Sydney Uni's Pandemic Origins Cover-up
Professor Edward Holmes has been the main conduit for pandemic origins data from Chinese scientists, government and military. But Sydney Uni has again denied FOI access to all relevant documents.
Little surprise perhaps since they’ve already rejected at least three previous applications that I’m aware of. I brought new arguments and refuted false claims they made in rejecting previous applications, but their decision-maker (archivist Kate Cummings) largely rehashed previous decisions, ignoring different context, changed circumstances, and my arguments regarding previous decisions.
After an initial change of scope (negotiated at their insistence) I waited the allowed month during which I’d assumed they were processing my application. When I checked back after this, Cummings responded she had “missed an email” and hadn’t yet got started.
After a further forced reduction of scope, because they located too many documents they claimed would be overly burdensome to process, Cummings finally returned her decision to release NO DOCUMENTS WHATSOEVER.
Cummings’ arguments in favour of keeping documents concealed, and my comments:
It is public knowledge that research regarding the origins of COVID-19 is matter of international comment and controversy. Subsequently, and like many other scientific researchers whose work includes SARS-CoV-2, Professor Holmes has been subject to harassment and intimidation.
Cummings relies for evidence of this an article dated 29th May 2020 discussing threats made to German virologist Christian Drosten. This was almost three years ago and early in the crisis at a time of high fear with the threat of lockdowns also looming. Drosten received online abuse for work that supported lockdowns and school closures, not his views on the origin of SARS-COV-2. She doesn’t substantiate Holmes’ alleged “harassment and intimidation”.
An article in an Australian newspaper alleged without foundation that the China People’s Liberation Army had been involved in some of Professor Holmes’ research.
It is more accurate to say Professor Holmes co-authored a paper with the People’s Liberation Army - specifically the Academy of Military Medical Sciences (AMMS), an institution that (as I pointed out to the university in my request) is identified by the US State Department as involved in clandestine bioweapons research. The university’s repeated claim that this is “without foundation” is FALSE - which can be verified with very little effort.
Despite appearing in The Daily Telegraph with tabloid headline, the content of the now 3 year old article by Sharri Markson seems factual and balanced. It includes an explanation and defence of Holmes’ participation from a university spokesperson:
There is no suggestion that Professor Holmes’ own contribution to the research project was anything but independent, ethical and of the highest scientific standards. His work on the papers was funded by Australian grants only.
“Dr Cao co-ordinated the laboratory work before Prof Holmes’ involvement. He did not direct or supervise the work of Prof Holmes which was undertaken independently.”
The easily verifiable fact is that Holmes name appears on a paper along with 11 PLA officers from the “State Key Lab of Pathogen and Biosecurity, Beijing Institute of Microbiology and Epidemiology” which is a unit within the AMMS.
Holmes has stated in interview that the pangolin sequences were the decisive factor in him rejecting an artificial origin at the time (from 35:00).
But many other scientists have expressed skepticism over pangolins’ involvement, even some who are generally sympathetic to a zoonotic origin. Christian Drosten called it a hoax. Ralph Baric said “absolutely no chance” they were the reservoir species (from 27:15). Peter Daszak declared they tested hundreds of pangolins in Malaysia and found no evidence of these diseases.
My view is that these pangolin sequences were fabricated for the purpose of concealing an unnatural origin of SARS-CoV-2. I don’t claim, or think likely that Holmes was involved in fabrication or synthesis of sequences. But he was corresponding with people who likely were. The deliberations between him, and the likes of Tommy Lam, Guan Yi, Wuchun Cao and others from AMMS and the State Key Lab for Emerging Infections Disease (see my SARS-1 article for more background on these institutions) may shed light on the veracity of the sequences. The reason Holmes is the main FOI target is because no such procedure exists to obtain these documents from China or Hong Kong SAR. The transparency and accountability encouraged by our FOI laws is a strength of our democratic system, and this is undermined by Sydney University’s spurious attempts to restrict access to this crucial information.
