TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Anthony Fauci is accused of having publicly promoted natural origins for COVID-19 while privately being aware of evidence suggesting a lab origin. The speaker argues Fauci should explain why dangerous research was funded by NIAID in Wuhan under inadequate safety standards, apologize, admit risk exceeded benefits, and help design safeguards to prevent a man-made epidemic. The speaker contends Fauci avoided responsibility regarding lockdowns, while officials invoked his authority and his recommendations were presented as science dictates. The speaker cites Fauci’s writings (including 03/14/2020) tying task force recommendations to specific individuals, and additional claims that television influence contributed to closing schools and other restrictions. The speaker asserts Fauci privately faced warnings about lab manipulation. They claim early 2020 a handpicked virologist warned the virus appeared manipulated in a lab, and that participants in a call believed deliberate insertion was possible. They also claim NIH reviewed and approved Wuhan-related experiments, and that a pattern emerged: private alarm, an inquiry about whether NIAID funding related to the suspicious research, rapid public certainty, continued private doubt, and years of resistance to disclosure. The speaker says “Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2” flipped privately doubting lab origin to almost certainly not a laboratory construct, and was used in public to discredit Americans asking the same questions. The speaker alleges Fauci cited that paper publicly without disclosing his role, prior discussions, and editorial comments, and without disclosing doubts persisted privately, including concerns about FOIA and communications. The speaker details a long history of gain-of-function support. They cite 2011 funding involving Ron Fouchier’s avian flu work, describe it as a “tipping point” and say federal biosecurity concerns existed about publishing a road map to bioweapons. The speaker claims NIAID began funding Wuhan bat coronavirus work in 2014, describes later NIAID-supported research combining a bat coronavirus spike with a SARS backbone to infect human airway cells, and claims transmissibility and function increased. They state that in 2018 a proposal involving insertion of a furin cleavage site was submitted, DARPA rejected it as too dangerous, and they claim that when COVID-19 was sequenced in early January 2020, scientists discovered it had a novel furin cleavage site matching the proposed work. The speaker claims Fauci testified to the Senate on 05/11/2021 that NIH did not fund gain-of-function research in Wuhan and says Fauci refused to correct the record. They argue the debate was reduced to semantics while the public asked whether the research was dangerous and whether NIAID supervised it adequately. The speaker also raises allegations about records deletion: an assistant deleted “tons of emails,” despite 2024 testimony denying record deletion, and committee claims of instructions to delete communications (including an email dated 02/02/2020 to Francis Collins). The speaker describes an “auto pin” pardon from President Biden extended back to 2014, and argues it does not rewrite history or erase documents. They warn future pandemics will again tempt officials to hide uncertainty, demand obedience, and invoke science while refusing to admit error—arguing secrecy destroys trust. The speaker says trust can’t be ordered and calls for accountability. Senator Gary Peters and others dispute the hearing’s fairness and character. Peters says the hearing departs from bipartisan oversight, alleging biased, selected efforts to validate predetermined conclusions; blocking minority participation; excluding documents; and selectively releasing records. Peters contrasts this with prior bipartisan biosecurity investigation work that included oversight of risky research and COVID origins. He criticizes the majority’s focus on one individual and argues the committee should also address preparedness and the deterioration of public health capacity, including cuts and workforce reductions. He cites impacts on FDA response to outbreaks, reduced global health programs, and domestic biodefense readiness. The hearing proceeds with assertions from the chairman that the committee’s investigation is transparent, including a website and access claims. Anthony Fauci then refuses to answer questions, invoking the Fifth Amendment after being sworn in and after acknowledging a broad pardon dated January 2025 covering alleged offenses from 01/01/2014 onward related to his federal roles. The chairman repeatedly directs Fauci to answer despite refusal, stating