Fauci Exposed Files — Part 1

DECLASSIFIED BY DNI GABBARD ON 18 JUNE 2026

Expert Meeting
Rapid Response for Assessment of Data Needs for 2019-nCoV
Agenda
February 3, 2020
2:00 p.m.–3:00 p.m. (ET)
Keck Center, Room 103
500 5th St NW, Washington, DC 20001
Join from PC, Mac, Linux, iOS or Android: https://nasem.zoom.us/j/777284900
Telephone: +1 646 558 8656
Meeting ID: 777 284 900
International numbers available: https://nasem.zoom.us/u/aA3S9pYwW
Meeting Objective:  Assess what data, information and samples are needed to understand the
evolutionary origins of 2019-nCoV and more effectively respond to the outbreak and resulting
misinformation.
2:00 p.m. Welcome and Introductions  (5 mins )
ANDREW  POPE
Director, Board on Health Sciences Policy
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
2:05 p.m. Statement of Work  (10 mins )
KELVIN  DROEGEMEIER
Director
Office of Science and Technology Policy
D. C HRISTIAN  (“C HRIS”) H ASSELL
Senior Science Advisor
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
2:15 p.m. Perspective from NIH/NIAID (10 mins )
ANTHONY  (“T ONY”) S. F AUCI
Director
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases
National Institutes of Health
1 | P a g e
DECLASSIFIED BY DNI GABBARD ON 18 JUNE 2026

2:25 p.m. Discussion of Meeting Objective (30 mins )
2:55 p.m. Determine Next Steps (5 mins )
3:00 p.m. Adjourn
2 | P a g e

VIROLOGICA SINICA 2016, 31 (2): 160–167
DOI: 10.1007/s12250-016-3730-8
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Assembly of long DNA sequences using a new synthetic
Escherichia coli -yeast shuttle vector
Zheng Hou#, Zheng Zhou#, Zonglin Wang, Gengfu Xiao*
State Key Laboratory of Virology, Wuhan Institute of Virology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Wuhan
430071, China
Synthetic biology is a newly developed field of research focused on designing and rebuilding novel
biomolecular components, circuits, and networks. Synthetic biology can also help understand
biological principles and engineer complex artificial metabolic systems. DNA manipulation on a
large genome-wide scale is an inevitable challenge, but a necessary tool for synthetic biology. To
improve the methods used for the synthesis of long DNA fragments, here we constructed a novel
shuttle vector named pGF  (plasmid Genome Fast) for DNA assembly in vivo. The BAC plasmid
pCC1BAC, which can accommodate large DNA
 molecules, was chosen as the backbone. The
sequence of the yeast artificial chromosome (YAC) regulatory element CEN6-ARS4  was
synthesized and inserted into the plasmid to enable it to replicate in yeast. The selection sequence
HIS3, obtained by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) from the plasmid pBS313, was inserted for
screening. This new synthetic shuttle vector can mediate the transformation-associated
recombination (TAR) assembly of large DNA fragments in yeast, and the assembled products can
be transformed into Escherichia coli  for further amplification. We also conducted in vivo  DNA
assembly using pGF  and yeast homologous recombination
 and constructed a 31-kb long DNA
sequence from the cyanophage PP  genome. Our findings show that this novel shuttle vector would
be a useful tool for efficient genome-scale DNA reconstruction.
KEYWORDS    synthetic biology; DNA fragment assembly; shuttle vector pGF; transformation-
associated recombination (TAR)
INTRODUCTION
Synthetic biology aims to create small artificial biologic-
al circuits and networks, which will benefit the develop-
ment of new biomedical therapeutics, metabolic engin-
eering, and energy supply (Cameron et al., 2014; Khalil
and Collins, 2010). Synthetic biology originates from
and progresses with technological advancements in gene
manipulation (Cameron et al., 2014). Thus, it is obvious
that convenient and effective methods for assemblinglong DNA sequences are necessary tools for this innovat-
ive research field (Merryman and Gibson, 2012).
Following the development of molecular cloning and
PCR, the synthesis of DNA constructs less than 10 kb
became easier. Nowadays, DNA fragments less than 20
kb can be constructed conveniently using SOEing PCR
(splicing by overlap extension PCR) (Hou and Xiao,
2011; Shevchuk et al., 2004). However, a problem fre-
quently encountered in PCR is the introduction of ran-
dom errors during polymerization (Keohavong and
Thilly, 1989), especially during the amplification of long
and complex sequences. In the early 2000s, researchers
built a circular DNA by assembling 500–800 bp seg-
ments using type IIS restriction enzymes (Bsa I and Bbs
I) and DNA ligase (Kodumal et al., 2004). This ligation-
based method had been improved to assemble as many
as six DNA fragments at once. Later, another in vitro
 as-Received: 21 January 2016, Accepted: 17 March 2016,
Published online: 11 April 2016
# These authors contributed equally to this work.
*Correspondence:
Phone: +86-27-87198685, Fax: +86-27-87198685,
Email: xiaogf@wh.iov.cn
ORCID: 0000-0001-9401-235X
160  A PRIL 2016   VOLUME 31   I SSUE  2 © Wuhan Institute of Virology, CAS and Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2016
DECLASSIFIED BY DNI GABBARD ON 18 JUNE 2026

sembly method was developed by Gibson and cowork-
ers (Gibson et al., 2008a), which eliminated the need for
restriction enzyme sites within the DNA fragments.
Small DNA molecules were synthesized with 20–40 bp
overlapping sequences for assembly. First, exonuclease
was used to chew back the 5′ ends, and DNA polymerase
was then used to fill gaps in the annealed products. Fi-
nally, DNA ligase was used to covalently seal the nicks
in the assembly. Based on this method, Gibson further
developed a one-step, isothermal assembly method and
successfully synthesized an entire 16.3-kb long mouse
mitochondrial genome (Gibson et al., 2010b). Another
assembly method reported by Li and Elledge (2007) was
based on in vitro homologous recombination using RecA
recombinase.
The construction of long DNA through homologous
recombination in vivo in yeast (Stemmer et al., 1995) is
an alternative method. This method was first used to lig-
ate DNA fragments with a plasmid vector and was re-
ferred to as transformation-associated recombination
(TAR) by Larionov et al. (1996). Gibson et al. applied
this method to assemble large DNA molecules. Several
large DNA fragments were simultaneously assembled
using a yeast artificial chromosome (YAC) and yielded
the Mycoplasma genitalium genome (Gibson et al.,
2008a; Gibson et al., 2008b). The 1.08-Mb long Myco-
plasmamycoides genome was also chemically synthes-
ized using this method (Gibson et al., 2010a). Unlike the
in vitro assembly methods, TAR-based assembly re-
quires no enzymes and takes advantage of the homolog-
ous recombination pathway in yeast to achieve a seam-
less ligation of the DNA fragments. This method espe-
cially facilitates the assembly of long DNA sequences.
To improve this method, we constructed an E. coli-
yeast shuttle vector for the effective assembly of long
DNA fragments. The YAC regulatory and selection se-
quences were introduced into the BAC plasmid to gener-
ate the novel plasmid named pGF (plasmid Genome
Fast), which can mediate the homologous recombination
reaction, plasmid replication in yeast, and plasmid ampli-
fication in E. coli. This novel shuttle vector derived from
the BAC plasmid can accommodate large DNA mo-
lecules. The assembled plasmids containing the long
DNA sequences can also be easily transformed into E.
coli for large-scale amplification.
Cyanophage PP is widely distributed in freshwater
and may play an important role in freshwater microbial
loops (Zhou et al., 2013). Using our developed shuttle
vector, we assembled 10 DNA fragments from the cyan-
ophage PP genome and produced a ~31-kb long DNA
sequence. Thus, the pGF plasmid was successfully ap-
plied for the synthesis of large DNA molecules. pGF and
the associated TAR assembly method will promote de-
velopment in the field of synthetic biology, includingviral reverse genetics and bacterial metabolic engineer-
ing (Dueber et al., 2009; Lee et al., 2013).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Strains and media
The yeast, Saccharomyces cerevisiae strain VL6–48
(ATCC), which is highly transformable and has HIS3 de-
letions, was used for transformation and in vivo homo-
logous recombination. The yeast strain was cultured in
standard rich medium containing yeast extract, peptone
and dextrose (YEPD) or minimal medium CM with or
without HIS. Medium supplemented with 1 mol/L D-sor-
bitol (Sigma Aldrich, St Louis, MO, USA) was used for
spheroplast transformation. The BAC plasmid CopyCon-
trol™ pCC1BAC™ (Epicentre, Madison, WI, USA),
which can accommodate large DNA fragments, was used
as the vector backbone. YAC plasmid pRS313 (ATCC)
was used as the PCR template to obtain the HIS3 se-
quence. Plasmids were electroporated into the electro-
competent cells of the E. coli strain EPI300 (Epicentre)
and selected using chloramphenicol at a concentration of
25 μg/mL and ampicillin at a concentration of 50 μg/mL.
Isolation of plasmid DNA from yeast or E. coli
Small-scale isolation of supercoiled plasmids from yeast
cells was performed using a TIANprep yeast plasmid
DNA kit (Tiangen, Beijing, China). Briefly, the yeast
cells were lysed by treatment with Lyticase. Proteins
were then precipitated and eliminated, and the plasmids
were further purified by affinity absorption columns. For
large YACs, the circular plasmids from a large volume
of yeast culture were isolated according to the protocol
described by Noskov et al. (2011). Plasmid DNA from
E. coli was isolated from a 5-mL overnight culture using
a Plasmid Miniprep Kit (Omega Bio-tek, Doraville, GA,
USA).
Co-transformation of the DNA fragments into
yeast
To prepare the yeast spheroplast, the cells collected from
4 mL of yeast culture grown overnight were treated with
zymolyase and β-mercaptoethanol to remove the cell
wall. The DNA fragments and vector were then mixed
with the prepared spheroplasts as described previously
(Kouprina and Larionov, 2008). Positive yeast colonies
were selected on histidine-deficient (−His) plates after
incubation at 30 °C for 2–3 days.
Electroporation of E. coli
The purified plasmids were added into 100 μL of com-
petent E. coli cells. After incubation on ice for 5 min, the
cells were gently mixed and transferred into a 0.2 cm
pre-chilled electroporation cuvette and pulsed with 2.5Zheng Hou et al
www.virosin.org APRIL 2016   VOLUME 31  ISSUE 2  161

kV, 25 μF, 200 Ω. The contents of the cuvette were then
transferred into an Eppendorf tube, 1 mL SOB medium
was added and incubated at 37 °C for 1 h while shaking
at 225 rpm. All the recovered cells were then plated on
LB-kanamycin plates.
Construction of the  E. coli -yeast shuttle vector,
pGF
To construct a shuttle plasmid that can replicate both in
yeast and in E. coli cells, the yeast centromere sequence
(CEN) and autonomously replicating sequence (ARS)
were inserted into the BAC plasmid pCC1BAC, which
formed the backbone. The yeast HIS3 gene was also in-
serted to work as a selectable marker in yeast.
The HIS3 selection marker was PCR amplified with
specific primers using plasmid pRS313 as the template.
The CEN6-ARS4 sequence was manually synthesized by
Sangon Biotech Co. Ltd., based on the GenBank plas-
mid sequence with the accession number U03439. The
HIS3 and
CEN6-ARS4 sequences were then ligated and
amplified by overlapping extension PCR. For the first
step, 25 μL of PCR mixture containing 2.5 μL 10×
KOD-Plus buffer, 2.5 μL 2 mmol/L dNTPs, 1.25 μL 25
mmol/L MgSO4, 0.5 μL KOD-Plus polymerase, 1.5 μL
HIS3, and 1.5 μL CEN6-ARS4 templates was used
without primers. The PCR conditions were as follows:
94 °C for 2 min, followed by 35 cycles of 94 °C for 15 s,
55 °C for 25 s, and 68 °C for 2 min, and a final incuba-
tion at 68 °C for 5 min. For the second round of PCR, the
products obtained from the first round were used as the
template and the primer pairs were designed to contain 5′
end overlapping sequences with ends of Afe I-linearized
pCC1BAC. The PCR mixture (25 μL) contained 2.5 μL
10× KOD-Plus buffer, 2.5 μL 2 mmol/L dNTPs, 1.25 μL
25 mmol/L MgSO4, 0.5 μL KOD-Plus polymerase, 1 μL
template, and 1 μL of each primer. The PCR conditions
were as follows: 94 °C for 2 min, followed by 28 cycles
of 94 °C for 15 s, 58 °C for 25 s, and 68 °C for 2 min,
and a final incubation at 68 °C for 5 min. The
pCC1BAC
plasmid was linearized with the restriction endonuclease
Afe I, dephosphorylated using alkaline phosphatase
FastAP (Thermofisher), purified, and then recovered us-
ing the E.Z.N.A. Gel Extraction Kit (Omega).
The CEN6-ARS4-HIS3 sequence and the linearized
pCC1BAC plasmid were co-transformed into yeast
VL6–48 spheroplasts. The positive homologous recom-
binants were selected on −His plates after incubation at
30 °C for 2–3 days. After streaking in selective media,
colonies were cultured in 5 mL −His medium and the
plasmids were mini-prepared. The constructed novel
shuttle plasmid was verified by sequencing and named as
pGF (plasmid Genome Fast).Preparation of the assembly vector and
cyanophage PP fragments
The shuttle plasmid
pGF was then used for the prepara-
tion of the assembly vector. This vector was PCR ampli-
fied using primers containing an approximate 20 bp
overlap with ends of the
BamH I-linearized vector and a
40–60 bp overlap with the target DNA fragments. A
rare-cutting restriction site Not I (5'-GCGGCCGC-3')
was additionally added in the middle of the primers for
the easy release of the assembled products from the cir-
cular plasmids.
The DNA fragments used for the assembly were amp-
lified by PCR using the cyanophage PP
 genome as the
template (Zhou et al., 2013). Each assembly unit of the
DNA fragments (A1, A2, A3, A4, B1, B2, B3, B4 and
C1 of ~3 kb each and C2 of ~4 kb) was amplified with
specific primers containing 40–60 bp overlapping se-
quences with the adjacent fragments (as listed in Supple-
mentary Table S1). The PCR products were then separ-
ated using 0.6% agarose gel electrophoresis and purified
using the E.Z.N.A. Gel Extraction Kit (Omega).
The DNA fragments and pGF vector were co-trans-
formed into yeast VL6–48 spheroplasts to achieve as-
sembly of the long DNA sequence. The positive colon-
ies were selected on −His plates after incubation at 30 °C
for 2–3 days.
Restriction digestion and PCR analysis of the
assembled long DNA sequences
Since the rare-cutting restriction site Not I was intro-
duced in the linearized pGF shuttle plasmid, the as-
sembled intermediates or the full 31-kb DNA sequence
could be released by Not I digestion. EcoR I, which also
exist as the unique restriction site in pGF and the as-
sembly products, could be used to linearize the circular
plasmid for determining the length of the synthetic DNA
sequences.
The assembled plasmids were isolated from the yeasts
or E. coli cells as described before. PCR analyses were
performed using the 2× Taq PCR MasterMix kit with the
specific pairs of primers (as listed in the Supplementary
material) designed to amplify all the initial DNA frag-
ments or the sequences across the neighboring DNA
fragments. The PCR mixture (10 μL) contained 1 μL ex-
tracted DNA, 1 μL each of the forward and reverse
primers, and 5 μL 2× Taq PCR mixture. The PCR condi-
tions were as follows: 94 °C for 2 min, followed by 32
cycles of 98 °C for 15 s, 58 °C for 30 s, and 72 °C for 1
min, and a final incubation at 72 °C for 5 min. The PCR
products were loaded on 1% agarose gels and the gels
were run at 100 V for 30 min.DNA assembly using synthetic E. coli-yeast shuttle vector
162  A PRIL 2016   VOLUME 31   I SSUE  2
  VIROLOGICA SINICA