Since the publication of this article, Professor Holmes has been subjected to hate mail, and online harassment including death threats. In April 6 and July 7 2021 further inflammatory and incorrect statements were published about Professor Holmes and others involved in COVID-19 research. The harassment and threats are continuing. In March this year Professor Holmes was informed by an overseas colleague that (unfounded) rumours were being widely circulated that he was the subject of professional investigation. As a consequence of associated and ongoing harassment, Professor Holmes has ceased responding to social media posts.
Being ridiculed on social media is a hazard of discussions of this and any other controversial topic -is there anything exceptional about his case? Have Holmes or the university made police complaints, or needed to enhance security measures? There is nothing in the decision to suggest this is the case. That he has been subject to unfounded rumours is unfortunate, but that can’t be allowed to prevent discussion or disclosure of important information. Rumours thrive only because transparency is lacking.
Cummings has not considered that the environment in which discourse is now happening is very different to the early days of the pandemic when there was fear and resentment over lockdowns and other interventions. But broad public interest in the origin question has waned as life returned to normal. Participants who remain are mostly scientists, journalists, academics, activists for biosafety. Is there a risk to Holmes’ physical safety from these intellectual sparring partners? Not judging by his actions. Far from ceasing to respond to social media posts, Holmes seems to enjoy “throwing shade” himself:
Here are his comments about my recent piece on SARS. I’m not incensed, but amused by this. I’ve yet to see a critique from this group of any substance:
Cummings also claims that preliminary, or unpublished discussions aren’t subject to FOI style laws (i.e. GIPA). What then are the purpose of these laws? We can of course read the published papers in Nature, but what is of interest here is the discussions that led to these, should we have any doubts that the data is anything other than what it purports to be?
The requested information contains confidential and personal information relating to research and the publication of research findings that is not public. This information includes private pre-and post-publication communications of researchers about their work, and the context in which the work was conducted. It also includes tentative views, opinions and commentary not intended for publication or wider distribution. It has been treated as confidential by the academics involved and by the University. Due to its potential impact on their professional positions and reputations, disclosure of the requested information could reasonably be expected to prejudice the professional interests of the researchers...
Cummings should read a little further down to section 15 of the GIPA Act which is explicit:
Because of its technical nature, public interest in the origin of Covid has been mediated by expert scientists and a few committed non-experts. We’re all grown-ups aware of the nature of scientific discourse. We’re capable of distinguishing preliminary deliberations and partly formed opinions from established fact. We also understand that scientists can - and should - change their minds as new evidence comes to light. And if we’re aware of this, so are those who make and break scientists’ reputations - not the general public - but publishers, funders and peers in their field.
But it isn’t entirely clear who Cummings is referring to here. Is she perhaps suggesting we need to consider the impact on the “professional interests” of the PLA’s bioweapons experts?
Again, the decision in Kang is relevant, with Senior Member Ransome stating:
I accept the University’s argument that reducing access by international academics to the research being conducted in China could reasonably be expected to decrease, rather than increase, long-term transparency in scientific research.
This bizarre and speculative argument seems to be that by increasing transparency of our own institutions and researchers, China will trust us less and overall transparency is lost. But this is the crux of the issue: research into the origin of Covid-19 in China hasn’t merely been censored, all scientific output has been tightly controlled by the government. Chinese scientists aren’t free to publish independently or share data with western counterparts. So, despite being technical in nature, data that has been allowed to circulate in the west should be treated skeptically - as if it were propaganda, not objective science. Holmes has been a key conduit for data from China. He has (uniquely among western scientists) been allowed to collaborate with several different Chinese research groups. He is listed as a co-author on many Chinese authored papers and sequences that claim to support a natural origin.
But what value does this evidence have? It is easy for someone knowledgeable to fabricate and post sequence data to Genbank. There are no checks or audits. Scientists using this data depend on the reputation of the researchers involved. Should we trust data from institutions accused of engineering a pandemic virus unquestioned? With Holmes' imprimatur added, many western scientists have done exactly this.
