Liz interviews The Truth About Wuhan author Andrew Huff in this episode, who discusses how his organization, Ecohealth Alliance, received funding for gain of function research by the National Institutes of Health, which Dr. Fauci ran at the time. This work was then subcontracted to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, where the virus was released.
Liz focuses heavily on Fauci’s corruption, and Elon Musk’s potential role in providing more incriminating information. She shares the Tweet Musk released saying “my pronouns are prosecute / Fauci.” Musk has insinuated there will be a future Twitter Files installment purely about Fauci’s corruption.
There is also tangential discussion of pronouns, and how forcing individuals to adopt pronouns and tiptoe around others, when they don’t even believe in the pronouns already, is not good for anyone.
The show is essentially a very deep dive into the Covid-19 “plan-demic” and makes clear it was not a naturally occurring phenomenon.
This transcript was generated automatically and may contain typos, mistakes, and/or incomplete information.
Hi guys. Welcome to The Liz Wheeler Show. I’m Liz Wheeler. We do have a lot to talk about today, but the very first thing that I wanna talk to you about is actually a question. Have you subscribed to the show? If not, please go over to Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Click those subscribe buttons, go to YouTube, hit subscribe, and hit the bell on YouTube so that I can notify you every time we have a new episode or interview or video. And do the same on Rumble, Rumble.com/LizWheeler. Hit subscribe. There’s also a red button next to the subscribe button on Rumble that allows you to join the Liz Wheeler Show community on Locals. So I invite you and encourage you to join over there. Greatly appreciate everybody who has been subscribing. What are we gonna talk about today? Did you guys see Elon Musk’s tweet?
This one might be the tweet that almost broke the internet. Elon Musk’s tweet when he said, my pronouns are prosecute slash Fauci. And here’s the thing. I give Elon credit for knowing exactly the reaction that his tweets will garner. He knows what he is doing, and he is not just doing this to try to tweak Dr. Fauci. He’s actually, I know he’s building rockets and doing electric cars and simultaneously saving free speech and saving Twitter, but he’s also a pretty good journalist. He’s also a pretty good showman and entertainer. And I think, think, think that he’s teasing information that is yet to come. Something that he knows from behind the scenes, maybe Twitter files 8, 9, 10, something that he knows behind the scenes. So that’s kind of my question today is, does Elon Musk, because of the Twitter files, because of these internal communications that Twitter does, he have information that criminally implicates Dr.
Fauci in covering up something the US government did when it comes to maybe our taxpayer money funding gain of function research in Wuhan China, perhaps Dr. Fauci requesting as a government official requesting that Twitter censor our opinions about Covid 19 when they dissented from Dr. Fauci. I don’t know what the information would be. I suspect that we all know what it probably will be. Ut that’s the question that I have. And I predict mark my words. I think that Elon Musk has information that he is about to release. That’s what we’re gonna talk about today, because there’s a whistleblower from EcoHealth Alliance. You guys remember EcoHealth Alliance? It’s the middleman between Fauci’s NIH, or the grants that came from the NIAID, which is what Fauci controls. They gave our taxpayer money to EcoHealth Alliance.
Ecohealth Alliance, then subcontracted that grant money to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, where the bat lady performed very dangerous experiments, gain of function experiments on bat-derived coronaviruses with the intent to juice them up, to make them more transmissible and more lethal for human beings. And a whistleblower from EcoHealth Alliance has written a new book about his experiences, what he saw when he was on the inside, because we can all sit out here on the outside and we can speculate about what happened. And we should, we can ask a lot of questions. We should do that, too. We, we can, can investigate, and we should also do that, but we can’t really know what’s on the inside until we get someone on the inside to talk to us on the outside. So, I have a lot of questions for this whistleblower. Let’s get to it.
By the way, guys, this is the tweet that I was talking about from Elon Musk, the one where he says, my pronouns are prosecute slash Fauci. It’s actually that simple. Those words, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 words and one punctuation. My pronouns are prosecute Fauci. So some of the responses I wanna read you, this response that Elon got to this tweet, it’s from someone named Scott Kelly. Scott Kelly is actually, he’s an astronaut. He’s the brother of Arizona Senator Kelly. And this is what he said. He said, Elon, please don’t mock and promote hate towards already marginalized and at risk of violence members of the LGBTQ community. They are real people with real feelings. Furthermore, Dr. Fauci is a dedicated public servant whose sole motivation was saving lives. Yes, groan, roll your eyes, gag, whatever you want at that tweet. This is what Elon responded, though.
