numerous recent editorials and articles have revived discussions on the origin of SARS-CoV-2, highlighting the political stakes linked to the COVID crisis: neither the Chinese nor the Americans want to take responsibility, and probably even less so in the current context. A recent CIA statement now suggests an accidental origin and indicates that it is relaunching an investigation and attempting to obtain more information from China, which is continuing its research (including some risky research), as is the United States. "The question is not IF a next pandemic could occur, but rather WHEN it will occur" (Maria D. Van Kerkhove of the WHO, which continues to call on the Chinese authorities for transparency and data sharing, without currently achieving any real success). Everything suggests that in the absence of data, we risk never knowing the origin of the pandemic, or that it will take time to solve this incomplete puzzle. Ultimately, whatever the origin of the virus, recommendations arise from these events and are essential to limit zoonotic risks, as well as those related to research on viruses with pandemic potential. The development of new technologies using new programs and models based on AI will be difficult to fully control. These increasingly accessible and sophisticated molecular tools increase the ethical and scientific risks of certain research, particularly when it comes to infectious diseases and epidemic surveillance and control: they can no longer be underestimated. In line with the position of the French National Academy of Sciences and the recommendations of the CNCB, the French National Academy of Medicine considers that the issues of biosafety and bioprotection in laboratories are truly topical. It is urgent that a culture of biosafety risk management be developed in the research world. This requires the implementation of a proactive policy backed by funding, including the implementation of biosafety standards. Raising awareness and empowering researchers regarding the ethical aspects of their research is more essential than ever. The persistence and even progression of zoonotic risks requires preparation to address them, by strengthening anticipation and surveillance resources through the national coordination of ad hoc networks and the harmonization of regulatory procedures, in order to effectively participate in transparent European and international cooperation, which is more essential than ever in the face of new emerging diseases.
TABLE 1:
ANM RECOMMENDATIONS:
Given the presence of emerging epidemic risks associated with those linked to technological advances, the French National Academy of Medicine recommends the following recommendations for France:
Recommendation 1: Strengthen technical, financial, and human resources, and the coordination of networks for monitoring the risks of zoonoses and/or epizootics.
Have the necessary databases and operational tools to anticipate and control them.
Recommendation 2: Improve the culture of safety and biosecurity in laboratories performing genetic manipulation of viruses, through detailed risk assessment, including those posed by AI. Develop training to raise awareness of research ethics and greater accountability for "risky research." An "Ethics Unit for Risky Scientific Research" should be established in each EPST.
Recommendation 3: Strengthen biosafety and bioprotection rules, including procedures adapted to the level of risk (BSL-2, BSL-3, or BSL-4 laboratories), including the installation of biological black boxes that must remain accessible for inspection. Create incentives, or even requirements, for reporting laboratory incidents/accidents that pose a risk to human health.
Recommendation 4: Establish national governance for "risky research" so that France can cooperate within European and international networks based on the harmonization of practices and regulations concerning the possession, handling, and transfer of pathogenic agents posing epidemic risks, while respecting ethical conditions and conditions of sharing and transparency, in accordance with international agreements established for this purpose.
Comment
-
bump this
Comment
-
Presidential Actions
IMPROVING THE SAFETY AND SECURITY OF BIOLOGICAL RESEARCH
Executive Orders
May 5, 2025
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:
Section 1. Purpose. Dangerous gain-of-function research on biological agents and pathogens has the potential to significantly endanger the lives of American citizens. If left unrestricted, its effects can include widespread mortality, an impaired public health system, disrupted American livelihoods, and diminished economic and national security.
The Biden Administration allowed dangerous gain-of-function research within the United States with insufficient levels of oversight. It also actively approved, through the National Institutes of Health, Federal life-science research funding in China and other countries where there is limited United States oversight or reasonable expectation of biosafety enforcement.
This recklessness, if unaddressed, may lead to the proliferation of research on pathogens (and potential pathogens) in settings without adequate safeguards, even after COVID-19 revealed the risk of such practices.
Sec. 2. Policy. It is the policy of the United States to ensure that United States federally funded research benefits American citizens without jeopardizing our Nation’s security, strength, or prosperity. My Administration will balance the prevention of catastrophic consequences with maintaining readiness against biological threats and driving global leadership in biotechnology, biological countermeasures, biosecurity, and health research.
