There are multiple stories about what happened to that grant. Demands were made by the NIH suddenly and without precedent. Failing to meet those demands is wh

There are multiple stories about what happened to that grant. Demands were made by the NIH suddenly and without precedent. Failing to meet those demands is what got the grant terminated. The motivations for the demands are apparently political rather than scientific and according to some are a "horrible precedent" that may break some explicit ethics rules about how grants and handled. This is particularly sad now that we have essentially proven that the wet market was the source of the virus. This was all about a made up narrative that was intended to serve political ends instead of being motivated by science and the quest for truth.