Thread by @themarketswork

1) New from @HansMahncke & myself

NIH Gain-of-Function Statement on EcoHealth, Wuhan Lab, Inadvertently Reveals Cover-Up
theepochtimes.com/nih-gain-of-fu…

2) EcoHealth failed to provide NIH w/contractually obligated 2019 fifth-year report until this month.

But EcoHealth’s 2018 report should have immediately alerted NIH that agency money was being used to create coronaviruses that were far more pathogenic than the original viruses.

3) The 2018 disclosures by EcoHealth highlight two problems:

1) EcoHealth had already violated the terms of its grant.

2) The fact that EcoHealth made the NIH aware of the results of its gain-of-function experiments in 2018, placed an inherent oversight requirement on NIH.

4) EcoHealth’s failure to submit a fifth-year progress report was only after @theintercept sued the NIH for documents relating to EcoHealth.

If not for the alarms raised by The Intercept, it’s likely that EcoHealth’s fifth-year progress report would remain unsubmitted.

5) The missing report detailed tests w/ a lab-created virus that exhibited high lethality on humanized mice.

According to Daszak’s belatedly submitted fifth-year progress report, 75 percent of the humanized mice that were infected with the virus died.

6) At exactly the same time that NIH was making its gain-of-function admission, they quietly redefined what constituted gain-of-function experiments.

NIH narrowed its definition to focus only on known & established human transmission, instead of any potential dangers to humans.

7) On the same day that NIH's Tabak’s Gain-of-Function admission was sent to Congress, the NIH published a separate statement claiming that none of the work it had funded in Wuhan through EcoHealth could have led to the creation of COVID-19.

8) But the NIH failed to disclose that it simply isn’t possible to know what viruses were being studied by EcoHealth and the lab in Wuhan.

9) The Wuhan Institute deleted its database of viral samples in September 2019; the database remains missing.

In addition, Peter Daszak, the Institute’s longtime collaborator, has admitted to holding a large number of undisclosed viruses.

10) The NIH also failed to acknowledge the existence of a blueprint for the creation of a COVID-19-like virus - EcoHealth's 2018 proposal.

11) That proposal detailed plans to create new coronaviruses through synthetic combination of preexisting virus backbones.

Those viruses were going to be made more virulent in humans by insertion of a furin cleavage site, a feature that distinguishes COVID-19.

12) The furin cleavage site is the key to COVID-19’s pathogenicity in humans.

Notably, the director of the Wuhan Institute of Virology, Shi Zhengli, left out any mention of COVID-19’s furin cleavage site when she first described the COVID-19 virus.

13) NIH knew that EcoHealth and the Wuhan Institute had conducted gain-of-function experiments - in China - that resulted in highly pathogenic viruses, and failed to hold EcoHealth accountable for requirements that NIH itself had imposed.

/END