Why Did the WMD Division of the Pentagon, the HHS and USAID Fund Gain of Function Research?

Last Updated on October 14, 2022 by Shaun Snapp

Executive Summary

  • The Pentagon and USAID funded gain of function research which led to the virus escaping the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
  • We explore why they did this.


Fauci has been exposed during the coronavirus for repeatedly lying about many things, including his funding of gain of function research in the unprofessional Wuhan Institute of Virology.

Our References for This Article

If you want to see our references for this article and related Brightwork articles, visit this link.

Funding Gain of Function Research on the Coronavirus

In 2014 a moratorium on GOF research was instituted under the Obama administration. However, this did not stop Fauci, or other the Pentagon or USAID from funded GOF research to locations outside of the US, notably China.

A report by Independent Science News and a search of U.S. government databases revealed that EcoHealth Alliance received US$39 million in funding from the Pentagon from 2013 to 2020.

Adding another US$64.7 million from USAID, the report found that Daszak’s “non-profit organization” has raked in over US$103 million from the U.S. government.

One thing that should become immediately obvious is the following.

  • There is a question of why Fauci promoted GOF to be performed in both China and other places. And why the NIH was funding any GOF research as this weaponized a virus and gives it capabilities it could not develop in the wild.

What we have is highly irresponsible research that increases the likelihood of a pandemic combined with the research being funded in a low-quality lab which would increase the likelihood of the weaponized virus escaping the lab.

Why Is EcoHealth Alliance Allowed to Funnel US Money to Labs?

EcoHealth Alliance is a combination lobbying entity (lobbying for GOF research) and intermediary for US government and private funding to pass through. However, they don’t actually do any research — so why does the US government give them money? The labs that do the work will all accept direct funding, so why is EcoHealth Alliance necessary?

Having the EcoHealth Alliance as a funding intermediary has had the following negative outcomes with respect to the coronavirus.

  • EcoHealth Alliance was been a major lobbying group for GOF research.
  • EcoHealth Alliance has hidden or obscured where it received its funding.
  • EcoHealth Alliance, along with China covered up the WIV leak and has been providing false information to the public to keep them from figuring out the origin of the virus.
  • There has been little publication on the part of EcoHealth Alliance on how much funding went to the WIV versus other labs for GOF research.

Peter Daszak heads EcoHealth Alliance. A good example of how Daszak has covered up the lab leak is found in the following quotation.

Daszak has dismissed the possibility of a lab leak, insisting since the start of the pandemic it’s a “conspiracy theory” — without providing evidence for his claim. A report by U.S. Right to Know alleges that emails released through freedom of information requests reveal that Daszak persuaded 26 prominent scientists to sign a statement published in The Lancet on Feb. 19 2020, claiming that any suggestions that COVID-19 was not of natural origin are “conspiracy theories.” Four signatories of The Lancet statement are employed by EcoHealth Alliance. Six scientists who signed the statement, including Daszak, now comprise half of The Lancet’s panel investigating the origins of the virus. – Taiwan News

Every time Daszak or EcoHealth Alliance has involved in the GOF or coronavirus discussion, they are either lying about the cost/benefits of GOF or covering up the origin of the coronavirus. Daszak is highly connected to the lead researcher into bat coronaviruses at the WIV, Dr. Shi Zhengli, and Shi’s obstruction of any investigation into the origin of whether the coronavirus came from the WIV and her research specifically is something she has obstructed, as explained in the following quotation.

Since the start of the pandemic, both Daszak and Shi have denied that a lab leak occurred at the WIV. However, over a year since the outbreak, Shi has yet to provide independent investigators with access to the WIV’s database and laboratory records. – Taiwan News

During the WHO investigation into the WIV, the WHO team was gaslit and kept to being kept in conference rooms and hotels for most of the visit, which is explained in the following quotation.

Embarek said his team was allowed to visit two labs where research has been carried out on bats. In both cases, they were shown presentations on the facilities. They were allowed to ask questions but were not allowed to see any of the laboratory’s books or documents. – Taiwan News

This must be because the Chinese government is “so confident” that no evidence would point to the virus coming from the lab. That is of course, what innocent entities do — they obstruct investigations and cover things up.

The following quote is amazing; before reading it, I had never heard of this topic.

He (Embarek) pointed out there has been a focus on the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), but added there are reasons to investigate the Wuhan Center for Disease Prevention and Control (CDC). He said the last publication on the subject of bats was from 2013, but that does not mean they stopped doing experiments on the creatures.

