Page:Scc-reedley-report-11.15.pdf/36

 There is also no evidence that the Reedley Biolab was selling test kits for any pathogen except for COVID-19. The Select Committee reviewed documents found at the Reedley Biolab (such as UMI printed sales brochures), fake test kits found on site, FDA recall notices, and archived web data. These materials showed that, aside from COVID-19 test strips, UMI was not selling any diagnostic test strips relating to any pathogens while it operated in Reedley.

Moreover, there is little to no market for test kits that would test the majority of the pathogens that the Reedley Biolab appeared to contain, let alone test kits created in an unlicensed laboratory. The Select Committee did find evidence that at least one pathogen may have been tested on the mice at the Biolab, but the purpose and scope of such testing is unclear.

While Zhu’s fraudulent activity itself required little overhead, maintaining large numbers of apparent pathogen samples, medical equipment, potentially hazardous chemicals, and transgenic mice was expensive. More importantly, they posed significant health risks both for individuals who worked in the facilities and to the broader community.

The apparent presence of Ebola samples at the Reedley Biolab is the clearest example of the lack of apparent legitimate (or even profit-motivated criminal) motive in the operation of the illegal facility. The need for Ebola tests is minimal and the potential market is extremely small. Experimenting with Ebola (even for benign purposes) is very dangerous—case fatality rates for Ebola have ranged between 25-90% in past outbreaks. Handling Ebola requires a Biosafety Level 4 (BSL-4) facility, “the highest level of biological safety.” Only a few laboratories in the world have the equipment, licenses, and safety protocols required. The Reedley Biolab clearly does not. It is unclear how any non-BSL-4 facility, let alone the Reedley Biolab, would potentially be able to acquire this deadly pathogen in the first place.