COVID Lab Leak Hearing Analysis

Thank you. Chairman, for two years myself and the other

Republicans on this subcommittee connected the dots.

We exposed the evidence supporting our strong belief that COVID was developed and

leaked from the Wuhan lab. And during those same two years, the same

Democrats that sit on this committee, they only hindered,

they obstructed. They refused to hold hearings

and get to the truth.

Now we see mounting evidence supporting the COVID-19

originated from the lab in Wuhan, China, run by the Communist

Chinese, uh, Party, and this hearing is about getting to the truth.

I thank the chairman for making this the very first hearing because the American

people who have seen just as many fellow

Americans die from COVID,

as nearly as many die from COVID, that died in every

war since the American Revolution combined deserve to know the truth.

Uh, Dr. Redfield, you pointed to the lab leak theory even

before we did.

In mid-January of 2020, you expressed concerns to Dr.

Fauci, to, uh, J- Jeremy Farrar of UK's Wellcome

Trust and to Dr. Tedros of World Health Organization that,

quote, "We had to

take the lab leak hypothesis with extreme seriousness." And you urged

Dr. Fauci to investigate both the lab and the natural

hypotheses.

Shortly thereafter, on February 1st, uh, Farrar convened a

meeting of a group of 11 top scientists across five time zones

and asked Dr. Fauci to join, and he wrote, quote, "My preference is

to keep this group really tight. Obviously ask everyone

to treat in total confidence." unquote. Dr.

Redfield, you were excluded from this call,

but up until then, you

had been on every single con- you were included in every other conversation.

What changed? Why do you think that you were excluded from these

conversations?

Thank you very much. I think, uh, just to emphasize, uh, in, in, in

early to mid-January, I did have multiple calls with Fauci,

Farrar,

and, and, and Tedros about how important I thought

it was that

science get engaged in, in aggressive, aggressively pursuing

both hypotheses.

I also expressed as a clinical virologist that I

felt it was, um, not scientifically

plausible that this virus went from a bat to

humans and became one of the most infectious viruses

that we have for humans. All viruses are not the same.

So when you look at coronaviruses with, for SARS and MERS,

for example, when they entered the human species,

which they did

via an intermediate, they never learned how to go human to

human.

Even to this day, they don't know how to go human to human.

So you can't equate Ebola with a coronavirus.

It's cr-

Now why do you, why do you think you were excluded from those calls?

I, I, because it was, uh, it was told to me that, uh, they wanted a

single narrative and that I obviously had a different point of

view.

Okay. In o- emails following the conference call,

four of the 11 scientists

told Fauci that they all found the genetic sequence inconsistent with

expectations from evolutionary theory, basically what you're saying.

However, just three days later, these four scientists had drafted a paper

arguing the exact opposite, and that's now the infamous proximal

origin of SARS-CoVD, uh, 2. Our investigations show

this paper was prompted by Dr. Fauci, among others, with a goal to disprove the

lab leak theory. What is the likelihood

that these scientists came across

additional information just three days after making these statements to

conclude with such certainty that COVID-19 came from nature instead of

the

lab leak that they thought it was three days earlier?

Y- yeah, I think it's unfortunate.

A- again, I've said this before, that this whole approach that was

taken on Janu- on s- February 1st and subsequently

in the month of Fe- February, if you really wanna be truthful, it's

antithetical to science.

Thank you.

Science has debate, and they squashed any debate.

Thank you. Given what we know now in looking at all

the conversations in February

of 2020 and before the release p- of the paper,

do you think that, uh, Dr. Fauci used this paper to

hide the gain of function research created, that gain of function

research created this virus?

I can't talk about Fauci's motivation.

Do you think that the paper does hide the truth?

I think it's an inaccurate paper that basically was part of a

narrative that they were creating.

Remember, this pandemic did not start in January at

the

seafood market. We now know there was infections all the way back into

September.

This was a narrative that was decided that they were gonna say this came from

the

wet market, and they were gonna do everything they could to

support it to negate

any discussion about the possibility that this came from a laboratory.

I got 20 seconds left. Dr. Fauci was affirmatively told in,

told in an email

that, uh, NIAID had a monetary relationship with the

Wuhan, uh, Institute through, uh, EcoHealth

Alliance. He, he was told this in January 27th of 2020.

Do you think that Dr. Fauci intentionally lied under oath to

Senator Paul when he

vehemently denied NIH's funding of gain of function research?

I think there's no doubt that NIH was funding gain of function research.

Is it likely that American tax dollars funded the gain of function research that

created this virus?

I think it did, not, not only from NIH but from the State Department, USAID, and

from DOD.

I'm out of time. Thank you very much.

Now recognize Ms. D-