independentsciencenews--2020-12-01--Messengers of Gates’ Agenda: How the Cornell Alliance for Science Spreads Disinformation on behalf o

Messengers of Gates’ Agenda: How the Cornell Alliance for Science Spreads Disinformation on behalf of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation

In October of this year , the Cornell Alliance for Science ( CAS ) hosted a webinar on “ agroecology , ” a concept that has attracted growing attention in recent years .
Agroecology is a transdisciplinary science , practice , and social movement that offers a pathway for food system transformation .
Yet , as soon as the webinar began , the moderator contrasted “ scientific ” definitions of agroecology as legitimate whereas social movement type definitions were labeled “ ideological.
” From what we have learned about the Cornell Alliance for Science , this was not surprising ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in what is a well-funded disinformation campaign to co-opt and neuter the transformative concept of agroecology , while promoting agribusiness-driven solutions to agriculture through proprietary science and technological innovation .
In fact , it was for this very reason that just three days before , two agroecologists that had been invited to participate stepped down from the panel , citing bias .
The Cornell Alliance for Science was founded with funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation ( BMGF ) , which has emerged over the past decade as perhaps the single @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over the future of food and agriculture .
The BMGF has been pumping major funding into industrial agriculture while also creating powerful alliances seeking to reconfigure global governance of the food system .
While some of the Gates Foundation ’ s agriculture-related activities are drawing increasing scrutiny , we recently examined an important but under explored aspect of BMGF ’ s strategy : How it is framing food system debates , shaping how issues are communicated , and fostering a new generation of ‘ leaders ’ to carry forward its mission .
Our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : A Case Study of the Cornell Alliance for Science Global Leadership Fellows Program , demonstrates how the Gates Foundation achieves these aims by commissioning CAS to train communications professionals to disseminate biotech industry propaganda , including by discrediting agroecology ; all masquerading as promoting and advancing science .
CAS thereby uses its affiliation with Cornell , the only ivy league institution that is also a land-grant college , to claim scientific neutrality while assiduously promoting communications aligned with agribusiness .
Housed in Cornell ’ s College of Agriculture and Life Sciences in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ launched in 2014 via a $ 5.6 million grant from the Gates Foundation .
Its stated mission is “ to promote access to scientific innovation as a means of enhancing food security , improving environmental sustainability and raising the quality of life globally.
” [ 1 ] According to CAS director Sarah Evanega , CAS aims to “ depolarize the GMO debate and engage with potential partners who may share common values around poverty reduction and sustainable agriculture , but may not be well informed about the potential biotechnology has for solving major @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gates Foundation granted an additional $ 6.4 million to CAS in 2017 , and , in Sept 2020 , $ 10 million more .
[ 3 ] BMGF remains the overwhelming primary funder of CAS to date , although fifteen additional institutional and individual contributors of $ 1000 or more are listed on the CAS website .
CAS describes its main strategies as a ) establishing a global network ; b ) “ training with a purpose ” ; and c ) developing multimedia communications on agricultural biotechnology .
These strategies come together @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a 12-week intensive training course held each year at Cornell .
This brings together 20–30 young professionals , mainly from the Global South , and particularly Africa .
While the geographical reach of the program has been broadening , the majority of fellows – 60 % in 2019 – were of African origin , in keeping with prior years ( See Figure 1 ) .
Moreover , examination of the fellows ’ affiliations indicate multiple linkages with BMGF .
Cross checking the fellows ’ affiliations with grant disbursement data provided on the BMGF @ @ @ @ @ @ @ % of all the African fellows from 2015–2019 were associated with organizations that received funding from BMGF .
Together , organizations connected to the fellows received over $ 712 million from BMGF from 2003 through 2019 .
The strong overlap between the groups funded by BMGF for its agricultural development projects and the CAS fellows gives additional meaning to the CAS strategy of building a global network , begging the question , whom does this network serve , and toward what ends ?
Given these linkages , it comes as little surprise that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of technologies promoted by BMGF through its agricultural investments and the messages coming from CAS and its fellows .
In analyzing the work put out by CAS and its fellows , an obvious pattern emerges : an uncritical promotion of biotechnology .
Furthermore , in a distortion of scientific methodology and its own stated purpose , this position is not vetted against any diverging ones .
What adds power to the narratives of CAS it is that its messages appear not to be coming from BMGF or from its agribusiness partners directly , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that make up its Fellowship Program , ostensibly informed by their lived experiences and claimed scientific rigor , provided by the affiliation with Cornell .
