USAID and Wuhan Labs - The COVID Connections

What Did USAID Have to Do with COVID-19?

According to USAID’s own documents, the agency played a pivotal role in the events leading to the COVID-19 pandemic—an involvement far more significant than the public has been led to believe. While mainstream media fixated on relatively trivial expenditures, such as the tens of millions of dollars USAID allocated to projects like funding Sesame Street programming in Palestine, a much larger and more consequential story remained buried. This hidden narrative revolves around USAID’s allocation of hundreds of millions of dollars to viral research programs—projects that would ultimately contribute to a global crisis on an unprecedented scale.

Uncovering the Story: Building the Relationship Graph

This investigation began as a small segment of a broader inquiry into USAID’s covert “grey” and “dark” operations—activities often shrouded in secrecy and obscured from public oversight. However, as I delved deeper, a distinct thread emerged: USAID’s connections to the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) and the origins of COVID-19. Recognizing its significance, I separated this thread into its own standalone story, dedicating significant effort to its development.

To make sense of the complex web of relationships, I constructed a comprehensive relationship graph, pulling together as much verifiable data as possible within a reasonable timeframe. This graph served as a dynamic tool, evolving through multiple iterations as new connections surfaced. By mapping out entities, funding flows, and institutional ties, I could visualize USAID’s links to Wuhan labs and beyond. When gaps or potential leads appeared—whether missing connections or hints of additional research—I used the graph as a foundation to integrate new findings. This was an iterative process that resulted in a detailed, evidence-based map that ties together:

• 1,239 distinct entities (individuals, organizations, and institutions),

• 1,449 relationships between them,

• 155 financial disbursements tracked across multiple sources,

• 38 countries connected through seven global regions.

This map stands as the most detailed public resource contextualizing USAID’s funding and operational oversight of laboratories in Wuhan and worldwide. It reveals how the project was initiated, how it was managed, the intricate flow of money, and the layers of cover-ups, distortions, and truths that have since emerged. Moreover, it highlights the current status of this initiative and flags related projects and organizations that may pose an even greater threat to humanity through the development of dangerous viruses.

This resource is multilayered and dynamic. Each connection is cited and contains rich data and metadata of it's sources, including urls to source material

My hope is that this relationship graph serves as a catalyst for continued research. By laying out the data visually, it enables researchers, journalists, and investigators to conduct more granular analyses, uncover additional connections, and hold those responsible to account. This is not merely a historical record—it’s a tool for ongoing discovery.

How It Got Started: The Seeds of a Global Project

The story traces back to 1999, when the Rockefeller Foundation’s Bellagio Center in Italy began hosting virology-focused presentations. These early gatherings laid the groundwork for what would eventually become a global initiative. Fast forward fifteen years to 2016, when the Bellagio Center hosted the launch of the Global Virome Project (GVP)—a pivotal moment attended by influential figures in virology and public health. Among the attendees were:

• Jonna Mazet, a scientist from the University of California, Davis, who championed accelerating the study of viruses to preempt pandemics,

• Representatives from the World Health Organization (WHO),

• Officials from Anthony Fauci’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID),

• Personnel from USAID,

• Executives from the pharmaceutical giant Merck,

• Peter Daszak, Mazet’s longtime collaborator and a key player in this unfolding saga,

• Leading RNA researchers from various institutions.

  
  

Mazet in this meeting, purportedly pitched an idea for a global virology project, later expressing surprise at how swiftly funding and interest materialized from major organizations. However, this rapid support was less surprising given the context: many attendees had already committed to the project’s vision. Notably, in 1999, the Bellagio Center had also hosted the Gates Foundation’s GAVI conference, an event focused on global vaccination efforts with a mission overlapping Mazet’s proposal. This earlier gathering likely primed the network of elites to embrace the GVP enthusiastically, explaining the high-level acceptance Mazet encountered.

The 2016 GVP Participants

The GVP meeting brought together a who’s-who of global virology, all linked to high-profile projects and, significantly, to USAID’s PREDICT Program—a cornerstone of this story. Below is a list of key participants, accompanied by a bulleted breakdown of their professional affiliations and histories:

• Jonna Mazet: UC Davis scientist; PREDICT co-founder; advocate for viral discovery.

• Peter Daszak: President of EcoHealth Alliance; Mazet’s collaborator; central figure in PREDICT and WIV funding.

• WHO Representatives: Senior officials with ties to global health policy and virology oversight.

• NIAID Officials: Linked to Fauci’s leadership; funded gain-of-function research.

• USAID Personnel: Managed contracts and disbursements for PREDICT.

• Merck Executives: Represented pharmaceutical interests in viral research.

• RNA Researchers: Experts from top universities advancing genetic sequencing techniques.

These individuals hailed from elite NGOs, multinational corporations, prestigious universities, and leading healthcare organizations, forming a tightly knit network poised to shape global virology. All of them would be connected to the project as in some way as it progressed.

