 |
| Andrew Propp for Fogarty/NIH / Wikimedia Commons |
When Fauci appears before the Senate on Wednesday, he should not be permitted to deflect with bureaucratic theater, selective memory, and semantic evasion.
Anthony Fauci is scheduled to testify before Congress on Wednesday, July 29, 2026, giving senators an opportunity to confront him with the extraordinary trove of evidence released by Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., in recent days concerning Fauci and the coordinated effort to suppress evidence that Covid-19 was a laboratory-made virus.The records include Fauci’s emails, private diary entries, and previously hidden Slack messages of the Fauci-funded scientists who produced the “Proximal Origin” paper at his behest.
These newly released records do not merely raise broad questions about Fauci’s conduct. They expose a sprawling record of contradictions between his private knowledge and his public statements, each of which demands a direct answer under oath when he appears before the Senate. These 10 questions are only the beginning.
1. The Gain-of-Function Funding Denial
Why did you testify under oath that NIH “has not ever and does not now fund gain-of-function research” at the Wuhan Institute of Virology when the documentary record shows a direct funding chain from your agency to the experiments in question?
NIAID awarded EcoHealth Alliance a grant to study bat coronaviruses in China, with the Wuhan Institute serving as a subrecipient. Successive papers by WIV researchers expressly acknowledged NIH and NIAID funding. In 2016, NIAID halted funding for EcoHealth’s gain-of-function work, only for the project to be mysteriously reinstated. Soon after, EcoHealth President Peter Daszak emailed agency officials, jubilantly announcing that his organization’s “gain-of-function” research funding pause had been lifted.
Your own private words confirm that you understood the nature of the work. In a Feb. 1, 2020, email summarizing the critical conference call on Covid-19’s origins, you wrote that scientists in Wuhan were known to be conducting gain-of-function experiments designed to determine how bat viruses adapt to human infection. You further recognized that the outbreak’s emergence in the same city “heightened” suspicion about its origin.
Given that the funding trail was documented and your own contemporaneous email described the Wuhan work as gain-of-function research, on what basis did you give Congress an unqualified denial?
2. The Market Myth
In your personal diary entry of Jan. 26, 2020, barely a month into the outbreak, you wrote, “Now we know the market was not the source, it was the amplifier.”
Why, then, did you and the public-health establishment continue presenting the Huanan Seafood Market as the probable site at which Covid-19 first crossed into humans, rather than acknowledging that your own contemporaneous information indicated that the virus had already been circulating before it reached the market?
3. The White House Deception
At the April 17, 2020, White House press conference, with President Trump standing beside you, you invoked the “Proximal Origin” paper to assure the public that Covid-19 had emerged naturally, claiming that the virus’s genetic characteristics were “totally consistent with a jump of a species from an animal to a human.”
You portrayed the paper as the independent work of outside scientists and claimed not to know the authors’ names. Yet the documentary record shows that you helped set the process in motion, organized the critical Feb. 1 conference call from which the paper emerged, remained in direct contact with lead author Kristian Andersen, and reviewed drafts before publication. When Nature Medicine accepted the paper, Andersen personally thanked you for your role: “Thank you again for your advice and leadership as we have been working through the SARS-CoV-2 ‘origins’ paper.”
Why did you present the paper as independent scientific confirmation when you had been intimately involved in the process that brought it into existence?
4. The Delete-After-Reading Orders
Why did you instruct NIH Director Francis Collins on Feb. 2, 2020, the day after the “Proximal Origin” conference call, to “please delete this e-mail after you read it”?
Why did you issue another delete-after-reading instruction to your own staff in July 2020?
You later testified that you had never deleted federal records or sought to obstruct their production. What legitimate government purpose was served by those instructions? Were the emails actually deleted, and how many other communications did you direct colleagues or subordinates to destroy?
5. The Private Lab-Leak Assessments
Your own notes from the Feb. 1, 2020, conference call record that only two of the 12 scientists participating believed a natural origin was likely, while “the rest felt that deliberate insertion was possible.”
Released Slack messages make the contradiction even more damning. Kristian Andersen, the lead author of the “Proximal Origin” paper, privately wrote that “the lab escape version of this is so friggin’ likely to have happened because they were already doing this type of work and the molecular data is fully consistent with that scenario.” The authors continued privately assigning meaningful probabilities to a laboratory origin, expressing doubts about their own conclusions, and discussing how to curate their communications, even as they publicly defended the paper and portrayed laboratory involvement as scientifically implausible.
These were the scientists you had helped assemble, advised, remained in contact with, and tasked with producing the paper that you later promoted from the White House podium as independent scientific evidence against a laboratory origin.
So which is it? Were you somehow unaware that the scientists whose paper you helped initiate, reviewed, and publicly promoted privately believed that a laboratory escape was “so friggin’ likely” and continued to harbor serious doubts about their own conclusions? Or did you know what they actually believed and nevertheless present their paper to the American public as settled scientific proof that no laboratory-based scenario was plausible?
What specific scientific evidence justified the transformation of a laboratory origin from a privately credible, even likely, explanation into a publicly discredited fringe theory? And why were the American people never told that the scientists behind the paper did not privately believe the certainty they were selling to the public?
6. --->READ MORE HERE
No comments:
Post a Comment