สดๆร้อนๆ วันนี้เว็บไซต์ The White House ของสหรัฐอเมริกา ได้เผยแพร่เนื้อหาเรื่อง “LAB LEAK: The True Origins of COVID-19” โดยเนื้อหาระบุว่าทฤษฎี “ไวรัสหลุดจากห้องแล็บ” หรือ Lab Leak Theory นั้น ไม่ใช่ทฤษฎีสมคบคิด แต่จากการสืบสวนของคณะกรรมการพบว่าเป็นความจริงที่ว่า COVID-19 มีต้นกำเนิดมาจากห้องแล็บวิจัยไวรัสในอู่ฮั่น (WIV)ไม่ใช่มาจากธรรมชาติอย่างที่นักวิทยาศาสตร์ลวงโลกเคยอ้างกัน
ถ้าใครที่เป็นเฟรนด์กันมานาน คงจำได้ว่าช่วงปี 2020 ตอนโควิดเริ่มระบาดผมเอาเรื่อง Lab Leak นี่มาโพสรายงานให้ฟังแทบทุกวัน
ตอนนั้นผมไปนั่งฟังพวกนักวิทยาศาสตร์อย่าง Alina Chan, Richard Ebright, Steven Quay เขาคุยกันในทวิตเตอร์ทั้งวันทั้งคืน
รวมทั้งนักสืบอินเตอร์เน็ตนิรนามที่เขาไป hack ข้อมูลจากที่โน่นที่นี่รวมทั้งอีเมล์ที่ Anthony Fauci คุยกับพรรคพวก เอามาเผยแพร่เพื่อปะติดปะต่อเรื่องราวและ time frame จนเขามั่นใจว่ามีการปิดบังและช่วยกันปกปิดความผิดของห้องแล็บอู่ฮั่น รวมทั้งความผิดของผู้ที่ให้ทุนอย่าง NIH และองค์กร broker อย่าง EcoHealth Alliance
โดย Anthony Fauci กับนักวิทยาศาสตร์ชื่อดังในฟิลด์นี้หลายคนได้สมคบคิดกันตีพิมพ์เปเปอร์ชิ้นสำคัญที่ชื่อว่า “The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2” เพื่อปัดตกทฤษฎี Lab Leak และทำให้โลกเชื่อว่ามันมาจากธรรมชาติ
ผมเอาข้อมูลที่คนเหล่านี้เขาค้นพบมารายงานให้อ่านกัน ก็จะมีคนเข้ามากระแนะกระแหนว่าผมเป็นใคร เรียนอะไรมา บางคนก็ล้อด้วยตรรกะวิบัติเปรียบเทียบว่าผมเป็น conspiracy theorist ที่เชื่อว่าโลกแบน (เหมือนปัจจุบันนี้เป๊ะเลย 😄)
ผมจำได้แม่นยำว่าตอนนั่นมีนักวิจัยจาก Biotec คนนึงเข้ามาด่าผมว่าไม่มีความรู้ เขาเป็นผู้เชี่ยวชาญจาก Biotec ถ้ามันมีการตัดต่อจริง เขาต้องดูออกแล้ว พร้อมทั้งอ้างตรรกะวิบัติแบบเดียวกับเรื่องโลกร้อนเลยว่า นักวิทยาศาสตร์ mainstream เขาเห็นตรงกันทั้งนั้นว่ามันมาจากธรรมชาติ ไม่มีการตัดต่อจากห้องแล็บ โดยอ้างชื่อนักวิทยาศาสตร์ระดับโลกที่เขียนเปเปอร์ The Proximal Origin ดังกล่าวว่าถ้ามีการตัดต่อจริง นักวิทยาศาสตร์เหล่านี้เขาก็ต้องรู้แล้วเช่นกัน ผมพยายามบอกให้เขาฟังว่า Raph Baric ปรมาจารย์ด้านการตัดต่อไวรัสจาก North Calorina U. และเป็นซือแป๋ที่สอนการตัดต่อไวรัสให้ Shi Zhengli กับนักวิจัยที่ WIV บอกว่ามันสามารถตัดต่อแบบ seamless ได้และไม่สามารถแยกแยะได้ว่ามันตัดต่อหรือมาจากธรรมชาติ เขาก็หัวเราะหาว่าผมบ้า 😂😂😂
วันนี้เราได้รู้แล้วว่าเปเปอร์ The Proximal Origin มันเป็นเปเปอร์ลวงโลกและนักวิทยาศาสตร์เหล่านั้นคือนักวิทยาศาสตร์ลวงโลกที่ทำลายความน่าเชื่อถือของวงการวิทยาศาสตร์
อีเมล์ของ Fauci ที่ถูก hack ในคดี Wuhan Gate นี้ ซ้ำรอยกับอีเมล์ที่ถูก hack ของนักวิทยาศาสตร์โลกร้อนลวงโลกที่ชื่อ Michael Mann ที่สมคบคิดกันสร้างข้อมูลที่ผิดๆเกี่ยวกับอุณหภูมิโลกและคาร์บอนในคดี Climate Gate เป๊ะๆเลย
เพียงแต่คดี Wuhan Gate เดินทางมาถึงจุดที่วันนี้ถูกเปิดเผยแล้ว ส่วนคดี Climate Gate ยังไม่มีใครมากระชากหน้ากากนักวิทยาศาสตร์ลวงโลกเหล่านี้ออกมา แต่เชื่อว่าวันหนึ่งเมื่อ narrative เรื่องโลกร้อนเริ่มเบาบางลง คนพวกนี้จะถูกกระชากหน้ากากแน่นอน
ส่วนสาเหตุที่ทำให้คนไทยมีปัญหาในการ digest เรื่องพวกนี้ ผมมั่นใจว่าเป็นเพราะว่าคนไทยส่วนใหญ่ถูกสอนมาให้เคารพนับถือนักวิทยาศาสตร์เสมือนนักบวช มีภาพจำจากในหนังว่านักวิทยาศาสตร์ที่รักษ์โลกพวกนี้เป็นคนที่อยู่เหนือกิเลส เป็นคนตรงไปตรงมา ในหัวมีแต่ข้อมูลทางวิทยาศาสตร์หรือข้อมูลตัวเลข ไม่พูดสิ่งที่ไม่เป็นความจริงทางวิทยาศาสตร์ ฯลฯ ทั้งๆที่ในโลกแห่งความเป็นจริง นักวิทยาศาสตร์เหล่านี้เต็มไปด้วยกิเลส และสามารถฉ้อฉลลวงโลกเพื่อประโยชน์ของตัวเองได้ตลอดเวลา
THE ORIGIN“The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2” publication — which was used repeatedly by public health officials and the media to discredit the lab leak theory — was prompted by Dr. Fauci to push the preferred narrative that COVID-19 originated naturally.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gt9BNBSMW3U
The Senate Homeland Security Committee holds a hearing about the origins of COVID-19, in which some Republicans alleged a "cover-up" of the lab-leak theory.
