The Glenn Beck Program - Ep 126 | EcoHealth Alliance's Peter Daszak: Hero or Villain? | Matt Ridley | The Glenn Beck Podcast

Episode Date: November 20, 2021

Like most people, science journalist Matt Ridley just wants the truth. When it comes to the origin of COVID-19, that is a tall order. Was it human-made? Did it leak from a laboratory? What is the role of gain-of-function research? Why China, why now? Ridley’s latest book, "Viral: The Search for the Origin of COVID-19," is a scientific quest to answer these questions and more. A year ago, you would have been kicked off Facebook for suggesting COVID originated in a lab. For most of the pandemic, the Left practically worshipped Anthony Fauci. But lately, people have been poking around. And one of the names that appears again and again is Peter Daszak, president of EcoHealth Alliance and a longtime collaborator and funder of the virus-hunting work at Wuhan Institute of Virology. In this episode of the Glenn Beck Podcast, Matt reveals the whole tangled web.     Sponsor:  Preborn partners with clinics in the highest abortion-rate cities and regions. Preborn has a passion to save babies and to see these women come to Christ. Over the past 15 years, they’ve counseled over 340,000 women considering abortion: More than 169,000 babies have been saved, and over 51,000 women have surrendered their lives to Christ. To donate, dial POUND 250 and say keyword “BABY” or go to PreBorn.com/Glenn.     AR500 Armor - Plan now for how to protect yourself and your family. Get yourself the body armor we trust from AR500 Armor at AR500ARMOR.com/BECK to see this package, and use code “BECK” for 20% OFF anything else in their entire store.    Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

There's a meme going around. It's like most memes, it's a mixture of fact and humor. What's the difference between a conspiracy theory and the truth? Six months. I've spent a lot of my career inside of those six months. And at times, it is a really ugly place. I'll just say, I can understand the struggle of Hester Prime from the Scarlet Letter. Not good place to be.

but navigating that place is a very important task. It is a choice, a very important choice. Do you want to be truthful and enlightening, or do you want to be popular? Today's guest has proven his willingness to be enlightening, despite what it does for his popularity among the people who refuse to choose truth. His career has been marked by bold moves and even bolder arguments. He's a science and technology editor for the economist. He advanced the possibilities of science and journalism.

He's a best-selling author. He has covered topics like diseases, energy, genomes, reproduction, nature versus nurture. He wrote a book entitled The Evolution of Everything, How New Ideas Emerge. I haven't gotten to his trophy case yet, which contains all kinds of honors and awards and formal titles sounding. Like there's something out of Harry Potter. I think he was in the House of Lords. His latest book, viral, the search for the origin of COVID-19, has cemented his status as a truthful outsider. The book, which co-authored by a scientist, Alina Chan, reads like a political science fiction, like a mystery novel, full of social commentary and unbelievable stories.

It dawns on you occasionally while you're reading it. This isn't fiction. This is truth. The name of the book is viral. And its author is Matt Ridley. I find this hard to believe, especially as we're talking about this subject, but abortion is the leading cause of death in the U.S. And around the world as well, Roe v. Wade, 62 million babies have been aborted in the U.S. since Roe versus Wade.

Nearly one in four pregnancies end in abortion. there is a ministry that I just became aware of. It's the ministry of preborn, and it is partnering with Blaze Media to help rescue 10,000 babies this year. We can help. Now, here's what preborn is. They're the direct competition to Planned Parenthood. They're the largest provider of free ultrasounds in the U.S.

And what they discovered is that if you let a woman see a baby on ultrasound and hear the heartbeat, you bring the chances that she'll choose life for her baby, Up to a staggering 80% more. Preborn partners with clinics in the highest abortion rate cities and regions and their passion is saving babies. Their passion is also helping women get through this and helping them come to Christ. Over the past 15 years, they've counseled over 340,000 women considering abortion. More than 169,000 babies have been saved.

51,000 women have surrendered their lives to Christ. Will you help us save 10,000 babies? This year. I know. Look at the calendar. To donate, dial pound 250 and say the keyword baby. That's pound 250 keyword baby or go to preborn.com slash glen. Now through a match, your gift will be doubled, saving twice as many baby's lives.

Do it now. Thank you for having me on your show. You bet. You bet. I think we're going to agree on a lot, and I want to set this up, that some things are speculation, and we should point that out as we get there, and make sure we know the difference between fact and speculation and fiction. Because you do that very well in your book. Yeah, that's what we're trying to do in VAROLs.

We're trying to tease out what we know and not what we might know. There's right an important distinction there because there's a lot of speculation about where this virus came from. It's a really important question. We've got to get it right. And actually, we can find out an awful lot more than we thought we could a year ago. So it's worth digging into what we know, but not getting carried away. Right. And I answer the question first on why is it important that we find.

find out how this happened, where it came from. Millions are dead. It's caused by a virus. That virus came from a bat. We don't know how it came from a bat. When SARS broke out, we did know how quite quickly. We had an answer quite quickly. Normally we can find who patient zero was, where he got it from, and so on.

The fact that we don't know, nearly two years, exactly two years into a pandemic that has killed millions and is still killing is pretty shocking. And we need to find out because if we don't, then the next pandemic will take us by surprise again. We need to be able to prevent the next pandemic. Were you surprised that you found villains in this story? I think we were, both Alina Chan and I were shocked that we found some people in the West and in China who were simply not prepared. prepared to reveal what they already knew. And it took us a while to work out that they already knew more than they were letting

on. Correct. And what I find, and we'll get into those people here in a little while, but I find the willingness to cover the tracks, the willingness to not say, astounding. Because I really think at the beginning, if people would have just said, look, guys, this happen and I know this and this and this, I think people would have been more forgiving. And I've wondered, has their silence caused more death? Did they keep things from researchers? Did they keep things from the pharmaceutical companies that could have helped move things

faster? Well, there's no doubt that in the early weeks of the pandemic, in early January 2020, there was a reluctance on the part of the Chinese authorities to admit that human transmission was occurring. That was a real problem. There was a reluctance to admit that there was a problem getting out of control. There was a reluctance to share the genome of the virus, which they had early in January,

but they finally released it to the rest of the world on the 12th of January. They could have done that at least a week earlier. Now, all of these could have made, an enormous difference to nipping this pandemic in the bud. So a lot of the cover-up of the, of a lot of the effort that went into making sure that this was not a big story, you know, and it was under control, so-called, actually I think ended up making it worse. Yeah. Okay, so walk us through, um, uh, walk us through the

