{"id":217631,"date":"2022-08-08T12:00:42","date_gmt":"2022-08-08T11:00:42","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/?p=217631"},"modified":"2022-08-06T05:12:10","modified_gmt":"2022-08-06T04:12:10","slug":"why-the-chair-of-the-lancets-covid-19-commission-thinks-the-us-government-is-preventing-a-real-investigation-into-the-pandemic","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/2022\/08\/why-the-chair-of-the-lancets-covid-19-commission-thinks-the-us-government-is-preventing-a-real-investigation-into-the-pandemic\/","title":{"rendered":"Why the Chair of the Lancet\u2019s COVID-19 Commission Thinks the US Government Is Preventing a Real Investigation into the Pandemic"},"content":{"rendered":"<blockquote><p><em>Prof. Jeffrey Sachs says he is \u201cpretty convinced [COVID-19] came out of US lab biotechnology\u201d and warns that there is dangerous virus research taking place without public oversight. <\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<div id=\"attachment_217632\" style=\"width: 310px\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/08\/jeffsachs-covid-lancet.jpg\" ><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" aria-describedby=\"caption-attachment-217632\" class=\"wp-image-217632 size-medium\" src=\"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/08\/jeffsachs-covid-lancet-300x189.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"300\" height=\"189\" srcset=\"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/08\/jeffsachs-covid-lancet-300x189.jpg 300w, https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/08\/jeffsachs-covid-lancet-768x485.jpg 768w, https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/08\/jeffsachs-covid-lancet.jpg 1024w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 300px) 100vw, 300px\" \/><\/a><p id=\"caption-attachment-217632\" class=\"wp-caption-text\">Current Affairs<\/p><\/div>\n<p><em>2 Aug 2022 &#8211; <\/em>Prof.<a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https:\/\/www.jeffsachs.org\/\" > Jeffrey Sachs<\/a> is the Director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University and the President of the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network. He has also served as the chair of the<a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https:\/\/covid19commission.org\/\" > COVID-19 commission for leading medical journal the<em> Lancet<\/em><\/a>. Through his investigations as the head of the COVID-19 commission, Prof. Sachs has come to the conclusion that there is extremely dangerous biotechnology research being kept from public view, that the United States was supporting much of this research, and that it is very possible that SARS-CoV-2, the virus responsible for COVID-19,\u00a0 originated through dangerous virus research gone awry.<\/p>\n<article class=\"article-output\">\n<div class=\"bound\">\n<section class=\"essay-block wp-block-currentaffairs-group\" data-essay-block-type=\"plain\">Prof. Sachs recently<a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https:\/\/www.pnas.org\/doi\/10.1073\/pnas.2202769119\" > co-authored a paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences<\/a> calling for an independent inquiry into the virus\u2019s origins. He believes that there is clear proof that the National Institutes of Health and many members of the scientific community have been impeding a serious investigation of the origins of COVID-19 and deflecting attention away from the hypothesis that risky U.S.-supported research may have led to millions of deaths. If that hypothesis is true, the implications would be earth-shaking, because it might mean that esteemed members of the scientific community bore responsibility for a global calamity. In this interview, Prof. Sachs explains how he, as the head of the COVID-19 commission for a leading medical journal, came to the conclusion that powerful actors were preventing a real investigation from taking place. He also explains why it is so important to get to the bottom of the origins of COVID: because, he says, there is extremely dangerous research taking place with little accountability, and the public has a right to know since we are the ones whose lives are being put at risk without our consent.<\/p>\n<h3><strong>Nathan Robinson:\u00a0<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p>I want to quote something that <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/aprajitanefes\/status\/1550775312899645441\" >you said<\/a> recently:<\/p>\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote\"><p><em>\u201cI chaired the commission for the Lancet for two years on COVID. I\u2019m pretty convinced it came out of U.S. lab biotechnology, not out of nature, just to mention. After two years of intensive work on this. So it\u2019s a blunder in my view of biotech, not an accident of a natural spillover. We don\u2019t know for sure, I should be absolutely clear. But there\u2019s enough evidence that it should be looked into. And it\u2019s not being investigated, not in the United States, not anywhere. And I think for real reasons that they don\u2019t want to look underneath the rug, the statement.