What we might hope to glean from Holmes’ emails is if, in his role as conduit, he conducted due diligence on data passed to him from his Chinese sources:
did he question the provenance of samples, request documentation or other evidence?
did he look for anomalies in sequences, possible signs of tampering or fraud?
did he do metagenomic analysis or attempt sequence assembly himself (or with western colleagues)?
did he discuss doubts, concerns with colleagues and/or other experts, national security agencies?
did he propose and/or implement ways in which data might be validated, such as sharing raw samples, isolates, binary sequence files?
Unfortunately, documents made available to date (mostly from FOIA requests to US institutions) suggest little such analysis took place. There seems to be an intention seems to quickly shut down discussion of an artificially engineered origin, rather than objectively explore all possibilities. But this view is based on very patchy information. It’s likely Holmes’ correspondence can shed new light, and perhaps correct a misconception.
Cummings’ next argument (if I follow it correctly) is that Holmes is of such stature that if he were ever to stop conducting research (due to the release of the documents) it would leave the university unable to function as a university:
There is a public interest consideration against disclosure of information if disclosure of the information could reasonably be expected to have one or more of the following effects (whether in a particular case or generally):
...
(f) prejudice the effective exercise by an agency of the agency's functions,
…
Professor Holmes’ work contributes to a primary function of the University, being the carrying out of research, to meet the needs of the community. Details of his research, teaching, publications and awards are published on the University’s website. His work also contributes to the research functions, and thereby object, of the university.
While the importance of Holmes to the university seems overstated. Cummings’ final statement might lead us to speculate that the emails contain something other than a scientific discussion of zoonotic sequences. But what? The university is able to release documents and still redact details that may seriously compromise someone’s safety, national security etc. They haven’t elected to do this.
As it is reasonable to expect that disclosure of the requested information would expose a person to a risk of harm or serious harassment or serious intimidation…
My research has led me to conclude SARS-CoV-2 (and SARS-COV-1 also) is a biological weapon of terror (i.e. intended for use against civilian populations, not on the battlefield) and that was likely engineered by AMMS. I freely admit this thesis isn’t yet widely accepted. Standing in the way of acceptance are the sequences published *after the outbreak* from Chinese sources, most having Holmes name attached as a co-author. But if a bioweapon was released, we should expect efforts to be made to conceal its origin. Fabricating related “natural” sequences would likely be one aspect of any well-organized bioweapons program.
So the veracity of these sequences is of great importance, and Holmes is uniquely privy to discussions regarding their provenance. In an environment of censorship and control it’s very likely he isn’t fully informed and that is where open, independent analysis of the nuance of discussions can shed light. All individuals carry cognitive biases and vulnerabilities, we should expect outfits like AMMS to be adept at exploiting them. It’s unreasonable that any individual scientist should carry the burden of assessing this evidence. There seems a systemic failing that needs addressing.
The implications of the origin of the pandemic are enormous, especially if it proves to have arisen from deliberate research into biological weapons. While Sydney University have an obligation to consider the safety of their employee, they have found no balance between the relatively mild possible threat to him versus the massive cost in lives, health and economic output of the pandemic. The determination that there is no overriding public interest in shedding light on its origin is contemptuous of the global public who, having emerged from the pandemic, now face increased threat from new engineered pathogens.
***UPDATE April 24th, 2023 ***
The New York Times published an article in which Holmes is quoted:
“I think there’s a major political agenda that is impacting the science”
“It’s just pathetic that we’re in this stage where we’re having cloak-and-dagger conversations about deleted data,”
This isn’t the first time Holmes has made such comments, he is well aware that Chinese researchers working on this subject do so under state control and censorship.
But this is in response to ex-China CDC Director George Gao apparently repudiating Holmes’ currently favoured theory of a raccoon dog intermediate. While we can only speculate at possible political machinations behind Gao’s comments, the principle should apply broadly to all Chinese data - it should be treated as propaganda first. We must have transparency over the provenance of the data that Holmes has transmitted.
We should compare notes. I’m analyzing similar sequences and coming to similar conclusions.
Kudos to you for digging on this!
So many secrets.
What are they hiding if they have nothing to hide?