a crime exists for material false statements and that subpoena compliance is required. Fauci continues to decline based on Fifth Amendment rights. During questioning, senators and the chairman ask Fauci about: - Rationale and discussions behind funding COVID-related research in Wuhan and whether he believed a totalitarian country could safely conduct it. - Whether intelligence agencies transferred funds to NIH under interagency agreements and whether NIH conducted research coordinated with intelligence community elements. - Whether Fauci was aware of gain-of-function research related to monkeypox at certain facilities. - Whether scientists at Wuhan Institute of Virology could insert a furin cleavage site. - Whether Wuhan researchers combined SARS backbone and spike proteins to create viruses infecting humans and the risk of creating function-gaining viruses. - Whether labs had American oversight and whether inspectors visited them. - Whether Shi Zhengli had discovered more than 100 unpublished viruses that could be close enough to create COVID-19. - Whether Fauci funded gain-of-function research in other labs globally. - Whether he still stands by prior statements that knowledge benefits outweigh risks, particularly in light of alleged deaths. - Records questions, including whether he deleted federal records, whether communications were deleted at his instruction, and whether he destroyed records after learning of congressional investigations. - Revenue and financial ties, including whether he received royalties tied to COVID IP, whether Gates partnered with NIAID/NIH, and whether funding influenced decisions. - Whether he partnered with Bill Gates on global health initiatives, and whether Gates entities received security clearance, among other governance and biodefense questions. - Whether he attempted to obstruct early treatment alternatives or influenced treatment guidance, including references to ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, and remdesivir. Multiple senators also present extended opening or closing remarks about perceived pandemic harms and failures, while Fauci generally declines to answer based on Fifth Amendment rights. Some members argue the hearing is a biased attempt to prosecute or scapegoat Fauci, while others emphasize accountability, trust, oversight, and unresolved issues about origins, research funding, safety signals, records, and public health decisions. One senator (Johnson) cites 2020 diary entries and alleged internal concerns, and emphasizes pandemic impacts including missed measles vaccinations during shutdowns. Another (Blumenthal) argues the hearing is part of a campaign to rewrite history and smear vaccines, demeaning researchers and targeting public health officials, while insisting Fauci’s legal rights should be respected. Several members reference measurable public health consequences during and after COVID-19, including school disruptions, mask and distancing debates, vaccine hesitancy and other outbreaks, staffing cuts, and preparedness gaps. Some senators read allegations from documents and diary excerpts, including claims about Fauci’s private notes expressing uncertainty about origins and alleged concerns about WHO dependence on China. Others cite claims from internal investigations or external reports regarding VAERS algorithms, FDA actions, and suppression of certain studies. Senators also raise claims about ethical concerns, including allegations that treatment guidance was influenced by conflicts and that safety signals were masked. Later, the chairman orders additional documents inserted into the record, including a letter from the Department of Energy about alleged Bill Gates security clearance during Fauci’s tenure. The chairman also inserts a folder of authorities provided to Fauci, including the pardon. A video is played as part of the hearing’s effort to contrast Fauci’s public and private positions. In the video, a passage from Fauci’s journal entries is presented as contradicting his public statements about wet markets and origin timing. The chairman uses this to argue there was a juxtaposition between private beliefs and public messaging. The hearing ends with the chairman stating future actions are expected, including a vote next week on a contempt resolution, and ongoing legal questions about how Fifth Amendment invocation interacts with testimony and a presidential pardon. The chairman also states that despite the pardon, he will press for answers limited to the pardon period and to questions already directed. Throughout, Fauci repeatedly refuses to answer questions, invoking Fifth Amendment rights, even when directed by the chairman to comply after acknowledging the subpoena and the pardon.