\u201d<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>The statement that you made there is a controversial one. Just to read a couple of quotes from the<em> New York Times<\/em> in the last year:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>\u201c<a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2021\/07\/09\/science\/coronavirus-origins-lab-leak.html\" >In a review of recent studies and comparisons to other outbreaks, a group of virologists contends that there is more evidence to support a natural spillover from animals to humans<\/a>.\u201d<\/li>\n<li>\u201c<a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/interactive\/2022\/02\/26\/science\/covid-virus-wuhan-origins.html\" >Scientists released a pair of extensive studies over the weekend that point to a large food and live animal market in Wuhan, China, as the origin of the coronavirus pandemic<\/a>.\u201d<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>So I want to start by asking you just to tell us a little bit about the investigation that you were part of and what led you to think that what I just quoted is a misleading statement of the state of the evidence.<\/p>\n<h3><strong>Jeffrey Sachs:\u00a0<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p>Well, the funny thing is those scientists who are saying that said the same thing on February 4, 2020, before they had done any research at all. And they published the same statement in March 2020, before they had any facts at all. So they\u2019re creating a narrative. And they\u2019re denying the alternative hypothesis without looking closely at it. That\u2019s the basic point.<\/p>\n<p>Now, what is the alternative hypothesis? The alternative hypothesis is quite straightforward. And that is that there was a lot of research underway in the United States and China on taking SARS-like viruses, manipulating them in the laboratory, and creating potentially far more dangerous viruses. And the particular virus that causes COVID-19, called SARS-Cov-2, is notable because it has a piece of its genetic makeup that makes the virus more dangerous. And that piece of the genome is called the \u201cfurin cleavage site.\u201d Now, what\u2019s interesting, and concerning if I may say so, is that the research that was underway very actively and being promoted, was to insert furin cleavage sites into SARS-like viruses to see what would happen. Oops!<\/p>\n<p>Well, that is what<em> may<\/em> have happened. And what has been true from the start is that that very real possibility, which a lot of scientists know, has not been looked at closely, even though it\u2019s absolutely clear that it could have happened that way. They\u2019re not looking. They just keep telling us, \u201cLook at the market, look at the market, look at the market!\u201d But they don\u2019t address this alternative. They don\u2019t even look at the data. They don\u2019t even ask questions. And the truth is from the beginning, they haven\u2019t asked the real questions.<\/p>\n<p>But not <em>quite <\/em>the beginning<em>. <\/em>Because at the beginning, which we could date from the first phone call of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) with a group of virologists on February 1, 2020, the virologists said \u201cOh my god, that is strange, that could well be a laboratory creation. What is that furin cleavage site doing in there?\u201d Because scientists knew that was part of an active ongoing research program. And yet, by February 3, the same group is saying \u201cNo, no, it\u2019s natural, it\u2019s natural.\u201d By February 4, they start to draft the papers that are telling the public, \u201cDon\u2019t worry, it\u2019s natural.\u201d By March, they write a paper\u2014totally spurious, in my view\u2014called <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https:\/\/www.nature.com\/articles\/s41591-020-0820-9\" >the proximal origins paper<\/a> that is the most cited bio paper in 2020. It said: it is absolutely natural. [Note: the paper\u2019s conclusion is \u201cwe do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible.\u201d] But they didn\u2019t have any of the data that you read about in the <em>New York Times<\/em>. They didn\u2019t have any of this. They just said the labs weren\u2019t working on this alternative. But you know what, they don\u2019t know what the labs were working on, because they never asked, and NIH hasn\u2019t told us.<\/p>\n<h3><strong>ROBINSON:<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p>Let me ask you if we can distinguish between what we know for certain and what is speculative because we just haven\u2019t got the data. So we <em>do<\/em> know that there was\u2014correct me if I\u2019m wrong\u2014research proposed that would have dealt with this category of viruses and would have modified them in ways that would have made them potentially more lethal. Do we know whether that kind of research was in fact actually ongoing somewhere?