He goes, I strongly disagree. Forcing your pronouns upon others when they didn’t ask, and implicitly ostracizing those who don’t, is neither good nor kind to anyone. As for Fauci, he lied to Congress and funded gain of function research that killed millions of people. Not awesome, in my opinion. Like this is one of my arguments about why Ellan should not increase the character limit on Twitter. He said he is gonna increase it from 280 characters to 4,000 characters. I am very strongly opposed to that because 4,000 characters, that’s like half a chapter of a book, half a chapter of a book. Like if we wanted that, we would read a book, but people don’t read books because we like tweets. We want tweets. And it’ll take away from these brilliant, crushing responses that can all be fit into 280 characters. So that’s my tangent of the day. But Elon did respond to one other guy kind of confirming what I said before. You know, does he have information behind the scenes at Twitter that shows that Dr. Fauci was engaged or implicated in some criminality? A guy named Dave Lee said, will this be explained in a new Twitter files part, to which Elon Musk responded yes.
Just, yes. One word. One word. And then of course, we have Dr. Fauci. I know we’ve, criticized is the nicest word I can think of, criticized Dr. Fauci a lot on this show because it’s deserved. This is what we’re supposed to do as the American people, as citizens. We’re supposed to hold our government officials accountable, even if they are not elected officials, as Dr. Fauci is not. But this guy, this guy, Dr. Fauci, has lied repeatedly to our representatives in the United States Congress denying what we all know to be true. And Wall Street Silver is the name of a Twitter user who put together a brilliant compilation that I think encapsulates exactly what is wrong with Dr. Fauci. Take a look.
I don’t know how many times I can say it, Madam Chair, we did not fund gain of function research to be conducted in the Wuhan Institute of Virology
In our health lead, we now know that a bat Coronavirus was enhanced in a lab.
NIH and NIAID categorically has not funded gain of function research to be conducted in the Wuhan Institute.
The National Institutes of Health acknowledged that it funded research of a virus that was studied at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The experiment unexpectedly, we’re told, made a back coronavirus more contagious than the original naturally occurring one.
Dr. Fauci, knowing that it is a crime to lie to Congress. Do you wish to retract your statement of May 11th, where you claimed that the NIH never funded gain of function research in Wuhan?
Senator Poll, I have never lied before the Congress and I do not retract that statement.
A new letter raising questions about experiments in a Wuhan lab.
What was, let me finish.
You’ve taken an animal virus and you increase this responsibility to humans, right? You’re saying that’s not gain of function?
Function. Yeah, that is correct. And, and Senator Paul, you do not know what you are talking about, quite frankly. And I want to say that officially, you do not know what you are talking about.
Three years, the National Institutes of Health provided grant money to the People Health Alliance Research Group, which conducted experiments with that Coronaviruses in China. And
If anybody is lying here, Senator, it is you. That’s where you are getting. Let me finish. We don’t know.
But all the evidence is pointing that it came from the lab, and there will be responsibility for those who funded the lab, including yourself. National Institute of Health admitted this week that it funded controversial gain of function research using coronaviruses at a lab in China at the epicenter of the pandemic, contradicting claims from Dr. Anthony Fauci that American tax dollars never paid for that kind of
Research. I have not lied before Congress. I have never lied, certainly not before Congress. Case closed.
He’s the author of a new book called The Truth About Wuhan: How I Uncovered the Biggest Lie in History, Dr. Andrew Huff. Dr. Huff, thanks for joining me on the show.
Thank you so much for having me. I have to say, it was brilliant. Whoever paired the Tchaikovsky with the Dr. Anthony Fauci lying montage, so good work.
It’s so brilliant. I saw it on Twitter, and I knew I had to share it with everybody watching and listening to the show because it was quite some, I’ve seen a lot of good Fauci compilations, but that was the best. So let’s talk first just about who you are. People are gonna be wondering, I called you a whistleblower, that’s how you’re styling yourself. But you worked for EcoHealth Alliance, correct?
