Any question about the origin of SARS-CoV-2 has been dispelled by a new addendum from the House Foreign Affairs Committee of the 117th Congress that reviewed public data and classified intelligence to reveal key new facts.1

In the short video above, Saagar Enjeti talks about a few of the interesting facts revealed in the addendum.2 Unfortunately, as has been the case throughout the last 18 months, the mainstream media completely ignored any report like this one, that suggests health experts have been manipulating what you see.

I believe it”;s important to share information from the committee”;s report with your friends and family as it sheds light on the lies the media have been perpetuating throughout 2020 and 2021. As you will see, and can find in the report, much of the information that led to the conclusions was taken from publicly available data.

If the media”;s aim were to ferret out the truth and inform the public, this report may never have been necessary. And, if the media haven”;t been telling you the truth about the origins of the virus, what else have they been hiding?

A report by the House Foreign Affairs Committee published in September 2020 highlighted the potential that SARS-CoV-2 was leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV). However, after discovering further evidence, the committee finds it is “;time to completely dismiss the wet market as the source of the outbreak.”;3

In the last 18 months, the virus has wreaked havoc on a health care system unwilling to use cost-effective and successful treatment modalities,4 and we have an economy that is still reeling from months of lockdowns and social distancing.

People are being forced to either accept the consequences and repercussions of hospital treatment for the infection or seek out successful alternatives that are criticized and discouraged by health agencies.5,6 If successful treatment were truly the objective, why would health experts vilify the use of medications that have been on the market for decades7,8 and the media maintain the lie?

Whether you are interested in the origin of a virus technocrats are using to manipulate human behavior or not, as Enjeti succinctly put it, “;Getting to the bottom of it [origin of the pandemic] is vitally important for mankind so we can avoid any of this in the future.” And by “;any of this”; I take it to mean society”;s complete trust in a system that has failed the public.

The Most Stunning Headline: Virus Was Leaked From the Lab

Enjeti believes the most stunning headline of the report is that the committee is convinced the virus was leaked from the lab,9 but that”;s just the tip of the iceberg. The committee used publicly available data, intelligence reports and geospatial tracking to make their determination.

It appears the original infections likely occurred well before the December announcement from Wuhan, China. It is important to note that Wuhan is a large metropolitan city, home to some of the tallest skyscrapers, major cultural sites and multiple universities. As noted in the report, it is five times the size of Houston in land mass with a larger population than Chicago and New York City combined.10

Before the leak in 2019, the committee noted there had been several safety concerns in labs across the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since 2004. It was at this time that SARS leaked for the Beijing lab, and since then other accidental releases have occurred. From what the committee can discern, it is highly probable that SARS-CoV-2 was released from the Wuhan lab before September 12, 2019.

It was that date, September 12, 2019, that the online public database WIV of viral sequences and samples disappeared. The database had more than 22,000 entries of pathogens collected from mice and bats, with key information including similarities to other known viruses.

Dr. Shi Zheng-li was the senior scientist at WIV who was listed as the data correspondence author, but as the report highlights, to date has not given a consistent answer as to why the online database was removed or when or if it will be put back online.

Coincidentally, researchers from Harvard Medical School and Boston University School of Public Health had been evaluating 2.5 years of satellite imagery of hospitals in Wuhan.11 They were analyzing parking lot traffic volume and discovered that in September and October 2019, five of the six hospitals in the city had volume that was much higher than in the previous 2.5 years.

The researchers found this peak correspondent with a higher number of searches for two central COVID symptoms –; “;cough”; and “;diarrhea”; –; on the Chinese search engine Baidu.

Was the 2019 Military Games the Ultimate Superspreader?

Each of these factors and more identified in the report, point to the likelihood the virus had been released from the lab before September 12, 2019. Data gathered after the 2019 Military World Games held in Wuhan October 18, 2019, further support the committee”;s assertion that the virus may have been contained to a local outbreak had truth been told.12

The military games are an Olympic-style event that drew 9,308 athletes from 109 countries, including the U.S.13,14 There were 25 countries that sent more than 100 athletes. The government used 236,000 volunteers, 90 hotels and more than 2,000 drivers. In other words, the games were a hotbed for spreading around the world what could have been contained as a local virus.

One journalist from the Financial Post15 reported some participants at the games described Wuhan as a “;ghost town.”; One of the athletes told the reporter, “;This was a city of 15 million people that was in lockdown. It was strange, but we were told this was to make it easy for the games”; participants to get around.”;16

The source shared there were 60 Canadian athletes put in isolation on the flight home who had symptoms of coughing and diarrhea. Once home, he reported that the symptoms became worse and included nosebleeds, fever and pain with breathing. Family members became ill and doctors were unable to identify a source for the infection. Another military source reported:17

“;One-quarter of us got sick, there and when we returned. Some were bedridden for weeks. This made us potential vectors for the virus. The military did nothing. I was sick and others were, too, with Wuhan symptoms …; I was eventually given a swab test, which measures only recent exposure, and told to carry on.”;

The committee identified four countries that had sent athletes to the games that had people with confirmed COVID-19 in November and December 2019.18 Those countries were Italy, Brazil, Sweden and France. In both Italy and France, the individuals infected had no known history of traveling outside the country. This suggests the virus was brought into the country from another source. The Committee concluded:19

“;While much of the public debate was initially focused on the Huanan seafood market in Wuhan as the origin of the pandemic, the preponderance of evidence now suggests that the virus leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

Given the WIV”;s demonstrated history of conducting gain-of-function experiments on coronaviruses, including genetically manipulating viruses specifically to make them infectious to humans in BSL-2 labs, as well as their possession of one of the world”;s largest collections of coronaviruses, it is completely plausible that one or more researcher(s) was accidentally infected and carried the virus out of the lab.”;

Committee Also Believes the Virus Was Genetically Modified

Twenty-nine pages into the report, the committee began addressing the topic of genetic modification. Within the first paragraph they said there was enough evidence to suggest that genetic modification is a “;viable hypothesis.”;20 The committee included research from a 16-year collaboration between Peter Daszak, president of EcoHealth Alliance, and Dr. Shi Zheng-li, senior scientist at WIV, which revealed a strong relationship. They wrote:21

“Beginning in 2005, and continuing over the next 16 years, Shi and Daszak have collaborated on coronavirus research. Together, they ‘led dozens of expeditions to caves full of bats, to collect samples and analyze them.’

