There is more evidence for the lab release origin of Covid-19, which has just surfaced. Emily Kopp from the non-profit public health research group The US Right to Know, just obtained details about the "Defuse" proposal. Kopp found evidence that the "Defuse" proposal, a proposed research grant on "Defusing the Threat of Bat-borne Coronaviruses," was led by the US EcoHealth Alliance, in cooperation with the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIH) and others to the sum of $14,209,245. This was apparently a blue print of how to create Covid-19 from gain-of-function genetic engineering. According to Covid writer Kevin McKernan, "This is a case-closed event! There is no more debate. C19 [COVID-19] was made in a lab. Which lab and when is still a hot topic." "Now that we know it is lab-made, the next question is by who, when and how was it disseminated? Was it a simple employee infection or something more deliberate and nefarious?"
But Koff believes that ground zero of the Covid infection was from the Wuhan Institute of Virology: "It was meant to mislead the U.S. government into thinking that the research would be more safe than it really was and they in fact intended to do it in Wuhan at a lower biosafety level in which respirator masks are not required and ventilation conditions are not as rigorous, essentially to save on costs," she further revealed. "But they wanted to make the grantmakers 'more comfortable' so they misled them in their grant application.""
Slowly, painfully the truth about the Covid plandemic is being uncovered in the detective story of the century.
https://www.naturalnews.com/2024-02-05-covid19-genetically-engineered-in-lab-as-bioweapon.html
"After more than three years, yet another piece of incontrovertible incriminating evidence has come out proving that the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) was created in a laboratory and not "from a pangolin courting a bat."
Emily Kopp from the nonprofit public health research group The US Right to Know just obtained additional details about the "Defuse" proposal that is "far more than a smoking gun. In fact, it is more analogous to finding the gun, fingerprint and confession note in one place, writer Kevin McKernan, who goes by the name Anandamide on Substack, wrote.
According to McKernan, Kopp found evidence that the said proposal on "Defusing the Threat of Bat-borne Coronaviruses" led by the EcoHealth Alliance, in cooperation with the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIH) and others, requesting $14,209,245, listed the very restriction enzyme (BsmBI) that molecular immunologist Valentin Bruttel and his co-authors claimed could build the virus in "Endonuclease Fingerprint indicates a synthetic origin of SARS-CoV-2." Not only did Bruttel et al. notice that BsmBI sites were conveniently evenly spaced throughout the viral genome and this spacing was not only not observed in other coronaviruses, but that this approach made complete sense as a logical path to manually assembling the genome. The said proposal was reported to actually contain NEB R0580S part numbers to order these very enzymes to construct the virus in the manner Bruttel et al. predicted.
"This is a case-closed event! There is no more debate. C19 [COVID-19] was made in a lab. Which lab and when is still a hot topic," McKernan said in his newsletter dated Jan. 19. He also cited a thread on X, formerly Twitter, where Nick Hudson, chairman of Panda, a multidisciplinary organization with a mission to uphold open science, summed up the real story with the most clarity.
"Congrats to Bruttel et al. You have been vindicated and hopefully, your work manifests in some accountability for this cover-up. Now that we know it is lab-made, the next question is by who, when and how was it disseminated? Was it a simple employee infection or something more deliberate and nefarious?" McKernan said as part of his conclusion.
And for those asking if viruses can spread around the world, he said yes, they can and they do every year with traditional coronaviruses. "They spread very well COVID-19 may have happened six months before December 2019. The synchronicity reported by Rancourt et al. is merely the qPCR pipeline being turned on to find it everywhere once pandemic declarations demanded everyone pay attention to it. The jurisdictional segregation of PCR positivity could be the result of many iatrogenic confounders from testing frequency to hospital protocols."
Fauci met with Wuhan GOF scientist in 2017
In the Hill's "Rising," it was reported that the scientist at the center of the lab leak, WIH Senior Scientist Shi Zhengli passed a security screening to visit the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) staffers, including its Director Dr. Anthony Fauci and EcoHealth Alliance's Dr. Peter Daszak back in June 2017. Zhengli gave a presentation about the novel coronaviruses and the meeting was arranged by EcoHealth Alliance, as per Kopp''s report.
Kopp also discussed the most notable takeaway during Fauci's two-day, closed-door testimony at the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic, which included his admission that the lab leak theory is not a conspiracy theory. This contrasts with many of his other public statements as well as some virologists' in the previous years.
"He also said 'I don't recall' 100 times, of course, this follows him saying 'I don't recall' nearly 200 times in another sworn testimony in 2022 before the Attorneys General," Kopp said of the live interview.
She further tackled her report on the grant proposal proposed by the EcoHealth Alliance, an intermediary between the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and WIH to the Pentagon, saying that it intended to do research in the United States under a relatively rigorous biosafety level. However, she said that notes she obtained on earlier drafts showed that this was a lie.
"It was meant to mislead the U.S. government into thinking that the research would be more safe than it really was and they in fact intended to do it in Wuhan at a lower biosafety level in which respirator masks are not required and ventilation conditions are not as rigorous, essentially to save on costs," she further revealed. "But they wanted to make the grantmakers 'more comfortable' so they misled them in their grant application.""