In this video, the speaker emphasizes the importance of pursuing both hypotheses regarding the origins of the virus. They express skepticism about the virus originating from a bat and becoming highly infectious to humans. The speaker believes that the exclusion from certain calls was due to their differing viewpoint. They discuss how a group of scientists initially found the genetic sequence inconsistent with evolutionary theory but later drafted a paper arguing the opposite, allegedly prompted by Dr. Fauci. The speaker criticizes the approach taken in February 2020, stating that it goes against the principles of science. They suggest that the narrative of the virus originating from a wet market was predetermined and aimed to suppress discussion about a lab leak. The speaker also acknowledges that gain-of-function research was funded by various organizations, including NIH, State Department, USAID, and DoD.

A US health official working for Dr. Fauci expressed safety concerns about a lab in Wuhan, China, six years ago. The lab was planning to reverse engineer the Ebola virus, but the official was ordered to delete any mention of Ebola in her report. The lab, which is believed by some to be the source of COVID-19, was visited by the official just before it opened. During the tour, a technician at the lab mentioned the illegal importation of Ebola for study. The official expressed shock and worry about the potential consequences if this information became public. Two days later, she was instructed to delete her comment.

Three years ago, anyone suggesting that COVID-19 originated from a lab was dismissed and censored. Doctor Redfield faced backlash for suggesting it came from a Wuhan lab. Doctor Fauci received emails from doctors Anderson and Gary stating that the virus appeared engineered and not consistent with evolutionary theory. However, he did not share these emails with Redfield or the CDC. Three days later, Anderson and Gary changed their stance, and the only intervening event was a conference call with Fauci. It is worth noting that Anderson and Gary later received a $9 million grant from Fauci. This raises questions about their sudden change in position.

From the start, the lines were drawn regarding the virus's origins. I believed it came from a lab, while others disagreed. My position as head of the CDC was undermined, and I was told it was a White House decision. I find that hard to believe; it seems like a cover-up. Why would we share advanced biotechnology with China? I doubt the measures in place will be foolproof; issues will arise. There have been multiple lies throughout this situation.

The issue at hand is that funding was provided to a lab in China, which is now embarrassing. The lab is located near the epicenter of the pandemic and has been involved in suspicious activities. The doctors were arrested and forced to sign nondisclosure agreements, lab reports were destroyed, and sequences from the lab were deleted from the NIH database. Two top virologists initially believed the virus likely originated from the lab, but later changed their stance in the media. It is worth noting that both scientists received a significant amount of money for further research, suggesting a potential conflict of interest.

Before the COVID pandemic, Dr. Fauci, as head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, provided millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to fund “dangerous gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses” at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, work described as the source of an unintentional lab leak that sparked the pandemic. On the final day as Director of National Intelligence, the speaker says they are releasing “never-before-seen communications and documents” intended to show how Fauci worked with “politicized career leadership” in the intelligence community to suppress the truth about his actions, the lab leak origins, and his role in directing U.S. funding for the research. The documents are said to demonstrate Fauci’s influence over and manipulation of intelligence community COVID-19 assessments and to show Fauci lied to Congress in 2024 by denying knowledge of or participation in discussions with intelligence officials about viral research. The speaker also states that multiple intelligence community whistleblowers provided testimony that they faced retaliation for challenging manipulation of intelligence regarding the virus’s origins. The speaker describes this as a “pattern of suppressing dissent, silencing critics, and burying the truth.” The speaker says Fauci’s close relationships with the intelligence community enabled him to occupy three roles that “shield[ed] him from scrutiny”: 1) Funding dangerous gain-of-function coronavirus research linked to big pharma and its pursuit of universal vaccines worth trillions of dollars. 2) Acting as a behind-the-scenes advisor, alongside hand-picked “experts,” to push the intelligence community to endorse a natural animal origin, framed as a way to hide Fauci-funded gain-of-function research using taxpayer dollars and to shift blame away from Fauci’s actions. 3) Serving as a “pandemic pundit,” publicly pushing “lies, disinformation, and censorship” across available platforms. According to “hundreds of reviewed emails” included in the release, the intelligence community “almost always incorporated Fauci’s recommendations.” The speaker says Fauci promoted a paper whose publication he helped prompt as legitimate information for intelligence community consideration. Senior analysts are described as praising Fauci as an “unbiased guide” to real coronavirus experts while ignoring experts who might dissent from Fauci’s narratives. The speaker further claims Fauci “blatantly lied” to Congress under oath during his 2024 testimony to the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic, denying he spoke to any intelligence agency about COVID, and says the newly released correspondence directly contradicts that sworn testimony. The speaker reports whistleblowers described threats of retaliation, marginalization, and career setbacks for analysts who challenged Fauci’s conclusions. Examples provided include a contractor terminated days after coming forward to ODNI as a whistleblower, and managers telling advocates for the lab leak hypothesis or those expressing dissent that leadership would determine promotions. The speaker says senior leaders also attempted to undermine whistleblowers by removing anonymity required by the whistleblower process and insisting their managers or attorneys be present during ODNI meetings, described as creating an atmosphere of intimidation. The speaker concludes that the release is intended to provide transparency, truth, and accountability, citing “lies and censorship and coverups,” and describing the tactics used as part of a “deep state playbook.”

