Kopierad från PDF Ansökan Corona

Note: Within nine months of the publication of the mention of the grant of the European patent in the European Patent
Bulletin, any person may give notice to the European Patent Office of opposition to that patent, in accordance with the
Implementing Regulations. Notice of opposition shall not be deemed to have been filed until the opposition fee has been
paid. (Art. 99(1) European Patent Convention).
Printed by Jouve, 75001 PARIS (FR)
(19)
EP 3 172 319 B1
(Cont. next page)
*EP003172319B1*
(11) EP 3 172 319 B1
(12) EUROPEAN PATENT SPECIFICATION
(45) Date of publication and mention
of the grant of the patent:
20.11.2019 Bulletin 2019/47
(21) Application number: 15750093.5
(22) Date of filing: 23.07.2015
(51) Int Cl.:
C12N 7/04 (2006.01) C07K 14/165 (2006.01)
A61K 39/00 (2006.01) A61K 39/215 (2006.01)
(86) International application number:
PCT/GB2015/052124
(87) International publication number:
WO 2016/012793 (28.01.2016 Gazette 2016/04)
(54) CORONAVIRUS
CORONAVIRUS
CORONAVIRUS
(84) Designated Contracting States:
AL AT BE BG CH CY CZ DE DK EE ES FI FR GB
GR HR HU IE IS IT LI LT LU LV MC MK MT NL NO
PL PT RO RS SE SI SK SM TR
(30) Priority: 23.07.2014 GB 201413020
(43) Date of publication of application:
31.05.2017 Bulletin 2017/22
(73) Proprietor: The Pirbright Institute
Pirbright
Woking
Surrey GU24 0NF (GB)
(72) Inventors:
• BICKERTON, Erica
Woking
Surrey GU24 0NF (GB)
• KEEP, Sarah
Woking
Surrey GU24 0NF (GB)
• BRITTON, Paul
Devon EX16 8NN (GB)
(74) Representative: D Young & Co LLP
120 Holborn
London EC1N 2DY (GB)
(56) References cited:
WO-A1-2011/004146 WO-A2-2004/092360
WO-A2-2005/049814
• V. D. MENACHERY ET AL: ”Attenuation and
Restoration of Severe Acute Respiratory
Syndrome Coronavirus Mutant Lacking
2’-O-Methyltransferase Activity”, JOURNAL OF
VIROLOGY, vol. 88, no. 8, 29 January 2014
(2014-01-29), pages 4251-4264, XP055215583,
ISSN: 0022-538X, DOI: 10.1128/JVI.03571-13
• Anonymous: ”EM_STD:KF377577”, , 30 October
2013 (2013-10-30), XP55216202, Retrieved from
the Internet:
URL:http://ibis/exam/dbfetch.jsp?id=EM_STD :K
F377577 [retrieved on 2015-09-25]
• PAUL BRITTON ET AL: ”Modification of the avian
coronavirus infectious bronchitis virus for
vaccine development”, BIOENGINEERED, vol. 3,
no. 2, 1 March 2012 (2012-03-01), pages 114-119,
XP055215793, ISSN: 2165-5979, DOI:
10.4161/bbug.18983
• MARIA ARMESTO ET AL: ”A Recombinant Avian
Infectious Bronchitis Virus Expressing a
Heterologous Spike Gene Belonging to the 4/91
Serotype”, PLOS ONE, vol. 6, no. 8, 30 August
2011 (2011-08-30) , page e24352, XP055215311,
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0024352
• MARIA ARMESTO ET AL: ”The Replicase Gene
of Avian Coronavirus Infectious Bronchitis Virus
Is a Determinant of Pathogenicity”, PLOS ONE,
vol. 4, no. 10, 9 October 2009 (2009-10-09), page
e7384, XP055215449, DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0007384 cited in the
application
2
EP 3 172 319 B1
• CAVANAGH ET AL: ”Manipulation of the
infectious bronchitis coronavirus genome for
vaccine development and analysis of the
accessory proteins”, VACCINE, ELSEVIER LTD,
GB, vol. 25, no. 30, 10 July 2007 (2007-07-10) ,
pages 5558-5562, XP022148593, ISSN:
0264-410X, DOI: 10.1016/J.VACCINE.2007.02.046
• R. CASAIS ET AL: ”Reverse Genetics System for
the Avian Coronavirus Infectious Bronchitis
Virus”, JOURNAL OF VIROLOGY, vol. 75, no. 24,
15 December 2001 (2001-12-15), pages
12359-12369, XP055215746, ISSN: 0022-538X,
DOI: 10.1128/JVI.75.24.12359-12369.2001
• YAN-QUAN WEI ET AL: ”Development and
characterization of a recombinant infectious
bronchitis virus expressing the ectodomain
region of S1 gene of H120 strain”, APPLIED
MICROBIOLOGY AND BIOTECHNOLOGY, vol.
98, no. 4, 1 February 2014 (2014-02-01), pages
1727-1735, XP055132063, ISSN: 0175-7598, DOI:
10.1007/s00253-013-5352-5
• WANG ET AL: ”Attenuation of porcine
reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus
strain MN184 using chimeric construction with
vaccine sequence”, VIROLOGY, ELSEVIER,
AMSTERDAM, NL, vol. 371, no. 2, 31 October 2007
(2007-10-31), pages 418-429, XP022439793, ISSN:
0042-6822, DOI: 10.1016/J.VIROL.2007.09.032
EP 3 172 319 B1
3
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
Description
FIELD OF THE INVENTION
[0001] The present invention relates to an attenuated coronavirus comprising a variant replicase gene, which causes
the virus to have reduced pathogenicity. The present invention also relates to the use of such a coronavirus in a vaccine
to prevent and/or treat a disease.
BACKGROUND TO THE INVENTION
[0002] Avian infectious bronchitis virus (IBV), the aetiological agent of infectious bronchitis (IB), is a highly infectious
and contagious pathogen of domestic fowl that replicates primarily in the respiratory tract but also in epithelial cells of
the gut, kidney and oviduct. IBV is a member of the Order Nidovirales, Family Coronaviridae, Subfamily Coronavirinae
and Genus Gammacoronavirus; genetically very similar coronaviruses cause disease in turkeys, guinea fowl and pheasants.
[0003] Clinical signs of IB include sneezing, tracheal rales, nasal discharge and wheezing. Meat-type birds have
reduced weight gain, whilst egg-laying birds lay fewer eggs and produce poor quality eggs. The respiratory infection
predisposes chickens to secondary bacterial infections which can be fatal in chicks. The virus can also cause permanent
damage to the oviduct, especially in chicks, leading to reduced egg production and quality; and kidney, sometimes
leading to kidney disease which can be fatal.
[0004] IBV has been reported to be responsible for more economic loss to the poultry industry than any other infectious
disease. Although live attenuated vaccines and inactivated vaccines are universally used in the control of IBV, the
protection gained by use of vaccination can be lost either due to vaccine breakdown or the introduction of a new IBV
serotype that is not related to the vaccine used, posing a risk to the poultry industry.
[0005] Further, there is a need in the industry to develop vaccines which are suitable for use in ovo, in order to improve
the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of vaccination programmes. A major challenge associated with in ovo vaccination
is that the virus must be capable of replicating in the presence of maternally-derived antibodies against the virus, without
being pathogenic to the embryo. Current IBV vaccines are derived following multiple passage in embryonated eggs, this
results in viruses with reduced pathogenicity for chickens, so that they can be used as live attenuated vaccines. However
such viruses almost always show an increased virulence to embryos and therefore cannot be used for in ovo vaccination
as they cause reduced hatchability. A 70% reduction in hatchability is seen in some cases.
[0006] Attenuation following multiple passage in embryonated eggs also suffers from other disadvantages. It is an
empirical method, as attenuation of the viruses is random and will differ every time the virus is passaged, so passage
of the same virus through a different series of eggs for attenuation purposes will lead to a different set of mutations
leading to attenuation. There are also efficacy problems associated with the process: some mutations will affect the
replication of the virus and some of the mutations may make the virus too attenuated. Mutations can also occur in the
S gene which may also affect immunogenicity so that the desired immune response is affected and the potential vaccine
may not protect against the required serotype. In addition there are problems associated with reversion to virulence and
stability of vaccines.
[0007] Menachery, V. D. et al. (2014) J. Virol., vol. 88, no. 8, 4251 – 4264, WO 2005/049814 A2 and WO 2004/092360
already disclosed a coronavirus comprising a mutation in nsp-15 and nsp-16 as well as means and methods of how to
arrive at a coronavirus comprising such mutated structural proteins.
[0008] It is important that new and safer vaccines are developed for the control of IBV. Thus there is a need for IBV
vaccines which are not associated with these issues, in particular vaccines which may be used for in ovo vaccination.
SUMMARY OF ASPECTS OF THE INVENTION
[0009] The present inventors have used a reverse genetics approach in order to rationally attenuate IBV. This approach
is much more controllable than random attenuation following multiple passages in embryonated eggs because the
position of each mutation is known and its effect on the virus, i.e. the reason for attenuation, can be derived.
[0010] Using their reverse genetics approach, the present inventors have identified various mutations which cause
the virus to have reduced levels of pathogenicity. The levels of pathogenicity may be reduced such that when the virus
is administered to an embryonated egg, it is capable of replicating without being pathogenic to the embryo. Such viruses
may be suitable for in ovo vaccination, which is a significant advantage and has improvement over attenuated IBV
vaccines produced following multiple passage in embryonated eggs.
[0011] Thus in a first aspect, the present invention provides a live, attenuated coronavirus comprising a variant replicase
gene encoding polyproteins comprising a mutation in nsp-14, wherein the variant replicase gene encodes a protein
comprising an amino acid mutation of Val to Leu at the position corresponding to position 393 of SEQ ID NO:7.
EP 3 172 319 B1
4
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
[0012] The variant replicase gene may further encode a protein comprising one or more amino acid mutations selected
from the list of:
Pro to Leu at position 85 of SEQ ID NO: 6,
Leu to lie at position 183 of SEQ ID NO: 8;
Val to lie at position 209 of SEQ ID NO: 9.
[0013] The replicase gene may further encode a protein comprising the amino acid mutation Pro to Leu at position 85
of SEQ ID NO: 6.
[0014] The replicase gene may encode a protein comprising the amino acid mutations Val to Leu at position 393 of
SEQ ID NO: 7;Leu to lie at position 183 of SEQ ID NO: 8; and Val to lie at position 209 of SEQ ID NO: 9.
[0015] The replicase gene may encode a protein comprising the amino acid mutations Pro to Leu at position 85 of
SEQ ID NO: 6; Val to Leu at position 393 of SEQ ID NO:7; Leu to lie at position 183 of SEQ ID NO:8; and Val to lie at
position 209 of SEQ ID NO: 9.
[0016] The replicase gene may comprise one or more nucleotide substitutions selected from the list of:
C to T at nucleotide position 12137;
G to C at nucleotide position 18114;
T to A at nucleotide position 19047; and
G to A at nucleotide position 20139;
compared to the sequence shown as SEQ ID NO: 1.
[0017] The coronavirus may be an infectious bronchitis virus (IBV).
[0018] The coronavirus may be IBV M41.
[0019] The coronavirus may comprise an S protein at least part of which is from an IBV serotype other than M41.
[0020] For example, the S1 subunit or the entire S protein may be from an IBV serotype other than M41.
[0021] The coronavirus according to the first aspect has reduced pathogenicity compared to a coronavirus expressing
a corresponding wild-type replicase, such that when the virus is administered to an embryonated egg, it is capable of
replicating without being pathogenic to the embryo.
[0022] In a second aspect, a variant replicase gene as defined in the claims is provided.
[0023] In a third aspect, a protein encoded by a variant coronavirus replicase gene as defined in the claims is provided.
[0024] In a fourth aspect, a plasmid comprising a replicase gene as defined in the claims is provided.
[0025] In a fifth aspect, a method for making the coronavirus as defined in the claims is provided which comprises the
following steps:
(i) transfecting a plasmid according to the fourth aspect of the invention into a host cell;
(ii) infecting the host cell with a recombining virus comprising the genome of a coronavirus strain with a replicase gene;
(iii) allowing homologous recombination to occur between the replicase gene sequences in the plasmid and the
corresponding sequences in the recombining virus genome to produce a modified replicase gene; and
(iv) selecting for recombining virus comprising the modified replicase gene.
[0026] The recombining virus may be a vaccinia virus.
[0027] The method may also include the step:
(v) recovering recombinant coronavirus comprising the modified replicase gene from the DNA from the recombining
virus from step (iv).
[0028] A cell capable of producing a coronavirus according to the first aspect is provided.
[0029] In a another aspect, a vaccine comprising a coronavirus as defined in the claims and a pharmaceutically
acceptable carrier is provided.
[0030] Also described herein is a method for treating and/or preventing a disease in a subject which comprises the
step of administering a vaccine according to the invention to the subject.
[0031] Further aspects of the invention provide:
• the vaccine as defined in the claims for use in preventing a disease in a subject.
[0032] Also described herein is the use of a coronavirus according to the first aspect in the manufacture of a vaccine
for treating and/or preventing a disease in a subject.
[0033] The disease may be infectious bronchitis (IB).
[0034] The method of administration of the vaccine may be selected from the group consisting of; eye drop adminisEP
3 172 319 B1
5
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
tration, intranasal administration, drinking water administration, post-hatch injection and in ovo injection.
[0035] Vaccination may be by in ovo vaccination.
[0036] The present invention also provides a method for producing a vaccine as defined in the claims which comprises
the step of infecting a cell as defined in the claims with a coronavirus as defined in the claims.
DESCRIPTION OF THE FIGURES
[0037]
Figure 1 – Growth kinetics of M41-R-6 and M41-R-12 compared to M41-CK (M41 EP4) on CK cells
Figure 2 – Clinical signs, snicking and wheezing, associated with M41-R-6 and M41-R-12 compared to M41-CK
(M41 EP4) and Beau-R (Bars show mock, Beau-R, M41-R 6, M41 – R 12, M41-CK EP4 from left to right of each
timepoint).
Figure 3 – Ciliary activity of the viruses in tracheal rings isolated from tracheas taken from infected chicks. 100%
ciliary activity indicates no effect by the virus; apathogenic, 0% activity indicates complete loss of ciliary activity,
complete ciliostasis, indicating the virus is pathogenic (Bars show mock, Beau-R, M41-R 6, M41-R 12, M41-CK
EP4 from left to right of each timepoint).
Figure 4 – Clinical signs, snicking, associated with M41R-nsp10rep and M41R-nsp14,15,16rep compared to M41-
R-12 and M41-CK (M41 EP5) (Bars show mock, M41-R12; M41 R-nsp10rep; M41 R-nsp14,15,16rep and M41-CK
EP5 from left to right of each timepoint).
Figure 5 – Ciliary activity of M41R-nsp10rep and M41R-nsp14,15,16rep compared to M41-R-12 and M41-CK in
tracheal rings isolated from tracheas taken from infected chicks (Bars show mock; M41-R12; M41R-nsp10rep;
M41R-nsp14,15,16rep and M41-CK EP5 from left to right of each timepoint).
Figure 6 – Clinical signs, snicking, associated with M41R-nsp10, 15rep, M41R-nsp10, 14, 15rep, M41R-nsp10, 14,
16rep, M41 R-nsp10, 15, 16rep and M41-K compared to M41-CK (Bars show mock, M41R-nsp10,15rep1; M41Rnsp10,14,16rep4;
M41R-nsp10,15,16rep8; M41R-nsp10,14,15rep10; M41-K6 and M41-CK EP4 from left to right of
each timepoint).
Figure 7 – Clinical signs, wheezing, associated with M41R-nsp10, 15rep, M41R-nsp10, 14, 15rep, M41R-nsp10,
14, 16rep, M41 R-nsp1 0, 15, 16rep and M41-K compared to M41-CK (Bars show mock, M41R-nsp10,15rep1;
M41R-nsp10,14,16rep4; M41R-nsp10,15,16rep8; M41R-nsp10,14,15rep10; M41-K6 and M41-CK EP4 from left to
right of each timepoint).
Figure 8 – Ciliary activity of M41R-nsp1 0, 15rep, M41 R-nsp1 0, 14, 15rep, M41R-nsp10, 14, 16rep, M41R-nsp10,
15, 16rep and M41-K compared to M41-CK in tracheal rings isolated from tracheas taken from infected chicks (Bars
show mock, M41R-nsp10,15rep1; M41R-nsp10,14,16rep4; M41R-nsp10,15,16rep8; M41R-nsp10,14,15rep10;
M41-K6 and M41-CK EP4 from left to right of each timepoint).
Figure 9 – Growth kinetics of rIBVs compared to M41-CK on CK cells. Fig 9A shows the results for M41-R and M41-
K. Fig 9B shows the results for M41-nsp10 rep; M41 R-nsp14, 15, 16 rep; M41 R-nsp1 0, 15 rep; M41 R-nsp10, 15,
16 rep; M41R-nsp10, 14, 15 rep; and M41R-nsp10, 14, 16.
Figure 10 – Position of amino acid mutations in mutated nsp10, nsp14, nsp15 and nsp16 sequences.
Figure 11 – A) Snicking; B) Respiratory symptoms (wheezing and rales combined) and C) Ciliary activity of rIBV
M41R-nsp10,14 rep and rIBV M41R-nsp10,16 rep compared to M41-CK (Bars show mock, M41R-nsp10,14rep;
M41R-nsp10,16rep and M41-K from left to right of each timepoint).
DETAILED DESCRIPTION
[0038] The present invention provides a coronavirus comprising a variant replicase gene which, when expressed in
the coronavirus, causes the virus to have reduced pathogenicity compared to a corresponding coronavirus which comprises
the wild-type replicase gene.
EP 3 172 319 B1
6
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
CORONAVIRUS
[0039] Gammacoronavirus is a genus of animal virus belonging to the family Coronaviridae. Coronaviruses are enveloped
viruses with a positive-sense single-stranded RNA genome and a helical symmetry.
[0040] The genomic size of coronaviruses ranges from approximately 27 to 32 kilobases, which is the longest size for
any known RNA virus.
[0041] Coronaviruses primarily infect the upper respiratory or gastrointestinal tract of mammals and birds. Five to six
different currently known strains of coronaviruses infect humans. The most publicized human coronavirus, SARS-CoV
which causes severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), has a unique pathogenesis because it causes both upper
and lower respiratory tract infections and can also cause gastroenteritis. Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus
(MERS-CoV) also causes a lower respiratory tract infection in humans. Coronaviruses are believed to cause a significant
percentage of all common colds in human adults.
[0042] Coronaviruses also cause a range of diseases in livestock animals and domesticated pets, some of which can
be serious and are a threat to the farming industry. Economically significant coronaviruses of livestock animals include
infectious bronchitis virus (IBV) which mainly causes respiratory disease in chickens and seriously affects the poultry
industry worldwide; porcine coronavirus (transmissible gastroenteritis, TGE) and bovine coronavirus, which both result
in diarrhoea in young animals. Feline coronavirus has two forms, feline enteric coronavirus is a pathogen of minor clinical
significance, but spontaneous mutation of this virus can result in feline infectious peritonitis (FIP), a disease associated
with high mortality.
[0043] There are also two types of canine coronavirus (CCoV), one that causes mild gastrointestinal disease and one
that has been found to cause respiratory disease. Mouse hepatitis virus (MHV) is a coronavirus that causes an epidemic
murine illness with high mortality, especially among colonies of laboratory mice.
[0044] Coronaviruses are divided into four groups, as shown below:
Alpha
• Canine coronavirus (CCoV)
• Feline coronavirus (FeCoV)
• Human coronavirus 229E (HCoV-229E)
• Porcine epidemic diarrhoea virus (PEDV)
• Transmissible gastroenteritis virus (TGEV)
• Human Coronavirus NL63 (NL or New Haven)
Beta
• Bovine coronavirus (BCoV)
• Canine respiratory coronavirus (CRCoV) – Common in SE Asia and Micronesia
• Human coronavirus OC43 (HCoV-OC43)
• Mouse hepatitis virus (MHV)
• Porcine haemagglutinating encephalomyelitis virus (HEV)
• Rat coronavirus (RCV). Rat Coronavirus is quite prevalent in Eastern Australia where, as of March/April 2008,
it has been found among native and feral rodent colonies.
• (No common name as of yet) (HCoV-HKU1)
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV)
• Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV)
Gamma
• Infectious bronchitis virus (IBV)
• Turkey coronavirus (Bluecomb disease virus)
• Pheasant coronavirus
• Guinea fowl coronavirus
Delta
• Bulbul coronavirus (BuCoV)
• Thrush coronavirus (ThCoV)
• Munia coronavirus (MuCoV)
EP 3 172 319 B1
7
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
• Porcine coronavirus (PorCov) HKU15
[0045] The variant replicase gene of the coronavirus of the present invention may be derived from an alphacoronavirus
such as TGEV; a betacoronavirus such as MHV; or a gammacoronavirus such as IBV.
[0046] As used herein the term ”derived from” means that the replicase gene comprises substantially the same nucleotide
sequence as the wild-type replicase gene of the relevant coronavirus. For example, the variant replicase gene
of the present invention may have up to 80%, 85%, 90%, 95%, 98% or 99% identity with the wild type replicase sequence.
The variant coronavirus replicase gene encodes a protein comprising a mutation in one or more of non-structural protein
(nsp)-10, nsp-14, nsp-15 or nsp-16 when compared to the wild-type sequence of the non-structural protein.
IBV
[0047] Avian infectious bronchitis (IB) is an acute and highly contagious respiratory disease of chickens which causes
significant economic losses. The disease is characterized by respiratory signs including gasping, coughing, sneezing,
tracheal rales, and nasal discharge. In young chickens, severe respiratory distress may occur. In layers, respiratory
distress, nephritis, decrease in egg production, and loss of internal egg quality and egg shell quality are common.
[0048] In broilers, coughing and rattling are common clinical signs, rapidly spreading in all the birds of the premises.
Morbidity is 100% in non-vaccinated flocks. Mortality varies depending on age, virus strain, and secondary infections
but may be up to 60% in non-vaccinated flocks.
[0049] The first IBV serotype to be identified was Massachusetts, but in the United States several serotypes, including
Arkansas and Delaware, are currently circulating, in addition to the originally identified Massachusetts type.
[0050] The IBV strain Beaudette was derived following at least 150 passages in chick embryos. IBV Beaudette is no
longer pathogenic for hatched chickens but rapidly kills embryos.
[0051] H120 is a commercial live attenuated IBV Massachusetts serotype vaccine strain, attenuated by approximately
120 passages in embryonated chicken eggs. H52 is another Massachusetts vaccine, and represents an earlier and
slightly more pathogenic passage virus (passage 52) during the development of H120. Vaccines based on H120 are
commonly used.
[0052] IB QX is a virulent field isolate of IBV. It is sometimes known as ”Chinese QX” as it was originally isolated
following outbreaks of disease in the Qingdao region in China in the mid 1990s. Since that time the virus has crept
towards Europe. From 2004, severe egg production issues have been identified with a very similar virus in parts of
Western Europe, predominantly in the Netherlands, but also reported from Germany, France, Belgium, Denmark and
in the UK.
[0053] The virus isolated from the Dutch cases was identified by the Dutch Research Institute at Deventer as a new
strain that they called D388. The Chinese connection came from further tests which showed that the virus was 99%
similar to the Chinese QX viruses. A live attenuated QX-like IBV vaccine strain has now been developed.
[0054] IBV is an enveloped virus that replicates in the cell cytoplasm and contains an non-segmented, single-stranded,
positive sense RNA genome. IBV has a 27.6 kb RNA genome and like all coronaviruses contains the four structural
proteins; spike glycoprotein (S), small membrane protein (E), integral membrane protein (M) and nucleocapsid protein
(N) which interacts with the genomic RNA.
[0055] The genome is organised in the following manner: 5’UTR – polymerase (replicase) gene – structural protein
genes (S-E-M-N) – UTR 3’; where the UTR are untranslated regions (each ∼ 500 nucleotides in IBV).
[0056] The lipid envelope contains three membrane proteins: S, M and E. The IBV S protein is a type I glycoprotein
which oligomerizes in the endoplasmic reticulum and is assembled into homotrimer inserted in the virion membrane via
the transmembrane domain and is associated through non-covalent interactions with the M protein. Following incorporation
into coronavirus particles, the S protein is responsible for binding to the target cell receptor and fusion of the viral
and cellular membranes. The S glycoprotein consists of four domains: a signal sequence that is cleaved during synthesis;
the ectodomain, which is present on the outside of the virion particle; the transmembrane region responsible for anchoring
the S protein into the lipid bilayer of the virion particle; and the cytoplasmic tail.
[0057] All coronaviruses also encode a set of accessory protein genes of unknown function that are not required for
replication in vitro, but may play a role in pathogenesis. IBV encodes two accessory genes, genes 3 and 5, which both
express two accessory proteins 3a, 3b and 5a, 5b, respectively.
[0058] The variant replicase gene of the coronavirus of the present invention may be derived from an IBV. For example
the IBV may be IBV Beaudette, H120, H52, IB QX, D388 or M41.
[0059] The IBV may be IBV M41. M41 is a prototypic Massachusetts serotype that was isolated in the USA in 1941.
It is an isolate used in many labs throughout the world as a pathogenic lab stain and can be obtained from ATCC (VR-
21™). Attenuated variants are also used by several vaccine producers as IBV vaccines against Massachusetts serotypes
causing problems in the field. The present inventors chose to use this strain as they had worked for many years on this
virus, and because the sequence of the complete virus genome is available. The M41 isolate, M41-CK, used by the
EP 3 172 319 B1
8
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
present inventors was adapted to grow in primary chick kidney (CK) cells and was therefore deemed amenable for
recovery as an infectious virus from a cDNA of the complete genome. It is representative of a pathogenic IBV and
therefore can be analysed for mutations that cause either loss or reduction in pathogenicity.
[0060] The genome sequence of IBV M41-CK is provided as SEQ ID NO: 1.
SEQ ID NO: 1 IBV M41-CK Sequence
EP 3 172 319 B1
9
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
EP 3 172 319 B1
10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
EP 3 172 319 B1
11
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
EP 3 172 319 B1
12
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
EP 3 172 319 B1
13
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
EP 3 172 319 B1
14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
EP 3 172 319 B1
15
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
EP 3 172 319 B1
16
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
REPLICASE
[0061] In addition to the structural and accessory genes, two-thirds of a coronavirus genome comprises the replicase
gene (at the 5’ end of the genome), which is expressed as two polyproteins, pp1a and pp1ab, in which pp1ab is an
extension product of pp1a as a result of a -1 ribosomal shift mechanism. The two polyproteins are cleaved by two types
of virus-encoded proteinases usually resulting in 16 non-structural proteins (Nsp1-16); IBV lacks Nsp1 thereby encoding
Nsp2-16.
[0062] Thus Gene 1 in IBV encodes 15 (16 in other coronaviruses) non-structural proteins (nsp2-16), which are
EP 3 172 319 B1
17
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
associated with RNA replication and transcription.
[0063] The term ’replicase protein’ is used herein to refer to the pp1 a and pp1ab polyproteins or individual nsp subunits.
[0064] The term ’replicase gene’ is used herein to refer to a nucleic acid sequence which encodes for replicase proteins.
[0065] A summary of the functions of coronavirus nsp proteins is provided in Table 1.
[0066] The variant replicase gene encoded by the coronavirus of the present invention comprises a mutation in the
section of sequence encoding nsp-14 as defined in the claims.
[0067] Nsp10 has RNA-binding activity and appears to be involved in homo and/or heterotypic interactions within other
nsps from the pp1a/pp1ab region. It adopts an α/β fold comprised of five α-helices, one 310-helix and three β-strands.
Two zinc-binding sites have been identified that are formed by conserved cysteine residues and one histidine residue
(Cys-74/Cys-77/His-83/Cys-90; Cys-117/Cys-120/Cys-128/Cys-130). The protein has been confirmed to bind singlestranded
and double-stranded RNA and DNA without obvious specificity. Nsp-10 can be cross-linked with nsp-9, suggesting
the existing of a complex network of protein-protein interactions involving nsp-7, -8, -9 and -10. In addition, nsp-
10 is known to interact with nsp-14 and nsp-16.
[0068] Nsp-14 comprises a 3’-to-5’ exoribonuclease (ExoN) active domain in the amino-terminal region. SARS-CoV
ExoN has been demonstrated to have metal ion-dependent 3’-to-5’ exoribonuclease activity that acts on both singlestranded
and double-stranded RNA, but not on DNA. Nsp-14 has been shown to have proof-reading activity. This nsp
has also been shown to have N7-methyltransferase (MT) activity in the carboxyl-terminal region. Nsp-15 associated
NendoU (nidoviral endoribonuclease, specific for U) RNase activity has been reported for a number of coronaviruses,
including SARS-CoV, MHV and IBV. The activities were consistently reported to be significantly enhanced by Mn2+ ions
and there was little activity in the presence of Mg2+ and Ca2+. NendoU cleaves at the 3’ side of uridylate residues in
both single-stranded and double-stranded RNA. The biologically relevant substrate(s) of coronavirus NendoUs remains
to be identified.
[0069] Nsp-16 has been predicted to mediate ribose-2’-O-methyltransferase (2’-O-MTase) activity and reverse-genetics
experiments have shown that the 2’-O-MTase domain is essential for viral RNA synthesis in HCoV-229E and
SARS-CoV. The enzyme may be involved in the production of the cap 1 structures of coronavirus RNAs and it may also
cooperate with NendoU and ExoN in other RNA processing pathways. 2’-O-MTase might also methylate specific RNAs
to protect them from NendoU-mediated cleavage.
Table 1
Nsp Protein Key features
1 Conserved within but not between coronavirus genetic groups; potential regulatory functions in the
host cell.
2 Dispensable for MHV and SARS-CoV replication in tissue culture
3 Acidic domain; macro domain with ADRP and poly(ADP-ribose)-binding activities; one or two ZBDcontaining
papain-like proteases; Y domain
4 Transmembrane domain
5 3C-like main protease, homodimer
6 Transmembrane domain
7 Interacts with nsp8 to form a hexadecamer complex
8 Noncannonical RNA polymerase; interacts with nsp7 to form a hexadecameric complex
9 ssRNA-binding protein, dimer
10 RNA-binding protein, homododecamer, zinc-binding domain, known to interact with nsp14 and
nsp16
11 Unknown
12 RNA-dependent RNA polymerase
13 Zinc-binding domain, NTPase, dNTPase, 5’-to-3’ RNA and DNA helicase, RNA 5’-triphosphate
14 3’-to 5’ exoribonuclease, zinc-binding domain and N7-methyltransferase
15 Uridylate-specific endoribonuclease, homohexamer
16 Putative ribose-2’-O-methyltransferase
EP 3 172 319 B1
18
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
[0070] The genomic and protein sequences for nsp-10, -14, -15 and -16 are provided as SEQ ID NO: 2-5 and 6-9,
respectively.
SEQ ID NO: 2 (nsp-10 nucleotide sequence – nucleotides 11884-12318 of SEQ ID NO:1)
SEQ ID NO: 3 (nsp-14 nucleotide sequence – nucleotides 16938-18500 of SEQ ID NO:1)
SEQ ID NO: 4 (nsp-15 nucleotide sequence – nucleotides 18501-19514 of SEQ ID NO:1)
EP 3 172 319 B1
19
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
SEQ ID NO: 5 (nsp-16 nucleotide sequence – nucleotides 19515-20423 of SEQ ID NO:1)
SEQ ID NO: 6 (nsp-10 amino acid sequence)
SEQ ID NO: 7 (nsp-14 amino acid sequence)
SEQ ID NO: 8 (nsp-15 amino acid sequence)
EP 3 172 319 B1
20
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
SEQ ID NO: 9 (nsp-16 amino acid sequence)
REDUCED PATHOGENICITY
[0071] The live, attenuated coronavirus of the present invention comprises a variant replicase gene as defined in the
claims which causes the virus to have reduced pathogenicity compared to a coronavirus expressing the corresponding
wild-type gene.
[0072] The term ”attenuated” as used herein, refers to a virus that exhibits said reduced pathogenicity and may be
classified as non-virulent. A live, attenuated virus is a weakened replicating virus still capable of stimulating an immune
response and producing immunity but not causing the actual illness.
[0073] The term ”pathogenicity” is used herein according to its normal meaning to refer to the potential of the virus to
cause disease in a subject. Typically the pathogenicity of a coronavirus is determined by assaying disease associated
symptoms, for example sneezing, snicking and reduction in tracheal ciliary activity.
[0074] The term ”reduced pathogenicity” is used to describe that the level of pathogenicity of a coronavirus is decreased,
lessened or diminished compared to a corresponding, wild-type coronavirus.
[0075] In one embodiment, the coronavirus of the present invention as defined in the claims has a reduced pathogenicity
compared to the parental M41-CK virus from which it was derived or a control coronavirus. The control coronavirus may
be a coronavirus with a known pathogenicity, for example a coronavirus expressing the wild-type replicase protein.
[0076] The pathogenicity of a coronavirus may be assessed utilising methods well-known in the art. Typically, pathogenicity
is assessed by assaying clinical symptoms in a subject challenged with the virus, for example a chicken.
[0077] As an illustration, the chicken may be challenged at 8-24 days old by nasal or ocular inoculation. Clinical
symptoms, associated with IBV infection, may be assessed 3-10 days post-infection. Clinical symptoms commonly
assessed to determine the pathogenicity of a coronavirus, for example an IBV, include gasping, coughing, sneezing,
snicking, depression, ruffled feathers and loss of tracheal ciliary activity.
[0078] The variant replicase of the present invention, when expressed in a coronavirus, may cause a reduced level
of clinical symptoms compared to a coronavirus expressing a wild-type replicase.
[0079] For example a coronavirus expressing the variant replicase may cause a number of snicks per bird per minute
which is less than 90%, less than 80%, less than 70%, less than 60%, less than 50%, less than 40%, less than 30%,
less than 20% or less than 10% of the number of snicks caused by a virus expressing the wild type replicase.
[0080] A coronavirus expressing a variant replicase according to the present invention may cause wheezing in less
than 70%, less than 60%, less than 50%, less than 40%, less than 30%, less than 20% or less than 10% of the number
of birds in a flock infected with the a virus expressing the wild type replicase.
[0081] A coronavirus expressing a variant replicase according to the present invention may result in tracheal ciliary
activity which is at least 60%, at least 70%, at least 80%, at least 90% or at least 95% of the level of tracheal ciliary
activity in uninfected birds.
[0082] A coronavirus expressing a variant replicase according to the present invention may cause clinical symptoms,
as defined in Table 2, at a lower level than a coronavirus expressing the wild type replicase.
EP 3 172 319 B1
21
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
[0083] The variant replicase of the present invention, when expressed in a coronavirus, may cause the virus to replicate
at non-pathogenic levels in ovo.
[0084] While developing vaccines to be administered in ovo to chicken embryos, attention must be paid to two points:
the effect of maternal antibodies on the vaccines and the effect of the vaccines on the embryo. Maternal antibodies are
known to interfere with active immunization. For example, vaccines with mild strains do not induce protective antibody
levels when administered to broiler chickens with maternal antibodies as these strains are neutralized by the maternal
antibody pool.
[0085] Thus a viral particle must be sufficiently efficient at replicating and propagating to ensure that it is not neutralized
by the maternally-derived antibodies against the virus. Maternally-derived antibodies are a finite pool of effective antibodies,
which decrease as the chicken ages, and neutralization of the virus in this manner does not equate to the
establishment of long-term immunity for the embryo/chick. In order to develop long-term immunity against the virus, the
embryo and hatched chicken must develop an appropriate protective immune response which is distinct to the effect of
the maternally-derived antibodies.
[0086] To be useful for in ovo vaccination, the virus must also not replicate and propagate at a level which causes it
to be pathogenic to the embryo.
[0087] Reduced pathogenicity in terms of the embryo may mean that the coronavirus causes less reduction in hatchability
compared to a corresponding, wild-type control coronavirus. Thus the term ”without being pathogenic to the
embryo” in the context of the present invention may mean ”without causing reduced hatchability” when compared to a
control coronavirus.
[0088] A suitable variant replicase may be identified using methods which are known in the art. For example comparative
challenge experiments following in ovo vaccination of embryos with or without maternally-derived antibodies may be
performed (i.e. wherein the layer has or has not been vaccinated against IBV).
[0089] If the variant replicase enables the virus to propagate at a level which is too high, the embryo will not hatch or
will not be viable following hatching (i.e. the virus is pathogenic to the embryo). A virus which is pathogenic to the embryo
may kill the embryo.
Table 2 IBV severity limits based on clinical signs:
Snicking (sneezing)
IBV specific: Mild (N.B. Respiratory signs
become apparent from 2-3 dpi if they are
going to occur and can continue for up to 7d).
Nasal exudate
Watery eyes
Swollen infraorbital sinuses
Rales (vibration in trachea
or bronchi region)
Hunched posture /
depressed
Mild, Fluffed up feathers if exceed 2d increase to moderate
Eating and drinking less
Drinking in excess: evident
by fluid filled crop or
measured water intake
IBV specific: Mild, if exceed 24h increase to
moderate for a max of 2d. If still drinking in
excess then kill by schedule 1 method.
Less active but still evade
capture
Weight loss Mild, if exceed 1d increase to moderate.
Not eating or drinking
Birds sit alone and does not
evade capture
Moderate: birds at end point. Kill by schedule
1 method.
Severe respiratory distress:
e.g. excessive gasping
Snicking and / or rales for 7d
in total
Found dead
Severe: report to project license holder.
Full post-mortem to be performed.
EP 3 172 319 B1
22
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
[0090] If the variant replicase causes a reduction in viral replication and propagation which is too great, the virus will
be neutralised by the maternally-derived antibodies. Subsequent challenge of the chick with IBV will therefore result in
the development of clinical symptoms (for example wheezing, snicking, loss of ciliary activity) and the onset of disease
in the challenged chick; as it will have failed to develop effective immunity against the virus.
VARIANT
[0091] As used herein, the term ’variant’ is synonymous with ’mutant’ and refers to a nucleic acid or amino acid
sequence which differs in comparison to the corresponding wild-type sequence.
[0092] A variant/mutant sequence may arise naturally, or may be created artificially (for example by site-directed
mutagenesis). The mutant may have at least 70, 80, 90, 95, 98 or 99% sequence identity with the corresponding portion
of the wild type sequence. The mutant may have less than 20, 10, 5, 4, 3, 2 or 1 mutation(s) over the corresponding
portion of the wild-type sequence.
[0093] The term ”wild type” is used to mean a gene or protein having a nucleotide or amino acid sequence which is
identical with the native gene or protein respectively (i.e. the viral gene or protein).
[0094] Identity comparisons can be conducted by eye, or more usually, with the aid of readily available sequence
comparison programs. These commercially available computer programs can calculate % identity between two or more
sequences. A suitable computer program for carrying out such an alignment is the GCG Wisconsin Bestfit package
(University of Wisconsin, U.S.A.; Devereux et al., 1984, Nucleic Acids Research 12:387). Examples of other software
that can perform sequence comparisons include, but are not limited to, the BLAST package (see Ausubel et al., 1999
ibid – Chapter 18), FASTA (Atschul et al., 1990, J. Mol. Biol., 403-410) and the GENEWORKS suite of comparison tools,
ClustalX (see Larkin et al. (2007) Clustal W and Clustal X version 2.0. Bioinformatics, 23:2947-2948). Both BLAST and
FASTA are available for offline and online searching (see Ausubel et al., 1999 ibid, pages 7-58 to 7-60). However, for
some applications, it is preferred to use the GCG Bestfit program. A new tool, called BLAST 2 Sequences is also available
for comparing protein and nucleotide sequence (see FEMS Microbiol Lett 1999 174(2): 247-50; FEMS Microbiol Lett
1999 177(1): 187-8 and tatiana@ncbi.nlm.nih.gov).
[0095] The sequence may have one or more deletions, insertions or substitutions of amino acid residues which produce
a silent change and result in a functionally equivalent molecule. Deliberate amino acid substitutions may be made on
the basis of similarity in polarity, charge, solubility, hydrophobicity, hydrophilicity, and/or the amphipathic nature of the
residues as long as the activity is retained. For example, negatively charged amino acids include aspartic acid and
glutamic acid; positively charged amino acids include lysine and arginine; and amino acids with uncharged polar head
groups having similar hydrophilicity values include leucine, isoleucine, valine, glycine, alanine, asparagine, glutamine,
serine, threonine, phenylalanine, and tyrosine.
[0096] Conservative substitutions may be made, for example according to the Table below. Amino acids in the same
block in the second column and preferably in the same line in the third column may be substituted for each other:
[0097] The coronavirus of the present invention comprises a variant replicase gene as defined in the claims which
encodes a protein which comprises a mutation compared to SEQ ID NO: 7 which, when expressed in a coronavirus,
causes the virus to have reduced pathogenicity compared to a coronavirus expressing the corresponding wild-type
replicase.
[0098] The variant replicase gene encodes a protein which comprises an amino acid mutation in nsp-14.
[0099] The variant replicase gene of the coronavirus as defined in the claims of the present invention may encode a
protein comprising a mutation as defined in the M41 mod sequences presented in Figure 10.
[0100] The variant replicase gene of the coronavirus of the present invention may encode a protein which comprises
the amino acid mutations:
ALIPHATIC Non-polar G A P
I L V
Polar – uncharged C S T M
N Q
Polar – charged D E
K R
AROMATIC H F W Y
EP 3 172 319 B1
23
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
Pro to Leu at position 85 of SEQ ID NO: 6,
Val to Leu at position 393 of SEQ ID NO: 7;
Leu to lie at position 183 of SEQ ID NO: 8; and
Val to lie at position 209 of SEQ ID NO: 9.
[0101] The variant replicase gene of the coronavirus of the present invention may encode a protein which does not
comprise a mutation in nsp-2, nsp-3, nsp-6 or nsp-13.
[0102] The variant replicase gene of the coronavirus of the present invention may encode a protein which does not
comprise a mutation in nsp10 which corresponds to the threonine to isoleucine mutation caused by a mutation at
nucleotide position 12,008 in the gene reported by Ammayappan et al. (Arch Virol (2009) 154:495-499).
[0103] Ammayappan et al (as above) reports the identification of sequence changes responsible for the attenuation
of IBV strain Arkansas DPI. The study identified 17 amino acid changes in a variety of IBV proteins following multiple
passages, approx. 100, of the virus in embryonated eggs. It was not investigated whether the attenuated virus (Ark DPI
101) is capable of replicating in the presence of maternally-derived antibodies against the virus in ovo, without being
pathogenic to the embryo. Given that this virus was produced by multiple passage in SPF embryonated eggs, similar
methodology for classical IBV vaccines, it is likely that this virus is pathogenic for embryos. The virus may also be
sensitive to maternally-derived antibodies if the hens were vaccinated with a similar serotype.
[0104] The variant replicase gene of the coronavirus of the present invention may encode a protein which comprises
any combination of one or more amino acid mutations provided in the list above.
[0105] The variant replicase gene may encode a protein which comprises the amino acid mutation Pro to Leu at
position 85 of SEQ ID NO: 6.