RESULTS
Construction of the shuttle plasmid  pGF
As shown in Figure 1, the shuttle plasmid was construc-
ted based on the BAC plasmid pCC1BAC and YAC plas-
mid pRS313. pCC1BAC normally replicates as a single
copy under the regulation of the F-factor, and SopA, B,
and C are all important for plasmid partitioning during
cell division in E. coli. When an inducer is added, the
number of plasmid copies could be increased to 10–20 in
the EPI300 strain under the control of oriV. Besides, the
phage COS
 sequence in the plasmid enables it to accom-
modate large-size DNA sequences. The YAC plasmidpRS313 contains CEN6 and the ARS associated with
HIS3 elements. The yeast centromere CEN6 and the
autonomous replicating sequence ARS enable the plas-
mid to replicate in yeast cells, while the
HIS3 is a select-
able marker for positive colony screening. The yeast reg-
ulatory component CEN6-ARS4 and the HIS3 sequences
were introduced into the appropriate sites of pCC1BAC.
This novel synthetic plasmid can mediate the homolog-
ous recombination of DNA fragments and stably main-
tain the assembled plasmids in the yeast. Further, the as-
sembled plasmids purified from the yeast cells could be
transformed into E. coli for amplification.
To construct the shuttle plasmid pGF described above,
Figure 1. The construction of pGF shuttle plasmid used for in vivo TAR assembly of DNA fragments. The BAC plasmid
pCC1BAC used as the backbone allows the replication of the assembled DNA in E. coli for amplification. CEN6-ARS4
and HIS3 sequences introduced at the Afe I sites of pCC1BAC allow the propagation of plasmids and positive colony
selection in yeast.Zheng Hou et al
www.virosin.org APRIL 2016   VOLUME 31  ISSUE 2  163

the CEN6-ARS4 and HIS3 sequences were inserted into
the Afe I site of the BAC plasmid pCC1BAC. Specific-
ally, the HIS3 sequence (~1.5 kb) was PCR amplified
from the YAC plasmid pRS313, and the
CEN6-ARS4 se-
quence (~0.5 kb) was obtained by DNA synthesis based
on the GenBank sequence with the accession number
U03439. These two sequences were tandemly linked by
overlapping extension PCR to generate the CEN6-ARS4-
HIS3 sequence (~2 kb). Then, the CEN6-ARS4-HIS3 se-
quence was co-transformed with the Afe I-linearized
pCC1BAC vector (~8 kb) into yeast and ligated by TAR
homologous recombination. The positive colonies were
selected and plasmids were isolated and sequenced. The
successful assembly of the pGF vector (~10 kb) by TAR
cloning indicated that this in vivo homologous recombin-
ation system in yeast could effectively ligate the DNA
fragments into the vector with the 5′ end overlapping se-
quences.
Assembly of the 31-kb long DNA from the
cyanophage PP genome
Figure 2 shows the flowchart for the assembly of 10
cy-
anophage PP DNA fragments into a ~31-kb DNA mo-
lecule. In the first step, the DNA fragments of Part A
(A1, A2, A3 and A4, each of ~3 kb), Part B (B1, B2, B3
and B4, each of ~3 kb), or Part C (C1 of ~3 kb and C2 of
~4 kb) with the
pGF vector were co-transformed into
yeast. The neighboring fragments with overlapping ends
could be ligated together by homologous recombination
to generate pGF-Part A, Part B, or Part C, respectively.
These plasmids were then digested by Not I so that the
three intermediates Part A, Part B, and Part C could be
released and recovered by agarose gel separation and ex-
traction. Next, the assembled intermediates Part A (~12
kb), Part B (~12 kb) and Part C (~7 kb) with the vector
pGF (~10 kb) were co-transformed into yeast cells and
further assembled to form the 31-kb long DNA se-
quence.
According to the homologous recombination strategy,
the pGF vector and the cyanophage PP DNA fragments
should be prepared by PCR amplification to add the spe-
cific overlapping ends. The 5′ ends of the primers were
designed to contain 20–40 bp extension sequences ho-
mologous to the neighboring fragments. A rare-cutting
restriction site Not I (5'-GCGGCCGC-3') adjacent to the
overlaps needed to be added to the primers for the ampli-
fication of the pGF vector for the convenient release of
the assembly products. The products of PCR amplifica-
tion of the pGF vector performed using high fidelity
polymerase were exhibited as the main electrophoresis
bands approximately 10 kb in size (Figure 3A). The Part
A (A1, A2, A3 and A4, each of ~3 kb), Part B (B1, B2,
B3 and B4 each of ~3 kb), and Part C (C1 of ~3 kb and
C2 of ~4 kb) DNA fragments were also PCR amplifiedand purified using the Gel Extraction Kit (Figure 3B).
Alternatively, these ~3-kb long DNA fragments also
could be obtained by chemical synthesis as described be-
fore (Hou and Xiao, 2011).
Next, the Part A, Part B, and Part C intermediates
were assembled individually by transforming the PCR-
amplified DNA fragments and pGF vectors into yeast
protoplasts. The potential positive colonies were selec-
ted on His plates. As shown in Figure 4A, the assembled
products of Part A, Part B, and Part C were isolated from
the yeast cells and identified by restriction digestion.
When the positive plasmids were digested with unique
cut sites for EcoR I, the linearized pGF-Part A, -Part B,
and -Part C separated on 0.6% agarose gels were exhib-
Figure 2. Scheme for the assembly of the ~31-kb DNA
sequence. In the first stage of assembly, four DNA frag-
ments of Part A and Part B and two DNA fragments of
Part C were ligated together to generate the intermedi-
ates pGF-Part A, Part B, and Part C. In the next step,
the assembled Part A, Part B, and Part C were re-
leased by digestion by the endonuclease NotI and re-
covered. The three intermediates together with pGF
were then co-transformed into yeast cells to generate
the complete ~31-kb PartABC integrated sequence in
the pGF vector.
Figure 3. Preparation of the pGF vector and cyano-
phage PP DNA fragments. (A) The ~10-kb pGF vector
was amplified using PCR and the homologous 5′ ends
bracketing the inserted DNA fragments were inserted.
(B) The DNA fragments A1-C2 were amplified using
PCR from the
cyanophage PP genome. Similarly, the 5′
end overlapping sequences were introduced using
primer pairs.DNA assembly using synthetic E. coli-yeast shuttle vector
164  A PRIL 2016   VOLUME 31   I SSUE  2
  VIROLOGICA SINICA
oc

ited as single bands significantly larger than 10 kb in size
(the maximum size of the Marker). Not I digestion was
used to clearly resolve the inserted fragments in the as-
sembly products. The electrophoresis of the assembled
intermediates treated with Not I showed separated bands.
The ~10 kb and ~12 kb bands in lane 3 corresponded to
the free pGF vector and the assembled intermediate Part
A, respectively. Similarly, the ~10 kb and ~12 kb bands
in lane 5 corresponded to the free pGF vector and the as-
sembled Part B intermediate, and the ~10 kb and ~7 kb
bands in lane 7 corresponded to the free pGF vector and
the assembled intermediate Part C, respectively. These
results indicated that the in vivo recombination-based as-
sembly method could effectively join 2–4 DNA frag-
ments, each of ~3 kb. Moreover, the assembled products
could be amplified using the shuttle vector pGF in E.
coli and could be conveniently released from the vector
by endonuclease digestion. The sequencing of the as-
sembled intermediates by Sangon Biotech Co. Ltd. indic-
ated that the sequences were accurate, which meant this
in vivo recombination method using the shuttle vector
pGF exhibited higher accuracy and greater convenience
compared with conventional PCR-based methods.
The three assembled DNA intermediates together with
the pGF vector were then co-transformed into yeast cells
to generate pGF-Part ABC. As indicated in Figure. 4B,
the EcoR I-linearized pGF-Part ABC was about 41 kb in
size (lane 2), as determined using the high molecularweight marker, which was in accordance with the full
length of the target product. As mentioned above, the
plasmid
pGF-Part ABC could release the inserted as-
sembled long DNA sequence upon treatment with Not I.
Lane 3 in Figure 4B shows that two bands of ~10 kb and
~31 kb were separated on a 0.6% agarose gel, which cor-
responded to the free pGF vector and the assembled Part
ABC, respectively.
To further verify the positive colonies, the assembled
plasmids were extracted and analyzed by PCR. As
shown in
Figure 5A, the PCR performed using the
primer pairs of each DNA fragment all generated
products with target sizes (A1, A2, A3, A4, B1, B2, B3,
B4 and C1, each of ~3 kb and C2 of ~4 kb), which indic-
ated that all the 10 cyanophage PP DNA fragments were
present in
pGF-Part ABC. Next, specific primer pairs
(FV/RA1, FA1/RA2, FA2/RA3 and so on;
Figure 5B)
were designed to amplify the sequences across the two
adjacent DNA fragments (as listed in Supplementary Ta-
ble S2). The correct order of the assembly was verified
by PCR amplification using these primers. The result
showed that all the PCR products separated on the
agarose gel exhibited molecular sizes consistent with
those of the designed target products (indicated below
the amplified fragments in Figure 5B). This result fur-
ther confirmed the fact that the 10 cyanophage PP DNA
fragments were assembled in the desired order and
formed the 31-kb long DNA sequence.
One-step assembly of the 31-kb long DNA from
the cyanophage PP  genome
To investigate the assembling capability of the in vivo re-
combination system in yeast, we also tried to co-trans-
form all the 10 cyanophage PP DNA fragments and the
pGF vector into yeast protoplasts at once to achieve one-
step assembly. The ~41-kb pGF-Part ABC, which con-
tained the ~31-kb assembled Part ABC sequence and the
10-kb pGF
 vector, was successfully obtained by in vivo
recombination. The assembled plasmids were isolated
from the yeast cells and transformed into E. coli EPI300.
The plasmids amplified in EPI300 were then extracted
using a Plasmid Miniprep Kit and analyzed by endonuc-
lease digestion and PCR as described above. As shown
in Figure 6, after the plasmid was digested with
Not I,
the vector
pGF and the released assembled DNA se-
quence were separated on a 0.6% agarose gel. The ob-
served two bands corresponded to the ~10-kb free pGF
vector and the ~31-kb assembled Part ABC. In addition,
the PCR analyses further revealed the orderly assembly
of all the fragments in pGF-Part ABC. These results
were similar to those shown in Figure 5 and not shown
anymore.
Figure 4. Restriction digestion analysis of the as-
sembled DNA sequences. (A) Verification of the as-
sembled intermediates of Part A, Part B, and Part C.
Yeast colonies containing positive assemblies were
verified by digestion with the endonucleases EcoR I
(lanes 2, 4 and 6) and Not I (lanes 3, 5 and 7). A mo-
lecular weight marker was loaded in lane 1. (B) Analys-
is of the ~41-kb assembled pGF-PartABC by digestion
with the endonucleases EcoR I (lane 2) and Not I (lane
3). Standard and high molecular weight markers were
loaded in lane 1 and lane 4, respectively.Zheng Hou et al
www.virosin.org APRIL 2016   VOLUME 31  ISSUE 2  165

DISCUSSION
The assembly of long DNA molecules requires a more
accurate and effective scheme rather than a routine liga-
tion-based cloning method. Although PCR enzymes with
high fidelity have been developed, the random errors in-
troduced during the amplification process are an obvious
limitation of long sequence PCR. The complexity of dif-
ferent DNA templates influences the accuracy of PCR,
especially in the case of amplification of long DNA se-
quences (Kumar and Kaur, 2014; Varadaraj and Skinner,
1994). The in vitro Gibson assembly method can ligate
several DNA fragments to produce large DNA se-
quences by using single-strand DNA 3′ overhangs.
However, this method needs exonucleases to chew back
from the DNA 5′ end, DNA polymerase to fill the gaps,
and DNA ligase to remove nicks, which increases the
cost of using this method. In addition, the concentrations
of the DNA fragments and enzymes must be regulated
accurately in order to achieve successful assembly. In
addition, the yield of positive colonies may decrease
when assembling more than 5 DNA fragments at once.
The shuttle plasmid pGF and in vivo TAR assembly
method described here provides an alternative way to
combine DNA fragments to form large DNA sequences.The shuttle plasmid pGF containing the YAC regulatory
elements could be ligated with several DNA fragments
with overlapping ends through homologous recombina-
tion in yeast. Moreover, the assembled products could be
amplified in  E. coli .
Using the yeast recombination system, the appropriate
DNA fragments with 5′ end overlapping sequences could
be assembled in the yeast cells. Notably, the 5′ overlap-
ping sequences could be introduced into the DNA frag-
ments by PCR using synthetic specific primers, thus
eliminating the need for the chewing back step by exo-
nuclease, which was required in the Gibson model. The
homologous recombination-based TAR method is very
helpful especially for the assembly of long DNA se-
quences. Using this method, the assembly and the modi-
fication of a viral genome from small DNA fragments
could be conveniently achieved. The fidelity of the as-
sembled large DNA molecule was only associated with
the fidelity of the assembly units (relatively small DNA
fragments). The sizes of the small DNA fragments used
for the assembly were designed to be below 5 kb, so that
the fidelity of the synthetic large DNA molecule could
be guaranteed. Alternatively, DNA fragments less than 5
kb in size can also be easily obtained by using the DNA
synthesizer.
Genomes of living organisms will always contain
some gene regulatory elements such as long terminal re-
peat (LTR) sequences. It should be noted that these se-
quences always have a high G + C content and may form
complex secondary structures, thus influencing effective
assembly. To ensure the fidelity of such DNA fragments,
a specific high-fidelity polymerases (such as Q5 High-
Fidelity DNA polymerases from NEB) designed to amp-
lify the high G + C template should be used, and DMSO
and other reagents should be added at appropriate con-
centrations to lower the Tm value. In addition, the se-
Figure 5. PCR analysis of the assembled ~41-kb long
DNA sequence. (A) Amplicons of all the 10 cyano-
phage PP DNA fragments were present in the com-
plete assembled product pGF-PartABC. (B) Amplifica-
tion of the DNA sequences across the adjacent frag-
ments. To ensure the correct order of the assembled
DNA fragments, specific primers located on the inner
side of each fragment were designed. The forward
primers of the pGF vector (FV) and the reverse primer
of A1 (RA1) were used in pairs to amplify the se-
quences across the vector and A1. Similarly, FA1/RA2,
FA2/RA3, and so on were used in pairs to amplify the
sequences across two adjacent fragments. The precise
sizes of the target PCR products are marked.
Figure 6. Verification of the one-step assembly of the
plasmid pGF-Part ABC by digestion with the endonuc-
lease  Not I.DNA assembly using synthetic E. coli -yeast shuttle vector
166  A PRIL 2016   VOLUME 31   I SSUE  2
  VIROLOGICA SINICA
D

quences that readily form complex secondary structures
should be arranged to be in the middle of the DNA frag-
ments, and not at the 5′ or 3′ ends. Regulatory sequences
may also sometimes be toxic for E. coli. The recombina-
tion-based assembly in yeast could circumvent the tox-
icity to E. coli, but the assembled products could be pre-
pared only from large-scale culture of yeast cells in this
case.
In conclusion, the present work provided a novel syn-
thetic E. coli-yeast shuttle plasmid pGF and a TAR-
based assembly method for the construction of large
DNA sequences. Using this method, the reconstruction
of a mini genome of various viruses from the relatively
small torque teno virus (TTV) and adeno-associated vir-
us (AAV) to the large baculovirus like autographa cali-
fornica multicapsid nucleopolyhedrovirus (AcMNPV)
could be achieved efficiently. The novel synthetic shuttle
plasmid pGF and the associated DNA assembly method
will not only aid in the design of artificial biological sys-
tems like in bacterial metabolic engineering, but will also
accelerate the progress of synthetic virology including
mini-genome construction and vaccine research and de-
velopment against new recombination viruses.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank Dr. Zhihong Hu, Dr. Zhengli Shi, and Dr. Fei
Deng of the Wuhan Institute of Virology, Chinese
Academy of Sciences, China, for their advice, encour-
agement, and support in conducting this work. This study
was supported by the 973 program, Grant No. 2012CB
721102.
COMPLIANCE WITH ETHICS GUIDELINES
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
This article does not contain any studies with human or
animal subjects performed by any of the authors.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
ZH and ZLW carried out experiments for the construc-
tion of the pGF vector and cyanophage PP genome as-
sembly; ZZ wrote the manuscript and participated in
some of the experiments. GFX was the corresponding
author who conceived and supervised the project.
Supplementary Tables are available on the website of
Virologica Sinica: www.virosin.org; link.springer.com/
journal/12250.
REFERENCES
Cameron DE, Bashor CJ, Collins JJ. 2014. A brief history of syn-
thetic biology. Nat Rev Microbiol, 12: 381–390.
Dueber JE, Wu GC, Malmirchegini GR, Moon TS, Petzold CJ,
Ullal AV, Prather KL, Keasling JD. 2009. Synthetic proteinscaffolds provide modular control over metabolic flux. Nat Bio-
technol, 27: 753–759.
Gibson DG, Benders GA, Andrews-Pfannkoch C, Denisova EA,
Baden-Tillson H, Zaveri J, Stockwell TB, Brownley A, Thomas
DW, Algire MA, Merryman C, Young L, Noskov VN, Glass JI,
Venter JC, Hutchison CA, 3rd, Smith HO. 2008a. Complete
chemical synthesis, assembly, and cloning of a Mycoplasma
genitalium genome. Science, 319: 1215–1220.
Gibson DG, Benders GA, Axelrod KC, Zaveri J, Algire MA,
Moodie M, Montague MG, Venter JC, Smith HO, Hutchison
CA, 3rd. 2008b. One-step assembly in yeast of 25 overlapping
DNA fragments to form a complete synthetic Mycoplasma gen-
italium genome. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 105: 20404–20409.
Gibson DG, Glass JI, Lartigue C, Noskov VN, Chuang RY, Al-
gire MA, Benders GA, Montague MG, Ma L, Moodie MM,
Merryman C, Vashee S, Krishnakumar R, Assad-Garcia N, An-
drews-Pfannkoch C, Denisova EA, Young L, Qi ZQ, Segall-
Shapiro TH, Calvey CH, Parmar PP, Hutchison CA, 3rd, Smith
HO, Venter JC. 2010a. Creation of a bacterial cell controlled by
a chemically synthesized genome. Science, 329: 52–56.
Gibson DG, Smith HO, Hutchison CA, 3rd, Venter JC, Merryman
C. 2010b. Chemical synthesis of the mouse mitochondrial gen-
ome. Nat Methods, 7: 901–903.
Hou Z, Xiao G. 2011. Total chemical synthesis, assembly of hu-
man torque teno virus genome. Virol Sin, 26: 181–189.
Keohavong P, Thilly WG. 1989. Fidelity of DNA polymerases in
DNA amplification. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 86: 9253–9257.
Khalil AS, Collins JJ. 2010. Synthetic biology: applications come
of age. Nat Rev Genet, 11: 367–379.
Kodumal SJ, Patel KG, Reid R, Menzella HG, Welch M, Santi
DV. 2004. Total synthesis of long DNA sequences: synthesis of
a contiguous 32-kb polyketide synthase gene cluster. Proc Natl
Acad Sci U S A, 101: 15573–15578.
Kouprina N, Larionov V. 2008. Selective isolation of genomic loci
from complex genomes by transformation-associated recombin-
ation cloning in the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Nat Protoc,
3: 371–377.
Kumar A, Kaur J. 2014. Primer Based Approach for PCR Ampli-
fication of High GC Content Gene: Mycobacterium Gene as a
Model. Mol Biol Int, 2014: 937308.
Larionov V, Kouprina N, Graves J, Chen XN, Korenberg JR, Res-
nick MA. 1996. Specific cloning of human DNA as yeast artifi-
cial chromosomes by transformation-associated recombination.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 93: 491–496.
Lee BR, Cho S, Song Y, Kim SC, Cho BK. 2013. Emerging tools
for synthetic genome design. Mol Cells, 35: 359–370.
Li MZ, Elledge SJ. 2007. Harnessing homologous recombination
in vitro to generate recombinant DNA via SLIC. Nat Methods,
4: 251–256.
Merryman C, Gibson DG. 2012. Methods and applications for as-
sembling large DNA constructs. Metab Eng, 14: 196–204.
Noskov VN, Chuang RY, Gibson DG, Leem SH, Larionov V,
Kouprina N. 2011. Isolation of circular yeast artificial chromo-
somes for synthetic biology and functional genomics studies.
Nat Protoc, 6: 89–96.
Shevchuk NA, Bryksin AV, Nusinovich YA, Cabello FC, Suther-
land M, Ladisch S. 2004. Construction of long DNA molecules
using long PCR-based fusion of several fragments simultan-
eously. Nucleic Acids Res, 32: e19.
Stemmer WP, Crameri A, Ha KD, Brennan TM, Heyneker HL.
1995. Single-step assembly of a gene and entire plasmid from
large numbers of oligodeoxyribonucleotides. Gene, 164: 49–53.
Varadaraj K, Skinner DM. 1994. Denaturants or cosolvents im-
prove the specificity of PCR amplification of a G + C-rich DNA
using genetically engineered DNA polymerases. Gene, 140:
1–5.
Zhou Y, Lin J, Li N, Hu Z, Deng F. 2013. Characterization and
genomic analysis of a plaque purified strain of cyanophage PP.
Virol Sin, 28: 272–279.Zheng Hou et al
www.virosin.org APRIL 2016   VOLUME 31  ISSUE 2  167