Sec. 3. Stop Dangerous Gain-of-Function Research. (a) The Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), in coordination with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget and the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs (APNSA), and in consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the heads of other relevant executive departments and agencies (agencies) identified by the Director of OSTP, shall establish guidance for the heads of relevant agencies, to the extent consistent with the terms and conditions of the funding, to immediately:
(i) end Federal funding of dangerous gain-of-function research conducted by foreign entities in countries of concern (e.g., China) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6627(c), or in other countries where there is not adequate oversight to ensure that the countries are compliant with United States oversight standards and policies; and
(ii) end Federal funding of other life-science research that is occurring in countries of concern or foreign countries where there is not adequate oversight to ensure that the countries are compliant with United States oversight standards and policies and that could reasonably pose a threat to public health, public safety, and economic or national security, as determined by the heads of relevant agencies.
(b) The Director of OSTP, in coordination with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget and the APNSA, and in consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the heads of other relevant agencies, shall establish guidance for the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the heads of other relevant agencies with respect to suspension of federally funded dangerous gain-of-function research, pursuant to the terms and conditions of the relevant research funding, at least until the completion of the policy called for in section 4(a) of this order. Heads of agencies shall report any exception to a suspension to the Director of OSTP for review in consultation with the APNSA and the heads of relevant agencies.
Sec. 4. Secure Future Research Through Commonsense Frameworks. (a) Within 120 days of the date of this order, the Director of OSTP, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6627 and in coordination with the APNSA and the heads of relevant agencies, shall revise or replace the 2024 “United States Government Policy for Oversight of Dual Use Research of Concern and Pathogens with Enhanced Pandemic Potential” to:
(i) strengthen top-down independent oversight; increase accountability through enforcement, audits, and improved public transparency; and clearly define the scope of covered research while ensuring the United States remains the global leader in biotechnology, biological countermeasures, and health research;
(ii) incorporate enforcement mechanisms, including those described in section 7 of this order, into Federal funding agreements to ensure compliance with all Federal policies governing dangerous gain-of-function research; and
(iii) provide for review and revision at least every 4 years, or as appropriate.
(b)Within 90 days of the date of this order, the Director of OSTP, in coordination with the APNSA and the heads of relevant agencies, shall revise or replace the 2024 “Framework for Nucleic Acid Synthesis Screening” (Framework) to ensure it takes a commonsense approach and effectively encourages providers of synthetic nucleic acid sequences to implement comprehensive, scalable, and verifiable synthetic nucleic acid procurement screening mechanisms to minimize the risk of misuse. The heads of all agencies that fund life-science research shall ensure that synthetic nucleic acid procurement is conducted through providers or manufacturers that adhere to the updated Framework. To ensure compliance, the updated Framework shall incorporate the enforcement mechanisms described in section 7 of this order. The Framework shall be reviewed and revised at least every 4 years, or as appropriate
Sec. 5. Manage Risks Associated with Non-federally Funded Research. Within 180 days of the date of this order, the Director of OSTP, in coordination with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the APNSA, the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, and the heads of other relevant agencies, shall develop and implement a strategy to govern, limit, and track dangerous gain-of-function research across the United States that occurs without Federal funding and other life-science research that could cause significant societal consequences. This strategy shall include actions to achieve comprehensive, scalable, and verifiable nucleic acid synthesis screening in non-federally funded settings. Any gaps in authorities necessary to achieve the goals of this strategy shall be addressed in a legislative proposal to be sent to the President, through the Director of OSTP and the APNSA, within 180 days of the date of this order.
Sec. 6. Increase Accountability and Public Transparency of Dangerous Gain-of-Function Research. The Director of OSTP, in coordination with the APNSA and the heads of relevant agencies, shall ensure that the revised policy called for in section 4(a) of this order includes a mechanism whereby research institutions that receive Federal funding must report dangerous gain-of-function research, and to the maximum extent permitted by law, include research that is supported by non-Federal funding mechanisms. The reporting mechanism shall provide a publicly available source of information about research programs and awards identified pursuant to this section, including, where permitted by law, those that have been stopped or suspended pursuant to sections 3(a) and 3(b) of this order, and all future programs and awards that are covered by the updated policy developed in section 4(a) of this order. This reporting shall be conducted in a way that does not compromise national security or legitimate intellectual property interests of subject institutions.