I did. I worked from at EcoHealth Alliance from the Fall of 2014 until the Summer of 2016.
2016. So about two years. And what did you do there?
I was hired as a Senior Scientist of data in technology as a quantitative epidemiologist. And I was successful at bringing in a number of large grants, about 6 million in my first year. Many scientists don’t ever see that kind of money over their entire careers. And due to my success, I was promoted to Vice President after about a year.
Oh, you were Vice President of EcoHealth Alliance. So you weren’t just doing like the science-y stuff, you were actually part of like the business structure?
Oh, absolutely. And the way that EcoHealth Alliance was structured is that primarily Peter Daszak served as something called the principal investigator being the person in charge of all the grants. In academia and scientific research, the principal investigator is like God. They receive the money, they’re responsible, they can move funding around with the government’s permission. I was one of the few principal investigators, even as a senior scientist, at EcoHealth Alliance. And then with that success, I asked to be well, promoted and then added to other projects in the company, which I was. So I started sitting in all the weekly executive meetings related to all the operations of the company.
So that’s very interesting, actually, what you said, that Peter Daszak, who by the way, has blocked me on Twitter, I wonder why he controls the money. So if you apply, yeah, welcome to the club, right? If you apply for a grant from the government, this is a grant that’s doled out by Anthony Fauci, by the NIH and the NIAID. It was always my understanding that if you applied for this, then you had to use the money for the very specific purpose for which you sent in the application. You’re saying that’s not true.
Well, with government grants, there’s two categories of funding. So there’s government grants and government contracts. Most of my work was contract, which has much more strict rules about how you can spend the money. Government grants are a little bit different, where the principal investigator can sort of use the money as long as they accomplish the work that’s in the specific aims of the grant and accomplish those specific aims. Usually, you have a lot of liberty to spend that money however you feel is best. And this had happened to me at a number of places where I either conducted research as a student, I’m a research fellow, a scientist at other organizations, or a professor. Sometimes you have leftover money and you can use that money on other projects or to fund students or researchers. You really do have a lot more flexibility on a grant compared to a contract. Contracts are typically time and materials, or you can, if you’re a savvy scientist, you can do fixed cost contracts, which can be more profitable if you come in under budget. Now, it’s interesting how you’re framing this within the context of NIAID and NIH. Actually, the bat Coronavirus work began under USAID, the United States Agency for International Development during the Predict Program.
Interesting. So we can talk about that. But let me ask you, so what did you work on specifically when you were there? What was your work?
Well, when I was first hired I was led to believe that I was turning around a failing department. So my predecessor, Dr. Nico Preston, had left, and he went back up to institutions around the Harvard area. And I was developing advanced analytical or predictive technologies using machine learning and artificial intelligence to predict and forecast various aspects of pandemic human movement infectious disease emergence, using something called natural language processing to detect these infectious disease events. So this falls under a term, a bit of jargon in public health called BIOS surveillance, so detecting infectious diseases in real time, if possible. And then as I was promoted I asked to be involved in more of the other work. So when you’re a scientist at one of these organizations, often you’re asked to consult or review proposals that the other scientists are working on.
So I was the only card-carrying epidemiologist at the time. When we worked there, there were two veterinarians. Dr. Peter Daszak is actually a Parasitologist, Dr. Kevin Oval is an Infectious Disease Ecologist. So Kevin and I were sort of the closest, so I’d be asked to consult on different projects. When they’re trying to figure out the statistical power or how many samples they need to collect I’d be the person that they come to. So the math guy, the statistics guy. And then if we could make something tech and turning it into a platform or something with, you know, based on the Internet that others could use or something that we could scale, they would come to me because I have the technical chops. Once I was promoted, well, then I was added to the Predict program as a country coordinator liaison to Sudan and Jordan.