When he asked staff from the CDC lab how old the facility was, they responded that they had moved into it in December 2019. The facility is only 500 meters from Huannan Seafood Market, where many of the earliest cases were reported.

Embarek said it is interesting that this move took place on Dec. 2 because that was during the period when the earliest official cases were reported. The WHO expert stated that “when you move a laboratory, it is disruptive to everything.” – Taiwan News

How About the Wuhan BSL-2 and BSL-3 Labs?

This quote is from a US Republican House and Foreign Affairs report on the coronavirus origin.

Rather than the Biosafety Level IV (BSL-4) lab most frequently mentioned in debates over the WIV’s new campus, the report focused on its headquarters at the institute’s original location in Wuhan’s Wuchang District, where BSL-2 and BSL-3 labs are situated. The report states it was there that the WIV’s lead researcher Shi Zhengli (石正麗) — also known as “Bat Woman” — had conducted gain-of-function experiments on bat coronaviruses in the years leading up to the pandemic. – Taiwan News

And this quote from the report.

Based on the material collected and analyzed by the Committee Minority Staff, the preponderance of evidence suggests SARS-CoV-2 was accidentally released from a Wuhan Institute of Virology
laboratory sometime prior to September 12, 2019. The virus, or the viral sequence that was genetically manipulated, was likely collected in a cave in Yunnan province, PRC, between 2012 and
2015. Researchers at the WIV, officials within the CCP, and potentially American citizens directly engaged in efforts to obfuscate information related to the origins of the virus and to suppress public debate of a possible lab leak. – The Origins of Covid-19

Statement That the Lab Leak Hypothesis Was “Extremely Unlikely” Was Negotiated with the Chinese Government?

The statement by the WHO team that a lab leak was “extremely unlikely” turned out o have been a statement controlled by the Chinese government and not the conclusion of the WHO team. This is described in the following quotation.

The description of the lab leak hypothesis as “extremely unlikely” was a compromise with Chinese authorities to allow the possibility of an accident to be mentioned at all, according to Embarek. Looking back at the process, he believes the laboratory theory could have met resistance because, in fact, some mistakes had been made. – Taiwan News

This illustrates how the WHO team was not independent of the Chinese government.

Repeatedly we are told by the Chinese government, by Shi, by Daszak that the lab lead hypothesis is a conspiracy theory, and at every turn, each of these individuals is either caught lying, caught covering up and or otherwise withholding information.

On Peter Daszak

More about Peter Daszak is found in this quotation from an article on his conflicts of interest.

EcoHealth Alliance received US$3.7 (from the NIH). A report by Independent Science News and a search of U.S. government databases revealed that EcoHealth Alliance received US$39 million in funding from the Pentagon from 2013 to 2020. Adding another US$64.7 million from USAID, the report found that Daszak’s “non-profit organization” has raked in over US $103 million from the U.S. government. – Taiwan News

It is amusing to go to USAID’s website and see their professed concern about covid.

Nothing on the website explains how they funded Eco Health Alliance in their GOF research at the WIV, which likely led to the coronavirus escaping and causing the pandemic. 

What is USAID?

If USAID does not ring any bells, don’t be surprised. USAID has a low profile and is also not what it appears to be. They are actually a type of front for US defense policy wrapped in sheep’s clothing. This is how USAID describes its “partnership” with the DOD.

Partners since the 1960s, USAID and the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) work together in promoting U.S. national security and responding to crises worldwide. We often share the same spaces in developing nations. And by leveraging both USAID’s leadership and DOD’s unique capabilities, we advance a safer and more prosperous world. – Medium

Is that what the DOD does — advancing a safer and more prosperous world? Is that what the DOD did in Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Afghanistan, Syria, and Iraq, among others? Where is the DOD’s objective to increase the safety and prosperity of the world? Has the US policy towards Venezuela been only about making Venezuela safer and more prosperous? Observe the following quote from SouthCom, one of the eleven US military combat commands.

Three C-17 Globemaster III cargo aircraft from Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, N.J., and Joint Base Charleston, S.C., delivered humanitarian aid to Cucuta, Colombia, Feb. 16, 2019 in coordination with the Department of State and the United States Agency for International Development.

The United States is responding to Interim President Juan Guaido’s request to help meet the urgent needs of the people of Venezuela. The Department of State, USAID, and the Department of Defense, in a cooperative effort, delivered aid ready for distribution within Venezuela to Cucuta, Colombia.