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:
เติมพลังให้กับความสำเร็จของคุณด้วย Forbes รับสิทธิ์เข้าถึงข่าวสารระดับพรีเมียมแบบไม่จำกัด ไม่ว่าจะเป็นข่าวเด่น ข่าวเจาะลึกที่สร้างสรรค์ บทสรุปประจำวัน และอื่นๆ อีกมากมาย นอกจากนี้ สมาชิกยังจะได้รับที่นั่งแถวหน้าในงานสำหรับสมาชิกเท่านั้นที่มีนักคิดและนักปฏิบัติชั้นนำ สิทธิ์เข้าถึงวิดีโอระดับพรีเมียมที่จะช่วยให้คุณก้าวไปข้างหน้า ประสบการณ์ที่ไม่เน้นโฆษณา สิทธิ์เข้าถึงผลิตภัณฑ์ที่เลือกก่อนใคร รวมถึง NFT Drops และอื่นๆ อีกมากมาย:
https://account.forbes.com/membership...
the uh covid-19 pandemic was one of the worst Public Health crises that our
country has ever faced we lost more than 1 million Americans to the virus family
members and neighbors friends and colleagues and millions more died around
the world
the covid-19 pandemic led to a once in a generation event that not only
threatened our Public Health but also created unprecedented challenges to our economic and Homeland Security as well as our very Way of Life
As Americans navigated the covid-19 pandemic they endured Challen changing Health Care guidance uh uncertainty and misinformation about how to best protect themselves and their families from this deadly virus today's hearing is intended
to examine the available scientific evidence related to the virus that
causes covid-19 and provides some transparency to Americans who are continuing to have to navigate their exposure to the virus
As chairman of this committee I led an investigation into the federal government's initial pandemic response the report was called historically unprepared and included recommendations on how we can ensure that we're better prepared to prevent and respond to Future pandemics
This March I also launched a bipartisan biocurity and life science research investigation with ranking member Paul to look into a wide range of constantly evolving biological risk and threats to better enhance our preparedness forfuture incidents
this morning we're going to hear from academic experts who can discuss how co9 pandemic may have started and how we can learn from this outbreak to better address future potential infectious disease outbreaks and protect human life better understanding of the possible origins of covid-19 pandemic is not only important to our Public Health it is also a matter of Homeland Security
we must learn from the challenges faced during this pandemic to ensure we can better protect Americans from future potential biological incident
Our government needs the flexibility to determine the origins of naturally occurring outbreaks as well as potential outbreaks that could arise from mistakes or malicious intent all that said the history has shown us it is seldom simple or straightforward to identify the singular cause of an infectious disease outbreak it can take months or years to pinpoint An Origin and in some cases we may never find the answer
This is also the case with covid-19 there are theories that indicate that covid-19 began either by entering the human population through an entirely natural means or possibly through a lab incident or accident given the likelihood that the Chinese government may never fully disclose all the information they have about the initial covid-19 outbreak we must use the scientific information available to better prepare for future potential pandemics
we must not only examine the scientific information we have about covid-19 but also the tools and procedures the government has in place to understand such viral outbreaks and we can prevent them from becoming widespread in the future
Today's hearing and our panel of expert witnesses will help us understand how the most recent pandemic began so that we can take necessary steps to protect the American people from future biological threats now like to recognize ranking member Paul for his opening remarks
Today we are here to examine one of the most critical and deed questions of our time did covid-19 originate in a lab to answer this question let's revisit the early days of the pandemic and examine what some of Dr Anthony fouche's inner circles said privately about the origins of the virus discussions that were only revealed through foia litigation Christian Anderson wrote The Lab Escape version of this is so fraking likely to have happened because they were already doing this type of work and the molecular data is fully consistent with that scenario Ian Lipkin stressed the nightmare of circumstantial evidence to assess regarding the possibility of inadvertent release given the scale of bat coronav virus research pursued inWuhan
Bob Gary said I really can't think of a plausible naal natural scenario where you get from the bad virus or one very similar to it to covid-19 where you insert exactly four amino acids 12 nucleotides and all have to be added at the exact same time to gain this function I just can't figure out how this gets accomplished in nature
According to Gary it's not crackpot to suggest this could have happened given the gain of function research we know what happening at Wuhan these are all private statements which you'll discover today differ greatly from their public statements
Even Ralph baric world famous gain of function researcher and collaborator with wuhan's Dr shei admitted so they the Wuhan Institute of orology have a very large collection of viruses in their laboratory and so it's you know proximity is a problem it's a problem federal court orders reveal that even Dr fouchy himself privately acknowledge concerns about gain of function research in Wuhan and mutations
in the virus that suggest it might have been engineered just days before he
commissioned the proximal origin paper
Despite the these private doubts publicly these so-called experts and their allies were dismissing the labak theory as a conspiracy within days Anderson Lipkin and Gary were putting final touches on what would be remembered as one of the most remarkable reversals in modern history in their proximal origin paper these scientists concluded we do not believe that any type of laboratory based scenario is plausible
Privately they were saying one thing publicly they were saying another media pundits pared The Narrative while social media platforms censored discussion about the lab leak labeling it as misinformation and stifling open discourse about the virus's origins the coverup went beyond public statements
Federal agencies and key officials withheld and continueed to conceal crucial information from both Congress and the public for instance David morens
Dr David morens of the NIH deleted email that could have contained valuable insights into early discussions when he deleted them he made the comment I think we're safe now he deleted emails he said the early emails I've deleted to Peter daac at Eco health I think we're safe now the odni failed to comply with a law