Sec. 7. Future Enforcement Terms. The Secretary of Health and Human Services and the heads of other relevant agencies shall, consistent with existing laws and regulations, include in every life-science research contract or grant award:
(a) a term requiring the contractual counterparty or grant recipient to agree that its compliance in all respects with the terms of this order and any applicable regulations promulgated by the contracting or grant-offering agency is material to the Government’s payment decisions for purposes of 31 U.S.C. 3729(b)(4);
(b) a term requiring such counterparty or recipient to certify that it does not operate, participate in, or fund any dangerous gain-of-function research or other life-science research in foreign countries that could cause significant societal consequences or generate unnecessary national security risks, and that does not comply with this order and the policies ordered herein;
(c) a term stating that a violation of the terms of this order or any applicable regulations promulgated by the contracting or grant-offering agency by any grant recipient may be considered a violation of such term by the recipient’s employer or institution; and
(d) a term stating that any grant recipient, employer, or institution found to be in violation of the terms of this order or any applicable regulations promulgated by the contracting or grant-making agency may be subject to immediate revocation of ongoing Federal funding, and up to a 5-year period of ineligibility for Federal life-sciences grant funds offered by the Department of Health and Human Services and other relevant agencies.
Sec. 8. Definitions. For the purposes of this order,
“dangerous gain-of-function research” means scientific research on an infectious agent or toxin with the potential to cause disease by enhancing its pathogenicity or increasing its transmissibility. Covered research activities are those that could result in significant societal consequences and that seek or achieve one or more of the following outcomes:
(a) enhancing the harmful consequences of the agent or toxin;
(b) disrupting beneficial immunological response or the effectiveness of an immunization against the agent or toxin;
(c) conferring to the agent or toxin resistance to clinically or agriculturally useful prophylactic or therapeutic interventions against that agent or toxin or facilitating their ability to evade detection methodologies;
(d) increasing the stability, transmissibility, or the ability to disseminate the agent or toxin;
(e) altering the host range or tropism of the agent or toxin;
(f) enhancing the susceptibility of a human host population to the agent or toxin; or
(g) generating or reconstituting an eradicated or extinct agent or toxin.
Sec. 9. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
(d) The Department of Health and Human Services shall provide funding for this order’s publication in the Federal Register.
DONALD J. TRUMP
THE WHITE HOUSE,
May 5, 2025.
-------------------------------------------
Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Achieves Improved Safety and Security of Biological Research
The White House
May 5, 2025
PROTECTING AMERICANS FROM DANGEROUS GAIN OF FUNCTION RESEARCH: Today, President Donald J. Trump signed an Executive Order to improve the safety and security of biological research in the United States and around the world. This Executive Order:- Ends any present and all future Federal funding of dangerous gain-of-function research in countries of concern like China and Iran and in foreign nations deemed to have insufficient research oversight.
- Empowers American research agencies to identify and end Federal funding of other biological research that could pose a threat to American public health, public safety, or national security.
- Prohibits Federal funding from contributing to foreign research likely to cause another pandemic. These measures will drastically reduce the potential for lab-related incidents involving gain-of-function research, like that conducted on bat coronaviruses in China by the EcoHealth Alliance and Wuhan Institute of Virology.
- Protects Americans from lab accidents and other biosecurity incidents, such as those that likely caused COVID-19 and the 1977 Russian flu.
ESTABLISHING SAFE AND SECURE OVERSIGHT OF DANGEROUS GAIN OF FUNCTION RESEARCH IN THE UNITED STATES: This Executive Order will increase the safety and security of biological research for Americans without impeding U.S. innovation.- For decades, policies overseeing gain-of-function research on pathogens, toxins, and potential pathogens have lacked adequate enforcement, transparency, and top-down oversight. Researchers have not acknowledged the legitimate potential for societal harms that this kind of research poses.
- The Biden Administration allowed dangerous gain-of-function research with insufficient levels of oversight and actively approved Federal life-science research funding in China and other countries.
- The 2024 United States Government Policy for Oversight of Dual Use Research of Concern and Pathogens with Enhanced Pandemic Potential (“DURC/PEPP”) and the 2024 Framework for Nucleic Acid Synthesis Screening are the latest examples of inadequate policies that rely on self-reporting and fail to protect Americans from dangerous research practices.