Juan Guaido is not the president of Venezuela. That would be Nicolaus Maduro. Juan Guaido is an unelected puppet of the US government, which the US would very much like to be president. Therefore, it is curious that this press release from SouthCom simply lists him as the country’s president. This illustrates what USAID does — its cover story is that it is an independent aid agency, but it gives aid to those the US foreign policy establishment deems desirable. This is similar to what the US did in Vietnam, giving aid to the South Vietnamese to prop them up as they were a puppet regime. The “humanitarian aid” is then given in the name of the desired puppet. The message to the local people is that if you want US help, support the US’s designated puppet with virtually no support among the local population. The aid is cut off if the local population opposes who the US selects to lead their country. That is “aid in line with US policy objectives.”

The quote continues.

“United States Air Force humanitarian aid missions are the most meaningful missions that we fly,” said U.S. Air Force Capt. Susan Jennie, pilot, 6th Airlift Squadron, Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, N.J. “The opportunity to fly these kinds of missions was my biggest motivation to train and fly on the C-17. To be able to help out and bring aid to those in need, when needed, is one of the most rewarding opportunities I’ve been presented in my life and career.”

Department of State and USAID officials joined the flight of humanitarian assistance that left Miami. In Cucuta, USAID, U.S. Department of State, Colombian officials, and representatives of Venezuelan Interim President Guaido welcomed the supplies to augment aid already pre-positioned at the humanitarian assistance center. Working in close coordination with Colombia and President Guaido’s representatives, this assistance addresses the greatest needs for the most vulnerable populations in Venezuela.

And who welcomed the supplies? Not the actual president of Venezuela, Nicolas Maduro, but Guaido. Was there a photo op of Guaido meeting the C-130 at the airport? Most probably. Notice the language of addressing the needs of Venezuela’s “most vulnerable” populations. One wonders if this concern for Venezuelans on the part of the DOD is somehow related to Venezuela having the most proven oil reserves in the world.

The quote continues.

“This whole of government response is a demonstration of the U.S. commitment to the Venezuelan people,” said Col. Armando Hernandez, deputy public affairs chief, United States Southern Command.

“The U.S. military has a long history of supporting USAID-led aid missions and working with international relief organizations to provide aid to people impacted by life-threatening crises and disasters,” Hernandez added.

This humanitarian mission underscores the United States’ firm commitment and readiness to respond to the man-made political, economic, and humanitarian crisis in Venezuela.

The term humanitarian is sprinkled throughout the press release. Then at the end is a subtle dig at the present government in Venezuela that the US opposes, stating that the crisis is man-made — hence the fault of the current government the US opposes. This is undoubtedly probably true, but if the same crisis were caused by someone the US-supported, that comment would not have been included in the press release.

Observe this quote from the USAID website.

The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) is an independent federal government agency that receives overall policy guidance from the Secretary of State. USAID provides economic, development, and humanitarian assistance around the world in support of the foreign policy goals of the United States.

How is USAID independent?

They are controlled by the goal of supporting US foreign policy goals. On a different page on their site, USAID exposes even more how they are entirely not independent.

USAID works closely with the Departments of State, Defense, Treasury and Justice, and other government agencies to carry out development programming around the world. In partnership with the U.S. Department of State, USAID works to implement the President’s foreign policy and shape a freer, more secure and prosperous world. USAID coordinates with the Department of Defense (DoD) to address complex challenges in fragile states, particularly in conflict situations, to ensure that diplomatic, development and defense efforts are mutually reinforcing. Through a robust personnel exchange, the Agency hosts military officers at our headquarters, while USAID Foreign Service Officers are embedded at the Unified Combatant Commands and the Pentagon.

So a significant number of people from the DOD work at USAID.

Therefore, it is quite clear that the USAID funding for GOF is simply DOD funding. This means that the majority of funding for EcoHealth Alliance came from the DOD. And a lot of what is driving GOF is covert bioweapons research. China and the US are the two countries most focused on bioweapons research, with it being most important to China as it has a very poor military track record. China needs external IP, but it can’t tell people it is developing bioweapons, so it says it is for a “good cause,” stopping pandemics.

The argument for GOF is expressed in the following quotation.

Why are virologists doing this? They say their research will help us predict pandemics. Pandemics are relatively rare with Spanish flu in 1918 being the example. That said, I’ve already lived through five pandemics – flu in 1957 and 1968, AIDS in the 80s, flu again in 2009 and now COVID-19.