(U) Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Children's Health Defense Call for
Congressional Investigation of COVID origin
Identifiers:
Messaging System:
Document Number:
Ingestion ID:
GUIDE:
Dates:
Date Published: 21-Oct-2020 20:00:00
Date Received: 22-Oct-2020 10:33:24
Publisher:
(U) Full inquiry into circumstances leading to global loss of lives and economic devastation should
be lawmakers' top priority
WASHINGTON, Oct. 22, 2020 /PRNewswire/ -- Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Children's Health
Defense (CHD) are calling upon Congress to conduct a thorough investigation of the
circumstances behind the global COVID-19 crisis that is taking an overwhelming toll on human
lives and livelihoods. In a letter to lawmakers Mr. Kennedy, Chairman and Ms. Redwood,
President of CHD, emphasized the urgent need to address the many unanswered questions
regarding the origin of COVID-19.
"Consider this hypothetical scenario: an important gain-of-function experiment involving a virus
with serious pandemic potential is performed in a well-regulated, world-class laboratory by
experienced investigators, but the information from the experiment is then used by another
scientist who does not have the same training and facilities and is not subject to the same
regulations. In an unlikely but conceivable turn of events, what if that scientist becomes infected
with the virus, which leads to an outbreak and ultimately triggers a pandemic?"
These are the words of Anthony Fauci, director of the NIAID, in a letter to the microbiology journal
mBio advocating for gain-of-function experiments in 2012. But Dr. Fauci's scenario may not be
purely hypothetical. Such concerns are supported by reports US science diplomats made to the
State Department in 2018 after visiting the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), a Chinese research
laboratory conducting US funded gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses. The reports warn
about inadequate safety measures at the lab, which was conducting risky studies on
coronaviruses from bats that could result in human transmission and a new SARS-like pandemic.
It would be unthinkable to not investigate the causes of the space shuttle Challenger disaster, the
Chernobyl nuclear accident or the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Today we have a virus that has led to the
deaths of thousands of people--mostly the elderly--caused severe global economic damage, and
destroyed thousands of small businesses across America, and there is little serious consideration
as to where this virus originated.
"It falls upon the leadership of the U.S. Congress to accept its moral duty and God-given and
legally pre-ordained responsibility to launch complete and transparent investigations. If we doUNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED 1
DECLASSIFIED BY DNI GABBARD ON 18 JUNE 2026

nothing, history will hold us and our system of government accountable," stated Kennedy and
Redwood.
Contact
Laura Bono
202.854.1310
View original content:http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/robert-f-kennedy-jr-and-childrens-
health-defense-call-for-congressional-investigation-of-covid-origin-301158110.html
SOURCE Children's Health Defense
/Web site: http://www.childrenshealthdefense.org
(END)
Collection: OW
Creator:
#2
Compilation Title: PR NEWSWIRE
Description: (U) Full inquiry into circumstances leading to global loss of lives and economic
devastation should be lawmakers' top priority
Language: eng
Source:
Publisher Type: open-source
Sourced Text: null
Language: eng
Source ID: prco20201022002592
Source Type: Wire Services
POC #1
Office Name: PR NEWSWIRE ASSOCIATION, INC.
POC #2
Office Name:
Title: Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Children's Health Defense Call for Congressional Investigation
of COVID origin
Compilation Title: PR NEWSWIRE
Information Date: 21-Oct-2020 20:00:00
Information Cutoff Date: 21-Oct-2020 20:00:00UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED 2

Subject: PR NEWSWIREUNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED 3

DECLASSIFIED BY DNI GABBARD ON 18 JUNE 2026

Weekly Accomplishments
8 Jul 2021  – 14 Jul 2021

 - In coordination with the IC, ODNI re -issued the CEM with expanded releasability  to include
Finland and Sweden in response to requests from Helsinki and Stockholm Stations.

Upcoming
 Key Stakeholders Meeting                                Fri 7/23/21
- The NIC is planning to have an in -person Key Stakeholder’s meeting on 23 Jul to discuss  Agency
positions ahead of drafting the 90 -day COVID Origins Tasking Assessment. The NIC will solicit
each agency for their assessments on COVID origins.
- The meeting will be limited to one to two  people from each agency  and will include discussions on
how to structure the final product.

1From:
Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2021 3:12 PM
To:
Cc:
Subject: RE: Covid origins - Dr. Fauci recommendations
Classification:

Classified By:
Derived From:
Declassify On:
======================================================

Thanks for the feedback. In this particular case, given Dr Fauci’s background we absolutely would like to follow-up on his
outreach suggestions. In this case he’s not a policymaker….he’s a SME with a wealth of knowledge about current and
historical research who probably knows better than most who the real Coronavirus experts are.

From:   Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2021 4:00 AM
To:

Cc:

Subject: RE: Covid origins - Dr. Fauci recommendations

Classification:

Classified By:
Derived From:
Declassify On:
======================================================

Hi

Setting aside the process for contacting  individuals on any subject, I think the first question is whether the NIC wants
to make the effort after it weighs whether to take a policymaker’s recommendations on who we should consult as part
of an IC study--particularly given the various strong views on the subject and statements regarding their own
conclusions.  If the NIC wants to proceed, we can then determine how we would facilitate such contact.

From:   Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2021 9:05 PM
To:

DECLASSIFIED BY DNI GABBARD ON 18 JUNE 2026
2Cc:
Subject: FW: Covid origins - Dr. Fauci recommendations

Classification:

Classified By:
Derived From:
Declassify On:
======================================================

All,

For those who don’t know me, I’m the  and, as such, leading the IC’s 90-day POTUS COVID origin study. Per
below, Dr Fauci recommended that the IC reach out to the below individuals who were coauthors of the attached paper
as part of the study.  is on the list of SMEs the IC has already consulted, , but
 and , and, as far as I know, neither has been consulted. As of today, we have 43 days
before our final paper is due to the President, so if we’re going to reach out to them we need to do so ASAP. Is this
doable? Please let me know if there’s anything I can do to facilitate this from my end. Thanks! –

From: Alan S. Macdougall-DNI-   Sent: Monday, July 12, 2021 3:14 PM
To:
Cc:

Subject: FW: Covid origins - Dr. Fauci recommendations

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
======================================================
 and

(U )  FYSA from last week’s IC Weekly Update.  We can discuss further based on my chat with

VR,
Alan

From:   Sent: Monday, July 12, 2021 2:50 PM

3To: Alan S. Macdougall-DNI-
Cc: Morgan Muir-DNI-
Subject: Covid origins - Dr. Fauci recommendations

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
======================================================

Alan – The article that Dr. Fauci highlighted last week is attached, and the authors whose views he thought were
particularly important were:





As discussed, it might be worth considering the article and talking with these individuals in connection with the 90-day
study.  In addition, the COVID report rollout is scheduled to be discussed on Friday at the IC Weekly.  Please provide any
materials or information you want the DNI to convey NLT Thursday COB.

Thanks,

Chief of Staff, ODNI

======================================================
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED

======================================================
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED

======================================================
Classification:

======================================================
Classification:

======================================================
Classification:

DECLASSIFIED BY DNI GABBARD ON 18 JUNE 2026
1From:
Sent: Monday, July 26, 2021 1:26 PM
To:
Subject: Wall Street Journal piece today on origins
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
======================================================

FYI, Here’s a WSJ piece today on Covid origins.

-

UNCLASSIFIED
(U) Anthony Fauci, Rand Paul and Wuhan
Identifiers:

Document Number:

Ingestion ID:

News ID:

GUIDE:
 Dates:

Date of Version:
26-Jul-2021 06:03:26
Date Created:
26-Jul-2021 06:03:26 Coverage:

Geographic Area:
Wuhan, United States
Publisher:

Date:
20210726
Name:
Factiva, The Wall Street Journal
DECLASSIFIED BY DNI GABBARD ON 18 JUNE 2026
2No one should expect the Chinese Communist Party to cooperate with a real inquiry into the origins of Covid-
19. More disappointing is the lack of candor from American scientists and officials whose conflicts of interest
deserve more scrutiny.
More than a year-and-a-half after Chinese researchers published a draft genome of Covid-19, the world still
doesn't know where the virus came from. The leading theories are an accidental lab leak or zoonotic spillover
from a bat or other intermediary species.
---
A World Health Organization team visited Wuhan this year but Chinese officials provided little useful
information. Even WHO director-general Tedros Ghebreyesus, typically a Chinese ally, criticized Beijing for a
lack of transparency. He called for an audit of laboratories in Wuhan as part of the origin investigation's next
phase, but Beijing rejected the idea last week.
A senior Chinese public-health official said WHO's plan "did not respect common sense and violated science."
The Chinese Foreign Ministry has called instead for an investigation into Fort Detrick, a U.S. military lab. A
Wuhan Institute of Virology official said that his lab "did not contact, preserve or study the novel coronavirus,
and it never designed, made or leaked the virus," according to Chinese state-media. He added that there have
been zero pathogen leaks or human infections since the institute opened its high-level BSL-4 lab in 2018. A
Chinese official must say this or risk disappearing.
The WIV has handled coronaviruses. U.S. experts visited the lab in 2017 and 2018 and warned about a
dangerous mix of subpar safety standards and infectious bat coronaviruses. In January the State Department
published a fact sheet warning that several WIV researchers had been sick with Covid-like symptoms in the fall
of 2019. It also noted that the group had been conducting gain-of-function research that could possibly enable
viruses to infect a new species -- all while collaborating with the People's Liberation Army. And the WIV's
critical virus databases were taken offline, ostensibly for security purposes. The U.S. knows something about the research conducted at the WIV, because American taxpayer dollars helped
fund it. This was the crux of last week's dispute between Sen. Rand Paul and Anthony Fauci, who had cast
doubt on the lab-leak hypothesis in the past. In their latest bout, the Kentucky Senator accused Dr. Fauci of lying to Congress, a federal crime, when he said this year that the National Institutes of Health had never funded
gain-of-function research in Wuhan. The exchange descended into shouting.
The reality is complicated. The NIH gave almost $600,000 to the WIV through a nonprofit over several years to
study bat coronaviruses. Mr. Paul cited a 2017 paper from WIV researchers that included experiments
combining parts of viruses to study how to better infect human cells. But Dr. Fauci said the project was "judged
by qualified staff up and down the chain as not being gain-of-function."
This might be technically true, as a 2014 federal government definition describes such research as that which
"increase the ability of infectious agents to cause disease by enhancing its pathogenicity or by increasing its
transmissibility." But some scientists think the government definition is too limited and can allow de facto gain-
of-function research to bypass safety protocols. Rutgers molecular biologist Richard Ebright says the NIH-
funded work "was -- unequivocally -- gain-of-function research."
In early 2020, Dr. Fauci emailed his deputy a paper co-written by gain-of-function pioneer Ralph Baric and a
Wuhan scientist. The official responded that they would "try to determine if we have any distant ties to this
work abroad." The next day Dr. Fauci organized a call with several nongovernment virologists, but the email
chain after the meeting was redacted. Weeks later, a group of scientists published a letter in The Lancet
3condemning "conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin." Dr. Fauci and the
public-health elite echoed the letter's views for months.
Mr. Paul, excitable as he may be, is a medical doctor who did his homework. The Senator clearly sees a
political benefit in hammering Dr. Fauci and China, but the celebrity scientist and his allies have obvious
conflicts of interest. The Lancet letter was organized by Peter Daszak, president of the EcoHealth Alliance,
which had funneled the NIH money to the WIV.
Mr. Daszak, Dr. Fauci and all researchers involved in gain-of-function research would suffer significant
reputational damage and perhaps lose funding if scientific research they supported caused a pandemic. On
Sunday Dr. Fauci said the research cooperation was necessary because "SARS-CoV-1 originated in China." But
exactly what did that cooperation yield?
---
Congress should thoroughly investigate the process that led to the approval of money for the WIV and possible
gain-of-function research. It should also debate limits on this kind of research in the U.S. and push for
international standards. While China is unlikely to budge, its opacity has aroused justifiable suspicion around
the world, and the White House should keep the pressure on Beijing and the WHO.
Democrats and much of the media will avoid the topic because Mr. Paul and the populist right have taken up
this cause. Such groupthink is what prevented the lab-leak theory from being treated seriously for more than a
year. Making the same mistake twice is inexcusable.
License this article from Dow Jones Reprint Service
Language:
en
Subject:
Anthony Fauci, Rand Paul and Wuhan
UNCLASSIFIED

Deputy NIO for WMD & Proliferation-Missiles
National Intelligence Council,

======================================================
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED

1From:
Sent: Tuesday, December 3, 2024 8:35 AM
To:
Subject: RE: HOT: Final Congressional COVID Report, Confirms Lab Leak
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
======================================================

ODNI was going to give them a heads up but not sure what happened to that… we probably need to engage OCA.

From:
Sent: Tuesday, December 3, 2024 8:34 AM
To:
Subject: RE: HOT: Final Congressional COVID Report, Confirms Lab Leak

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
======================================================

Does Congress have any idea about the Germans?

From:   Sent: Tuesday, December 3, 2024 8:27 AM
To:

Cc:

Subject: RE: HOT: Final Congressional COVID Report, Confirms Lab Leak

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
======================================================

Hi

Thanks for flagging—adding a bunch of people who should be tracking on this one.

Thanks again,

Worldwide BW Analyst
WCPMC/CBD/WMAAB

From:   Sent: Tuesday, December 3, 2024 7:14 AM
DECLASSIFIED BY DNI GABBARD ON 18 JUNE 2026
2To:
Cc:

Subject: HOT: Final Congressional COVID Report, Confirms Lab Leak

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
======================================================

Hi all,

The Select Subcommittee released a 520-page final report last night detailing the findings of its two-year investigation
into the COVID-19 pandemic, which highlights lessons learned and a path forward for preparing for and responding to
future pandemics.