The patent bias of CAS has similarly been critiqued by members of the Cornell faculty , [ 4 ] student body [ 5 ] and broader Cornell and Ithaca community .
According to Jonathan Latham of the Ithaca-based Bioscience Resource Project , “ Of several hundred talks at Cornell sponsored by the Alliance , only one has ever offered a contrary view .
Worse , most of its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nothing , academically , to offer .
For an organization that claims to be a promoter of debate , that it is a remarkably lop-sided record.
” [ 6 ] This matters in terms of how these messages are received by the public .
Communications studies have demonstrated that the public is more likely to be receptive to a message when it believes it has come from independent scientists as opposed to originating with industry .
[ 7 ] Perhaps this is why CAS goes to great lengths in its publicity materials to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ despite its industry links .
[ 8 ] In all , it seems obvious that , through its funding for the Cornell Alliance for Science , the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is seeking to shape public opinion in favor of adopting GMOs and corporate agriculture .
A key communications strategy of CAS is to promote narratives in which biotechnology is equated with ‘ science ’ .
Conversely , critiquing biotechnology is equated with being ‘ anti-science.
’ In our case study , we teased out how this strategy was employed by one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his February 2019 article entitled ‘ After Agroecology : Why Traditional Agricultural Practices Can ’ t Transform African Agriculture ’ .
We identified four false narratives employed by Mugwanya : Agroecology can be characterized as a particular , limited set of agricultural practices ; it involves a glorification of the past and a rejection of the modern ; it is being imposed upon African farmers from outside of Africa , and it will keep farmers locked into poverty and drudgery .
The overall message left with readers of Mugwanya ’ s article can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is being foisted upon unsuspecting African farmers from the outside – by wealthy NGOs that romanticize peasant lifestyles .
Claims of the benefits of agroecology are not well grounded in science .
What farmers really need is biotech and accompanying technological packages , and agroecology is dangerous and immoral for serving as an impediment to this .
It is important for agroecology advocates in Africa and elsewhere to understand that this is the type of messaging they are up against – packaged to represent the cutting edge of science-based communication .
That the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the same time that there is a mounting global scientific consensus around the merits of agroecology is no coincidence .
Studies have demonstrated that perceived scientific consensus is a key factor in influencing public support on a given issue and that this tends to encourage counter-efforts around “ the ‘ manufacture of doubt ’ by political and vested interests.
” [ 9 ] As momentum continues to build around agroecology , its advocates can be certain that further smear campaigns and other attempts to manufacture doubt will continue .
It should come @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Melinda Gates fund propaganda to further the corporate-controlled agricultural model that their foundation promotes .
Beware the messengers of their agenda , who are the graduates of the Cornell Alliance for Science Global Fellows program .
Download the 34 page report , published August 2020 : Messengers of Gates ’ Agenda : A Case Study of the Cornell Alliance for Science Global Leadership Fellows Program .
By AGRA Watch , a campaign of the Community Alliance for Global Justice ( CAGJ ) which is based in Seattle , Washington , USA .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
AGRA Watch mapped the ties between the Gates Foundation and Cornell Alliance for Science Fellows using Kumu : explore the interactive presentation .
[ 1 ] Cornell Alliance for Science .
no date .
Our Mission .
https : //allianceforscience.cornell.edu/about/mission/ [ 2 ] Shackford , S. 2014 .
New Cornell Alliance for Science gets $ 5.6 million grant .
https : //news.cornell.edu/stories/2014/08/new-cornell-alliance-science-gets-56-million-grant .
[ 4 ] Pinch , T. Letter : For Whom the Bell Tolls .
https : //www.ithaca.com/opinion/letter-for-whom-the-bell-tolls/article_f501c81c-5c8b-11e5-bdac-eb084a5872b3.html .
[ 5 ] Schooler , R. 2016 .
The GMO Debate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pro-GMO Propaganda at Cornell University .
https : //www.independentsciencenews.org/health/the-gmo-debate-one-students-experience-of-pro-gmo-propaganda-at-cornell-university/ .
[ 7 ] Kasperson , R.E.
, Renn , O. , Slovic , P. , Brown , H.S.
, Emel , J. , Goble , R. , Kasperson , J.X .
and Ratick , S. 1988 .
The social amplification of risk : a conceptual framework .
Risk Analysis 8:2 , 177-187. https : //onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1988.tb01168.x .
[ 8 ] See , e.g.
