Emails between WHO, NIH, and Fauci reveal Chinese influence on COVID response
May 21, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — Emails released by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, pertaining to Dr. Anthony Fauci and Dr. H. Clifford Lane, document a China-centric approach to COVID-19 on the part of the World Health Organization (WHO) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The emails lend further credence to claims that these organizations are subservient to China.
The 301 pages of emails were released following a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit by Judicial Watch on behalf of the Daily Caller News Foundation. The information sought included records of correspondence from the National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) Director Anthony Fauci and Deputy Director H. Clifford Lane, either between each other, the WHO, or key members and leaders of the WHO, regarding the “novel coronavirus.” The timeline under observation was January 1, 2020, through April 1, 2020.
The emails themselves are heavily redacted. Nonetheless, the information that Judicial Watch and the Daily Caller News Foundation was able to examine revealed disturbing trends of the WHO and the NIH in regard to China and COVID-19.
An email sent by an official for the WHO on January 20, 2020, mentions a completed epidemiological analysis of the “situation,” describing it as “strictly confidential,” and only for the eyes of the WHO’s Strategic and Technical Advisory Group for Infection Hazards (STAG-IH).
While this analysis was considered internally by the WHO to be of such importance as to need extreme secrecy, the public attitude of the WHO at this time was different. Dr. Maria Kerkhove, the technical lead of the WHO COVID-19 response team, downplayed concerns, and stated January 14 that there was “no sustained human-to-human transmission” of the virus, and that the WHO did not have a “clear clinical picture.”
Shortly after this, a February 13 email from the WHO to members of the NIH who were traveling out to China to assess the situation on the ground strongly stipulated that all information was to be treated as sensitive and confidential, until China had essentially given approval for its dissemination: “IMPORTANT: Please treat this as sensitive and not for public communications until we have agreed communications with China.”
The email also mentioned confidentiality forms that would have to be signed.
The very next day, February 14, the WHO’s head in China, Gauden Galea, wrote to inform the incoming health team that the Chinese state’s National Health Commission would be arranging the details of the trip, such as transportation, and all aspects of the investigative mission would be conducted in conjunction with the Chinese.
Kerkhove and Dr. Jun Xing, both of the WHO, had already been organizing the “objective, work streams, method of work and baseline information/data requests” with, and subject to, the Chinese authorities’ approval.
The confidentiality forms alluded to in the February 13 email were once again referenced in the following days, but the correspondence about the topic revealed that the visiting health officials were committing themselves to adhere to Chinese policies. Writing to Dr. H. Clifford Lane, WHO official Manusk Daniel Han stated, “The forms this time are tailored to China’s terms so we cannot use the ones from before.”
The report drawn up by the visiting team is then referenced in a February 28 email, when WHO official Bruce Aylward wrote to WHO Director General Tedros Anhanom Ghebreyesus, informing him that the report was ready and had been approved by the Chinese authorities for release.
Aylward explained that it was “truly a joint mission,” and that all members had been involved in drawing up and finalizing the report.
WHO, NIH bowing down to Chinese pressure
The content of the emails would seem to suggest an underlying emphasis on ensuring subservience to the Chinese authorities, given that investigations and confidentiality agreements were arranged so as to please the Chinese, rather than any other country or organization, and thus would further the national interests or defend the national pride of China.
Indeed, Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton pointed to this fact, accusing Fauci and the WHO of colluding with the Chinese in a cover-up attempt: “These new emails show WHO and Fauci’s NIH special accommodations to Chinese communist efforts to control information about COVID-19.”
He was echoed by the Daily Caller News Foundation. “These emails set the tone early on in the coronavirus outbreak. It’s clear that the WHO allowed China to control the information flow from the start. True transparency is crucial,” said Ethan Barton, editor-in chief for the Daily Caller News Foundation.
As Stephen Mosher, China expert and founder of the Population Research Institute, wrote in December 2020, “Beijing has gone to truly extraordinary lengths to cover up the source of the pandemic, the Wuhan lab … we do know that the major Western print, broadcast, and social media are all doing their best to dismiss the very possibility as a paranoid fantasy.”
Fauci’s knowledge of PCR tests
The many pages of emails also document another aspect of Fauci’s knowledge on the widely used PCR tests. Positive PCR test results were the main reason in driving and enforcing lockdowns, based on perceived prevalence of the virus. Writing on March 22, Dr. Sin Hang Lee, director of the Milford Molecular Diagnostics Laboratory, attested to the fact that the RT-PCR tests “are generating many false positive results and are not sensitive enough to detect some real positive cases, especially during convalescence.”
Dr. Lee suggested alternatives, but this information was redacted from the emails. However, he has been vindicated by a group of prominent scientists pointing to 10 “fatal” flaws with the tests, each of which was enough to render them useless in detecting the virus.
Indeed, these scientists found that the original paper proposing the PCR tests as useful for detecting COVID was published on the WHO website on January 13, 2020, before being submitted on January 21 to Eurosurveillance for publication, and published on January 23.
In an email dated March 24, 2020, there was even a discussion of contract tracing apps at that early stage of COVID times in order to trace the spread of infections.