The report concludes that COVID-19 most likely emerged from a laboratory in Wuhan, China, and criticizes the WHO’s
response to the pandemic, as well as the US government's handling of relief funds, mask mandates, and vaccine
development. The report also identifies widespread corruption, misinformation, and obstruction of its investigation by
government officials, researchers, and organizations, including Dr. Anthony Fauci, EcoHealth Alliance, and the Biden
Administration's CDC.

The leading theories that led the committee to their conclusions: 1. The virus possesses a biological characteristic that is not found in nature.
2. Data shows that all COVID-19 cases stem from a single introduction into humans. This runs contrary to previous
pandemics where there were multiple spillover events.
3. Wuhan is home to China’s foremost SARS research lab, which has a history of conducting gain-of-function
research at inadequate biosafety levels.
4. Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) researchers were sick with COVID-like virus in the fall of 2019, months before
COVID-19 was discovered at the wet market.
5. By nearly all measures of science, if there was evidence of a natural origin it would have already surfaced.

I’ll look into pulling over the entire assessment into HIVE for those interested. I’ll continue to monitor the open source
for any developments.

Thanks,

Open Source Specialist, WCPMC
Chemical & Biological Department (CBD)

======================================================
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED

======================================================
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED

======================================================
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED

3
======================================================
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED

1From:
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2023 7:06 PM
To:
Cc:
Subject: Flagging: COVID origins questions today
Attachments: FW: in response to the DDCIA question related to the context of a Fauci e... (661 KB)
Classification:

Classified By:
Derived From:
Declassify On:
======================================================

OCA,

Just wanted to give you a heads up that an NSC director asked us for some talking points on CIA’s engagement with Dr.
Fauci ahead of a House Coronavirus subcommittee meeting tomorrow.

HHS, USAID, and DoS are attending a Coronavirus subcommittee hearing tomorrow on Reforming the WHO: Ensuring
Global Health Security and Accountability. The NSC was concerned that questions about Fauci and CIA might come up
after Rand Paul’s interview promoting his new book on COVID origins, “ Deception: The Great COVID Cover-Up .

We suggested that if questions in the hearing come up about CIA, then they need to be passed to CIA through official
channels (ie OCA). So there is no action for you or us right now: just flagging for your awareness.
 I’ve also attached for your reference the email we sent up to DDCIA a couple months ago on the background of our Fauci
engagement.

The Rand Paul interview is transcribed below, but here’s the key part:

 So, there really was an orchestrated cover-up on this. We also now know that he [Fauci] was visiting the CIA in early
2020. We know that the CIA scientists, seven of them, voted six to one to say it came from the lab, and then they were
reversed by superiors. We need to know whether Anthony Fauci influenced the superiors, or perhaps the opposite. Did
the CIA influence Anthony Fauci?
But we also need to know how often he was visiting and what he was there for. Our understanding is that he wasn't
recorded on visitor logs, but he was appearing frequently at the CIA. You have to realize that he was not a scientist in
charge of a cure for cancer. He was also in charge of a lot of bioweapons money and in charge of a lot of things that had
dual use.
And they won't reveal any of this to us. They had weekly meetings on dangerous dual-use research concerns and gain-
of-function, and not one item of any of those meetings has been released to us, despite us asking for it for over three
years.

DECLASSIFIED BY DNI GABBARD ON 18 JUNE 2026
2

From:
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2023 12:26 PM
To:
Subject: (U) COVID-19

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
======================================================

MARIA BARTIROMO », FOX NEWS ANCHOR:
And that's South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem with me last week on this program with some disturbing commentary,
communist China still controlling America's supply of medicine four years after the outbreak of COVID-19 from a lab in
Wuhan that has killed more than 1.1 million Americans so far.
The CCP has yet to provide evidence on how that deadly virus originated and explain its cover-up that followed. Next
month, Dr. Anthony Fauci is set to testify for two days before the House on the origins of COVID-19 and his handling of
the pandemic, where Republicans are expected to grill him on overseeing funding of gain-of-function research at the
Wuhan lab, as well as discrediting the theory the virus originated from a lab leak.
Joining me right now is Kentucky Senator Rand Paul. He is vowing to hold hearings on the origins of COVID in the Upper
Chamber if Republicans retake control next year. Senator Paul is also the author of the new book "Deception: The Great
COVID Cover-Up," available right now.
Senator, thanks very much for joining us this morning.

SEN. RAND PAUL (R-KY):
Thank you, Maria.

«BARTIROMO »: Well, you have been an incredible truth-teller throughout all of this, and you have studied all of this now for several
years.
What can you tell us about what you have learned, what you have taken away from the entire COVID experience?

PAUL:
Well, the problem is, is that the Chinese have destroyed any kind of reputation they had. I mean, we can no longer believe any kind of pronouncements from them, which makes us suspicious. Right now, there's
a host of disease affecting young people, respiratory disease and pneumonia, in China, and they tell us, well, there's
nothing to see here.
And maybe that's true, but they have destroyed any kind of foundation we had in trusting them, and they still haven't
come clean. In early 2020, when COVID came out, they said, oh, we're not having human-to-human transmission, and
we don't seem to be having an extraordinary amount of flooding in the hospitals or deaths.
All of that was untrue, and they knew for at least three or four weeks. They also knew the sequence of the virus, and
they kept that secret as well. I think they also knew that three of their workers got sick at the Wuhan Institute of
Virology in November 2019. I think they knew all of this.
And I think they absolutely know it now, and the only way they can restore trust is to own up to it. Look, I don't blame
them completely for this. I think it was an accident, but cover-up is not an accident. If they were to come clean and say,
we're punishing the scientists who did what they weren't supposed to, I think then that we could restore some trust.
But, right now, we have really no trust with the Chinese government.

«BARTIROMO »: Well, what about the accountability here, and why the Biden administration does not push for it?

3I mean, right now, as we speak, there are American investors continuing to underwrite the CCP by buying those
companies that are tied to the Chinese military. It seems this administration is not willing to pull the economic lever, and
that is shut off the capital markets to Chinese communist companies that may have been involved in that cover-up or
tied to the military.

PAUL:
Well, we still continue to fight the Biden administration every day just for unclassified information, and they resist at
every turn.
We have had to basically withhold nominees and withhold legislation to try to get anything from the Biden
administration. And I'm not sure what it is. Either it's sympathy or believing that relations with China are so important
that the truth can be obscured.
But there's also a certain amount of culpability in the Biden administration throughout several different departments,
USAID, NIH, HHS. They're withholding documents because they funded the lab in Wuhan, not just once, not just twice,
but for a decade they were funding.
And we have Anthony Fauci on record as saying that, even if a pandemic occurs, even if a gain-of-function research
infects a scientist and a pandemic occurs, that the knowledge would be worth the risk. And I think most people who had
a loved one die from COVID either here or around the world would disagree and think Anthony Fauci made a disastrous
judgment call. But he also took the research, and it didn't go before the normal scrutiny. There's a safety committee that was supposed
to review this, and Anthony Fauci allowed this research to be done at his signature, at his conclusion, at his approval
without the approval of the safety committee.
And this -- for this, he really should go down in history perhaps as one of the worst people in public office ever and
responsible for probably more deaths than other -- any other individual in the medical world.

«BARTIROMO »: Well, I mean, there was so much censorship of so much information that was vital for Americans to see and understand
about COVID and about the vaccines, but they censored it.
Can we even trust health officials in this government?

PAUL: Well, it was directed explicitly by him. We go over this in the book, because he commissioned scientists who were saying
in private that they thought it was a manipulative virus, manipulated a lab and came from a lab.
He convinced them in public to say the opposite. He commissioned and edited a paper that said that absolutely this did
not come from a lab, while, privately, all of these same scientists were saying, in all likelihood, it did come from a lab. So, there really was an orchestrated cover-up on this. We also now know that he was visiting the CIA in early 2020. We
know that the CIA scientists, seven of them, voted six to one to say it came from the lab, and then they were reversed by
superiors. We need to know whether Anthony Fauci influenced the superiors, or perhaps the opposite. Did the CIA
influence Anthony Fauci?
But we also need to know how often he was visiting and what he was there for. Our understanding is that he wasn't
recorded on visitor logs, but he was appearing frequently at the CIA. You have to realize that he was not a scientist in
charge of a cure for cancer. He was also in charge of a lot of bioweapons money and in charge of a lot of things that had
dual use.
And they won't reveal any of this to us. They had weekly meetings on dangerous dual-use research concerns and gain-
of-function, and not one item of any of those meetings has been released to us, despite us asking for it for over three
years.

«BARTIROMO »: Do you believe COVID was a bioweapon?

PAUL:
4I think that it was probably developed for a vaccine. I think they developed a coronavirus. They inserted this cleavage
site in to make it more infectious to humans, and then they had a vaccine very early on, because I think they were
developing a vaccine against COVID, and then COVID got out.

«BARTIROMO »: Yes.

PAUL:
But the interesting thing is the scientist, Dr. Zo Yusin [ph], who developed it, died mysteriously two months after the
development of the virus. He fell from a tall building in Beijing. And there's a lot of questions as to the circumstances of
his death.

«BARTIROMO »: Wow. I did not realize that, that he died from a tall building in Beijing. That's incredible.
Let me switch gears, ask you about the supplemental package. You all are leaving for the holidays next week. But you're
right now debating this $100 billion supplemental package that Joe Biden wants, money sent to Ukraine, if you're going
to send money to Israel.
And the Republicans so far have dug in, saying, we want policy changes at the border. Where is this going?

PAUL:
We don't have the money.
And the biggest threat -- while I agree the border should be secured, an even bigger threat is to the dollar and to our
currency. I follow Jim Grant. I think he's one of the smartest guys out there looking at the economy and the Fed. He
predicted a lot of the things that happened in 2008, when we had the housing bubble burst.
He thinks we're due for interest rates, high interest rates, for a long period of time, but we're accumulating debt at a
trillion dollars every three months now. This is an extraordinary thing. And interest rates are now becoming the highest
or one of the largest items in our budget.
So, really, people can talk about wanting to help other countries. We don't have the money. It has to be printed up. It's
destroying our currency. And it's why it costs more to go to the grocery store to buy your groceries. We can't allow this
to happen.
There is a possibility we could go too far with this, and we could have a cataclysmic economic downturn, recession,
depression, destruction of the currency.

«BARTIROMO »: Wow.

PAUL:
I know that sounds over the top, but that's what I'm worried about, because we're accumulating debt so fast.

«BARTIROMO »: Well, I agree with you about Jim Grant. Jim Grant is a regular of mine on "Mornings With Maria" over on the FOX
Business Network. And he's been sounding the alarm about all of this debt for a long time.
But you have got a package at hand, and you have got a vote on this coming up. Where is this going? Is -- are you guys
going to go to the holiday and not send any money to Ukraine? What do you expect this -- to happen? How does this
play out, rather? Pardon me.

PAUL:
My hope is that Speaker Johnson will stick to his word. He said Israel aid would be separate and paid for. He immediately voted for it, and the House passed it, and they paid for
it by taking money away from the IRS. I hope he stands by his word. I think he has an enormous leverage, if he will use it.
5Now, he's getting pushed by all the establishment Republicans, particularly on the Senate side. He's being pushed to put
all the aid together with Ukraine. I think, if he keeps it separate and keeps it paid for, I think that he will win the day,
ultimately. But he needs to realize he has all the power, if he will stay where he is and not capitulate.

«BARTIROMO »: All right, Senator, we will be watching all of that.
Thank you again for being a truth-teller in all of these health issues.

PAUL:
Thank you.

«BARTIROMO »: We appreciate your time this morning, sir.
Thank you, Senator Rand Paul, for joining us.

Director for Biodefense and Biotechnology Risk
National Security Council

======================================================
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED

======================================================
Classification:

======================================================
Classification:

======================================================
Classification:

======================================================
Classification:

1From:
Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2023 12:23 PM
To:
Subject: FW: New York Post on Fauci influencing CIA on COVID origins and Congressional Letter
to HHS
Attachments: Scan-20230927115303.pdf
Classification:

Classified By:
Derived From:
Declassify On:
======================================================

Chief, Weaponization, Modeling, and Agents Analysis Branch and Disease Threat Intelligence Cell
WCP/CBD

From:
Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2023 12:10 PM
To:

Cc:
Subject: New York Post on Fauci influencing CIA on COVID origins and Congressional Letter to HHS

Classification:

Classified By:
Derived From:
Declassify On:
======================================================

.

All – found this NY Post article by chance just now on AIN.  It is not in today’s Media clips.  The
attachment also includes a letter from Congress to HHS.

DECLASSIFIED BY DNI GABBARD ON 18 JUNE 2026
2Separately and below is the CLASSIFIED readout of one meeting with Dr. Fauci (thanks to
 for pulling it).  Not sure but appears this was a VTC rather than in person (see my
highlight below):

-

From:
Sent: Monday, June 7, 2021 7:18 AM
To:

Subject: Quick Recap of 4 June Dr. Fauci Briefing

Classified By:
Derived From:
Declassify On:
======================================================
Classification:
Hi,

WPC/  WCP/  WCP/  and EAPMC/  attended the briefing.  COO  also attended,
and NSC Director Beth Cameron SAP & Senior Director for Global Health Security & Biodefense “mediated/facilitated”
the briefing.  briefed the key points of the 4 May 2021 PDB/WIRe   Worldwide: Origin of COVID-19 Pandemic Remains Elusive . Briefing lasted about 40 minutes (with some audio technical difficulties).

Dr. Fauci offered the following thoughts/insights when asked about certain points Camille raised from the PDB/WIRe.

 On China’s pangolin research, Dr. Fauci said it was important to obtain details of the experiments.
 On the 3 sick WIV researchers, Dr. Fauci said key gaps that need to be filled are 1) If they were sick, what does
their medical records show; 2) Do we have blood culture of these sick researchers; and 3) Did we ask China
about/for this information?
 On the single lineage issue, Dr. Fauci recommended that IC take a look at Tulane’s  paper on two
lineages from two separate markets (NFI). To Dr. Fauci, this paper’s findings were a clear indication of natural
origins of COVID-19. This research was republished with  recently.
o Dr. Fauci reminded the group that even for SARS, it took 12 years to make the link to a bat even though
it only took 4 months to identify the natural reservoir.
o We still haven’t identified source/origin of Ebola. We need to be careful of the links we make to these
previous cases.
 Dr. Fauci noted that China has good scientists but made an epidemiological mistake when China “cleaned” the
market… China inadvertently shot themselves in the foot. On single lineage, it’s like looking for a needle in the
haystack; it may not be a whole group of animals but a single animal, which is difficult to identify; and again, Dr.
Fauci asked why China didn’t look more carefully into the market before “cleaning” it out.
 Dr. Fauci recommended contacting a group of US scientists who closely follow this issue, especially to combine
investigative/forensics/intel with scientific community’s research, including ,
and  [WCP is already in contact/in the plans to contact some of these individuals.]

3Thanks!

======================================================
Classification:

======================================================
Classification:

1From:
Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2023 3:59 PM
To:
Subject: FW: Readout of contentious HPSCI COVID Origins briefing
Classification:

Classified By:
Derived From:
Declassify On:
======================================================

From:
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2021 3:50 PM
To:  Morgan Muir-DNI-

Subject: Readout of contentious HPSCI COVID Origins briefing

Classification:

Classified By:
Derived From:
Declassify On:
======================================================

 and I, along with three reps from NCPC and  from OLA, briefed the HPSCI this morning on the COVID
Origins assessment. It did not go well. After Opening remarks from Reps Schiff and Nunes, I started off with prepared
remarks that went about 10 minutes, going over the processes involved in the 90-day study and then highlighting the
key takeaways. Rep Schiff asked a couple of easy questions and then turned it over to Rep Nunes, who yielded his time
to Rep. Wenstrup. Then everything went downhill.

Rep Wenstrup spent the first big chunk of his time identifying a number of open source documents that he wanted read
into the record (which was agreed to), in particular papers on the threat of SARS as a bioterror weapon (from 2005),
statements Fauci made on the general idea of gain of function research back in 2012, Ralph Baric’s work on chimeric
viruses in 2015, and similar stuff. After quite a while of talking he finally started to ask questions. They mostly centered
on the names of the experts the IC reached out to on COVID origins. I told him that I was unable to reveal the names of
the experts we reach out to. Which is also exactly what I told the staffers during the pre-briefing we did on Tuesday. Rep
Wenstrup even acknowledged before he asked the first time that he knew what my response would be but was going to
ask anyway. He was, to put it mildly, not happy with my answer. In fact, he seemed pretty outraged. After that, it was
more of the same. Every single minority member who asked questions spent the first two-three minutes of their allotted
five minutes expressing outrage and disdain over my behavior. One, not sure who because this was all a blur, even said
“shame on you.” At one point, a member turned his time back to Rep Wenstrup who went through a long list of names
of “experts” (air quotes because the expertise of some he named is iffy in my mind) and asked me if anyone in the IC had
consulted with them…apparently because he wanted me to be on the record each time saying “I am not going to
comment on that.” I repeatedly tried to explain that IC policy was to not reveal the names of the experts we reached out
DECLASSIFIED BY DNI GABBARD ON 18 JUNE 2026
2to for source protection reasons, which just seem to enrage then all even more. Several of the minority members
claimed that they had been staunch defenders of the IC in the past but now “will not have your back.” I heard a lot of
“nobody has ever come in here and refused to answer our questions” and the comments/question got heated on their
end and were pretty over the top. Several times I tried to answer a question only to be interrupted by whoever asked
the question and a couple even said something along the lines of “I don’t want to hear that ‘it’s against policy’ crap.”