USAID and EcoHealth Alliance Takes the Helm

Following the 2016 GVP meeting, Jonna Mazet submitted a formal proposal to operationalize the initiative. USAID seized the opportunity, adopting the project under the name PREDICT and positioning itself as the central coordinator. The agency partnered with an array of U.S. government entities (including NIAID and the State Department) and academic institutions to fund and oversee a sprawling global viral epidemiology research program. USAID managed the contracts and channeled funding through EcoHealth Alliance, a New York-based nonprofit led by Peter Daszak, Mazet’s longtime collaborator.

EcoHealth Alliance, having maintained government contracts before this project, emerged as the linchpin of PREDICT, serving as the primary vehicle for mobilizing resources, managing research, and distributing funds. While other organizations participated in the program, EcoHealth was the dominant player in the program that was now managed by USAID.

Early Research Phases

PREDICT’s initial research unfolded at two prominent U.S. institutions:

• University of North Carolina (UNC): A hub for virology studies.

• University of California, Davis (UC Davis): Mazet’s home base and a key PREDICT site.

  

Officially, PREDICT aimed to collect and analyze viruses from wildlife to assess “spillover risks”—the potential for viruses to jump from animals to humans—and prevent future pandemics. However, internal documents and whistleblower accounts suggest a more troubling agenda behind the scenes.

At UC Davis, scientist Andrew G. Huff participated in PREDICT but grew disillusioned. He later became a whistleblower, citing an unprofessional work environment and alleging that Peter Daszak was pushing the boundaries of gain-of-function research with tight timelines and with little regard for safety—experiments that enhance a virus’s transmissibility or virulence. Huff opposed these efforts, viewing them as reckless, and ultimately left the project. Huff would ultimately be the conduit for much of the investigative knowledge discovered by journalists filing FOIA documents.

A Pivotal Shift: From the U.S. to Wuhan

A significant turning point came during the Obama administration, when concerns over the risks of forced viral evolution research (a subset of gain-of-function) led to a U.S. moratorium in 2014. Fearing that such experiments could spark a pandemic, regulators outlawed these activities on American soil. In response, USAID orchestrated a strategic pivot: it collaborated with a Chinese scientist embedded in PREDICT to relocate the research to the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) in China. Funding continued to flow through the same channels—primarily USAID via EcoHealth Alliance—allowing the work to persist under less stringent oversight.

Funding: The Money Trail

Over five years, PREDICT received substantial grant funding, with USAID as the primary contributor. Through USAID’s leadership, a coalition of organizations joined the effort, amplifying its scope. Below is an outline of key disbursements, drawn from grant documents and government funding tables. It shows both the awarding agency as well as its purpose and the study funded. Each link is connected with the source document or URL.

The Wuhan Connection: A Biological Powder Keg

With millions of dollars pouring into the WIV, the lab’s operations expanded dramatically. Researchers collected thousands of virus samples globally, including over 1,000 bat specimens from diverse regions—among them the Wuhan wet market, a site later infamous as a potential COVID-19 origin point. Publicly, WIV emphasized genetic sample analysis for academic purposes. However, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) documents reveal grant applications detailing far riskier activities, including:

• Reverse Genetic Experiments: Reconstructing viruses from genetic sequences.

• Creation of Infectious Clones: Producing replicable viral agents.

• Infecting Humanized Mice: Testing viruses on mice genetically altered to mimic human physiology.

• Genetic Expressions & Transformed Cell Lines: Modifying cells to express viral traits.

• Receptor Evolution: Enhancing viral binding to the ACE-2 receptor (critical for COVID-19 infectivity).

• Spike Protein Manipulation: Altering the virus’s entry mechanism.

• Viral Evolution & Adaptation: Accelerating natural mutation processes.

• Mutant Strain Development: Creating novel, potentially dangerous variants.

Though not explicitly labeled as such, these activities constituted gain-of-function research in practice. The work at WIV was akin to refining uranium into a nuclear weapon—except the weapon was biological, with the potential to unleash devastation on a global scale.

Scope of USAID PREDICT: A Global Network

Beyond the U.S. and China, USAID established a network of laboratories worldwide under PREDICT. A detailed chart (to be included in the final map) illustrates:

• Direct Participation: Labs in hotspot regions collecting avian and bat viruses.

• Indirect Participation: Support facilities aiding data analysis and logistics.

• Field Labs: Temporary sites in biodiversity-rich areas targeting zoonotic threats.

Most of these labs focused on project support, gathering samples from regions identified as high-risk for viral spillover.

Who Was Really in Charge? A Joint Venture with Global Players

PREDICT operated as a de facto partnership between USAID and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), with oversight from figures like General Chen Wei, a prominent Chinese military scientist, alongside key WHO officials. Whistleblower Andrew Huff alleges that the U.S. State Department exerted micromanagement over the project, suggesting a layered power structure. Additionally, at least four senior PREDICT leaders had direct ties to the WHO, further entangling the initiative in a web of international influence.

Safety Concerns Ignored

Long before COVID-19 emerged, safety lapses plagued PREDICT. Notably, three WIV lab workers fell ill with COVID-like symptoms in November 2019—months before the pandemic was declared. One of them, Ben Hu, was a chief scientist with over five years of gain-of-function experience under Jonna Mazet. His hospitalization, alongside his deep ties to PREDICT’s founders, raises serious questions about the project’s oversight and the origins of the outbreak, as Hu it believed to be COVID patient zero.