- This Order pauses research using infectious pathogens and toxins in the United States that may pose a danger to American citizens until a safer, more enforceable, and transparent policy governing such research can be developed and implemented. It directs the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and the National Security Advisor (NSA) to work with funding agencies to develop such a policy within 120 days.
- Unlike previous policies, this Order contains enforcement and reporting mechanisms that will strengthen oversight and discourage subjective interpretation of policies that researchers have used in the past to evade biosafety and biosecurity oversight.
SAFEGUARDING THE FUTURE AND PROMOTING AMERICAN BIOTECHNOLOGY DOMINANCE: President Trump is driving us into the Golden Age of American Innovation that will lead us to a safer, healthier, and more prosperous America.- This Order protects Americans from dangerous gain-of-function research that manipulates viruses and other biological agents and toxins, but it does not impede productive biological research that will ensure the United States maintains readiness against biological threats and continues to drive global leadership in biotechnology, biosecurity, and health research.
- President Trump has long theorized that COVID-19 originated from a lab leak at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and has consistently pushed for transparency in investigating its origins.
Comment
-
New study retraces Covid’s origins to bats in southwest China or northern Laos
The virus that causes Covid-19 followed the same evolutionary path as Sars, a coronavirus that jumped from bats to wildlife to people in the early 2000s, according to an analysis of their genomes.
In a paper published in Cell journal, scientists compared the genomes of 250 coronaviruses to reconstruct how the pathogens evolved over time, potentially offering insights into how Covid-19 spilled into people – an unresolved question that’s been thrust back into the spotlight since Donald Trump assumed office.
The researchers found that both Sars viruses were circulating and changing inside bats in southern China and neighbouring countries for hundreds of thousands of years before emerging in humans.
Bats have unusual immune systems which allow them to harbour coronaviruses, allowing them to mix and mutate into something new.
By unpicking this “recombination” process, the scientists were able to estimate when and where each of the two coronaviruses had emerged in bats.
They found Sars was circulating in western China just one to two years before it jumped into humans in Guangdong, central China.
...
Comment
-
Both viewpoints can be correct. They are not mutually exclusive. Bats as reservoirs for SARS can be experimented on leading to - in a sloppy lab - a leak.
I don't care what peeps say 5 YEARS later. Plus, with the US research $ being cut there is an incentive to court China as a funding source.
The fact remains that statistically it is impossible for a chance outbreak at the Wuhan market. Impossible for all of the happenings to line up with the moon and stars to all align in Wuhan where 2 government research labs cooperating on SARS gain-of-function experiments. It is an insult.
-
-
WHO Scientific advisory group issues report on origins of COVID-19
27 June 2025
News release
Geneva
Reading time: 2 min (505 words)
Français
Русский
Español
The WHO Scientific Advisory Group for the Origins of Novel Pathogens (SAGO), a panel of 27 independent, international, multidisciplinary experts, today published its report on the origins of SARS-CoV-2, the virus responsible for the COVID-19 pandemic.
SAGO has advanced the understanding of the origins of COVID-19, but as they say in their report, much of the information needed to evaluate fully all hypotheses has not been provided.
“I thank each of the 27 members of SAGO for dedicating their time and expertise to this very important scientific undertaking over more than three years,” said Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, WHO Director-General. “As things stand, all hypotheses must remain on the table, including zoonotic spillover and lab leak. We continue to appeal to China and any other country that has information about the origins of COVID-19 to share that information openly, in the interests of protecting the world from future pandemics.”
In its report, SAGO considered available evidence for the main hypotheses for the origins of COVID-19 and concluded that “the weight of available evidence…suggests zoonotic spillover…either directly from bats or through an intermediate host.”
WHO requested that China share hundreds of genetic sequences from individuals with COVID-19 early in the pandemic, more detailed information about the animals sold at markets in Wuhan, and information on work done and biosafety conditions at laboratories in Wuhan. To date, China has not shared this information either with SAGO or WHO.
SAGO published its initial findings and recommendations in a report on 9 June 2022. Today’s report updates that evaluation based on peer-reviewed papers and reviews, as well as available unpublished information and field studies, interviews, and other reports including audit findings, government reports and intelligence reports. SAGO convened in various formats 52 times, conducted briefings with researchers, academics, journalists, and others.