that was passed unanimously one of the Senators on this committee got it passed we were going to declassify all this and revealed it and the Administration has refused HHS and NIH have not produced documents related to the gain of function research that the chairman and I requested nearly a year ago I've been asking for two or three years as an individual member with some other Republican members and have not gotten these records I've now asked with the Democrat chairman over a year and they're still resisting
They say it's not gain of function well let's hear the debate did they debate at NIH whether it was gain of function in Wuhan if there's a debate let's hear the sign ific arguments on both sides they will not give us that information this has been a deliberate prolonged effort to deceive the committee about certain gain of function research experiments that the agencies have been withholding what we have found as we've gone through this is that at every step there's been resistance so the hearing today is to try to find out whether or not we can get to the truth do we know for certain it came from the lab no but there's a preponderance of evidence indicating that it may have come from the lab do we know viruses have come from animals in the past yes they've come from animals in the past but this time there's no animal Reservoir there's no animal handlers with antibiotics there's a lot of reasons why there are indications that this could well have come from the lab this is what the discussion will have today this is a discussion that's long and coming it's been over three years that we've been asking for this but this is great this is good we'll have scientists on both sides of this issue and I hope we have a spirited debate thank you thank you uh Ricky member Paul it is the practice of this committee to swear in Witnesses so if each of you would please stand and uh raise your right hands do you swear the testimony that you will give before this committee will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you God I do
Thank you you may be seated our first witness is uh Dr Gregory cetz he is an associate professor and director of the biod defense graduate program at George Mason University's scar Shar School of policy and government he serves as editor-in chief of the Pandora Pandora report and online newsletter that covers Global Health security and as co-director of the global biolabs initiative that tracks high security labs and biorisk management policies uh around the world
Dr Kitz you're are now recognized for your opening statement uh thank you uh chairman Peters ranking member Paul and other members of the committee thank you for the opportunity to talk to you today about the uh origins of covid-19 and its implications for us biod defense and Global Health security
um I've been conducting research and teaching on biod defense Global Health security and bio risk management for the last 25 years uh both at um the Char school at George Mason as you as you indicated I come before you today my personal capacity um and My Views not represent those of George Mason the or orations with which I am Affiliated I've submitted a lengthy written statement to you uh which I will not go over today in in detail but I happy to answer any questions you have about it uh during the the rest of the hearing uh what I like to do is just highlight some key points uh first let me directly address the main topic of the hearing today the available evidence on the origins of 19 more than four years after the start of the pandemic the origin of the SARS C2 virus remains a subject of debate there are two pandemic Pathways have been widely discussed to explain how SARS could be to emerg in Wuhan in 2019 a natural spillover event um from animals to humans or an actual release of a pathogen from a laboratory the possibil that SARS could 2 was deliberately developed as a biological weapon has been unanimously rejected by all us intelligence agencies while the intelligence Community is divided on the origin of the pandemic most agencies have determined that the virus was not genetically engineered
I believe available evidence uh points most strongly to a natural zuno spillover event as the origin of the pandemic however a research related accident can't be ruled out at this time a key obstacle to more uh definitive conclusion is the lack of transparency exercised by the Chinese government which affects assessments of both potential Pathways to the pandemic until there's an independent International and transparent investigation uh it's unlikely we will be come up be able to come up with a more definitive conclus inclusion that'll satisfy both sides of the debate
uh it's not my intention to review this debate today instead of looking backwards I prefer to look forwards uh and plan for the future the realities that we're not as well prepared to prevent detect uh respond to or recover from a biological incident or pandemic as we should be regardless of its origin the growing h5n1 outbreak in the United States is a Testament of the challenges we currently face in the urgency of addressing them the difficulty in determining the origin of covid-19 Is Not Unusual among the breaks and pandemics we've already experienced a century it's taken years to identify the origin of a novel pathogen sometimes in only general terms rarely is it possible to identify the exact sequence of events that led to the first human infection that sparked a pandemic determining the origin of a outbreak or pandemic can be divided into four stages detection identification characterization and attribution