<\/p>\n<h3><strong>SACHS:<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p>We have enormous reason to believe that it was. And clearly, we haven\u2019t even asked that question. But we have a lot of reason to believe that it was, because the scientists that were doing that research loved that research. And they explained to us publicly why it\u2019s so important. And they wrote editorials about why this research must continue. And they made grant proposals saying that it should continue. And for those of us in the business of writing grant proposals, the fact that a particular grant proposal that\u2019s deeply troubling was turned down <em>doesn\u2019t <\/em>mean that it wasn\u2019t carried out afterwards. But where is NIH saying, \u201cYeah, that\u2019s an interesting question. Why\u00a0 don\u2019t we get the evidence?\u201d It doesn\u2019t even ask that question.<\/p>\n<p>And the scientists like those that talk about the Huanan market, they don\u2019t even discuss that research that was underway. That is just misdirection, to my mind. It\u2019s like sleight of hand art. Don\u2019t look over there. Look over here. But we know that there was a tremendous amount of this research underway. We have interviews by the lead scientists. We have these research proposals. I know the intention of doing this research from discussions. I\u2019ve read so many studies of the importance of this research claimed by the scientists. And yet I see NIH with its head in the ground. \u201cOh, no, nothing here to look at.\u201d And then I see the scientists. \u201cOh, nothing here to look at. We know it\u2019s the market. Did we find an animal? No. Do we have an explanation of where that furin cleavage site came in? No.\u00a0 We don\u2019t have an explanation of the timing, which doesn\u2019t quite look right. Oh, but<em> don\u2019t look over there, <\/em>because there\u2019s nothing there, they keep telling us. Well, that\u2019s a little silly.<\/p>\n<p>So my point is, there is a huge amount of reason to believe that that research was underway. Because there are published papers on this. There are interviews on this. There are research proposals. But NIH isn\u2019t talking. It\u2019s not asking. And these scientists have never asked either. From the very first day, they have kept hidden from view the alternative. And when they discuss the alternative, they don\u2019t discuss the research program. They discuss complete straw men about the lab, not the actual kind of research that was underway, which was to stick furin cleavage sites into SARS-like viruses in a way that could have created SARS-Cov-2.<\/p>\n<p>What I\u2019m calling for is not the<em> conclusion.<\/em> I\u2019m calling for the<em> investigation. <\/em>Finally, after two and a half years of this, it\u2019s time to fess up that it might have come out of a lab and here\u2019s the data that we need to know to find out whether it did.<\/p>\n<h3><strong>ROBINSON:<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p>One of the things that struck me that I didn\u2019t know when I started <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https:\/\/www.currentaffairs.org\/2021\/05\/the-stakes-of-finding-covid-19s-origins\" >writing about this <\/a>and actually doing some some research is realizing that in the years leading up to the pandemic, there was a huge controversy about whether it was wise to modify viruses in the course of research in ways that could make a virus more infectious or more lethal. And some people were arguing that this kind of research <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/science\/2014\/jun\/11\/crazy-dangerous-creation-deadly-airborne-flu-virus\" >was insane<\/a>. And some people were warning that in the case of a lab accident\u2014an accident, mind you, not as an intentional \u201cbioweapon\u201d\u2014a simple human error could cause a real catastrophe.<\/p>\n<h3><strong>SACHS:<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p>That is exactly right. There were several kinds of experiments of manipulation of the genes of dangerous viruses. And this raised a lot of alarm. And there was actually a <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https:\/\/www.thelancet.com\/journals\/laninf\/article\/PIIS1473-3099(18)30006-9\/fulltext\" >moratorium<\/a> in 2014. But the champions of this kind of research pushed on, they applied for waivers, which they got, and finally the moratorium came off in 2017. And they said how important it is to do this dangerous kind of research, because they claimed, \u201cWell, there are lots of viruses out there. And we don\u2019t know when they\u2019re going to become highly pathogenic, and we need to develop drugs and vaccines against a wide spectrum of them. So we have to test all these viruses that we can find, to see whether they have high spillover potential.