“As the report says, this is not solely a scientific endeavour, it is a moral and ethical imperative,” said Dr Marietjie Venter, Chair of the group and Distinguished Professor and One Health Research Chair in Vaccines and Surveillance for Emerging viral threats at the University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa. “Understanding the origins of SARS-CoV-2 and how it sparked a pandemic is needed to help prevent future pandemics, save lives and livelihoods, and reduce global suffering.”
At a Special Session of the World Health Assembly in late 2020, WHO Member States adopted a resolution asking WHO to study the origins of SARS-CoV-2. Accordingly, a joint mission between international and Chinese experts travelled to China in January and February 2021, and published their report in March of that year.
In July 2021, Dr Tedros launched SAGO with two mandates: first, to design a global framework to investigate the origins of emerging and re-emerging pathogens, which it published last year, and second, to apply that framework to evaluate scientific evidence to determine the origins of COVID-19.
The work to understand the origins of SARS-CoV-2 remains unfinished. WHO welcomes any further evidence on the origins of COVID-19, and SAGO remains committed to reviewing any new information should it become available.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Independent assessment of the origins of SARS‑CoV‑2
Developed by the Scientific Advisory Group for the Origins of Novel Pathogens (SAGO)
27 June 2025 | COVID-19: Scientific briefs
/epidemic-and-pandemic-preparedness-and-prevention-(epp)/emerging-diseases-and-zoonoses-(ezd)/sago-covid-thumbnail.tmb-479v.png?sfvrsn=a033011d_1)
Download (999.4 kB)
Overview
The Scientific Advisory Group for the Origins of Novel Pathogens (SAGO) provided initial findings and recommendations to better understand the origins of SARS‑CoV‑2 in a report published on 9 June 2022 (WHO, 2022).
This current review is an independent assessment of the origins of SARS‑CoV‑2 developed by the SAGO for WHO, and provides an evaluation of the information from published scientific papers and reports, available intelligence statements and reports, scientific presentations provided to SAGO and expert discussions held by SAGO during closed meetings between November 2021 and June 2025.
SAGO during closed meetings between November 2021 and June 2025. Understanding the origins of SARS‑CoV‑2 and how it sparked a pandemic is needed to help prevent future pandemics, save lives and livelihoods, and reduce global suffering. Ultimately, this pursuit underscores our collective responsibility to safeguard human health and well-being.
The document also offers recommendations on the further recommended studies and the critical importance of sharing all information as soon as possible to improve our understanding of the origins of SARS-CoV-2 and prevent future pandemics.
Comment
-
Translation Google
Origins of Covid-19: Animal, Laboratory or Frozen Food, the Three Accounts and Their Scientific Arguments
By Camille Gaubert on 07/24/2025 at 10:00 a.m.
Listen 13 min.
A scientific investigation into the origins of Covid-19, episode 6. This summer, five years after the pandemic, Sciences et Avenir is listing the scientific arguments supporting or casting doubt on the three hypotheses put forward to explain the emergence of the virus: through animals, laboratory accidents... or the Chinese story.
A few years ago—we don't know how many, but before 2019—bats infected with a still-unknown coronavirus lived in caves in Yunnan, a southern Chinese region bordering Vietnam, Laos, and Myanmar. Later, as early as December 2019, Wuhan hospitals received the first 174 cases of severe Covid-19, a disease caused by a new coronavirus descended from that of bats.
Between the Yunnan caves at an undetermined time and Wuhan in 2019, the virus traveled 1,500 km, a distance that only human intervention can explain. But were these humans wildlife traffickers who turned out to be infected, or scientists collecting samples to study or even modify them in the laboratory? Experts are still divided on the subject, although the laboratory hypothesis is gaining momentum, while the Chinese government, for its part, proposes a completely different scenario.
Emergence through zoonosis, the first reflex
-The location : the Huanan market in Wuhan, a 50,000 m² enclosed space where live animals are sold.
-The source : a still unidentified wild animal that was allegedly offered for sale there and infected nearby humans, acting as an intermediary with the bat.