, Malkan , S. Cornell Alliance for Science is a PR Campaign for the Agrichemical Industry .
https : //usrtk.org/our-investigations/cornell-alliance-for-science-is-a-pr-campaign-for-the-agrichemical-industry/ and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Puppetmasters of Academia ( or What the NY Times Left out ) .
https : //www.independentsciencenews.org/science-media/the-puppetmasters-of-academia-ny-times-left-out/ .
[ 9 ] Lewandowsky , S. , Gignac , G.E .
and Vaughan , S. , 2013 .
The pivotal role of perceived scientific consensus in acceptance of science .
Nature Climate Change , 3 ( 4 ) , pp.399-404 .
https : //www.nature.com/articles/nclimate1720 .
If this article was useful to you please consider sharing it with your networks .

by Heather Day/AGRA Watch
In October of this year, the Cornell Alliance for Science (CAS) hosted a webinar on “agroecology,” a concept that has attracted growing attention in recent years. Agroecology is a transdisciplinary science, practice, and social movement that offers a pathway for food system transformation. Yet, as soon as the webinar began, the moderator contrasted “scientific” definitions of agroecology as legitimate whereas social movement type definitions were labeled “ideological.” From what we have learned about the Cornell Alliance for Science, this was not surprising; the webinar was just their latest tactic in what is a well-funded disinformation campaign to co-opt and neuter the transformative concept of agroecology, while promoting agribusiness-driven solutions to agriculture through proprietary science and technological innovation. In fact, it was for this very reason that just three days before, two agroecologists that had been invited to participate stepped down from the panel, citing bias.
The Cornell Alliance for Science was founded with funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF), which has emerged over the past decade as perhaps the single most influential actor in an ever-intensifying battle over the future of food and agriculture.
The BMGF has been pumping major funding into industrial agriculture while also creating powerful alliances seeking to reconfigure global governance of the food system. While some of the Gates Foundation’s agriculture-related activities are drawing increasing scrutiny, we recently examined an important but under explored aspect of BMGF’s strategy: How it is framing food system debates, shaping how issues are communicated, and fostering a new generation of ‘leaders’ to carry forward its mission.
Our report, Messengers of Gates’ Agenda: A Case Study of the Cornell Alliance for Science Global Leadership Fellows Program, demonstrates how the Gates Foundation achieves these aims by commissioning CAS to train communications professionals to disseminate biotech industry propaganda, including by discrediting agroecology; all masquerading as promoting and advancing science. CAS thereby uses its affiliation with Cornell, the only ivy league institution that is also a land-grant college, to claim scientific neutrality while assiduously promoting communications aligned with agribusiness.
Training Gates Foundation Messengers
Housed in Cornell’s College of Agriculture and Life Sciences in Ithaca, New York, CAS was launched in 2014 via a $5.6 million grant from the Gates Foundation. Its stated mission is “to promote access to scientific innovation as a means of enhancing food security, improving environmental sustainability and raising the quality of life globally.”[1] According to CAS director Sarah Evanega, CAS aims to “depolarize the GMO debate and engage with potential partners who may share common values around poverty reduction and sustainable agriculture, but may not be well informed about the potential biotechnology has for solving major agricultural challenges.”[2]
The Gates Foundation granted an additional $6.4 million to CAS in 2017, and, in Sept 2020, $10 million more.[3] BMGF remains the overwhelming primary funder of CAS to date, although fifteen additional institutional and individual contributors of $1000 or more are listed on the CAS website.
CAS describes its main strategies as a) establishing a global network; b) “training with a purpose”; and c) developing multimedia communications on agricultural biotechnology. These strategies come together through its Global Leadership Fellows Program, a 12-week intensive training course held each year at Cornell. This brings together 20–30 young professionals, mainly from the Global South, and particularly Africa. While the geographical reach of the program has been broadening, the majority of fellows – 60% in 2019 – were of African origin, in keeping with prior years (See Figure 1). Moreover, examination of the fellows’ affiliations indicate multiple linkages with BMGF. Cross checking the fellows’ affiliations with grant disbursement data provided on the BMGF website, we can see that 34% of all the African fellows from 2015–2019 were associated with organizations that received funding from BMGF. Together, organizations connected to the fellows received over $712 million from BMGF from 2003 through 2019.
“Alliance for Science” is a Misnomer
The strong overlap between the groups funded by BMGF for its agricultural development projects and the CAS fellows gives additional meaning to the CAS strategy of building a global network, begging the question, whom does this network serve, and toward what ends?