[0106] The variant replicase gene encodes a protein which comprises the amino acid mutation Val to Leu at position
393 of SEQ ID NO: 7.
[0107] The variant replicase gene may encode a protein which comprises the amino acid mutation Leu to Ile at position
183 of SEQ ID NO: 8.
[0108] The variant replicase gene may encode a protein which comprises the amino acid mutation Val to Ile at position
209 of SEQ ID NO: 9.
[0109] The variant replicase gene may encode a protein which comprises the amino acid mutations Pro to Leu at
position 85 of SEQ ID NO: 6, and Val to Leu at position 393 of SEQ ID NO: 7.
[0110] The variant replicase gene may further encode a protein which comprises the amino acid mutations Pro to Leu
at position 85 of SEQ ID NO: 6 Leu to Ile at position 183 of SEQ ID NO: 8.
[0111] The variant replicase gene may further encode a protein which comprises the amino acid mutations Pro to Leu
at position 85 of SEQ ID NO: 6 and Val to Ile at position 209 of SEQ ID NO: 9.
[0112] The variant replicase gene may encode a protein which comprises the amino acid mutations Val to Leu at
position 393 of SEQ ID NO: 7 and Leu to Ile at position 183 of SEQ ID NO: 8.
[0113] The variant replicase gene may encode a protein which comprises the amino acid mutations Val to Leu at
position 393 of SEQ ID NO: 7 and Val to Ile at position 209 of SEQ ID NO: 9.
[0114] The variant replicase gene may further encode a protein which comprises the amino acid mutations Leu to Ile
at position 183 of SEQ ID NO: 8 and Val to Ile at position 209 of SEQ ID NO: 9.
[0115] The variant replicase gene may encode a protein which comprises the amino acid mutations Pro to Leu at
position 85 of SEQ ID NO: 6, Val to Leu at position 393 of SEQ ID NO: 7 and Leu to Ile at position 183 of SEQ ID NO: 8.
[0116] The variant replicase gene may further encode a protein which comprises the amino acid mutations Pro to Leu
at position 85 of SEQ ID NO: 6 Leu to Ile at position 183 of SEQ ID NO: 8 and Val to Ile at position 209 of SEQ ID NO: 9.
[0117] The variant replicase gene may encode a protein which comprises the amino acid mutations Pro to Leu at
position 85 of SEQ ID NO: 6, Val to Leu at position 393 of SEQ ID NO: 7 and Val to Ile at position 209 of SEQ ID NO: 9.
[0118] The variant replicase gene may encode a protein which comprises the amino acid mutations Val to Leu at
position 393 of SEQ ID NO: 7, Leu to Ile at position 183 of SEQ ID NO: 8 and Val to Ile at position 209 of SEQ ID NO: 9.
[0119] The variant replicase gene may encode a protein which comprises the amino acid mutations Pro to Leu at
position 85 of SEQ ID NO: 6, Val to Leu at position 393 of SEQ ID NO: 7, Leu to Ile at position 183 of SEQ ID NO: 8
and Val to Ile at position 209 of SEQ ID NO: 9.
[0120] The variant replicase gene may also be defined at the nucleotide level.
[0121] For example the nucleotide sequence of the variant replicase gene of the coronavirus of the present invention
may comprise one or more nucleotide substitutions within the regions selected from the list of: 11884-12318,
16938-18500, 18501-19514 and 19515-20423 of SEQ ID NO:1.
[0122] For example the nucleotide sequence of the variant replicase gene of the coronavirus of the present invention
may comprise one or more nucleotide substitutions selected from the list of:
C to T at nucleotide position 12137;
EP 3 172 319 B1
24
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
G to C at nucleotide position 18114;
T to A at nucleotide position 19047; and
G to A at nucleotide position 20139;
compared to the sequence shown as SEQ ID NO: 1.
[0123] As used herein, the term ”substitution” is synonymous with the term mutation and means that the nucleotide
at the identified position differs to that of the wild-type nucleotide sequence.
[0124] The nucleotide sequence may comprise any combination of the nucleotide substitutions selected from the list of:
C to T at nucleotide position 12137;
G to C at nucleotide position 18114;
T to A at nucleotide position 19047; and
G to A at nucleotide position 20139;
compared to the sequence shown as SEQ ID NO: 1.
[0125] The nucleotide sequence may comprise the substitution C12137T.
[0126] The nucleotide sequence may comprise substitution G18114C.
[0127] The nucleotide sequence may comprise the substitution T19047A.
[0128] The nucleotide sequence may comprise the substitution G20139A.
[0129] The nucleotide sequence may comprise the substitutions C12137T and G18114C.
[0130] The nucleotide sequence may comprise the substitutions C12137T and T19047A.
[0131] The nucleotide sequence may comprise the substitutions C12137T and G20139A.
[0132] The nucleotide sequence may comprise the substitutions G18114C and T19047A.
[0133] The nucleotide sequence may comprise the substitutions G18114C and G20139A.
[0134] The nucleotide sequence may comprise the substitutions T19047A and G20139A.
[0135] The nucleotide sequence may comprise the substitutions C12137T, G18114C and T19047A.
[0136] The nucleotide sequence may comprise the substitutions C12137T, T19047A and G20139A.
[0137] The nucleotide sequence may comprise the substitutions C12137T, G18114C and G20139A.
[0138] The nucleotide sequence may comprise the substitutions G18114C, T19047A and G20139A.
[0139] The nucleotide sequence may comprise the substitutions C12137T, G18114C, T19047A and G20139A.
[0140] The nucleotide sequence may not comprise a substitution which corresponds to the C12008T substitution
reported by Ammayappan et al. (as above).
[0141] The nucleotide sequence may be natural, synthetic or recombinant. It may be double or single stranded, it may
be DNA or RNA or combinations thereof. It may, for example, be cDNA, PCR product, genomic sequence or mRNA.
[0142] The nucleotide sequence may be codon optimised for production in the host/host cell of choice.
[0143] It may be isolated, or as part of a plasmid, virus or host cell.
PLASMID
[0144] A plasmid is an extra-chromosomal DNA molecule separate from the chromosomal DNA which is capable of
replicating independently of the chromosomal DNA. They are usually circular and double-stranded.
[0145] Plasmids, or vectors (as they are sometimes known), may be used to express a protein in a host cell. For
example a bacterial host cell may be transfected with a plasmid capable of encoding a particular protein, in order to
express that protein. The term also includes yeast artificial chromosomes and bacterial artificial chromosomes which
are capable of accommodating longer portions of DNA.
[0146] The plasmid of the present invention comprises a nucleotide sequence capable of encoding a defined region
of the replicase protein. It may also comprise one or more additional coronavirus nucleotide sequence(s), or nucleotide
sequence(s) capable of encoding one or more other coronavirus proteins such as the S gene and/or gene 3.
[0147] The plasmid may also comprise a resistance marker, such as the guanine xanthine phosphoribosyltransferase
gene (gpt) from Escherichia coli, which confers resistance to mycophenolic acid (MPA) in the presence of xanthine and
hypoxanthine and is controlled by the vaccinia virus P7.5 early/late promoter.
RECOMBINANT VACCINIA VIRUS
[0148] The present invention also relates to a recombinant vaccinia virus (rVV) comprising a variant replicase gene
as defined herein.
[0149] The recombinant vaccinia virus (rVV) may be made using a vaccinia-virus based reverse genetics system.
[0150] In this respect, also provided is a method for making a viral particle by:
EP 3 172 319 B1
25
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
(i) transfecting a plasmid as described in the previous section into a host cell;
(ii) infecting the host cell with a recombining virus comprising the genome of a coronavirus strain with a replicase gene;
(iii) allowing homologous recombination to occur between the replicase gene sequences in the plasmid and the
corresponding sequences in the recombining virus genome to produce a modified replicase gene;
(iv) selecting for recombining virus comprising the modified replicase gene.
[0151] The term ’modified replicase gene’ refers to a replicase gene which comprises a variant replicase gene as
defined in the claims.
[0152] Specifically, the term refers to a gene which is derived from a wild-type replicase gene but comprises a nucleotide
sequence which causes it to encode a variant replicase protein as defined herein.
[0153] The recombination may involve all or part of the replicase gene. For example the recombination may involve
a nucleotide sequence encoding for any combination of nsp-10, nsp-14, nsp-15 and/or nsp-16. The recombination may
involve a nucleotide sequence which encodes for an amino acid mutation or comprises a nucleotide substitution as
defined above.
[0154] The genome of the coronavirus strain may lack the part of the replicase protein corresponding to the part
provided by the plasmid, so that a modified protein is formed through insertion of the nucleotide sequence provided by
the plasmid.
[0155] The recombining virus is one suitable to allow homologous recombination between its genome and the plasmid.
The vaccinia virus is particularly suitable as homologous recombination is routinely used to insert and delete sequences
for the vaccinia virus genome.
[0156] The above method optionally includes the step:
(v) recovery of recombinant coronavirus comprising the modified replicase gene from the DNA from the recombining
virus from step (iv).
[0157] Methods for recovering recombinant coronavirus, such as recombinant IBV, are known in the art (See Britton
et al (2005) see page 24; and WO2011004146).
[0158] For example, the DNA from the recombining virus from step (iv) may be inserted into a plasmid and used to
transfect cells which express cytoplasmic T7 RNA polymerase. The cells may, for example be pre-infected with a fowlpox
virus expressing T7 RNA polymerase. Recombinant coronavirus may then be isolated, for example, from the growth
medium.
[0159] When the plasmid is inserted into the vaccinia virus genome, an unstable intermediate is formed. Recombinants
comprising the plasmid may be selected for e.g. using a resistance marker on the plasmid.
[0160] Positive recombinants may then be verified to contain the modified replicase gene by, for example, PCR and
sequencing.
[0161] Large stocks of the recombining virus including the modified replicase gene (e.g. recombinant vaccinia virus,
(rVV) may be grown up and the DNA extracted in order to carry out step (v)).
[0162] Suitable reverse genetics systems are known in the art (Casais et al (2001) J. Virol 75:12359-12369; Casais
et al (2003) J. Virol. 77:9084-9089; Britton et al (2005) J. Virological Methods 123:203-211; Armesto et al (2008) Methods
in Molecular Biology 454:255-273).
CELL
[0163] The coronavirus may be used to infect a cell.
[0164] Coronavirus particles may be harvested, for example from the supernatant, by methods known in the art, and
optionally purified.
[0165] The cell may be used to produce the coronavirus particle.
[0166] Thus the present invention also provides a method for producing a coronavirus as defined in the claims which
comprises the following steps:
(i) infection of a cell with a coronavirus according to the invention;
(ii) allowing the virus to replicate in the cell; and
(iii) harvesting the progeny virus.
[0167] Also provided is a cell capable of producing a coronavirus using a reverse genetics system. For example, the
cell may comprise a recombining virus genome comprising a nucleotide sequence capable of encoding the replicase
gene of the present invention.
[0168] The cell may be able to produce recombinant recombining virus (e.g. vaccinia virus) containing the replicase
gene.
[0169] Alternatively the cell may be capable of producing recombinant coronavirus by a reverse genetics system. The
EP 3 172 319 B1
26
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
cell may express or be induced to express T7 polymerase in order to rescue the recombinant viral particle.
VACCINE
[0170] The coronavirus may be used to produce a vaccine. The vaccine may be a live attenuated form of the coronavirus
of the present invention and may further comprise a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier. As defined herein, ”pharmaceutically
acceptable carriers” suitable for use in the invention are well known to those of skill in the art. Such carriers
include, without limitation, water, saline, buffered saline, phosphate buffer, alcohol/aqueous solutions, emulsions or
suspensions. Other conventionally employed diluents and excipients may be added in accordance with conventional
techniques. Such carriers can include ethanol, polyols, and suitable mixtures thereof, vegetable oils, and injectable
organic esters. Buffers and pH adjusting agents may also be employed. Buffers include, without limitation, salts prepared
from an organic acid or base. Representative buffers include, without limitation, organic acid salts, such as salts of citric
acid, e.g., citrates, ascorbic acid, gluconic acid, histidine-Hel, carbonic acid, tartaric acid, succinic acid, acetic acid, or
phthalic acid, Tris, trimethanmine hydrochloride, or phosphate buffers. Parenteral carriers can include sodium chloride
solution, Ringer’s dextrose, dextrose, trehalose, sucrose, and sodium chloride, lactated Ringer’s or fixed oils. Intravenous
carriers can include fluid and nutrient replenishers, electrolyte replenishers, such as those based on Ringer’s dextrose
and the like. Preservatives and other additives such as, for example, antimicrobials, antioxidants, chelating agents (e.g.,
EDTA), inert gases and the like may also be provided in the pharmaceutical carriers. The present invention is not limited
by the selection of the carrier. The preparation of these pharmaceutically acceptable compositions, from the abovedescribed
components, having appropriate pH isotonicity, stability and other conventional characteristics is within the
skill of the art. See, e.g., texts such as Remington: The Science and Practice of Pharmacy, 20th ed, Lippincott Williams
& Wilkins, pub!., 2000; and The Handbook of Pharmaceutical Excipients, 4.sup.th edit., eds. R. C. Rowe et al, APhA
Publications, 2003.
[0171] The vaccine as defined in the claims is to be administered in a ”therapeutically effective amount”, which refers
to an amount of an active ingredient, e.g., an agent according to the invention, sufficient to effect beneficial or desired
results when administered to a subject or patient. An effective amount can be administered in one or more administrations,
applications or dosages. A therapeutically effective amount of a composition may be readily determined by one of ordinary
skill in the art. A ”therapeutically effective amount” is one that produces an objectively measured change in one or more
parameters associated Infectious Bronchitis condition sufficient to effect beneficial or desired results .An effective amount
can be administered in one or more administrations. An effective amount of drug, compound, or pharmaceutical composition
is an amount sufficient to reduce the incidence of Infectious Bronchitis. As used herein, the term ”therapeutic”
encompasses the full spectrum of treatments for a disease, condition or disorder. A ”therapeutic” agent of the invention
may act in a manner that is prophylactic or preventive, including those that incorporate procedures designed to target
animals that can be identified as being at risk (pharmacogenetics); or in a manner that is ameliorative or curative in
nature; or may act to slow the rate or extent of the progression of at least one symptom of a disease or disorder being
treated.
[0172] The present invention also relates to a method for producing such a vaccine which comprises the step of
infecting cells, for example Vero cells, with a viral particle comprising a replicase protein as defined in connection with
the first aspect of the invention.
VACCINATION METHOD
[0173] The coronavirus of the present invention may be used to treat and/or prevent a disease.
[0174] To ”treat” means to administer the vaccine to a subject having an existing disease in order to lessen, reduce
or improve at least one symptom associated with the disease and/or to slow down, reduce or block the progression of
the disease.
[0175] To ”prevent” means to administer the vaccine to a subject who has not yet contracted the disease and/or who
is not showing any symptoms of the disease to prevent or impair the cause of the disease (e.g. infection) or to reduce
or prevent development of at least one symptom associated with the disease.
[0176] The disease may be any disease caused by a coronavirus, such as a respiratory disease and and/or gastroenteritis
in humans and hepatitis, gastroenteritis, encephalitis, or a respiratory disease in other animals.
[0177] The disease may be infectious bronchitis (IB); Porcine epidemic diarrhoea; Transmissible gastroenteritis; Mouse
hepatitis virus; Porcine haemagglutinating encephalomyelitis; Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS); or Bluecomb
disease.
[0178] The disease may be infectious bronchitis.
[0179] The vaccine may be administered to hatched chicks or chickens, for example by eye drop or intranasal administration.
Although accurate, these methods can be expensive e.g. for large broiler flocks. Alternatives include spray
inoculation of administration to drinking water but it can be difficult to ensure uniform vaccine application using such
EP 3 172 319 B1
27
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
methods.
[0180] The vaccine may be provided in a form suitable for its administration, such as an eye-dropper for intra-ocular use.
[0181] The vaccine may be administered by in ovo inoculation, for example by injection of embryonated eggs. In ovo
vaccination has the advantage that it provides an early stage resistance to the disease. It also facilitates the administration
of a uniform dose per subject, unlike spray inoculation and administration via drinking water.
[0182] The vaccine may be administered to any suitable compartment of the egg, including allantoic fluid, yolk sac,
amnion, air cell or embryo. It may be administered below the shell (aircell) membrane and chorioallantoic membrane.
[0183] Usually the vaccine is injected into embryonated eggs during late stages of embryonic development, generally
during the final quarter of the incubation period, such as 3-4 days prior to hatch. In chickens, the vaccine may be
administered between day 15-19 of the 21-day incubation period, for example at day 17 or 18.
[0184] The process can be automated using a robotic injection process, such as those described in WO 2004/078203.
[0185] The vaccine may be administered together with one or more other vaccines, for example, vaccines for other
diseases, such as Newcastle disease virus (NDV). The present disclosure also provides a vaccine composition comprising
a vaccine disclosed herein together with one or more other vaccine(s). Also provided is a kit comprising a vaccine
described herein together with one or more other vaccine(s) for separate, sequential or simultaneous administration.
[0186] The vaccine or vaccine composition of the invention may be used to treat a human, animal or avian subject.
For example, the subject may be a chick, chicken or mouse (such as a laboratory mouse, e.g. transgenic mouse).
[0187] Typically, a physician or veterinarian will determine the actual dosage which will be most suitable for an individual
subject or group of subjects and it will vary with the age, weight and response of the particular subject(s).
[0188] The composition may optionally comprise a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier, diluent, excipient or adjuvant.
The choice of pharmaceutical carrier, excipient or diluent can be selected with regard to the intended route of administration
and standard pharmaceutical practice. The pharmaceutical compositions may comprise as (or in addition to) the
carrier, excipient or diluent, any suitable binder(s), lubricant(s), suspending agent(s), coating agent(s), solubilising
agent(s), and other carrier agents that may aid or increase the delivery or immunogenicity of the virus.
[0189] The invention will now be further described by way of Examples, which are meant to serve to assist one of
ordinary skill in the art in carrying out the invention.
EXAMPLES
EXAMPLE 1 – Generation of an IBV reverse genetics system based on M41-CK
[0190] A M41-CK full-length cDNA was produced by replacement of the Beaudette cDNA in the Vaccinia virus reverse
genetics system previously described in WO2011/004146 with synthetic cDNA derived from the M41 consensus sequence.
[0191] The IBV cDNA within recombinant Vaccinia virus (rVV) rVV-BeauR-Rep-M41 structure described in Armesto,
Cavanagh and Britton (2009). PLoS ONE 4(10): e7384. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0007384, which consisted of the replicase
derived from IBV Beaudette strain and the structural and accessory genes and 3’ UTR from IBV M41-CK, was
further modified by replacement of the Beaudette 5’ UTR-Nsp2-Nsp3 sequence with the corresponding sequence from
IBV M41-CK. The resulting IBV cDNA consisted of 5’ UTR-Nsp2-Nsp3 from M41, Nsp4-Nsp16 from Beaudette and the
structural and accessory genes and 3’ UTR from M41. This cDNA was further modified by the deletion of the Beaudette
Nsp4-Nsp16 sequence. The resulting cDNA, lacking Nsp4-16, was modified in four further steps in which the deleted
Nsps were sequentially replaced with the corresponding sequences from M41-CK, the replacement cDNAs represented
M41-CK Nsp4-8, Nsp9-12, Nsp12-14 and finally Nsp15-16. Each replacement cDNA contained approx. 500 nucleotides
at the 5’ end corresponding to the 3’ most M41 sequence previously inserted and approx. 500 nucleotides at the 3’ end
corresponding to the M41 S gene sequence. This allowed insertion of the M41 cDNA sequence by homologous recombination
and sequential addition of contiguous M41 replicase gene sequence. The synthetic cDNAs containing the M41-
derived Nsp sequences were added by homologous recombination utilising the inventor’s previous described transient
dominant selection (TDS) system (see WO2011/004146). The M41-derived cDNAs containing sequence corresponding
to the M41 Nsps-10, -14, -15 and -16 contained the modified amino acids at positions 85, 393, 183 and 209, respectively,
as indicated in Figure 10.
[0192] A full-length cDNA representing the genome of M41-CK was generated in Vaccinia virus representing the
synthetic sequences. Two rIBVs, M41-R-6 and M41-R-12, were rescued and shown to grow in a similar manner as M41-
CK (Fig. 1).
EXAMPLE 2 – Determining the pathogenicity of rescued M41 viruses
[0193] The viruses rescued in Example 1 were used to infect 8-day-old specific pathogen free (SPF) chicks by ocular
and nasal inoculation to test them for pathogenicity, as observed by clinical signs on a daily basis 3-7 days post-infection
EP 3 172 319 B1
28
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
and for ciliary activity days 4 and 6 post-infection. Loss of ciliary activity is a well-established method for determining
the pathogenicity of IBV. The two M41-R viruses were found to be apathogenic when compared to M41-CK though they
did show some clinical signs in comparison to uninfected control chicks (Fig. 2) and some but inconsistent loss in ciliary
activity (Fig. 3).
[0194] Thus, the M41-R molecular clones of M41-CK were not pathogenic when compared to the parental virus M41-CK.
[0195] The inventors identified several nucleotide differences in the M41-R compared to the M41-CK sequences. The
majority of these were synonymous mutations, as the nucleotide change did not affect the amino acid sequence of the
protein associated with the sequence. However, four non-synonymous mutations were identified in the IBV replicase
gene specific to Nsp-10, Nsp-14, Nsp-15 and Nsp-16 components of the replicase gene, these mutations resulted in
amino acid changes (Table 3).
EXAMPLE 3 – Repair of M41-R rIBVs
[0196] In order to determine whether the identified mutations were responsible for the loss of pathogenicity associated
with M41-R, the Nsp10 mutation was repaired and the mutations in Nsp-14, -15 & -16 were repaired and shown to grow
in a similar manner as M41-CK (Fig 9). The inventors thus generated the rIBVs, M41R-nsp10rep and M41 R-nsp14, 15,
16rep, using synthetic cDNAs containing the correct nucleotides utilising the inventor’s orevious described (TDS) system
(see WO2011/004146).
[0197] The rIBVs were assessed for pathogenicity in chicks as described previously. Both rIBVs showed increased
pathogenicity when compared to M41-R but not to the level observed with M41-CK (Figs 4 and 5). M41R-nsp14, 15,
16rep gave more clinical signs and more reduction in ciliary activity than M41R-nsp10rep, overall these results indicated
that the changes associated with the four Nsps appear to affect pathogenicity.
[0198] To determine the roles of the Nsps in pathogenicity the full-length cDNA corresponding to M41R-nsp10rep was
used to repair the mutations in Nsps14, 15 & 16 using a synthetic cDNA containing the correct nucleotides utilising the
TDS system.
[0199] The following rIBVs were produced:-
M41R-nsp10, 15rep – M41-R with the mutations in Nsp-10 and Nsp-15 repaired
M41R-nsp10, 14, 15rep – M41-R with mutations in Nsp-10, -14 and -15 repaired
M41R-nsp10, 14, 16rep – M41-R with mutations in Nsp-10, -14 and -16 repaired
M41R-nsp10, 15, 16rep – M41-R with mutations in Nsp-10, -15 and -16 repaired
M41-K – All four mutations, Nsp-10,-14,-15 & -16 repaired in M41-R
[0200] The rIBVs were shown to grow in a similar manner as M41-CK (Fig 9) and assessed for pathogenicity as
described previously. M41-K (in which all four mutations had been repaired) resulted in clinical signs and 100% loss of
ciliary activity (complete ciliostasis) by 4 days post-infection (Fig. 6, 7 & 8). The other rIBVs demonstrated varying levels
of pathogenicity, apart from M41R-nsp10, 15, 16rep, which was essentially apathogenic. These results confirmed that
repair of all four Nsps restored pathogenicity to M41-R; again supporting the previous evidence that the mutations
described in the four Nsps are implicated in attenuating M41-CK.
[0201] The inventors also generated rIBV M41R-nsp 10, 14 rep (nsp 10 and 14 are repaired, nsp 15 and 16 contain
mutations) and rIBV M41R-nsp 10, 16 rep (nsp 10 and 16 are repaired, nsp 14 and 15 contain mutations) and assessed
the pathogenicity of these viruses.
[0202] rIBV M41R-nsp 10, 14 rep less pathogenic than M41-K but caused around 50% ciliostasis on days 4-6 postinfection.
rIBV M41R-nsp 10, 16 rep was almost apathogenic and caused no ciliostasis (see Figure 11a-c).
[0203] Thus the genome associated with M41-R is a potential backbone genome for a rationally attenuated IBV.
Table 3. Non-Synonymous mutations identified in the Nsps of M41-R full-length genome
Region of Replicase Nucleotide position Nucleotide Mutation Amino Acid Change
Nsp10 12137 C→T Pro→Leu
Nsp14 18114 G→C Val→Leu
Nsp15 19047 T→A Leu→Ile
Nsp16 20139 G→A Val→Ile
EP 3 172 319 B1
29
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
EXAMPLE 4 – Vaccination/Challenge Study with M41-R
[0204] Candidate vaccine viruses were tested in studies in which fertilized chicken eggs were vaccinated in ovo at 18
days embryonation and in which the hatchability of the inoculated eggs was determined. The clinical health of the
chickens was investigated and the chickens were challenged at 21 days of age with a virulent IB M41 challenge virus
at 103.65 EID50 per dose.
[0205] Clinical signs were investigated after challenge protection by the vaccine and a ciliostasis test was performed
at 5 days after challenge to investigate the effect of the challenge viruses on movement of the cilia and protection by
the vaccine against ciliostasis (inhibition of cilia movement).
In ovo vaccination in commercial broiler eggs
[0206] The design of the experiment is given in Table 4 and the clinical results are given in Table 5. Hatchability of
the eggs inoculated with IB M41-R was good and chickens were healthy. IB M41-R protected against clinical signs after
challenge in the broilers (placebo: 19/19 affected, IB M41-R: 3/18 affected and 1 dead). The results of the ciliostasis
test are given in Table 6. IB M41-R generated protection against ciliostasis.
Table 4 – Design of a hatchability, safety, efficacy study in commercial eggs
Treatment Treatment
Description
EID50
1
per
dose
Route
of
Admin
Day(s) of
Admin
Day(s) of Challenge2 End of
Study
Nr. of eggs
per
treatment
T01 None NA NA NA NA NA 30
T02 IB M41-R 104 In ovo 18 days
embryonation
At 21 days of age, 20
chickens per group
At 26
days of
age
30
NTX Saline NA In ovo 30
1 Dose volume 0.1 ml, NA, not applicable.
2103.65 EID50 per dose.
Table 5 – Hatch percentages and clinical data before and after challenge in commercial chickens, for design see Table 1.
Treatment Hatch/total Vital/total Before challenge After challenge
Deaths/total Symptoms/total Deaths/total Symptoms/total
None 28/30 Euthanized directly after hatch for blood collection
IB M41-R 28/30 28/28 1/20 0/19 1/19 3/181,7
Saline 29/30 29/29 1/20 0/19 0/19 19/191,2,3,4,5,6,7
1 Disturbed respiratory system
2 Whizzing
3 Change of voice
4 Breathing difficult
5 Swollen intra-orbital sinuses
6 Uneven growth
7 Weak
Table 6 – Results of the ciliostasis test after challenge, for design see Table 1.
Treatment Protected/total Percentage protection
Saline 0/19 0%
IB M41R 5/18 28%
EP 3 172 319 B1
30
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
In ovo vaccination in specific pathogen-free (SPF) eggs
[0207] The design of the study in SPF eggs is given in Table 7 and is similar with the design of the studies with
commercial broilers, but the vaccination dose for IB M41-R was higher, (105 EID50 per dose).
[0208] The results (Table 8) show that the hatch percentage for IB M41-R hatch was low, and 19 of 40 hatched and
the chicks were weak. Eight chicks died. The remaining 11 chickens were challenged and 11 of the chicks hatched from
the eggs which had been inoculated with saline were challenged.
[0209] In the ciliostasis test after challenge it appeared that all chickens vaccinated in ovo with IB M41-R were protected,
whereas none of the controls was protected, see Table 9.
[0210] In conclusion, IB M41-R was safe in commercial eggs, generated protection against clinical signs and to an
extent against ciliostasis.
[0211] In SPF eggs vaccinated with IB M41 R a relatively low number of chickens hatched. This may be due to the
105 EID50 per egg of IB M41-R used. This was 10-fold higher than the dose used in earlier studies in which there was
a higher level of hatchability. The lower hatch percentages may also be caused by a particularly high susceptibility of
the batch of SPF eggs for viruses, as in other studies the level of embryo mortality was also higher that had previously
been observed.
[0212] After challenge all surviving chickens after hatch were completely protected against ciliostasis. It is concluded
that IB M41-R has great potential as vaccine to be administered in ovo.
Claims
1. A live, attenuated coronavirus comprising a variant replicase gene encoding polyproteins comprising a mutation in
nsp-14, wherein the variant replicase gene encodes a protein comprising an amino acid mutation of Val to Leu at
Table 7. Design of a hatchability, safety, efficacy study in SPF eggs
Treatment Treatment
Description
EID50
1
per
dose
Route of
Admin
Day of Admin Days of
Challenge2
End of
Study
Nr. of eggs per
treatment
T01 IB M41-R 105 In ovo 18 days
embryonation
At 21 days
of age
At 26 days
of age
40
T04 Saline NA In ovo 40
NTX NA NA NA NA 10
1 Dose volume 0.1 ml, NA, not applicable.
2 Challenge dose 103.3 EID50 in 0.2 ml.
Table 8. Hatch percentages and clinical data before and after challenge in SPF chickens, for design see Table 7.
Treatment Hatch/total Vital/total Before challenge After challenge
Deaths/total Symptoms/total Deaths/total Symptoms/total
IB M41-R 19/40 11/40 8/40 weak 0 0
Saline 30/40 30/40 0 – 0 0
NA 9/10 9/10 0 – – –
Table 9. Results of the ciliostasis test after challenge, for design see Table 7.
Treatment Protected/total Percentage protection
Saline 0/11 0%
IB M41R 11/11 100%
EP 3 172 319 B1
31
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
the position corresponding to position 393 of SEQ ID NO: 7.
2. The coronavirus according to claim 1 further comprising a mutation in one or more of nsp-10 corresponding to SEQ
ID NO: 6, nsp-15 corresponding to SEQ ID NO: 8 and nsp-16 corresponding to SEQ ID NO: 9.
3. The coronavirus according to claim 2 wherein the variant replicase gene encodes a protein comprising one or more
amino acid mutations selected from: an amino acid mutation of Pro to Leu at the position corresponding to position
85 of SEQ ID NO: 6, an amino acid mutation of Leu to Ile at the position corresponding to position 183 of SEQ ID
NO: 8 and an amino acid mutation of Val to Ile at the position corresponding to position 209 of SEQ ID NO: 9.
4. The coronavirus according to any preceding claim, wherein the replicase gene encodes a protein comprising the
amino acid mutations: Pro to Leu at the position corresponding to position 85 of SEQ ID NO: 6; Val to Leu at the
position corresponding to position 393 of SEQ ID NO: 7; Leu to Ile at the position corresponding to position 183 of
SEQ ID NO: 8; and Val to Ile at the position corresponding to position 209 of SEQ ID NO: 9.
5. The coronavirus according to any preceding claim which is an infectious bronchitis virus (IBV), preferably IBV M41.
6. The coronavirus according to claim 5, which comprises an S protein at least part of which is from an IBV serotype
other than M41, preferably wherein the S1 subunit is from an IBV serotype other than M41 or wherein the S protein
is from an IBV serotype other than M41.
7. A variant replicase gene as defined in any of claims 1 to 4.
8. A protein encoded by a variant coronavirus replicase gene according to claim 7.
9. A plasmid comprising a replicase gene according to claim 7.
10. A method for making the coronavirus according to any of claims 1 to 6 which comprises the following steps:
(i) transfecting a plasmid according to claim 9 into a host cell;
(ii) infecting the host cell with a recombining virus comprising the genome of a coronavirus strain with a replicase
gene, preferably wherein the recombining virus is a vaccinia virus;
(iii) allowing homologous recombination to occur between the replicase gene sequences in the plasmid and the
corresponding sequences in the recombining virus genome to produce a modified replicase gene; and
(iv) selecting for recombining virus comprising the modified replicase gene; optionally further comprising the
step of
(v) recovering recombinant coronavirus comprising the modified replicase gene from the DNA from the recombining
virus from step (iv).
11. A vaccine comprising a coronavirus according to any of claims 1 to 6 and a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier.
12. The vaccine according to claim 11 for use in preventing a disease in a subject, preferably wherein the disease is
infectious bronchitis (IB), most preferably wherein the vaccination is in ovo vaccination.
13. The vaccine for use according to claim 12 wherein the vaccine is administered by; eye drop administration, intranasal
administration, drinking water administration, post-hatch injection or in ovo injection.
14. A method for producing a vaccine according to claim 11, which comprises the step of infecting a host cell with a
coronavirus according to any of claims 1 to 6.
Patentansprüche
1. Lebendes, abgeschwächtes Coronavirus, umfassend eine Polyproteine codierende Replikase-Genvariante, die
eine Mutation in nsp-14 umfasst, wobei die Replikase-Genvariante ein Protein codiert, das eine Aminosäuremutation
von Val zu Leu an der Position 393 von SEQ ID NO: 7 entsprechenden Position umfasst.
2. Coronavirus nach Anspruch 1, ferner umfassend eine Mutation in einer oder mehreren von nsp-10 gemäß SEQ ID
EP 3 172 319 B1
32
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
NO: 6, nsp-15 gemäß SEQ ID NO: 8 und nsp-16 gemäß SEQ ID NO: 9.
3. Coronavirus nach Anspruch 2, wobei die Replikase-Genvariante ein Protein codiert, das eine oder mehrere Aminosäuremutationen
ausgewählt aus einer Aminosäuremutation von Pro zu Leu an der Position 85 von SEQ ID NO:
6 entsprechenden Position, einer Aminosäuremutation von Leu zu Ile an der Position 183 von SEQ ID NO: 8
entsprechenden Position und einer Aminosäuremutation von Val zu Ile an der Position 209 von SEQ ID NO: 9
entsprechenden Position umfasst.
4. Coronavirus nach einem vorhergehenden Anspruch, wobei das Replikase-Gen ein Protein codiert, das die folgenden
Aminosäuremutationen umfasst: Pro zu Leu an der Position 85 von SEQ ID NO: 6 entsprechenden Position; Val
zu Leu an der Position 393 von SEQ ID NO: 7 entsprechenden Position; Leu zu Ile an der Position 183 von SEQ
ID NO: 8 entsprechenden Position; und Val zu Ile an der Position 209 von SEQ ID NO: 9 entsprechenden Position.
5. Coronavirus nach einem vorhergehenden Anspruch, bei dem es sich um ein IBV (Infectious Bronchitis Virus),
vorzugsweise IBV M41 handelt.
6. Coronavirus nach Anspruch 5, das ein S-Protein umfasst, das wenigstens zum Teil von einem anderen IBV-Serotyp
als M41 stammt, vorzugsweise wobei die S1-Untereinheit von einem anderen IBV-Serotyp als M41 stammt oder
wobei das S-Protein von einem anderen IBV-Serotyp als M41 stammt.
7. Replikase-Genvariante gemäß einem der Ansprüche 1 bis 4.
8. Protein, codiert durch eine Coronavirus-Replikase-Genvariante nach Anspruch 7.
9. Plasmid, umfassend ein Replikase-Gen nach Anspruch 7.
10. Verfahren zur Herstellung des Coronavirus nach einem der Ansprüche 1 bis 6, das die folgenden Schritte umfasst:
(i) Transfizieren eines Plasmids nach Anspruch 9 in eine Wirtszelle;
(ii) Infizieren der Wirtszelle mit einem rekombinierenden Virus, das das Genom eines Coronavirusstamms mit
einem Replikase-Gen umfasst, vorzugsweise wobei es sich bei dem rekombinierenden Virus um ein Vacciniavirus
handelt;
(iii) Stattfindenlassen einer homologen Rekombination zwischen den Replikase-Gensequenzen im Plasmid und
den entsprechenden Sequenzen im Genom des rekombinierenden Virus, so dass ein modifiziertes Replikase-
Gen erzeugt wird; und
(iv) Selektionieren auf rekombinierendes Virus, das das modifizierte Replikase-Gen umfasst; gegebenenfalls
ferner umfassend den Schritt
(v) Gewinnen von rekombinantem Coronavirus, das das modifizierte Replikase-Gen umfasst, aus der DNA vom
rekombinierenden Virus aus Schritt (iv).
11. Impfstoff, umfassend ein Coronavirus nach einem der Ansprüche 1 bis 6 und einen pharmazeutisch unbedenklichen
Träger.
12. Impfstoff nach Anspruch 11 zur Verwendung beim Vorbeugen einer Krankheit bei einem Individuum, vorzugsweise
wobei es sich bei der Krankheit um infektiöse Bronchitis (IB) handelt, ganz besonders bevorzugt wobei es sich bei
der Impfung um eine In-ovo-Impfung handelt.
13. Impfstoff zur Verwendung nach Anspruch 12, wobei der Impfstoff über Augentropfenverabreichung, intranasale
Verabreichung, Trinkwasserverabreichung, Post-hatch-Injektion oder In-ovo-Injektion verabreicht wird.
14. Verfahren zur Erzeugung eines Impfstoffs nach Anspruch 11, das den Schritt Infizieren einer Wirtszelle mit einem
Coronavirus nach einem der Ansprüche 1 bis 6 umfasst.
Revendications
1. Coronavirus vivant atténué comprenant un gène de réplicase variant qui code pour des poly-protéines comprenant
une mutation dans le nsp-14, dans lequel le gène de réplicase variant code pour une protéine comprenant une
EP 3 172 319 B1
33
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
mutation d’acide aminé de Val en Leu au niveau de la position correspondant à la position 393 de la SEQ ID n° : 7.
2. Coronavirus, selon la revendication 1, comprenant en outre une mutation dans un ou plusieurs des nsp-10 correspondant
à la SEQ ID n° : 6, nsp-15 correspondant à la SEQ ID n° : 8 et nsp-16 correspondant à la SEQ ID n° : 9.
3. Coronavirus selon la revendication 2, dans lequel le gène de réplicase variant code pour une protéine comprenant
une ou plusieurs mutation(s) d’acide(s) aminé(s) choisie(s) parmi : une mutation d’acide aminé de Pro en Leu au
niveau de la position correspondant à la position 85 de la SEQ ID n° : 6, une mutation d’acide aminé de Leu en Ile
au niveau de la position correspondant à la position 183 de la SEQ ID n° : 8 et une mutation d’acide aminé de Val
en Ile au niveau de la position correspondant à la position 209 de la SEQ ID n° : 9.
4. Coronavirus selon l’une quelconque des revendications précédentes, dans lequel le gène de réplicase code pour
une protéine comprenant les mutations d’acides aminés : Pro en Leu au niveau de la position correspondant à la
position 85 de la SEQ ID n° : 6 ; Val en Leu au niveau de la position correspondant à la position 393 de la SEQ ID
n° : 7 ; Leu en Ile au niveau de la position correspondant à la position 183 de la SEQ ID n° : 8 ; et Val en Ile au
niveau de la position correspondant à la position 209 de la SEQ ID n° : 9.
5. Coronavirus, selon l’une quelconque des revendications précédentes, qui est un virus de bronchite infectieuse (VBI),
de préférence le VBI M41.
6. Coronavirus, selon la revendication 5, qui comprend une protéine S dont au moins une partie provient d’un sérotype
de VBI autre que le M41, de préférence dans lequel la sous-unité S1 provient d’un sérotype de VBI autre que le
M41 ou dans lequel la protéine S provient d’un sérotype de VBI autre que le M41.
7. Gène de réplicase variant tel que défini dans l’une quelconque des revendications 1 à 4.
8. Protéine codée par un gène de réplicase de coronavirus variant selon la revendication 7.
9. Plasmide comprenant un gène de réplicase selon la revendication 7.
10. Procédé destiné à élaborer le coronavirus selon l’une quelconque des revendications 1 à 6, qui comprend les étapes
suivantes :
(i) transfecter un plasmide, selon la revendication 9, dans une cellule hôte ;
(ii) infecter la cellule hôte avec un virus se recombinant qui comprend le génome d’une souche de coronavirus
avec un gène de réplicase, de préférence dans lequel le virus se recombinant est un virus de la vaccine ;
(iii) permettre qu’ait lieu une recombinaison homologue entre les séquences du gène de réplicase dans le
plasmide et les séquences correspondantes dans le génome du virus se recombinant pour produire un gène
de réplicase modifié ; et
(iv) faire une sélection en vue d’un virus recombinant qui comprend le gène de réplicase modifié ; en option
comprenant en outre l’étape consistant à
(v) récupérer un coronavirus recombinant, qui comprend le gène de réplicase modifié, à partir de l’ADN provenant
du virus se recombinant de l’étape (iv).
11. Vaccin comprenant un coronavirus, selon l’une quelconque des revendications 1 à 6, et un véhicule acceptable
d’un point de vue pharmaceutique.
12. Vaccin, selon la revendication 11, destiné à être utilisé dans la prévention d’une maladie chez un sujet, de préférence
la maladie étant une bronchite infectieuse (BI), de manière préférée entre toutes dans lequel la vaccination est une
vaccination in ovo.
13. Vaccin destiné à être utilisé selon la revendication 12, dans lequel le vaccin est administré via : une administration
par gouttes oculaires, une administration intra-nasale, une administration par l’eau de boisson, une injection après
l’éclosion ou une injection in ovo.
14. Procédé destiné à produire un vaccin, selon la revendication 11, qui comprend l’étape d’infection d’une cellule hôte
par un coronavirus selon l’une quelconque des revendications 1 à 6.
EP 3 172 319 B1
34
EP 3 172 319 B1
35
EP 3 172 319 B1
36
EP 3 172 319 B1
37
EP 3 172 319 B1
38
EP 3 172 319 B1
39
EP 3 172 319 B1
40
EP 3 172 319 B1
41
EP 3 172 319 B1
42
EP 3 172 319 B1
43
EP 3 172 319 B1
44
EP 3 172 319 B1
45
EP 3 172 319 B1
46
EP 3 172 319 B1
47
REFERENCES CITED IN THE DESCRIPTION
This list of references cited by the applicant is for the reader’s convenience only. It does not form part of the European
patent document. Even though great care has been taken in compiling the references, errors or omissions cannot be
excluded and the EPO disclaims all liability in this regard.
Patent documents cited in the description
• WO 2005049814 A2 [0007]
• WO 2004092360 A [0007]
• WO 2011004146 A [0157] [0190] [0191] [0196]
• WO 2004078203 A [0184]
Non-patent literature cited in the description
• MENACHERY, V. D. et al. J. Virol., 2014, vol. 88 (8),
4251-4264 [0007]
• DEVEREUX et al. Nucleic Acids Research, 1984, vol.
12, 387 [0094]
• ATSCHUL et al. J. Mol. Biol., 1990, 403-410 [0094]
• LARKIN et al. Clustal W and Clustal X version 2.0.
Bioinformatics, 2007, vol. 23, 2947-2948 [0094]
• FEMS Microbiol Lett, 1999, vol. 174 (2), 247-50
[0094]
• FEMS Microbiol Lett, 1999, vol. 177 (1), 187-8 [0094]
• AMMAYAPPAN et al. Arch Virol, 2009, vol. 154,
495-499 [0102]
• CASAIS et al. J. Virol, 2001, vol. 75, 12359-12369
[0162]
• CASAIS et al. J. Virol., 2003, vol. 77, 9084-9089
[0162]
• BRITTON et al. J. Virological Methods, 2005, vol.
123, 203-211 [0162]
• ARMESTO et al. Methods in Molecular Biology,
2008, vol. 454, 255-273 [0162]
• Remington: The Science and Practice of Pharmacy.
Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, pub!, 2000 [0170]
• The Handbook of Pharmaceutical Excipients. APhA
Publications, 2003 [0170]
• ARMESTO ; CAVANAGH ; BRITTON. PLoS ONE,
2009, vol. 4 (10), e7384 [0191]