Several scientific arguments support this hypothesis. First, the history of previous epidemics. " The hypothesis of emergence by zoonosis (contamination by animals, editor's note) is the first reflex, which refers to the natural history of similar emerging diseases such as SARS in 2003, probably transmitted by civet cats, and MERS in 2011 transmitted by camels ," explains Marc Eloit, virologist and former director of the "Pathogen Discovery" laboratory at the Pasteur Institute. Second, the geographic convergence of cases around the market area seems to point to it as the epicenter of the epidemic, which is what researchers expect to observe if this is where the virus emerged. The market area emerged from a 2022 publication in the journal Science that analyzed the location of homes and workplaces of 155 of the first 174 cases of Covid-19. In the same study, the positive Covid-19 samples also pointed to a corner of the western part of the Huanan market where wild animals were sold.
But the zoonosis hypothesis also has its flaws. For starters, while MERS, for example, regularly re-emerges on a small scale in its natural reservoir (camels), Covid-19 has never appeared in any animal. Moreover, " SARS-CoV-2 has never been found in animals other than through human contamination. And that really speaks against the hypothesis of emergence through zoonosis," explains epidemiologist Renaud Piarroux, head of department at the Pitié Salpêtrière Hospital (AP-HP) and author of Sapiens et les microbes – les épidemics d'autrefois (CNRS Editions). As for the convergence of cases around the market, it is also compatible with contamination by an infected human – and not just an animal. " The data points to a very significant contamination event at the Huanan market, but it is extremely difficult to determine how the virus arrived at this market ," points out Belgian epidemiologist Marius Gilbert, who sat on the country's scientific council during the Covid-19 crisis. This is especially true since the corner of the market identified by the positive Covid-19 samples certainly includes likely locations of potentially infected wild animals, but also an unventilated Mahjong room and toilets, two potential sites of contamination between humans.
The appearance in the viral genome of the furin cleavage site, which gave the virus its pandemic potential and which no other virus in the same sarbecovirus family possesses, also remains unexplained, while experiments conducted to mimic its re-emergence have yielded nothing. And if this sequence did not emerge through successive mutations, it must have been acquired in one go by chance, through infection at the same time as another virus: this rare phenomenon is called recombination. But here too, no potential donor organism has been identified. " Nature has many attempts and starting points. Thousands of animals (and sometimes humans) involved in the wildlife trade are infected with viruses, thus creating thousands of opportunities for a virus to acquire the mutations necessary to become a pandemic virus ," objects zoonosis researcher Alex Crits-Christophe. This is indeed what usually happens, but no trace of these numerous infected animals or of these multiple attempts at viral emergence have been identified so far.
Finally, one element in particular sows doubt: after five years and despite the significant Chinese scientific and financial resources , no animal or precursor virus (close ancestor) has been found , whereas the civet of the first SARS and the camel of MERS had been identified in a few months.
The laboratory accident, from irrefutable manipulation to the DEFUSE project
-The location : one of the laboratories of the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), located in an urban area
-The source : an infected employee, improperly disposed waste, poorly controlled cell culture, insufficient safety standards, etc.
Be careful, in science, an "irrefutable" theory or argument is not a good thing: it means it cannot be proven wrong, and therefore must be based on solid evidence to gain consensus. Some versions of the theories that the Covid-19 virus accidentally emerged from the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) laboratory are of this kind. The laboratory accident theory covers several possible scenarios, all of which result in the virus emerging from Wuhan and then being transported to the Huanan market by an infected human.
The virus may have been genetically modified to produce SARS-CoV-2 according to the plans of the DEFUSE research project , launched in 2018 but never funded. In this case, the mysterious furin cleavage site sequence would have been inserted artificially.
The fact remains that for the theory of deliberate genetic modification to hold, whether or not it follows the DEFUSE project, it would be necessary to explain why the insertion of the furin cleavage site contains the unusual amino acid sequence PRRAR, instead of the more classic RRAR or the PRRVR variant that increased the lethality of a MERS virus in experiments carried out in 2017. " The DEFUSE project proposed precisely to introduce sub-optimal cleavage sites, which can lead to a non-canonical sequence ," suggests Etienne Decroly. In addition, to obtain SARS-CoV-2 following such manipulations, a basic support is required, that is, a known virus to be genetically modified. This virus would be precisely the one – or one of the descendants of the one – that infected bats in the Yunnan caves at the beginning of this story. While no candidates have yet been identified, the WIV viral databases likely contained many previously unpublished sequences.