the origins of this book, because I think it's fascinating. Yeah. The origin of the book is that I started out thinking this was almost certainly going to be a market food-based virus origin. Which we believed for a long time. Which we all believed, just like SARS. But I knew that it was likely to be from a bat originally, because that's where SARS-like viruses had come from. I wrote an article about. this for the Wall Street Journal. Then I came across a couple of papers, one of which said that this virus was surprisingly well adapted to human cells, unlike SARS in its early months. And that's your co-author. And that was by my co-author. Right. And I got in touch with her and she turned out to be an extraordinarily intelligent person who was thinking very hard about this and had suddenly had time on her hands because the lab was

closed where she worked and was was beginning to dig into this story okay so so tell me what that means when you say easily adaptable to humans what why does that stick out well a virus that's going to jump from one species to another has got to evolve and change in order to be good at infecting the new species you know it's not going to be a good fit straight away and to do that it's going to change its genome now we saw SARS one do that in the early months of that pandemic. It changed its genome very rapidly. This virus did not do that.

It changed surprisingly slowly. And when tested against human cells or cells from other species, it turned out to be actually very good at infecting human cells. Right. Now, one possible explanation for that was that it had already been in human cells for a number of months or years in a laboratory. And so is that, is it common for something that has not? not been in a laboratory or humans to transmit like it was?

Is that? No, it's unusual for an animal virus. But not to be really good at spreading from human to human, not unheard of for the first time. Unusual. At the first shot. It's unusual. We don't know enough to know quite how unusual it is.

Okay. We do know it's unusual. Okay. Let's go into the spread of it is. unusual and it adapts to humans quickly let's go into a kind of a dicey topic as we go into it do you believe it's man-made no in the sense that this is clearly a natural virus it's got close cousins in bats but it might be it might have features that have been altered by human beings we can't rule that out

And the more evidence that's come to light, the more possible that looks. But let's be clear, we don't know for sure what happened. We think it's still possible that it was a natural event. We started out thinking that was a very likely possibility. We've come to think that it's a much less likely possibility, and we think this was probably a laboratory accident or a research-related event, if that's what it was. I think that's the most logical thing. And when I say, is it man-made?

I want to separate. Because some people, when they hear man-made, they think bioweapon. And I just don't think this was a bioweapon. It could be, but is there any evidence for that? We've found no evidence that it was a bioweapon. We certainly know it wasn't made from scratch. You know, it is a natural virus, but it might have been engineered. There's a couple of pieces of quite strong evidence that it might be one of,

the many viruses that we know they were manipulating in the laboratory in order to understand them better. So the motivation for this research that was going on in Wuhan, much more than anywhere else in the world, by the way, but the motivation for this research was to predict and prevent the next pandemic. Okay, so it's not about trying to cause a pandemic. It's about trying to prevent one. That's why I say if those involved would have come out, if fact, Fauci would have come out and said, look, we were doing gain of function research because we believe that stopping this, finding these things and stopping them and having, you know, the antidote is, is, is, is much better than just being surprised by something. He would have had more sympathy because I don't think they, they weren't doing it for a bioweapon. I agree with you. It's not, of course, we can't completely rule out that there weren't bioweapon

researchers interested in this, but we've found no evidence of that. We think it's much more likely that they were doing what it says on the tin, in other words, trying to understand these viruses so that they could predict and prevent the next pandemic. And one way to do that was to get them into the laboratory, test their ability to infect human cells, and to do that you needed to manipulate their genes because some of these viruses simply couldn't infect humans. And so you needed to swap bits in and out. They were making chimera hybrid viruses. Now, is that a risky thing to have been doing with viruses that can cause pandemics? I think it probably is. And that may be true whether or not this one actually resulted from such an accident or whether it came about as a result

of a natural event. Let's be clear on the bioweapon. I think you're really clear in the book, and it's important to me that we separate, again, fact from fiction, and it's not worth, people will hear it's a bio, there's a possibility it's a bioweapon, and they'll concentrate on that. That's not the important thing at this point.

The important thing is, where did it come from? How did it start? Then once you have that information, you'll know the rest, right? But it's easy to make it into a conspiracy theory, which is then it dismisses the whole chain of events. Well, early on, a lot of virologists in the West said, we can rule out a bioweapon, an engineered virus,

and any other lab-based scenario. Now that's where we come in and say, hang on a minute, there's a big difference there between an engineered bioweapon, which I agree we can probably rule out. It's a pretty bad one if it is. Well, exactly. And you wouldn't do it in Wuhan if that's, you would go and do it in a secret location somewhere in a desert if you were trying to test a bioweapon. Or indeed, if you were trying to test a novel vaccine, which is another possibility of people have raised. But ruling that out does not rule out that a natural virus might have been in a sample in a laboratory that was being studied and by accident one of the researchers picked it up either in the lab or when they were collecting it in a back cave in the wild. And so the idea that all lab-based scenarios were ruled out early in the pandemic and that anything like that was a conspiracy theory,

I'm afraid is just not borne out by the evidence. Those are still very much possibilities. Did you see the documentary from the Chinese government that played on national TV in November over in China of them collecting the bat samples, hundreds of miles away, exactly the kind of bats and the samples that you would need. I mean, just that alone opens the possibility of someone getting it there in the cave and then it growing out of control. I mean, there are so many different ways that this could have happened. Well, for more than 10 years, scientists in China were sampling bats in caves in southern China

in order to try and find SARS-like viruses. The most active research group doing this was from Wuhan. The site they were doing it in is a long way from Wuhan. The sites are over 1,000 miles from Wuhan. So it's a very long way away. It's not like it's next door. The bats that they sampled near Wuhan do not have these viruses in them generally. There's been one or two SARS-like viruses found, but very, very few.

and certainly none of these kind of viruses. So it's almost certainly the case that a virus made its way from somewhere in southern Yunnan or northern Laos or somewhere like that to the city of Wuhan, okay, and started the pandemic. The question is, how did it make that long journey? The only people we know who went to bat caves in southern Yunnan and then went straight to Wuhan were the scientists. nobody else has been doing that.