\u201d But they weren\u2019t actually aiming to just test viruses that they were collecting in nature. They were aiming to<em> modify <\/em>those viruses. Because the scientists knew that a SARS-like virus without a furin cleavage site wouldn\u2019t be that dangerous. But they wanted to test their drugs and vaccines and theories against dangerous viruses. Their proposal was to take hundreds, by the way\u2014or least they talked about in one proposal more than 180 previously unreported strains\u2014and test them for their so-called \u201cspillover potential.\u201d How effective would they be? And to look: do they have a furin cleavage site, or technically what\u2019s called a proteolytic cleavage site? And if not, <em>put them in<\/em>. For heaven\u2019s sake. My God! Are you kidding?<\/p>\n<p>Okay, but we didn\u2019t even ask the question from the first day: did you guys <em>do <\/em>that? Tell us what you did. Could you give us your lab notebooks? We\u2019re kind of curious. Instead, these people who are writing these <em>New York Times <\/em>articles right now and publishing these pieces about the market, from the first day\u2014without asking about the experiments\u2014they said, \u201cNope, it\u2019s natural.\u201d That\u2019s why I don\u2019t trust them. Because they\u2019ve never looked at the alternative hypothesis. And their hypothesis has so many gaps, so many holes in it. But they don\u2019t even try to look at the alternative hypothesis.<\/p>\n<h3><strong>ROBINSON:<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p>I think it\u2019s very important to make clear that the \u201calternative hypothesis\u201d is mainly a hypothesis about an accident, and scientific hubris. It\u2019s important to distinguish the kooky theories from the incredibly plausible theories. Because what you\u2019re talking about is people who did not appreciate the dangers of what they were doing.<\/p>\n<h3><strong>SACHS:<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p>In fact, it\u2019s very interesting. The alternative that is the <em>right<\/em> one to look at is part of a very extensive research program that was underway from 2015 onward, funded by the NIH, by Tony Fauci, in particular NIAID [National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases], and it was to examine the spillover potential of SARS-like viruses. The champions of this research explained in detail their proposals. But after the event, we\u2019d never asked them, \u201cSo what were you actually doing? What experiments did you do? What do you know?\u201d We somehow never asked. It was better just to sweep it under the rug, which is what Fauci and the NIH have done up until this point. Maybe they could tell us, \u201cOh, full exoneration,\u201d but they haven\u2019t told us that at all. They haven\u2019t shown us anything.<\/p>\n<p>So there\u2019s nothing \u201ckooky\u201d about it, because it\u2019s precisely what the scientists were doing. And then you can listen to the scientists on tape describing why they think the research program is so important, because they say these are dangerous viruses, and therefore we have to prepare broad spectrum vaccines and drugs. They explain it\u2019s not good enough to test one or two viruses. We have to test all of them. And then they came to realize, as I said earlier, that just having a SARS-like virus, if it doesn\u2019t have this piece of the gene, it\u2019s almost surely not going to be that effective. So they got around to the idea. \u201cWell, let\u2019s put these in,\u201d if you can imagine that. To my mind, it\u2019s mind-boggling.<\/p>\n<p>But they were proud of this, because it\u2019s actually genius at a technological level. Can you imagine: you can take a sequence of letters, which defines the genome, you can recreate the virus just from the letters. You don\u2019t even have to have the biological virus in hand, you just need the sequence. Then you can say \u201cI\u2019m going to add these four letters RRAR, the furin cleavage site, or maybe it\u2019s eight, RRARSVAS, this is a sequence of eight <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https:\/\/www.genome.gov\/genetics-glossary\/Amino-Acids\" >amino acids<\/a>\u2014I\u2019m going to stick it in there right at the S1 S2 junction of the <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scripps.edu\/covid-19\/science-simplified\/parts-of-a-coronavirus\/\" >spike protein<\/a>, because I know from my research program that will make it more pathogenic, that is more disease-causing. And then I can see whether my drug candidates like remdesivir, or some other candidate works against it. That is their idea. There\u2019s nothing kooky about our claim: Hey, what were you doing? Because <em>they told us that they wanted to do these projects.<\/em> And they told us that they were wanting to do these projects in the months leading up to this outbreak. And then what is absolutely strange is that even though scientists knew right from the start, that is very weird to have that RRAR furin cleavage site in there\u2014never saw that before in a SARS-like virus, and that that could well have come from a lab\u2014hush, hush. Don\u2019t talk about it. Don\u2019t even discuss it. Just say right from the beginning: <em>This is natural. Of course, it\u2019s natural. Everything else is kooky.