The funding got cut to Sudan. And then I’d actually solicited working in a number of different things. I offered to be the Biosecurity or Safety Officer for EcoHealth Alliance that was shot down. And we can talk about that. I got offered to be the Chief Security Officer to improve the security of our equipment and the enterprise, really, because I saw a number of security risks at the company. And, you know, I was just trying to be the best employee that I could be. So I was always offering to take on more work, or extra responsibility. Every once in a while, in one of these academic environments, what happens too is that there might be 10 or 15 different research projects going on, and they might give you a small percentage off different projects at different times to help with minor things. So they need help assistance doing some mathematical work on a paper you might assist. So that’s very, very typical, normal stuff in the scientific or organization.
It sounds, in a sense, like a pretty good gig if you got to be involved in all these projects. Why’d you end up leaving?
Well, Dr. Daszak and I had a falling out. So it’s just, it’s still hard for me to relive it sometimes. So I’m hired to turn around this failing department. I’m really successful. I’m loving working there. Peter Daszak and I have a great working relationship. He’s an excellent writer. He’s a great strategist, which you can actually see with the WHO Investigation Commission, which ends up happening after the pandemic happens. But we have this great relationship, and I was actually working to privatize my department. The number of the technologies that I was working on were worth a lot of money in the private sector, and Peter encouraged me to go solicit this to the board of directors. And which I did successfully, I think I probably had, you know, four or five of the directors on board with my plan to privatize at least, or monetize part of my department.
I then used a lot of my social capital convincing people in my department that this was going to happen, and this would be a good thing, and some of us would be reassigned to this. And then one day he decides to publicly announce that it’s not going to happen, and he doesn’t do this with any warning to me. He actually does this at a company-wide meeting, which was terribly embarrassing to me. And at that point, I decided that I never wanted to work with this man again because he had lied to me. But over the course of this journey, there were so many different weird, strange things that had happened. That was just the tipping point. I learned from working there that everything that Peter Daszak at EcoHealth Alliance was telling everybody was a fraud. So one of the main reasons why I went to go work there was that the mission of the organization was something to this effect.
We conduct conservation work because we want to prevent emerging infectious diseases. And the idea was, or this image they were portraying, was that they were going out and saving cute free animals or investing in the environment and protecting it. And there’s actually a lot of scientific feasibility to this argument, because if you can protect or conserve the environment and prevent people from being exposed to nasty diseases in caves or remote areas, then the two species humans and the animals won’t interact and the disease won’t emerge. Well, great. Well, after I’m promoted to Vice President, I was sitting in one of these executive meetings and I asked Dr. Daszak, well, how much money are we spending on conservation? And he had this real maniacal laugh, and said we’re not spending any money on conservation. And I was floored. I couldn’t believe it.
I mean, we had all these people sitting here, I’m looking in the office, and they all believe that they’re working to protect and save wildlife and conserve the environment, but yet we’re not spending any money on this. You can imagine how shocked I was after working there for a year, and I just figured this out. Well, that’s when I began to look at Peter differently and everything he said. And so this Predict program that we’re working on, 210 million was spent by the US government on this Predict program. And Dr. Daszak is running around telling everyone that we’re going to predict and prevent emerging infectious diseases. And this, this was tied into this conservation mission. And at first, when I first started working there, I had to focus on my own work, bring more money into the organization, but then when I’m promoted, I’m assigned to this, what I think is a cool project.
And I read through about four inches of Predict publications, history manuals about the work they’ve been doing. And it’s clear to me as a scientist, I feel that there’s no way that they’re gonna be able to predict or forecast anything. They’re not collecting enough samples. The sample sizes are too small. And then once I’m actually assigned to the countries where we’re collecting these samples, I realize the budgets are too small. There’s no way that you can have sufficient predictive power to predict anything. So I started asking myself, well, what is this?
Did you ever bring that up to them?
Did you ever raise that flag?
Yeah, yeah, I did. And, you know, as a, I guess not low-level executive, but as one of the younger scientists in the room and you’ve got the most powerful guy there as your boss, you still have to be somewhat measured in how you bring these concerns up if you want to keep your position. So I always did that in a respectful way.
And how did, how did he respond when you did raise that concern?