Understanding how a specific pathogen entered and spread in a population to cause an outbreak is a multidisiplinary undertaking uh that requires expertise in epidemiology human medicine veterinary medicine biology genetics bioinformatics ecology anthropology and related fields seeking the origin of an outbreak requires collecting and analyzing a large amount of data collected from diverse sources by a range of agencies with a variety of scientific capabilities and disciplinary specializations the quality of the data and the rigor of the epidemiological and scientific investigation will affect the level of confidence we have in these determinations uh determinations the origin of a pandemic or an outbreak are rarely definitive and need to be carefully qualified IFI to reflect the strength of available evidence as well as gaps and uncertainties determining the origin of an outbreak can uh improve the effectiveness of response to an ongoing incident reduce the likelihood of uh or magnitude of future uh incidents or even prevent future outbreaks altogether making this determination however is not always straightforward or successful the process of investigating the source of an outbreak is like putting together a puzzle where you don't know what the final picture will look like uh the pieces change shape and move around and pieces are added and moved as you're trying to solve the puzzle uh there are also several factors that can influence the success of An Origin investigation uh including the passage of time the biology epidemiology of the specific pathogen um limited scientific knowledge about novel pathogens local National politics economic considerations we saw each of these factors at play in Wuhan in 2019 and 2020 indeed we see similar factors at play uh in the response to the current h5n1 outbreak in the United States as well
The key point is determine the origin of an outbreak uh or biological incident is scientifically complex but can also be politically fraught and subject to counterveiling pressures by other actors with an interest in obscuring or delaying or halting the outcome of Investigation so what should be done to improve our ability to determine the origins of a biological incident I recommend that this Congress working with the bid Administration invest in strengthening bios surveillance and biorisk management in the United States and internationally this would not only enhance our ability to determine the origins of future incidents uh but also improve our capabilities to prevent them uh and respond more uh successfully to prevent an outbreak from becoming a pandemic biosurveillance United States suffers from fragmentation a chronic underinvestment in state and local public health capacity uh and the lack of capacity to rapidly develop and deploy Diagnostics um in my written statement I provide further recommendations uh about bios surveillance interest of time I'll get just to the uh uh recommendations on biorisk management uh and this is a field that encompasses field and laboratory bios safety laboratory biocity and oversight of duse research search even if the origins of covid-19 is uh proven to be the result of a natural xotic spillover event the pandemic raised important questions about the efficacy of our oversight of du your research of concern including uh with pathogens with enhanced transmissibility or um virence uh the pandemic has also dramatically Illustrated the consequences if such a pathogen escapes from a lab and Sparks a pandemic regardless of one's views and the origin of the pandemic we should all be able to agree that we want to minimize the risk that a future pandemic could be caused by laboratory accident last month the bid Administration released a new US government policy for oversight of duus research of concern which represents a significant step forward in oversight of um High consequence research there are two immediate steps that Congress could take to enhance implementation of this policy first Congress could support the bid administration's efforts to provide Education and Training to the um wide array of stakeholders who are now going to be affected by this policy this policy uh now covers 95 biological agents and toxins up from 14 and so there's a much wider swath the biological community that's now going to be subject to oversight and they need to understand this policy in order to implement it effectively uh Congress also needs pass legislation to close a loophole in the current policy that um uh allows privately funded research including that with uh uh engineering of pathogens uh to continue without any oversight uh and I think it's in the power of congress to solve that fairly uh easily over the longer term Congress needs to modernize the US bio risk management um system um I think the most effective way to do would be creation of an independent F agency that would be responsible for Bisk management uh across both um publicly and privately funded um Enterprises um in conclusion we have we know enough about the two different Pathways uh to a pandemic both the demonstrated route of natural transmission the tal of laboratory accident uh that we have enough information now that we can take action that will significantly reduce the risk posed by both types of risks thank you
thank you Dr Goetz um our second W witness is Dr Robert Gary he is a professor of microbiology in immunology and an associate Dean for biomedical Sciences at Tain School of Medicine Dr Gary has been a professor of Urology for over 40 ears and has performed ground breaking work in diagnostics for emerging pathogens including the Ebola virus Dr Gary welcome to the committee you uh are now recognized for your opening statement
Thank you very much uh chairman Peters ranking member Paul distinguished members of the homeland security and government Affairs committee thank you for inviting me to testify today as uh chairman Peter says I'm a professor and Associate Dean at tane School of Medicine in New Orleans and the reason you may know me is because
I'm an author on a peer-reviewed paper that appeared in nature medicine entitled the proximal origin of SARS Kobe 2 in the proximal Origins paper my co-authors and I discussed several different possible origins of sor kobe2 the three possible Origins for the virus that are most relevant to today's discussion are
one direct spillover from a bat to a human
two spill over from a bat to an intermediate animal and then to a human and
three lab origin at the time of writing the proximal origin paper in early February to mid-march 2020 we did not rule out any of these three Pathways based on the current available evidence I believe that the most plausible orig of SARS KOB 2 is spill over from a bat to an intermediate animal and then to a human I further believe believe the available evidence indicates that this spillover happened naturally likely at the Anan seafood market in muhan China I do not believe that the available scientific evidence when considered holistically supports that the virus was created in the lab at the Wuhan Institute of virology however I am first and foremost a scientist and I will adhere to the scientific method so I will continue to evaluate new evidence and reassess the validity of my scientific hypotheses regarding the origins of SARS Kobe 2 I look forward to continuing the scientific debate in peer-reviewed materials with other scientists including those here today regarding our different perspectives and interpretations of the evidence that said I'm heartened by the attention of this