So we do have to take seriously the possibility that when they were in those back caves, they picked up a virus. Now, the second question is, were they wearing sufficient protective gear every time they went into these caves? And the answer is no. I mean, they've, as you said, shown films of themselves. They've given accounts of the work in which, yes, they do try and wear protective gear, But quite often it's too hot or they take their gloves off or take their goggles off. So we now know that's probably too riskier thing to be doing. The whole Wuhan lab seems a little sketchy to be doing things at this level there.

Well, the most active bat coronavirus research program in the world was in the city of Wuhan. The biggest collection of bat coronaviruses in the world was in Wuhan. The database of those samples, 22,000 samples of which 15,000 were from bats and the rest mostly from rodents, is in Wuhan. That went offline and they still won't share it with us. Now that seems to us to be simply unpardonable. Because if, as we have been assured by a scientist in the West who says he knows what's in that sample, that it's irrelevant, there's nothing of any relevance there. Then why shut it down? Then why take it offline?

Why not show us what's in that thing and say, look, here, there's nothing relevant in this database. But it went offline on the 12th of September 2019, which is, well before the first cases were announced, probably before we think the first cases occurred. So it's a bit odd that it did that. And the excuse for taking it offline is that, oh, people are trying to hack it. Well, not before the pandemic, they weren't. If you've tried purchasing a firearm or better yet ammunition in the last year, there has been, I don't know what you might call an overwhelming demand.

And a shortage. And this means that people who are responsible, who care about protecting their families and their Second Amendment rights, can't do it. The people who are not just purchasing a firearm and ammunition. The demand for ballistic body armor has never been higher as well. Like owning a firearm, owning ballistic body armor is the next step to ensuring your Second Amendment rights yourself and your family are. protected. I know this sounds really crazy. I unfortunately

had to buy body armor for me and then eventually my children when they were about this big almost 15 years ago, 20 years ago. You don't want to even think about this world. Buying body armor back then, it was bulky.

It was really expensive. But I want to talk to you about AR 500 armor and the importance of protecting yourself in family. I wanted to remind you that body armor is covered under your Second Amendment rights and the folks over at AR 500 armor make buying body armor easy, approachable, and affordable. In fact, AR500 armor.com. You can buy it online, have it shipped right to your house. Ar500 armor has multiple packages built for citizens just like you who are just looking for varying levels of

protection. They make the shopping process simple and approachable and their team is always willing to help answer any questions you might have. Best of all, this November, they're doing their Black Friday sales all month long. The sales are going up to 55% off and give everybody the opportunity to buy quality armor at an affordable price. The best time to prepare was yesterday. Second best time is right now. AR500 armor.com slash Beck.

Use the code Beck at checkout additional 25% off anything sitewide. what does your research show the first patients were? Because there's reports that researchers from the lab got sick, went with the symptoms, not known to be COVID-19 at that time. They went early in the fall or even late summer. What does your research show? The official Chinese position was that the first case was on the 1st of December. They later revised that to the 8th of December when working with the World Health Organization.

But documents leaked to the South China Morning Post showed that they definitely thought there was a case on the 17th of November. Those are the first sort of three dates we know about. But US intelligence sources, as you say, have alleged that three, workers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology were ill in November and that they had symptoms including so-called ground glass capacities in the lungs that are consistent with COVID-19. Now, we haven't been able to verify that independently, so we can't confirm that. Any idea? Any idea that you think that that is reliable or not? The one thing that's odd here is that there is no decent information on the professions and

activities of the first cases coming out of China. So when the SARS epidemic happened, they quickly discovered that the first cases were often food handlers. They were chefs and other people who were handling food. And that enabled them to pin down the fact that civet cats were infected and were infecting people in restaurants and other food handling places. So clearly finding out who the people picking up this virus to start with were would be useful information. Now, the joint study between the Chinese authorities and the World Health Organization was not shown any raw data

about these first cases, citing patient confidentiality. That doesn't make sense. How could you possibly try to track something if you don't know anything about the person other than they're sick? Well, the one thing, of course, that they did emphasize in the early weeks of the pandemic was that a lot of the early cases had connections to one particular market, the Huanan seafood market. And then in May 2020, very quietly, the head of the Chinese Centers for Disease Control, Dr. Gao Fu, said, actually, we think that's a red herring. about a third of the cases had no connection with that market, and we've tested all the animals in that market, and they were negative. And although we found the virus in so-called environmental

samples in the market, i.e., you know, countertop sewage, things like that, we think they're human, their cases of the human virus, they're not a particular different animal version of the virus. So the market was pretty well exonerated by the Chinese authorities a year and a half, ago. And yet that was the only hypothesis that the Chinese authorities had put forward as to where it might have started. So what's the most likely scenario? How did this happen? Well, Alina Chan and I are reluctant to speculate. We try and stick to what we do know. And what we do know is that some time in the fall of 2019, some people got infected in Wuhan. There's no evidence that it came from elsewhere. You know, the Chinese authorities kept trying to say that it might have come in from some other country on frozen food.

Well, if so, the place where the food was getting slaughtered and frozen would have picked up this virus first. and also other cities where the food went to, you know. So sometime in the fall of 2019, people got infected. A very strong possibility is that those first cases were people who are working in the laboratory, which we know they were doing on SARS-like coronaviruses and doing experiments. And the fact that they were very slow to release information about the experiments they'd been doing. doing. For example, they said of the bat virus that's most closely related to the virus causing the pandemic, they said, oh, we've just sequenced it and found that it's similar. Well, how come the

labels on the sequence, say 2018? Oh, yeah, right. Okay, we sequenced it in 2018. Sorry, we forgot to mention that. You know, so this is the kind, and by the way, we changed the name, but we didn't say we changed the name. And so it took, it took, it took. me several weeks to figure out, you know, they said we'd previously found this virus, this bat like virus that's very similar. So I immediately went to say, okay, where did you find it? When? You know, and I looked through the literature.