Dr. Fauci’s COVID-19 Treachery

Dr. Fauci’s COVID-19 Treachery
With Chilling Ties to the Chinese Military
by Peter R. Breggin MD and Ginger R. Breggin 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report documents in detail how Dr. Anthony Fauci, head of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), has been the major force behind a series of research activities and other government actions that enabled the Chinese Communist Party to create lethal SARS coronaviruses, leading to the release of SARS-CoV-2 from the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Fauci continues to cover for the Chinese and for himself, denying the origin of SARS-CoV-2, and delaying and thwarting worldwide attempts to deal rationally with the pandemic.
This report documents with more than 100 linked citations the following activities by Dr. Fauci:
(1) Until stopped by President Trump in mid-April 2020, Fauci funded both individual Chinese researchers and the Wuhan Institute as collaborators with American researchers in creating lethal coronaviruses from harmless bat viruses. This collaboration and direct funding enabled the Chinese Communist Party and its military to make potential bioweapons on their own, including SARS-CoV-2. In April 2020, shortly after our disclosure of these US/Chinese collaborations, President Trump canceled funding for them. However, Fauci has recently unleashed a deluge of new funding that will almost certainly benefit Chinese scientists at universities and research facilities in this country who have close ties to the Chinese Communist Party.

(2) The connection between SARS-CoV-2 and the Fauci-funded American and Chinese collaboration making coronaviruses was initially made in February 2020 in a scientific publication by an American-trained (Northwestern University and Harvard Medical School) Chinese researcher named Botao Xiao and his associate Lei Xiao. Perhaps because it was so cogently written and spot on, the Chinese Communist government forced the researchers to recant.
(3) The Wuhan Institute is a center of China’s biowarfare/biodefense capacity and its director is China’s top military expert in biowarfare, and yet Fauci shared advanced biowarfare-related research with and actually funded the Wuhan Institute and its scientists.
(4) Fauci has funded and continues to fund coronavirus “gain-of-function” research projects which turn benign animal viruses into human pathogens capable of causing pandemics. The stated purpose is to learn to prevent and treat future outbreaks; but research labs are the most common source of outbreaks from dangerous pathogens, including SARS-CoV-2, as well as two earlier accidental escapes by SARS viruses in 2004 from a research facility in Beijing.
(5) In 2014, when blocked by an order from President Barak Obama from funding dangerous “gain-of-function” studies, Fauci outsourced the research to the Wuhan Institute of Virology. He also covertly continued to fund the major gain-of-function collaboration between US and Chinese Wuhan Institute researchers, led by Menachery et al. at the University of North Carolina. Fauci thus made a mockery of President Obama’s attempts to stop the potentially catastrophic research.
(6) In order to outsource dangerous viral research from the US to China during the Obama moratorium, Fauci prematurely approved the Wuhan Institute as a highest level containment facility (known as BSL-4) capable of safely working with lethal viruses.
He did this while knowing the Institute had a very poor safety record and while also knowing that all such facilities in China are overseen by the military as part of its biowarfare program. Thus, Fauci created two grave worldwide threats, the accidental release of a deadly coronavirus and/or its use as a military weapon.
(7) Without fanfare, toward the end of the first year of the Trump administration in 2017, Fauci and NIH canceled President Obama’s moratorium against building viral pathogens in US labs and openly restored gain-of-function research creating lethal viruses. The original moratorium was a direct order by President Obama on White House stationery while its undoing was a decision made within the National Institutes of Health and NIAID, probably without Trump’s knowledge.
(8) From the initial outbreak of the pandemic in China and continuing to this day, Fauci has supported Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the corrupt Director-General of the World Health Association (WHO). Together, they initially minimized the dangers of COVID-19. Fauci and Tedros also delayed worldwide preparations for the pandemic while allowing the Chinese to spread the virus with thousands of international passenger flights.
(9) Standing beside President Trump at a briefing, Fauci publicly undermined the President’s criticism of Director-General Tedros and China. Instead, Fauci reassured the world that Tedros was a trustworthy and “outstanding” man—implying that Tedros’s connections in China were similarly reliable and could be trusted.
(10) We published our blog on April 14, 2020 and our video on April 15, 2020 revealing Fauci’s funding of US/Chinese collaborations that were building deadly coronaviruses and we described how the cooperative efforts enabled the Chinese to engineer coronaviruses. On April 17, President Trump announced his intention to cancel the collaborative funding.

