EcoHealth Alliance president thanked Fauci for downplaying lab leak hypothesis
By News Editors // Jun 07, 2021

The man at the center of the NIH funding of research at the Wuhan Virology lab in China, Peter Daszak, actually thanked Fauci last year for playing down the lab leak theory and pushing people toward the natural spread theory from bats:


(Article republished from

Notice how Daszak complains about Fox News reporters targeting the grant money. That should tell you a lot.

In case you aren’t familiar with Daszak, here’s what we wrote about him via Mark Levin’s interview with a former New York Times science writer:

Fauci’s organization, NIAID, gave grant money to an intermediary, EcoHealth Alliance, for the purpose of testing and creating more coronaviruses. Wade indicated this is a legitimate role of the NIAID, especially after the previous SARS epidemic, and that Fauci had a duty to create more virulent coronaviruses in a lab so they could then determine what to do about them.

Peter Daszak, the president of Eco Health Alliance, then gave the money to the Wuhan virology lab, which we later found out was operating at a much lower degree of safety than what it necessary for this kind of work.

Finally, when the epidemic actually happened, Daszak penned a letter in the Lancet journal saying it could only have come directly from animals and not from a lab, and declaring that he had no conflict of interest on the matter. But he DID have a conflict of interest – a huge one in fact – because he would have been seen as at least partially at fault if the virus had come from the Wuhan lab. This conflict was not made known to the readers of the Lancet.

Thus it was Daszak’s opinion (and that of another mentioned in the video) which the media ran with, declaring everyone who favored the lab leak as conspiracy theorists.

Daszak looks to have been protecting his own backside with the lancet article he wrote suggesting there’s no way the coronavirus could have come from a lab.

In regards to the email above, I’d love to know what is being hidden under the big gray box. According to Kerpen, something could only be redacted for law enforcement purposes:

Read more at: and

Take Action:
Support NewsTarget by linking to this article from your website.
Permalink to this article:
Embed article link:
Reprinting this article:
Non-commercial use is permitted with credit to (including a clickable link).
Please contact us for more information.
Free Email Alerts
Get independent news alerts on natural cures, food lab tests, cannabis medicine, science, robotics, drones, privacy and more. © 2022 All Rights Reserved. All content posted on this site is commentary or opinion and is protected under Free Speech. is not responsible for content written by contributing authors. The information on this site is provided for educational and entertainment purposes only. It is not intended as a substitute for professional advice of any kind. assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. Your use of this website indicates your agreement to these terms and those published on this site. All trademarks, registered trademarks and servicemarks mentioned on this site are the property of their respective owners.

This site uses cookies
News Target uses cookies to improve your experience on our site. By using this site, you agree to our privacy policy.
Learn More
Get 100% real, uncensored news delivered straight to your inbox
You can unsubscribe at any time. Your email privacy is completely protected.