According to the speaker, including himself and Secretary Pompeo, the most likely origin of COVID-19 was a lab leak at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. They claim that this is not just a possibility, but a probability and possibly a certainty. The FBI has been cultivating a crucial witness, Dr. Zhou Yousen, a close relative of a Chinese military scientist who worked at the institute. Dr. Zhou published a patent for a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, suggesting he started working on it no later than October 2019. However, he was found dead shortly after. While it is possible that he was killed by the People's Liberation Army for accidentally starting COVID-19, there is no evidence to support this claim. The Proximal Origins authors have been approached for comment.

The transcript focuses on competing claims about how COVID-19 originated, repeatedly contrasting a “lab leak” theory with a wet-market origin. It states that Biden officials now believe the COVID lab leak theory, while multiple speakers say Fauci and other scientists dismissed or debunked the lab as a source, calling related ideas “conspiracy theories,” “fringe theory,” “bunked,” “pure baloney,” “outright ridiculous,” and “debunked bunkum.” It also claims scientists worldwide agree the virus occurred naturally and that it was not man made, not artificially or deliberately manipulated, and not genetically modified, adding that US intelligence and the WHO “could not be man made” and that the evidence “very strongly” supports it was not man made or genetically modified. Several speakers describe a growing consensus that the virus likely came from a market in Wuhan, specifically a wet market or wildlife wet market, including bats to human transmission. One speaker says the most likely scenario involved bats, and another frames it as bat-to-human in an illegal wildlife market. The transcript also notes that none of the animals at the market tested positive for the virus, and that several original cases had no contact with that market, with the virus going into the food market before coming out. There is discussion of senator Tom Cotton and questions about the proximity of China’s biosafety level four laboratory to the food market, with claims that Cotton was playing a dangerous game with “coronavirus speculation” and pushing conspiracy theories. Another portion argues it is important to ask questions and get evidence, while other statements claim stirring up suspicion is harmful and dangerous and could lead to racial discrimination, xenophobia, and panic. The transcript also references social media misinformation and disputes how to sift myths and avoid misinformation. One speaker asserts Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg teamed up with Fauci to decide what counts as disinformation and censored the lab leak theory. Near the end, the transcript claims, “from emails unredacted,” Fauci was warned early that the virus likely came from a lab leak and looked genetically manipulated; it includes responses challenging that claim and stating the Chinese foreign ministry called such statements conspiracy theories. It says a WHO team ruled out a lab accident or leak as a possible driver for the pandemic and would no longer pursue research into the lab leak theory. Finally, one speaker argues researchers proposed further investigation into every area except the lab leak report, and adds that lab accidents happen and calls for direct information about the situation of labs before and at the start of the pandemic.

Before the COVID pandemic, the transcript claims that Dr. Fauci, as head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, provided millions in U.S. taxpayer dollars to fund “dangerous gain-of-function research” on bat coronaviruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, work it says is now widely viewed as the source of an unintentional lab leak that sparked the pandemic. It says the speaker, in support of President Trump’s “maximum transparency mandate,” is releasing never-before-seen communications and documents on the speaker’s final day as Director of National Intelligence. The transcript alleges the documents show how Fauci worked with “politicized career leadership” in the intelligence community to suppress the truth about his actions, the virus’s lab leak origins, and his role in directing U.S. funding for the research. It claims the documents expose Fauci’s “direct role” in influencing and manipulating intelligence community assessments on COVID-19 and that Fauci lied to Congress in 2024 under oath by denying knowledge of or participation in discussions with intelligence officials about viral research. It also states that multiple intelligence community whistleblowers testified that they faced retaliation for challenging manipulation of intelligence about the virus’s origins. The transcript says it reveals a “pattern” of suppressing dissent and silencing critics. The transcript attributes three roles to Fauci that it says shield him from scrutiny: (1) funding dangerous gain-of-function coronavirus research linked to “big pharma” and their pursuit of universal vaccines; (2) serving as a behind-the-scenes advisor who, with hand-picked experts, pushed the intelligence community to endorse a natural animal origin to hide the gain-of-function research Fauci funded; and (3) acting as a pandemic pundit who publicly pushed “lies, disinformation, and censorship” across multiple platforms. According to the transcript, “hundreds of reviewed emails” show that the intelligence community “almost always” incorporated Fauci’s recommendations, including promoting a “fraudulent paper” as legitimate information for intelligence consideration. It says senior analysts praised Fauci as an “unbiased guide” to coronavirus experts while ignoring experts who might dissent from Fauci’s narratives. The transcript reiterates that it claims Fauci lied to Congress in 2024 before the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic by denying he spoke to any intelligence agency about COVID, and says the released correspondence directly contradicts that sworn testimony. It further describes alleged whistleblower retaliation, including threats of retaliation, marginalization, career setbacks, a contractor terminated days after coming forward to ODNI, and managers telling those who advocated for or expressed dissent on the lab leak hypothesis that leadership would determine promotions. It also claims senior leaders undermined whistleblowers by removing anonymity required in the process and insisted managers or attorneys be present during ODNI meetings, creating an intimidation atmosphere.