<\/em><\/p>\n<p>So you saw a narrative being created. And the scientists are not acting like scientists. Because when you\u2019re acting like a scientist, you\u2019re pursuing alternative hypotheses. And the scientists just wrote recently an op-ed saying the only evidence that this came out of a lab that\u2019s been put forward is that it came in a city, Wuhan, where an institute was located. Well, that\u2019s a lie. That is not the only coincidence that leads to this theory. What leads to this alternative hypothesis is the<em> detailed research program the NIH funded<\/em> that was underway in the years leading up to the outbreak. So I see the scientists absolutely trying to create a narrative and take our eyes off of another issue.<\/p>\n<p>Now, again, let me emphasize, we don\u2019t have definitive evidence of either hypothesis. But what we do have is definitive evidence that officialdom has tried to keep our eyes away from the lab creation hypothesis.<\/p>\n<h3><strong>ROBINSON:<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p>You mentioned the lab in Wuhan. It\u2019s not just that there was a lab in Wuhan doing research on viruses. But there were ties between the lab and those pursuing this program. What do we know about the research that was actually occurring there?<\/p>\n<h3><strong>SACHS:<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p>We know that at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, the scientists there had been trained by American scientists to use advanced bioengineering methodologies. And in particular, we have scientists in North Carolina, Texas, and so forth who do this kind of research, believe in it, argue for it, and say that they don\u2019t want any regulations on it and so on. And they were in close contact with Wuhan Institute of Virology, and they were part of a joint research group that was stitched together by something called EcoHealth Alliance. And EcoHealth Alliance was the kind of marriage maker between the American scientists and the Chinese scientists. That was the vehicle for funding from the U.S. government, especially from the National Institutes of Health, and especially from Tony Fauci\u2019s unit, the NIAID. There were years of grants, there were grant proposals. We don\u2019t know exactly what was done. But we have enough reason to know that we should be <em>asking <\/em>exactly what was done. And we know definitively that from the beginning, NIH has been running from telling us what has been done. They\u2019re not telling us the truth, that they had reason to fear from the start that this came out of a lab. And that to this day, they have reason to suspect it, but they\u2019re not talking.<\/p>\n<h3><strong>ROBINSON:<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p>A shocking thing to me was that the head of the EcoHealth Alliance was on the World Health Organization team that actually investigated the origins of COVID and concluded that it wasn\u2019t the lab.<\/p>\n<h3><strong>SACHS:<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p>Well, more than that: I appointed him\u2014this was<a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https:\/\/www.science.org\/content\/article\/we-ve-done-nothing-wrong-ecohealth-leader-fights-charges-his-research-helped-spark-covid-19\" > Peter Daszak<\/a>\u2014I appointed him to chair the task force of the pandemic commission that I was running for the<em> Lancet.<\/em> And he headed a task force on the origins. I thought, naively at the beginning, \u201cWell, here\u2019s a guy who is so connected, he would know.\u201d And then I realized he was not telling me the truth. And it took me some months, but the more I saw it, the more I resented it.<\/p>\n<p>And so I told him, \u201cLook, you have to leave.\u201d And then the other scientists in that task force attacked me for being anti-scientific. And I asked them: \u201cWhat are your connections with all of this?\u201d They didn\u2019t tell me. Then when the Freedom of Information Act released some of these documents that NIH had been hiding from the public, I saw that people that were attacking me were also part of this thing. So I disbanded that whole task force. So my own experience was to witness close up how they\u2019re not talking. And they\u2019re trying to keep our eyes on something else. And away from even asking the questions that we\u2019re talking about. We don\u2019t have the answers. But we have good reasons to ask. And we have good reasons to know that NIH is not doing its job properly right now.<\/p>\n<h3><strong>ROBINSON:<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p>So you\u2019re saying that Daszak and others did not disclose to you pretty serious conflicts of interest? Since, on the hypothesis that it had something to do with this kind of research, that would have implicated Daszak himself in the origins of the crisis?