Far more common are so-called viral spillovers. Chicken flu viruses in particular can spill over into humans, usually poultry handlers. Infections can be lethal – sometimes 6 out of 10 victims will die, which is horrifying. Fortunately, they are rarely transmitted between humans. Viral spillovers occur all the time because there is a plethora of other viruses bumping into fellow humans.

Let’s stick with flu. Researchers were afraid some chicken flu viruses might mutate one day and spark a pandemic. They wanted to know what combination of mutations could morph a spillover virus into becoming easily transmissible between humans by the respiratory route. After deliberate use of powerful gene engineering methods they succeeded.

You read correctly. We now have a dozens of novel viruses in the freezers of several lab around the world. Their genetic blueprints were published in top scientific journals. We must consider these man-made viruses as highly dangerous, some with the potential to spark a pandemic. Of course, they have never been ‘tested’ in humans because that would be ethically impossible. And herein lies the fatal weakness of this work.

The virologists doing this work said it would help them predict the next pandemic virus. Armed with this insight, they claimed it would be possible to develop preventive vaccines and drugs that could be frozen and stored. At the spectre of a novel pandemic they would be deployed en masse thereby nipping any pandemic in the bud.

It’s a very attractive story that convinced some leading agencies that fund biomedical research. Sadly, it’s a pipedream. For a whole host of reasons involving arcane aspects of virology, predicting the next pandemic virus or strain is Mission Impossible ( also here)

As if this wasn’t enough, our track record in pandemic prediction is zero. Nobody predicted COVID-19. Nobody predicted the 2009 H1N1 flu pandemic. We can’t even predict what is going to happen to flu this winter. Which of the four seasonal flu viruses circulating before the COVID pandemic will come charging back? Virologists in the know all agree that it will be a nasty flu season. No more. With this in mind, you better get your flu jab before December.

Back to man-made viruses. This work has gone by the name of Gain-of-Function research, or simply GoF, because an animal virus is engineered to gain a new function. The ‘gain’ is the frightening ability to transmit efficiently between humans.

If it is impossible to predict the next pandemic, then the idea of producing preventive vaccines and drugs goes out of the window. In short, there are no benefits from GoF virology. We’re we are left with a very small, but finite risk of a lab accident or leak that could have catastrophic consequences for the world. – Wissen

The quote is correct; the logic for GOF is essentially baseless — which is why one has to look for another reason.

Another question we should ask is why are the DOD and USAID (which is just a front for the US defense industry) funding the research. Furthermore, why is the Wuhan Institute of Virology so controlled by the People’s Liberation Army? The military does not have a public health function. The funding tells you what is going on — this is bioweapons research.

This is why the NIH has been so focused on misleading the public regarding GOF funding.

The NIH has now been caught lying about calling GOF, not GOF. Now Fauci has to say he did not know what the funding was — this is called the Ronald Reagan defense (look, I am 81 years old, I can’t recall, etc..) Curiously, only the NIH, a small percentage of the overall funding of GOF to EcoHealth Alliance, has been critiqued. The much larger DOD funding has yet to be brought up to the public as of October 2021.  

Other major funders of included.

  • Department of Health and Human Services: $13 M (the NIH is within the HHS, so this grant can be viewed as essentially coming from the NIH or granted based upon the advice of the NIH).
  • National Science Foundation: $2.6 M

HHS, like USAID, does not advertise on its website that it funded the Eco Health Alliance’s GOF research. 

Pentagon Funding

While the NIH funding was known for months, the fact that USAID, which is just a front for the DOD and the Pentagon, provided much more funding than the NIH was not generally known until recently (as per the publication of this article). This quote is from Dec 2020, but even in Oct of 2021, it has only become more broadly known recently.

The termination was reversed by NIH in late August, and even upped to $7.5 million. But entirely overlooked amid the claims and counter-claims was that far more funding for the EcoHealth Alliance comes from the Pentagon than the NIH.

And a major reason for this is that Eco Health Alliance has deliberately kept this funding quiet, as expressed in the following quotation.

To be strictly fair to the media, Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance obscures its Pentagon funding. On its website EcoHealth Alliance states that “A copy of the EHA Grant Management Manual is available upon request to the EHA Chief Financial Officer at finance ( at ) ecohealthalliance.org”.

