The vaccine of choice for any coronavirus pandemic was Remdesivir. Ralph Baric and Gilead tested GS-5374/Remdesivir against coronaviruses in 2017 and stated, 

“Here we show that a nucleotide prodrug GS-5734 (Remdesivir), currently in clinical development for treatment of Ebola virus disease, can inhibit SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV replication in multiple in vitro systems including primary human airway epithelial cell cultures with submicromolar IC50 values.”—–in the article  ‘Broad-spectrum antiviral GS-5734 inhibits both epidemic and zoonotic coronaviruses’, by Timothy Sheahan, Ralph Baric, Vineet Menachery, Joy Feng (Gilead), Iva Trantcheva (Gilead), and many others, Sci Transl Med. 2017 June 28; 9(396):
 

The Atlanta CDC and NIAID had already worked with Gilead for many years to develop Remdesivir.
 

“The research outlined below demonstrates how the ​ U.S. Army, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH)/National Institute Allergies and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) either conducted or funded much of the preclinical and clinical development of remdesivir (formerly referred to as GS-5734). Preclinical Research
A collaboration between Gilead and U.S. scientists on ​ remdesivir began after the Ebola virus outbreak in West Africa in 2014, which ​ accelerated efforts to identify and develop antiviral drugs to combat the disease.
Scientists with the CDC screened possible candidates to treat the Ebola virus from a library (owned by Gilead) of ​ approximately 1,000 compounds “harnessed from over 2 decades of research across multiple antiviral programs. They identified a precursor to GS-5734, which Gilead scientists and researchers with the United States Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) refined and further developed.” —–in the article, ‘Role of the Federal Government in the Development of Remdesivir’, KEI Briefing Note 2020:1. Kathryn Ardizzone. March 20, 2020. Updated May 28, 2020, https://www.keionline.org/wp-content/uploads/KEI-Briefing-Note-2020_1GS-5734-Remdesivir.pdf
 

When Remdesivir proved not to be the best therapeutic for Covid-19, the NIAID and Ralph Baric world extensively with Moderna in preclinical trials to develop its vaccine. Regarding Moderna vaccine clinical trial against mice,  
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  
“Immunogenicity was assessed in six-week-old female BALB/cJ,
C57BL/6J and B6C3F1/J mice by two intramuscular immunizations
with 0.01, 0.1 or 1 μg mRNA-1273, separated by a 3-week interval.
mRNA-1273 induced dose-dependent specific S-binding antibod –
ies after prime and boost in all mouse strains”, in the article, ‘SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine (moderna) design enabled by prototype pathogen preparedness  https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2622-0.pdf  ,Vaccine Research Center, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA, Moderna Inc, Cambridge, MA, USA., Department of Epidemiology, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, and many others, These authors contributed equally: Kizzmekia Corbett, Darin Edwards, Sarah Leist.
                                                                                                                                             
Other Moderna preclinical trial was against Rhesus macaques, with the same government, private industry, university virologists working together. ‘Evaluation of the mRNA-1273 (Moderna) Vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 in Nonhuman Primates’, at   https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7449230/pdf/NEJMoa2024671.pdf 
 
 
Pfizer vaccine preclinical trials may or may not have had much NIAID assistance, but Pfizer and Moderna did use the ‘2P’ technology developed by the NIAID in 2017, in creating the spike gene used in their vaccines.

 
“vaccine candidate BNT162b2, a lipid nanoparticle–formulated, nucleoside-modified RNA (modRNA) encoding the SARS-CoV-2 full-length spike, modified
by two proline mutations to lock it in the prefusion conformation.”
‘Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine’, by
Fernando Polack, Stephen Thomas, and many others,  Research and Development, Pfizer, Pearl River , Pfizer, Hurley, United Kingdom, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore,  BioNTech, and many others.  
 

Moderna likewise used the NIAID ‘2P’ technology approach creating its vaccine.

 
 
“The mRNA-1273 vaccine candidate, manufactured by Moderna, encodes the S-2P antigen, consisting of the SARS-CoV-2 glycoprotein with a trans-membrane anchor and an intact S1–S2 cleavage site. S-2P is stabilized in its prefusion conformation by two consecutive proline substitutions at amino acid positions 986 and 987, at the top of the central helix in the S2 subunit.”, in the article, ‘An mRNA Vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 — Preliminary Report’, by Lisa Jackson, Evan Anderson, and others,   https://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMoa2022483?articleTools=true,   
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), National Institutes of Health (NIH), Moderna, Cambridge, MA, and many others. 
 
 
 
 
Without this NIAID 2017 ‘2P’ knowledge, neither the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines would have taken the shape that they  have taken. From the 2017 NIAID research, we read regarding MERS and ‘2P’, 

“in this study, we rationally designed a general strategy to retain betacoronavirus S proteins in the prefusion conformation. The prefusion-stabilized MERS-CoV S protein (MERS S-2P) retained high-affinity binding…..two consecutive proline substitutions at residues V1060 and L1061 (hereafter referred to as “2P”) resulted in a >50-fold improvement in yield….Thus, the proline-based strategy should be advantageous for the development of vaccine candidates against emerging coronaviruses for which structures have not yet been determined.”, in the article ‘Immunogenicity and structures of a rationally designed prefusion MERS-CoV spike antigen’, by Jesper Pallesena, Kizzmekia Corbettc, Daniel Wrapp, Mark Denison, Barney Graham, and many others, Virology Core, Vaccine Research Center, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Bethesda, MD, and many others,        https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/114/35/E7348.full.pdf  
 
 

The same names at the NIAID in 2017 which help create the ‘2P’ technology, helped perfect the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines, and probably hold that Covid-19 originated in nature, but we never see their opinions on the matter in scientific articles. 
 
 
One last quick thought, in December 2021, University Texas Galvestion released the results of their recent study in the article, ‘QTQTN motif upstream of the furin-cleavage site plays key role in SARS-CoV-2 infection and pathogenesis’, by Michelle  Vu, Kumari Lokugamage, and others. QTQT amino acids are close to the furin cleavage site for Covid-19, and both are being lost by Covid-19, in some laboratory cell passage experiments. Article is well worth reading.  
                                                                                                                                            
 
QTQT aa sequence is only in Covid-19, RaTG13, and Malaysian pangolin 2019 that died in Guangdong province. I ask in posting elsewhere, was CRISPr used to insert the sequence, since selective pressure in that part of Spike gene of Covid-19 differs from the selective pressure surrounding the Covid-19 RBD. Neither the 2019 pangolan nor RaTG13 have the RRAR cleavage site, which is very close to the QTQT aa. But Covid-19 does have the RRAR and the QTQT. Stay involved with the Covid-19 origin research.

                                                 
Other postings — https://americaoutloud.news/strengthening-the-biological-weapons-convention;