I couldn't find any mention of its name. And it was two months later that they admitted that they had changed the name. Now, you know, this is not helpful. And that that was. So that doesn't necessarily make it coordinated, planned, cover. Well, I think what you have to remember is that in those early first few months, nobody expected this to go global. We thought we were reading about a little local problem in China, like SARS, which was, apart from, you know, the fact that there were cases in Canada and elsewhere, but it was a relatively short-lived epidemic. So I think in those early months, the Chinese authorities thought they could get away with being slightly economic.

with the facts about this, not telling us as much as they wanted to. And there was actually, we think, some evidence that they wanted to keep a hold of some of this information so that they could patent and invent the tests themselves and get a lead on that. Because some of the information was shared with what you might call crony firms that are well connected with the Chinese regime. that didn't that doesn't I mean they were they were welding people in their own homes they were coming in and welding doors shut and I mean it was pretty draconian I mean beforehand when you were watching just how they were dealing with it in Wuhan I don't think this is a movie pandemic if I'm writing a movie script I'm not picking COVID I mean it's killed a lot of people but it is not the one that's going to to wipe out humanity. You know what I mean?

Correct. Yeah. And yet that was almost the impression we were getting there in early January. When you were starting to see them the way they were treating this, it was terrifying. It was. And but I vividly remember the feeling, wow, that's pretty extreme what they're doing. They must be quite frightened. And, but I rather doubt that it'll come over here and cause a major global pandemic.

We'll, we'll know. You know, I had a lot of faith in the fact that genomics has advanced so far since SARS, that, you know, we'll be able to detect and test and prevent the spread of this thing relatively easily once it gets going. I was wrong about that. I've been wrong about a lot of things in the pandemic, and that was one of them. But, but you, but didn't you, you wrote. a while back about cities and how crowded we are on on cities and well it's certainly true that

humankind is ripe for something like this um we are living at very high densities in cities we are traveling a lot an ambitious virus that spreads easily should be able to exploit that But on the whole, it needs to stay mild if it's going to do that, like all the colds that we catch. If it's going to kill you very quickly, like Ebola, it generally struggles to develop a whole epidemic. Because the host dies. Because people get too sick, they stop meeting people, they die, you know, so it doesn't spread. So I was fairly sanguine that if a pandemic did start, it would either be. mild or it would peter out pretty quickly. I've sort of half proved right on that because this

virus horrible though it is, it doesn't have a particularly high death rate. One of its crucial features that enables it to be so threatening is that pre-symptomatic individuals can spread it. So people who are not yet sick and therefore still going around their daily business are likely to be spreading it. Is this going to be like the flu of 1918, be with us forever? just forever changing? Or is there an end to this? Well, I'm no epidemiologist, so I don't necessarily have the answer to that, but I think there is every chance that it will become endemic in the human species. There are four other coronaviruses that are already endemic in the human species. They cause the common cold. I mean, they are one of the causes of the common cold. The rhinoviruses

and adenoviruses are also causes of the common cold. But the four coronaviruses, that caused common cold, one of them called O.C. 43, looks like it arrived in our species late in the 19th century from cattle. It might have been, although the evidence for this is very uncertain, we discuss it in the book. It might have been the cause of a really nasty pandemic in 1889, 1890, which started in Russia and spread around the entire world using railways and killed a lot of people and killed probably a million people at least, which was a lot in those days. And then came back in a couple of waves and then gradually settled down. And now, you know, I've probably had it.

It doesn't tend to kill people. It's become mild. I'm pretty sure that's what this one will do. It'll turn into a version of the common cold. But not without doing horrible damage, not just physical damage to people, but social and economic damage too. So why is it that we keep hearing

about the booster shots because it's only going to get worse and worse and worse. You're killing off the easy ones and the harder ones are if you say that we've evolved these other old viruses.

Well, there is a tendency for not all but some viruses to start out virulent and then evolve into mild cases, particularly ones that are transmitted by respiratory means. And I suspect that is happening with this. Whether or not using vaccines helps or hinders that process is a difficult question, and I don't think biology has good answers to that yet. But it would be wrong not to try and use vaccines, I think, because they do undoubtedly save lives on a huge scale. They're doing so today. So I think it's right to try and do

something about this. I would agree with you. And I don't think that will prevent the virus becoming milder if that's what it's going to do anyway. You in the book expose crimes committed by China. Well, you say that, but I think, I don't think we would quite use that term because we don't Really no. Well, no, let me put it another way. The research that was going on that might have led to the origin of this pandemic, most of it was not secret. Most of it was approved by the Chinese authorities, funded by the Chinese government,

funded to some extent by the US government too through programs that funneled money to that, and was approved by authorities who thought it was the right thing to be doing. There were some virologists who were saying, I don't think this is wise. I think we should be preparing for pandemics without going and looking for dangerous viruses in the wild, bringing them into laboratories and manipulating their genes and growing them in human cells.

Because if we do that, we might start a pandemic. So people were advising against this work, But that doesn't make it a crime in the sense of being against the law. The United States had the same argument. And under Barack Obama, it was illegal. And then under Trump, it was legal again. And this goes to the whole thing of gain a function. And Fauci forever has been a fan of, let's go out, hunt these things down.

First of all, can you tell me how you hunt down virus? Who are these virus hunters are and how you hunt them down? Yeah, well, what you do is you go to bat colonies, horseshoe bats. There's one particular genus of bats that you've got to focus on if you're interested in SARS and SARS-like viruses. And all this starts from the SARS epidemic. Back in 2003, the SARS epidemic, they eventually realized it was in horseshoe bats. So they start sampling horseshoe bat colonies all around South. in China. Now, horseshoe bats live in caves in large colonies. They don't tend to live in the roofs

of buildings, for example. So you go to remote caves, you find these very large colonies, very dense colonies of these bats where they're spreading these viruses among themselves. You trap some of the bats in nets. You swab their nose and their anus. You spread a sheet on the floor and collect their droppings. And you take these samples in test tubes, put them in liquid nitrogen at minus 80 degrees and take them back to Wuhan to study them. That's essentially what was going on on a massive scale. I mean, tens of thousands of bats being sampled in this way. They also took some live bats back to the laboratory. Again, we had denials of that for many months. It eventually became clear that, yes, they had kept some live bats for experiments in

Wuhan. So that's what virus hunting involves. And when you get those samples back in the laboratory, you defrost them and you then test them for the presence of genes that are characteristic of SARS-like coronaviruses. Okay. And if you find them, you then try to grow a live virus out of one of these samples. And the Wuhan Institute of Virology achieved this about five years ago for the first time with a virus called WIV1. It's not easy to actually grow a live virus. You know, you can say, look, there's definitely coronavirus is in this sample, but they're, you know, they're not in a state where they can infect cells because their genomes are broken up. They haven't enjoyed the journey, you know, in the liquid nitrogen or something like that. But

they did manage to start what they call isolating. And in this context, the word isolate means to grow new copies of a live virus. And then you put them in humanized animals. Can you explain humanized animals? Well, first of all, you put them in human cells, and one of the breakthroughs achieved in North Carolina was to create a kind of tissue in the laboratory that is based on human lungs.