Given these linkages, it comes as little surprise that there are strong parallels between the types of technologies promoted by BMGF through its agricultural investments and the messages coming from CAS and its fellows. In analyzing the work put out by CAS and its fellows, an obvious pattern emerges: an uncritical promotion of biotechnology. Furthermore, in a distortion of scientific methodology and its own stated purpose, this position is not vetted against any diverging ones. What adds power to the narratives of CAS it is that its messages appear not to be coming from BMGF or from its agribusiness partners directly, but from mostly young, African voices that make up its Fellowship Program, ostensibly informed by their lived experiences and claimed scientific rigor, provided by the affiliation with Cornell.
The patent bias of CAS has similarly been critiqued by members of the Cornell faculty,[4] student body[5] and broader Cornell and Ithaca community. According to Jonathan Latham of the Ithaca-based Bioscience Resource Project, “Of several hundred talks at Cornell sponsored by the Alliance, only one has ever offered a contrary view. Worse, most of its guests are simply corporate propagandists who have nothing, academically, to offer. For an organization that claims to be a promoter of debate, that it is a remarkably lop-sided record.”[6]
This matters in terms of how these messages are received by the public. Communications studies have demonstrated that the public is more likely to be receptive to a message when it believes it has come from independent scientists as opposed to originating with industry.[7] Perhaps this is why CAS goes to great lengths in its publicity materials to distance itself from the biotech industry, despite its industry links.[8]
Manufacturing Doubt about Agroecology
In all, it seems obvious that, through its funding for the Cornell Alliance for Science, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is seeking to shape public opinion in favor of adopting GMOs and corporate agriculture. A key communications strategy of CAS is to promote narratives in which biotechnology is equated with ‘science’. Conversely, critiquing biotechnology is equated with being ‘anti-science.’ In our case study, we teased out how this strategy was employed by one CAS Fellow, Nassib Mugwanya, in his February 2019 article entitled ‘After Agroecology: Why Traditional Agricultural Practices Can’t Transform African Agriculture’. We identified four false narratives employed by Mugwanya: Agroecology can be characterized as a particular, limited set of agricultural practices; it involves a glorification of the past and a rejection of the modern; it is being imposed upon African farmers from outside of Africa, and it will keep farmers locked into poverty and drudgery.
The overall message left with readers of Mugwanya’s article can be summed up as follows: Agroecology is being foisted upon unsuspecting African farmers from the outside – by wealthy NGOs that romanticize peasant lifestyles. Claims of the benefits of agroecology are not well grounded in science. What farmers really need is biotech and accompanying technological packages, and agroecology is dangerous and immoral for serving as an impediment to this. It is important for agroecology advocates in Africa and elsewhere to understand that this is the type of messaging they are up against – packaged to represent the cutting edge of science-based communication.
That the attacks on agroecology by CAS are coming at the same time that there is a mounting global scientific consensus around the merits of agroecology is no coincidence. Studies have demonstrated that perceived scientific consensus is a key factor in influencing public support on a given issue and that this tends to encourage counter-efforts around “the ‘manufacture of doubt’ by political and vested interests.”[9] As momentum continues to build around agroecology, its advocates can be certain that further smear campaigns and other attempts to manufacture doubt will continue.
It should come as no surprise that philanthro-capitalists like Bill and Melinda Gates fund propaganda to further the corporate-controlled agricultural model that their foundation promotes. Beware the messengers of their agenda, who are the graduates of the Cornell Alliance for Science Global Fellows program.
Download the 34 page report, published August 2020: Messengers of Gates’ Agenda: A Case Study of the Cornell Alliance for Science Global Leadership Fellows Program. By AGRA Watch, a campaign of the Community Alliance for Global Justice (CAGJ) which is based in Seattle, Washington, USA. Heather Day is Executive Director of CAGJ.
AGRA Watch mapped the ties between the Gates Foundation and Cornell Alliance for Science Fellows using Kumu: explore the interactive presentation.
[1] Cornell Alliance for Science. no date. Our Mission. https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/about/mission/
[2] Shackford, S. 2014. New Cornell Alliance for Science gets $5.6 million grant. https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2014/08/new-cornell-alliance-science-gets-56-million-grant.
[3] Cornell Alliance for Science. Sept 24, 2020. https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/2020/09/alliance-for-science-expands-mission-with-10-million-reinvestment/
[4] Pinch, T. Letter: For Whom the Bell Tolls. https://www.ithaca.com/opinion/letter-for-whom-the-bell-tolls/article_f501c81c-5c8b-11e5-bdac-eb084a5872b3.html.