Fauci was critical of the President’s actions and in October 2020 Fauci unleashed a surge of funding for gain-of-function research, supposedly without any Chinese involvement. However, some of the funding potentially involves Chinese researchers in the United States and some goes to the EcoHealth Alliance, which has been Fauci’s main conduit for funding Chinese researchers and the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
(11) Fauci holds himself out as the ultimate source of objective scientific information and science-based conclusions. In reality, he works with and empowers globalist pharmaceutical firms and globalist organizations such as WHO and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundations. Meanwhile, these globalists gained power and influence as their policies and practices, including the shutdowns, continue to worsen conditions throughout the world.
(12) In a recent scientific publication Fauci has continued to dismiss the very high probability—the near certainty—that SARS-CoV-2 was created by Chinese researchers working with the military and released, accidentally or purposely, from the Wuhan Institute of Virology. By persistently and unequivocally claiming that SARS-CoV-2 emerged from nature untouched by lab manipulations, Fauci continues to protect himself and China, and their relationship, to the endangerment of America and the rest of the world.
(13) Recently, in a new scientific publication, Fauci disclosed and advocated for his political agenda that aims at protecting the world from pathogens in nature by vastly reducing or stopping “human-made” “aggressive” interventions into nature. 2 Fauci’s utopian scheme, which overlaps with the Green New Deal, would permanently suppress and disrupt the activities and lives of the 7.8 billion people on Earth in the vain hope of reducing future pandemics. Thus the American official most responsible for the creation of SARS-CoV-2 in a Chinese lab instead blames its origins on human interventions into the environment and nature, thereby completely exonerating himself while holding humanity responsible.

Simultaneously, he is using the pretext of protecting us from viruses to impose a radical totalitarian agenda upon humanity. Indeed, the largest, most aggressive, and most dangerous human interventions into nature must include Fauci-funded gain-of-function research in which viruses are taken out of nature and engineered into pathogens.
(14) Overall, Fauci has been and continues to be an extraordinarily destructive force in the world. Most damaging to humanity, he enabled China to create SARS-CoV-2 and other deadly viruses for use as biological weapons. At the same time, he developed chilling ties to the Chinese Communist Party and its military, even financing their activities through NIAID and helping them to obtain valuable US patents. Then, in collaboration with China and WHO, he initially hid the origins and dangers of the pandemic, so that it spread more rapidly around the world. Then he became the go-to scientist and management czar for the very pandemic that he helped to create, enormously increasing his power and influence, and the wealth of his institute and his global collaborators, including Bill Gates and the international pharmaceutical industry.
(15) In his rise to power, Fauci has done a great deal of additional damage that we have already documented in earlier reports, for example, by suppressing the most effective, safest, and least expensive medication treatment (hydroxychloroquine in varied combinations), while manipulating his clinical research to promote an ineffective, dangerous, and highly expensive drug (remdesivir). Fauci has also been supporting inflated COVID-19 case counts and reported deaths from the CDC, then using the inflated estimates to justify oppressive public health measures that have no precedent and little or no scientific basis, but add to his influence and power and to the wealth of his globalist associates.

These and additional damaging activities by Anthony Fauci are reviewed in existing blogs and videos on our Coronavirus Resource Center.3 Recently our work was capped by my extensive medical/legal report, COVID-19 & Public Health Totalitarianism: Untoward Effects on Individuals, Institutions and Society. The report was filed in federal court in Ohio on August 31, 2020 as part of a lawsuit and an injunction to stop the emergency measures being imposed on the citizens of that state.4 The lawsuit was brought by attorney Thomas Renz and is becoming a model for similar suits in other states.5,6,7,8
This report focuses on Anthony Fauci as a central figure in a great deal of the world’s suffering under COVID-19.
End of Executive Summary
For detailed documentation, continue to read the entire report.
Breggin and Breggin Report, p. 7
What is Your Risk of Death If You Catch COVID-19?
Most people have very unrealistic fears about the risk of dying from COVID-19. This is due in part to the CDC and to Dr. Anthony Fauci who inflate the risk of COVID-19 deaths. We therefore begin by examining the most fundamental issue of all: If you or a loved one are afflicted with SARS-CoV-2, what is your risk of death? It is probably much lower than you think or imagine.
The CDC bases its estimated death rates from COVID-19 on death certificates and this method is accepted as authoritative by Dr. Anthony Fauci and many others. However, the CDC has recently revealed that only 6% of COVID-19 death certificates list the disease as the sole cause of death, while 94% have two or three additional listed causes.9 Furthermore, there is no way to ascertain what the primary cause of death was among the 96% with multiple listed causes of death.
Most people who die while being positive for SARS-CoV-2 are near to or past their average longevity. In addition to being old, the great majority are already ill with heart disease, cancer, or some other chronic illnesses that may in fact have caused them to die. But even using the CDC’s biased data, the risk of death for most people is too small to require them to sacrifice the quality of their lives as the government demands under the threat of catching COVID-19.

Using their exaggerated data, CDC made a “best estimate” for the risk of dying after infection with COVID-19. The CDC reported the following estimates on September 10, 2020:10 Current CDC Best Estimates for Infection Fatality Ratio 0-19 years: 0.00003 (0.003%) or 3 in 100,000 20-49 years: 0.0002 (0.02%) 50-69 years: 0.005 (0.5%) 70+ years: 0.05 (5%) Remember that the overall risk of anyone dying from COVID-19 is infinitely less than these figures indicate. The above inflated numbers reflect the risk of dying after you become infected with SARS-CoV-2.

The Risk for Death in Children with COVID-19 The above CDC data states that the risk of infected children up to age 19 dying from COVID-19 is 0.00003 (0.003%)—or 3 in 100,000. But how many children are actually dying from COVID-19? The CDC makes it very difficult to figure this out. Fortunately, on October 10, 2020 the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association published data submitted from the individual states.11 Based on 42 states reporting, they found that “0%-0.16% of all child COVID-19 cases resulted in death.” Sixteen of the 42 states reported no deaths among children.

The age of the “children” went up to 17, 18, or 19, depending on the state’s criteria, making many of them young adults. The risk of death in children and young adults with COVID-19 is truly small. These risks do not justify drastic lockdown measures imposed on children and young adults. Most tragically, they do not justify keeping children and youngsters out of school. Yet Dr. Fauci and other public health officials continue to act as if there is a grave risk of exposing children and young adults to SARS-CoV-2, when there is not.

The Risk of COVID-19 to the Elderly Is Serious The CDC data listed in the table (above) indicates that at age 50-69 years of age, the risk of dying when infected with SARS-CoV-2 is 0.005 (0.5%) and for 70-plus years old it is 0.05 (5%). People 65 and older account for nearly all the deaths—70% to 94% of them, depending on the state.12 The higher death rate among the elderly is tragic, but it considerably lower than most people imagine. Many elders seem to think that getting COVID-19 is a death sentence, when it certainly is not. A 5% death rate for people 70 and older, many of whom are very ill and near the end of life, does not demand the imposition of extraordinary, disabling shutdowns and other drastic transformations on the entire population, including the children. Our household includes a husband and wife who are 84 and 69 years old, and the wife’s mother who is 94. None of us want to lockdown the nation or the world on account of us. There is a place for older people taking extra precautions and for the government offering special services; but that can be done without vastly impairing the lives of everyone else. We do not need to inflict such enormous harm on the economy and on society, and to spend such huge sums of money, in order to protect our vulnerable older population.

The three epidemiologists from Harvard, Oxford and Stanford who wrote the Great Barrington Declaration13and the thousands of us who have signed it, agree with their statement: “We know that vulnerability to death from COVID-19 is more than a thousand-fold higher in the old and infirm than the young. Indeed, for children, COVID-19 is less dangerous than many other harms, including influenza.” We agree that the death rates among children are too low to justify measures that deprive them of a normal social life and their schooling.

Having established at the start that the risks associated with COVID-19 do not justify the measures being imposed on America, we can begin with the history of coronavirus epidemics, a history very familiar to Fauci but not to most people.
SARS-CoV-1: The Hidden Epidemic and Earlier Accidental Releases
SARS stands for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome. CoV stands for coronavirus, a type of virus that is found in many animals and humans in numerous varieties, usually benign. The “corona” refers to the appearance of a halo under an electron microscope. A few strains of coronavirus have been identified as a cause of mild and more occasionally moderate upper respiratory infections in humans, including many cases of the common cold.14
Until 2002, with the advent of SARS-CoV-1 in southern China, coronaviruses have never been known to be deadly to humans. Many people do not realize that SARS-CoV-1 caused an epidemic that spread around world in 2003. Here is a 2004 official Chinese description of the epidemic: “SARS first emerged in late 2002 in Southern China and spread around the world to infect 8,000 people in nearly 30 countries, causing nearly 800 deaths worldwide in 2003. As the greatest victim of the virus, China suffered 349 deaths in 2003.”15

The overall death rate for SARS-CoV-1 was in the range of 9%-10% and the death rate in people 65 and older was up to 40%-50% or more, both of which are extremely high and more than ten times that of SARS-CoV-2.16 The high death rate of the original SARS-CoV-1 accounts in part for the mistaken dire predictions initially made about SARS-CoV-2 in early 2020. However, both coronaviruses spared children and youth to a remarkable degree. In Hong Kong, where 298 people died from SARS-CoV-1, with a high percentage of death in the elderly, the mortality rate was 0% for children age 0–14 years. Rates for children are also at or near to zero in the US and around the world.

During SARS-CoV-1 in 2003, only 8 people in the United States had “laboratory evidence” of the virus, and they had traveled from other infected areas, according to the CDC.17
Because it made people so ill, and because it was less contagious, it was easier to contain than SARS-CoV-2. Most people, including some experts, do not know that in 2004 in China there were two separate contaminations with an unidentified SARS-CoV virus that was described as being obtained from patient samples during the 2003 epidemic. Two workers, on separate occasions, accidentally carried the virus or viruses from the National Institute of Virology in Beijing, infecting people outside the facility.18 The workers became ill, and were easily identified and isolated, limiting the known number of deaths.

A 2004 report from the China Daily describes the leaks from the Beijing lab:19 The small outbreak began in March and the World Health Organization declared it contained in May. … Official investigation shows that it is an accident due to negligence. The cases had been linked to experiments using live and inactive SARS corona virus in the CDC’s virology and diarrhea institutes… [bold added] Given the recognition by the Chinese government and WHO, and the available facts,20 there is no doubt that the limited 2004 outbreak of a SAR-CoV virus originated in a Chinese laboratory as a result of contamination. That the 2004 outbreak was due to experimentation with a SARS-CoV virus raises some serious questions. What kinds of experiments were being conducted? What viruses were involved? Was SARS-CoV-1 in fact created in a Chinese lab and leaked in 2002—or did it really emerge from nature? The original outbreak that began in China in later 2002 is generally considered an emergence from nature; but we do not know with certainty. Clearly, lab experimentation with SARS-CoV viruses is a much more common source of outbreaks than emergence from nature. Given his position in the world of viruses and epidemics, Fauci has known about these two leaks in 2004 and, despite his denials, we shall see that he must know that SARS-CoV-2 was made as a result of a US/China research collaboration which he financed with the purpose of making deadly viruses out of harmless coronaviruses. It was essential to Fauci, the current WHO director-general, and other defenders of China to make believe that SARS-CoV-2 was an unanticipated natural disaster, a kind of “Act of God” in insurance company terms. When the public fully realizes that Fauci, through financing Chinese scientists and the Wuhan Institute of Virology, enabled China to engineer SARS-CoV-2, his credibility will be gone. Furthermore, WHO and China will be held responsible for their multiple deceptions and deadly actions surrounding SARS-CoV-2 and the disease it causes, COVID-19.

Why It is Unsafe to Create Deadly Viruses in Labs
Before looking further into Chinese connections to Fauci’s new funding of American institutions, it is useful to further explore why it is basically and predictably unsafe to do laboratory research involving the creation of new, dangerous viruses. The Wuhan Institute, which in 2015 became China’s first laboratory to achieve the highest level of international bioresearch containment (known as BSL-4), had a well-known record of poor security, 21, 22 making a leak highly probable. We have already documented that there were leaks of an unidentified SARS virus from Chinese labs shortly after what we now can call the SARS-CoV-1 epidemic of 2003. Numerous leaks of other pathogens were reported in December 2019 in China, around the time SARS-CoV-2 was leaked from the Wuhan Institutes.23

Indeed, leaks and other mishaps involving dangerous infectious agents had been occurring at US CDC facilities,24,25,26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 as well as the United States Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases, in Fort Detrick, Md., which was temporarily shut down by the CDC.33
The grave risks inevitably associated with making pathogens in labs, even in presumably safer US facilities, was well-known to Anthony Fauci and also to many scientists. It has also been described somewhat piecemeal in the public media. But Fauci and other defenders of dangerous viral research rarely if ever mention the multitude of mishaps that the public needs to know about in assessing Fauci’s plans. Indeed, lab research is the most common source of outbreaks of dangerous pathogens such as SARS-CoV-2. Even excluding sabotage or theft, there is no way to prevent these invisible, difficult-to-detect, organisms from escaping containment by one route or another, such as physical mishaps, human contamination, accidentally sending a dangerous agent to the wrong place, and infinite ways we cannot anticipate in advance. Their “emergence” by accident or design from a lab where humans are creating them is far more likely than a pathogenic virus emerging through the slow, haphazard process of evolution and then finding a human to attach to. In defiance of common sense, a 2017 paper ominously titled, “Jumping species—a mechanism for coronavirus persistence and survival,” Menachery gave his rationalization for doing the dangerous research that we would highlight and that Trump would stop:34

Zoonotic transmission [jumping from an animal to human] of novel viruses represents a significant threat to global public health and is fueled by globalization, the loss of natural habitats, and exposure to new hosts. For coronaviruses (CoVs), broad diversity exists within bat populations and uniquely positions them to seed future emergence events. In this review, we explore the host and viral dynamics that shape these CoV populations for survival, amplification, and possible emergence in novel hosts.

It is astonishing that Menachery, and apparently all those associated with the research, claim to be heading off the rare event of a novel coronavirus jumping to and seriously harming humans, while they themselves intentionally make it happen—creating a “jumper” virus in the lab—while giving it wide distribution to labs around the world from Australia to Switzerland and including China.
The ability of the project to make a pathogen out of the coronavirus in no way indicates that there is even the slightest chance of the same thing happening in nature. After all, it took a multi-million dollar several-year collaborative research effort involving many extraordinary technologies and a large numbers of scientists from two nations to purposely turn this harmless virus into a virulent one. Along the way, the process required many intermediate steps, each step requiring careful reasoning and considerable trial and error, all with a very specific purpose in mind.
How likely is it that, in the natural evolution of bats, one of their viruses would mindlessly and without purpose take a multiple array of steps by chance to become a pathogen with pandemic potential and then find a human to infect? The human lab can accomplish in a relatively short time what it would take millions of years to happen by chance through evolution—if it would ever happen at all. Any increase in the rate of appearance of new pathogens here on Earth is far more likely to be caused by accidental or purposeful release from a lab that is in the process of making ordinary viruses into pathogens.
There is agreement among many scientists that odds of a natural pandemic vs. a manmade one are very small. Concerned scientists have argued in statistical detail that the risk of an epidemic coming out of a lab producing dangerous viruses is high compared to a rare emergence from nature.35 As already noted with multiple citations from 2014-2020, there have been many accidental releases and other accidents involving potentially deadly viruses from laboratories in recent times, including the CDC’s labs. The escape of a manmade virus, intentionally or not, is infinitely more likely than a lone bat virus evolving into a pathogen in nature and then finding a human host.

In nature, a novel virus attacking a human, causing a unique disease, and becoming an epidemic must begin with a rare chance of a genetic variation through biological evolution which is a very slow, hit-and-miss process, usually involving extraordinary periods of time. Then the chance variation among the many millions of bats flying around must have an equally rare chance to meet and to infect a suitable human host, who must then infect at least one other human before dying, etc. These bats live in rural caves hundreds of miles away from Wuhan, adding to the unlikelihood of such an event. All of this makes a jump from nature to humans extremely unlikely compared to the accidental escape of one of the SARS-CoV viruses already stored or being created at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
As this report has already suggested, there is a more frightening risk associated with making viruses that are potentially deadly to humanity—they can fall into the wrong hands and become bioweapons. What Fauci has been doing is doubly catastrophic, first, in the making of deadly viruses and, second, in collaborating with China in mutually creating obvious bioweapons.

How the COVID-19 Outbreak Was Intentionally Inflicted on the World
The Wuhan Institute has been known as “a center of China’s declared biowarfare/biodefense capacity.”36 Its director comes from China’s biological warfare program, as confirmed in a report stating “China ‘appoints its top military bio-warfare expert to take over secretive virus lab in Wuhan’.”37 No one can hold high positions or conduct research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology without being closely involved with and supervised by the military. Although we still do not know if the release of SARS-CoV-2 at Wuhan was originally intentional, we do know that the Chinese Communist Party intentionally halted domestic flights to and from Wuhan, a city of 11 million people, and the surrounding province of Hubei, while intentionally promoting flights from that region to the rest of the world.

The same also happened in other cities, including Shanghai and Beijing—shutdowns of domestic flights while pushing international flights.38,39

The Economic Times summed up the Chinese lockdown: While China continued to protest against international travel bans it successfully quarantined Wuhan and other affected cities. The total domestic lockdown of Hubei province and the flight ban imposed inside China had immediate effect. As per data from Tom Tom traffic index Wuhan had a traffic density of 60% in January while Shanghai and Beijing had nearly 80% density. After the total lockdown the average traffic density fell to below 10% in Wuhan and Shanghai during February and below 5% in Beijing. While implementing a total domestic lockdown in February, China kept assuring the world that the situation was not serious and fully under control.

Air traffic only gradually picked up. The BBC News reported at the end of August that “Air travel has been picking up gradually since the coronavirus grounded the majority of planes in February.”40 China continued in early February to demand that other countries stop banning flights from China or Wuhan, even though they had already implemented a ban on domestic flights and other forms of travel to and from Wuhan!41 In the face of increasing bans on flights to China by other nations, China continued for months afterward to operate and to press for increased flights from China to the world.42 The Chinese locked down Wuhan on January 16, 2020; but through all of January 2020, an estimated 4,000 people flew directly from Wuhan to the United States.43 Nineteen largely filled flights went to San Francisco and New York, with no enhanced screening. Additionally in January, there were over 1,300 direct passenger flights from all of China to the United States, for a total of 381,000 travelers. About one-quarter were Americans returning home. In addition, a large uncounted number of people flew from China to the US through intermediate stops. In sum, China flooded the US and the world with potentially infected people during January 2020 until President Trump stopped all flights from China at the end of January. Meanwhile, Fauci was against curtailing traffic from China, stating it would do little good (see next section). Fauci, Tedros, and China In its nefarious activities at the start of the pandemic in Wuhan, China was backed by World Health Organization (WHO) Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, a patently corrupt totalitarian politician from Ethiopia,44,45,46 who, ironically, has been accused of covering up devastating cholera outbreaks in his own country by The New York Times47 and other sources.48 Tedros, who has had a conflicted relationship with the US, is closely allied to China, which is WHO’s second biggest donor after the US. Meanwhile, Anthony Fauci, like the Director-General of WHO, was against Trump’s ban on air travel. Fauci called the ban “irrelevant” because it could not prevent the virus from eventually spreading worldwide.49 In the same interview during which Fauci resisted any travel bans to and from China, he suggested that the virus might diminish (like the flu) when the weather changed: The wild card here is that this is a brand new virus, this novel coronavirus, and we do not know if it’s going to diminish as the weather gets warm. We can’t count on that. Anthony Fauci has been outspoken in his support of WHO’s Tedros. On March 25, 2020, at a critical moment early in the crisis, while standing beside President Trump at a nationally televised Coronavirus Task Force presentation, Fauci openly and publicly undermined Trump’s concerns about Tedros. The following pithy, revealing excerpt from the official White House transcript50 of the televised discussion demonstrates Fauci’s willingness to undermine the President. Fauci refuses to comment on the lack of transparency from China, a problem that led to China’s covert infliction of the pandemic on the world. Fauci describes how he has known Tedros since Tedros was in Ethiopia—a time during which Tedros was accused of extraordinary corruption and even indifference toward an Ethiopian epidemic in homeland. Fauci gives us a big hint about just how close he is with Tedros, saying he had just gotten off the phone with him a few hours earlier in the day when he was leading a WHO phone call.
“Tedros is really an outstanding person,” Fauci announces. This brief exchange is extraordinarily revealing about Fauci:
PRESIDENT TRUMP: But the fact is that I have heard for years that [WHO] is very much biased toward China, so I don’t know. Doctor, do you want to you — do you want me to get you into this political mess?
DR. FAUCI: No, I don’t want you to do that. But I will. (Laughs.) So, Tedros is really an outstanding person. I’ve known him from the time that he was the Minister of Health of Ethiopia. I mean, obviously, over the years, anyone who says that the WHO has not had problems has not been watching the WHO. But I think, under his leadership, they’ve done very well. He has been all over this. I was on the phone with him a few hours ago leading a WHO call.
QUESTION FROM THE PRESIDENT. Praising China’s transparency, sir?
DR. FAUCI: No. No, I’m not — I’m not talking about China. You asked me about Tedros.
QUESTION FROM THE PRESIDENT. The World Health Organization was praising China for its transparency and leadership on their response to the pandemic.
DR. FAUCI: You know, I can’t comment on that because — I mean, I don’t have any viewpoint into it. I mean, I don’t — I don’t even know what your question is. It is telling—even chilling—that a few hours before the Task Force meeting, Fauci was on the phone with Tedros. The ominous connections among the triad of Tedros’ WHO, China, and Anthony Fauci’s NIAID help to explain how China initially was praised rather than condemned for its handling of the coronavirus.

We shall see that in his most recent scientific publication, Fauci continues to wholly exonerate the Chinese Communist Party and the Wuhan Institute of Virology of any possible wrongdoing. He continues to promote the discredited claim51 that the coronavirus infection originated in a Wuhan wet market, where in fact no bats are sold, and none can be found for hundreds of miles. 52, 53, 54 Meanwhile, simultaneously and coincidentally, the Wuhan Institute of Virology was making deadly coronaviruses in close proximity to this supposed “leap from nature,” as this report will demonstrate.
While unleashing the virus on the world, China’s government, the Communist Party, also intentionally withheld the existence of the internal epidemic, then claimed the virus came from the wet food market, while initially denying it could be transmitted by humans.55 However, on February 20, 2020, two Chinese researchers published a study proposing that the novel coronavirus was manmade, probably in a Chinese laboratory:56 We noted two laboratories conducting research on bat coronavirus in Wuhan, one of which was only 280 meters from the seafood market. We briefly examined the histories of the laboratories and proposed that the coronavirus probably originated from a laboratory.
Other experts confirmed the probability that SARS-CoV-2 originated from the Wuhan Institute,57 where the Chinese were known to be engineering SARS-like bat coronaviruses into virulent human pathogens, similar to SARS-CoV-2.

Trump Stops Fauci’s Funding of the US/Chinese Collaboration
For many years Anthony Fauci was funding collaborative research with China on how to engineer benign bat CoV viruses into highly infectious viruses, like SARS-CoV-2. As this report documents, that funding definitely contributed to China’s ability to turn benign bat coronaviruses into deadly viruses similar to or the same as SARS-CoV-2. Fauci continued to fund the deadly US collaboration with the Chinese until mid-April 2020.
In March or early April 2020 we discovered published scientific papers from 2015 and 2016 describing the collaborative research and we were astounded by it. How could we be helping China down a path that inevitably would lead to their ability to make bioweapons out of coronaviruses? The thought was so preposterous that we double checked the authenticity of the papers.
On April 14 we published our first report about the US/China collaboration, followed the next day by a video that almost overnight had 40,000 downloads.58 We immediately sent the report and the video to the media and to people as close to the President as we could get.59 On April 17, a Newsmax reporter asked Trump about collaboration with China at a press conference. The President described how he was aware of the project, and replied “We will end that grant very quickly.”60 In less than 48 hours President Trump went over Fauci’s head and stopped the funding.61
The funding that was canceled went far beyond the collaborative US/China research led by Menachery et al. (2015 and 2016) on creating viruses able to infect humans. It included a broad range of viral research being conducted with Chinese scientists and the Wuhan Institute.62,63 In the media, the canceled activities were collectively referred to as “the project” or “the grant” and identified as being funded by Fauci’s NIAID through the EcoHealth Alliance. We have not found any information about how many similar projects may still exist. It appears that some of the funds came directly from NIAID, without going through EcoHealth Alliance, because NIAID is identified as a source of funding in various published papers and EcoHealth Alliance in others.

In the meanwhile, Trump’s order to stop the research has focused on collaboration with China, which reportedly has been stopped. But the President’s order apparently has not addressed funding of gain-of-function research done here in the United States and in collaboration with countries other than China.
Meanwhile, Fauci has sought ways to get around the President’s ban on collaborating with China and continued to fund potentially deadly gain-of-function research (see next section).
Fauci Awards Huge Grants for Dangerous International and Collaborative Viral Research On August 29, 2020, Maria Godoy from NPR wrote a reported aptly titled, “Group Whose NIH Grant For Virus Research Was Revoked Just Got a New Grant.” Her report summarized: The National Institutes of Health has awarded a grant worth $7.5 million over five years to EcoHealth Alliance, a U.S.-based nonprofit that hunts emerging viruses. The award comes months after NIH revoked an earlier grant to EcoHealth, a move scientists widely decried as the politically motivated quashing of research vital to preventing the next coronavirus pandemic. EcoHealth Alliance is one of 11 institutions and research teams receiving grants from NIH, announced this week, to establish the Centers for Research in Emerging Infectious Diseases. The global network will monitor pathogens that emerge in wildlife and study how and where they go on to infect humans.

Peter Daszak, President of EcoHealth Alliance, told NPR that none of the new money was going to China. Daszak also claimed that China’s research into viruses has been stopped by Trump’s withdrawal of funds from it, an outcome that seems extremely unlikely. While we believe that Fauci and the US enabled China to accelerate its efforts, we have no illusions that the Chinese Communists cannot proceed without us.
A recently escaped Chinese scientist says that China now has the world’s largest stockpile of coronaviruses suited for biowarfare and has no technical problems in turning benign ones into virulent ones;64 and an informed former US military officer takes the scientist’s warning seriously.65
Most concerning, Daszak describes how his Fauci funding will be used for the controversial gain-of-function research originally stopped by President Obama and quietly reinstated by NIH and Fauci. Daszak told NPR: “The next step in that research is to sequence the whole genome of those viruses and say, could they bind to human cells? Does this look like a virus that could potentially emerge?”
How do researchers determine if a virus found in nature can become a pathogen, i.e., “bind to human cells”? They laboratory engineer it into a pathogen and use their success to claim it could also emerge naturally from nature—a conclusion which makes no sense (see ahead). This is the research that we shall see was canceled by President Obama and then reinstated by Fauci in President Trump’s first term, without his involvement or knowledge, and then stopped by the President in April 2020. But President Trump only stopped the collaboration with China, not the so-called “gain-of-function” research itself that led to the creation of SARS-CoV-2.

Here is the process of engineering a harmless virus into a pathogen. First, the genome of the virus is mapped. Then an attempt is made to see if the virus has the potential to invade human cells. This cannot be determined by simply eyeballing the virus. This can only be done—and was done in the research with China canceled by President Trump—by physically modifying the coronavirus in the lab to enable it to gain entry to human lung cells in a lab preparation. This demonstration is one of the major steps in making the harmless virus into a SARS-CoV capable of producing a Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome in humans.
If the virus can be engineered to successfully attack cells in human lung cell preparations, it is given to a mouse or other small animal to see if will attack the lungs of a living mammal. When it does cause SARS in the mice, as it did in the studies that Trump canceled, the researchers have reached near certainty that they have created a SARS-CoV, a virus that is potentially harmful or deadly to humans.
Put simply, Fauci, along with his partners around the world, have done an end run around President Trump and his predecessor President Obama, to continue research aimed at creating pandemic viruses—while probably finding a backdoor to working with China.

Fauci Funds Close Connections to China in the US
Almost a week after the PRN article announcing Fauci’s massive new funding of viral research, on September 6, 2020 Col. Lawrence Sellin (Ret.) of the Citizen’s Commission on National Security warned about the overall NIAID grant, totaling $82 million, which includes many institutions in addition to EcoHealth Alliance. Sellin cited virology research at University of Texas that specifically involves multiple Chinese-connected researchers.66 As a retired military officer concerned with security, this did not seem like a good idea to Col. Sellin.