Well, the first time I brought it up, I think I said something to the effect of, you know, I don’t think we have enough predictive power here, in scientific terms, to do, sir, what we’re saying. And he would mumble some answer, which wasn’t really addressing my concern, but just trying to sort of make it go away. I don’t know if you’ve ever met someone who speaks like this, but sort of giving me lip service about it, and I could tell that he didn’t wanna be pressed on the issue. Well, the second time I brought it up, we were on not as good terms, and I think I called it pseudoscience to his face, which is a big sort of insult in science, but that’s factually what it is or what it was. Well, that wasn’t well-received. And you know, there are a number of the crazy things that happened while I worked at EcoHealth Alliance. So there were some connections to the intelligence community, which I noticed. Hen I first started working there, I was asked to
What do you mean by that?
So I was asked to create a collaborator report. So usually when you receive a big contractor or grant, you have to submit reports back to the government to demonstrate your progress on the work. Well, I was a new employee, and they ask me to submit a collaborator part for the Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Agency. That is like the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. I’m not sure if you’re familiar with that. Are you familiar with DARPA? Have you heard of DARPA?
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Okay. So IARPA is the DARPA equivalent, but it reports to the, Office of the Director of National Intelligence. I didn’t think anything of it. I submitted this report, it was actually related mostly to my work, gave it to Peter, and I don’t know what the heck they ever did with it. Now fast forward to when I was an executive, and I started seeing the books of all the money coming in and out of the organization. We weren’t receiving any funding from IARPA. So I don’t know why I was asked to submit this IAPA collaborator report. Very strange. In late 2015, Dr. Peter Daszak approached me after work one night and asked me whether or not he should work with the CIA. I had just come out working at San Diego National Laboratories in the classified space, and had been in the military when I was younger and had a secret clearance and had been familiar with that world.
And I was shocked that he was asking me this. And I had to think of something quick. I’m on the way home from work. It’s late at night. I think it was nine or 10 o’clock at night. We were both there late. I said, well, Peter, it never hurts to talk to them. There could be money in it. And he sort of mumbled something off about, you know, the work that we’re doing in China. And I think my dog might be going a little crazy next to me. I’m sorry if you can hear that sort of mumbling something about the work that we’re doing in China, they’re interested in the places we’re working with, the people we’re talking to, and the data we’re collecting. Well, so after that, we went down the elevator.
I didn’t really think anything of it. Went home and slept it off. And then over the next two months, he then confirmed that this relationship with the CIA was proceeding. And at the time I was excited because I looked at it as a new or additional revenue stream. So when you’re in the moment and you’re in all of this, it’s hard to make sense of it. And when Dr. Daszak and I had the falling out, I immediately started looking for other work. I had four or five different interviews within higher ed or academia within a few weeks. And I had landed a new position rather quickly, and I was just waiting for my exit. When it gets to the point where, this is actually really tragic, we had a meeting in around February 12th of 2016, and I requested meeting with Dr.
Daszak arguing for pay raises for everyone in the company, including my department, because a lot of my employees were not medical or public health employees. They were tech employees, like engineers. And I was at high risk of losing critical people to companies like Google, Facebook, Apple. And I had to offer more competitive salary packages to keep these people, otherwise we would put my projects at risk. So we called this meeting, and it’s with Peter Daszak, Harvey Kazden and Alexi Chamara, who is now Dr. Chamara, and he was the Chief of Staff. And I make my argument, make my case about how everyone needs pay raises, including myself, in order to be competitive with industry. And Peter does not take this well. And he gets really upset about it. He basically calls me greedy. And I was merely pointing on the facts of what our employees are paid versus what other companies like EcoHealth or people who are not tech.
And then also what the tech employees were making. The meetings went unresolved, but in the heat of the moment, I actually called my boss out, Peter Daszak, on the financial fraud that I had witnessed at EcoHealth Alliance, which was pretty minor. And Harvey Kazden, the CFO, went home and had a heart attack and died that day, that night or the next day. That next day, I flew to Italy to meet with the UN to discuss some work on the Predict program. And Alexi keeps on sending me texts. Peter wants to talk to you, Peter wants to talk to you. And he kept on scheduling meetings every 30 minutes or an hour and canceling, and he wouldn’t tell me what the nature of the meeting was. And I’m livid because I’ve been sitting by my phone in a hotel room and, and after flying to Europe, waiting for a meeting with my boss, and he keeps playing this game. So I decided to quit at that point. I was done, and the next flight I was supposed to take was to
Well, let me ask you.
