In a letter sent today, October 20, Representative James Comer (R- KY), The National Institutes of Health (NIH) confirmed Dr. Anthony Fauci, Director of the National Institute of Allergens and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), lied to Senator Rand Paul during a hearing on May 11th, 2021.

During that hearing, Fauci stated in no uncertain terms, that the NIH nor the NIAID ever funded gain of function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.  Fauci has stuck to that story even as mounting evidence convincingly contradicted those statements.  Here at RedState, we have led the story regarding gain-of-function research and were among the first media outlets to accurately report that Fauci lied during that interaction.  The NIH letter specifically discusses genomic studies of bat coronaviruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

“It is important to state at the onset that the published genomic data demonstrate that the bat coronaviruses studied under the NIH grant to EcoHealth Alliance, Inc. and subward to the Wuhan Institute of Virology are not and could not have become SARS-CoV-2.  Both the progress report and the analysis attached here again confirms that conclusion, as the sequences of the viruses are genetically very distant.”

Yet later in the letter it states that the progress report with that very data was not submitted by EcoHealth Alliance, headed by the dubious Dr. Peter Daszak, until August 2021.  One could assume that the EcoHealth Alliance would never knowingly implicate themselves in what has amounted to global genocide. For the NIH to simply be taking the word of EcoHealth Alliance, which is headed by a man who has knowingly lied to the world about his role in the research that may have led to the creation of this virus, is downright alarming.

To add further fuel to the fire, the NIH letter also confirmed that EcoHealth Alliance was also in violations of the terms of their grant.

“The research plan was reviewed by the NIH in advance of funding, and determined that it did not fit the definition of research involving enhanced pathogens of pandemic potential (ePPP) because these bat coronaviruses had not been shown to infect humans.  As such, the research was not subject to departmentmental review under the HHS P3CO Framework.  However, out of an abundance of caution and as an additional layer of oversight, language was included in the terms and conditions of the grant award to EcoHealth that outlined criteria for a secondary review, such as a requirement that the grantee report immediately a one log increase in growth.  These measures would prompt a secondary review to determine whether the research aims should be reevaluated or new biosafety measures should be enacted.

EcoHealth failed to report this finding right away, as was required by the terms of the grant.  EcoHealth is being notified that they have five days from today to submit to NIH any and all unpublished data from the experiments and work conducted under this award.  Additional compliance efforts continue.”

Again, if Daszak, who helped to submit the Chinese tailored World Health Organization report on the origins of COVID-19, and authored the infamous Lancet letter, almost universally scientifically decided to be a fraudulent assessment, is in charge of EcoHealth Alliance, why would the NIH expect that Daszak or his organization would tell the truth or submit accurate reports if it could implicate them in the murder of 5 million people?

The NIH letter then provides a genetic analysis of SARS-CoV-2, to known viruses as questioned by Representative Comer. As our reporting here at RedState has previously hypothesized, RaTG13 is the most likely candidate as the backbone for SARS-CoV-2, after facing the genetic manipulation of gain-of-function research. The NIH letter to Comer openly states what we already know:  That RaTG13 (a virus found naturally in a cave in the Yunnan Province in 2013), shares 96% of its genomic code with SARS-CoV-2.

“While it might appear that the similarity of RaTG13 and BANAL-52 bat coronaviruses to SARS-CoV-2 is close because it overlaps by 96-97%, experts agree that even these viruses are too far divergent to have been that progenitor of SARS-CoV-2.”

And as written, that’s just not correct.  Certainly, that close of a relationship is not close enough for those viruses to be the natural progenitor of SARS-CoV-2, it does make them genetically similar enough to be the progenitor for a synthetic or lab-created SARS-CoV-2, a conclusion suspiciously missing from this letter.

In closing, the letter states that the “bat coronaviruses studied under the EcoHealth Alliance grant could not have been the source of SARS-CoV-2 and the COVID-19 pandemic.” The problem with that conclusion is that it relies exclusively on data and reports provided by the very people who would be implicated in the greatest crime in the history of humanity.