[5] Schooler, R. 2016. The GMO Debate: One Student’s Experience of Pro-GMO Propaganda at Cornell University. https://www.independentsciencenews.org/health/the-gmo-debate-one-students-experience-of-pro-gmo-propaganda-at-cornell-university/.
[6] Personal communication, April 11, 2020.
[7] Kasperson, R.E., Renn, O., Slovic, P., Brown, H.S., Emel, J., Goble, R., Kasperson, J.X. and Ratick, S. 1988. The social amplification of risk: a conceptual framework. Risk Analysis 8:2, 177-187. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1988.tb01168.x.
[8] See, e.g., Malkan, S. Cornell Alliance for Science is a PR Campaign for the Agrichemical Industry. https://usrtk.org/our-investigations/cornell-alliance-for-science-is-a-pr-campaign-for-the-agrichemical-industry/ and Latham, J. 2015. The Puppetmasters of Academia (or What the NY Times Left out). https://www.independentsciencenews.org/science-media/the-puppetmasters-of-academia-ny-times-left-out/.
[9] Lewandowsky, S., Gignac, G.E. and Vaughan, S., 2013. The pivotal role of perceived scientific consensus in acceptance of science. Nature Climate Change, 3(4), pp.399-404. https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate1720.
Editor’s note. We welcome comments and information about the subject of this article. However, please note that the “reply” function in the comments section is not working for people without high level access to the website. There are two possible solutions for readers wanting to reply to specific comments:
1) Enter your comment but name the commenter you are responding to (if necessary with the date of their comment). Or,
2) Mail your comment to the editor: [email protected] and they will post it as a reply. Please be sure to say who/what you are replying too.
If this article was useful to you please consider sharing it with your networks.


independentsciencenews--2020-12-16--Peter Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance Has Hidden Almost $40 Million In Pentagon Funding And Militarized

Peter Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance Has Hidden Almost $40 Million In Pentagon Funding And Militarized Pandemic Science

“ Pandemics are like terrorist attacks : We know roughly where they originate and what ’ s responsible for them , but we don ’ t know exactly when the next one will happen .
They need to be handled the same way — by identifying all possible sources and dismantling those before the next pandemic strikes.
” This statement was written in the New York Times earlier this year by Peter Daszak .
Daszak is the longtime president of the EcoHealth Alliance , a New York-based non-profit whose claimed focus is pandemic prevention .
But the EcoHealth Alliance , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very centre of the COVID-19 pandemic in many ways .
To depict the pandemic in such militarized terms is , for Daszak , a commonplace .
In an Oct. 7 online talk organized by Columbia University ’ s School of International and Public Affairs , Daszak presented a slide titled “ Donald Rumsfeld ’ s Prescient Speech.
” : “ There are known knowns ; there are things we know that we know .
There are known unknowns ; that is to say , there are things that we know we don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unknown unknowns — there are things we don ’ t know we don ’ t know.
” ( This Rumsfeld quote is in fact from a news conference ) In the subsequent online discussion , Daszak emphasized the parallels between his own crusade and Rumsfeld ’ s , since , according to Daszak , the “ potential for unknown attacks ” is “ the same for viruses ” .
Daszak then proceeded with a not terribly subtle pitch for over a billion dollars .
This money would support a fledgling virus hunting and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Virome Project — a “ doable project ” he assured watchers — given the cost of the pandemic to governments and various industries .
Also on the video was Columbia University professor Jeffrey Sachs .
Sachs is a former special advisor to the UN , the former head of the Millennium Villages Project , and was recently appointed Chair of the newly-formed EAT Lancet Commission on the pandemic .
In September , Sachs ’ commission named Daszak to head up its committee on the pandemic ’ s origins .
Daszak is also on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the pandemic ’ s origin .
He is the only individual on both committees .
These leadership positions are not the only reason why Peter Daszak is such a central figure in the COVID-19 pandemic , however .
His appointment dismayed many of those who are aware that Daszak ’ s EcoHealth Alliance funded bat coronavirus research , including virus collection , at the Wuhan Institute for Virology ( WIV ) and thus could themselves be directly implicated in the outbreak .
For his part , Daszak has repeatedly dismissed the notion that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In fact , a recent FOIA by the transparency group U.S .
Right To Know revealed that Peter Daszak drafted an influential multi-author letter published on February 18 in the Lancet .
That letter dismissed lab origin hypothesese as “ conspiracy theory.