Republicans on the subcommittee recount two years of work aimed at linking the COVID-19 origin to a Wuhan lab, arguing that Democrats hindered the pursuit of truth by blocking hearings. They contend mounting evidence supports a lab-origin, and they frame the hearing as a step toward uncovering the truth for Americans who have suffered from COVID-19. Dr. Redfield is cited as having pointed to the lab-leak hypothesis as early as 2020, urging Fauci, Jeremy Farrar, and Tedros to take the lab-leak possibility seriously and to investigate both lab-origin and natural-origin hypotheses. Farrar convened an 11-scientist meeting across five time zones on February 1, inviting Fauci to join, with a note to treat the matter in total confidence. Redfield notes he was excluded from that call despite being included in prior discussions, and asks why he was left out. Emails following the February 1 conference show the four scientists who had attended later told Fauci that they found the genetic sequence inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory. Yet, just three days later, these four scientists drafted the proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2 paper, arguing the opposite. The subcommittee asks for the likelihood that these scientists, after making that earlier statement, could conclude with such certainty that COVID-19 came from nature instead of a lab leak, and suggests Fauci prompted the paper to discredit the lab-leak theory. Speaker 0 characterizes the February 2020 approach as antithetical to science, saying science requires debate and that this process squashed debate. They ask whether Fauci used the proximal-origin paper to hide gain-of-function research that created the virus. Speaker 1 responds that they cannot speak to Fauci’s motivation but asserts the paper is inaccurate and part of a narrative to support a natural-origin story. They state the pandemic did not start in January at the seafood market, noting infections as early as September, and allege a narrative was decided to claim a wet market origin and to negate discussion about a laboratory origin. With twenty seconds left, Speaker 0 raises a point that Fauci was told in January 2020 about NIH’s monetary relationship with the Wuhan Institute through EcoHealth Alliance and asks whether Fauci intentionally lied under oath when denying NIH funding of gain-of-function research. Speaker 1 asserts there is no doubt NIH funded gain-of-function research and adds that American tax dollars funded gain-of-function research from NIH, the State Department, USAID, and DOD. The exchange ends with Speaker 0 noting time and recognizing Ms. Dink.

This virus likely did not originate naturally; it stems from scientific arrogance. In the early pandemic, there were claims about a wet market being the source, but evidence soon showed many cases unrelated to it. By early January, it was clear the wet market narrative was misleading. I informed the National Security Council and Anthony Fauci that the virus was highly infectious, suggesting it had been engineered in a lab. The Wuhan Institute of Virology is well-known for coronavirus research, making the lab leak theory plausible. Despite discussions, Fauci maintained a focus on the wet market hypothesis, dismissing the need for broader scientific investigation.