It's called human airway epithelial cell culture. So that's a sort of petri dish with a bit of effectively like the lining of a human lung in it. But then, as you say, humanized mice, humanized animals. And what a humanized mouse is, is a mouse in which you have either added the human ACE-2 gene to its genome, or you've replaced the mouse ACE-2 gene with a human ACE-2. Now, the ACE-2 is the receptor on our cells that the virus uses to get into our cells. It's the lock which it unlocks with its spike key, as it were.

So these mice are then identical to other mice, except that with respect to the ACE2 gene, this one gene, they are like human beings and not like mice. And by doing that, you've then got what you'd call an experimental model for testing whether this virus can infect a human being. You test it in the mouse. Now you can see what's happening here is that if you succeed and the mouse catches it and dies,

then this virus is getting trained on human genes, on human receptors. And some of the experiments, we only found this out very recently, but some of the experiments that were done did see increases in the infectivity of these viruses on human cells of up to 10,000 times. They got much better at infecting human cells. So one of the risks here is that simply by using that experimental technique,

you're giving the virus a crash course in how to be infective in human beings. Now, I was unaware this kind of thing was going on. I've covered genomics, molecular biology, medicine as a reporter and as a writer and author of books for many years. And I have to say, I was pretty gobsmacked by how close to the edge some of these experiments have been above board. I mean, if you knew where to look, you know, these experiments are described in the scientific journals. You know, they're not being secretive about this. And not just in China, but in the United States and in Europe too. Those humanized mice came from the United States.

That's right. All those separate lines of them were also developed in Beijing. Okay. So this is the thing that we were arguing about and gain of function is what Fauci is saying, I didn't do it. However, it appears as though he just changed the meaning of gain of function. Was gain of function being. done and funded by the NIH? Well, this is a very difficult question to answer.

It's a very simple question. It ought to be a very easy question to answer. But the definition of exactly what gain of function is has been changed and has been, is a little gray. Okay. So if you, it, there was a moratorium on gain of function, as you said, between 2014 and 2017, but not if you were already doing the experiments and not, and it didn't apply to animal viruses that could not infect human beings. Right, but does it apply to animal viruses that

are just in the process of working out how to infect human beings? Do you see what I mean? That's where the sort of the ambiguity comes in. Now, look, I'm from the UK. I'm from the UK. I'm not here to join a fight between Rand Paul and Tony Fauci on this. There was a mechanism for trying to decide whether something broke this rule or not. But one of the things that's come out. I'm not even concerned if he broke the rule or not. I'm tired of the word games. Were they trying to, was this kind of sort of.

stuff going on because it was legal except for those periods, but highly controversial. You know, people act as though, oh, no, we've done that. No, that's very controversial among scientists. Well, the reason this phrase, gain of function, entered the language in 2014, was because there was a big row about this. You know, half the scientists said, we shouldn't be doing this work. Let's have a moratorium on it. And the other half said, no, no, we've got to do this.

Otherwise, we can't find out the risks of viruses. And so, you know, it's not as if all scientists think this is fine and the rest of the world thinks it's bad. People like Richard Ebright and others have been arguing for years that these experiments shouldn't be happening and are too risky. And I think there is no doubt whether you want to call it gain a function or call it something else that viruses have been made more capable of infecting human beings and made more virulent in human beings in experimental situations in the laboratory. And was that happening in Wuhan? And this

kind of thing was definitely happening in Wuhan. In fact, this was one of the leading centers for this. For SARS-like coronaviruses, it was the leading center in the world for this. And by the way, it's quite important here to describe what level of biosecurity laboratory where it was being done. Right. Because you know the pictures you see where they're dressed in a sort of inflated space suit with air pumped into it. Yeah. That's not this. That's biosecurity level four.

Right. The Wuhan Institute of virology is the only biosecurity level four lab in China. But it's only... It is. But they do have four there. it's a relatively new laboratory. But that's not where these experiments I'm talking about were being done. These were being done on the old Wuhan Institute of Virology campus

at biosecurity level 2 and 3. Quite a lot of the experiments on bat-like coronaviruses, which they didn't think were very good at infecting human beings, but they were putting them in humanized mice and things like that. We're done at biosecurity level 2 and 3, right? Now, three is quite secure because you're working in sealed cabinets and the sort of gloves built into the cabinets that you reach into. But two is basically just goggles and gloves.

Now, if a virus with the infectivity of SARS-CoV-2 was in a sample in a biosecurity level 2 lab, then it's not guaranteed that the researchers using that lab and the people cleaning it in the evening would catch it, but it's jolly likely. All right, so tell me the Eco Health Alliance. How are they involved? The Eco Health Alliance is a New York-based foundation, which came out of wildlife research, but repurposed itself about 10 years ago as a funder of wildlife service. surveillance and sampling for virus threats.

So they're going out and they're looking for those threats that then could or may not be taken into a lab for gain a function. And they figured out that there's a lot of money suddenly available for this. In the wake of SARS and Ebola, suddenly there's significant sums of money available for this. So they put themselves in a position where they are the contractor funded by the US government or the subcontractor who distributes the money to overseas work on this. They're the intermediary between the US government and overseas research teams. And they collaborate closely with it themselves. And there people go on these expeditions with the Wuhan Institute of Virology people and so on. And by 2019, the EcoHealth Alliance is handling some $17 million a year.

Significant quantities of money here, most of which comes from the Overseas Development Administration and the Pentagon, some of the Department of Defense funding. So they're a conduit for money, but they also put their names on the research papers. they collaborate, they go into the labs, and they talk about and make claims about the research that's being done. You know, so they say we are very proud of the fact that we've found hundreds of viruses, that we've done experiments with them in the laboratory, that we've sequenced their genomes, that we've altered their genomes, that we've made hybrids between these viruses. And they're on record talking about. we, you know, meaning the Wuhan Institute of Virology and other partners in the US.