The grant, which was officially announced by NIAID on August 27, 2020,67 will indeed fund Peter Daszak of the EcoHealth Alliance, Inc. for its Emerging Infectious Diseases-South East Asia Research Collaboration Hub. Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance has been Fauci’s main source of collaboration with the Chinese, which President Trump canceled. This new grant strongly suggests that Fauci is continuing to fund collaboration with China on viral research, if only through other nations that depend on the Communist giant or, as we will now see, through Chinese already working in American universities and laboratories. We agree with Col. Sellin who believes that these new grants require investigation and will present some of our initial new discoveries about them.
American/Chinese Collaborative Research that Led to the Engineering of SARS-CoV-2
The decade of research that ultimately led directly to the laboratory creation of SARS-CoV-2 was highlighted in two scientific papers with lead researchers from the University of North Carolina, along with two Chinese virologists from the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The senior author of the two papers was Vineet D. Menachery, PhD (Menachery et al., 201568 and Menachery et al. 201669).
The title of the 2015 paper indicates that they were working with SARS-CoV viruses: “A SARS-like cluster of circulating bat coronaviruses shows potential for human emergence.” The phrase, “shows potential for human emergence” was highly misleading and promotional. The article describes how they created a SARS-CoV virus capable of infecting humans.
This American/Chinese collaboration published its initial results in 2015 and 2016 when it described putting a protein “spike” on an innocuous bat coronavirus that turned it into SARS-CoV pathogen able to attach to and invade cells lining the human lung. The new SARS-CoV was deadly to mice, especially older or physically compromised animals, and was remarkably harmless to younger animals. It was shown to attack human lung tissue in the lab. The virus seemed immune to current treatments and a successful vaccine could not be made. With so many similar clinical features, this chimerical virus presaged the engineering of SARS-CoV-2.
In both the 2015 and the 2016 papers, the first listed source of funds was Fauci’s NIAID. In the first one, the Chinese government is also listed as funding the project. This work was a testimonial to globalism without regard for the safety of the United States—or even that of the world.

Chinese Involvement in the Collaborations
The collaboration with the Chinese was intimate and critical. The two Chinese authors were researchers Xing-Yi Ge and Zhengli-Li Shi. In the 2015 paper, both identified themselves as from the “Key Laboratory of Special Pathogens and Biosafety, Wuhan Institute of Virology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Wuhan, China.” The acknowledgements describe how the Chinese researchers as members of the team worked actively with the virus in their own Wuhan Institute laboratory.
Although no Chinese authors are listed on the 2016 publication, the Acknowledgements thank “Dr. Zhengli-Li Shi of the Wuhan Institute of Virology” who provided, among other things, materials to make the “spike protein” used to enable the virus to infect human cells. This is the same Dr. Zhengli-Li Shi who was a coauthor of the 2015 paper. Her continued involvement confirms the ongoing close relationship between the American and Chinese researchers. She is director of the specific Wuhan Institute lab that extracts viruses from bats and makes them pathogenic for humans. After COVID-19 broke out of China, she would be featured admiringly in the American scientific media as the “bat lady,” accompanied by her self-serving denials that SARS-CoV-2 had escaped from her facility.70
The other Chinese author of the 2015 paper, Xing-Yi Ge, is also a very important researcher in China’s virology programs. Ge was the lead author among about 20 researchers in 2013, most of them directly involved with the Wuhan Institute, who published a seminal article in the research chain leading up to SARS-CoV-2.71 Titled “Isolation and characterization of a bat SARS-like coronavirus that uses the ACE2 receptor,” it studied the capacity of the coronavirus to be engineered into a pathogen that could be made to connect to the ACE2 human receptor. It too was funded in part by the Chinese and by Fauci’s NIAID and, in this case, multiple other U.S. agencies.72 Peter Daszak, who heads EcoHealth Alliance, the organization that was separately funneling money from Fauci’s institute to Chinese gain-of-function research,73 was listed as an author.
Daszak and his organization is funded not only by Fauci’s NIAID but many other NIH-affiliated organizations, the CDC, the National Science Foundation, and other government agencies.74 Its list of partners and consultants spans the world including the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundations; and many great universities in the US, England, and China. Multiple countries and international agencies are involved and the word “global” is used 14 times in the few descriptive pages of this nonprofit.

The Wuhan Institute of Virology: Origins and American Funding According to the April 27, 2020 Newsweek:75 In 2019, with the backing of NIAID, the National Institutes of Health committed $3.7 million over six years for research that included some gain-of-function work. The program followed another $3.7 million, 5-year project for collecting and studying bat coronaviruses, which ended in 2019, bringing the total to $7.4 million. … The NIH research consisted of two parts. The first part began in 2014 and involved surveillance of bat coronaviruses, and had a budget of $3.7 million [from Fauci’s NIAID]. The program funded Shi Zheng-Li, a virologist at the Wuhan lab, and other researchers to investigate and catalogue bat coronaviruses in the wild. This part of the project was completed in 2019. A second phase of the project, beginning that year, included additional surveillance work but also gain-of-function research for the purpose of understanding how bat coronaviruses could mutate to attack humans. The project was run by EcoHealth Alliance, a non-profit research group, under the direction of President Peter Daszak, an expert on disease ecology. NIH canceled the project just this past Friday, April 24th, Politico reported. Daszak did not immediately respond to Newsweek requests for comment. Peter Daszak and his EcoHealth Alliance, as we noted above, were also well-known conduits for additional money from Fauci’s NIH Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases.76 Newsweek also commented, “SARS-CoV-2 , the virus now causing a global pandemic, is believed to have originated in bats. U.S. intelligence, after originally asserting that the coronavirus had occurred naturally, conceded last month that the pandemic may have originated in a leak from the Wuhan lab.” Newsweek would never make the connection, but the inexorable process was apparent—Fauci funding ultimately led directly to the making of SARS-CoV-2.
The research connections between the US and China are deep and complex, including Fauci’s NIAID funding for gain-of-function studies going to U.S. projects that influenced China, to U.S./Chinese collaborations, to Chinese researchers in their own projects, and to the Wuhan Institute itself.

Fauci and NIAID Were Central to the Chain of Activities that Led to SARS-CoV-2
Our focus is on the role of NIH and particularly Fauci and his NIH Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases, in helping to bring about this chain of events leading to the pandemic. This is a series of events requiring enormous manpower and funding, and the overcoming of political obstacles, in which Americans collaborated with and financially supported Chinese researchers and the Wuhan Institute of Virology under the watchful eye of Fauci, culminating in China’s ability to engineer SARS-CoV-2 from bat viruses.
Efforts to enhance the virulence of viruses are euphemistically called “gain-of-function” studies—perhaps to hide their deadliness. Fauci is a strong advocate of vaccines and he works closely with Bill Gates and his foundation where he is on Gates’ elite international vaccine board called the Leadership Council.77
It is telling that Fauci was so key to enabling the Chinese to make SARS-CoV-2 and then became the international management czar for the worldwide affliction that he helped to create—and now he wants to lead us down the road of worldwide public health totalitarianism to save us from “human-made” environmental destruction that allegedly encourages the emergence of pathogens from nature.78

In 2014 the US Government Stops Fauci’s Gain-of-Function Research
There were key moments when Fauci could have turned back and stopped funding our collaborative research with Chinese researchers and the military-controlled79 Wuhan Institute.
Breggin and Breggin Report, p. 30
Instead he was temporarily stopped by a Presidential decree. In 2014, President Obama declared a moratorium on research exactly like that being conducted by Menachery et al. in collaboration with China on “gain-of-function” research. At that time, the Menachery studies, which were actively moving along, should have come to a halt. Here is the opening of the October 17, 2014 declaration from the “White House: President Barack Obama”:80
Doing Diligence to Assess the Risks and Benefits of Life Sciences
Gain-of-Function Research

Summary:
The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and Department of Health and Human Services today announced that the U.S. Government is launching a deliberative process to assess the potential risks and benefits associated with a subset of life sciences research known as “gain-of-function” studies.
Following recent biosafety incidents at Federal research facilities, the U.S. Government has taken a number of steps to promote and enhance the Nation’s biosafety and biosecurity, including immediate and longer term measures to review activities specifically related to the storage and handling of infectious agents. …
Because the deliberative process launching today will aim to address key questions about the risks and benefits of gain-of-function studies, during the period of deliberation, the U.S. Government will institute a pause on funding for any new studies that include certain gain-of-function experiments involving influenza, SARS, and MERS viruses. Specifically, the funding pause will apply to gain-of-function 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.
That description exactly fits the collaborative studies between U.S. researchers and Chinese scientists from the Wuhan Institute who were only months away from publishing a scientific paper on the creation of a gain-of-function virus by engineering a bat virus to make it virulent and able to infect humans. No other research has surfaced which so perfectly fits what President Obama was trying to stop—but Fauci would avoid stopping it!

The Obama government’s description of the moratorium continues:
During this pause, the U.S. Government will not fund any new projects involving these experiments and encourages those currently conducting this type of work – whether federally funded or not – to voluntarily pause their research while risks and benefits are being reassessed.
This White House order could not be clearer. During the time when the government was investigating the risks of “gain-of-function” research, it would not start funding any new projects and it asked all on-going projects to “voluntarily pause their research while the risks and benefits are being assessed.”

Menachery et al. Struggle to Keep their Research Alive
In their 2015 publication, Menachery et al. acknowledged the existence of the moratorium on gain-of-function studies, but expressed the belief that it did not necessarily cover them because they did not initially anticipate that they could have succeeded in creating a virulent virus! However, a November 9, 2015 interview,81 given while Menachery’s study was on the way to publication, indicates he had been stopped, temporarily at least:
He [Menachery]and his co-authors noted they had to stop some of their work because of US government policies. The US has a moratorium on so-called gain-of-function research, which includes some research that enhances the ability of a pathogen such as a virus to infect people or spread among them.
There is in fact no evidence that they slowed down their research because they published their results shortly thereafter in December 2015 and again in 2016 without indicating any interference with it.
By the end of 2015 NIH granted an exception to the dangerous Menachery study, allowing it to continue. According to Nature: 82 The latest study was already under way before the US moratorium began, and the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) allowed it to proceed while it was under review by the agency, says Ralph Baric, an infectious-disease researcher at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and a co-author of the study. The NIH eventually concluded that the work was not so risky as to fall under the moratorium, he says. (bold added).
In short, the National Institutes of Health decided that Fauci’s pet project—the epitome of a gain-of-function study—was not really dangerous enough to be stopped under President Obama’s edict. The result was a continuation of the research leading to SARS-CoV-2.

NIH Strikes Back
December 19, 2017, under the Trump Administration, NIH announced that it was lifting the ban set by President Obama on gain-of-function research, while adding new restrictions to the research.83,84 Unlike Obama’s ban which came from the White House on the President’s official stationery, there is no indication that Trump was involved in the lengthy analysis that predated him. The New York Times commented, “There has been a long, fierce debate about projects — known as “gain of function” research — intended to make pathogens more deadly or more transmissible.”85 Fauci simply did an end run on the dissent, ignoring it, and quietly lifting the ban.
In the various establishment analyses we have read about the controversy surrounding gain-of-function research, including one in Lancet in early 2018,86 there is no hint that any of the studies involved funding China. Even more striking, no mention is made of the most important gain-of-function studies of all, the American/Chinese collaboration by Menachery, published in 2015 and 2016. A New York Times article on the same subject,87 mistakenly claimed that under Obama’s ban, all research was halted, including that on SARS, when in fact the SARS research by Menachery et al. rushed ahead to publication during that time. It then mentions exceptions that were allowed to proceed, but none are SARS-related. It’s as if an invisible curtain had been placed over this extremely dangerous research that eventually helped the Chinese capacity to engineer SARS-CoV-2.
The Times article does warn against publishing dangerous information, comparing it to the risk of publishing atomic secrets. But it fails to mention we were actually collaborating with China, creating a much greater risk than merely publishing information about the research. It is no exaggeration to say that collaborating with China on building virulent, epidemic viruses was at least as dangerous as collaborating with them or the Russians on building atomic weapons.
Meanwhile, the research of Menachery et al. seems to have been unaffected by all of these political machinations. We believe this demonstrates the determination of NIH, and especially Fauci’s NIH Institute for Allergy and Infectious Disease, to maintain their “gain-of-function” research despite all opposition and all reason.

Ignoring the Elephant in the Room

The elephant in the room is that the U.S. funded and supported China’s efforts to build up its capacity for biological warfare. We could find no mention or discussion of this threat on the part of the Obama or Trump administration or anyone else in a position of responsibility or authority, or in the major media.
A number of less-than-major media described Fauci as outsourcing his gain-of-function ambitions to China during the controversy over banning it in the U.S. The Asia Times88published an analysis with this disturbing headline, “Why US outsourced bat virus research to Wuhan,” followed by the subhead, “US-funded $3.7 million project approved by Trump’s Covid-19 guru Dr. Anthony Fauci in 2015 after US ban imposed on ‘monster-germ’ research.”
In April 2020, as COVID-19 spread, the British newspaper Daily Mail Online quoted a US lawmaker’s outrage over directly funding the Wuhan Institute:89 US Congressman Matt Gaetz said: “I’m disgusted to learn that for years the US government has been funding dangerous and cruel animal experiments at the Wuhan Institute, which may have contributed to the global spread of coronavirus, and research at other labs in China that have virtually no oversight from US authorities.”
An analysis90 published in May 2020 by M. Dowling in the Independent Sentinel, again described Fauci as outsourcing gain-of-function research to China. It helped break ground as we had done a month earlier, by pointing to the danger of giving biological weapons to China:

TRUSTING MAOISTS
Dependency on Communists, trusting Communists, what could possibly go wrong? President Trump’s administration is investigating the $3.7 million in tax dollars that went to the Wuhan lab and Matt Gaetz called for an immediate end to NIH funding of Chinese research. Whether anything will come of it is questionable. The ban on GOF [Gain-of-Function] research in the USA has been lifted. Maybe the USA shouldn’t do it either. When mankind plays with nature, it usually doesn’t go well. Unfortunately, our press doesn’t investigate or even ask pertinent questions. Some reporters are just too stupid or biased to bother. Imagine if President Trump said our CDC is incompetent so I will pay Russia to do our GOF research?
When the original research paper was published in 2015, it did not go unnoticed. The dangers inherent in creating new human coronavirus pathogens in the Menachery research were discussed in a commentary by Jef Akst in The Scientist on November 16, 2015, along with NIH’s decision to allow the research to continue.91 Unfortunately, as so often continues to happen, the danger of the Chinese collaboration went unmentioned! Instead, there is an addendum added to the original report trying to dismiss any such association or concern:
Update (March 11, 2020): On social media and news outlets, a theory has circulated that the coronavirus at the root of the COVID-19 outbreak originated in a research lab. Scientists say there is no evidence that the SARS-CoV-2 virus escaped from a lab.

Notice that in the update, the Wuhan Institute is not even mentioned, and instead the article refers to “escaped from a lab.” Reports from Nature, The Scientist, and Scientific American among many others, confirm that the progressive media and the scientific community were desperately trying to avoid throwing suspicion on the Chinese Communists for any role in COVID-19, including avoiding any mention that the US government was collaborating with the Wuhan Institute in turning routine bat viruses into pathogens deadly to humans, directly helping the Chinese Communist Party develop bioweapons.
Here we see the influence of globalism. People knew each other, people made money from each other, science trumped national security—any kind of funded collaborative research with China was almost untouchable and beyond criticism.
If asked, some of the individual scientists would probably have said that “science” is pure and should be shared among competing and even hostile nations for the sake of science and peace. But that innocence is not what rules globalism. The prevailing attitude among globalists seems to be: Never put America first, put our global friends and interests ahead of everything.
Of all the technologies we have given to China, how to make highly infectious and lethal viruses from bat viruses may be the most dangerous. Yet, there was a nearly total blackout on US funding for China building biological weapons displayed by the media, science commentators, and politicians. This confirmed the pervasiveness of the globalist viewpoint that has no special interest in protecting American interests or seemingly even in America’s survival, and perhaps not even in the world’s survival, while fortunes are being made and power is being accrued.
Globalists, when using science to justify totalitarian control, talk about “science” as if it were a universal spirit or god. Since science is a creation of human beings, it is neither perfect nor pure, but always depends on the human source with all the biases and corruptions and, yes, idealism that humans live by. 92 Meanwhile, we must make sure that Donald Trump’s April 2020 halt of funding for Menachery’s research remains in place and becomes expanded to all gain-of function research, much as President Obama’s declaration originally set out to do. Fauci and his NIH Institute for Allergy and Infectious Disease will do everything they can to get around it. And we must recognize the danger that China now poses as a nation well-armed with the resources to produce innumerable kinds of SARS-CoV pandemics.
Escaped Chinese Scientist Confirms the Worst On April 28, 2020, Li-Meng Yan (MD, PhD), an experienced Chinese virologist at the Hong Kong School of Public Health, escaped to the United States.93,94 Dr. Yan explained to the media that she left China in order to tell the world about China’s coverup about the real source of the deadly pandemic, the Wuhan Institute. She has remained in hiding since, while talking to newspapers and appearing on Tucker Carlson on the Fox News Channel on September 15, 2020.95 She told Tucker, “This virus, COVID-19 SARS-CoV-2 virus, actually is not from nature. It is a manmade virus created in the lab.”
On September 14 ,2020 Dr. Yan and three colleagues put online a prepublication version of their new paper, confirming that SARS-CoV-2 is a manmade product of Chinese laboratories.96
To describe China’s background in developing the spike protein, Yan et al. explained that this method has been “repeatedly” used in laboratories to create “human-infecting” coronaviruses of non-human origin. To document their observation, the authors cite four research publications. Two of the four citations are to the 2015 and 2016 Menachery papers that involved collaborations with Chinese researchers. A third paper is also American in origin and does not involve Chinese researchers; but like the first two, it too is supported by Fauci’s Institute.97 This array of three papers shows the direct connection between Fauci-funding and China’s ability to build SARS-CoV-2. The fourth paper involved neither US researchers nor US funding.
Yan et al. also cite the 2015 Menachery paper to show that the Wuhan Institute of Virology has been working on studies to make these “human-infecting viruses.” This directly links the Chinese success in gain-of-function research to their collaboration with the U.S. project funded by Fauci.
Yan et al. then go on to make that chilling observation that the Wuhan Institute now possesses “the world’s largest collection of coronaviruses.” They follow this with another chilling observation that there is no longer any “technical barrier” to the Chinese turning these viruses into infectious ones through “engineering” a virus to give it “gain-of-function,” that is, the ability to infect humans.
This means that the Chinese now have the unlimited ability to keep manufacturing pandemic viruses. This should not be a surprise given their collaboration with the US, plus their own independent publications, and the inevitable desire of the Communist Party of China to create and stockpile biological weapons.
Finally, Yan and her colleagues link the engineering history of SARS-CoV-2 directly to China’s military. Here is one of seven references to the military’s involvement in developments leading to SARS-CoV-2:
The genomic sequence of SARS-CoV-2 is suspiciously similar to that of a bat coronavirus discovered by military laboratories in the Third Military Medical University (Chongqing, China) and the Research Institute for Medicine of Nanjing Command (Nanjing, China).
Yan and her colleagues took great risks in putting their scientific paper online, linking SARS-CoV-2 to the Chinese military. In her personal interviews, many in August 2020, she has been very direct in blaming the Chinese Communist Party and its military. The headline of one interview makes Yan’s view unmistakably clear: 98
Li-Meng Yan: Coronavirus was developed in Chinese military lab:
The Chinese virologist, who claims she fled to the U.S. after receiving threats due to her research, has accused the Chinese military of creating Covid-19

In the first week of October 2020, Dr. Yan reported to several media that her mother had been imprisoned in China in retaliation for her criticism of the Communist government. On October 8, 2020, Dr. Yan and her colleagues put online a second prepublication article.99 The thrust of the highly technical publication is that China not only created SARS-CoV-2, it prepared the way by creating fake viruses as supposed natural precursors. According to Yan et al., from this and other manipulations of science and scientific publications, the Chinese demonstrate their intention to purposely release the virus as a bioweapon against humanity. As we go to publication, and having reviewed some of the critiques of the article, we do not feel able to conclude from the article whether China intentionally released the virus as a bioweapon (see Col. Sellin’s observations in the next section).

Col. Lawrence Selling (Ret) Evaluates the work of Dr. Yan
The Citizens Commission on National Security (CCNS) is an organization primarily organized and run by high-ranking military officers including many generals and well-known conservatives, including Lt. General Thomas McInerney (Ret.) and Former Congressman and Army Lieutenant Colonel Allen West (Ret.). Its stated purpose is to “Strengthen America’s National Security.” As noted earlier, one of its members, Col. Lawrence Sellin (Ret.),100 has been writing detailed analyses of many of the issues addressed in this and in our earlier report, and his writings on COVID-19 are a valuable resource.101
On August 4, 2020 Sellin evaluated the publication by Yan et al. (above) after the senior author escaped from China, citing an August review of her interviews titled: 102

Refugee Hong Kong Virologist Links COVID-19
to Chinese Military Laboratory

Sellin provides a good summary of a central portion of Yan’s argument: SARS-CoV-2 has signs of serial passaging and the direct genetic insertion of novel amino acids sequences for which no natural evolutionary pathway has been identified. Although SARS-CoV-2 appears to have the “backbone” of bat coronaviruses, its spike protein, which is responsible for binding to the human cell and its membrane fusion-driven entry, has sections that do not appear in any closely-related bat coronaviruses. SARS-CoV-2’s receptor binding domain, the specific element that binds to the human cell, has a ten times greater binding affinity than the first SARS virus that caused the 2002-2003 pandemic. Furthermore, SARS-CoV-2 appears to be “pre-adapted” for human infection and has not undergone a similar natural mutation process within the human population that was observed during the 2002-2003 SARS outbreak. Those observations plus the inexplicable genetic distance between SARS-CoV-2 and any of its potential bat predecessors suggest an accelerated evolutionary process obtained by laboratory-based serial passaging through genetically-engineered mouse models containing humanized receptors previously developed by China.
Perhaps most important, Sellin cites a summary of interviews given by Dr. Yan, including live quotes from the doctor, that provides a very valuable resource worth reviewing in depth.103 Sellin summarizes Yan’s detailed disclosures: Li-Meng Yan, a Chinese virologist who says she fled the country after receiving threats due to her concerns about the origins of COVID-19 and accuses the Chinese Communist Party of a cover-up, claims that the novel coronavirus originated in a military laboratory overseen by the People’s Liberation Army.
An October 1, 2020, following the same line of reasoning, Sellin examined the question, “Is the COVID-19 Pandemic a Case of Vaccine Research Gone Wrong?”104 In this report, he looks at the intricacies of the engineering involved in creating SARS-CoV-2, turning the bat virus into one highly infectious in human beings, and suggests the virus was attenuated by Chinese research at the Wuhan Institute: In an attempt to dominate global vaccine research and development, China may have hurriedly and recklessly applied genetic engineering techniques, creating and leaking a highly infectious and deadly coronavirus causing a worldwide pandemic.
On October 8, 2020, Sellin addressed the second prepublication by Yan and her colleagues.105 He introduced his article with the following reasonable observation: Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Chinese Communist Party supported by some Western scientists and a politically-motivated media have desperately tried to convince the world that the COVID-19 virus originated as a bat beta-coronavirus which underwent a natural mutation process and was then acquired by humans after exposure to infected animals. Undoubtedly, such subterfuge is meant to protect certain vested interests, including the potentially devastating political and economic consequences for China, global corporate and private investment in China and a negative effect on scientific collaboration and research funding of major Western research laboratories. After reviewing the article by Yan et al., Sellin concludes, “Dr. Yan’s second scientific article adds one more nail in the coffin of China’s false theory that the COVID-19 pandemic was naturally-occurring.” He does not address whether or not Yan et al. prove that the Chinese military necessarily released the virus as a bioweapon against the world and humanity. We do not wholly reject the possibility that China intentionally released SARS-CoV-2; but we are certain that the Communists arranged to make COVID-19 much more damaging to the world than it needed to be. They did this, among other ways, by withholding information about its existence and its origin in their own labs, by delaying the truth that it was highly infectious, and by shutting down most internal travel in China while flooding the world with airplane travelers who potentially carried the virus. Now we hear from Yan et al. with some confirmation by Col. Sellin that China also created fake viruses in a failed attempt to show that SARS-CoV-2 evolved in nature, thereby delaying a scientific and political understanding of the nature and origin of the virus. The great weight of evidence demonstrates that SARS-CoV-2 was engineered by researchers under the watchful eyes of the Chinese Communist Party and its military. Furthermore, the weight of evidence is that Fauci’s moral, political and financial help enabled the Chinese to develop SARS-CoV-2, ultimately unleashing COVID-19. The recipients of Fauci’s NIAID support and funding include Chinese collaborating with American researchers, individual Chinese researchers, the Wuhan Institute of Virology, Chinese universities, multiple business intermediaries and, in too many cases, individuals closely related to the Chinese armed forces. The next few sections are deeply disturbing in respect to Fauci and his Chinese connections.
Fauci and NIAID’S Relationships with the Chinese Military On September 6, 2020, Col. Sellin published a blog titled “Did Fauci’s NIH Institute Financially Assist China’s Military?”106 Sellin drew upon his military intelligence background to make observations on Fauci’s funding of the Chinese military. With his permission, here is the entire text of his blog, with the links included: Did Fauci’s NIH Institute Financially Assist China’s Military? by Col. Lawrence Sellin (Ret.) September 6, 2020 A disturbing pattern of cooperation between Dr. Anthony Fauci’s NIAID and the Chinese military raises questions about technology transfer and the origins of the current COVID-19 pandemic. U.S. patent number 8933106 entitled “2-(4-substituted phenylamino) polysubstituted pyridine compounds as inhibitors of non-nucleoside HIV reverse transcriptase, preparation methods and uses thereof” is assigned to the Institute of Pharmacology and Toxicology, Academy of Military Medical Sciences of China’s People’s Liberation Army. One of the inventors of that patent, Shibo Jiang, is a graduate of the First and Fourth Medical University of the People’s Liberation Army, Xi’an, China. He is a long-time collaborator with institutions associated with the Chinese military and, since 1997, a recipient of U.S. government research grants from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), headed by Dr. Anthony Fauci. In one of the two scientific references used to support the above-mentioned patent “Discovery of diarylpyridine derivatives as novel non-nucleoside HIV-1 reverse transcriptase inhibitors,” Shibo Jiang is listed as a co-author, along with the four other inventors on the patent. In the Acknowledgments section of that scientific publication, which supports the patent application, three separate NIAID grants are cited, two of which, AI46221 and AI33066, were awarded to co-inventors on the patent, Shibo Jiang and Kuo-Hsiung Lee, respectively. Shibo Jiang and Kuo-Hsiung Lee are co-inventors on another U.S. patent, 8309602, also assigned to the Institute of Pharmacology and Toxicology, Academy of Military Medical Sciences of China’s People’s Liberation Army. Although no scientific publications are listed in the 8309602 patent, you can compare the chemical compounds with those in “Diarylaniline Derivatives as a Distinct Class of HIV-1 Nonnucleoside Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitors,” which has as co-authors all the co-inventors of the patent. That research was also supported by three separate NIAID grants, two of which, AI46221 and AI33066, were awarded to co-inventors on the patent, Shibo Jiang and Kuo-Hsiung Lee, respectively. NIAID funding of China’s military research programs does not appear to be restricted to those two patents.

Since 2004, Shibo Jiang has had scientific collaboration with Yusen Zhou, who was a professor at the State Key Laboratory of Pathogen and Biosecurity, Institute of Microbiology and Epidemiology, Academy of Military Medical Sciences in Beijing. It is unclear whether Yusen Zhou also received his education at one of China’s military medical universities, but his early scientific work was associated with the Department of Infectious Disease, 81st Hospital of the People’s Liberation Army, Nanjing Military Command and the Fourth Medical University of People’s Liberation Army, Xi’an, Shibo Jiang’s alma mater. Shibo Jiang and Yusen Zhou are listed as co-inventors on at least eight U.S. patents, the references supporting those patents, for example, 9889194, was research funded by NIAID. Until his recent death, Yusen Zhou’s collaboration with Shibo Jiang continued into the COVID-19 pandemic, publishing a July 30, 2020 Science article together with institutions associated with China’s military. In a 2014 article, Shibo Jiang was working with the Institute of Biotechnology, Academy of Military Medical Sciences, Beijing. In 2017, he conducted research with the Translational Medicine Center, People’s Liberation Army Hospital No. 454 and the Department of Epidemiology, Medicinal Research Institute, Nanjing Military Command. Between 2012 and 2020, Shibo Jiang has published twelve scientific articles with the Wuhan Institute of Virology and eleven articles between 2013 and 2020 with the University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB), Galveston Texas.

