Peter Daszak

Dr. Tabak explicitly confirms the EcoHealth experiment fits the broad definition of gain-of-function research, contradicting NIH's public position.

“The generic, broad description of what gain-of-function is, yes.”

Dr. Daszak attempts to justify not submitting the Year 5 Report on time by claiming its information was included in the Year 6 renewal, which the Select Subcommittee directly contradicts.

“the information from the year 5 report was in the resubmitted -- the renewal submission, in the first part of that renewal submission.”

NIH's forensic audit could not verify Daszak's claim of being locked out of the eRA Commons system, directly contradicting his testimony.

“our office did an electronic forensic investigation of EcoHealth's encounters with our grant system”

Dr. Daszak repeatedly testified NIH took 11 days to unlock the submission system, but NIH's Dr. Tabak directly contradicted this under oath, stating NIH has no evidence of that.

“We have no evidence of that.”

NIH explicitly contradicts Dr. Daszak's sworn testimony that he was not required to produce lab notebooks, creating a direct contradiction between witnesses.

“Dr. Daszak testified 2 weeks ago that he was not required to produce the lab notebooks. Would NIH disagree with that testimony? A. Yes, we disagree with that testimony.”

Daszak's own consultant acknowledged NIH had the right to review original lab notebooks, contradicting Daszak's public position that he was not required to provide them.

“NIH has the right to review original lab notebooks and data, and that EHA would in the normal course of events be able to obtain these data from the WIV.”

The excerpt reveals a contradiction between NIAID's stated justification for reinstating EcoHealth's grant and reality — EcoHealth was actually relying on the debarred WIV to provide the samples.

“EcoHealth was relying on the WIV, an institute debarred for failing to produce laboratory notebooks, to provide them with the virus samples”

Daszak contradicts his earlier claim that the WIV was not participating in the grant by acknowledging ongoing communication and data sharing with the debarred institute.

“Well, they do talk to us. I can talk to them. It's not illegal to talk to them.”

Daszak claimed DARPA rejected DEFUSE solely due to insufficient funds, directly contradicting DARPA program manager Gimlett's testimony that biosecurity concerns were one of three key reasons for denial.

“Absolutely not true. We had an interview with DARPA specifically so they could inform us why it was rejected. I have got the contemporaneous notes right here, never once did biosafety come up.”

Dr. Gimlett directly contradicted Dr. Daszak's prior testimony by confirming that the lack of a gain-of-function or DURC plan was part of the rationale to reject the DEFUSE proposal.

“Did the lack of a gain-of-function or DURC plan affect the decision to reject the proposal? A. Yes, it did.”

Dr. Morens denied assisting Dr. Daszak or EcoHealth in drafting correspondence to NIH, but documents establish that to be a false statement.

“Did you ever assist in any of the drafting of the correspondence that [Dr. Daszak] sent back [to NIH]? A. No. No.”

Dr. Tabak admits NIH funded gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology through EcoHealth Alliance, qualifying it only by definition.

“If you are speaking about the generic term, yes, we did”

Dr. Daszak admits he failed to email the Year 5 progress report to NIAID officials as he had done in prior years, calling it 'unfortunate.'

“No, unfortunately. I wish I'd done that. I didn't do it. You know, it's unfortunate.”

A witness admits that suspension of the Type 2 grant does not waive EcoHealth's obligations to complete requirements under the Type 1 grant, undermining a potential defense.

“Q. If the type 2 is suspended, does it just waive their requirements to complete the type 1? A. No.”