And, you know, they're also tweeting about having great karaoke parties with chums in the Wuhan Institute of Virology. So, you know, they're very close to the people doing the experiments. They're part of the team. And part of the team is also Dr. Xi, who they're very close with, right? That's right. So Dr. Xijang Li and Dr. Peter Dazzak, who's head of the Eco Health Alliance, are good friends and close collaborators on this work. And how does these two people implicate at all Dr. Fauci in any way? Well, Dr. Fauci is funding some of the work of the Eco Health Alliance. There is an email trail between Peter Doesack and Tony Fauci discussing

this kind of work, including, and this has only come out in recent days, an exchange, not with Fauci directly, but with the National Institutes of Health, in which the NIH says, well, doesn't that sound like gain of function? And EcoHealth Alliance says, not if you describe it this way, and NIH said, oh, I see, yeah, right, so we'll describe it that way. So, you know, there's a very cozy relationship here to make sure that. the funds do flow, but they don't necessarily break the rules. They might bend them just a bit.

What is 7-896 project? Well, this is a fascinating little wrinkle that it came to light during the research we were doing for this book. when they sequenced the genome of the bat virus most closely related to SARS-CoV-2, some of the pieces of the sequence had this number on them, 7-8-9-6. And a very diligent, brilliant Spanish technology consultant called Francisco de Ribeira started digging into where this number had come from. And I won't go into all the details, but he basically eventually worked out that there was a bunch of eight viruses very closely related to the pandemic virus that had been collected from the same mineshaft as this other one that they had sequenced, one of which was called 7896 and that had never been published. And he asked Peter Dazzack, he said, can you explain why this number 7896 cross?

up in this one other virus and in the sequence of the one closely related. And he was simply blocked on Twitter for asking that question. So that gives you a sort of hint of what's going on here. And eventually he said, look, I think there's eight viruses that they collected from this mine shaft in 2015, not in 2013. And I think we should see what's in their genomes. They might be relevant. They might be useful. And it was six months later that in a seminar,

the Wuhan Institute of Arology head, Xi Zheng Li, did in passing show a slide that admitted, yes, they do have these eight viruses, and yes, they are from the Mojiang mine, like the other one. So this was a clue that people like Francisco Rebira were on the right track in terms of finding out stuff, about what these scientists had been up to that they were not admitting to themselves.

And I should say that in researching this book, we came to rely on people like Francisco Rivera, people like a wonderful Indian called The Seeker, who was helpful in this story as well, and others, who are open-source analysts. They're amateurs who are digging into websites that are not secret websites, they're just very hard to find

and piecing together information in ingenious ways. These people were more useful to us and to the world in finding out what went on than the mainstream media, than the WHO, than the scientific establishment, and even than the official intelligence agencies.

So they are the heroes of this book. Why? Because the intelligence agencies tend to depend upon human intelligence. You know, having a spy in the right lamb or something like that. Whereas these guys are just saying, somewhere in China, there will be a thesis, a paper, a grant application, a document, a database, which actually tells us what's been going on here. And they probably haven't scrubbed all of them. And if we get hold of a few logins and we just keep looking, we might find them.

Now, it's grotesque that we have to rely on this. It's also kind of beautiful. It's also kind of beautiful, you're right. But if this was happening in, I don't know, Belgium or Kenya or somewhere, we would just go to the government and say, look, please can we have a drains up, you know, transparent look at everything you know that might help us track down the origin of this virus,

instead of which we're confronted with a regime which keeps getting praised for its transparency by the World Health Organization, but which actually simply has to have the information dragged out of it by these amateur people. And that's why we felt it important to write a book, to try and put together everything these guys were finding out and stuff we were finding out. And, you know, some, I don't want to make the impression that all journalists and all scientists have been hopeless. Some have been great. But piecing together the information and working out what was going on in Wuhan in the months up to this pandemic is very important. It might be a red herring.

It might all have started with somebody buying a civet cat to eat for his lunch in a market. But you don't think that at this point, do you? Well, we lean towards the view that no, it's likely to have come up. of a laboratory. And people say, well, come on, we've never had a pandemic from a laboratory. That's probably not true, actually. There was a 1977 flu epidemic that almost certainly began with a vaccine that was leaked from a laboratory. It wasn't a very severe one. And laboratory leaks happen all the time. I mean, they are quite common with lots of different viruses. They've happened with smallpox, with foot and mouth disease, and with SARS. I mean,

SARS leaked from laboratories at least four times, twice in Beijing, once in Taiwan, once in Singapore. This virus is probably leaking from laboratories fairly regularly, but we wouldn't know because there's so much background infection that you wouldn't be able to tell. So you cannot rely on, oh, but laboratories are quite secure. People don't have leaks in them. Can you describe the WHO's visit to the laboratory what made it strange? The WHO went to Wuhan in January 2021. The team that went was approved by the Chinese government. There was only one American representative on it. That was Peter Dasak, the close friend of the Wuhan Institute of Varyology and close collaborator.

That's honest. Well, you are not an American, so you, you know, I remember there was this old show in the 70s called Colombo. I remember Colombo, yeah. And the murderer was always the one that was helping him try to figure it all out. It kind of seems like that's the role of the WHO with Peter Dazzac. Well, Peter Dazzac argued that you need me on this team because I know these guys and I know this field of research and I'd be ideal for you. But he then, but he had orchestrated a letter to the Lancet Journal, although he had not revealed how he'd orchestrated it, by 28 scientists saying that we, it cannot possibly be a lab leak.

So he wasn't open-minded. Yeah. You know, he would be the first to admit that. You know, he was absolutely convinced that it couldn't be a lab leak. Or had reason to make sure that people, yeah. And they go to the Wuhan Institute of Virology during their visit in Wuhan. They spent three hours there. They talk to the people in the lab.

And they, when asked afterwards, did you ask to see the coronavirus database, the 22,000 samples that they had taken offline in September? Peter Dazak said in a seminar after the visit, no, we didn't ask. to see them because I know what's in it and it's of no relevance. Well, I'm sorry. Why should we take your word for it? Right.