<\/p>\n<h3><strong>SACHS:<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p>Well, he could have explained to me right from the beginning that there was a big research program and that they were manipulating the viruses, and here\u2019s how. He could have given me the research proposals. And when I asked him for one of the research proposals, he said, \u201cNo, my lawyer says I can\u2019t give it to you.\u201d I said, \u201cWhat? You\u2019re heading a commission. We\u2019re a transparent commission. You\u2019re telling me your <em>lawyer <\/em>says you can\u2019t give me your project proposal.\u201d I said, \u201cWell, then you can\u2019t be on this commission. This is not even a close call.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>But there were so many other things. He was just filled with misdirection. I don\u2019t know whether he understands or not, maybe he doesn\u2019t understand. But the things he said just were absolutely not right.<\/p>\n<h3><strong>ROBINSON:<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p>When people hear you say, \u201cThey\u2019re sweeping it under the rug, they don\u2019t want to look,\u201d one question that may come to their minds is \u201cWell, why? Why would people not be interested in getting to the truth?\u201d But the alternate hypothesis from the natural spillover that you\u2019re talking about could have serious repercussions. It would implicate a lot of people in potentially millions of deaths. So there\u2019s a lot at stake here for the scientific community. Which explains why there would be an interest in directing people away from this possibility.<\/p>\n<h3><strong>SACHS:\u00a0<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p>There are at least two reasons why they might be doing what they\u2019re doing. One is, as you say, the implications are huge. Imagine if this came out of a lab. And we have, by some estimates, about 18 million dead worldwide from this. That\u2019s not the official count. But that\u2019s the estimated excess mortality from COVID. Well, the implications of that\u2014the ethical, the moral, the geopolitical\u2014everything is enormous.<\/p>\n<p>But there\u2019s a second matter that is really important, too. One thing that is rather clear to me is that there is so much dangerous research underway right now under the umbrella of biodefense or other things that we don\u2019t know about, that is not being properly controlled. This is for sure. And that\u2019s happening around the world. And governments say \u201cdon\u2019t poke your nose into that.\u201d That\u2019s our business, not your business. But it\u2019s actually our business. It\u2019s our business to understand what is going on with this. This is not to be kept secret. We don\u2019t trust you.<\/p>\n<p>Let me put it this way: I don\u2019t trust them right now. I want to know. Because even what we know of the dangerous research is enough to raise a lot of questions of responsibility for the future. And to pose the question: \u201cHey, what other viruses are you guys working on? What should we know?\u201d Because no matter what the truth is on SARS-Cov-2, what is pretty clear is we\u2019ve got so much technological capacity to engineer dangerous pathogens right now. And a lot of that is being done. And it\u2019s classified. It\u2019s secret, and we don\u2019t know what it is. And I don\u2019t like that feeling at all. I don\u2019t recommend it for us and for the world.<\/p>\n<h3><strong>ROBINSON:\u00a0<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p>Well, you\u2019ve rather answered the question of why it\u2019s important to get to the bottom of this. Because one of the excuses you hear is, \u201cWell, who really cares? Does it matter? It was an animal, it was a lab, whatever it is, it\u2019s here.\u201d But what you\u2019re saying is, \u201cNo, we actually need to know where this started.\u201d Because this isn\u2019t going to be the only one, whatever the origins are. And we don\u2019t want people to die from future viruses. This is critically important. If we\u2019re going to save millions of lives, we have to find out the answer.<\/p>\n<h3><strong>SACHS:<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p>I can tell you one thing that I\u2019ve learned from talking to a lot of scientists in the last couple of years: the technological capacity to do dangerous things using this biotechnology is extraordinary right now. So I want to know what\u2019s being done. I want to know what other governments are doing, too, not just ours. I want some global control over this stuff.<\/p>\n<p>We\u2019ve kind of understood the nuclear risk\u2014even that, of course, is in a lot of ways hidden from view. But this is a clear and present risk. And there\u2019s reason to believe we\u2019re actually in the midst of it, not just hypothetically. So come on: it\u2019s time to open the books everywhere. It\u2019s time to find out. Maybe it was the marketplace. Maybe it wasn\u2019t a lab. But we need to get real answers, now. Not the kind of misdirection that\u2019s been going in since February 2020. Enough nonsense! Enough <em>New York Times <\/em>stories saying, \u201cOh, it\u2019s this, it\u2019s that,\u201d without looking closely at the very plausible laboratory hypothesis.