” Daszak was revealed to have orchestrated the letter such as to “ avoid the appearance of a political statement.
” Sachs for his part seemed surprised by Daszak ’ s depiction of Rumsfeld but Daszak reassured him .
“ It ’ s an awesome quote !
And yes , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and I know he ’ s a Republican , but — what a genius !
” Following the EcoHealth Alliance ’ s money trail to the Pentagon Collecting dangerous viruses is typically justified as a preventive and defensive activity , getting ahead of what “ Nature ” or “ The Terrorists ” might throw at us .
But by its nature , this work is “ dual use ” .
“ Biodefense ” is often just as easily biowarfare since biodefense and the products of biowarfare are identical .
It ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ goals are .
This is openly acknowledged [ See below ] by scientists associated with EcoHealth Alliance when talking about alleged programs in other counties — like Iraq .
For much of this year , Daszak ’ s EcoHealth Alliance garnered a great deal of sympathetic media coverage after its $ 3.7 million five-year NIH grant was prematurely cut when the Trump administration learned that EcoHealth Alliance funded bat coronavirus research at the WIV .
The temporary cut was widely depicted in major media as Trump undermining the EcoHealth Alliance ’ s noble @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ others , including Peter Daszak ’ s , requesting that Manual , as well as other financial information , was not returned .
Neither were repeated voicemails .
Only buried under their “ Privacy Policy , ” under a section titled “ EcoHealth Alliance Policy Regarding Conflict of Interest in Research , ” does the EcoHealth Alliance concede it is the “ recipient of various grant awards from federal agencies including the National Institute of Health , the National Science Foundation , US Fish and Wildlife Service , and the US Agency for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Even this listing is deceptive .
It obscures that its two largest funders are the Pentagon and the State Department ( USAID ) ; whereas the US Fish and Wildlife Service , which accounts for a minuscule $ 74,487 , comes before either .
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the DOD which states it is tasked to “ counter and deter weapons of mass destruction and improvised threat networks.
” Most of the remaining money to EHA was from USAID ( State Dept . )
, comprising at least $ 64,700,000 ( 1 ) .
These two sources thus total over $ 103 million .
( See Fig ) .
Another $ 20 million came from Health and Human Services ( $ 13 million , which includes National Institutes of Health and Centers for Disease Control ) , National Science Foundation ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Homeland Security ( $ 2.3 million ) , Department of Commerce ( $ 1.2 million ) , Department of Agriculture ( $ 0.6 million ) , and Department of Interior ( $ 0.3 million ) .
So , total U.S. government funding for EHA to-date stands at $ 123 million , approximately one third of which comes from the Pentagon directly .
The full funding breakdown is available here and is summarized by year , source , and type , in a spreadsheet format .
Pdf versions of this the spreadsheet are available @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and all Federal grants and contracts are here The military links of the EcoHealth Alliance are not limited to money and mindset .
One noteworthy ‘ policy advisor ’ to the EcoHealth Alliance is David Franz .
Franz is former commander of Fort Detrick , which is the principal U.S. government biowarfare/biodefense facility .
David Franz was part of UNSCOM which inspected Iraq for alleged bioweapons — what were constantly referred to as WMDs or Weapons of Mass Destruction by the U.S. government and the media .
Franz has been one of those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ discussing alleged Iraqi programs , that “ in biology … everything is dual use — the people , the facilities and the equipment.
” ( NPR , May 14 , 2003 ; link no longer available ) .
Just this year Franz wrote a piece with former New York Times journalist Judith Miller , whose stories of Iraqi WMDs did much to misinform the US public regarding the case for the 2003 invasion of Iraq .
Their joint article , “ A Biosecurity Failure : America ’ s key lab for fighting infectious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” urges more funding for Fort Detrick .
Miller and Franz are long-time associates .
Miller co-wrote the book Germs , released amid the 2001 false flag anthrax attacks , which repeatedly quotes Franz .
Miller at the time received a hoax letter with a harmless white powder , increasing her prominence .
Franz continued hyping the existence of Iraqi WMDs even after the invasion of Iraq .
While she was still with the Times , Miller quoted him in a story “ U.S .
Analysts Link Iraq Labs To Germ Arms ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ theory that Iraq had mobile biological WMD units .
( This theory was debunked by the British scientist Dr David Kelly , who would die , apparently by suicide , soon thereafter .
Four significant insights emerge from all this .
First , although it is called the EcoHealth Alliance , Peter Daszak and his non-profit work closely with the military .
Second , the EcoHealth Alliance attempts to conceal these military connections .