Let me ask you, when you were still employed by EcoHealth Alliance, were you aware of the projects or the subcontracting that EcoHealth did with the Wuhan Institute of Virology?
Oh, yeah, I reviewed the, so the understanding the risk of bat Coronavirus original proposal, I have the original copy, the unredacted version, and I’ve posted it to Twitter. I reviewed it when I was first hired at EcoHealth Alliance. And in my book,
Well, talk to me a little bit about this. Like, there, there’s obviously a debate about the origin of COVID, right? There’s a debate about the origin of COVID. Was this something that was manipulated in a lab? Did it leak accidentally? Was it something that was naturally derived? I mean, a as someone who works in this field who literally worked at this company that subcontracted, how would you tell if a virus like this is manipulated, if it were lab-created?
Well, so I’m actually an FBI-trained criminal epidemiologic investigator. So there are two things that you would look at. You would look at the genetic sequences and signature of the agent, and you would look at the epidemiology data of how the cases arose. So in my book, I go into this in detail. I mean, there are genetic patented sequences that were patented by laboratories in the United States, which end up in the wild strain circulating. And you simply look at the case data of when the case has emerged, how they emerged, and then the other thing you do is you look at the behavior of all the actors involved. And that’s how you would make, that’s how you know they should have treated this as a criminal investigation. And then if it wouldn’t have been criminal, then there’s not charges filed.
But instead, what happens when this disease, well, actually when this disease begins to spread around the planet that’s way before anyone’s told about it. So the epidemiology data clearly shows that this disease emerged in late August or early September of 2019. Think about that for a second. Think about everything that China’s told us. Okay? Think about what the US government has told us. The hard, scientific data shows that this disease emerged in late August or early September, 2019. It’s peer-reviewed, researched, it was replicated independently from analyzing different data sources, and the scientists all came up with the same thing. So then what happens? Well, a major coverup operation happens. The Chinese go into panic mode and start buying containment equipment to get ahead of the lab leak. Then the next thing that happens is that there’s some kind of coordination that happens between the US government and the Chinese.
That either happens between October 1st, well, somewhere between October 1st and December 15th, 2019. The World Military Games in Wuhan take place. And all the athletes report that the city is empty and the city’s under lockdown. And a number of those athletes, these are military athletes, return to their home countries or their bases where they’re from on the planet, and report getting mystery illnesses. So to think that the US government wasn’t aware of all these athletes becoming ill, it’s unfathomable. So I used to develop these systems for the US government. I’m an expert in bio surveillance. I know how the system works and how they capture the different types of data for the signal that you look forward to identify these infectious disease outbreaks. So in context, there’s a big, lying coverup that happens. I don’t know specifically when that coverup takes place, but the telltale sign is that
Let me interrupt you for a second. So your official analysis based on your experience as a forensic epidemiologist is you believe that the COVID-19 virus was manipulated and leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology?
Oh, absolutely. This is what I told you. There is no evidence that this naturally emerged. None. All this BS about the wet market? Well, first of all, this wet market that they fooled everyone with, and they played on westernized American views of what China is, this wet market is in the equivalent of the Upper East Side of New York. Do you picture a bunch of people in the Upper East Side of New York running around in dirty markets, eating live animals? No. When I went to look at this market, it is a very hygienic, sanitary place where I would love to go buy fresh seafood. And it was mostly a seafood market. And the places where they stored the live animals was exactly how you would do this in a sanitary fashion. Stainless, steel cages, tile walls, hard, cement floors with floor drains. Those are all indications of that they have good sanitation procedures. This was not like some dirty hole in the ground in East Africa where they have dead animals hanging for days with slime by the floor. That’s what they tried to portray this as. But that was far from it.
So you think the US government knew this?
The US government was aware that this, from the very beginning, Fauci was aware from the very beginning that this was a lab-created or lab-manipulated virus that leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology?
