Appeal to Sydney Uni: Stop Suppressing Evidence on Pandemic Origin

The battle to obtain the correspondence of Edward Holmes with his Chinese sources continues. I added senior university executives to this email to ensure they're aware and accountable.

Chinese Sydney University student “Aaron” regularly protests against the CCP, and often is harassed by other pro-CCP Chinese students. Managing the relationship with China is a big issue for the university with 25% of total student enrolments, and 87% of international student revenue coming from China.

Thank you for your attention to my GIPA application. I will appeal the decision. As it is at least the fourth similar independent application you've rejected, there seems little point in requesting an internal review, so I will proceed with the Information Commissioner. But I want to ensure the University's senior executive understand and endorse the decision as it has serious implications they must be aware of, and accountable for. And it will assuredly become of interest to politicians and the media. 

The origin of SARS-CoV-2 remains unresolved and controversial. Despite Professor Holmes assertions that it was caused by natural spillover from animals, this view has not been confirmed in separate investigations conducted by:

• the World Health Organization;

• a committee of experts assembled by The Lancet;

• a consensus of US intelligence agencies;

• a US Congressional committee.

Neither is it a consensus among scientists in the field (despite assertions). And recently senior US officials at the time (including CDC director Robert Redfield and ODNI director John Ratcliffe) have made strong statements supporting an artificial origin.

Professor Holmes' claims rely on sequence data, much of which has been provided to him by Chinese scientists. He has been the main conduit for data from China since the pandemic, with unique access among western scientists. He has co-authored over 20 papers with Chinese scientists, many of whom have government or military affiliations. But it is well known, as he acknowledges himself, that all data and research from China on the subject is subject to official control, review and censorship. Chinese scientists working on this subject do so under state supervision, possibly even coercion. It's entirely possible this data from China is little more than propaganda, modified or fabricated to obfuscate, rather than reveal the true origin of the pandemic. It's crucial for us to understand how Holmes has addressed this dilemma. In lending his name to these data and papers, what due diligence and independent analysis he or colleagues from outside China have performed to satisfy themselves of its veracity.

You claim it is "without foundation" that Holmes has collaborated with the PLA. But his name appears on a Nature paper "Identifying SARS-CoV-2-related coronaviruses in Malayan pangolins" along with 11 officers from the PLA's Academy of Military Medical Sciences (AMMS) with lead author PLA Major-General Wuchun Cao. AMMS has long been identified by the US State Department as likely engaged in clandestine bioweapons research. This paper suggests that pangolins may have been an intermediate species in a natural zoonosis of SARS-CoV-2. Though this theory no longer seems favoured by Holmes, viral sequences from this paper are still widely cited by other scientists. The deliberations preceding publication of this paper were an important target of my GIPA request.

As a basis for denying my request, you claim Holmes' has been threatened online, but you haven't substantiated any real-world risk such as having to make extraordinary security arrangements or file police complaints. You cite an online environment hostile towards some scientists in early 2020, but that environment is very different now. In the early stages of the pandemic public fear and anger over lockdowns was rife. But more recently interest among the general public has waned as life returned to normal. Participants who remain in these discussions are mostly scientists and policy advocates. Though the subject remains contentious, and discourse sometimes becomes uncivil, Holmes remains an active participant (contrary to your claim).

A disturbing inference from my own research is that SARS-CoV-2 is likely a deliberately engineered biological weapon of terror (i.e. targeting civilians rather than armed combatants) and AMMS is a likely suspect. I acknowledge this view isn't currently the most widely accepted, perhaps because it comes with many unpleasant ramifications. But neither can it be ruled out. I am confident it will become mainstream as new intelligence trickles in, and alternative theories make no headway. The University should consider the reputational, legal and financial ramifications of such a scenario, particularly if they are seen to have willfully withheld critical information. The damage to human life, health and economic output may have been aggravated by the concealment of artificial features of the virus which enhanced its pathogenesis and transmissibility, and hindered the development of safe, effective vaccines and therapeutics. This exposes the university to the risk of future class-action litigation with potentially limitless financial liability.

I have no interest in attributing blame to an individual scientist, but rather to expose systemic flaws and significant perils. The University claims its paramount consideration is Holmes' welfare. It has enjoyed awards, funding, citations and media exposure he has brought, but overlooked the risks inherent in his relationships with Chinese colleagues during a time of high tension. He has acted as an intermediary for Chinese scientists, and through them the Chinese regime, on an issue of critical importance to their geopolitical interests and domestic standing. He appears to have been acting alone in this role without supervision or guidance. As a scientist accustomed to working in a collaborative atmosphere of openness and trust this may have left him vulnerable to exploitation by nefarious actors. Universities claim they are able to manage issues of foreign interference, but this appears to be a case of negligence. The University may be putting its commercial interests, financial and research ties to China ahead of the interests of the public and its own staff.

You have argued the overriding public interest is to keep information that would shed light on the origin of the pandemic a secret. Against the relatively mild threats to an individual and the University's reputation, you must weigh the public interest in understanding the cause of the pandemic and the urgent need to prevent similar future disasters. Your decision, as it stands, sets a dangerous precedent. Data relating to the origin of a novel, possibly engineered pathogen may have been fabricated. Information needed to ensure its veracity is being kept secret not only by China, but by our own institutions and scientists. Regardless of the origin of the current pandemic, this can only increase the risk of future acts of bioterrorism. 

I ask the University to reconsider if you've struck the appropriate balance in consideration of the overriding public interest. Otherwise, I will ask others.

I look forward to your response.