If this is not directed genetic manipulation, other experiments aimed at accelerating the evolution of the virus could also have been carried out in the laboratory. " This could be an accident during sampling, viral culture, or even during serial passage experiments on humanized transgenic mice ," that is, mice modified to express human genes or possessing human tissues, suggests CNRS research director Etienne Decroly, author of Expériences en virologie – Bénéfices et risques (Editions Quæ).
These are possible hypotheses, but difficult to prove without an investigation. Only documents from the Wuhan laboratory revealing their activities and the health status of their employees in 2019 could shed light on the matter. The very existence of the DEFUSE project " should be enough to justify a serious investigation by the World Health Organization (WHO) within the laboratories concerned, in order to assess the possibility of manipulation of a progenitor virus of the epidemic ," Etienne Decroly states. For him, as for many researchers, no hypothesis between zoonosis and laboratory release can be formally ruled out.
US Responsibility, the Chinese Scenario
-Location : outside Wuhan, potentially in the United States
-The source : an American laboratory accident and frozen food
In China, the few elements that achieve consensus among scientists are formally refuted. In its White Paper published in April 2025, the Chinese government refutes any possibility that Wuhan was the natural origin of the virus, which would have been brought there via frozen products. They rely on several large-scale scientific analyses, from which no trace of SARS-CoV-2 emerged before December 2019 in Wuhan. First, no trace of the virus was found in 80,000 samples taken from wild and farm animals throughout the country. Second, no abnormal grouping of severe cases (clusters) was observed in 76,000 medical records between October and December 2019, that is, before the diagnosis of the first official cases of Covid-19. There was also no trace of antibodies against the Covid-19 virus in nearly 44,000 blood donations from more than 32,000 donors made in Wuhan between September 1, 2019 , and early December – about half of the total donations during this period. This is a surprising result when you consider that the vast majority of Covid-19 cases are asymptomatic or moderate, and that Wuhan hospitals began receiving serious cases in early December 2019. " When you're in the hospital, it's because you were infected 15 days earlier, and since we know that only 1 to 2% of people end up with severe pneumonia, that means there were already more than 100 infected patients by mid-December ," reasons Etienne Decroly. Two studies also suggest the start of an epidemic between mid-October and mid-November 2019, in the journals PLoS One and Science .
The Chinese government, however, claims to have identified cases of Covid-19 as early as September 24, 2020, in Qingdao (Shandong Province), more than 1,000 km northeast of Wuhan, a few days after handling infected frozen food packages. "(This) demonstrates that cold chain transport is a transmission route for SARS-CoV-2," the White Paper concludes. In another paragraph, the Chinese government notes at length cases of unidentified influenza reported in several American states as early as spring 2019 and concludes not only that the virus was circulating in the United States as early as December 2019, but also that it potentially originated from a laboratory accident. " Laboratory incidents have occurred repeatedly in the United States, and laboratory management is a source of concern ," the White Paper states.
Scientifically, no expert gives credence to the Chinese government's scenarios, as studies have shown very low transmission of Covid-19 via surfaces and frozen food.
Human responsibility
" If we base our analysis on scientific facts, we have no proof of anything ," summarizes Marc Eloit. More than five years after the emergence of Covid-19, the scientific debate is far from over. " A lot of data is missing ," regrets virologist Christine Rouzioux, member of the French Academy of Medicine and co-signatory of a report drawing lessons to avoid future zoonoses or laboratory accidents . She deplores in particular, like the WHO's SAGO expert group that investigated the origins of Covid-19, a lack of transparency from China.
" We could have made progress if we had known exactly which animals they tested, whether at the Wuhan market or at the breeding farms, and their exact results, with the locations and dates of the samples, all of this remains very unclear ," confirms Virginie Courtier, research director at the CNRS and head of the "Evolution and Genetics" team at the Jacques-Monod Institute. Whether new decisive data is revealed or not, the state of the current investigation is enough to raise the question of the responsibility of human activities in the emergence of epidemics. " Transporting animals over such a distance is no more a natural process when it comes to animal trade than it is for laboratory activities ," points out Marius Gilbert.
Comment
/epidemic-and-pandemic-preparedness-and-prevention-(epp)/emerging-diseases-and-zoonoses-(ezd)/sago-covid-thumbnail.tmb-1200v.png?sfvrsn=a033011d_1)
Comment