But an email to that address and numerous others, including Peter Daszak’s, requesting that Manual, as well as other financial information, was not returned. Neither were repeated voicemails.

Meticulous investigation of U.S. government databases reveals that Pentagon funding for the EcoHealth Alliance from 2013 to 2020, including contracts, grants and subcontracts, was just under $39 million. Most, $34.6 million, was from the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA), which is a branch of the DOD which states it is tasked to “counter and deter weapons of mass destruction and improvised threat networks.”

This means that the Pentagon area that was interested in funding GOF research was the part that deals with bioweapons research.

The Pentagon has no reason to fund GOF research other than to develop a bioweapon.

Here Peter Daszak is caught talking about how his colleagues got the coronavirus to jump to humans. This quote is from 2016. 

Here are two men with experience in how China works lampooning Peter Daszak. 

Why is the part of the Pentagon that funds bioweapons research interested in funding GOF if the GOF is only for the purposes described by Peter Daszak, which is for fighting future pandemics?

This covers the Pentagon’s funding of the lab. 

This video covers a proposal to the US defense research agency, DARPA, to release bats infected with a deadly virus into caves. The cascading of information supporting the lab leak hypothesis makes it difficult for the mainstream media and Big Tech to censor and cancel all of the people covering these topics. There are only so many people that can be smeared as conspiracy theorists. 

The CCP Rigged WHO Inquiry

Peter Daszak was not submitted by the US to be on the WHO inquiry but was added at China’s request, which makes sense as Daszak is a puppet of the CCP.

It should also be noted that Daszak was the only representative of the United States on the WHO China Joint Study team in early 2021. The United States put forth a list of experts to be considered, none of whom were chosen. Daszak was not on that list but was nevertheless selected and approved by the CCP. – The House on Foreign Affairs report

This excellent video describes how China rigged and covered up the outbreak and the investigation at the lab. The error of the 60 Minute analysis, however, is that it did not cover Peter Daszek’s conflicts of interest, as explained in the following quotation. 

Much of the work was funded by the US taxpayer, channeled there by Peter Daszak and the EcoHealth Alliance. Virtually every credible international organisation that might in principle carry out such an investigation, the WHO, the US CDC, the FAO, the US NIH, including the Gates Foundation, is either an advisor to, or a partner of, the EcoHealth Alliance. If the Sars-CoV-2 outbreak originated from the bat coronavirus work at the WIV then just about every major institution in the global public health community is implicated. – Independent Science News

Furthermore, the use of Peter Daszak as part of the WHO team to investigate WIV was critiqued by many scientists, as is covered in the following quotation.

Ebright said that Daszak is a collaborator on the WIV research for bat SARS-related coronaviruses. He lamented that the WHO named Daszak as a member of its review team, and The Lancet named Daszak as the head of its review team. Ebright said this makes “it clear that WHO and Lancet reviews cannot be considered credible investigations.”

What is shocking, and shockingly little covered is that several lab technicians came down with the coronavirus or “corona-like symptoms” in the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

However, this leak should not have been surprising, as the US Embassy staff warned this after visiting the WIV.

..according to an April 14 article in the Washington Post, US Embassy staff visited the WIV in 2018 and “had grave safety concerns” about biosecurity there. The WIV is just eight miles from the Huanan live animal market that was initially thought to be the site of origin of the COVID-19 pandemic. – Independent Science News

Here are the details about the warnings from the US Embassy team.

Two years before the novel coronavirus pandemic upended the world, U.S. Embassy officials visited a Chinese research facility in the city of Wuhan several times and sent two official warnings back to Washington about inadequate safety at the lab, which was conducting risky studies on coronaviruses from bats.

In January 2018, the U.S. Embassy in Beijing took the unusual step of repeatedly sending U.S. science diplomats to the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), which had in 2015 become China’s first laboratory to achieve the highest level of international bioresearch safety (known as BSL-4).

The cables warned about safety and management weaknesses at the WIV lab and proposed more attention and help.

The first cable, which I obtained, also warns that the lab’s work on bat coronaviruses and their potential human transmission represented a risk of a new SARS-like pandemic.

“During interactions with scientists at the WIV laboratory, they noted the new lab has a serious shortage of appropriately trained technicians and investigators needed to safely operate this high-containment laboratory,” states the Jan. 19, 2018, cable, which was drafted by two officials from the embassy’s environment, science and health sections who met with the WIV scientists.