Third , through militaristic language and analogies Daszak and his colleagues promote what is often referred to as , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ongoing agenda known as “ securitization “ .
In this case it is the securitization of infectious diseases and of global public health .
That is , they argue that pandemics constitute a vast and existential threat .
They minimize the very real risks associated with their work , and sell it as a billion dollar solution .
The fourth insight is that Daszak himself , as the Godfather of the Global Virome Project , stands to benefit from the likely outlay of public funds .
Thanks to James Baratta and Mariamne Everett @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1 .
The figure for EHA ’ s USAID funding was obtained from the University of California at Davis , a major grantee of PREDICT funds , which EHA has been a major sub-grantee of .
Davis confirmed that EHA ’ s funding from PREDICT totaled $ 64,722,669 ( PREDICT-1 : 2009 to 2014 : $ 19,943,214 ; PREDICT-2 : 2014 to present ( 2020 ) $ 44,779,455 ) If this article was useful to you please consider sharing it with your networks .

by Sam Husseini
“Pandemics are like terrorist attacks: We know roughly where they originate and what’s responsible for them, but we don’t know exactly when the next one will happen. They need to be handled the same way — by identifying all possible sources and dismantling those before the next pandemic strikes.”
This statement was written in the New York Times earlier this year by Peter Daszak. Daszak is the longtime president of the EcoHealth Alliance, a New York-based non-profit whose claimed focus is pandemic prevention. But the EcoHealth Alliance, it turns out, is at the very centre of the COVID-19 pandemic in many ways.
To depict the pandemic in such militarized terms is, for Daszak, a commonplace. In an Oct. 7 online talk organized by Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs, Daszak presented a slide titled “Donald Rumsfeld’s Prescient Speech.”:
“There are known knowns; there are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns; that is to say, there are things that we know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns — there are things we don’t know we don’t know.” (This Rumsfeld quote is in fact from a news conference)
In the subsequent online discussion, Daszak emphasized the parallels between his own crusade and Rumsfeld’s, since, according to Daszak, the “potential for unknown attacks” is “the same for viruses”.
Daszak then proceeded with a not terribly subtle pitch for over a billion dollars. This money would support a fledgling virus hunting and surveillance project of his, the Global Virome Project — a “doable project” he assured watchers — given the cost of the pandemic to governments and various industries.
Also on the video was Columbia University professor Jeffrey Sachs. Sachs is a former special advisor to the UN, the former head of the Millennium Villages Project, and was recently appointed Chair of the newly-formed EAT Lancet Commission on the pandemic. In September, Sachs’ commission named Daszak to head up its committee on the pandemic’s origins. Daszak is also on the WHO’s committee to investigate the pandemic’s origin. He is the only individual on both committees.
These leadership positions are not the only reason why Peter Daszak is such a central figure in the COVID-19 pandemic, however. His appointment dismayed many of those who are aware that Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance funded bat coronavirus research, including virus collection, at the Wuhan Institute for Virology (WIV) and thus could themselves be directly implicated in the outbreak.
For his part, Daszak has repeatedly dismissed the notion that the pandemic could have a lab origin. In fact, a recent FOIA by the transparency group U.S. Right To Know revealed that Peter Daszak drafted an influential multi-author letter published on February 18 in the Lancet. That letter dismissed lab origin hypothesese as “conspiracy theory.” Daszak was revealed to have orchestrated the letter such as to “avoid the appearance of a political statement.”
Sachs for his part seemed surprised by Daszak’s depiction of Rumsfeld but Daszak reassured him. “It’s an awesome quote! And yes, it’s Donald Rumsfeld, Jeff, and I know he’s a Republican, but — what a genius!”
Following the EcoHealth Alliance’s money trail to the Pentagon
Collecting dangerous viruses is typically justified as a preventive and defensive activity, getting ahead of what “Nature” or “The Terrorists” might throw at us. But by its nature, this work is “dual use”. “Biodefense” is often just as easily biowarfare since biodefense and the products of biowarfare are identical. It’s simply a matter of what the stated goals are.
This is openly acknowledged [See below] by scientists associated with EcoHealth Alliance when talking about alleged programs in other counties — like Iraq.
For much of this year, Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance garnered a great deal of sympathetic media coverage after its $3.7 million five-year NIH grant was prematurely cut when the Trump administration learned that EcoHealth Alliance funded bat coronavirus research at the WIV.
The temporary cut was widely depicted in major media as Trump undermining the EcoHealth Alliance’s noble fight against pandemics. 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.