committee this committee is giving to a very timely and important topic gain and function research I I welcome this opportunity to engage in an open and constructive conversation about the risk and benefits and appropriate safeguards and restrictions on This research as chairman Peters mentioned again before I've been a virology professor for over 40 years I've seen firsthand the damage that emerging viruses can cause I researched HIV before we knew the profound impacts this emerging virus would have on all society and while the American public was still fearful at blood transfusions I was present in Sierra Leon at the outbreak of Ebola in 2014 and witnessed the death tollen heartbreak including many close friends and colleagues who succumbed I'm currently developing countermeasures to Lassa virus a deadly hemorragic fever virus with up to a 70% case fatality so I understand perhaps better than most the importance of assuring appropriate safeguards for research including adequate oversight offending rules and guid guidelines regarding study design including the types of viruses that require oversight and Universal standards for the use of appropriate protective gear when handling highly transmissible or pathogenic and viruses viruses in the laboratory or in field studies but I also know the vital role of responsibly performed research including on highly transmissible and pathogenic viruses it advances public he health and National Security without gain of function research we'd have no tlu without gain of function research we wouldn't have a vaccine to prevent cancer caused by infection by the human papiloma virus and without gain INF function research we won't be able to identify how novel viruses infect us and if we don't know how they infect us we cannot develop appropriate treatments and cures for the next potential pandemic creating virus so I ENC I also encourage the committee to empower the scientific Enterprise to address the certainty of viral threats that emerge from nature in the future for example potential pandemic viruses can infiltrate commercial animal farming Industries the wildlife trade in China was the only Enterprise in the world comparable siiz the United States Catt industry multiple spillovers of SARS Cove the first SARS occurred in 2002 through 2004 and they came from the Chinese Wildlife trade evidence similarly indicates that this likely happened again with SARS Kobe 2 in 2019 19 I hope we treat these instance as a stark And Timely reminder that this can happen anywhere in the world in fact it's happening right in our backyard with the serious threat from bird flu that it poses to our United States cattle industry as a member of niid Center for research and emerging infectious diseases or Creed Network I know that gain of function research can be done responsibly and safely the new guidance from the office of science technology policy show that research with high-risk pathogens and the types of experiments that require review can be clearly defined in a way that does not obstruct lowrisk research I'm honored to be a part of this important conversation that will help Define the future of a vitally important area of biology and I urge the
members of this committee to find a path forward that permits appropriate gain of function research to continue to help
ensure our public health and National Security thank you uh Dr Gary our next
two witnesses will be introduced by ranking member Paul Steven qu is an mdphd he's the CEO
of aossa Therapeutics a clinical Stage biopharmaceutical Company developing novel Therapeutics for oncology Dr quz
authored 400 Publications in the field of medicine including 32 on the origin of SARS covid 2 his work has been cited
over 12,000 times placing him in the top 1% of scientists worldwide his paper a
basian analysis concludes Beyond a reasonable doubt that SARS CO2 is not a
natural zoonosis but instead is laboratory derived this article has been viewed over 206,000 times Dr Quay holds
238 us patents and patent applications in 22 areas of medicine including RNA
chemistry coronavirus Therapeutics before his current role he was a member of the Department of pathology at the
Stanford University School of Medicine Dr Quay welcome to the committee you are now recognized for your opening
statement committee chair Senator Peters ranking
member senator Paul committee members invited participants ladies and gentlemen I am a physician scientist and
have a 50-year career spanning academic medical research biotechnology and
scientific fraud investigation my biography summarizes my career I speak
today however as an independent scientist I do not receive any NIH or
niid funding scientists depended on NIH or niid funding may have pressure to
publicly agree with orthodoxies that privately they admit are wrong my
approach to the covid pandemic origin that killed 20 million plus people
caused 20 trillion dollar in economic damage is based on six approaches to the
data and the events I'll start with something Dr Gary said privately quote someone should tell
nature meaning the British Journal that the fish market probably did not start the outbreak end quote I agree with Dr
Gary unfortunately one reason we are having these hearings is that the public statements of many virologists have not
been congruent with their private conversations in any case I'll describe the six approaches to the question that
all support a lab leak as a source and can go deeper into each of those with questions first the virus was spreading
in Wuhan and around the world in the fall of 2019 months before the first case in the Hunan seafood market this is
supported by 14 observations or evidence the evidence includes the calculation of
the time to the most recent common ancestor Hospital overloads in Wuhan antibodies and patients from Italy Spain
and the US Wastewater samples from Brazil sick athletes at the October Wuhan military games school closings in
Wuhan and dozens of documented patients this dismisses out of hand the market as
the origin but second let's look at the market data the human infections the animal samples and the environmental
specimens these generate eight observations no infected animals in the
market or the supply chain were infected no infected Wildlife vendors were had
SARS all human infections are the non-ancestral lineage B the environmental specimens with animal DNA
have no SARS too one vendor had animals from Southern China where SARS to came from but this vendor and his animals are
negative for SARS 2 now only one of 14 environmental samples with raccoon dog
DNA contains SARS reads and that contains one re out of 210 million 13 of