During the early stages of the pandemic, a group of virologists were consulted by the NIH. Some believed that the virus could not have occurred naturally, while others thought it was a 50/50 chance between a lab or natural origin. However, only one narrative was publicly discussed. Later, a paper titled "Proximal Origins of the SARS CoV-two Virus" was released, claiming that the virus was natural. This paper referenced a 2014 article about a 2020 outbreak, which seemed odd considering the years in between. Additionally, a grant proposal called the "diffuse grant proposal" was discovered, stating that experiments were being conducted to test the infectivity of similar viruses and even insert a furin cleavage site, which is present in the virus causing the pandemic. These findings raise concerns about the origins of the virus.

In a recorded conversation on February 1, Ron Foucier, who conducted dangerous experiments at Erasmus University, discussed with Fauci the differences between the natural SARS coronavirus and the vaccine. Foucier later released a redacted email memo, which was fully disclosed a few months ago. In the email, he identified six parts of the genome that appeared unnatural and provided explanations for each. This suggests that the virus was lab-grown. Fauci, Jeremy Farrar, and Francis Collins were all aware of this by February 1, 2020. The full email can be found on my blog for those interested in understanding it.

President Trump was not aware of the gain of function ban repeal process that started before he became president. Anthony Fauci worked without supervision during the 18-month period when Trump did not appoint a new science adviser. Congressional investigators confirmed that Fauci and the new science adviser kept information about the research from Trump's administration. Trump himself admitted in an interview that he was not informed about most of it. Fauci has been in charge since the virus became public and has worked with his scientists, many of whom he funds, to promote the narrative that the virus is natural and not from a lab. The US intelligence community, including the Department of Defense, FBI, and Department of Homeland Security, likely played a role in this deception.

It is important to determine what exactly happened and when, as there are disturbing questions that need to be addressed. The continuous effort to push the narrative of a natural spillover event is to avoid implicating anyone. If it was a natural occurrence, Anthony Fauci would be cleared of any involvement. However, if it was a result of gain of function research, particularly in Wuhan with our funding, it changes the situation. We have faced significant resistance for simply pointing out obvious patterns and evidence that are being ignored. This resistance stems from those responsible not wanting a thorough investigation to take place.

The lines were drawn early on regarding the virus's origins. I believed it came from a lab, but others disagreed. After being sidelined from the CDC, I was informed it was the White House's decision. I find that hard to believe; it feels like a cover-up. Why would we share advanced biotechnology with China? I doubt this situation will be foolproof; issues will arise. There have been repeated lies throughout this process.

Dr. Fauci was asked about concerns that the virus was man-made. Some virologists believe that the virus does not look natural and may have escaped from a lab. However, Dr. Fauci believes it is more likely that the virus originated in nature. He acknowledges that discussing a lab leak would be detrimental to science's reputation. He emphasizes that COVID-19's origin is consistent with the scientific process, where the virus jumped from an animal to a human.

COVID-19 had telltale signs of being made in a laboratory from the beginning. The CIA has stated the virus came from a lab, but what they didn't say is that it was almost surely made in a US laboratory, possibly at the University of North Carolina, and may have been tested in a Chinese laboratory. The Biden administration hid this. One theory is that US scientists wanted to test the virus on a specific bat population in the Wuhan facility. The FBI should crack the case, as it is an inside US job. The University of North Carolina is withholding 2019 emails and fighting to keep them from public scrutiny. There is reason to believe that Tony Fauci funded reckless, dangerous research that went awry.

