Independent public-interest project · Sources presented for public review

THE DOCUMENT LIBRARY

Read the record.
Judge the evidence yourself.

Primary government records, congressional submissions, and clearly labeled project analysis—provided in full wherever possible.

HOW TO USE THIS LIBRARY

Source type matters.

We distinguish official records and original proposals from statements, reporting, and advocacy. Inclusion does not establish that every claim in a document is correct. It allows readers, journalists, officials, and researchers to examine what was actually written.

01

STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD

Haslam–Howard statement submitted to the U.S. Senate

August 2026

James Haslam and George A. Howard’s cited statement following the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee hearing. It asks Congress to examine UNC and Duke records relevant to coronavirus research and the origins investigation.

WHY IT MATTERSThis is the project’s central congressional submission and a roadmap to the records its authors believe investigators should obtain.
02

PUBLISHED COMMENTARY

If ‘It’s Science’—Then Release the Evidence

August 12, 2026

George A. Howard and Jim Haslam’s Chapelboro Viewpoints essay argues that UNC and Duke should release the scientific and institutional records needed to test disputed claims about coronavirus research and the origin of COVID-19.

WHY IT MATTERSThe op-ed states the project’s public argument in the authors’ own words. It is advocacy and commentary—not an independent finding—and should be evaluated alongside the primary records and reporting it discusses.
03

FEDERAL PRIMARY DOCUMENT

HHS notice concerning Ralph Baric

May 6, 2026

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Notice of Suspension and Proposed Debarment of Ralph Baric, PhD, together with the enclosed Action Referral Memorandum.

WHY IT MATTERSA primary federal record. Readers should evaluate the agency’s stated allegations, cited evidence, and procedural posture directly from the document.
04

U.S. SENATE READING ROOM · PRIMARY RECORD

Ralph Baric transcribed interview and email exhibits

July 23, 2026

The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee’s released transcript of its interview with UNC coronavirus researcher Ralph Baric. The 155-page record includes three contemporaneous email exhibits: Baric’s November 2015 correspondence with Zhengli Shi, Fang Li’s October 2018 correspondence with Baric, and Vineet Menachery’s March 2019 correspondence concerning a DARPA project.

WHY IT MATTERSThis is direct testimony accompanied by original correspondence. It records Baric’s answers about coronavirus research, DEFUSE-related work, research materials, early-2020 communications, funding acknowledgments, and records available to investigators. The transcript documents testimony and questions; it does not by itself prove the origin of COVID-19 or misconduct.
05

U.S. SENATE READING ROOM · RELEASED CORRESPONDENCE

Ralph Baric’s contacts with the U.S. intelligence community

Records from 2015 and 2020 · Released October 30, 2025

Committee-released materials concerning contacts between U.S. intelligence-community personnel and Ralph Baric. The records address a possible coronavirus project discussed in 2015 and requests for Baric’s scientific assessment during the opening weeks of the 2020 outbreak.

WHY IT MATTERSThese records help establish who contacted Baric, when those contacts occurred, and the subjects discussed. They should be read as evidence of communications and timing—not as proof of wrongdoing or of any particular COVID-origin theory.
06

PROJECT BRIEFING

Why Carolina Should Welcome an Independent Review

August 16, 2026 · Version 4

George A. Howard’s public-source briefing for friends of UNC–Chapel Hill, presenting the case for an independent review and linking the underlying reporting and records.

WHY IT MATTERSThis is advocacy and analysis, not an official finding. It explains the project’s position and should be read alongside the primary materials it cites.
07

BACKGROUND PACKET

UNC–Chapel Hill Coronavirus Research: Background Materials

August 2026

A public-source packet assembled for a meeting with the North Carolina State Auditor. It gathers federal actions and contextual material concerning research, grants, oversight, and biosafety.

WHY IT MATTERSA convenient compiled reference. Where the packet reproduces or describes another source, the original source remains controlling.
08

PRIMARY PROPOSAL

Project DEFUSE proposal

2018

The EcoHealth Alliance proposal submitted to DARPA describing proposed work involving SARS-related coronaviruses, including cleavage-site experiments.

WHY IT MATTERSA central primary document in the public debate. The proposal was declined by DARPA; that fact should not be confused with proof that the proposed work was performed.
09

RESEARCH CORRESPONDENCE · REPRODUCED EXCERPT

Baric and Daszak discuss an R01 application after DEFUSE

October 22, 2018

In a PREEMPT email chain, UNC researcher Ralph Baric asks EcoHealth Alliance’s Peter Daszak for a grant title and abstract, discusses paperwork, and refers to a proposed $50,000 budget for an R01 application. The excerpt does not establish which experiments, if any, were included in the final application or performed.

WHY IT MATTERSThe email shows continued grant planning after DARPA declined DEFUSE. It gives investigators a specific question: what research was proposed and carried out under the subsequent R01 renewal?

Source note: This reproduced excerpt came from EcoHealth Alliance files located by outside investigators, according to the investigators who supplied it. UNC did not provide this copy. The complete email chain should be consulted for context.

10

PUBLIC-RECORDS CORRESPONDENCE

A second shot at DEFUSE ideas: the CREID draft

June 2019

Correspondence in a public-records release discusses language for a proposed CREID application, including draft material identified as coming from the earlier DARPA proposal. In that limited sense, the draft looks like an attempt to reboot parts of DEFUSE through a second application. The record does not establish that the two proposals were identical or that DEFUSE experiments were funded or performed.

WHY IT MATTERSThe reused text shows why the final CREID application should be compared with DEFUSE: it could reveal which research ideas got a second shot, which changed, and what was ultimately approved and carried out.

Source note: Published by U.S. Right to Know among grant records obtained through a public-records lawsuit. This is a different source route from the October 2018 EcoHealth email.

This library will continue to grow.

Next additions will include public-records materials, laboratory-safety reporting, grant records, correspondence, peer-reviewed papers, and a sourced chronological timeline.

Support the request
Sign the open letter