Well, I don’t think Fauci is the guy who’s responsible here. So I think Fauci Fauci, Dr. Fauci, he certainly has a lot of blame here, and he should go to prison, but he is probably not the one that received the information about this infectious disease outbreak and epidemic in China. Dr. Anthony Fauci is a sub-agency director for health and human Services that does research, primarily research, not field epidemiology, not field disease investigation. That’s in the hands of the CDC and USDA, typically. The FDA gets into a little bit as well. So when there’s an offense,
So who’s responsible for the coverup then? Who would’ve known?
Well, the intelligence community and the Department of Defense. They’d be the ones here who’d probably be the most concerned. So later on, after I leave EcoHealth Alliance, there is, have you heard of the diffuse proposal?
Ay, so you should go look that up. So there’s a diffuse proposal. Ecohealth Alliance submits a proposal to the Department of Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, which spells out exactly how to make SARS COV2, partnered with the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Look it up. And it’s cited in my book as well. And so you ask, who’d have the incentive here to cover this up? Well, the Department of Defense would and the intelligence agencies that focus on health, elements of Department of Home Homeland Security, and the other three-letter agencies that work on this. When you think about this, I mean, everyone seems to think that Dr. Anthony Fauci has all this reach across the US government. Once again, it’s a hierarchical structure of the government. I’ve worked in it. A sub-agency director from Health and Human Services is not gonna be able to go coordinate a PSYOP with the intelligence community to impact shutdowns and lockdowns and all this other craziness that came from somewhere else. So my hope is,
So let me ask you, if you were aware, when you were at EcoHealth Alliance, you were aware of the contracts with the Wuhan Institute of Virology, was it pretty widely acknowledged, basically like a secret-not-secret, that this was gain of function research that was happening, even though that’s technically against US law?
Well, in context, so let’s make sure we get this straight. So there was a domestic ban of gain of function work, domestic being the keyword. And then there was small print in, in the bottom of that document, which allowed Dr. Anthony Fauci to essentially grant exceptions to the rule, or there’s process to get around the ban. So whether or not the work at EcoHealth Alliance went through this review process, I don’t have a clue, and nobody else does. And we won’t know until Congress investigates. And that’s the one thing I’ve been asking for. So far I’ve been right about e everything. And I encourage everyone to challenge everything that I’m saying because I’m a scientist. I don’t mind being challenged. But we’re really not gonna get a lot of the critical answers that we need until Congress investigates. And there’s so many different aspects and there’s so many great questions that you need to be asked. I actually offered to assist the House Intelligence Committee with an investigation, also the Senate Permanent Select Committee on Investigations. I’ve turned over all my documents to them. I’ve given them both sworn statements under oath with penalty of perjury. Heck, I even submitted the whistleblower document to one of my senators, Senator Gary Peters, and his Chief of Staff threatened me on the phone, called me crazy, and that was a year ago. And here we are today, and everything I’ve said has turned out to be a fact.
Well, talk to me a little bit, I guess, about your perspective on this type of research, because when you talk about doing classified work for the US government, the military, I assume you’re talking about bioweapons research that just can’t be fully divulged. That’s what the gain of function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, that’s what this strikes me as, is a sort of go-around of the international agreement not to conduct bioweapons research. Is that what it appears like to you?
It appears to be a few things. So in the military, I was a crunchy, I was an 11 charlie infantryman, and I’m very proud of that. So I was not doing anything nearly scientific. I was a guy running around with rifles, machine guns in the height of the war. In the national security space, I’m a data and analytics intelligence person. So I take complex problems and I’m able to use computing power and biological data, bioinformatics to make sense of it and make predictions which are accurate. I have worked in and managed laboratories as a professor, wet laboratories, and as a hospital epidemiologist. So I’ve had some clinical practice skills as well. In terms of what’s going on at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, I asked that very question when I worked at EcoHealth Alliance and said, well, why are we doing this work in China?