<\/p>\n<h3><strong>ROBINSON:<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p>It seems from what you\u2019re saying that as the head of the <em>Lancet<\/em>\u2019s COVID-19 commission, you didn\u2019t feel you were able to get satisfactory answers or see the data you wanted. What kind of investigation do we need and who ought to do it?<\/p>\n<h3><strong>SACHS:<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p>The most interesting things that I got as chair of the <em>Lancet <\/em>commission came from Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits and whistleblower leaks from inside the U.S. government. Isn\u2019t that terrible? NIH was actually asked at one point: give us your research program on SARS-like viruses. And you know what they did? They released the cover page and redacted 290 pages. They gave us a cover page and 290 blank pages! That\u2019s NIH, for heaven\u2019s sake. That\u2019s not some corporation. That is the U.S. government charged with keeping us healthy.<\/p>\n<p>What I found is that we have a lot of data which we\u2019re not finding right now. And I don\u2019t want to have to rely on FOIA and leaks, though those can be incredibly informative. I want clear, independent scientific investigation and transparency. One way to do this would be a bipartisan congressional oversight investigation that had subpoena power. Give us your lab records, your notebooks, your data files of virus strains, and so forth. There are many questions that we need independent scientists to define, to tell us exactly the kinds of information. But we know right now we\u2019re operating in an environment in which the government is working to hide the data that we need to make a real assessment.<\/p>\n<p><em>______________________________________________<\/em><\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\"><em><a href=\"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/Jeffrey-D.-Sachs.webp\" ><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"alignleft size-full wp-image-216053\" src=\"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/Jeffrey-D.-Sachs.webp\" alt=\"\" width=\"125\" height=\"125\" \/><\/a> Jeffrey D. Sachs, Professor of Sustainable Development and Professor of Health Policy and Management at Columbia University, is Director of Columbia\u2019s Center for Sustainable Development and the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network. He has served as Special Adviser to three UN Secretaries-General. His books include <\/em><a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https:\/\/www.penguinrandomhouse.com\/books\/293755\/the-end-of-poverty-by-jeffrey-d-sachs\/9780143036586\/\" >The End of Poverty<\/a>, <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https:\/\/www.penguinrandomhouse.com\/books\/298397\/common-wealth-by-jeffrey-d-sachs\/9781101202753\/\" >Common Wealth<\/a>, <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https:\/\/cup.columbia.edu\/book\/the-age-of-sustainable-development\/9780231173155\" >The Age of Sustainable Development<\/a>, <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https:\/\/cup.columbia.edu\/book\/building-the-new-american-economy\/9780231184045\" >Building the New American Economy<\/a><em>, and most recently,<\/em> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https:\/\/cup.columbia.edu\/book\/a-new-foreign-policy\/9780231547888\" >A New Foreign Policy: Beyond American Exceptionalism<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p><a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https:\/\/www.currentaffairs.org\/2022\/08\/why-the-chair-of-the-lancets-covid-19-commission-thinks-the-us-government-is-preventing-a-real-investigation-into-the-pandemic\" >Go to Original \u2013 currentaffairs.org<\/a><\/p>\n<\/section>\n<\/div>\n<\/article>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Prof. Jeffrey Sachs says he is \u201cpretty convinced [COVID-19] came out of US lab biotechnology\u201d and warns that there is dangerous virus research taking place without public oversight. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":217632,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2124],"tags":[1843,2883,2089,1829,1868,1937,1864,70,1836],"class_list":["post-217631","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-debates-on-covid-vaccines","tag-bio-weapons","tag-biolabs","tag-biowarfare","tag-coronavirus","tag-covid-19","tag-lockdown","tag-pandemic","tag-usa","tag-who"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/217631","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=217631"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/217631\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/217632"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=217631"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=217631"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=217631"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}