the 14 raccoon dog DNA specimens had no SARS 2 with SARS one literally 100% of
the market animals were infected I frankly think it is shameful for scientists to misle journalists in the
public saying these data I just described are evidence raccoon dogs were infected with SARS 2 this is why trust
in science is broken none of these data are consistent with an infected animal passing SARS 2 to a human at the market
the 1500 km distance to the nearest SS to related virus is like the distance from Washington DC to the Florida ever
grades imagine you're at dinner at a restaurant in North Bethesda near the niid labs you get sick and you are told
that the virus you caught is only found in bats from the Everglades but it also happens to be under study at the
Laboratories you you see outside the restaurant window that's what the market origin people are asking you to believe
third documented events at or related to Wuhan Institute of rology beginning in March 2019 are consistent with the
expected activities when a lab acquired infection has occurred this timelines include unusual attention from the
Chinese Communist party uh leading to the pla physician Soldier being put in charge large tender requests to repair
bios safety equipment a virus database disappearing in the middle of the night large tender request for a lab security
Force to quote handle foreign Personnel end quote patents for a device to
prevent a lab acquired infection Rumors in the virology community of a new SARS virus in the lab 30 vials of the three
most dangerous viruses on the planet being shipped illegally from a lab in Canada to Wi in March and then one of
those pathogens being found as a major contaminant in a bla lab in December these events taken together are a
classic example of closing the Barn Door after the horses left fourth the evidence that is found in a natural zoos
with respect to the animal host the virus and the human are missing with covid 96,000 animals were tested and are
negative for SARS 2 43,000 blood samples from blood donors in Wuhan were tested a
natural spillover like SARS 1 would have produced about 260 positives a lab a lab
accident would be would be zero and of course zero is what is found with respect to the virus a spill over
produces posterior diversity in the virus genome a lab leak does not SARS 2 has no posterior diversity natural
spillovers as Dr Gary indicated this morning involve multiple markets SARS 1 began in southern China at 11 spillovers
in 11 different markets in nine different cities Christian Anderson the proximal origin in SARS 2 SARS 2 said
SARS 2 was one person being infected with one animal I agree fifth the Genome
of SARS 2 has eight features found in a synthetic virus that are not found in natural viruses the probability that
SARS 2 came from nature based on these features is one in a billion these features are the backbone the receptor
binding domain the fur and cleavage site the genetics of the fur and cleavage site the number location and pattern of
clothing clothing cloning sites in SARS 2 that use the baric cloning method and
the orate gene based on SARS 2 cloning sites I predicted how SARS 2 could be
made in the laboratory a year later baric used the predicted steps to make an infectious clone of SARS 2 these same
features were described in a 2018 DARPA Grant by wi and US scientists with
respect to the grant SARS to had the proposed back backbone from the proposed region in China the proposed adaption to
human killing the proposed diversity from SARS 1 the proposed Noom cleavage
site number location and pattern the proposed human cleavage site at the
proposed S1 S2 Junction let's close with a thought experiment it's 2018 do you think a
market spill over of a Corona virus could have happened in Wuhan Dr dasik and she have studied coronav virus for a
decade and they said no how do I know that because they used Wuhan residents as control for a study looking for
antibodies and Corona viruses in people living near batcaves in southern China the rural residents had a 3% rate Wuhan
residence had zero let's flip that and and ask the the reverse question do you think a lab acquired infection could
begin in Wuhan a city with the world's leading laboratory collecting Corona virus from nature doing synthetic
biology on Corona viruses doing petri dish and animal research on Corona virus with a bat Colony for testing and that
had written a blueprint to make a Corona virus that had seven unique features found in CS kovy 2 I'll let you answer
that question yourself I have a number of specific reforms I believe should be implemented and I would be happy to
discuss them during the questioning what happens if we have these hearings and nothing happens the Wu is of rology
right now is testing a NEPA virus uh in a synthetic clone this is a US CDA CDC
biot terrorism agent it kills three out of four people a lab Leak with an Airborne NEPA virus would quickly within
weeks disrupt food and energy distribution fire and police services medical care my analysis of this Tipping
Point event is that it would set back civilization about 250 years the work of this committee is critical if we Now
fail to act with the knowledge we have history if it can still be recorded will judge us poorly thank you for your time
Governors thank you professor of chemistry and chemical biology at ruers University he also serves as the
laboratory director for the Waxman Institute of microbiology a position he has held for 37 years Dr ebright has
authored over 185 peer-reviewed Publications and holds more than 45 issued and pending us patents he's the
co-founder of BIOS safety now and member of The Advisory Board of the global biolabs project and the institutional
bios Safety Committee at ruers University previously he served as on the antimicrobial resistance committee
for infectious disease Society of America the controlling dangerous pathogens project and the path pathogen
security working group for the state of New Jersey Dr ebite welcome to the committee you are now recognized for
your opening statement chairman Peters member Paul ranking member Paul and members of the
committee thank you for inviting me to discuss the origins of covid-19 I'm Board of Governors professor of
chemistry and chemical biology at rers University and laboratory director at the Waxman Institute of
microbiology in my statement I will present my assessment of the origin of co and Will summarize key lines of
evidence that support my assessment I assess that a large preponderance of
evidence indicate SARS K2 the virus that causes covid entered humans through a
research incident I base this assessment on information in publicly available documents press reports and scientific