Not to pick on the minority members, some of the majority members also were not pleased with the briefing. Rep.
Speier seemed annoyed that our assessment focused too much on  and wanted us to agree to talk to
one of her constituents who was in Wuhan in November of 2019 on a riverboat cruise (I kid you not). Her time ran out
before she asked that and she didn’t press the issue. Rep Krishnamoorthi also expressed surprise and disappointment
over my refusal to identify the experts and said it made us (the IC) “look bad.”

It seemed clear to me that few if any of the members actually read the Updated Assessment…or were paying attention
to my prepared remarks. One of the minority members (I can’t remember which) challenged me to identify anything
new that I had mentioned up to that point that was not in open sources. That question frankly baffled me, but I pointed
out that I had literally just talked about  WIV researchers who were reportedly sick in the Fall of 2019.
Members from both parties seemed surprised and confused that FBI came to a different conclusion than other IC
agencies. More than one asked me if FBI had access to information that they had not shared with the IC, and one
member (I think it was Rep Carson) asked me and  if we thought FBI was an equal and honest partner in the
processes (despite some of our issues with FBI, we both stated “yes”). Nobody seemed to understand what “low
confidence” means; even after I explained multiple times that low confidence meant that we had
 I got the same confused questions about
confidence levels.

With regard to the minority members question on experts, I think this was a set-up. They were looking for a reason to
distance themselves from the Updated Assessment and that was the issue they chose. Again, they knew we were not
going to name the experts because this came up at the pre-brief Tuesday. And at no time during that call did any of the
minority staffers indicate that this was going to be a problem
 Maybe I could have explained the reason we weren’t going to provide the names in a
way that would have resulted in less vitriol…but I doubt it.

Anyway, I would expect the DNI  to receive angry letters from the Hill calling my professionalism into question and
demanding that the IC name names. And maybe that I be fired.

======================================================
Classification:

======================================================
Classification:

1From:
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2023 8:46 AM
To: Michael L. Collins-DNI-
Cc:
Subject: RE: Briefing to COVID Subcommittee on COVID Origins
Attachments: FW: Readout of contentious HPSCI COVID Origins briefing  (18.4 KB)
Classification:

Classified By:
Derived From:
Declassify On:
======================================================

I talked to OLA yesterday afternoon. Apparently there is a push to do an open briefing in addition to the classified
briefing for Wenstrup’s committee, and because Morgan was (according to OLA) going to do the open briefing, they
thought it made sense for him to do the classified briefing as well. I take it there’s a meeting today between OLA and
Morgan and maybe the DNI where they’ll work this out.
 What’s a little concerning to me is that the person in OLA I spoke to also noted that they have been advised by “staffers”
(presumably from the HPSCI) to not have me attend briefings involving Wenstrup. My impression is that this guidance
originated back in late 2021 and was the result of the COVID-O briefing I gave the HPSCI after we published the 2021
NICA. That briefing admittedly didn’t go well (readout of that meeting attached), but that’s hardly a justification to not
have me brief now, almost two years later. I am perfectly capable of briefing in front of a hostile audience.

From:   Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2023 1:15 PM
To: Michael L. Collins-DNI-
Cc:
Subject: RE: Briefing to COVID Subcommittee on COVID Origins

Classification:

Classified By:
Derived From:
Declassify On:
======================================================

I reached back to OLA to see what the deal is. I’ll let you know what I hear back.

From: Michael L. Collins-
Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2023 12:57 PM
To:
Cc:
Subject: FW: Briefing to COVID Subcommittee on COVID Origins

Classification:

DECLASSIFIED BY DNI GABBARD ON 18 JUNE 2026
2Classified By:
Derived From:
Declassify On:
======================================================
Do you need me to call OLA on this?  You should be the briefer.  I’d like to talk in advance, however.

Mike

From:
Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2023 12:02 PM
To: Morgan Muir-DNI-
Cc: Michael L. Collins-DNI-

Subject: RE: Briefing to COVID Subcommittee on COVID Origins

Classification:

Classified By:
Derived From:
Declassify On:
======================================================
 Ha…news to you that you were briefing? I don’t think I ever said I didn’t think I was the right choice…I just heard about it
this morning. I have often joked about the last time I briefed Wenstrup on COVID-O, and how well that went…but I am
more than happy to do so for this or any other briefing.

From: Morgan Muir-DNI-
Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2023 11:35 AM
To:
Cc: Michael L. Collins-DNI-

Subject: RE: Briefing to COVID Subcommittee on COVID Origins

Classification:

Classified By:
Derived From:
Declassify On:
======================================================

Hi,

Hmmm. News to me.  I heard that you didn’t think you were the right choice but I thought it was still up in the air.

I’ll ask but she has never said that to me and it doesn’t sound like her.  We all know there is a division over there that
can’t be bridged but I have never heard percentages attached to either side.

M

From:   Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2023 10:41 AM

3To: Morgan Muir-DNI-
Cc: Michael L. Collins-DNI-

Subject: Briefing to COVID Subcommittee on COVID Origins

Classification:

Classified By:
Derived From:
Declassify On:
======================================================

Hey Morgan,

I heard from CIA and OLA that you’ll be leading the COVID origins briefing for Rep Wenstrup’s COVID Subcommittee on
the 27th. We’re obviously ready to support this is any way you need. Just let us know. The briefing we did for the
Subcommittee’s staffers last month went pretty well. DOE and FBI didn’t do a particularly good job explaining their
assessments…but that’s been the case for most of these briefings. CIA did get one strange question from the lead
majority staffer about their position, though, that I wanted to flag as it may come up in your briefing. According to the
staffer, the DNI told Rep Wenstrup that CIA was 2/3 in the “lab leak” camp but that they were being “held back” by 1/3
of the analysts. He asked the CIA briefer if that was true. She responded that she had never heard that…as did I. CBD
management has pinged me a couple of times since to see if the DNI actually told Wenstrup this or if there was another
explanation for the source of the claim. I imagine whoever CIA sends to the briefing with you will also want to know so
they can answer accordingly. –

======================================================
Classification:

======================================================
Classification:

======================================================
Classification:

======================================================
Classification:

======================================================
Classification:

======================================================
Classification:

DECLASSIFIED BY DNI GABBARD ON 18 JUNE 2026
2Derived From:
Declassify On:
======================================================

 – hopefully I didn’t misspeak when we chatted. NCMI learned of this from our OCC colleagues who were
notified by DARPA Legislative Affairs. They provided the links below for where the article was circulating on Monday. I’ve
also attached a document that I was provided this morning that is allegedly what was posted on line. It does not contain
your comments (thankfully) but is very similar to the V11 I shared with you yesterday.
You can see a flavor of the resulting coverage:
https://www.theblaze.com/news/leaked-pentagon-paper-indicates-the-us-government-suspected-all-along-
that-fauci-s-covid-19-natural-origins-theory-was-rubbish

This account has screenshots
https://twitter.com/billybostickson/status/1658307176702828545
. The individual is associated with drasticresearch.org, which has been tied to other leaked information.
v/r

From:
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2023 4:53 PM
To:
Subject: RE: Here's the paper from May 2020

Classification:

Classified By:
Derived From:
Declassify On:
======================================================
Hi

3Thank you again for letting me know about the upcoming origins meeting. You mentioned NCMI found out via the news.
Do you have a copy of the article(s)? If not, which news outlets did you see it in?

Thank you!

From:
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2023 2:05 PM
To:
Subject: Here's the paper from May 2020

Classification:

Classified By:
Derived From:
Declassify On:
======================================================

Here you go

======================================================
Classification:

======================================================
Classification:

======================================================
Classification:

======================================================
Classification:

======================================================
Classification:

1From:
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2022 8:04 AM
To:
Subject: FW: ACTION REQUIRED: (U ) FOIA Litigation Search Request |
DF-2021-00235 (21-cv-01619)
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
======================================================

Stand down on this for now. Maybe we’ll get clarification that will lower the burden of this ridiculous request. Also note,
however, that this is one of six requests this person filed on COVID origin stuff…so more probably on the way to us.

From:
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2022 7:51 AM
To: DNI_MI_NIC_TASKERS Mailbox
Subject: RE: ACTION REQUIRED:  (U ) FOIA Litigation Search Request | DF-2021-00235 (21-cv-
01619)

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
======================================================

What are we supposed to do with this? Shouldn’t this be sent to the “senior” DOS, NIH, or ODNI officials for them to
search their records? And what is a “senior” official for these agencies? –

From:  On Behalf Of DNI_MI_NIC_TASKERS Mailbox Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2022 9:58 PM
To: DNI_MI_NIC  DNI_MI_NIC
Cc: DNI_MI_NIC_TASKERS Mailbox
Subject: ACTION REQUIRED:  (U ) FOIA Litigation Search Request | DF-2021-00235 (21-cv-
01619)
Importance:  High

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
======================================================
NIO , D/

Suspense: COB Tuesday, 15 MAR 2022

This FOIA specifically asks for all records, communications, or briefings created, generated, forwarded,
transmitted, sent, shared, saved, received, or reviewed by any senior level DOS, NIH, or ODNI official referencing, connected to, or regarding in any way Anthony Fauci, the Wuhan Institute of Virology, and
COVID-19 (including any shorthand, pseudonyms, or synonyms used for those terms).

Timeline: May 1, 2020, to the date this request is processed

DECLASSIFIED BY DNI GABBARD ON 18 JUNE 2026
2Keyword Search : Fauci AND Wuhan
  : Fauci AND COVID-19 AND Wuhan
  : Fauci AND COVID AND Origins
  : Biden AND COVID-19 AND Wuhan
  : Biden AND COVID AND Origins

Thanks,

Analytic Program Manager
National Intelligence Council
Office of the Director of National Intelligence
ODNI  |  DDMI  | NIC FO

Booz Allen Hamilton Contractor Support

From:  On Behalf Of DNI_MI_Taskers Mailbox
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 1:01 PM
To: DNI-MI-NIMC-Taskers Mailbox  DNI_MI_NIC_TASKERS Mailbox

Subject: FW: [Direct][Action]  (U ) FOIA Litigation Search Request | DF-2021-00235 (21-cv-
01619)
Importance:  High

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
======================================================

Attn: NIMC, NIC
Action:  Please provide any responsive materials for the subject FOIA.
Suspense to MI FO: COB 15 MAR 2022

From:
Sent: Friday, March 4, 2022 5:05 PM
To: DNI_MI_Taskers Mailbox
Cc:
Subject: [Direct][Action]  (U ) FOIA Litigation Search Request | DF-2021-00235 (21-cv-01619)
Importance:  High

1From:
Sent: Monday, September 27, 2021 12:24 PM
To:
Subject: RE: Wash Examiner
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
======================================================

Do we have the actual letter?

From:
Sent: Monday, September 27, 2021 12:00 PM
To:
Subject: FW: Wash Examiner

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
======================================================

FYI Only

Legislative Liaison Officer (NIM-EA, NIM-SA, JHTS)
Management Advisory Group Rep
ODNI Legislative Affairs

From:
Sent: Monday, September 27, 2021 9:20 AM
To: Matthew Rhoades ;  ;

Subject: Wash Examiner

House Intel GOP demand Biden instruct top spy office to reveal scientists who
helped with COVID-19 origins report

by Jerry Dunleavy, Justice Department Reporter
 |

DECLASSIFIED BY DNI GABBARD ON 18 JUNE 2026
2
 | September 26, 2021 07:20 PM

House Intelligence Committee Republicans accused the Biden administration's
top intelligence office of "stonewalling" congressional overseers from learning
about outside doctors and scientists whom U.S. spy agencies relied upon to put
together a report assessing the origins of COVID-19.

Rep. Devin Nunes, the ranking member on the panel, was joined by nine fellow
GOP members who said they had no confidence in the origins assessment because
the Office of the Director of National Intelligence personnel who briefed them
had declined to identify which scientists were consulted during the
investigation, which did not provide a definitive conclusion on whether the
virus was transmitted to humans naturally or through a lab leak in China.

"This is fundamental oversight of the IC?s work. We need this information to
determine whether there was any selection bias in choosing the outside
scientists to consult. We also need it to determine whether any of the
scientists had conflicts of interest that should affect the weight given their
analyses," the Republicans wrote in a letter to Biden dated Friday.

Nunes, a California Republican, revealed the letter during an appearance on
Sunday Morning Futures on Fox News.

?It looks like there needs to be an entire new report that needs to be
written, because Republican members on the committee have basically had enough
of this. It just looks like this is another attempt to obfuscate and protect
China

 once again by the Biden administration," he told

host Maria Bartiromo.

The interview took place shortly after the

Wall Street Journal

reported

that a panel of scientists investigating the origins of the COVID-19 virus had
disbanded, citing concerns about its links to EcoHealth Alliance, a New
York-based nonprofit group that had used U.S. funds for research on bat
coronaviruses with the Wuhan Institute of Virology. EcoHealth Alliance
President Peter Daszak, who dismissed

the lab leak hypothesis in March, recused himself from the investigation over
the summer.

A letter

signed by 27 scientists, including Daszak, was published in Lancet in February
2020, dismissing the lab leak hypothesis as a conspiracy theory. Numerous
outlets pointed to the letter and to Daszak, who had recruited scientists to
sign the letter, to shut down the debate over COVID-19?s origins.

Dr. Anthony Fauci quietly worked behind the scenes to cast doubt on the lab
leak hypothesis in 2020, and he and Daszak were in communication at the time,
emails

show.
3
Daszak was also a key member of the World Health Organization-China

joint study team earlier this year. The WHO-China

report was widely considered a failure, partly due to the lack of access to key
data and Chinese influence over the investigation.

The WHO-China study deemed the lab leak theory ?extremely unlikely,? and
meeting minutes with the Wuhan lab dismissed it as a ?conspiracy theory.?

In July, WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said

there was a "premature push" to dismiss the lab theory, but the Chinese
government shot down

the suggestion of a second investigation.

In their new letter, the House Intelligence Republicans claimed ODNI staff
did not respect the oversight role the panel has over the U.S. intelligence
community.

?Shockingly, ODNI has repeatedly refused to tell the Committee which
scientists the IC consulted. When pressed on the basis for this refusal during
our hearing, ODNI staff acknowledged there is no law or regulation prohibiting
them from revealing these names to us. Instead, they simply refused again in a
hostile manner, claiming it is their ?policy? to do so,? the GOP group said.

After Biden called on

the intelligence community to ?redouble? its origins investigation in May and
gave it a 90-day clock, an unclassified report was released by ODNI last month.

The assessment stated

that one U.S. intelligence agency assesses with ?moderate confidence? that
COVID-19 most likely emerged from a Chinese government lab

in Wuhan, while four U.S. spy agencies and the National Intelligence Council
believe with ?low confidence? COVID-19 most likely has a natural origin. Other
parts of the U.S. intelligence community remain on the fence.

The one unnamed spy agency leaning toward the Wuhan lab theory with "moderate
confidence" assessed that "the first human infection with SARS-CoV-2 most
likely was the result of a laboratory-associated incident, probably involving
experimentation, animal handling, or sampling" by the Wuhan Institute of
Virology. The four unnamed spy agencies, along with the NIC, with "low
confidence" in the natural origin hypothesis assessed "the initial SARS-CoV-2
infection was most likely caused by natural exposure to an animal infected with
it or a close progenitor virus.?

The Republicans argued in their letter that the intelligence community failed
to live up to Biden's own words when he said on May 26, ?I have asked the
Intelligence Community to keep Congress fully apprised of its work," and urged
him to crack down.

?Outside doctors and scientists who were consulted for their technical
analyses of COVID?s potential origins are not clandestine sources or spies.
They are consultants and there is no basis for stonewalling the Committee about
their identities ? I respectfully ask that you rectify this situation by
instructing the ODNI to cease stonewalling Congressional oversight and to
immediately disclose to the Committee the full list of all outside doctors and
4scientists consulted in the investigation of COVID?s origins," Nunes and his
fellow Republicans wrote.

Nunes also stressed that what ODNI presented in the summer did not match what
he demanded in the spring.

?In May, I wrote to you requesting that you initiate a whole-of-government
effort to identify the origins of the virus. However, you opted for a much
narrower review solely by the Intelligence Community,? Nunes and his fellow
Republicans told Biden. ?The Committee has reviewed the resulting IC report and
received a briefing from Office of the Director of National Intelligence
personnel. Based on the IC?s appalling lack of transparency and the ODNI
staff?s hostile response to simple questions, we have little confidence in the
DNI?s report.?