And why should you take their word for it? That's not good enough in a situation where millions have died. Is the WHO... Should we be a part of the WHO? Does it play a fair role at all? Is it something we can trust? Well, I don't think the WHO

has behaved very well in this pandemic. It allowed itself to effectively be a mouthpiece for the Chinese government. It refused to take any notice of the alarm bells that were run by the Taiwanese government because Taiwan is not allowed to be a member of the WHO at China's request. the head of the WHO was very much Xi Jinping's candidate so it has undoubtedly been

much less open-minded and fair than it should have been that said it doesn't have power to force a member country to divulge information but in the SARS epidemic its Director General then Grohal and Brutland, the former Prime Minister of Norway, she was pretty tough on the Chinese,

and she said it is not acceptable that you took so long to tell us about this outbreak. You should have been more forthcoming, et cetera, et cetera. Now, after the visit to Wuhan, the WHO team gave a press conference, which they said it probably came on frozen food, it's very unlikely to come from a laboratory. The reaction in the West was so incredulous. Incredulous, thank you, that's the word, to this. You know, not just observers and media commentators,

but Western government said, that doesn't sound good enough, come on. And Dr. Tedros, the Director General, did then row back and say, okay, sorry, we didn't mean to imply we're not going to look into the lab leak. We would like to look into a lab leak. We'll get another team to do that. Took them many months. They've only now recently announced the team. It's still got lots of people on it who are very chummy.

with Chinese laboratories, so it's not filling us with confidence. And just think, you know, the fact that it took them six months to negotiate terms of entry for this inquiry, and then they went there for only two weeks, and then they gave this press conference, which was a farce. That means that the rest of the world didn't get to investigate. You know, the WHO, everyone was pinning their hopes on, you know, the British government, I keep asking them about this, and they keep saying, well, we've just got to help the WHO do this right. Well, if the WHO doesn't do its job, then not only does... Somebody has to.

Then, yeah, then they are preventing others from doing that job. So I want to go back to something you said earlier. You talked about that the Pentagon was involved. And I want you to tell the story of Peter Dasek in the $14 million request from him to the Pentagon in DARPA. Can you explain? Yeah. Well, this was a story that emerged just as we were putting the finishing touches to the book. We were able to squeeze in and mention to it.

It's a little shocking. It came out through these open source analysts again, a group called Drastic, who developed it. It was a proposal to DARPA, the Pentagon Research Agency, from the EcoHealth Alliance. The proposal was called Defuse, and it was asking for $14 million to, do work on viruses in China, but so I was like coronaviruses. It went in in 2018. It was refused, so they didn't get the money.

But it gives a glimpse of the kind of things, A, they were already doing, and B, they were wanting to do. It had some wacky ideas in it, like developing an app that soldiers could have on their mobiles so that when they were fighting a war, they could tell whether they were in an area with dangerous violence. or not, well, you know, that's not going to be very helpful.

Right. Right. Hang out, put your gun down. Let's look at the act. They were talking about blowing, misting bat caves with vaccines to try and cure the bats of these viruses. Well, that's a pretty long shot that that's going to be effective. So there was some really far-fetched stuff in there. But what was particularly interesting was it did confirm that bats are kept in the laboratory

at the Wuhanis to varilogy, which had been denied up until that point. And it also confirmed that they had plans to put something called a furin cleavage site into a bat SARS-like coronavirus. Explain what a furin-cleavis site is. This is something that had been hotly denied up until that point. A furin cleavage site is a small chunk of genetic text, 12 letters long, that is found in this virus, and no other closely related virus.

So no other SARS-like virus has been found with this chunk of text in it. Now, that chunk of text makes the virus very infectious. It's sort of the biggest reason we're having a pandemic. Without that chunk of text, the virus would not be able to infect so many cells in our body, would not be so quick to do so. And where does that chunk of text come from? Well, where does that chunk of text come from? That's the question.

A lot of people looked at that and said, that looks odd. That looks like someone put it there deliberately. And other scientists said, don't be so ridiculous. It could have arisen naturally. Other coronaviruses, not bats, SARS-like ones, but other ones do have it. MERS has it, for example. And we were prepared to be completely sort of ambiguous about this. We still are. We don't know for sure whether it arose naturally or whether it came in. But there have been 11 experiments around the world to put furying cleavage sites into viruses. Sounds like a bad idea.

And one of them involved the Wuhan Institute of Virology. It was a MERS-like virus. And yeah, I mean, it's, you know, most of these experiments were safe because they were just doing it with the protein, not the whole virus, so it's not infectious, you know, et cetera. But some of them were using live viruses, particularly one that involved a pig virus. And Peter Desick's group, that DARPA said, no, we don't want this. The DARPA said we don't want to fund this. And why would you do that?

Why would you put a fear in cleavage site into a virus? The answer is to make it easier to study in the laboratory because then you can grow the virus in the... If you find a virus in the wild, in a bat, and it's not very good at infecting human cells, putting a fearing cleavage site will juice it up a bit so that it can infect human cells and then you could study that because you want to study it what you want to do is get the Nobel Prize for catching a virus that you may act of starting a pandemic and stopping it I think that's one of the motivations I sorry I don't mean to say that was sort of deliberately what they're doing but if if you if you get into this field it's very frustrating not to be able to grow these viruses and study them.

So you want to make it just that little bit easier and you want to check whether they can infect human beings and half the time you can't tell because the virus can't infect human beings at all so you need to make it just a little bit easier and then you can say, okay, this one's dangerous, that one's not. That's what they're trying to do. But as I can't remember who said this first

but one scientist said this recently, that's a bit like looking for a gas leak with a lighted match. This here in America has become all about politics. And I'm shocked at how Americans have reacted to these lockdowns. It's just bizarre. And I think at the beginning we were afraid we didn't know. And I think it was reasonable to do the things that we did at the beginning. Now there's just too many weird things that are going on with the government.

you know, saying mandatory max, you know, vaccines, et cetera, when we were on the road to 90% vaccinations here in America. And it has become all about politics and anyone who, like, I don't question the vaccine. Vaccines great. Good, good for us. I do. but I do think you have a right to say, I don't want that.

But if you have any, anything that disagrees, like maybe it was in a lab, they will shut you down so hard, which I think makes this, the vaccine even harder for some people to understand or want because they're like, wait a minute. This is unusual activity. Does that make sense to you?

Yes, I think I see where you're going. I mean, I agree with you that I'm pro-vaccine. I want to persuade people to have the vaccine. I worry that forcing them to have the vaccine backfires in some cases. Especially in America. Almost certainly in America especially. But muddled up in this is, as you say, there were some ridiculous conspiracy. theories out there at the start, that it was all got up by Bill Gates, that it was a hoax,

or even that it was, you know, there was an early idea that it was something to do with the HIV virus or something like that. And that was, that was nonsense. Yeah. So those are nutty conspiracy theories. The possibility that this virus came from a accident in a laboratory was not and never should have been labeled a conspiracy theory. But it was explicitly labeled as such by Peter Dazzack, by other scientists, by Dr. Foucher.