papers on my research experience in microbial genomics microbial genetics
DNA synthesis technology and recombinant DNA technology and on my knowledge of an
experience with bios safety biocurity and biorisk management for work with pathogens four key facts support my
assessment First Co emerged in Wuhan a city that is 800 miles from the closest
bats harboring SARS K2 like viruses that could have served as progenitors of SARS kv2 but that contains lab that prior to
the outbreak were conducting the world's largest research program on bat SARS
viruses possessed the world's largest collection of bat SARS viruses and
possess the virus most closely similar to SARS K2 the large distance between Wuhan and bats harboring SARS K2 like
viruses points away from a natural origin of covid and wuhan's status as
the global epicenter of research on bat SARS viruses points toward a research
origin of Co second in the four years preceding the outbreak Wuhan Labs
performed research that placed them on a trajectory to obtain SARS viruses having high pandemic potential and in 2018 one
year before the outbreak Wuhan Labs proposed research to obtain SARS viruses having even higher pandemic potential
and features that match in detail the feat Fe of SARS K2 Wuhan Labs performed high-risk virus
Discovery and gain of function research on bat SARS viruses in their virus
Discovery research Wuhan researchers searched for newat viruses in caves in southern China brought samples to Wuhan
and sequenced cultured and characterized new viruses in Wuhan in their gain of
function research Wuhan researchers genetically modified bat SARS viruses
constructing viruses having enhanced ability to infect human cells and having enhanced viral growth and enhanced
lethality in mice engineered to possess human receptors for SARS viruses
so-called humaniz mice already in 2015 scientists expressed concern that
the Wuhan Institute of biology was conducting research that posed unacceptably high risk at a 2015 Royal
Society and National's meeting on gain of function research and its oversight the research on bat SARS viruses by the
Wuhan Institute of virology and its collaboratives was singled out as the research most likely of all research in
the world to trigger a pandemic in 2017 to 2018 with NIH funding the Wuhan
Institute of virology constructed genetically modified SARS viruses that combine the spike Gene from one bat SARS
virus with the rest of the genetic information from another bat SARS virus obtaining new viruses that
efficiently infected human cells and obtaining at least one new virus that exhibited 10,000 times enhanced viral
growth in lungs and 1 million times enhanced viral growth in brains and
three times enhanced lethality in humanized mice in 2018 just one year
before the outbreak in an NH Grant proposal the Wuhan Institute of Urology and collaborators proposed to construct
additional genetically modified SARS viruses proposing to construct viruses having spikes with even higher binding
affinities for human s SARS receptors seeking viruses having even higher pandemic potential also in 2018 just one
year before the outbreak in a DARPA Grant proposal the Wuhan Institute of aurology and its collaborators proposed
to construct genetically modified SARS viruses having a furin cleavage site a feature associated with increased viral
growth and increased transmissibility they proposed to insert the furing cleavage site at the spike Gene S1 S2
border and to construct the viruses by synthesizing six nucleic acid building blocks and assembling them using the
reagent BSM B1 third Wuhan Labs performed This
research on SARS viruses using an inadequate biosafety standard just biosafety level two an inadequate
personal protective equipment just gloves and a lab coat lab accidents that
result in infection or release are common even at bios safety levels higher than biosafety level two for context the
original SARS virus SARS K1 caused lab acquired infections in
Singapore at bios safety level three in Beijing twice at bios safety level three
and in Taipei at bios safety level 4 for further context SARS K2 itself caused
lab acquired infections in Beijing in 20120 at bios safety level 3 and in
Taipei in 2021 at bios safety level 3 the Wuhan lab's use of biosafety level
two for research on bat SARS viruses would have posed a high risk a very high risk of infection of lab staff upon
encountering a virus having the aerosol transmission properties of SARS K2 fourth in 2019 a novel SARS virus
having a spike with extremely high binding affinity for human SARS receptors a furian cleavage site
inserted at the spike S1 S2 border and a genome sequence with features enabling
assembly from synthetic nucleic acid building blocks using the reagent BS smb1 a virus having the exact features
proposed in 2018 NIH and darer proposals emerged on the doorstep of Wuhan
Institute of Urology SARS kov 2 is the only one of more than 800 known SARS
viruses that possesses a fury and cleavage site mathematically this observation alone implies that the
probability of finding a natural SARS virus possessing a furi and cleavage site is less than one in
800 taken together the presence of a spike having an extremely high affinity for human SARS receptors the presence of
a furing cleavage site inserted at the spike S1 S2 border the genome sequence enabling assembly from six synthetic
nucleic acid building blocks using the reagent BSM B1 and the 141 match between
these features and the features proposed in the 2018 ni and darer proposals make an extremely strong case a Smoking Gun
for a research origin in summary multiple lines of secure evidence point to a research origin by
contrast as I hope I will have the opportunity to review and response to questions no zero secure evidence points
toward a natural origin thank you thank you and thank you to to each
of our Witnesses uh Dr Gary my first question is g to I'm going to direct it towards you of the the evidence that's
been presented so thus far it it's still not clear to me how much is concrete
documented information and how much uh is uh
speculation uh or perhaps just filling uh in the gaps with assumptions uh based
on what's what's out there so my question for you Dr Gary is could you elaborate more on the specific hard
evidence that supports your claim that the Chinese market in Wuhan was the most likely source of the virus certainly and
thank you for the question um there is a lot of evidence that this virus emerged from the um Hanan seafood market in
Wuhan but let me just focus on three points uh epidemiology molecular
forensics and genetics first the epidemiology the early cases from December 2019 before