The Washington Examiner reached out to ODNI for comment.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/house-intelligence-gop-demand-biden-instruct-top-spy-office-reveal-scientists-helped-covid-19-origins-report

Public Affairs Officer

Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI)

======================================================
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED

======================================================
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED

1From:
Sent: Friday, September 24, 2021 10:50 AM
To:
Subject: FW: Readout of contentious HPSCI COVID Origins briefing
Classification:

Classified By:
Derived From:
Declassify On:
======================================================

FYI…fun stuff. Morgan says he won’t fire me.

From:
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2021 3:50 PM
To:  Morgan Muir-DNI-

Subject: Readout of contentious HPSCI COVID Origins briefing

Classification:

Classified By:
Derived From:
Declassify On:
======================================================

 and I, along with three reps from NCPC and  from OLA, briefed the HPSCI this morning on the COVID
Origins assessment. It did not go well. After Opening remarks from Reps Schiff and Nunes, I started off with prepared
remarks that went about 10 minutes, going over the processes involved in the 90-day study and then highlighting the
key takeaways. Rep Schiff asked a couple of easy questions and then turned it over to Rep Nunes, who yielded his time
to Rep. Wenstrup. Then everything went downhill.

Rep Wenstrup spent the first big chunk of his time identifying a number of open source documents that he wanted read
into the record (which was agreed to), in particular papers on the threat of SARS as a bioterror weapon (from 2005),
statements Fauci made on the general idea of gain of function research back in 2012, Ralph Baric’s work on chimeric
viruses in 2015, and similar stuff. After quite a while of talking he finally started to ask questions. They mostly centered
on the names of the experts the IC reached out to on COVID origins. I told him that I was unable to reveal the names of
the experts we reach out to. Which is also exactly what I told the staffers during the pre-briefing we did on Tuesday. Rep
Wenstrup even acknowledged before he asked the first time that he knew what my response would be but was going to
ask anyway. He was, to put it mildly, not happy with my answer. In fact, he seemed pretty outraged. After that, it was
more of the same. Every single minority member who asked questions spent the first two-three minutes of their allotted
five minutes expressing outrage and disdain over my behavior. One, not sure who because this was all a blur, even said
“shame on you.” At one point, a member turned his time back to Rep Wenstrup who went through a long list of names
of “experts” (air quotes because the expertise of some he named is iffy in my mind) and asked me if anyone in the IC had
consulted with them…apparently because he wanted me to be on the record each time saying “I am not going to
comment on that.” I repeatedly tried to explain that IC policy was to not reveal the names of the experts we reached out
DECLASSIFIED BY DNI GABBARD ON 18 JUNE 2026
2to for source protection reasons, which just seem to enrage then all even more. Several of the minority members
claimed that they had been staunch defenders of the IC in the past but now “will not have your back.” I heard a lot of
“nobody has ever come in here and refused to answer our questions” and the comments/question got heated on their
end and were pretty over the top. Several times I tried to answer a question only to be interrupted by whoever asked
the question and a couple even said something along the lines of “I don’t want to hear that ‘it’s against policy’ crap.”

Not to pick on the minority members, some of the majority members also were not pleased with the briefing. Rep.
Speier seemed annoyed that our assessment focused too much on  and wanted us to agree to talk to
one of her constituents who was in Wuhan in November of 2019 on a riverboat cruise (I kid you not). Her time ran out
before she asked that and she didn’t press the issue. Rep Krishnamoorthi also expressed surprise and disappointment
over my refusal to identify the experts and said it made us (the IC) “look bad.”

It seemed clear to me that few if any of the members actually read the Updated Assessment…or were paying attention
to my prepared remarks. One of the minority members (I can’t remember which) challenged me to identify anything
new that I had mentioned up to that point that was not in open sources. That question frankly baffled me, but I pointed
out that I had literally just talked about  WIV researchers who were reportedly sick in the Fall of 2019.
Members from both parties seemed surprised and confused that FBI came to a different conclusion than other IC
agencies. More than one asked me if FBI had access to information that they had not shared with the IC, and one
member (I think it was Rep Carson) asked me and  if we thought FBI was an equal and honest partner in the
processes (despite some of our issues with FBI, we both stated “yes”). Nobody seemed to understand what “low
confidence” means; even after I explained multiple times that low confidence meant that
  I got the same confused questions about
confidence levels.

With regard to the minority members question on experts, I think this was a set-up. They were looking for a reason to
distance themselves from the Updated Assessment and that was the issue they chose. Again, they knew we were not
going to name the experts because this came up at the pre-brief Tuesday. And at no time during that call did any of the
minority staffers indicate that this was going to be a problem . Maybe I could have explained the reason we weren’t
going to provide the names in a way that would have resulted in less vitriol…but I doubt it.

Anyway, I would expect the DNI  to receive angry letters from the Hill calling my professionalism into question and
demanding that the IC name names. And maybe that I be fired.

======================================================
Classification:

======================================================
Classification:

1From: -
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2021 11:52 AM
To:
Subject: FW: [AIN] FW:
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
======================================================

From:
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2021 11:43 AM
To:

Subject: FW: [AIN] FW:

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
======================================================

fyi

First on CNN: HHS watchdog announces review of NIH
grants that likely includes
money connected to Wuhan lab

By Kristen Holmes  and
Priscilla Alvarez , CNN

Updated 10:30 AM ET, Tue June 15, 2021

US intelligence working on report about Covid-19 origins 04:04

(CNN)Federal government investigators said Tuesday that they are launching a
review into how the National Institutes of Health manages and monitors its
grant program, which likely includes money connected to a Wuhan lab that GOP
lawmakers have been scrutinizing.

Republicans have zeroed in on NIH's relationship with EcoHealth Alliance, the
global nonprofit that helped fund some research at China's Wuhan Institute of
Virology, to attack Dr. Anthony Fauci
and
score political points.

The comprehensive review also coincides with renewed questions

DECLASSIFIED BY DNI GABBARD ON 18 JUNE 2026
2over the origin of the Covid-19 virus and the potential role that China's Wuhan
Institute of Virology may have played.

"We share stakeholders' concerns regarding compliance and oversight of NIH
grant funds. We have been monitoring this issue for some time and consider it a
high-priority matter that can pose a threat to the integrity of the NIH grant
program," Tesia Williams, the director of communications for the Department of
Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General, told CNN.

"Based on our preliminary research and analysis, HHS-OIG has decided to
conduct an extensive audit reviewing how NIH monitored selected grants and how
the grantees and subgrantees used and managed federal funds between years 2014
through 2021," Williams said.

Roughly 80% of NIH funding goes to supporting research grants, including
grants to foreign organizations. According to the work plan on the review, it
will look at how these grants are monitored and making sure the recipient's use
and management of NIH grant funds is in accordance with federal requirements.

Enter your email to sign up for CNN's "What Matters" Newsletter.

 <>

"close dialog" <>

Top of Form

Sign up for CNN What Matters Newsletter

Every day we summarize What Matters and deliver it straight to your inbox.

Sign Me Up

No Thanks

By subscribing you agree to our

privacy policy.

Bottom of Form

One NIH official, who spoke under the condition of anonymity in order to
discuss the review openly, called it "political" in nature but believed that
ultimately it would be a good thing and would clear NIH of any wrongdoing.

"It's an opportunity to educate the public," the official said.

Questions about the relationship between NIH and EcoHealth Alliance have
grown louder after Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and
Infectious Diseases within NIH, confirmed to lawmakers earlier this year that
hundreds of thousands of dollars that NIH had given to the New York-based
global nonprofit went to the Wuhan Institute of Virology to study coronaviruses
in bats.

3"About $600,000 was spent over a five-year period," Fauci said during a
congressional budget hearing. "That comes to anywhere between $125 (thousand)
and $150,000 per year that went to collaboration with Wuhan."

A recent US intelligence report found that several researchers at China's
Wuhan Institute of Virology fell ill in November 2019

 and had to be hospitalized, a new detail about the severity of their symptoms.
It's not clear what might have affected the researchers, there is no indication
they caught Covid-19 and the lab strongly denied the report, calling it a lie
to push the so-called lab-leak theory for the disease origin.

There are competing theories about how the pandemic got started. One is that
it developed naturally in the wild and transferred from animal to human, as
many other viruses have in the past. Another is that such a naturally
originating virus was studied in a lab and accidentally infected someone. A
third theory, most widely discounted by scientists, is that it was engineered
in a lab and somehow leaked to humans.

For much of 2020, pursuing the lab leak theory was treated publicly as
xenophobic, and, thanks in part to an open letter signed by 27 scientists and
published in an influential medical journal in February 2020, scientifically
unsound.

But in recent months

, the classified intelligence emerged that three researchers at the Wuhan
Institute of Virology who were conducting the kind of controversial research
that some scientists now believe may have led to the pandemic had gotten sick
in the autumn of 2019, before the outbreak was known to have begun, although
there's no evidence they were infected with Covid-19.

Conservative attacks on Fauci have also intensified after media organizations
released a trove of the doctor's emails.

In one email sent to Fauci in April 2020, an executive at EcoHealth Alliance
thanked him for publicly stating that scientific evidence supports a natural
origin for the coronavirus and not a lab release
.

Fauci recently told CNN's John Berman the email was being misconstrued and
called claims he had a cozy relationship with the people behind the Wuhan lab
research "nonsense."

"I have always said, and will say today to you, John, that I still believe
the most likely origin is from an animal species to a human, but I keep an
absolutely open mind that if there may be other origins of that, there may be
another reason, it could have been a lab leak," Fauci told Berman. "I believe
if you look historically, what happens in the animal-human interface, that in
fact the more likelihood is that you're dealing with a jump of species. But I
keep an open mind all the time. And that's the reason why I have been public
that we should continue to look for the origin.

"You can misconstrue it however you want -- that email was from a person to
me saying 'thank you' for whatever it is he thought I said, and I said that I
think the most likely origin is a jumping of species. I still do think it is,
at the same time as I'm keeping an open mind that it might be a lab leak."

Nonetheless, Republicans are using the emails -- and controversy about how
the pandemic began and whether US government grant money can be connected to it
-- to fundraise and campaign against the Biden administration.

4GOP Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky

 has lashed out at Fauci, calling for his ouster.

"He's continuously and deliberately misleading the public at every turn. It's
time to FIRE FAUCI," a Paul fundraising email read. "There are 2,000 emails
proving Fauci chose his own ego over the facts."

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio recently penned a Fox News op-ed

 titled "If Biden Believes in Science, He Must Fire Fauci."

President Joe Biden was asked earlier this month if he still had confidence
in Fauci.

"Yes, I am very confident in Dr. Fauci," Biden said.

CNN's Maggie Fox contributed to this report.

·

·

======================================================
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED

======================================================
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED

1From:
Sent: Monday, June 14, 2021 12:49 PM
To:
Cc:
Subject: RE:   Update for NCPC - Tuesday, 8 June
Classification:

Classified By:
Derived From:
Declassify On:
======================================================

FYI: there’s likely going to be a follow-on to that Fauci briefing adding the NIC and we may get pulled into it.

-

-----------------------------------

From:
Sent: Monday, June 14, 2021 12:36 PM
To:

Subject: FW:   Update for NCPC - Tuesday, 8 June

Classification:

Classified By:
Derived From:
Declassify On:
======================================================

DECLASSIFIED BY DNI GABBARD ON 18 JUNE 2026
2

FYI.

 briefed Dr. Fauci on the COVID origins on 4 June.

 4 June:   Briefing for Dr. Anthony Fauci on COVID Origins:   officers met with the Chief
Medical Advisor to the President and Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Dr. Anthony
Fauci, to present our analysis on the COVID origins topic as well as our approach to the intelligence question. Dr.
Fauci expressed concern about Beijing’s quick and thorough cleaning of the Wuhan wet market, which may have
destroyed clues related to the pandemic’s origin.  He did not find it alerting that China had not yet found any
evidence of a zoonotic transmission or intermediate animal host. He was particularly interested in the specific details
 provided on the research WIV was doing and on their work with pangolins.

V/r

Office of the National Intelligence Management for Counterproliferation (NIM-CP)

From:   Sent: Monday, June 14, 2021 12:25 PM
To:

Subject:   Update for NCPC - Tuesday, 8 June

Classification:

Classified By:
Derived From:
Declassify On:
======================================================

1From:
Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2021 9:12 PM
To:
Subject: Came across this gem...
Classification:

Classified By:
Derived From:
Declassify On:
======================================================

SO MANY CONSPIRACIES.

(U) New Zealand: The superspreaders behind top Covid-19 conspiracy theories - NZ Herald
Identifiers:

Document Number:

DIN:

Document Version:
1
Ingestion ID:

GUIDE:
 Source:

Publisher Type:
open-source
Sourced Text:
null
Language:
eng
Source ID:

Country Code:
DECLASSIFIED BY DNI GABBARD ON 18 JUNE 2026
2NZL
Source Type:
Internet
City:
Auckland
Country Code:
NZL
Compilation Title:
The New Zealand Herald Online
Description:
Auckland The New Zealand Herald Online in English Website of a daily newspaper distributed mainly in the greater
Auckland area, but with the highest readership in New Zealand. Audited circulation of 108,790 as of 2018. Owned New
Zealand Media and Entertainment; URL: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/ (source last reviewed 15 Mar 19)
Information Date:
15-Feb-2021 19:00:00
Information Cutoff Date:
15-Feb-2021 19:00:01
Originating System:
OSE Dates:

Date Posted:
16-Feb-2021 04:57:06
Date Published:
16-Feb-2021 04:57:13
Date Received:
16-Feb-2021 12:28:29 Description:
(U) As the coronavirus spread across the globe, so too did speculation about its origins. Perhaps the virus escaped from a
lab. Maybe it was engineered as a bioweapon.Legitimate questions about the virus created perfect conditions for
conspiracy theories....
Warnings:(U) Not for Law Enforcement Use: OSE content may not be used as the basis for any US legal proceeding
without prior written authorization from OSE. This includes but is not limited to: presentation to grand/petit juries or
administrative bodies; incorporation into affidavits or other documents relating to subpoenas, search, electronic
surveillance, or arrest warrants; and/or as evidence in criminal proceedings. The content may be used for lead purposes
only and is intended solely as background information for recipients in developing their own collateral leads.

