JUST IN: Lawmaker Asks Dr. Fauci Point Blank If NIH Funded Gain-Of-Function Research In Wuhan

6 months ago

At a House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic hearing on Monday, Rep. Raul Ruiz (D-CA) questioned Dr. Fauci on gain-of-function research.

Fuel your success with Forbes. Gain unlimited access to premium journalism, including breaking news, groundbreaking in-depth reported stories, daily digests and more. Plus, members get a front-row seat at members-only events with leading thinkers and doers, access to premium video that can help you get ahead, an ad-light experience, early access to select products including NFT drops and more:

https://account.forbes.com/membership/?utm_source=youtube&utm_medium=display&utm_campaign=growth_non-sub_paid_subscribe_ytdescript

Stay Connected
Forbes on Facebook: http://fb.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Instagram: http://instagram.com/forbes
More From Forbes: http://forbes.com

Transcript

00:00That's the questions. Thank you. Over the past year and a half my colleagues on

00:04the other side of the aisle have relentlessly vilified Dr. Fauci under

00:08the guise of investigating the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic. But after

00:13reviewing nearly half a million pages of documents, conducting 20 closed-door

00:17interviews, and receiving testimony from nearly a dozen witnesses brought before

00:23this elect subcommittee for public hearings, they have come up empty-handed

00:27for evidence of their extreme allegations that Dr. Fauci lied about

00:32gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and caused the

00:37COVID-19 pandemic. So I'd like to address both of the Republican claims in turn.

00:43Throughout the majority's investigation, the select subcommittee has heard three

00:48definitions for gain-of-function research. Of the three, Republicans have

00:53relied heavily on an overly broad definition that has no regulatory

00:58significance. Let me repeat that. No regulatory significance. In fact, their

01:05definition is so broad that it would include the manufacture of flu vaccines

01:09as gain-of-function. Because it is so broad, the National Institute of Health

01:15does not use that definition when assessing whether proposed research is

01:20or is not quote-unquote gain-of-function research. For those assessments, NIH has

01:27instead appropriately used the definitions provided in regulations. And

01:31to be clear, the select subcommittee has been reminded by witnesses after

01:36witness that NIH at all times referred to regulations for the definition of

01:43gain-of-function research. And not to a nebulous, expansive definition with no

01:49legal bearing that is so broad it could apply to, again, the manufacturing of flu

01:55vaccines. Dr. Fauci, according to the regulatory definitions, for example in P3CO,

02:02that NIH applied to proposed research, did NIH ever fund gain-of-function

02:08research in Wuhan, China? As you said, Congressman Ruiz, according to the

02:16regulatory and operative definition of P3CO, the NIH did not fund gain-of-function

02:23research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Thank you. And despite my

02:28Republican colleagues' effort to fit a square peg into a round hole, it seems to

02:33me that you've been consistent on this issue from the beginning of the pandemic.

02:38And they know this, but they still use the terms gain-of-function loosely. And

02:43with respect to NIAID staff's assessments of whether proposed research was or was

02:48not gain-of-function research, were you personally involved in those assessments

02:53or were those assessments made several levels removed from you and by subject

02:57matter experts? Those assessments were done by highly qualified and experienced

03:02program people several levels below me. Thank you. And your public statements

03:08that NIH did not fund gain-of-function research in Wuhan reflected the

03:12assessments made by NIAID subject matter experts applying a definition

03:17found in the regulation known as the P3CO framework. Is that correct? That is

03:23correct. Thank you. And thank you for clarifying that. In fact, all of that is

03:29abundantly clear in your 2021 Senate testimony on this matter. When asked by

03:35the Senate about gain-of-function research, you testified, quote, that is why

03:39we have committees. We have a P3CO committee. You also testified in 2021,

03:46quote, gain-of-function is a very nebulous term. We have spent, not us, but

03:51outside bodies, a considerable amount of effort to give a more precise definition

03:56to the type of research that is of concern that might lead to a dangerous

04:00situation. You are aware of that. That is called P3CO. That was back in 2021. At

04:08the time of your May 2021 testimony, P3CO had been the operative definition of

04:14gain-of-function research for several years, correct? That is correct. So I will

04:19note that at your transcribed interview in January, the majority conceded that

04:25NIH did not fund research in Wuhan that met the criteria of P3CO. I encourage the

04:33audience to read the transcript of that interview so you can evaluate the

04:36merit of majority's claims for yourselves. So now if we could quickly

04:41turn to the irresponsible and false accusation that you created, SARS-CoV-2,

04:46the virus responsible for the COVID-19 pandemic. So this accusation centers on a

04:53grant NIAID awarded to Echo Health Alliance with a subaward to the Wuhan

04:57Institute of Virology. And we have been entertained earlier about the suggestion

05:02that this funding could have possibly gone to a bioweapons research capacity as

05:07well. So I want to be clear, no evidence provided to the select subcommittee

05:14demonstrates that the work performed under NIH funding, including at the

05:19Wuhan Institute of Virology, led to the creation of SARS-CoV-2. The majority has

05:25failed to demonstrate or even credibly suggest that any of the viruses studied

05:30under the grant could even possibly have been the progenitor virus. Dr. Fauci,

05:37could you briefly explain why none of the viruses studied under the Echo Health

05:41Alliance grant could have been the progenitor virus of the SARS-CoV-2?

05:47When you're talking about the evolution of a virus from one to another, the viruses

05:52that were studied under the subaward to the Wuhan Institute that have been

05:56reported in progress reports in the literature and published papers, those

06:01viruses were phylogenetically so far removed from SARS-CoV-2

06:08that it is molecularly impossible for those viruses to have evolved or being

06:14made into SARS-CoV-2. It's just a virological fact. They were so far

06:20removed that it could not possibly be a progenitor of SARS-CoV-2. So I want to be

06:27very clear on this point that the funding and the research conducted by

06:33Echo Health did not produce SARS-CoV-2. That doesn't negate that this lab could

06:41have, another lab could have been doing research and it could have leaked from a

06:45lab, it still is a possibility, but it was not directly or it was not funded by

06:52NIAID or NIH. And just for the record, this information was provided by NIH to

06:59then oversight ranking member James Comer nearly three years ago in October

07:042021. So despite the clear evidence that Dr. Fauci and his agency did not fund

07:09gain-of-function research under the P3CO regulatory definition and that the

07:14viruses studied under the federally funded grant Echo Health Alliance grant

07:17could not have been the progenitor virus for SARS-CoV-2, Republicans have

07:22levied these unsubstantiated allegations knowing very well that they are not true.

07:26And they have done so to push their extreme partisan narrative that Dr.

07:30Fauci and our nation's public health officials caused the COVID-19 pandemic.

JUST IN: Lawmaker Asks Dr. Fauci Point Blank If NIH Funded Gain-Of-Function Research In Wuhan

Category

Transcript

Recommended