The UTMB has been designated one of the ten Centers for Research in Emerging Infectious Diseases newly funded by a NIAID grant totaling $82 million. UTMB has at least two permanent faculty members trained at China’s Military Medical Universities, has had connections to or former employees from the Wuhan Institute of Virology and Yusen Zhou’s State Key Laboratory of Pathogen and Biosecurity, Institute of Microbiology and Epidemiology, Academy of Military Medical Sciences in Beijing, as well as other Chinese institutions. Another new center is the EcoHealth Alliance, a long-time collaborator with the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which has been awarded $7.5 million. Given the history described above and before any new funding is allocated, an investigation and auditing of previous NIAID grants should be undertaken to determine exactly how much U.S. taxpayer money has benefitted China’s military. We Follow Up on Sellin’s Concerns about University of Texas and China After reading the report by Col. Sellin, we began our own search into the connections between China and the University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB), Galveston. We quickly landed on an April 15, 2020 UTMB press release with the arresting title, “The Galveston National Lab and Wuhan Institute of Virology.”107 It was a bit of a shock to see such a proud headline pairing of the American lab with its Chinese equivalent. Here is are excerpts: April 16, 2020 — The Galveston National Laboratory, located on the campus of the University of Texas Medical Branch, is one of two university-based maximum containment (BSL-4) laboratories in the U.S. focused on the study of highly infectious diseases and the development of medical countermeasures. … The lab is part of National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) Biodefense Laboratory Network… Through our Biosafety Training Center, UTMB has provided laboratory safety and security training for scientists and operations personnel in more than 45 countries, including China. The relationship with Wuhan Institute of Virology and the GNL dates back to 2013 and has been facilitated through an ongoing dialogue co-sponsored by the Chinese Academies of Science and U.S. National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine, with cooperation from the Chinese CDC and others. In recent years, we have provided training to scientists, biosafety and engineering professionals, including many from China. [bold is in the original]
For many years, the federal government has expressed a growing concern about the infiltration of American scientific programs by the Chinese students and scientists. It turns out that the Galveston National Lab at UTMB, the source of new funding by Fauci, has been an object of special concern because of its many ties to China. For example, a detailed Fox News report108 headlines, “Prominent university bio lab urged to reveal extent of relationship with Wuhan lab at center of coronavirus outbreak.”
As Fauci pumps money into research programs in America such as the Galveston National Lab and lesser programs, how hard will it be determine where that money ends up and how much information related to our national security will continue to flow to China?
Here is an excerpt from an April 24, 2020 letter from the General Counsel of the U.S. Department of Education insisting on more information from UTMB and its Galveston National Lab about its complex ties to China and its Wuhan Institute of Virology:109

Between June 6, 2014, and June 3, 2019, UT reported approximately twenty-four contracts with various Chinese state-owned universities and ten contracts with Huawei Technologies, all purportedly worth a reported total of $12,987,896. It is not clear, however, whether UT has in fact reported all gifts from or contracts with or relating to the Wuhan MCL, the Wuhan Institute of Virology, and/or all other foreign sources, including agents and instrumentalities of the government of the Peoples’ Republic of China. Therefore, to verify UT’s compliance with Section 117, the Department requests that your Institution produce the following records…(underline added)
The letter from the General Counsel of the U.S. Department of Education to the University of Texas also demands information about almost two dozen specific Chinese businesses, universities and other entities. The list concludes with this ominous demand for information about the University, its Galveston National Lab—and its relationship to the Communist Party of China:
The Communist Party of China, its agents, employees, representatives, and instrumentalities (including but not limited to the agents, employees, representatives, and instrumentalities of entities such as the Communist Party of China’s Central Committee, Central Office, and Politburo Standing Committee; the General Office of the Central Military Commission; the Chinese Ministry of Education; the Chinese Ministry of Science and Technology; the People’s Liberation Army; the Chinese Ministry of State Security; the Chinese Ministry of Industry and Information Technology; the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs; the Chinese Ministry of National Defense; the Central Bank of the People’s Republic of China; and any People’s Republic of China province, autonomous region, or municipality).
Sellin was right to focus on new Fauci funding for the Galveston National Lab with its multiple and probably inextricable and at times obscure ties to China. If Fauci does not wish to lose his much-valued and carefully cultivated relationship with the Chinese Communist Party, then he may have picked the right place in America to award funding for viral research.
At this time, it is probably impossible to fund virus-related research at American universities and facilities while guaranteeing that the Chinese government will not be gaining information relevant to our national security and even to humanity’s survival.
Chinese Researchers, Now Suppressed, Identified the COVID-19 Outbreak with the Fauci-Sponsored Research Botao Xiao and Lei Xiao are Chinese scientists with numerous scientific publications. Botao Xiao110 received his Ph.D. from Northwestern University in 2011. He then became a postdoctoral Research Fellow at Harvard Medical School from 2011 to 2013. From 2017 to the present, he has been professor at the highly ranked South China University of Technology. Botao Xiao’s research was partly supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation of China. Lei Xiao is a published researcher at the Hubei University of Technology in Wuhan. In skeptical discussions of their important paper implicating the Wuhan Institute of Virology as the source of SARS-Cov-2 and ultimately leading back to Fauci, we have never seen any emphasis on their very significant credentials. In a publication on February 6, 2020 published on ResearchGate,111 Xiao and Xiao made the connections that we have been laboriously documenting between China’s capacity to create SARS-CoV-2 and research funded by Anthony Fauci and his Institute. The Chinese authors, one of whom lives in Wuhan, begin by rejecting the idea that the virus came from a bat at the city’s food market: “The probability was very low for the bats to fly [more than 900 kilometers] to the market. According to municipal reports and the testimonies of 31 residents and 28 visitors, the bat was never a food source in the city, and no bat was traded in the market.” With citations to the literature, Xiao and Xiao go to document that the Wuhan Institute was working with Chinese horseshoe bats as a source of coronaviruses that can cause severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV). They observed that the Wuhan “principle investigator,” Xing-Yi Ge,112 had already succeeded in making a SARS-CoV virus with “the potential for human emergence.” They concluded, “A direct speculation was that SARS-CoV or its derivative might leak from the laboratory.”
Xing-Yi Ge, whose work focused on making deadly viruses from bats, was cited by them as doing his original work in the Menachery et al. study. Thus, without intending to, Xiao and Xiao linked the new pandemic to the main “gain-of-function” project funded by Fauci as an American/Chinese collaboration. In other words, Fauci funding of the work of Xing-Yi Ge, who was a coauthor of the American/Chinese collaborative research by Menachery et al., probably led to Ge creating SARS-Cov-2 in the Wuhan lab from which it escaped.
Xiao and Xiao punctuate their conclusions, stating, “the killer coronavirus probably originated from a laboratory in Wuhan” and they urge greater safety measures.
Xiao and Xiao also say, “In summary, somebody was entangled with the evolution of 2019-nCoV coronavirus.” The America “somebody” who was most “entangled” in the evolution of what turned out to SARS-CoV-2 was Anthony Fauci, the man who covertly continued to fund this research even after President Obama put a moratorium on it, the man who then overturned Obama’s moratorium on deadly virus research during President Trump’s first year in the presidency, the man who in October 2020 began more massive funding of this dangerous research in the United States at a university facility with multiple ties to the Chinese, the man who continues to lie by saying unequivocally the virus came out of nature without human engineering, and the man who now blames the epidemic on human progress interfering with nature rather than on himself for his direct, persistent and grandiose support and funding of the projects that led to the Chinese creating at and releasing SARS-CoV-2. Fearing that Xiao had been “disappeared” by the Chinese Communist Party, we searched the news and have found nothing about him since he reportedly sent a brief email to the Wall Street Journal113 on February 26, 2020 saying he had withdrawn his paper because it was “not supported by direct proofs.” No one should believe that his remarks were voluntary and we can only hope that he and his coauthor, brave and honorable scientists, are alive and well.

Fauci’s Self-Serving Misdirection and Grandiose Political Ambitions

In a recent “scientific” article in Cell authored with one of his assistants, Fauci lied, claiming without reservation or qualification that COVID-19 emerged from nature on its own and not from laboratory tinkering.114 Then he did more than ignore his own role in funding the engineering of coronaviruses with China, he blamed us—you and me, humanity—for causing the virus by disrupting nature:

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

SARS-CoV-2 is a deadly addition to the long list of microbial threats to the human species. It forces us to adapt, react, and reconsider the nature of our relationship to the natural world. Emerging and re-emerging infectious diseases are epiphenomena of human existence and our interactions with each other, and with nature. As human societies grow in size and complexity, we create an endless variety of opportunities for genetically unstable infectious agents to emerge into the unfilled ecologic niches we continue to create. There is nothing new about this situation, except that we now live in a human-dominated world in which our increasingly extreme alterations of the environment induce increasingly extreme backlashes from nature.
Science will surely bring us many life-saving drugs, vaccines, and diagnostics; however, there is no reason to think that these alone can overcome the threat of ever more frequent and deadly emergences of infectious diseases. Evidence suggests that SARS, MERS, and COVID-19 are only the latest examples of a deadly barrage of coming coronavirus and other emergences. The COVID-19 pandemic is yet another reminder, added to the rapidly growing archive of historical reminders, that in a hu-man-dominated world, in which our human activities represent aggressive, damaging, and unbalanced interactions with nature, we will increasingly provoke new disease emergences. We remain at risk for the foreseeable future. COVID-19 is among the most vivid wake-up calls in over a century. It should force us to begin to think in earnest and collectively about living in more thoughtful and creative harmony with nature, even as we plan for nature’s inevitable, and always unexpected, surprises.
Fauci declares that COVID-19 is the result of the “human-dominated” world in which we live and he promotes an extreme progressive ideology that massive changes must be made in how we relate to nature. He wants a vast progressive political program to evaluate and change human activity on a global basis:

Disease emergence reflects dynamic balances and imbalances, within complex globally distributed ecosystems comprising humans, animals, pathogens, and the environment. Understanding these variables is a necessary step in controlling future devastating disease emergences.
Fauci blames humanity, this “human-dominated” environment, for causing COVID-19, when he is precisely the single man who contributed most to development of lethal, potentially epidemic coronaviruses. He is also among the men to most benefit from the catastrophe through the growth of his Institute and his close relationships to Bill Gates and the pharmaceutical industry.
Fauci’s stated position may be one of the most colossal misdirections in history—the American most responsible for enabling the Chinese Communists to engineer SARS-CoV-2 in their Wuhan Institute is blaming COVID-19 on humanity’s indiscretions in nature instead of his own nefarious activities in funding Chinese and American laboratories. Working with China, Fauci himself has funded and promoted taking viruses out of nature and engineering them to become pandemic viruses; but now he wants us to take his advice on transforming widespread human activity in nature to make us less disruptive!
Fauci is the Great Disruptor, whose work enabled China to unleash COVID-19 on the world. He is also among the great benefactors of the epidemic that he helped create, vastly increasing his influence and power, and the wealth of the institute he directs.
Now Fauci is announcing himself as radical totalitarian with his new political vision:
Living in greater harmony with nature will require changes in human behavior as well as other radical changes that may take decades to achieve: rebuilding the infrastructures of human existence, from cities to homes to workplaces, to water and sewer systems, to recreational and gatherings venues. In such a transformation we will need to prioritize changes in those human behaviors that constitute risks for the emergence of infectious diseases. Chief among them are reducing crowding at home, work, and in public places as well as minimizing environmental perturbations such as deforestation, intense urbanization, and intensive animal farming. Equally important are ending global poverty, improving sanitation and hygiene, and reducing unsafe exposure to animals, so that humans and potential human pathogens have limited opportunities for contact. … Since we cannot return to ancient times, can we at least use lessons from those times to bend modernity in a safer direction? These are questions to be answered by all societies and their leaders, philosophers, builders, and thinkers and those involved in appreciating and influencing the environmental determinants of human health.
In Fauci’s world, concerns such as democracy, the US Constitution and Bill of Rights, or liberty as a primary political principle, simply do not exist. Indeed, something even more basic, the importance of love and human relationship, seems beyond his concern or understanding. Jeffrey A. Tucker of the American Institute for Economic Research (AIER) finds Fauci’s vision as dangerous and appalling as we do.115 In a report titled, “Lockdown: The New Totalitarianism,” he characterizes Fauci’s philosophy and the lockdowns very eloquently:116 This is sheer fanaticism, a kind of insanity wrought by a wild vision of a one-dimensional world in which the whole of life is organized around disease avoidance. And there is an additional presumption here that our bodies (via the immune system) have not evolved alongside viruses for a million years. No recognition of that reality. Instead the sole goal is to make “social distancing” the national credo. Let us speak more plainly: what this really means is forced human separation. It means the dismantlement of markets, cities, in-person sports events, and the end of your right to move around freely. … The lockdowns are looking less like a gigantic error and more like the unfolding of a fanatical political ideology and policy experiment that attacks core postulates of civilization at their very root. It’s time we take it seriously and combat it with the same fervor with which a free people resisted all the other evil ideologies that sought to strip humanity of dignity and replace freedom with the terrifying dreams of intellectuals and their government sock puppets.

Time for Us to Act
President Trump and the US Congress, as well as the American people, need to know that Anthony Fauci—working in the service of global interests other than the United States—funded research that eventually unleashed COVID-19 upon the world. In addition, this same Fauci-funding has enabled China to possess the largest store of coronaviruses in the world, along with the technology to continue turning them into human-infecting agents. Meanwhile, despite its obvious dangers, Fauci continues to fund gain-of-function research that creates deadly viruses which can leak from labs or be released as biological weapons. It is time to fire Fauci, to investigate this entire disaster, and to consider what needs to be done to protect the US and the world from future lab-generated pandemic disasters, whether accidental or intentional.

ENDNOTES
1 Although I have written this report in its entirety and take full responsibility for it, I am deeply grateful for the contributions of my coauthor, Ginger Breggin. I could not have written this report without her daily research efforts and insights, including lengthy conversations, both for months before it was written and during the writing, as well as her editing, making it a truly joint effort. We are both grateful for critique of the report in early stages generously provided by Meryl Nass, MD. My interview of Meryl on The Dr. Peter Breggin Hour radio/TV can be found here: https://outlook.live.com/mail/0/inbox
2 Morens, D. and Fauci, A. (2020, September 3). Emerging Pandemic Diseases: How We Got to COVID-19. Cell 182, 1099-1091. https://www.cell.com/action/showPdf?pii=S0092-8674%2820%2931012-6
3 Coronavirus Resource Center by Peter R. Breggin MD and Ginger Ross Breggin. https://breggin.com/coronavirus-resource-center/
4 My August 30, 2020 report, COVID-19 & Public Health Totalitarianism: Untoward Effects on Individuals, Institutions and Society, submitted as a medical expert report for the injunction in federal court to stop the continuation of the emergency edict in Ohio. Our report and further information about the lawsuit are available at https://breggin.com/coronavirus/NEW-COVID-19-LEGAL-REPORT.pdf It is a comprehensive political and scientific document, 134 pages with hundreds of linked references. 5Special to Richland Source, 2020, September 2. Ohio Stands Up! files lawsuit to remove DeWine’s COVID-19 emergency order. Richland Source.https://www.richlandsource.com/news/ohio-stands-up-files-lawsuit-to-remove-dewines-covid-19-emergency-order/article_2da0891a-ec56-11ea-8eff-0fc7814ecd5e.html
6 Ohio Stands Up! https://www.ohiostandsup.org/
7 Dr. Breggin’s COVID-19 Totalitarianism Legal Report and Resource Center for the Case to Stop Emergency Declaration in Ohio and Elsewhere. https://breggin.com/dr-breggins-covid-19-totalitarianism-legal-report/

8 Thomas Renz interview by Peter Breggin, 2020, September 30, COVID-19 Lawsuit Update with Attorney Tom Renz on The Dr. Peter Breggin Hour, radio/TV on YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIaVZfYv0mI and Thomas Renz interview by Peter Breggin, 2020, September 2, COVID-19 Totalitarianism, The Dr. Peter Breggin Hour radio/TV on YouTube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B671X_0OKIc

9 National Center for Health Statistics. 2020, October 10, Weekly Updates by select demographic and geographic characteristics: Provisional death counts for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), CDC, Under “Comorbidities.” https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm

10 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 2020, Sept. 10, COVID-19 Pandemic Planning Scenarios, CDC. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html
11 American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association, 2020, October 10, Children and COVID-19:State-Level Data Report. https://services.aap.org/en/pages/2019-novel-coronavirus-covid-19-infections/children-and-covid-19-state-level-data-report/
12 Freed, M. et al., 2020, July 24. KFF Coronavirus Stats (based on CDC data up to July 22, 2020). https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/issue-brief/what-share-of-people-who-have-died-of-covid-19-are-65-and-older-and-how-does-it-vary-by-state/ CDC data at https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-precautions/older-adults.html

13 Kulldorff, M., Gupta, S. and Bhattacharya, J. 2020, October 4, Great Barrington Pledge. https://gbdeclaration.org/
14 CDC, 2020, February 13, Common Human Coronaviruses, Centers for Disease Control. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/general-information.html

15 Zhang, F., (2004, July 2), Officials punished for SARS virus leak, China Daily. https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-07/02/content_344755.htm

16 Sørensen, M. D.; Sørensen, B.; Gonzalez-Dosal, R.; Melchjorsen, C. J.; Weibel, J.; Wang, J.; Jun, C. W.; Huanming, Y.; Kristensen, P. (May 2006). Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS): development of diagnostics and antivirals. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 1067 (1): 500– 505.
https://nyaspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1196/annals.1354.072

17 CDC, 2017, December 6, SARS Basics Fact Sheet, Centers for Disease Control. https://www.cdc.gov/sars/about/fs-sars.html

18 Walgate, R., 2004, April 25, SARS escaped Beijing lab twice: Laboratory safety at the Chinese Institute of Virology under close scrutiny, The Scientist.
https://www.the-scientist.com/news-analysis/sars-escaped-beijing-lab-twice-50137

19 Zhang, F., (2004, July 2), Officials punished for SARS virus leak, China Daily. https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-07/02/content_344755.htm

20 Walgate, R., 2004, April 27, SARS escaped Beijing lab twice, Genome Biology, 4, spotlight-20040427-03 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1186/gb-spotlight-20040427-03 https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/gb-spotlight-20040427-03
21 Kelly, M. & Cahlan, S., 2020, Was the new coronavirus accidentally released from a Wuhan lab? It’s doubtful., Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/05/01/was-new-coronavirus-accidentally-released-wuhan-lab-its-doubtful/
Breggin and Breggin Report, p. 57
22 Rogin, J. 2020, April 14, State Department cables warned of safety issues at Wuhan lab studying bat coronaviruses, Washington Post.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/04/14/state-department-cables-warned-safety-issues-wuhan-lab-studying-bat-coronaviruses/
23 News, 2019, December 17, Chinese institutes investigate pathogen outbreaks in lab workers, Nature. Students and staff at two research institutes have tested positive to the Brucella bacterium, which can lead to serious complications.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03863-z

24 Young, A., 2017, January 4, CDC keeps secret its mishaps with deadly germs, US Today.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/01/04/cdc-secret-lab-incidents-select-agents/95972126/

25 Marin, D., 2014, July 11, CDC Botched Handling of Deadly Flu Virus: The third recent mistake in handling of pathogens is a “wake-up call,” says Centers for Disease Control head, Scientific America. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cdc-botched-handling-of-deadly-flu-virus/

26 McNeil Jr., D., 2017, December 19, A Federal Ban on Making Lethal Viruses Is Lifted,
New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/19/health/lethal-viruses-nih.html?_r=0
27 Bender, J., 2014, July 14, Here Are 5 Times Infectious Diseases Escaped from Laboratory Containment. Business Insider. https://www.businessinsider.com/5-terrifying-times-pandemics-e
28 Martin Furmanski MD Scientist’s Working Group on Chemical and Biologic Weapons Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation February 17, 2014. https://armscontrolcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Escaped-Viruses-final-2-17-14-copy.pdf
29 Bender, J. 2014, There are 5 times infectious diseases have escaped from laboratory containment, Business Insider. https://www.businessinsider.com/5-terrifying-times-pandemics-escaped-from-laboratories-2014-7

30 Young, A. 2017, January 4, CDC keeps secret its mishaps with deadly germs, USA Today. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/01/04/cdc-secret-lab-incidents-select-agents/95972126/

31 Piper, K., 2019, March 20, How deadly pathogens have escaped the lab—over and over again, Vox. https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/3/20/18260669/deadly-pathogens-escape-lab-smallpox-bird-flu
32 Husseini, S.,2020, May 5, The Long History of Accidental Laboratory Releases of Potential Pandemic Pathogens Is Being Ignored In the COVID-19 Media Coverage. Independent Science News. https://www.independentsciencenews.org/health/the-long-history-of-accidental-laboratory-releases-of-potential-pandemic-pathogens/

33 Grady, D., 2019, April 5, Deadly Germ Research Is Shut Down at Army Lab Over Safety Concerns, The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/05/health/germs-fort-detrick-biohazard.html

34 Vineet D Menachery, Rachel L Graham, and Ralph S Baric. Jumping species—a mechanism for coronavirus persistence and survival Curr Opin Virol. 2017 Apr; 23: 1–7.Published online 2017 Mar 31. doi: 10.1016/j.coviro.2017.01.002 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5474123/
35Klotz, L. and Sylvester, E. The Consequences of a Lab Escape of a Potential Pandemic Pathogen
Front Public Health. 2014; 2: 116. Published online 2014 Aug 11. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2014.00116
PMCID: PMC4128296PMID: 25157347; https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4128296/
36 Husseini, S.,2020, May 5, The Long History of Accidental Laboratory Releases of Potential Pandemic Pathogens Is Being Ignored In the COVID-19 Media Coverage, Independent Science News. https://www.independentsciencenews.org/health/the-long-history-of-accidental-laboratory-releases-of-potential-pandemic-pathogens/

37 Thomson, B., 2020, China ‘appoints its top military bio-warfare expert to take over secretive virus lab in Wuhan’, sparking conspiracy theories that coronavirus outbreak is linked to Beijing’s army. Daily Mail. A small-print note states it was published February 2020, https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8003713/China-appoints-military-bio-weapon-expert-secretive-virus-lab-Wuhan.html

38 Sen, S. , 2020, April 30. How China locked down internally for COVID-19, but pushed foreign travel
The Economic Times. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/blogs/Whathappensif/how-china-locked-down-internally-for-covid-19-but-pushed-foreign-travel/

39 Levenson, M., 2020, Jan. 22, Scale of China’s Wuhan Shutdown Is Believed to Be Without Precedent. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/22/world/asia/coronavirus-quarantines-history.html. January 23, 2020 is often cited in the press as the day of the shutdown of Wuhan, but the actual date, as indicated in this article, was the Thursday before the news came out, or January 16, 2020.
Breggin and Breggin Report, p. 58
40 BBC.com., 2020, August 27, Coronavirus: Flights within China to ‘fully recover’ next month, BBC News. https://www.bbc.com/news/business-53927980
41 Nebehay, S., 2020, February 3, WHO chief says widespread travel bans not needed to beat China virus, Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-health-who-idUSKBN1ZX1H3

42 Cheng, E. 2020, February 4. China’s aviation authority to allow more foreign flights after the U.S. bans Chinese carriers, CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/04/china-to-allow-more-foreign-flights-after-us-bans-chinese-carriers.html

43 Source of all data: Eder, S. et al., published April 4, 2020 and Updated April 15, 2020; 430,000 People Have Traveled from China to U.S. Since Coronavirus Surfaced, New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/04/us/coronavirus-china-travel-restrictions.html

44 OPride Staff, 2017, May 11, he case against WHO director-general candidate Tedros, OPride. https://www.opride.com/2017/05/11/case-director-general-candidate-tedros-adhanom/
45 Ghitis, F., 2017, October 25. Another week, another scandal at the United Nations, Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/democracy-post/wp/2017/10/25/another-week-another-scandal-at-the-united-nations/

46 Chakraborty, B. 2020, March 25, WHO chief’s questionable past comes into focus following coronavirus response, Fox News. https://www.foxnews.com/world/who-chief-tedros-questionable-past-coronavirus

47 McNeil Jr., D., 2017, May 13, Candidate to Lead the W.H.O. Accused of Covering Up Epidemics, New York Times.

48 Ross, C., 2020, March 24, “Fully Complicit” in the terrible suffering: Health professionals accused him of covering up the previous epidemic to shield two African regimes. https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/fully-complicit-terrible-suffering-tedros-adhanom-ghebreyesus-blamed-2017-cholera
49Higgins-Dunn, N. 2020, February 26,2020. Travel restrictions ‘irrelevant’ if coronavirus becomes a pandemic, top US health official says, CNBC.https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/26/fauci-travel-restrictions-irrelevant-if-coronavirus-becomes-a-pandemic.html

50 White House Briefing, 2020, March 25. Remarks by President Trump, Vice President Pence, and Members of the Coronavirus Task Force in Press Briefing. The White House.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-vice-president-pence-members-coronavirus-task-force-press-briefing-11/
51 Morens, D. and Fauci, A. (2020, September 3). Emerging Pandemic Diseases: How We Got to COVID-19. Cell 182, 1099-1091. https://www.cell.com/action/showPdf?pii=S0092-8674%2820%2931012-6
52 Areddy, J., 2020, updated May 26, China Rules Out Animal Market and Lab as Coronavirus Origin
The Wallstreet Journal. https://www.wsj.com/articles/china-rules-out-animal-market-and-lab-as-coronavirus-origin-11590517508

53 Cohen, J. Wuhan seafood market may not be source of novel virus spreading globally. 2020, January 26, Science Magazine. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/01/wuhan-seafood-market-may-not-be-source-novel-virus-spreading-globally

54 St. Cavish, C., 2020, March 11. Commentary: No, China’s fresh food markets did not cause coronavirus, Los Angeles Times. https://www.latimes.com/food/story/2020-03-11/coronavirus-china-wet-markets
55 Page, J. et. al., 2020, March 6, Missteps, The Wallstreet Journal. https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-it-all-started-chinas-early-coronavirus-missteps-11583508932
56 Xiao, B. and Xiao, L., 2020, February, The possible origins of 2019-nCoV coronavirus. https://web.archive.org/web/20200214144447/https:/www.researchgate.net/publication/339070128_The_possible origins_of_2019-nCoV_coronavirus

57 Mishra, A. and Mondal, D. 2020, April 25. Corona leaked likely from Wuhan Institute of Virology: Experts, Sunday Guardian Live. https://www.sundayguardianlive.com/news/corona-leaked-likely-wuhan-institute-virology-experts
58 Breggin, P. and Breggin, G. Written report and video, April 14 & 15, 2020, 2015 Scientific Paper Proves US & Chinese Scientists Collaborated to Create Coronavirus that Can Infect Humans. Published on http://www.breggin.com and on Dr. Breggin’s YouTube Channel. Find both at: https://breggin.com/us-chinese-scientists-collaborate-on-coronavirus/
59 Breggin, P. and Breggin, G. Written report and video, April 14 & 15, 2020, 2015 Scientific Paper Proves US & Chinese Scientists Collaborated to Create Coronavirus that Can Infect Humans. Published on http://www.breggin.com and on Dr. Breggin’s YouTube Channel. Find both at: https://breggin.com/us-chinese-scientists-collaborate-on-coronavirus/
Breggin and Breggin Report, p. 59
60 Owermohle, S., 2020, April 27, 07:02 PM EDT, Trump cuts U.S. research on bat-human virus transmission over China ties, Politico. https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/27/trump-cuts-research-bat-human-virus-china-213076
61 Breggin, P. and Breggin, G. 2020, May 1, A report and a video, Trump Cancels Funding of US/China Research Making Epidemic Viruses. On http://www.breggin.com. Find both https://breggin.com/trump-cancels-funding-of-us-china-research-making-epidemic-viruses/

62 Aizenman, N., 2020, April 29, Why the U.S. Government Stopped Funding A Research Project on Bats and Coronaviruses, NPR. https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/04/29/847948272/why-the-u-s-government-stopped-funding-a-research-project-on-bats-and-coronaviru

63 Williams, S., 2020, April 28, NIH Cancels Funding for Bat Coronavirus Research Project. The Scientist.
https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/nih-cancels-funding-for-bat-coronavirus-research-project-67486

64 Chakraborty, B. & Diaz, A., 2020, July 10, EXCLUSIVE: Chinese virologist accuses Beijing of coronavirus cover-up, flees Hong Kong: ‘I know how they treat whistleblowers’. Fox News. https://www.foxnews.com/world/chinese-virologist-coronavirus-cover-up-flee-hong-kong-whistleblower
65 Sellin, L., 2020, August 4, Refugee Hong Kong Virologist Links COVID-19 to Chinese Military Laboratory, CCNS. https://ccnationalsecurity.org/refugee-hong-kong-virologist-links-covid-19-to-chinese-military-laboratory laboratory /
66 Sellin, L. , 2020, September 6, Did Fauci’s NIH Institute Financially Assist China’s Military? CCNS. https://ccnationalsecurity.org/did-faucis-nih-institute-financially-assist-chinas-military/

67 NIH News Release, 2020, August 27, NIH establishes Centers for Research in Emerging Infectious Diseases. https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/nih-establishes-centers-research-emerging-infectious-diseases
68 Vineet D Menachery, Boyd L Yount Jr, Kari Debbink1, Sudhakar Agnihothram, Lisa E Gralinski, Jessica A Plante, Rachel L Graham, Trevor Scobey, Xing-Yi Ge, Eric F Donaldson, Scott H Randell, Antonio Lanzavecchia, Wayne A Marasco, Zhengli-Li Shi & Ralph S Baric. A SARS-like cluster of circulating bat coronaviruses shows potential for human emergence. Nature Medicine, 21 (12), 1508-1514. December 2015. With follow-up letter included: https://www.nature.com/articles/nm.3985 https://doi.org/10.1038/nm.3985
69 Vineet D Menachery 1, Boyd L Yount Jr 1, Amy C Sims 1, Kari Debbink 2, Sudhakar S Agnihothram 3, Lisa E Gralinski 1, Rachel L Graham 1, Trevor Scobey 1, Jessica A Plante 1, Scott R Royal 1, Jesica Swanstrom 1, Timothy P Sheahan 1, Raymond J Pickles 4, Davide Corti 5, Scott H Randell 6, Antonio Lanzavecchia 7, Wayne A Marasco 8, Ralph S Baric 9. (2016) SARS-like WIVl-CoV poised for human emergence. Proc Natl Acad Sci US A 113, 3048-53 (2016). Note that the original novel virus is now called WIV1-CoV. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26976607/ Also obtainable at https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/113/11/3048.full.pdf
70 Qiu, J., 2020, June 1, How China’s ‘Bat Woman’ Hunted Down Viruses from SARS to the New Coronavirus, Scientific American. A comment attached to the article defends China: “Editor’s Note (4/24/20): This article was originally published online on March 11. It has been updated for inclusion in the June 2020 issue of Scientific American and to address rumors that SARS-CoV-2 emerged from Shi Zhengli’s lab in China.” https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-chinas-bat-woman-hunted-down-viruses-from-sars-to-the-new-coronavirus1/
71 Xing-Yi Ge, Jia-Lu Li1 , Xing-Lou Yang, Aleksei A. Chmura , Guangjian Zhu , Jonathan H. Epstein , Jonna K. Mazet, Ben Hu , Wei Zhang , Cheng Peng , Yu-Ji Zhang , Chu-Ming Luo , Bing Tan , Ning Wang , Yan Zhu , Gary Crameri , Shu-Yi Zhang , Lin-Fa Wang, Peter Daszak & Zheng-Li Shi. Isolation and characterization of a bat SARS-like coronavirus that uses the ACE2 receptor. Nature, 503 (28), November 2013, pp. 535 ff. https://www.nature.com/articles/nature12711
72 Xing-Yi Ge, Jia-Lu Li1 , Xing-Lou Yang, Aleksei A. Chmura , Guangjian Zhu , Jonathan H. Epstein , Jonna K. Mazet, Ben Hu , Wei Zhang , Cheng Peng , Yu-Ji Zhang , Chu-Ming Luo , Bing Tan , Ning Wang , Yan Zhu , Gary Crameri , Shu-Yi Zhang , Lin-Fa Wang, Peter Daszak & Zheng-Li Shi. Isolation and characterization of a bat SARS-like coronavirus that uses the ACE2 receptor. Nature, 503 (28), November 2013, pp. 535 ff. https://www.nature.com/articles/nature12711

73 Subbaraman, N., 2020, August 21, ‘Heinous!’: Coronavirus researcher shut down for Wuhan-lab link slams new funding restrictions: Peter Daszak, president of the research organization EcoHealth Alliance, describes how he has been caught in political cross-hairs over his partnership with a virology lab in China, Nature. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02473-4
74 EcoHealth Alliance Partners. Undated, retrieved October 2, 2020 from https://www.ecohealthalliance.org/partners
Breggin and Breggin Report, p. 60
75 Guterl, F., 2020, April 27. Dr. Fauci Backed Controversial Wuhan Lab with U.S. Dollars for Risky Coronavirus Research, Newsweek. https://www.newsweek.com/dr-fauci-backed-controversial-wuhan-lab-millions-us-dollars-risky-coronavirus-research-1500741

76 Subbaraman, N., 2020, August 21, ‘Heinous!’: Coronavirus researcher shut down for Wuhan-lab link slams new funding restrictions: Peter Daszak, president of the research organization EcoHealth Alliance, describes how he has been caught in political cross-hairs over his partnership with a virology lab in China, Nature. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02473-4
77 Press Release, 2010, Global Health Leaders Launch Decade of Vaccines Collaboration. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. https://www.gatesfoundation.org/Media-Center/Press-Releases/2010/12/Global-Health-Leaders-Launch-Decade-of-Vaccines-Collaboration
78 Morens, D. and Fauci, A. (2020, September 3). Emerging Pandemic Diseases: How We Got to COVID-19. Cell 182, 1099-1091. https://www.cell.com/action/showPdf?pii=S0092-8674%2820%2931012-6

79 Thomson, B., 2020, China ‘appoints its top military bio-warfare expert to take over secretive virus lab in Wuhan’, sparking conspiracy theories that coronavirus outbreak is linked to Beijing’s army. Daily Mail. A small-print note states: “PUBLISHED: 06:39 EDT, 14 February 2020 | UPDATED: 13:41 EDT, 14 February 2020,” which is when we first found out about it—long before the new article tries to indicate with its fresh headline. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8003713/China-appoints-military-bio-weapon-expert-secretive-virus-lab-Wuhan.html
80 Obama, Barack, 2014, October 17, From the White House, Doing Diligence to Assess the Risks and Benefits of Life Sciences Gain-of-Function Research https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2014/10/17/doing-diligence-assess-risks-and-benefits-life-sciences-gain-function-research

81 Branswell, H., 2015, November 9. SARS-like virus in bats shows potential to infect humans, study finds, STAT.https://www.statnews.com/2015/11/09/sars-like-virus-bats-shows-potential-infect-humans-study-finds/

82 Butler, 2015, April 12, engineered bat virus stirs debate over risky research, Nature.
https://www.nature.com/news/engineered-bat-virus-stirs-debate-over-risky-research-1.18787

83 NIH Director, 2017, December 19, NIH Lifts Funding Pause on Gain-of-Function Research, Office of the Director of NIH. https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/who-we-are/nih-director/statements/nih-lifts-funding-pause-gain-function-research; also, Schnirring, L. 2017, December 19. Feds lift gain-of-function research pause, offer guidance, CIDRAP News. https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2017/12/feds-lift-gain-function-research-pause-offer-guidance. 83Akst, J., 2015, Lab-Made Coronavirus Triggers Debate, The Scientist. https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/lab-made-coronavirus-triggers-debate-34502

84 Schnirring, L. 2017, December 19. Feds lift gain-of-function research pause, offer guidance, CIDRAP News. https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2017/12/feds-lift-gain-function-research-pause-offer-guidance

85 McNeil Jr., D., 2017, December 19, A Federal Ban on Making Lethal Viruses Is Lifted,
New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/19/health/lethal-viruses-nih.html?_r=0
86 Burki, T. Ban on gain-of-function studies ends. The US moratorium on gain-of-function experiments has been rescinded, but scientists are split over the benefits—and risks—of such studies, http://www.thelancet.com/infection Vol 18 February 2018, pp. 148-9. https://www.thelancet.com/action/showPdf?pii=S1473-3099%2818%2930006-9
87 McNeil Jr., D., 2017, December 19, A Federal Ban on Making Lethal Viruses Is Lifted, New York Times.