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.
Only buried under their “Privacy Policy,” under a section titled “EcoHealth Alliance Policy Regarding Conflict of Interest in Research,” does the EcoHealth Alliance concede it is the “recipient of various grant awards from federal agencies including the National Institute of Health, the National Science Foundation, US Fish and Wildlife Service, and the US Agency for International Development and the Department of Defense.”
Even this listing is deceptive. It obscures that its two largest funders are the Pentagon and the State Department (USAID); whereas the US Fish and Wildlife Service, which accounts for a minuscule $74,487, comes before either.
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.”
Most of the remaining money to EHA was from USAID (State Dept.), comprising at least $64,700,000 (1). These two sources thus total over $103 million. (See Fig).
Another $20 million came from Health and Human Services ($13 million, which includes National Institutes of Health and Centers for Disease Control), National Science Foundation ($2.6 million), Department of Homeland Security ($2.3 million), Department of Commerce ($1.2 million), Department of Agriculture ($0.6 million), and Department of Interior ($0.3 million). So, total U.S. government funding for EHA to-date stands at $123 million, approximately one third of which comes from the Pentagon directly. The full funding breakdown is available here and is summarized by year, source, and type, in a spreadsheet format.
Pdf versions of this the spreadsheet are available to download. The summary is here and all Federal grants and contracts are here.
More military connections
The military links of the EcoHealth Alliance are not limited to money and mindset. One noteworthy ‘policy advisor’ to the EcoHealth Alliance is David Franz. Franz is former commander of Fort Detrick, which is the principal U.S. government biowarfare/biodefense facility.
David Franz was part of UNSCOM which inspected Iraq for alleged bioweapons — what were constantly referred to as WMDs or Weapons of Mass Destruction by the U.S. government and the media. Franz has been one of those eager to state, at least when discussing alleged Iraqi programs, that “in biology … everything is dual use — the people, the facilities and the equipment.” (NPR, May 14, 2003; link no longer available).
Just this year Franz wrote a piece with former New York Times journalist Judith Miller, whose stories of Iraqi WMDs did much to misinform the US public regarding the case for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Their joint article, “A Biosecurity Failure: America’s key lab for fighting infectious disease has become a Pentagon backwater,” urges more funding for Fort Detrick.
Miller and Franz are long-time associates. Miller co-wrote the book Germs, released amid the 2001 false flag anthrax attacks, which repeatedly quotes Franz. Miller at the time received a hoax letter with a harmless white powder, increasing her prominence.
Franz continued hyping the existence of Iraqi WMDs even after the invasion of Iraq. While she was still with the Times, Miller quoted him in a story “U.S. Analysts Link Iraq Labs To Germ Arms” on May 21, 2003 pushing the theory that Iraq had mobile biological WMD units. (This theory was debunked by the British scientist Dr David Kelly, who would die, apparently by suicide, soon thereafter.)
Four significant insights emerge from all this. First, although it is called the EcoHealth Alliance, Peter Daszak and his non-profit work closely with the military. Second, the EcoHealth Alliance attempts to conceal these military connections. Third, through militaristic language and analogies Daszak and his colleagues promote what is often referred to as, and even then somewhat euphemistically, an ongoing agenda known as “securitization“. In this case it is the securitization of infectious diseases and of global public health. That is, they argue that pandemics constitute a vast and existential threat. They minimize the very real risks associated with their work, and sell it as a billion dollar solution. The fourth insight is that Daszak himself, as the Godfather of the Global Virome Project, stands to benefit from the likely outlay of public funds.
Acknowledgements
Thanks to James Baratta and Mariamne Everett for researching the funding sources.
Footnote
The figure for EHA’s USAID funding was obtained from the University of California at Davis, a major grantee of PREDICT funds, which EHA has been a major sub-grantee of Davis confirmed that EHA’s funding from PREDICT totaled $64,722,669 (PREDICT-1: 2009 to 2014: $19,943,214; PREDICT-2: 2014 to present (2020) $44,779,455)
Sam Husseini is an independent journalist.
Editor’s note. We welcome comments and information about the subject of this article. However, please note that the “reply” function in the comments section is not working for people without high level access to the website. There are two possible solutions for readers wanting to reply to specific comments:
1) Enter your comment but name the commenter you are responding to (if necessary with the date of their comment). Or,
2) Mail your comment to the editor: [email protected] and they will post it as a reply. Please be sure to say who/what you are replying too.
If this article was useful to you please consider sharing it with your networks.