Anthony Fauci's involvement in funding the Wuhan lab is being covered up by multiple government agencies. Despite Congress declassifying information, I am still being denied access to classified and unclassified information. Evidence suggests that Fauci lied in hearings and knew about the lab's activities. Emails reveal his concerns about the manipulated virus and its origins. He dismissed these concerns for the past three years. Fauci bypassed the safety committee that should have reviewed the funding, allowing it to proceed unchecked. This revelation is significant and could lead to Fauci's downfall.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss the origins of COVID-19, focusing on claims that the virus originated in a Wuhan lab and the handling of scientific debate around the lab-leak hypothesis. - Speaker 0 states that for two years Republicans connected the dots and exposed evidence supporting the belief that COVID-19 was developed and leaked from the Wuhan lab, while Democrats hindered hearings and blocked truth-seeking. He asserts mounting evidence supports a lab-origin theory and frames the hearing as a pursuit of truth for Americans who suffered from the pandemic. He notes Doctor Redfield pointed to the lab-leak hypothesis early on and urged Fauci to investigate both the lab and natural hypotheses. - Speaker 0 recalls a February 1 meeting convened by Jeremy Farrar with 11 top scientists across five time zones, inviting Fauci to join, with a preference for a tight, confidential group. He says Redfield was excluded from the call, and asks why he was excluded. - Speaker 1 confirms that in January and February 2020 he spoke with Fauci, Farrar, and Tedros about pursuing both hypotheses, and as a clinical virologist argued it was not scientifically plausible that the virus jumped bat-to-human and became highly infectious; he notes that coronaviruses differ from Ebola and that intermediate hosts are involved for SARS and MERS, and that they never learned to go human-to-human in those contexts. - Speaker 0 asks why Redfield was excluded from the calls. Speaker 1 responds that he was told there was a desire for a single narrative and that his viewpoint differed. - Speaker 0 references emails after the conference call in which four of the 11 scientists said the genetic sequence was inconsistent with evolutionary expectations, but three days later those scientists drafted the paper Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2 arguing the opposite. He asks how those scientists could conclude certainty about a natural origin after three days. - Speaker 1 describes the process as unfortunate and says the approach in January–February 2020 was antithetical to science, noting that science involves debate, which he claims was squashed. - Speaker 0 asks if Fauci used the Proximal Origin paper to hide gain-of-function research and to what extent the paper hides the truth. Speaker 1 declines to discuss Fauci’s motivations but calls the paper inaccurate and part of a narrative intended to negate the possibility that COVID-19 came from a laboratory. He emphasizes that the pandemic did not start in January at the seafood market and that infections date back to September. - Speaker 0 notes an email from 01/27/2020 stating NIH had a monetary relationship with the Wuhan Institute via EcoHealth Alliance, and asks if Fauci intentionally lied under oath about NIH funding of gain-of-function research. Speaker 1 asserts there is no doubt NIH funded gain-of-function research and says American tax dollars funded such research not only through NIH but also via the State Department, USAID, and the DOD. - The exchange ends with Speaker 0 signaling time and introducing Ms. Dink.

Anthony Fauci's involvement in funding the Wuhan lab is being covered up by multiple government agencies. Despite Congress declassifying information, I am still being denied access to classified and unclassified information. However, evidence shows that Fauci lied in hearings and knew about the lab's activities. Emails reveal his concerns about the manipulated virus and its origins in Wuhan. He dismissed these concerns for the past three years. Additionally, Fauci bypassed the safety committee that should have reviewed the funding, which is a significant revelation. Ultimately, this could lead to the downfall of Anthony Fauci.

If COVID-19 originated from risky experiments at the Wuhan lab, it's important to note that the lab received funding from America. During a congressional hearing, Senator Paul questioned Dr. Fauci about the NIH's funding of gain-of-function research in Wuhan, to which Fauci denied lying. However, a scientific paper from 2012 written by Fauci supports the benefits of gain-of-function research despite the risk of a pandemic. The decision to lift the ban on gain-of-function research during the Trump administration remains unclear. Former President Trump mentioned that Fauci did not inform him about the Wuhan Institute of Virology's activities, and emails later revealed Fauci's discussions about the possibility of genetic manipulation. Trump stopped the payments to the Chinese lab upon discovering them. Despite the controversy, Trump believes his administration did a great job with the vaccine and Operation Warp Speed.

Doctor Fauci misled the country by withholding key information about the origins of the virus. He knew American tax dollars funded a lab in Wuhan conducting gain-of-function research. Despite this, he did not disclose the lab's deficiencies or compliance issues. Fauci organized a conference call with virologists who changed their tune on the lab leak theory shortly after. The government failed to share the truth, leading to misinformation about the virus's origins. The Director of National Intelligence believes Fauci and Collins withheld information to avoid scrutiny over their relationships with the lab in China.

I was accused of being part of a propaganda effort to censor those questioning the origin of the virus. I stand by my assertion that the virus is not a lab construct, which aligns with the intelligence community's conclusion. I cannot control how my work is used. It is wrong to censor and lie to the public, and I should have done better.