88 Lin, C. 2020, April 22. Why US outsourced bat virus research to Wuhan US-funded $3.7 million project approved by Trump’s Covid-19 guru Dr Anthony Fauci in 2015 after US ban imposed on ‘monster-germ’ research, Asia Times. https://asiatimes.com/2020/04/why-us-outsourced-bat-virus-research-to-wuhan/

89 Owen, G. 2020, April 11, Wuhan lab was performing coronavirus experiments on bats from the caves where the disease is believed to have originated – with a £3m grant, Daily Mail Online. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8211257/Wuhan-lab-performing-experiments-bats-coronavirus-caves.html
90 https://www.independentsentinel.com/report-fauci-funded-gof-research-in-wuhan-due-to-incompetence-at-cdc/
91 Akst, J., 2015, Lab-Made Coronavirus Triggers Debate, The Scientist. https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/lab-made-coronavirus-triggers-debate-34502
Breggin and Breggin Report, p. 61
92 For a more detailed analysis of the corruption of COVID-19 science, see Breggin, P. and Breggin, G., 2020, August 3, Why COVID-19 Clinical Trials Cannot Be Trusted: The “Gold Standard” for Science Is Gold for the Drug Companies, http://www.breggin.com. Find at: https://breggin.com/why-covid-19-clinical-trials-cannot-be-trusted/

93 Chakraborty, B. & Diaz, A., 2020, July 10, EXCLUSIVE: Chinese virologist accuses Beijing of coronavirus cover-up, flees Hong Kong: ‘I know how they treat whistleblowers’. Fox News. https://www.foxnews.com/world/chinese-virologist-coronavirus-cover-up-flee-hong-kong-whistleblower

94 Bowen, E. 2020, July 10. Chinese virologist in hiding after accusing Beijing of coronavirus cover-up, New York Post. https://nypost.com/2020/07/10/chinese-virologist-flees-after-accusing-beijing-of-covid-19-cover-up/
95 Carlson, T., 2020, September 19, TV appearance on Tucker Carlson of Li-Meng Yan, Fox News Channel. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFlqXPl_hZQ
96 Yan, Li-Meng Yan ; Kang, Shu; Guan, Jie; Hu, Shanchang. (2020, September 14). Unusual Features of the SARS-CoV-2 Genome Suggesting Sophisticated Laboratory Modification Rather Than Natural Evolution and Delineation of Its Probable Synthetic Route. Prepublication. http://breggin.com/coronavirus/The_Yan_Report.pdf. To confirm the date it was put up and to follow the progress of the paper through publication, go to here: https://zenodo.org/record/4028830#.X2R2T5NKiuV
97 Becker, M.M. et al. Synthetic recombinant bat SARS-like coronavirus is infectious in cultured cells and in mice. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 105, 19944-9 (2008). https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C33&q=Becker%2C+M.M.+et+al.+Synthetic+recombinant+bat+SARS-like+coronavirus+is+infectious+in+cultured+cells+and+in+mice.+Proc+Natl+Acad+Sci+U+S+A+105%2C+19944-9+%282008%29.&btnG=
98 Naveira, P., 2020, August 4, Li-Meng Yan: Coronavirus was developed in Chinese military lab, AS English. https://en.as.com/en/2020/08/03/latest_news/1596459547_022260.html
99 Yan, Li-Meng; Kang, Shu; Guan, Jie; Hu, Shanchang. 2020, October 8, SARS-CoV-2 Is an Unrestricted Bioweapon: A Truth Revealed through Uncovering a Large-Scale, Organized Scientific Fraud. Prepublication. https://zenodo.org/record/4073131#.X4OpJOaSk2x “You can cite all versions by using the DOI 10.5281/zenodo.4073130. This DOI represents all versions, and will always resolve to the latest one.”

100 Sellin, L. (undated) Brief bio on the CCNS website states, “ Lawrence Sellin is a retired U.S. Army Reserve colonel with branch qualifications and assignments in Special Forces, Infantry, Chemical and Medical Services. He served in Afghanistan and Iraq and participated in a humanitarian mission to West Africa. Sellin holds a Master’s Degree in Strategic Studies from the U.S. Army War College and received training in Arabic, Kurdish and French from the Defense Language Institute. He had a distinguished civilian career in medical research and international business after completing a Ph.D. in physiology. Sellin retired from IBM, where he was a manager and subject matter expert in telecommunications and command and control systems. He is the author of numerous national security articles.” https://ccnationalsecurity.org/team/col-lawrence-sellin-ret/
101 Sellin, L., Blogs on CCNS. https://ccnationalsecurity.org/?s=sellin+blogs
102 Sellin, L., 2020, August 4, Refugee Hong Kong Virologist Links COVID-19 to Chinese Military Laboratory, CCNS. https://ccnationalsecurity.org/refugee-hong-kong-virologist-links-covid-19-to-chinese-military-laboratory laboratory /
103 Jones, K., 2020, August 1, [C-19 Disclosure] Who, When, Where, What, How, Why (from Dr. Li Meng Yan), Aug 1, 2020. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6lNtUBiqAw&feature=youtu.be. This is a very valuable resource that in great detail discusses the engineering of SARS-CoV-2 by the Chinese Communist Party and its militaryhttps://en.as.com/en/2020/08/03/latest_news/1596459547_022260.html
104 Sellin, L., 2020, October 1, Is the COVID-19 Pandemic a Case of Vaccine Research Gone Wrong? CCNS. https://ccnationalsecurity.org/is-the-covid-19-pandemic-a-case-of-vaccine-research-gone-wrong/

105 Sellin, L., 2020, October 9. Dr. Li-Meng Yan reveals China’s fake science and the COVID-19 cover-up, WION. https://www.wionews.com/opinions-blogs/dr-li-meng-yan-reveals-chinas-fake-science-and-the-covid-19-cover-up-333982
106 Sellin, L. , 2020, September 6, Did Fauci’s NIH Institute Financially Assist China’s Military? CCNS. https://ccnationalsecurity.org/did-faucis-nih-institute-financially-assist-chinas-military/ Permission to reproduce this blog in its entirely was kindly given by the author, Col. Lawrence Sellin.

107 In the News, 2020, April 16. The Galveston National Lab and Wuhan Institute of Virology, Galveston National Laboratory, University of Texas Medical Branch.
https://www.utmb.edu/gnl/news/2020/04/16/the-galveston-national-lab-and-wuhan-institute-of-virology
Breggin and Breggin Report, p. 62
108 Lynch, D. and McKay, H., 2020, May 1, Prominent university bio lab urged to reveal extent of relationship with Wuhan lab at center of coronavirus outbreak. https://www.foxnews.com/us/university-texas-biolab-wuhan-connection
109 Rubinstein, R., Principal Deputy General Counsel, 2020, April 24, Letter to James B. Milliken, Chancellor the University of Texas System: Notice of 20 U.S.C. § 1011f Investigation and Record Request/University of Texas System from U.S. Department of Education. https://www2.ed.gov/policy/highered/leg/ut-apr24-2020.pdf
110 Botao Xiao Biography, through 2017, School of Biology and Biological Engineering, South China University of Technology. http://www2.scut.edu.cn/biology_en/2017/0614/c5951a169022/page.htm
111 Xiao, B. and Xiao, L., 2020, February, The possible origins of 2019-nCoV coronavirus, Research Gate. [removed from the website] https://chanworld.org/wp-content/uploads/wpforo/default_attachments/1581810860-447056518-Originsof2019-NCoV-XiaoB-
112 Ge XY, Li JL, Yang XL, et al. Isolation and characterization of a bat SARS-like coronavirus that uses the ACE2 receptor. Nature 2013; 503(7477): 535-8. https://www.nature.com/articles/nature12711?fbclid=IwAR1oxB4btiYVmSzncbfTPLtCEORxqfdJygsxayF7cklj3my1pUF1vC-PUnU
113 Areddy, J. 2020, March 5, Coronavirus epidemic draws scrutiny to labs handling deadly pathogens. Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/articles/coronavirus-epidemic-draws-scrutiny-to-labs-handling-deadly-pathogens-11583349777
114 Morens, D. and Fauci, A. (2020, September 3). Emerging Pandemic Diseases: How We Got to COVID-19. Cell 182, 1099-1091. https://www.cell.com/action/showPdf?pii=S0092-8674%2820%2931012-6
115 Tucker, J.A. interview, 2020, October 21, Remarkable New Insights On COVID-19, The Dr. Peter Breggin Hour, radio/TV at https://www.youtube.com/user/PeterBreggin
116 Tucker, J. A., 2020, October 1, Lockdowns: The New Totalitarianism, American Institute for Economic Research (AIER). https://www.aier.org/article/lockdown-the-new-totalitarianism/

Det sista evangeliska budskapet till Donald Trump

The Final Evangelical Reckoning of Donald Trump

Originalartikel på Medium av

Joe Forrest

Översatt av Börje Peratt

Det är över!

Efter fem omstridda dagar är valet 2020 över och segern har gått till den nya presidenten Joe Biden.

Ljudet du hör är Frihetsgudinnan som andas ut en lång suck av lättnad.

Och även om Donald Trump tweetar för att avfärda slutresultatet, så behöver inte segern ske på någon annans bekostnad. Men först, låt oss riva av det här plåstret.

Till mina republikanska vänner; ni kan göra bättre. Jag vet att du kan göra bättre. Det finns respektabla konservativa män och kvinnor med hög moralisk karaktär som du kan ha som förebild. Det återstår att se om Donald Trump är en avvikelse [anomali] eller den ”nya normalen” för det republikanska partiet. Snälla låt det vara det förra, vara avvikelsen från det normala.

Till mina vänner bland demokraterna du är inte utfryst eller portförbjuden. Det finns mycket arbete att göra. Seriöst arbete som påverkar säkerheten, tryggheten och välbefinnandet för de marginaliserade, utsatta och missgynnade. Och när den slutliga valdemografin skärs och tärs, kommer det utan tvekan att [bevisa] att det var de människor som gav dig [Joe Biden] ordförandeskapet. Om du glömmer dem, kommer de ihåg. Det amerikanska folket är inte verktyg som kan utnyttjas för seger; För att demokrati ska fungera måste vi tro på det system som delegerar makten till de som väljs för att representera oss och ha tro att de som har makten kommer att vara goda och hedervärda människor.

Till mina medkristna har vi mycket omvändelse och försoning att göra. Jag är inte säker på vad en kulturell obduktion [efterhandsredogörelse] av ”Trump åren” kommer att säga om amerikansk kristendom, men jag tvivlar på att den kommer att vara snäll.

President Trump kan ha gjort kyrkan mer kraftfull (en tid), men han gjorde den inte mer kärleksfull. Jag känner till fler människor som har lämnat kyrkan trots eller till följd av Donald Trumps övermäktiga evangeliska stöd än som har blivit kristna av samma anledning. Fläcken av Trumpism på det evangeliska vittnet kommer inte att utplånas under avsevärd tid och ansträngning för upprättelse. Ingenting har lämnat mig mer med brustet hjärta än att ha betraktat just de människor som en gång lärde mig dygderna av att vandra i rättfärdighet och som moralens förkämpar men nu har de istället stöttat en av de mest skamfulla, egoistiska, fåfänga, oärliga och korrupta män som innehaft presidentskapet i modern historia .

Men, politik går före personlighet, eller hur?

Som Peter Wehner skrev förra månaden i tidningen Atlantic: ”Genom att förbise och ursäkta presidentens häpnadsväckande mängd personliga och offentliga korrupta egenskaper har Trumps evangeliska anhängare förlorat rätten till att någonsin argumentera för att god karaktär skulle vara av betydelse hos Amerikas politiska ledare.”

En ”målet helgar medlen” -filosofi för ledarskapet har ingen plats inom den kristna tron; Påstå inte att god karaktär spelar roll i mitt personliga liv men inte har någon betydelse för de människor som leder denna nation.

Jag har tydligt klargjort mitt ogillande och min misstro mot Donald Trump och hans ordförandeskap under de senaste fyra åren. För vissa av er kan det därför helt naturligt ogiltigförklara vad jag ska säga härnäst. Men under dessa fyra år har jag sett högprofilerade evangelister skriva debattartiklar efter debattartiklar för att försvara Trumps utnämning till presidentskapet som ”Guds gudomliga suveränitet” för att trotsa den onda ”vänsteragendan”. Låt mig vara tydlig: Om Gud kan använda kung David, kung Cyrus och president Trump trots deras omoral för att ge ära till hans namn, så kan han lika säkert som amen i kyrkan göra detsamma med president Joe Biden.

Jag känner många bra människor som röstade på och stödde Donald Trump. Och de är fortfarande bra människor. Och om du röstade på Donald Trump denna valperiod, är det min bön och mitt hopp att du så småningom kommer att kunna andas ut en lättnadens suck vid sidan av mig. Eftersom du blivit fri från den tunga bördan av Trumps ok. Detta är inte en uppmaning att avvisa konservatism eller dina värderingar. Det är en inbjudan att äntligen lämna den mannen och allt han representerar.

Samtidigt har kristenheten under denna period burit fram en otroligt levande och vacker frukt. Kristendomen sammanfördes under det romerska imperiets häl som en religion för ”kvinnor, slavar och barn”. Att se några kristna, särskilt den yngre generationen, på allvar ta itu med sammanvävda bibliska teman om rättvisa, befrielse, gästfrihet och försoning har varit det mest bländande silverfodret i hela denna prövning. Många av er har väckts till en nyare förståelse av Jesu budskap, obeklädd av korrosionen av nationalism och populism. Jag är förväntansfull över att se vart vi går vidare.

Lyssna, det här är inte en av de där krångliga ”Nu kan vi bara komma överens?” inläggen. Men republikaner, vi kontrollerar högsta domstolen och senaten. Demokrater, ni har Vita huset och representanthuset. Om det någonsin fanns en tid att bevisa att allt det tvådelade, ”som sträcker sig över gången och läker vår splittrade nation till förmån för det amerikanska folket”, inte var komplett och fullständigt skitsnack, är tiden nu. Punkt.

Oavsett det slutliga valresultatet är vi, det amerikanska folket, trötta på valet. Vi är utmattade. Vi vill inte ha en uppföljare till det amerikanska inbördeskriget. Vi kan inte upprätthålla denna nivå av partisan-driven vedervärdighet och grymhet. Vi kan inte ta emot fler felinformationskampanjer, konspirationsteorier, vetenskaplig förnekelse, sociala media kalkyler och kulturell gasbelysning. Om vi ​​fortsätter i denna takt kommer vi att brinna ner och vi har inget annat att visa upp än smaken av aska på tungan.

Amerika är flyktigt. Så småningom kollapsar alla imperier av sig själva. Eller, med profeten Jesajas ord, ”Alla nationer är som en droppe i hinken.” Men människor spelar roll. Och karaktär spelar roll. Och det är dags för oss att hålla våra ledare ansvariga.

Jag kan inte förutsäga om USA: s mörkaste dagar ligger bakom oss – det är upp till oss att bestämma – men vi måste erkänna att det inte är vederhäftigt att vi kallar oss ”den största nationen på jorden”. Det är verkligen inte sant.

Även om jag firar idag vet jag att ett Joe Biden-ordförandeskap inte kommer att lösa vår nations problem. Men kanske kan vi börja prata igen. Kanske kan vi hämta andan och njuta av den tystnad som finns kvar i vakuumet. Kanske kan vi välja att göra politik mindre giftig. Och kanske kan vi drömma om något bättre.

Men vi måste fortsätta kämpa för det.

För frihet, och rättvisa, för alla.

Joe Forrest
Originalartikel i Medium
Översättning
Börje Peratt

Kamala Harris segertal som vald vice president


Kamala Harris, den första kvinnan, den första svarta kvinnan och den första kvinnan av indiskt bakgrund som valts till vice president, sa vid lördagens (den 7 november) segertal att ”en ny dag för Amerika” hade kommit och tackade amerikaner för att de röstat, några timmar efter att hon och Joseph R. Biden Jr. hade utsetts till vinnare av presidentvalet 2020.

I sina historiska kommentarer erinrade Harris om sin mamma, en invandrare som kom till Kalifornien som tonåring.

”Hon kanske inte föreställde sig det här ögonblicket”, sade Harris om sin mamma, Shyamala Gopalan Harris. ”Men hon trodde så djupt på ett Amerika där ett sådant ögonblick är möjligt, och så jag tänker på henne och på generationerna av kvinnor, svarta kvinnor, asiatiska, vita, latinamerikanska kvinnor – som genom hela vår nation har banade vägen för detta ögonblick – kvinnor som kämpade och offrade så mycket för jämlikhet och frihet och rättvisa för alla. ”

Harris erkände ”alla kvinnor som har arbetat för att säkra och skydda rösträtten i över ett sekel.”
”Ikväll”, sa hon, ”reflekterar jag över deras kamp, deras beslutsamhet och styrkan i deras vision att se vad som kan övervinna det som har varit.

Här är ett transkript av fru Harris segertal.

”God kväll.
Kongressledamot John Lewis skrev innan hans bortgång: ”Demokrati är inte en stat.Det är en handling.

Och vad han menade var att USA: s demokrati inte garanteras.

Den är bara lika stark som vår vilja att kämpa för den, att skydda den och aldrig ta den för given.

Och att skydda vår demokrati kräver kamp.

Det kräver uppoffring. Det finns glädje i det och det finns framsteg.

Eftersom ”Vi folket” har makten att bygga en bättre framtid.

Och när vår demokrati stod på omröstningen i detta val, med själen i Amerika som står på spel, och världen tittade på, inledde du en ny dag för Amerika.

Till vår kampanjpersonal och volontärer, detta extraordinära team – tack för att du medför fler människor än någonsin tidigare i den demokratiska processen och för att möjliggöra denna seger.

Till omröstningsarbetarna och valtjänstemän i hela vårt land som har arbetat outtröttligt för att se till att varje röst räknas – vår nation är skyldig dig en tacksamhet eftersom du har skyddat integriteten i vår demokrati.

Och till det amerikanska folket som utgör vårt vackra land – tack för att du i rekordantal gjort dina röster hörda.

Jag vet att tiderna har varit utmanande, särskilt de senaste månaderna.

Sorg, sorg och smärta. Bekymmer och kamper.

Men vi har också bevittnat ditt mod, din motståndskraft och din andes generositet.

Under fyra år marscherade du och organiserade för jämlikhet och rättvisa, för våra liv och för vår planet.

Och sedan röstade du. Du levererade ett tydligt meddelande.

Du valde hopp, enhet, anständighet, vetenskap och, ja, sanning.

Du valde Joe Biden som nästa president för Amerikas förenta stater.

Joe är en läkare. En enhet. En testad och stadig hand.

En person vars egen upplevelse av förlust ger honom en känsla av syfte som hjälper oss som nation att återfå vår egen känsla av syfte.

Och en man med ett stort hjärta som älskar att gå vidare.

Det är hans kärlek till Jill, som kommer att bli en otrolig första dam.

Det är hans kärlek till Hunter, Ashley, hans barnbarn och hela Biden-familjen.

Och när jag först lärde känna Joe som vice president till Obama), lärde jag verkligen känna honom som fadern som älskade Beau, min kära vän, som vi minns här idag.

Till min man Doug, våra barn Cole och Ella, min syster Maya och hela vår familj – jag älskar er alla mer än jag kan uttrycka.

Vi är så tacksamma mot Joe och Jill för att ha välkomnat vår familj till deras på denna otroliga resa.

Och till kvinnan som är mest ansvarig för min närvaro här idag – min mamma, Shyamala Gopalan Harris, som alltid är i våra hjärtan.

När hon kom hit från Indien vid 19 års ålder, kanske hon inte helt föreställde sig detta ögonblick.

Men hon trodde så djupt på ett Amerika där ett ögonblick som detta är möjligt.

Så jag tänker på henne och på generationerna av kvinnor – svarta kvinnor.

Asiatiska, vita, latinamerikanska och ursprungsbefolkningens kvinnor genom hela nationens historia som har banat väg för detta ögonblick ikväll.

Kvinnor som kämpade och offrade så mycket för jämlikhet, frihet och rättvisa för alla, inklusive de svarta kvinnorna, som alltför ofta förbises, men så ofta visar att de är ryggraden i vår demokrati.

Alla kvinnor som arbetade för att säkra och skydda rösträtten i över ett sekel: för 100 år sedan med det 19:e ändringsförslaget, 55 år sedan med rösträtten och nu, 2020, med en ny generation kvinnor i vårt land som röstade och fortsatte kampen för sin grundläggande rätt att rösta och bli hörd.

Ikväll reflekterar jag över deras kamp, ​​deras beslutsamhet och styrkan i deras vision – att erkänna vad som är plattformen av det som har varit – jag står på deras axlar.

Och vilket bevis är det för Joes karaktär att han hade djärvheten att bryta en av de mest omfattande hinder som finns i vårt land och välja en kvinna som sin vice president.

Men även om jag kanske är den första kvinnan på det här kontoret kommer jag inte att vara den sista.

För varje liten flicka som tittar på ikväll ser att detta är ett land med möjligheter.

Och till barnen i vårt land, oavsett kön, har vårt land skickat dig ett tydligt meddelande: Dröm med ambition, led med övertygelse och se dig själv på ett sätt som andra kanske inte ser dig, bara för att de aldrig har sett det innan.

Och vi applåderar dig varje steg på vägen.

Till det amerikanska folket:

Oavsett vem du röstade på kommer jag att sträva efter att vara vice president som Joe var för president Obama – lojal, ärlig och beredd och vakna upp varje dag med tanke på dig och dina familjer. För det är nu när det verkliga arbetet börjar.

Det hårda arbetet. Det nödvändiga arbetet. Det goda arbetet. Det viktiga arbetet för att rädda liv och slå denna pandemi. Att bygga upp vår ekonomi så att den fungerar för arbetande människor.

Att utrota systemisk rasism i vårt rättssystem och vårt samhälle.

För att bekämpa klimatkrisen.

Att förena vårt land och läka vår nations själ.

Vägen framåt blir inte lätt.

Men Amerika är redo. Och det är också Joe och jag.

Vi har valt en president som representerar de bästa i oss.

En ledare som världen kommer att respektera och våra barn kan se upp till.

En befälhavare som kommer att respektera våra trupper och hålla vårt land säkert.

Och en president för alla amerikaner.

Det är nu min stora ära att presentera den utvalda presidenten för USA, Joe Biden.

WHO har placerat en terrorist att leda världshälsan och vi fick coronakrisen

Den etiopiska utrikesministern Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus deltar på en presskonferens som inleder hans kandidatur till tjänsten som generaldirektör för Världshälsoorganisationen (WHO), vid WHO: s årsmöte, den 24 maj 2016, i Geneva. Delegater från 194 medlemsländer samlas för andra dagen vid WHO: s årliga möte/ AFP / FABRICE COFFRINI (Foto: FABRICE COFFRINI / AFP / Getty Images)

Denna artikel om den eitreanske/etiopiske terroristanklagade politikern Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus baseras delvis på en artikel av  Abebe Gellaw [1].  Citat med kommentarer avser att klargöra vilken slags person WHO valt till sin generalsekreterare. Som utrikesminister i Etiopien under diktatorn Meles Zenawi, var han aktiv i inlåsning och tortyr även av svenska medborgare men också av kidnappning av landsmän som flytt Etiopien. Den svensk-etiopiska läkaren Fikru Maru satt inlåst i Kilintofängelset i fem år, trots att han inte vad dömd för något brott. SvD. Flera fångar utsattes för elchocker och brutal tortyr för att vittna falskt Fikru Maru. SvD.

TEXT OCH BEARBETNING BÖRJE PERATT

Den svensk-eritreanska journalisten Dawit Isaak har suttit fängslad i Eritrea utan rättegång i snart 20 år och det är osäkert om han lever. Expressen. Under denna period har ändå Sverige skickat miljoner i bidrag till en diktatur som i praktiken är en kleptokrati, dvs svenska skattemedel har gått till fel fickor och har medverkat till förföljelser och terror mot Etiopiens befolkning. Under den period som flera brott mot svenska medborgare begicks i Etiopien ökade Sverige bidragen med ett årligt stöd på i snitt 200 miljoner kronor. Det finns bara två förklaringar till detta. Antingen bedriver etiopierna utpressning mot den svenska regeringen för att inte ta livet av svenska medborgare i etiopiernas förvar eller så är det en sällsynt form av infantilt stöd till ondskan. En av de värsta brottslingarna mot etiopiernas fri- och rättigheter, utrikesminister Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, jagade med svenskt bistånd makten i WHO och han blev dess generalsekreterare.

– ”I sitt mål att vinna platsen som generalsekreterare för Världshälsoorganisationen (WHO) spelar Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus en trevlig teknokrat. Vid varje plats och tillfälle presenterar han sig som en ödmjuk, leende och omtänksam och humanitär som förlorat sömn över tillståndet i världshälsan. Men hans 12-sidiga kampanj-CV nämner aldrig hans bakgrund som gjorde det möjligt för honom att klättra på maktstegen inom den tyranniska regimen som förtryckte och övergav Etiopiens folk.

Adhanom nämnde naturligtvis inte det faktum att han ledde och verkställde övergreppen som beslutades i centralkommittémedlem i Tigray People Liberation Front.  TPLF en brutal och korrupt terrorgrupp med marxistleninistisk ideologi som bär ansvaret för grova kränkningar av mänskliga rättigheter och brott mot mänskligheten i Etiopien.” (Abebe Gellaw)

The Marxist – Leninist League of Tigray (MLLT) var ett etiopiskt kommunistparti som innehöll en ledande roll i Tigrayan Peoples ‘Liberation Front (TPLF) på 1980-talet. Majoriteten av TPLF-ledningen hade dubbelt medlemskap i MLLT, inklusive Meles Zenawi, premiärminister i Förbundsdemokratiska republiken Etiopien från 1995 fram till hans död 2012.

Det är intressant att man kallar dylika diktatoriska organisationer för demokratiska när det är allt annat demokratiska vare sig de anordnar val eller genomför sin politik. Att Sverige accepterar sådan bluff är märkligt.

Innan TPLF kom till makten 1991 genom en våldsamt väpnad kamp, ​​svartlistades TPLF som en terroristorganisation av U.S. Homeland Security’s Global Terrorism Database. Ledande beslutsfattare inom TPLF är ”nio-medlemmar-gruppen – verkställande kommittén”. Gänget ansvarade i slutändan för all korruption, mord, tortyr, massförvar, förvisning eller fördrivning. Adhanom (WHO:s generalsekreterare sedan 2017) är bland de tre mest framstående i gänget. Han stod mycket nära den avlidne diktatorn Meles Zenawi, som litade på honom som nära förtrolig och som befordrade Adhanom till kabinettsminister. Men den bakgrund som Adhanom skickar till utländska journalister och diplomater handlar inte om dem som mördades och torterades av TPLF eller att TPLF hävdade total makt för minoriteten av tigrier, till nackdel för resten av befolkningen.