And that seems to me wrong, because I think you need to distinguish between possibilities that you might think are unlikely, but can't be ruled out and we haven't yet got good enough evidence for, and possibilities that are completely ridiculous and, you know, akin to. saying the moon landings were faked or whatever. Because otherwise, if you throw them all in together, then you're only encouraging the conspiracy theorist to say, well, if you called that a conspiracy theory and you're now saying it's not, then what about my mad idea? Exactly right.

And you also have, for instance, one of the reasons why this was so scary at the beginning with China is because they were suppressing information they were taking scientists and they were disappearing and you're like, wait a minute, wait a minute, why all he said was, I think this started, you know, two weeks beforehand. Why is he now missing? Right. Well, the reprimands handed out,

the fierce, you know, tickings off that the scientists who first raised the alarm got were pretty awful. You know, they were nasty. Do we know where they are? who that you know well you know the most famous of them the young ophthalmologist who shared it on social media with some friends and said we've got SARS in this they thought it was SARS at the time and we've got SARS in our hospital please be careful that was all he said he got the most tremendous punishments and then he actually died of COVID within a month I mean in early February

so we do know what happened to him so there's been some some very um unpleasant reactions to people trying to be open and helpful with information in China. And that is not something we should condone. I mean, a friend of mine said, look, what do you expect? They're a communist regime. They do this kind of thing. I'm sorry. Why is that supposed to reassure me?

Right. Right. Especially one that is as powerful and we're all going traveling. And, you know, the CDC here has been instrumental in cracking down on people and questions. Is that the way it is in the rest of the world? Well, it's varied in different countries. But on the whole, most governments, until May of 2021, would not take seriously the possibility of a laboratory week. and used words like conspiracy theory and so on.

The UK government wouldn't give it any time. The Australians called for an open inquiry, but that doesn't mean their government was thinking it was a laboratory leak or possibly could have been. Something changed in May of this year. There was an open letter in science organized by my co-author. There was a couple of other very good essays. And it was just enough accumulation of evidence

for people to say, hang on a minute, have we prematurely ruled this out? And were we, should we be taking it more seriously? Well, if only that had happened a year earlier, because the trail is getting colder all the time. Yeah. You know, and the more time goes by, the harder it's going to be to pin down. That said, I constantly meet people who say, we're never going to find out. Why do you even bother pursuing this? and I say, well, I'm not sure.

There are people who know a lot more. Most of them are in China, but not all. And at some point, they're going to realize they need to speak more freely. I don't think we knew about the Spanish flu for 40 years, but we found out. Yes, it's much harder, of course, in those days, because nobody really knew where it started. You couldn't do tests, et cetera. I mean, one of the bizarre things about this one, of course, is that we're doing it. with our eyes wide open.

We've got genomic tests. We know unbelievable details about how this virus works and things like that. But it hasn't meant that we've been able to stop it. I was surprised by that. I thought that information that we now have at our fingertips would enable us to prevent a pandemic. You said in genome, the autobiography of a species, you wrote, A true scientist is bored by knowledge. It is the assault on ignorance.

that motivates him, the mysteries that previous discoveries have revealed. I stand by that. I think, you know, we teach science to kids as if it's a catalog of facts. It's not. It's the search for new mysteries. It is. And this is a great mystery. This is a really, I mean, I think it's the most important mystery of this century so far.

How many of the science, I think science has done itself a grave to service. Medicine is doing itself a grave to service now. shutting people up you know you go to your doctor and he says look I I I don't feel comfortable saying this or you know you can't talk about this shutting these people down is is very frightening well I'm not here to throw the whole of science no no but I think there are other scientists that are great well the way the distinction I make is that science as a philosophy is still fantastic I have you It's the right, to try and find out about the world by experiment and hypothesis testing is the right way to go.

You know, it's an incredible achievement. I think it's humankind's greatest achievement. The Enlightenment. It's a wonderful thing. But science as an institution has got to where it tends to be dominated by somewhat inward-looking committees of the great and the good who are behaving more and more like a priesthood. It's always had a bit of a tendency like that. Say, no, no, don't you unwashed, get involved in this. Leave it to us.

We're the experts we know and we're going to tell you what's right and what's wrong. Well, I'm sorry. I don't think it should be that. I want to see science treated much more as a sort of democratic and open process. And scientists to be much more humble and to say, look, actually we don't know where this came from. It's important we find out. Anyone who wants to help track this down, please join us. but don't expect us to waste our time on nutty conspiracy theories,

but let's be open-minded about everything that is plausible. Scientists are always right until they're wrong, until they're proving until something else is discovered. I have to ask you. They disagree with each other. That's how they keep themselves honest. Yes, yes. Okay, well, I have to ask you this, and then I'll let you go.

but what is capitalism by your definition, or better yet, what is free market anti-capitalism? Yeah, I once called myself a free market anti-capitalist. And what I mean by that is that I'm a huge fan of commerce, enterprise, freedom, you know, people going out and taking risks and innovating and coming up with solutions that help the world. I don't think that makes me a capitalist in the sense of the term, you know, the word coined by Marx, because a capitalist is someone who accumulates capital. And I think free markets are the opposite of that. What they do is they see somebody who's got a monopoly wealth position as a result of some kind of advance. And they say, hmm, I'll have to go out that.

And they come along and they use competition to redistribute what's going on. So I think true free enterprise is surprisingly anti-capitalist. It produces equality, not inequality. It produces a sort of network of collaboration rather than an accumulation of an accumulation of bars of gold in a bank, if you see what a way. I mean, capitalists now are Google, Facebook, all these big corporations, Exxon, whatever, and they force other people, they keep buying things up to force other people out, which squashes the little guy who goes,

I have a better idea. Absolutely. And the more regulation that government imposes, often the more barriers to entry for the little guy. And actually big business loves it. It's got a crony relationship with government that I think. So I would like to regulate in such a way is to make life harder for big businesses

and easier for small businesses. Matt, I really enjoyed it. Thank you so much. Glenn, thank you so much. I've enjoyed the conversation. Just a reminder, I'd love you to rate and subscribe to the podcast and pass this on to a friend so it can be discovered by other people.