And I was actually concerned about the company being ripped off because the Chinese have a long track record of lie, cheat, and steal. And the Wuhan Institute of Virology from my previous career experience was known as a bioweapons laboratory for the Chinese, their BSL four laboratory. And you know, Peter Daszak dismissed my concerns once again. And this perplexed me. So why would we give the Chinese $600,000 and then export our gain function research to them, to their weapons laboratory? It didn’t make sense to me. So one of my working hypotheses or theories is that we are actually trading advanced biotechnology from Ralph Barrack’s laboratory and other scientists in the United States via EcoHealth Alliance to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, in exchange for collecting intelligence on their laboratory. Because the Chinese do not need our money. They don’t need $5 million of American money. And this being one of their most sensitive research facilities, when I worked at San Diego National Laboratories, there’s no way that we’d bring a bunch of foreign scientists into our laboratory and show ’em all the crazy stuff we were working on. It just wouldn’t happen. And the Chinese wouldn’t do it, either.
Huh. Well, a lot of the stuff you say raises more questions, in a sense, than gives answers to the questions that we already have, because it doesn’t make sense for the US to give essentially bioweapons information, this gain of function research, this juiced-up bat-derived Coronavirus to China, especially when China has a hundred-year plan to unseat us as the world superpower. Who should Congress subpoena? Who should they talk to? Who has the answers here?
Well, Dr. Anthony Fauci, Dr. Ralph Barrack, Dr. Ian Lipkinall the executives at EcoHealth Alliance, the EcoHealth Alliance Board of Directors, and then expand the investigation. My attorney and I, Tom Renz, filed a lawsuit in the state of New York against EcoHealth Alliance. Dr. Lipkin, Dr. Daszkin, his wife, and Dr. Barrack from the University of North Carolina for a billion dollars. And it was filed as a dangerous product lawsuit. The dangerous product that they created was SARS COV2, and we’re confident that we’re gonna get discovery on this case. Everyone has looked at this case. All the lawyers and legal experts say this is rock solid. And a lot of that is basically what my book is written from. And Tom filed the case with a thousand dos, meaning as we do discovery, we can expand the case up to the other parties.
Because if the F BI is not gonna step up and do their investigation here, if Congress is not gonna step and investigate, somebody has to investigate, and you have to have experts like me, or people who are free from the influence of government or corporations, get into this and take a look at it. Unfortunately, that used to be government, but that seems to no longer be the case in our country. I don’t know what the heck’s happened, but I used to be good buddies with a bunch of people, or had good working relationships with people in the FBI, and those days seem to be long gone.
Well, I think that this kind of circles back to where we started the show today with Elon Musk being so red-pilled. I think the level of corruption, the level of lying, the level of evil that’s been perpetuated against the American people and people all around the world by government officials, has caused people to lose faith in government officials. And they deserve that. They deserve not to have our trust because they have deceived us. Dr. Andrew Huff, your new book, The Truth About Wuhan: How I Uncovered the Biggest Lie in History. You can find it wherever books are sold. He’s gonna hold up a copy. There it is, right there, A red cover. You shouldn’t be able to miss it. Dr. Huff, thank you for being on the show. I really appreciate it.
Thank you so much for having me.
Of course. Well guys, it’s pretty interesting. Like I said, Dr. Huff raised maybe more questions than answered, which is part of an investigation. He has a lawsuit pending against EcoHealth Alliance. If he gets discovery in that lawsuit, he says, then Peter Daszak, who I know I always mention this, but it’s just because it cracks me up. He can’t, he can’t stand being questioned. Peter Daszak can’t because he blocked me on Twitter. He’s the one with the answers. He’s the one who might know the truth about this, and we deserve the truth. How many people have died from COVID-19? How many people have lost their livelihoods? How many people’s businesses were shut down? How many children were forcibly masked? How much learning loss was incurred? How many harms did people suffer from not being able to go to the doctor?
How many people took a vaccine that not only doesn’t protect against the virus, but actively harmed them? How many people lost their job, like my husband did, when he declined to take this experimental vaccine? This is one of the biggest evils perpetuated against the American people in modern history. And we can’t just let this go. We can’t just say, thank goodness this is in our rear view mirror. Let’s move along. Let’s forget it. Let’s, what was it that Dr. Emily Oster said? We can’t just grant COVID amnesty to people. Absolutely not. We need answers, and we need people like Dr. Andrew Huff to help raise the question since he was in the middle of that. Soon that note, guys, that’s what I’ve got for you today. Thank you for watching. Thank you for listening. I’m Liz Wheeler. This is The Liz Wheeler Show.