They have identified more than 500 novel coronaviruses, including roughly 50 related to SARS or MERS, and they have repeatedly engaged in gain-of-function research on coronaviruses designed to make them more infectious in humans.”

Information from the papers they co-wrote also appears in the committee report, three of which were papers on bat SARS-like coronaviruses. The paper in 2013 that was published in the journal Nature was called “;Isolation and characterization of a bat SARS-like coronavirus that uses the ACE2 receptor.”;22

In 2015, Shi gave Ralph Baric and researchers at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill spike protein sequences and plasmids they identified from bat feces samples in 2013. The Committee reported these were used by American researchers to create:23

“;’…; a chimeric virus expressing the spike of bat coronavirus SHC014 in a mouse-adapted SARS-CoV backbone.’ In other words, they removed the spike protein from SHC014 and inserted it into a SARS coronavirus that was genetically manipulated to better infect mice.”;

The research was funded by the NIAID and the NIH through the EcoHealth Alliance and the PRC government. In a paper published in 2016, in which Baric was the corresponding author, the writers discussed “;moving from disease surveillance to creating chimeric viruses as a means of pandemic preparedness.”;24 After reviewing the data, the committee concluded:

“;Given the above, it is self-evident that Shi and her colleagues, with funding and support from Daszak, were actively genetically manipulating coronaviruses and testing them against human immune systems in 2018 and 2019, before the beginning of the pandemic.”;

The committee’s report delved further into some of the unusual features of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. They point out that critics claim what they say is an apparent “;lack of telltale signs of genetic manipulation”; is proof that the virus is naturally occurring.

However, Baric had developed and published a novel genetic engineering system to allow for genetic sequencing that would create a new and infectious coronavirus that was “;indistinguishable from wild type.”;

Daszak’s Dark Relationship With Wuhan

Daszak is the only scientist named in the Executive Summary of the report and whose actions “;call into question the way in which U.S. government grants are used in overseas labs and call for more oversight of those grants.”;25 To understand the full implications of emails connecting Fauci and Daszak in early 2020, it’s important to understand what happened in the days before.

At the GOP House Oversight and Reform Subcommittee, Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, shared email information revealed in a Freedom of Information Act release, which demonstrated Fauci and many other health experts in the world knew the virus was lab-created.26

Jordan quotes from an email Fauci received from British researcher Christian Anderson that said, “The unusual features of the virus make up a really small part of the genome so one has to look really closely at all the sequences to see that some of the features look engineered. Eddie, Bob, Mike and myself all find the genome inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory.”27

In a separate presentation at the House Select Committee on the Coronavirus, Jordan illustrated Fauci’s changing narrative on the issue of gain-of-function research, which is a lab-performed genetic alteration to make a virus more infectious to humans, saying:28

“He initially said the United States taxpayer money did not fund the Wuhan Institute of Virology. He later changed that, saying no, no we did fund it but it was through a sub-grant. He subsequently said no, no we funded it but we did not fund gain-of-function research.

Then just last Sunday he said, well, we funded it, there was gain-of-function research, but it was a sound scientific decision. And then he said this … it would have been negligent to not fund the lab in China.”

In a section of the report from the House Foreign Affairs Committee titled “The Cover Up,”29 there is evidence that Daszak pushed for a cover up. His actions included bullying scientists who asked questions and directly lying about the nature of the research and about the low-level safety protocols being used in the research. They conclude his actions cost time and “provide further proof the virus likely leaked from the WIV.”30

Daszak Grateful Fauci on Board With Cover Up

In April 2020, Fauci was at the White House, where he rejected the idea that the coronavirus was created in the lab in Wuhan.31 In July 2020, Daszak headed up a second commission to investigate the origin of the virus, The Lancet COVID-19 commission,32 despite his many conflicts of interest and of having openly and repeatedly dismissed the possibility of the pandemic being the result of a lab leak.33

However, once Fauci”;s emails were released under a Freedom of Information Act request, it was discovered that Daszak wrote: “;I just wanted to say a personal thank you on behalf of our staff and collaborators, for publicly standing up and stating that the scientific evidence supports a natural origin for COVID-19 from a bat-to-human spillover, not a lab release from the Wuhan Institute of Virology.”;34

Jordan quotes testimony from “;Dr. Jarrar,”; whom he identifies as a former assistant secretary for health, that supports the mounting evidence being revealed. Jordan said:35

“Here’s what Dr. Jarrar said. ‘I believe it’s just too much of a coincidence that the worldwide pandemic caused by a novel bat coronavirus that cannot be found in nature started just a few miles away from a secretive laboratory doing potentially dangerous research on bat coronaviruses.'”

In the House Committee”;s report, Daszak”;s name is mentioned 125 times. The importance of Daszak”;s position in gain-of-function research done at WIV and the ensuing coverup is brought home by the committee”;s recommendation for the next steps that Congress should take, namely “;After this extensive investigation, we believe it is time to call Peter Daszak to testify before Congress.”;36

Read more: articles.mercola.com