Erebus

The Origins of SARS-CoV-2 · source record · archive

DEFUSE draft records and correspondence (FOIA production, combined and redacted, 235 pp.)

U.S. Geological Survey / Department of the Interior (production); republished by U.S. Right to Know · 2023

AI-verified citationSRC-USRTK-DEFUSE-DRAFTS
identifier / locator
FOIA tracking number 2021-006245
url
https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/2021-006245-Combined-Records_Redacted-1-235.pdf
verification note
Downloaded and read 2026-08-26 (235 content pages); the quoted margin comment verified verbatim at five separate draft locations, and the mapping from Word comment initials to named authors verified from email headers contained within the same release rather than inferred.
reliability notes
  • A federal FOIA production republished by an advocacy organization: the underlying documents are authentic government records, and the compilation and framing are the publisher's.
  • Margin comments identify authors only by Word initials; the linkage to named individuals rests on email headers inside the same release.
  • Successive drafts of an unfunded proposal. They evidence what was drafted and discussed, not what was done.

Evidence drawn from this source

Qualifies· moderateCOV-E028

The draft margin comment, quoted whole rather than in its usual truncated form

what the source states
A margin comment appearing five times across successive drafts, attributed within the release to the proposal's lead author: "Ralph, Zhengli. If we win this contract, I do not propose that all of this work will necessarily be conducted by Ralph, but I do want to stress the US side of this proposal so that DARPA are comfortable with our team. Once we get the funds, we can then allocate who does what exact work, and I believe that a lot of these assays can be done in Wuhan as well…"
what we infer
Recorded in full deliberately. The comment is usually quoted from "Once we get the funds" onward, which removes the sentence stating its purpose — presenting a US-weighted team so the funder would be comfortable. Read whole, it evidences an intention to allocate assay work to Wuhan after an award, and an awareness that saying so up front would be unhelpful. Read truncated, it reads as concealment of a settled plan. The document supports the first reading and not the second, and the difference is one sentence.
limitations
  • Margin comments identify authors by Word initials only; the mapping to named individuals rests on email headers within the same release.
  • Drafts of a proposal that was never funded — they evidence what was drafted and discussed, not what was done.
  • The compilation is republished by an advocacy organization, though the underlying records are an authentic federal FOIA production.