Med hjälp av Mercury Public Affairs, ett USA-baserat lobbyingföretag som kallar sig ett ”high-stakes public strategiföretag”, förstorade han upp sina påstådda tvivelaktiga framgångar: kampen mot malaria, utrotade HIV, minskade spädbarnsdödligheten, byggde tusen och åter tusen kliniker. Men han avslöjar aldrig verkligheten bakom sina överdrivna bedrifter.

Meles Zenawi, a panelist at World Economic Forum on Africa 2012. Wikipedia CC BY-SA 2.0

Adhanom, en gång underlydande tjänare till tyrannen, Meles Zenawi, som Adhanom kallar ”den stora ledaren”, utsågs till minister (2005-2016) och blev sedan generalsekreterare i WHO 2017. Under perioden som minister i Etiopien medverkade han till att de svenska journalisterna Martin Schibbye och Johan Persson fängslades under brutala former. Deras skuld var att ta reda på varför den svensketiopiska journalisten Dawit Izaak satt fängslad utan rättegång i ett av Etiopiens hårdaste fängelser.

Adhanom hade avancerat som ledamot i TPLF till dess centrala och verkställande kommittéer där medlemskap huvudsakligen är baserat på etniskt ursprung. Han är skyldig till att ha beordrat otaliga mord, tortyr, massfördrivning, fångläger, och våldsamma övergrepp. Hans förmåga att införa splittrings- och härskarsystem har etablerat en diskriminerande politisk och ekonomisk struktur som har gjort det möjligt att dominera och underkasta majoriteten. Med tanke på hans trångsynta och etnocentriska bakgrund är hans strävan att leda WHO enastående motsägelsefullt. Låt oss titta närmare på ett fall som i all sin vidrighet visar hur Adhanom agerar.

Andargachew Tsege, en brittisk medborgare av etiopiskt ursprung. Photo: Family handout.

Andargachew Tsege var högst upp på listan över dissidenter vars huvuden Adhanom ville ha serverade på ett fat. Adhanoms framförde vid ett möte med jemenitiska ledare, säkerhets- och diplomatiska tjänstemän att Tsege skulle återbördas till Etiopien där ett dödsstraff väntade honom.

De två regimerna, hade hållit minst tre möten på hög nivå tidigare. Men det som gjorde mötet 2014 ”mycket viktigt”, särskilt för en liten krets inom delegationen, var en rå agenda som Adhanom låg bakom. ”De hade vässat sina dolkar med en plan för en politiskt motiverad vendetta mot etiopiska flyktingar i Jemen.”

Planen var att Jemenitisk säkerhetstjänst förutom Tsege skulle fånga in dissidenter som flydde till Jemen för att söka asyl, och istället kidnappa dem och återföra dem till Etiopien, detta enligt två före detta jemenitiska säkerhetsagenter.

Som chef för kidnappningsdelegationen ledde Tedros Adhanom förhandlingarna med den före detta jemenitiska utrikesministern Abubeker Al Qirbi och säkerhetsansvariga inklusive general Abdou Hussein al-Tarb. Innan Adhanom flög tillbaka åkte han till presidentpalatset för att diskutera frågan med president Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi. Den 15 maj tweetade Adhanom,

”Vi avslutade just #Jemen #Etiopiens gemensamma ministermöte i # Senea’a [sic]. Tecknade 9 avtal.” (Tweet: Adhanom)

En av källorna som avslöjat kidnappningsplanen är före detta säkerhetsansvarig Ayalew Meshesha, och han säger att Adhanom inte bara var involverad i Tseges kidnappning utan också spelade en aktiv roll i arresteringarna och tvångsöverlämnanden av över 760 dissidenter som flytt till Jemen.
”De flesta av de som fångades in och överlämnades var från Oromostammen och etiopiska somalier som misstänktes tillhöra politiska motståndare som OLF- och ONLF-sympatisörer,” sa Meshesha, som sedan flydde till USA.

”Tedros Adhanom spelade den viktigaste rollen i kidnappningen av Andargachew Tsege. Han var den som övertygade jemeniterna om att medverka i den olagliga kidnappningen och överlämnandet. Han banade vägen och lade grunden för hela operationen,” sa en av källorna på villkor av att få vara anonym.

”Det var en extremt olaglig kidnappning och tvångsförflyttningen strider mot alla nationella och internationella rättsliga normer.”

Ett sexmannateam sammansatt av TPLF:s säkerhetschef Getachew Assefa anlände med en chartrat plan med en stor mängd dollar till jemenitiska säkerhetsmyndigheter, enligt en pålitlig källa. PG7-källor (oppositionellt parti startat av Tsege) uppskattar att cirka nio miljoner dollar betalades för att göra utlämningen till en snabb och problemfri kidnappning.

Samma dag som Tsege kidnappades överlämnade underrättelsekällor information till PG7-ledningen om att Tsege hölls fast i Jemen. Han hade setts fängslad och i förvar av jemenitiska agenter på Sana’a International Airport. Han hade setts argumenterande och hävdande sin rätt att möta officerare från brittiska konsulatet. Hans begäran avslogs och han fördes till en okänd plats – fortfarande i handbojor och i fängslat förvar.

En räddningsinsats startade omedelbart – men brittiska och PG7-ansträngningar var chanslösa. De jemenitiska tjänstemännen förnekade först all inblandning. Sedan började de försäkra brittiska representanter om att Tsege var säker i deras förvar. ”Han kommer inte att lämnas över till Etiopien. Han kommer att sättas fri,” försäkrade de.

I verkligheten visade det sig att Jemen redan hade överlämnat honom till TPLF:s säkerhets- och underrättelsetjänstemän trots att han stod inför dödsstraff. Det chartrade planet hade redan återvänt till Etiopien påföljande dag.

Kidnappningen av Tsege var en uppgjord och avslutad affär. Den hade förhandlats fram fem veckor tidigare av Adhanom och Jemenitiska tjänstemän. Det fanns ingen tid kvar och ingen möjlighet att förändra utgången eller att vända situationen. Inom 48 timmar avslutades kidnappningsuppdraget.

Tsege hade spelat en aktiv roll under studentrörelsen på 1970-talet och var välkänd som förkämpe för allas lika rätt och värde. Efter att ha överlevt kampen för demokrati, sökte han asyl i Storbritannien 1979. År 1991 ledde omfattande krav på demokrati till förändringar och han bjöds in till Etiopien och gick med i den nya övergångsregeringen placerad i Addis Abeba. När TPLF bröt sina löften om en demokratisk förändring och införde en brutal minoritetsregim som tog till våldsamma övergrepp, lämnade han övergångsregeringen och började kämpa för en verklig demokratisk övergång. Under valet 2005 hade Tsege fått förnyat hopp om ännu en förändring som skulle kunna leda till ökad rättvisa och frihet för alla.

Tyvärr blev det hoppet krossat när TPLF riggade valet för att vända sina spektakulära nederlag och satte in brutala styrkor för att krossa den länge hållna drömmen om att etiopier skulle kunna skapa sitt eget öde. I sin bok ”En befriare som inte är medveten om frihet”, som han publicerade 1997, förkastade han TPLF: s splittrings- och härskarpolitik och försökte visa upp farorna med dess fascistiska och stalinistiska ideologi. Han hade varnat för att TPLF, beväpnad med dess etnofascistiska [etnologisk rasism]  ideologi, utgjorde en fara för Etiopien som nation och dess medborgare.

TPLF anklagade istället Tsege för att vara en terrorist. Två gånger, den 22 december 2009 och den 7 november 2013, dömde TPLF: s Kangaroo-domstolar, som är ökända för att vara rättviserötans vapen, honom till döden.

Några dagar efter hans kidnappning blev han skamfullt paraderad på nationell Etiopisk TV.

I en ironisk vridning dök Adhanom upp i juli 2015 och sa till nationen att Tseges kidnappning var motiverad. I motsats till rapporterna hävdade Adhanom att samvetsfången behandlades väl och fick en bärbar dator för att skriva en bok, påståenden som visade sig vara lögner.

Är Tedros Adhanom en terrorist som bedrivit folkmord?

Adhanom är beskylld för att ha begått folkmord på det etiopiska folket.  ”Adhanom gråter bara sina krokodiltårar när han skrävlar om sin ”oro” för världshälsan.””Genom att spendera miljoner dollar som stulits från hungrande etiopier, vilseleder han världen med söta samtal och marscherar till Genève för att leda WHO, som inte tycks veta att det är en antidemokrat som strävar efter bli dess generaldirektör. ” … Eller så är det en sådan tyrann WHO vill ha och behöver för att genomföra sin politik.

Obang Metho, verkställande direktör för solidaritetsrörelsen för ett nytt Etiopien, säger att etiopierna borde ha firat Adhanoms kandidatur om man ansåg honom värdig.

”Men han är inte vår kandidat. Han är en av de korrupta TPLF-brottslingarna vars händer är dränkta av blod från otaliga etiopier. Om WHO ignorerar denna verklighet, kommer de bara att avslöja sitt eget hyckleri och brist på empati i frågor som är viktiga för vanliga människor som blivit utsatta av brottslingar som Adhanom.” 

Adhanom, en välkänd kränkare av mänskliga rättigheter,  han har lyxen av att resa runt om i världen och be regeringar att rösta in honom som generaldirektör för WHO. Samtidigt som de män och kvinnor som han och hans TPLF-grupp håller fångar i tortyrkamrar. Plågade och torterade,  är de i djupaste smärta och förtvivlan. Det är  anledningen till att etiopier runt om i världen protesterar mot Tedros Adhanom, men WHO bryr sig knappast om detta.

I en växande twitterkampanj uttryckte etiopiska aktivister sin protest: ”Mördare kan inte vara helare!” Hittills undviker WHO: s tjänstemän svåra frågor på detta. De är uppenbarligen i en besvärlig position och riskeras att ställas i dålig dager. Det är en mycket komprometterande situation för ett redan ifrågasatt och hårt kritiserat WHO. (Obang Metho)

WHO har en rad skandaler bakom sig som rör korruption. Under svininfluensakampanjen 2009 kom det fram att deras rådgivare var konsulter från läkemedelsföretaget Glaxo Smith & Klein (GSK) som avslöjats och bestraffats i omgångar för korrupta insatser bland annat i Kina. Det ledde till att WHO förlorade bidrag och höll på att gå omkull. Men WHO är en alldeles för viktig institution för att gå förlorad. För vem kan man då undra? Taktiken att göra sig oersättlig ingår i maktens agenda. Under Ahandom genomför WHO våren 2020 en charmoffensiv med underhållning av artister i världsklass och en liten barnbok för att på många språk och över hela världen göra PR för WHO.

Reflektion

Tedros Adhanoms föregångare på platsen som WHOs ordförande var Dr Margaret Chan, från Kinesiska Folkrepubliken, hon satt två sejourer mellan 2006-2017. Hon var således med om Svininfluensaskandalen 2009 då WHO avslöjades för omfattande korruption. Dr Margaret Chan lyckades så småningom återupprätta WHO och hade sannolikt en del att säga till om rörande tillsättning av efterträdare i WHO. Så man kan se Tedros Adhanom som en fortsättning på Kinas maktställning i WHO vilket också kan förklara Trumps kritik av WHO.  Styrkan i WHOs mediekampanjer där Coronaviruset använts för att stärka greppet om jordens länder och befolkning påminner något om hur Tedros Adhanom i Etiopien lade upp strategier och riktlinjer för polisstat och diktatur. Detta virus är jämfört med årliga säsonginfluensor det lindrigaste under de senaste 6 åren ändå har WHO lyckats skrämma upp befolkningen till näst intill panik och förmått stater att införa  karantän och isolering som i praktiken är ett grundskott i världens ekonomier, mänskliga rättigheter och demokratier. Utifrån hälsosynpunkt är det tokiga med karantän att vi faktiskt genom att umgås bygger uppe en flockimmunitet. Genom denna karantän sänks istället immuniteten och utsätter oss för värre smittorisker. Nästa steg i strategin är tvångsvaccination.

Tedros Adhanom lärde sig hur man styr med rädslans som vapen nu har hela världen fått känna på det.

Börje Peratt

Källor

1) Originalartikel Ethiopia: Tedros Adhanom played a key role in kidnapping of prominent dissident

2) The Tigrayan People’s Liberation Front (TPLF) is a political party in Tigray, Ethiopia that has been listed as a perpetrator in the Global Terrorism Database, based on ten incidents occurring between 1976 and 1990 (see GTD link).
TRAC Analysis: Ideology, ”Separatist / New Regime Nationalist / Ethnic Nationalist” href=”https://www.trackingterrorism.org/article/separatist-new-regime-nationalist-ethnic-nationalist”>Separatist / New Regime Nationalist / Ethnic Nationalist, Left Wing Terrorist Groups (Maoist, Marxist, Communist, Socialist)
TRAC Analysis: Tactics ”Attacks on Soft Targets” href=”https://www.trackingterrorism.org/article/attacks-soft-targets”>Attacks on Soft Targets, Assassinations as a Terrorist Tactic

 

Anklagelserna mot Trump visar amerikanska tjänstemän från deras bästa sida och Trumps följe från deras värsta

Fiona Hill, presidentrådgivare under Trump, bestrider Trumps konspirationsteori om häxjakt – och framstår som en hjältinna för våra tider.

Artikel med utgångspunkt från The Guardian, Robert Reich [1], 24 nov 2019
Trump’s impeachment shows US officials at their best and his allies at their worst

Översatt av Börje Peratt

Donald Trump sa som kandidat 2015 sa att han skulle omge sig ”bara med de bästa och mest seriösa människorna”. Verkligheten avslöjar att så blev inte fallet med undantag som Fiona Hill.

Den 15 november konstaterades Trumps mångårige vän Roger Stone skyldig till att ha ljugit inför kongressen, ha manipulerat ett vittne och hindrat en kongressutredning om rysk inblandning i valet 2016. Han dömdes till 50 års fängelse.

Stone är bara den senaste av en lång rad Trumpagitatorer som kommer att hamna i fängelse.

I slutet av förra året dömdes Trumps personliga advokat och ”fixare” Michael Cohen för flera brott inklusive kränkningar av kampanjfinansiering i samband med betalningar till en porrstjärna. Han är nu bakom lås och bom.

Trumps tidigare kampanjordförande Paul Manafort sitter också i fängelse. Trumps tidigare nationella säkerhetsrådgivare, Michael Flynn, och vice kampanjordförande, Rick Gates, kommer att dömas i december. Trumps tidigare utrikespolitisk rådgivare George Papadopolous har redan tjänat tid i fängelse.

Den här listan inkluderar inte ens Rudy Giuliani som har åtagit sig att att pressa Ukraina för att undersöka Joe Biden och hans son, inklusive Lev Parnas och Igor Fruman, som båda nyligen arresterades för felaktiga kampanjfinansieringsavgifter.

För att inte nämna Trumps seniorrådgivare Stephen Miller, vars publicerade e-postmeddelanden avslöjar en rasistisk nationalists snedvrängda sinne.

Utanför detta står män och kvinnor som har utmärkt sig för hög moral och professionalism i offentlig tjänstgöring … men där Trump och hans följe attackerar dem för att de säger sanningen.

Trump har i sin när krets inte omgivit sig med de bästa och seriösaste och alltför ofta med de värsta och farligaste: ligister, lögnare och vita supremacister.

Och trots detta har under de senaste veckorna allt fler tjänstemän i Trump-administrationen visat sig vara bland de bästa och mest hederliga offentliga anställda i Amerika, även om Trump inte ser dem på det sättet.

Det gäller tjänstemän med en lång karriär och som tjänat under flera presidenter som nu har ställts inför Kongressens underrättelsekommittén (The House intelligence committee / United States House of Representatives) och med värdighet och återhållsamhet bekräftat Trumps maktmisbruk.

Lt. Alexander Alexander Vindman förklarade att han av en pliktkänsla kände sig tvingad att rapportera Trumps telefonsamtal den 25 juli som syftade till att med hot och mutor påverka den ukrainska presidenten Volodymyr Zelenskiys att ”gräva upp smuts på Biden,”

Eftersom det var olämpligt för USAs president att kräva att en utländsk regeringen utreder en amerikansk medborgare och politisk motståndare” (Lt. Alexander Alexander Vindman inför Kongressen).

Efter att ha hänvisat till sin ”lagliga och moraliska skyldighet” att uppträda inför kongressen, beskrev Nationalsäkerhetsrådets officiella chef Fiona Hill, hur Trumps team genomförde ett ”inrikespolitiskt ärende” som hjälpte Ryssland och hon hade varnat för att republikanerna spelade Ryssland i händerna genom att förneka deras roll i valet 2016. Ryssland försöker ”just nu” att blanda sig i valkampanjen 2020, sade hon, och ”vi har slut på tid att stoppa dem”.

Tidigare ambassadören i Ukraina, Marie Yovanovitch, talade om ”en kris i statsledningen eftersom politiken är synlig och kommer att avslöjas”. Tjänstemän verksamma i utlandet såsom Jennifer Williams och George Kent och tillförordnad ambassadör i Ukraina, William B Taylor uttryckte liknande oro.

Alla dessa män och kvinnor har utmärkta rekommendationer över sin offentliga tjänstgöring. Vissa är högt dekorerade militära officerare. När de träder fram och avslöjar landets president har de visat anmärkningsvärt mod och patriotism.

Med kännedom om Trumps karaktär och hans följes underdånighet så är det kanske ändå inte så konstigt att höra hur illa de kritiserar dessa modiga tjänstemän.

Under Yovanovitchs vittnesbörd twittrade Trump att ”överallt dit Marie Yovanovitch kom gick det dålig” och anklagade henne för ett inbördeskrig i Somalia som började innan hon ens blev placerad där.

När Vindman vittnade, twittrade Vita huset att hans tidigare chef varit oroad över Vindmans omdöme.

Den republikanska senatorn Ron Johnson sa att Vindman ”passar profilen” av ”byråkrater” som ”aldrig har accepterat president Trump som legitim”. Fox News anklagade honom för att ha ”dubbla lojaliteter” och begått ”spionage” för att han med sin familj flydde Ukraina när han var tre år gammal.

Redan innan hon dök upp kallade Trump Williams en ”Never Trumper” som borde utföra en ”bättre presidentattack!” Hon hade knappt lämnat hörsalen när Vita huset utfärdade ett uttalande som utmanade hennes trovärdighet.

Kontrasten kunde inte vara starkare. På ena sidan finns hängivna offentliga anställda som försöker skydda Amerika. På andra sidan har vi Trump och hans ligister som försöker skydda Trump.

”Några vänliga råd från en republikan: Demokraterna bör inte flytta för långt till vänster.”

De som sätter lojaliteten till Trump över sin skyldighet gentemot USA är föraktliga. Även om de inte hamnar i fängelse som andra Trump-smilfinkar, har de vanärat sig själva och nationen.

Men de som har ägnat sina liv åt detta land och som nu riskerar allt genom att säga sanningen är bland USAs bästa. De förtjänar vår djupaste tacksamhet.

För mig sa Vindmans öppningsförklaring allt då han riktade sig till sin egen far.

Pappa, mitt framträdande här i dag, i den amerikanska huvudstaden då jag ska prata med våra valda företrädare, är ett bevis på att du fattade rätt beslut för 40 år sedan då du lämnade Sovjetunionen och kom hit till Amerikas förenta stater på jakt efter ett bättre liv för vår familj. Oroa dig inte – jag kommer att klara av det bra och säga sanningen.”

Robert Reich
före detta amerikansk statssekreterare, professor i offentlig politik vid University of California i Berkeley och författaren till Saving Capitalism: For the Many, Not the Few and The Common Good.
Han skriver också för Guardian US

Jamal Khashoggi: Saudiarabisk journalist styckmördad på Saudiska konsulatet i Istanbul

Den amerikanska journalisten Jamal Khashoggi sägs ha dött inom två timmar efter att han kom in i det saudiska konsulatet i Istanbul

Journalisten Jamal Khashoggi besökte saudiska konsulatet i Istanbul i akt och mening att få nödvändiga papper för att kunna gifta sig med din trolovade. Två timmar senare dödades och styckades han med en såg i bästa ”Pulp Fiction”-stil

Den turkiska tidning Sabah, har avslöjat identiteterna hos en ”mystisk” 15-medlems ”dödspatrull” som anses vara involverad i Jamal Khashoggi försvinnande. En turkisk regeringsutgåva har publicerat bilder på 15 saudier som anlände till Istanbul i två privata jets den dag journalisten försvann.

Turkiska myndigheter tror att Khashoggi mördades på order från ”högsta nivå av kungliga domstolen” i Riyadh, enligt New York Times som hänvisar till en högre turkisk tjänsteman.

Den amerikanskbaserade journalisten Khashoggi 58, som har varit kritisk mot saudisk regim, anses ha mördats inom två timmar efter att ha gått in i byggnaden för att sedan transporteras därifrån.
Turkisk kanal NTV visar hur en stor skåpbil anländer till generalkonsulns bostad två timmar efter att Khashoggi kommit in i konsulatet.

Khashoggi lämnade Saudiarabien i september 2017 och gick i exil. Han beskyllde den saudiarabiska regeringen för brott mot tryckfriheten och skrev från USA kritiska tidningsartiklar mot den saudiska regeringen, mot Saudiarabiens kronprins, Mohammad bin Salman och landets kung Salman. Khashoggi kritiserade också arresteringen av kvinnors rättigheter aktivisten Loujain al-Hathloul i maj 2018.

Tidslinje
Den 2 oktober 2018 gick Khashoggi in i Saudiarabiens konsulat i Istanbul för att erhålla handlingar relaterade till hans äktenskap. Han lämnade aldrig byggnaden och förklarades därefter som en saknad person. Anonyma turkiska poliskällor påstod tidigt att han mördades och styckades i konsulatet. Den Saudiarabiska regeringen hävdade att Khashoggi lämnade konsulatet vid liv genom en bakre ingång, men detta motsades av turkiska polisens bevis. Den 15 oktober genomfördes en inspektion av konsulatet, av Saudiarabien, åtföljda av turkiska tjänstemän. Turkiska tjänstemän fann bevis på att saudierna ”manipulerat” inspektionen, och bevis som stödde antagandet om att ​​Khashoggi dödades.

Vad kan man då höra i ljudfilerna? Ja, enligt källorna kan man höra allt.

Uppgifter i nyhetskanalen Al Jazeera rapporterar att Saudiarabiens rättsmedicinalverks chef Muhammed Tubaigy hade med sig en stycksåg, och bad sina mördarkolleger att lyssna på musik medan de gjorde “jobbet”.

Det ska ha tagit sju minuter att ta livet av Jamal Khashoggi. Enligt de här uppgifterna injicerades han med gift- eller sömnmedel, dödades och styckades. Konsuln påstås alltså också ha varit i rummet när den kände journalisten dödades.

Den 17 oktober offentliggjorde Daily Sabah namnen och fotografierna av en 15-medlems saudisk dödsgrupp rest till Istanbul i privata jetflyg från Saudiarabien.

Saudiarabiska ledare, inklusive kronprins Mohammad bin Salman, har förnekat att Khashoggi dog i konsulatet och insisterat på att han lämnade strax efter att han anlände. Efter att ha överbevisats om motsatsen har man ändrat det till att det varit skurkar som dödat Khashoggi och att varken prinsar eller kungar eller tjänstemän varit inblandade. Efter ljudbevis om tortyr erkänner man att det varit ett förhör som gått snett och att Khashoggi dödats av misstag. Det framgår inte om han också har styckats av misstag. En av de 15 i dödspatrullen var styckmästare och enligt turkisk källa med för att hjälpa till att skingra kroppen.

Slutsats
Med tanke på hur det hela gått till talar allt för att saudierna fått information om att Khashoggi var på väg till Istanbul och konsulatet där och omedelbart iscensatt dödspatrullen. Journalisten Khashoggis öde var således redan beseglat så fort han satte foten innanför konsulatets dörr.

Turkiska myndigheter har nu med viss förvåning åsett Trumpadministrationens valhänta hantering. Trump borde enligt inhemska politiker agera starkt kritiskt och införa hårda sanktioner men i själva verket förhalar Trump reaktionen och kommer antagligen att prata om ”vännerna i Saudiarabien” och deras betydelse för världshandeln. Det är mycket pengar som står på spel och Saudierna importerar vapen för miljarder från USA.

Vi vet att Trump basunerar ut med tveeggad tunga. Först att de som mördat Khashoggi ska straffas hårt och sedan gör han något helt annat. Ingen ljuger så bra som Trump. Och journalister har enligt Trump inte varit samhällets vänner.

Börje Peratt

US going down the drain!


The indigenous peoples of America found themselves locked in prisonlike reservation. The African people found them selves kidnapped to slavery. The Gun policy in US has led to a world record of murder and schoolshooting. Now Trump want the teacher to join the insanity. This Amerika first and make amerika great is going down the drain. So untill you wake up you will find yourself digged into an anti human nest of humiliation that already is in US history and tradition.

And history repeat it self. In Nazi koncentration camps children were separated from their parents. We see the same thing happening on the Mexican boarder. Allthough it doesn’t lead to killing parents and children separately it creats a dreadful trauma.
Trump talks about people being killed by alliens but he doesn´t specify any of them. This is the way of a psykopath never accept being critizaed for wrongdoing and ending up with lies.

/BP

USAs ambassad i Jerusalem – Trump firar dagen med 58 döda palestinier

Journalisten Yaser Murtaja mördades av israelisk krypskytt vid bevakningen av protesterna mot Trumps flytt av USAs ambassad till Jerusalem.

Trump har flyttat USAs ambassad till Jerusalem. Den 14 maj 2018 blir ännu en svart dag i denna kris. Priset hitintills är 58 döda palestinier och uppemot 2500 skadade. Över 1500 av dem skjutna med skarpa skott av israelisk militär.

Detta bildspel kräver JavaScript.

När Trump gjorde sin resa till Mellanöstern och träffade Palestinska representanter utgav han sig för att vara en fredsängel. Palestinierna var med rätta skeptiska (AB). Trump är känd som en patologisk lögnare (Politifacts).

Trump brukar ju också diktera sina framgångar på Twitter. Han har nu förmått 18 republikaner att nominera honom till Nobels fredspris.

Han tar åt sig äran av att Nordkorea nu nedrustar när det i själva verket är Olympiska kommittén och Sydkorea som skapade en möjlighet till nytt fredligt klimat genom att Sydkorea samordnade med Nordkorea och ställde upp i flera tävlingar under gemensam flagg.

Trumps hotstrategi har inget med detta att göra. Nordkorea har nått fram med sina budskap och skapat ett förhandlingsläge som legat till grund för den sköra utveckling mot förening på Koreahalvön vi nu sett. Trumps twittertourette och klumpighet kan mycket väl rasera detta.

Trump är en krigshetsare och vapengalning som ser till att gynna vapenindustrin. Han säger sig kunna stå på en gata och skjuta ner folk utan att förlora sina sympatisörer, The Guardian. Detta är i sanning en tragisk usling som smutsat ned Vita Huset. Hur länge ska världen dras med eländet. Jag finner det osannolikt att han sitter hela mandatperioden. Det måste finnas en moralisk gräns även i USA.

Börje Peratt

Trump krigshetsar – Vapenindustrins aktier rusar


Donald Trump löser allt med hot och när det gäller att bryta Iranavtalet, som kontrollerar att Iran inte kan färdigställa kärnvapen, förvandlas hoten till självmord. Från krig till ekonomiskt kaos.

Men Trump gör inget utan att vinna själv på det. Och han anser sig sitta säker i sadeln. Han kan enligt egen utsago begå mord och ha sina följare kvar. LÄNK

Att dra sig ur Iranavtalet är kontraproduktivt för alla utom vapenleverantörerna och oljeindustrin. De vinner på den konflikt som redan är ett faktum och kommer att leda till än mer upprustning i Mellanöstern.

Trumps Iranbesked – riskerar urarta till krig skriver Dagens Industri.

”Det finns absolut en stor risk för det. Nu har vi inte längre en president i Vita huset som håller tillbaka israelerna. Jokern i det här spelet är att konflikten mellan Iran och Israel trappas upp. Om sanktionerna dessutom återinförs kommer hökarna på bägge sidor bli starkare och aggressivare. Så det här är en väldigt explosiv situation”, säger Robert McNally, tidigare rådgivare i Vita huset, till Di.

Redan dagen efter att Trump gick ut med budskapet att straffa alla som eventuellt vill bibehålla avtalet genomförde Israel en omfattande attack med flyg och missiler in i Syrien riktade mot Iranska trupper och dödade och skadade ett stort antal iranska och syriska soldater.

Samtidigt rusar vapenföretagens aktier genom taket. Trump stöder vapenlobbyn. [1]

Jag skulle kunna skjuta ned någon på gatan och ändå inte förlora mina väljare. (Donald Trump)

– Rätten att bära vapen är under attack i USA i dag men så länge jag är er president behöver ni inte oroa er, sa president Trump inför jublande åskådare. [2]

Trumps politik skadar alla utom aktieägare i vapen- och oljeindustrin

Skulle Trump välja att genomföra sanktionerna mot Iran väntas också reaktionen på aktiemarknaden bli ännu kraftigare.

”Skulle han gå den vägen får vi säkert ett oljepris på 90 dollar. För det finns ingen rimlig lösning i det scenariot”, säger Martin Jansson till Dagens Industri.

Frågan är om resten av världen kan stå emot Trump och visa att vi inte längre är beroende av USA som världspolis. Framför allt inte under en vapengalning som president.

Börje Peratt

1) The 5 Best Defense Stocks to Buy On Trump’s Arms Deal (NOC, ESL, TDG, COL, CW)
Russia may supply Syria with new weapons, likely alarming Israel
5 Defense Stocks to Buy as Syria Tensions Flare Up

2) Vapenlobbyn National Rifle Association (NRA) ger stora donationer till framför allt republikanska politiker, och var den organisation som gav störst stöd till Donald Trump under presidentvalskampanjen.