(U) This product may contain copyrighted material; authorized use is for national security purposes of the United States
Government only. Any reproduction, dissemination, or use is subject to the OSE usage policy and the original copyright.
(U) PRODUCT DESCRIPTION
(U) The body of this product is a transcription of original English-language material.
(U) CAVEATS
(U) Computer selected and disseminated without OSE editorial intervention.
3(U) BODY
(U) As the coronavirus spread across the globe, so too did speculation about its origins. Perhaps the virus
escaped from a lab. Maybe it was engineered as a bioweapon.
(U) Legitimate questions about the virus created perfect conditions for conspiracy theories. In the absence of
knowledge, guesswork and propaganda flourished.
(U) College professors with no evidence or training in virology were touted as experts. Anonymous social
media users posed as high-level intelligence officials. And from China to Iran to Russia to the United States,
governments amplified claims for their own motives.
(U) The Associated Press collaborated with the Atlantic Council's Digital Forensic Research Lab on a nine-
month investigation to identify the people and organisations behind some of the most viral misinformation
about the origins of the coronavirus.
(U) Their claims were explosive. Their evidence was weak. These are the superspreaders.
(U) FRANCIS BOYLE
(U) WHO HE IS: A Harvard-trained law professor at the University of Illinois, Boyle drafted a 1989 law
banning biological weapons and has advised the nation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Palestinian
Authority.
(U) Francis Boyle, a law professor at the University of Illinois. Photo / APBoyle has no academic degree in virology or biology but is a longstanding critic of research on pathogens. He has claimed Israeli intelligence was
involved in the 1993 World Trade Centre bombing; that SARS, the swine flu and Ebola have been genetically
modified; and that West Nile virus and Lyme disease escaped from a US biowarfare lab. He has also claimed
that Microsoft founder Bill Gates "was involved" in the spread of Zika.
(U) COVID CLAIM: Boyle says the coronavirus is a genetically engineered bioweapon that escaped from a
high-level lab in Wuhan, China. He maintains it shows signs of nanotechnological tinkering and the insertion of
proteins from HIV, the human immunodeficiency virus . He alleges that US researchers helped create it, and that
thousands of doctors, scientists, and elected leaders are conspiring to hide the truth.
(U) Boyle promoted his claim in an email to a list of news organizations and personal contacts on January 24,
2020. That same day, he was interviewed on a podcast called "Geopolitics and Empire." That podcast was cited
by a little-known Indian website, GreatGameIndia, and went viral, with Boyle's comments picked up and
featured in Iranian-state TV, Russian state media, and fringe websites in the US and around the world. He's
since repeated his claims on Alex Jones' show Infowars.
(U) EVIDENCE? Boyle bases his argument on circumstantial evidence: the presence of a Biosafety Level 4 lab
in Wuhan, the fact that other viruses have escaped from other labs in the past, and his belief that governments
around the world are engaged in a secret arms race over biological weapons.
(U) Biosafety Level 4 labs - or BSL4 labs - have the highest level of biosafety precautions.
(U) "It seemed to me that obviously, this came out of the Wuhan BSL 4," Boyle told The Associated Press.
(U) A World Heath Organisation team concluded it was extremely unlikely the virus escaped from the Wuhan
lab, and other experts have said the virus shows no signs of genetic manipulation.
4(U) GREATGAMEINDIA
(U) WHAT IT IS: A website that was an early promoter of the theory that the coronavirus was engineered.
(U) Its January 26, 2020, story on "Coronavirus bioweapon- How China Stole the Coronavirus From Canada and
Weaponised It" was picked up by far-right financial blog Zero Hedge and shared to thousands of social media
users before it was promoted by conservative website RedStateWatcher and received more than 6 million
engagements.
(U) COVID CLAIM: GreatGameIndia claims that the virus, which has now killed more than 2 million people
worldwide, was first found in the lungs of a Saudi man and then sent to labs in the Netherlands and then
Canada, where it was stolen by Chinese scientists. The article relies in part on speculation from Dany Shoham,
a virologist and former lieutenant colonel in Israeli military intelligence.
(U) Shoham was quoted discussing the possibility that Covid is linked to bioweapon research in a January 26,
2020, article in the conservative US newspaper The Washington Times. In that article, Shoham was quoted
saying there was no evidence to support the idea that the virus has escaped from a lab, but GreatGameIndia did
not include that context in its piece.
(U) "We do stand by our report," said website co-founder Shelley Kasli wrote in an email. "In fact, recently Canadians released documents which corroborated our findings with Chinese scientists... A lot of information is
still classified."
(U) EVIDENCE? The coronavirus most likely first appeared in humans after jumping from an animal, a World
Health Organisation panel announced this month, saying an alternate theory that the virus leaked from a
Chinese lab was unlikely.
(U) America's top scientists have likewise concluded the virus is of natural origin, citing clues in its genome and
its similarity to SARS, or severe acute respiratory syndrome. Vincent Racaniello, a professor of microbiology
and immunology at Columbia University, who has been studying the virus since its genome was first recorded,
has said it is clear that the virus was not engineered or accidentally released.
(U) "It is something that is clearly selected in nature," Racaniello said. "There are two examples where the
sequence tells us that humans had no hand in making this virus because they would not have known to do these
things."
(U) THE CENTRE FOR RESEARCH ON GLOBALISATION
(U) WHAT IT IS: The Montreal-based centre publishes articles on global politics and policy, including a
healthy dose of conspiracy theories on vaccines and the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. It's led by Michel
Chossudovsky, a professor emeritus of economics at the University of Ottawa and a conspiracy theorist who has
argued the US military can control the weather.
(U) The centre publishes authors from around the world - many of whom have advanced baseless claims about
the origins of the outbreak. In February, for instance, the centre published an interview with Igor Nikulin
suggesting the coronavirus was a US bioweapon created to target Chinese people.
(U) The centre's website, globalresearch.ca., "has become deeply enmeshed in Russia's broader disinformation
and propaganda ecosystem" by peddling anti-US conspiracy theories, according to a 2020 US State Department
report which found that seven of its supposed writers do not even exist but were created by Russian military
intelligence.
5(U) COVID CLAIM: While the centre has published several articles about the virus, one suggesting it
originated in the US caught the attention of top Chinese officials.
(U) On March 12, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Zhao Lijian retweeted an article published by the
centre titled: "China's Coronavirus: A Shocking Update. Did The Virus Originate in the US?"
(U) "This article is very much important to each and every one of us," he posted in English on Twitter. "Please
read and retweet it. Covid-19: Further Evidence that the Virus Originated in the US."
(U) He also tweeted: "It might be US army who brought the epidemic to Wuhan. Be transparent! Make public
your data! US owe us an explanation."
(U) The story by Larry Romanoff, a regular author at the centre, cites several debunked theories, including one
that members of the US military brought the virus to China during the Military World Games in fall 2019.
Romanoff concludes that it has now "been proven" that the virus originated from outside of China, despite
scientific consensus that it did.
(U) EVIDENCE? The World Health Organisation has concluded that the coronavirus emerged in China, where
the first cases and deaths were reported. No evidence has surfaced to suggest the virus was imported into China
by the US.
(U) Chossudovsky and Romanoff did not respond to repeated messages seeking comment. Romanoff's
biography lists him as a visiting professor at Fudan University in Shanghai, but he is not listed among the
university's faculty. The university did not respond to an email asking about Romanoff's employment.
(U) Romanoff's original article was taken down in the spring, but Zhao's tweet remains up.
(U) IGOR NIKULIN
(U) WHO IS HE? A four-time failed political candidate, Nikulin is prominently quoted in Russian state media
and fringe publications in the west as a biologist and former weapons inspector in Iraq who served on a UN
commission on biological and chemical weapons in the 1990s.
(U) COVID CLAIM: Nikulin argues the US created the virus and used it to attack China. He first voiced the
belief in a January 20, 2020, story by Zvezda, a state media outlet tied to the Russian military. He appeared on
Russian state TV at least 18 times between January 27, 2020, and late April of that year.
(U) Russian national Igor Nikulin last year. Photo / APOnce the virus reached the US, Nikulin changed his
theory, saying "globalists" were using the virus to depopulate the earth. (U) Nikulin has expressed support for weaponising misinformation to hurt the US in the past. On his website, he
suggests claiming the US created HIV as a way to weaken America from within. Russian intelligence mounted
a similar 1980s disinformation campaign dubbed "Operation INFEKTION."
(U) "If you prove and declare... that the virus was bred in American laboratories, the American economy will
collapse under the onslaught of billions of lawsuits by millions of AIDS carriers around the world," Nikulin
wrote on his website.
(U) EVIDENCE? Nikulin offered no evidence to support his assertions, and there are reasons to doubt his
veracity.
6(U) Former UN weapons inspector Richard Butler, for whom Nikulin claims to have worked, said he had no
memory of Nikulin, and that his story sounded "sloppily fabricated, and not credible."
(U) No UN records could be found to confirm his employment.
(U) In an exchange with the AP over Facebook, Nikulin insisted his claims and background are accurate,
though he said some records from UN work were destroyed in an American bombing during the Iraq invasion.
(U) When told that Butler didn't know him, Nikulin responded "This is his opinion."
(U) GREG RUBINI
(U) WHO HE IS: Greg Rubini is the name of an internet conspiracy theorist who claims to have high-level
contacts in intelligence and listed his location on Twitter as "classified," until he was kicked off the platform.
His posts have been retweeted thousands of times by supporters of QAnon, a conspiracy theory centered on the
baseless belief that Trump is waging a secret campaign against enemies in the "deep state" and a secret sect of
satanic paedophiles and cannibals.
(U) COVID CLAIM: Rubini has tweeted that Dr Anthony Fauci created the coronavirus and that it was used as
a bioweapon to reduce the world's population and undermine Trump.
(U) EVIDENCE? Rubini's doesn't appear to be the intelligence insider that he pretends to be. (U) Greg Rubini's permanently suspended Twitter account. Photo / APBuzzfeed attempted to track down Rubini
last year and determined it is the alias of a 61-year-old Italian man who has worked in marketing and music
promotions. A previous version of his Twitter bio indicates he is a fan of classic rock and the films of Stanley
Kubrick.
(U) Attempts to reach Rubini online and through business contacts were unsuccessful.
(U) Rubini has bristled at efforts to verify his claims. When a social media user asked: "My question to you
@GregRubini is, 'Where and what is your proof?' Rubini responded curtly: "And my question is: why should I
give it to you?"
(U) Twitter suspended Rubini's account in November 2020 for repeated violations of its policies.
(U) KEVIN BARRETT
(U) WHO HE IS: A former lecturer on Islam at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Barrett left the university
amid criticism for his claims that the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks were orchestrated by people linked to
the US and Israeli governments.
(U) Barrett calls himself "a professional conspiracy theorist, for want of a better term" and has argued
government conspiracies were behind the 2004 Madrid bombing, the 2005 London bombing, the 2013 Boston
Marathon bombing and the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting.
(U) COVID CLAIM: Barrett said he is "80%" sure coronavirus was created by elements within the US
government as a bioweapon and used to attack China.
7(U) University of Wisconsin- Madison lecturer Kevin Barrett in 2006. Photo / APIran was a secondary target, he
has argued. Writing for Iran's PressTV, he said the early outbreak in that country "suggests that the Americans
and/or their partners the Israelis... may have deliberately attacked Iran."
(U) Barrett further detailed his views during an interview with the AP.
(U) "It seemed fairly obvious to me that the first hypothesis one would look at when something as extraordinary
as this Covid pandemic hits, is that it would be a US bio-war strike," he said.
(U) EVIDENCE? Barrett cited reports that the US warned its allies in November 2019 about a dangerous virus
emerging from China. Barrett said that's long before authorities in China knew about the severity of the
outbreak.
(U) Official sources have denied issuing any warning. If the US did know about the virus that soon, it was likely
thanks to intelligence sources within China, which may have known about the virus as early as November 2019,
according to former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.
(U) LUC MONTAGNIER
(U) WHO HE IS: Montagnier is a world-renowned virologist who won the Nobel prize in 2008 for discovering
HIV.
(U) COVID CLAIM: During an April interview with the French news channel CNews, Montagnier claimed that
the coronavirus did not originate in nature and was manipulated. Montagnier said that in the process of making
the vaccine for AIDS, someone took the genetic material and added it to the coronavirus.
(U) Scientist Luc Montagnier in Paris in 2006. Photo / APMontagnier cites a retracted paper published in
January from Indian scientists who had said they had found sequences of HIV in the coronavirus. AP made
multiple unsuccessful attempts to contact Montagnier.
(U) EVIDENCE: Experts who have looked at the genome sequence of the virus have said it has no HIV-1
sequences. In January, Indian scientists published a paper on bioRXIV, a repository for scientific papers that
have not yet been peer-reviewed or published in a traditional scientific journal. The paper said that the scientists
had found "uncanny similarity of unique inserts" in Covid-19 and HIV. Social media users picked up the paper
as proof that the virus was engineered. As soon as it was published, the scientific community widely debunked
the paper on social media. It was later withdrawn.
(U) SUPREME LEADER ALI KHAMENEI and HOSSEIN SALAMI
(U) WHO THEY ARE: Khamenei is the second and current Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
He has the final say on all matters of state, including the economy, military and health divisions.
(U) Since being elected to office in 1981, Khamenei has maintained his skeptical view of the US as Iran's
foremost enemy. The tensions between the two countries boiled over in 2018 when Trump pulled the US out of
the Iran nuclear deal and reimposed crippling sanctions. At the time, Khamenei remarked, "I said from the first
day: Don't trust America."
(U) Hossein Salami was appointed by Khamenei as commander of Iran's Revolutionary Guard in April 2019. He leads the country's paramilitary force that oversees Iran's ballistic missile programme and responds to threats
from both inside and outside the country.
8(U) COVID CLAIM: Salami declared on March 5, 2020, that Iran was engaged in a fight against a virus that
might be the product of an American biological attack. On those grounds, Salami ordered a Ground Force
Biological Defence Manoeuvre to test the country's ability to combat a biological attack. Beginning March 16,
the Ground Force, in close collaboration with the Health Ministry, began holding nationwide biodefense drills.
(U) Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Photo / APKhamenei was among the first and most
powerful world leaders to suggest the coronavirus could be a biological weapon created by the US. During his
annual address on March 22 to millions of Iranians for the Persian New Year, Khamenei questioned why the US
would offer aid to countries like Iran if they themselves were suffering and accused of making the virus.
(U) Khamenei went on to refuse US assistance, saying "possibly (US) medicine is a way to spread the virus
more." Last month, he refused to accept coronavirus vaccines manufactured in Britain and the US, calling them
"forbidden." The Iranian Mission to the United Nations in New York did not respond to multiple requests for
comment.
(U) EVIDENCE: There is no evidence that the US created the virus or used it as a weapon to attack Iran.
(U) SOURCE DESCRIPTOR
(U) Auckland The New Zealand Herald Online in English -- Auckland The New Zealand Herald Online in
English Website of a daily newspaper distributed mainly in the greater Auckland area, but with the highest
readership in New Zealand. Audited circulation of 108,790 as of 2018. Owned New Zealand Media and
Entertainment; URL: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/ (source last reviewed 15 Mar 19)
Attachments:
e2bc6a76-0b63-4c...
Publisher:

#1
Agency Acronym:
CIA
Office Name:
OSE
Phone Numbers:

Email Addresses:

#2
LNI Producer:
OSE

 Creator:

#1
Agency Acronym:

9CIA
Office Name:
OSE
Phone Numbers:

Email Addresses:

#2
Compilation Title:
The New Zealand Herald Online

======================================================
Classification:

1From:
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2020 2:04 PM
To:
Subject: RE: Readout: Friday 10am: COVID-19 Weekly Analytic Synch VTC (Conference ID:
Classification:

Classified By:
Derived From:
Declassify On:
======================================================

Sure thing, I’ve added you to this list. There is a VTC tomorrow (10-1130, conf ID  if you are available. Also
flagging the wider CIA COVID email slug ( ) if you want to get added to that group for
broader SA.

Office of the Director of National Intelligence

In the event I am out of the office, please contact the following alternate POCs at the NIC:
 NIC COVID alias:
 NIO WMD & Proliferation:

As of early July, the NIO-WMD team will be on an alternating BLUE/GOLD schedule as follows:
 BLUE:  ( ) and  (COVID – )
 GOLD:  (COVID – ),  ( )and
 ( )

From:
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2020 1:57 PM
To:
Subject: FW: Readout: Friday 10am: COVID-19 Weekly Analytic Synch VTC (Conference ID: 149422246)

Classification:

Classified By:
Derived From:
Declassify On:
======================================================

DECLASSIFIED BY DNI GABBARD ON 18 JUNE 2026
2Hello,

I was wondering if I could be added for distro for these VTCs?  I’m the  and am currently
helping out with one related effort –

Thanks,

From:   Sent: Friday, September 11, 2020 11:01 AM
To:

3

Cc:
Subject: Readout: Friday 10am: COVID-19 Weekly Analytic Synch VTC (Conference ID:

Classification:

Classified By:
Derived From:
Declassify On:
======================================================

Good morning,

Today’s COVID VTC discussed IC efforts to understand vaccine progress as most agencies reported a steady-state
workload for the week. Highlights include:
  (U ) As NIC/WMD works to balance our WMD and COVID workloads, we welcome your feedback on the
frequency of these VTCs . Does your department or agency rely on the weekly nature of these meetups to help
with workforce turnover? Do you prefer that the VTCs continue but are open to whatever schedule suits the

5Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
======================================================

Good morning,

The NIC will host the weekly COVID-19 analytic synch VTC this Friday, 11 September, from 1000-1130 AM EDT. Topics of
discussion will include introductions and a summary of key questions, policy engagements, and recent or upcoming
production.

For those interested, new to COVID-19, or in touch with colleagues at home, I thought I’d flag this free course by MIT on
COVID-19, which involves one one-hour lecture each week. Details, including a syllabus, are available at
https://biology.mit.edu/undergraduate/current-students/subject-offerings/covid-19-sars-cov-2-and-the-pandemic/ . Upcoming topics include vaccines, immunology, and epidemiology related to COVID-19. Please follow your agency’s
guidance for outside training. About 2000 people watched the first lecture, which did not have an ASL interpreter but
did have captions in English. Lectures are available a few days later on YouTube.

COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2 and the Pandemic
In Fall 2020, all MIT students and the general public are welcome to join Professors Richard Young and Facundo Batista as they discuss the science of the pandemic during this new class. Special guest speakers include: Anthony
Fauci, David Baltimore, Britt Glaunsinger, Bruce Walker, Eric Lander, Michel Nussenzweig, Akiko Iwasaki, Arlene
Sharpe, Kizzmekia Corbett, and others. The class will run from September 1, 2020 through December 8, 2020 and
begin each Tuesday at 11:30 a.m. ET. The live stream will be available to the public, but only registered students
may ask questions during the Q&A. Miss a class? You’ll be able to view a video of the lecture on this page.

If you have any VTC questions or would like to be added to Friday’s conference, please do not hesitate to contact the
Video Operations Center (VOC) at  (I cannot add gateways and such myself). If you are dialing in, you can call
the VOC from a secure phone up to 10 minutes before the meeting.  Have the conference ID ready, the VOC will then
transfer your secure phone into the meeting.