This finding strongly suggests that SARS-like coronaviruses from bats can be transmitted to humans to cause SARS-like diseases. From a public health perspective, this makes the continued surveillance of SARS-like coronaviruses in bats and study of the animal-human interface critical to future emerging coronavirus outbreak prediction and prevention.” – Bend Bulletin


According to Yuan: “several high-level BSLs have insufficient operational funds for routine yet vital processes” and “Currently, most laboratories lack specialized biosafety managers and engineers.” He recommends that “We should promptly revise the existing regulations, guidelines, norms, and standards of biosafety and biosecurity”. Nevertheless, he also notes that China intends to build “5-7” more BSL-4 laboratories (Yuan, 2019). – Independent Science News

This video provides more background on the virus coming from a lab.

The WHO Finally Asks for the WIV to be Investigated for a Possible Lab Leak

For at least a year and a half, the WHO was a reliable puppet of the CCP. However, in July of 2021, the WHO finally switched gears and made the following request, which the CCP promptly rejected.

China rejected on Thursday a World Health Organization (WHO) plan for a second phase of an investigation into the origin of the coronavirus, which includes the hypothesis it could have escaped from a Chinese laboratory, a top health official said. The WHO this month proposed a second phase of studies into the origins of the coronavirus in China, including audits of laboratories and markets in the city of Wuhan, calling for transparency from authorities. “We will not accept such an origins-tracing plan as it, in some aspects, disregards common sense and defies science,” Zeng Yixin, vice minister of the National Health Commission (NHC), told reporters. – Taiwan Times

The CCP will not accept this because any honest investigation will lead to the WIV being demonstrated as the source of the coronavirus.

The quote continues…

Zeng said he was taken aback when he first read the WHO plan because it lists the hypothesis that a Chinese violation of laboratory protocols had caused the virus to leak during research. – Taiwan Times

It has already been documented that the standards at the WIV were very low, so that is not new.

The quote continues…

Zeng reiterated China’s position that some data could not be completely shared due to privacy concerns.

“We hope the WHO would seriously review the considerations and suggestions made by Chinese experts and truly treat the origin tracing of the COVID-19 virus as a scientific matter, and get rid of political interference,” Zeng said.

China opposed politicising the study, he said. – Taiwan Times

This is curious because China has blamed many countries for being the origin of the coronavirus. The CCP’s definition of “politicizing” is when the source is observed to be from China.

The quote continues…

One key part of the lab leak theory has centred on the Wuhan Institute of Virology’s (WIV) decision to take offline its gene sequence and sample databases in 2019. When asked about this decision, Yuan Zhiming, professor at WIV and the director of its National Biosafety Laboratory, told reporters that at present the databases were only shared internally due to cyber attack concerns. – Taiwan Times

Yes, this is a lie. The database could be shared without ever being online, which is why the Chinese are again lying on this topic.

How Often Do Viruses Leak from Labs

The curious thing is that leaks from labs are very common, yet the money for GOF continued to flow to EcoHealth Alliance. How common these leaks are is explained in the following quotation.

Many scientists have warned that experiments with PPPs, like the smallpox and Ebola and influenza viruses, are inherently dangerous and should be subject to strict limits and oversight (Lipsitch and Galvani, 2014; Klotz and Sylvester, 2014).

Even in the limited case of SARS-like coronaviruses, since the quelling of the original SARS outbreak in 2003, there have been six documented SARS disease outbreaks originating from research laboratories, including four in China. These outbreaks caused 13 individual infections and one death (Furmanski, 2014). In response to such concerns the US banned certain classes of experiments, called gain of function (GOF) experiments, with PPPs in 2014, but the ban (actually a funding moratorium) was lifted in 2017. – Independent Science News

However, as one can see, the outcomes from each outbreak caused very few infections and deaths. The following quote explains that these are just documented cases of viruses leaking from labs.

But arguably the biggest worry is incidents that go entirely unreported because escape of the pathogen goes undetected. It is truly alarming that a significant number of pathogen escape events were uncovered only because investigators were in the process of examining a completely different incident (Furmanski, 2014). Such discoveries represent strong evidence that pathogen escapes are under-reported and that important lessons still need to be learned (Weiss et al., 2015). – Independent Science News


What is extremely curious about this is that the Wuhan Institute of Virology is known as a dual-purpose lab. This means the lab does civilian work, but the Chinese military also controls it. This means that the Pentagon and USAID funded bioweapons research by the Chinese government.