Project Details: Mapping the Data

With much conflicting information around Covid Origins, investigations and public awareness on the project is shrouded by the complex detail of EHO and WIV inner workings. These details of this project reveal the internal structure of EcoHealth Alliance, how it worked, and what it worked on, consolidating never-before-organized details of PREDICT, including:

• Board of Directors: Key decision-makers steering the project.

• Executive Leadership: Operational heads like Daszak and Mazet.

• Scientists: Researchers conducting the experiments.

• Studies: Specific research initiatives funded by PREDICT.

• Viruses: Target pathogens, including coronaviruses.

With millions flowing into the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), the scale of the lab’s work became unprecedented. Thousands of virus samples were collected worldwide, including more than a thousand bats from global sources—including the Wuhan wet market, a location that would later become central to the COVID-19 origin debate.

While publicly, WIV focused on genetic sample analysis, FOIA documents reveal that their grant applications detailed additional, more concerning activities:

• Reverse Genetic Experiments

• Creation of Infectious Clones

• Infecting Humanized Mice (genetically modified to have human traits)

• Genetic Expressions & Transformed Cell Lines

• Receptor Evolution (specifically targeting the ACE-2 receptor)

• Spike Protein Manipulation

• Viral Evolution & Adaptation

• Mutant Strain Development

This was gain-of-function research in all but name. The work at WIV was akin to refining uranium into a nuclear weapon—except here, the potential threat was biological.

This data, sourced from EcoHealth grant proposals (via FOIA) and medical journal publications, confirms that EcoHealth Alliance and WIV knowingly engaged in high-risk research, fully aware of its implications.

The Cover-Up: Controlling the Narrative

As the lab and project coordinator Peter Daszak played a controversial role in nearly every aspect of investigation and public awareness around the inner workings of Wuhan Labs. He lead most investigations and was the key individual shaping global public perception around the project:

• Led the WHO Investigation: Delayed its start while steering its conclusions.

• Denied Lab-Leak Theories: Advocated dismissal despite evidence.

• Authored Lancet Piece: Influenced media to discredit lab-leak discussions.

• Organized Scientist Letter: Mobilized 27 experts to label lab-leak theories as misinformation.

• Defended China: Shielded the CCP from scrutiny.

• Blocked Investigations: Served as the White House liaison, thwarting independent probes.

• Resisted Inspections: Declined lab access while the WHO stalled.

• Leveraged Nobel Laureates: Secured support from 77 prize winners to dismiss concerns.

• Pushed Wet Market Narrative: Ignored WIV’s virus collection at the site.

WIV, meanwhile, locked down its facilities and denied that Ben Hu was “patient zero.” Despite mounting evidence, U.S. media and government largely echoed Daszak’s framing, sidelining alternative theories. Two organizations—The Whitecoat Waste Project and Judicial Watch—persisted in filing FOIA requests, uncovering critical evidence with help from Andrew Huff.

The Aftermath: Business as Usual?

Post-pandemic, one might expect risky viral research to face scrutiny. Instead, EcoHealth Alliance secured more government contracts—until January 2025, when Congress finally barred it and Daszak from further U.S. funding. Yet this sanction was a mere pruning of a tree planted in 1999 at Bellagio. The core PREDICT team transitioned seamlessly to the Global Virome Project, continuing their work under a different banner with the same leadership.

Meanwhile, other USAID contractors, like Metabiota, raised parallel concerns. In 2014, a Metabiota-run lab in Sierra Leone leaked Ebola, echoing EcoHealth’s recklessness. Unlike EcoHealth’s academic roots, Metabiota’s backers—including Rosemont Seneca (Hunter Biden’s firm), DoD, Google, Goldman Sachs, and In-Q-Tel (CIA)—suggest a fusion of defense, intelligence, and finance interests. Reports of Metabiota’s labs in Ukraine, initially dismissed as conspiracy, were later confirmed by Victoria Nuland in Congress, mirroring COVID origin denials.

Why Isn’t This Story Mainstream?

Is it a lack of information, or deliberate suppression? The scale of PREDICT, its ties to government, corporations, and intelligence, and the persistence of its architects suggest a calculated effort to bury the truth. This report is just the tip of the iceberg—a call for continued scrutiny of a global operation with stakes too high to ignore.

What Comes Next?

The accompanying visual graph compiles all available documents, datasets, and sources—a living resource for further exploration. As new data emerges, I aim to update this story, encouraging others to use the graph to identify gaps, interview key figures, and investigate involved organizations. This is not the end, but the beginning of a critical investigation.

Contributing Sources

This story would not have been possible without the efforts of people journalists and invesigative bodies. This bulk of this story revolves around the work and efforts of:

• The Whitecoat Waste Project: Exposed animal testing ties.

• Judicial Watch: Secured FOIA documents.

• The Intercept: Published leaked materials.

• Dr. Andrew G. Huff: Provided insider testimony.

For access to all data as part of the USAID investigative series, apply on this page.