 Conference ID:  Conference Name: COVID COI Synch
Subject: POC-
Notes: CIA3-
Start Setup Time: 11 SEP 2020 09:50  EST/DST  End Conference Time: 11 SEP 2020 11:30  EST/DST
Start Conference Time: 11 SEP 2020 10:00  EST/DST Requestor: CIA 3

Conference Status: Resolved
NCMI 1 Resolved
CIA  Resolved
NGA NCE  Resolved
FBI CLK  Resolved
CDC ATLANTA Resolved
DHS HQ GW 3 Resolved
NSAW GATEWAY 03 Resolved
ONI  Resolved
ROWE VTC  Resolved

6LLNL-NAI 2 Resolved
A2 BLDG  Resolved

In the event I am out of the office, please contact the following alternate POCs at the NIC:
 NIC COVID alias:
 NIO WMD & Proliferation:

As of early September, WMD’s team schedule is the following:
 9/8-11:  (COVID – ),  ( ),
and  ( )
 9/14-18:  (Acting NIO for WMD & Proliferation – ) and
(COVID – )

======================================================
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED

======================================================
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED

======================================================
Classification:

======================================================
Classification:

======================================================
Classification:

======================================================
Classification:

1From:
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2020 6:12 PM
To:
Subject: RE: PubMed  Legacy Search CoV (UNCLASSIFIED )
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
======================================================

Here’s what Daily Beast wrote. My remarks, which you’d probably already expect me to say
 Coming from a lab (we think this is possible) =/= manmade (we think this is unlikely based on available evidence)
 Coming from a lab =/= intentionally released from a lab (we def think this is unlikely)
 New virus =/= suspicious virus
 I do think that some journals/media organizations are slamming down any lab-related theories as conspiracies,
so, sure, I’d be frustrated if I wanted attention, too.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/steve-bannon-linked-groups-push-study-claiming-china-manufactured-covid/

Steve Bannon Is Behind Bogus Study That China Created COVID

The study goes against basically all scientific evidence and expert opinion.
But it fits with the former Trump adviser?s anti-China posture.

Adam Rawnsley

Lachlan Markay

Updated Sep. 15, 2020 4:18PM ET / Published Sep. 15, 2020 3:16PM ET

A new study purporting to show that the novel coronavirus was manufactured in
a Chinese lab was published  by
a pair of nonprofit groups linked to Steve Bannon, the former top Trump
strategist now facing felony fraud charges.

The study, co-authored by a Chinese virologist who fled Hong Kong this year,
claims that ?laboratory manipulation is part of the history of SARS-CoV-2.? Its
findings were quickly picked up by a handful of prominent news organizations
such as theNew York Post, which  hyped the ?explosive? allegations that run counter to
virtually all existing
scientific literature on the source of the virus.

The study is the work of the Rule of Law Society and the Rule of Law
Foundation, sister nonprofit organizations that Bannon was instrumental in
creating. According to documents posted on the Society?s website last year, he
served as that group?s chair. The Bannon connection was first spotted by Carl
DECLASSIFIED BY DNI GABBARD ON 18 JUNE 2026
2Bergstrom, a biology professor at the University of Washington, whocalled the
study  ?bizarre and unfounded.?

A search of Google Scholar and the Rule of Law Society and Rule of Law
Foundation websites indicates that the organizations have not previously
published scientific or medical research, and it?s unclear whether the paper
received any peer review. It was posted on Monday on the website Zenodo, a
publicly available repository of scientific and academic research to which
anyone can upload their work.

Both of the nonprofits behind the study were formed in conjunction with
exiled Chinese billionaire Guo Wengui, with whom Bannon has collaborated on a
number of advocacy efforts targeting the Chinese government and business
endeavors that have drawn the scrutiny of federal law enforcement officials.

In addition to their work on the Rule of Law nonprofits, Bannon and Guo have
also collaborated  on a news website, G News, that has published stories
 suggesting that the coronavirus was manufactured by the Chinese military.

In July, Bannon appeared to tease forthcoming scientific studies supporting
his contention that the coronavirus originated in a lab in Wuhan, China. He
told theDaily Mail  that scientists from the lab had ?defected? to the U.S. and were
collaborating
with American intelligence agencies. On the ?War Room: Pandemic? podcast,
Bannon has hosted others who have speculated that the virus may have been a
Chinese ?bioweapon,? but he has said that he believes the most plausible
explanation is that it ?came out of experiments that were going on? at that
Wuhan lab.

That?s a line that has been echoed by some prominent U.S. officials.
President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo have both alluded
 to intelligence reports supporting that theory. ?This evidence is
circumstantial, to be sure,? wrote Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) in an April column

 for theWall Street Journal, ?but it all points toward the Wuhan labs.?
 While an accidental leak from the virology lab in Wuhan remains a theoretical
possible source of the initial outbreak in the city, the vast majority of the
scientific literature on the virus has determined that its origins were
natural, and that it was not laboratory manufactured. Dr. Anthony Fauci, the
Trump administration?s coronavirus point-person, has stressed repeatedly   that all evidence indicates the virus was not man-made.

The study published by Bannon?s group on Monday is therefore particularly
incendiary. ?This virus is not from nature,? declared Dr. Li-Meng Yan, one of
the scientists who conducted the study, during a Monday appearance on a British
talk show. She called reports that the virus originated in a Wuhan meat market
?a smoke screen? designed to obscure its true origins.

But other virologists don?t agree and say the paper makes false claims about
a number of basic facts. ?Basically, it's all circumstantial and some of it is
entirely fictional,? Dr. Angela Rasmussen, a virologist at Columbia University,
told The Daily Beast of the study.
 The paper leads with a claim that the coronavirus' genes are "suspiciously
similar to that of a bat coronavirus discovered by military laboratories" in
China?an assertion Rasmussen says, that shouldn?t be surprising because they
are related SARS-like coronaviruses.
 The study?s authors made a similar claim about a portion of the SARS-CoV-2
spike protein?which viruses use to breach and infect cells?and wrote that it?s
similar to the original SARS virus in a ?suspicious manner? and suggests
3genetic manipulation. ?SARS-CoV also used ACE2 as a cellular receptor, as do
other SARS-like bat coronaviruses,? Rasmussen says. ?It is not suspicious and
is in fact expected that the receptor binding domains that bind the same
protein would be similar.?

Rasmussen also said that the paper misrepresented basic facts about another
part of coronavirus spike proteins known as furin cleavage sites. The authors
claim that SARS-CoV-2?s cleavage site is ?unique? and unseen elsewhere in
nature. But according to Rasmussen, ?Furin cleavage sites occur naturally in
many other beta-CoVs, including MERS-CoV and other SARS-like bat coronaviruses.?

Yan has said that she fled China to avoid reprisals from the government there
over her allegations that it was not being forthcoming about the origin and
nature of the virus. She said she warned officials in December that the virus
was highly transmissible between humans but that her allegations were ignored.

The University of Hong Kong?s school of public health, where Yan was
employed, has disputed  her allegations that the university failed to heed her warnings
prior to the
outbreak in China.

In August, Yan appeared on Bannon?s podcast. During that show, Bannon said  that he was ?still not in the camp that believes they purposely let it out but
I?ve been strongly in the camp from the beginning that it came out of the Wuhan
P4 lab.?

Unrelated to his work with the Rule of Law groups, Bannon is also facing
felony charges over what federal prosecutors say was an effort to extract
millions of dollars from a nonprofit seeking to privately finance the
construction of a wall on the southern U.S. border. Bannon has pleaded not
guilty to the charges.

From:   Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2020 12:19 PM
To:
Subject: FW: PubMed Legacy Search CoV (UNCLASSIFIED )

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
======================================================

 –

I know you’ve got a lot going on…. But if you have 5 minutes, I’d love to hear your take on this.

NIO/WMD Alias:  -- please use if you don’t hear from me

4

From:
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2020 12:04 PM
To:

Subject: FW: PubMed Legacy Search CoV (UNCLASSIFIED )

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
======================================================

FYI

National Intelligence Council / Office of the Director of National Intelligence

From:
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2020 11:34 AM
To:
Cc:
Subject: RE: PubMed Legacy Search CoV (UNCLASSIFIED )

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
======================================================

(U) Check out attached….plausible?

From:
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 2:07 PM
To:
Cc:
Subject: PubMed Legacy Search CoV

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
======================================================

I wanted to get this to you despite it still being in a very, very, rough format.  If you feel that you’d like to share it, please
do so with the caveat that this is simply a data catch at this point.  In that light, with respect to the attachments:

51. Word file.   This is simply a cut/paste of a retrieval from a PubMed Legacy Search Engine (not the new one) using the
search parameters in the Advanced Search box as  (coronavirus) AND (wuhan institute of virology) on 28-Aug-20. The
format chosen was Abstract (Text) with 200 articles.  There were 130 references retrieved.  Please note that the new
search engine introduced on the site ~February 2020 does not seem to allow retrieval of the institutional affiliations.

2. Excel Spread Sheet .  The Reference numbers on the sheet are the ones assigned to the references in the word
file.  The retrieval is reverse chronology.  Whenever possible duplicate institutions WERE NOT included in the
collaboration list.  Sub-departments were sometimes delineated but NOT within WIV.. e.g. collaborations were recorded
by Institution not individual researcher, duplicate institutions generally  entered once from 2015 onward.   The
collaborations go roughly 10 institutions deep, if there were additional institutions they might have been included in the
“additional collaborations column” OR just noted as more collaborations (e.g. 22 institutions listed).  I tried to provide a
general sense of what technologies were used out to, if needed,  five major categories.  Here are two examples:

Article 26:
 Nucleotide analog inhibitors, antivirals (remdesivir and favipiravir)
 in vitro pharmaceutical assays
 structural and kinetic analyses
Article 40:
 Protein design and synthesis (Mpro - mediates viral replication and transcription)
 anti-viral development  Protein structure and function analysis (x-ray crystallography)
 pharmacokinetic and toxicity analysis in vivo

3. PowerPoint.   This is simply my trying to visual some of the items on the spread sheet.  It’s in the rough stages. Your
comments, concerns  and questions are more than welcome. I think it’s probably fairly self-explanatory.  The boxes
which are filled in white are Asian institutions, those which are filled with color are non-Asian.  The colored borders
show affiliations by article, there isn’t a rhyme or reason for the color selection.  The black lines are simply my trying to
follow author affiliations (by institution) which occur more than once on the page.  It’s an unfinished visual
representation.

Anyway, I’ll still be working on it to try to get a sense of the science and technology behind the articles. I haven’t reached
out yet to the individual you’ve e-introduced me to.  My apologies, I need to get in touch with them. Once again,
questions and comments are more than welcome.

V/r,

Senior Science and Technology Advisor  (Microbiologist/Geneticist)
Perspecta
Contractor Support:
     ODNI/PC/STG (Science & Technology Group)

======================================================
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED

======================================================
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED

6
======================================================
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED

======================================================
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED

======================================================
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED

DECLASSIFIED BY DNI GABBARD ON 18 JUNE 2026
2Good afternoon, ETB Bio folks!

This afternoon a meeting on coronavirus was held at the National Academy of Science (NAS, or NASEM).  We (IC) were
asked to just listen.  This was not a technical meeting, but rather a meeting on what the academic community of experts
in this virus would like to see in terms of additional data.  A readout follows:

Short version:
 Consensus: Not BW.  If someone was trying to optimize this for BW, we know too much about SARS that wasn’t
implemented
 Consensus: Natural or laboratory accident
 Additional sequences with temporal and geographic diversity would be helpful, particularly from early
December.  Value was placed on temporal over geographic diversity, but the academics want it all if they can get
it.
 1-2 products from the National Academy will go out soon.  First is a “Based on science…” article on their website
that will discuss the findings from the meeting and provide a public-facing vehicle for the findings.  Second may
be a letter from the Presidents of the Academies.

  and others will be making a request that all sequences and data related to 2019-nCoV be made
open source.

Attendees (gov):
NAS:  (chair),
HHS:  (chair),  (phone)
ODNI:  (chair)
NIAID: Anthony Fauci (phone)
OSTP:  (phone)
Several intel folks.  Will share the list later.

Attendees (academic, via phone):
 (NYU) (academic chair)
 (Scripps)
 (the Hutch)
Peter Gaszak (EcoHealth Alliance) – collaboration with Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV)
Ralph Baric (UNC) – collaboration with WIV
 (Johns Hopkins)
 (Iowa)

3Charge of the committee:  “OSTP and HHS requested that the NASEM examine and identify data requirements that
would help determine the origins of the 2019-nCoV, specifically from an evolutionary/structural biology
standpoint.  NASEM will also consider whether this should include more temporally and geographically diverse clinical
isolates, etc.  This review will help prepare for future events by establishing a process for quickly assembling subject
matter experts for evaluation of other potentially threatening organisms.”

Backstory (Why was this work request made?):  Head of  along with  and the  called Fauci
(NIAID) on Friday night.  Callers have background in bat coronavirus and were concerned by inserts they were seeing at
Furin cleavage sites that don’t follow the expert’s expectations (“improbable mutations”).  They likened it to a ten step
process (as an example for explanation and not to be taken as a literal 10 step process) where we have sequences from
step 1-6 and from step 10, but are missing steps 7-9.  Was the step 10 sequence derived via modification, serial passage,
or have we just not found sequences that show steps 7-9?  A call with more experts was held on Saturday where it was
noted that WIV had been working on gain of function of hACE2 receptor binding.  On Sunday, another call was held with
, and other experts.  On that call, two experts said that the sequences were natural, the rest
(number not given) said they were unsure.  It was determined that a panel of experts should be convened, probably
operating under WHO to not cause problems with China and limit access, to investigate further.   also
suggested a US-based look into the issue.  Today’s meeting was to discuss data requirements.

Key Points:
Baric:
 He is not aware of WIV introducing mutations into the hACE2 receptor.  He is aware of some chimera work,
which was published.
 Insertion of furin cleaved site not unprecedented.  He gave some examples where this was done as part of
mouse adaptation during passage.  However, that work was not done in this group of coronaviruses.
 In terms of Baric’s involvement on the panel, he did mention that he has been linked to chimera work in 2016
that social media claims is linked to nCoV and he suggested that could make his membership a political
problem.  The academics and the academy disagreed.  I think he was bringing it up as more of a “no surprises”
thing rather than trying to be excused from the committee.

 Mutations in hACE2 do NOT look like perfect engineering (i.e. the sequences were not modified to give textbook
perfect binding).  If the sequence were engineered, one would expect that it would be engineered as perfectly
as possible.  Hence, evidence for natural evolution.
 Wet markets as vehicles for passage
 Binding was optimized to humans based on modelling (Baric dissented).  3 papers are currently on
biorXiv.  Questions: Was this the case early in the outbreak or was this affinity acquired through other host, etc?
 Biochemical data for hACE2 receptor modification would be useful
 With furin site introduction, it could open new classes of drugs to try
 Rules out BW (“nothing there”); consistent with natural evolution
 Several hundred sequences that the Chinese currently have are not being made available
 Can’t rule out lab accident
 Will never be able to distinguish between natural vs. lab accident with current data
 Can rule out BW

4 Earliest available samples are from Dec 24.  Need samples before this time point (both market and non-
market) from Wuhan more than we need geographically-diverse samples
 Europe, Australia, and Singapore are sharing genomes.  Not a hindrance.  CDC is the central point for
sequencing efforts for US samples.
 Phylogenetics are clear, but tying modifications to function is not clear.  Need sequences from animal
reservoir and human from earlier in the outbreak.
 Quite possible there were other mutations/strains that sputtered out in early December before dying off
and 2019-nCoV took over.  Need sequences from that time period to check.
 Agreed with  that lab accident can’t be ruled out, but also that there is no way to distinguish from
natural at this time.

 Needs obth temporally and geographically diverse samples
 We are assuming that there is only a single lineage/introduction, when there may be multiple.  Need more
sequences from earlier than Dec 24 to try to find out (  comment: Finally!).
 Request should prioritize sequences over isolates.  Isolates can be made synthetically if needed.  Other members
wanted isolates.
Daszak:
 96% homology across the genome to strains that infect bats.
 Possible that other animal viruses have the same inserts and they could have been acquired in the host
 The range of the bat is southeast Asia.  Might be worth getting samples from neighboring countries.
 Communication in China has dried up (scientists who normally talk are not doing so).  Daszak stated that the
folks at WIV are normally more open that typical Chinese, state-sponsored scientists based on prior interactions

Others had a random comment here or there, but the principals are all listed above.

I’m happy to go into further detail or answer any questions when I am back in the office.
-
======================================================
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED

======================================================
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED

======================================================
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED

DECLASSIFIED BY DNI GABBARD ON 18 JUNE 2026
7
======================================================
Classification:

Summary:
Internal Intelligence Community communications and DNI memos documenting Fauci's role in shaping the COVID-origin assessment process.

First-page excerpt: DECLASSIFIED BY DNI GABBARD ON 18 JUNE 2026  Expert Meeting Rapid Response for Assessment of Data Needs for 2019-nCoV Agenda February 3, 2020 2:00 p.m.–3:00 p.m. (ET) Keck Center, Room 103 500 5th St NW, Washington, DC 20001 Join from PC, Mac, Linux, iOS or Android: https://nasem.zoom.us/j/777284900 Telephone: +1 646 558 8656 Meeting ID: 777 284 900 International numbers available: https://nasem.zoom.us/u/aA3S9pYwW Meeting Objective:  Assess what data, information and samples are needed to understand the  evolutionary origins of 2019-nCoV and more effectively respond to the outbreak and resulting  misinformation. 2:00 p.m. Welcome and Introductions  (5 mins ) ANDREW  POPE Director, Board on Health Sciences Policy  National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2:05 p.m.…