the disease was even described all centered around in fact they painted the
bullseye on the non seafood market the molecular forensics environmental
samples were collected from the market after it was closed the hotspot of SARS cov2 positivity the RNA was in the
southwest corner of the market in those very same samples RNA and DNA from raccoon dogs and mass Palm
civits was found in these samples co-mingling with the SARS kobe2
RNA genetics the SARS KOB 2 spilled over at least twice in the market the phog
gentics the genetics of the virus are very clear about that that is not compatible with a lab
leak Dr Gary U do we know that the virus that caused covid-19 existed in the
Wuhan lab uh before the pandemic and if not how how could we find that out in
fact we don't know um the intelligence Community has looked at that point very
um intently and has not been able to determine that uh we had the
virus um uh we don't have the evidence from the Chinese it's just one of the many things that we're missing that that
we would like to get from from the Chinese government based on uh uh the bat Corner
Corona virus that we uh we know that uh researchers in the Wuhan lab were working on would would it have been
possible for them to create this virus is it possible not from a bat Corona virus um if you take the time to read my
written testimony I'm going to uh in that document I went through a lot of evidence that this virus did not spill
over directly from a bat to a human being um there it had to go through an
intermediate animal and it's not just the the evidence from the nonmarket there's other uh genetic evidence the
the bat Corona viruses are viruses that are spread by the gas gastrointestinal
route uh for a a virus like this to become a respiratory virus is just going
to require too many mutations too many changes uh for a bat virus to spill directly over to human being that could
only really happen in nature uh with replication through an intermediate animal very good Dr KET next questions
for you uh I'm aware that through foyer request a lot of information from US
Agencies and us-based organizations have been obtained by uh people investigating
the covid-19 origins however it seems as though we've gotten relatively little or
or nothing from Chinese agencies or the Wuhan Institute of phology specifically
so my question for you sir is what specific information from China would be most helpful in settling this origin
debate um thank you Senator um there's a range of information that would be useful for uh furthering our um
investigation the origins of of the pandemic um the uh trans government has collected Lots some information about
the um uh uh the samples that were both at Hunan market and and elsewhere in
Wuhan uh and in other providences where they sampled um animals um but they haven't released the raw data they've
provided information but not the data that epidemiologist vists have wanted to see in order to do their own uh analyses
um just last year they did release uh more information U through Publications but this is information they've been
sitting on for quite a while so there is more information that should be released and should be made the raw data
available able to Independent outside experts to make their own um assessments um in terms of um the one andology
um there should be records about the research they're conducting there should be records about the medical
surveillance they're performing on their researchers um records on the um maintenance operation of their
biocontainment equipment um and all that those documentations um would be um uh
could be reviewed by outside experts to determine um if there's any signs that there was any um accidents or any U
indications that there was um you know the virus was um uh you know made an
escape of from the lab so there is quite a bit of information that that's available um but obviously the Chinese
government has chosen to be um opaque about uh what they have and what they know in a way that has frustrated um uh
people involved with looking at this in terms of assessing both the um Naturals Doo spill over um pathway and also
looking at the the accident pathway Dr Gary you talked about the
virus jumping from a from an animal into human and we've heard the term spillover
for the for the benefit of this committee could you explain uh spillover sure in fact most human
diseases have come to us from animals um when we're talking about a spillover
we're talking about a cross species transmission from one animal species uh
to another I mean it could be another animal but you know usually when we talk about spill over we're talking about from an animal to a human so animals had
their own viruses just like we do um the ones that are dangerous in the animals so are the ones that that have the the
capacity to infect more than one species you can think about a virus like rabies that can infect you know a wide range of
Maman host so do we know what U animal or animals could have carried this virus
and were they at the uh at the market if explain uh that more fully please sure
um we don't know that for sure uh what we do know is is that uh when you look for the virus in the market on
environmental surfaces and um various places you found it mostly in the
southwest corner of the market this is where the wildlife was sold um the
animals like the raccoon donks so the mass pal civits and in fact there many of the samples there had SARS kobe2 and
the DNA and RNA from those animals right there in the same sample there's there's you could imagine somebody maybe came
and you know sneezed on that sample but the the most likely explanation is is that animals were in fact infected
themselves with SARS kobe2 when you look at the drains outside of that one stall that had the most SARS Koby to um that
drain also had uh had virus so it's um
you know we don't have the Smoking Gun evidence that you know there was actually an infected animal in the
market but I think we have the next best thing with this forensic molecular
biology very go thank you uh ranking member Paul you're recognized for your questions Mr chairman I ask unanimous
consent to submit statements for the record from us right to know open the books America First legal frontiers of
freedom and Dr Alina Chan without objection so just in the last few
minutes Dr Gary has told us that this couldn't have come from bats it had to go through an intermediate host that May
well be true but arguing against that is they tested 990,000 some OD animals and there is no animal host that's been
found but what he also doesn't tell you is the animal host could be a laboratory animal it could be passed serially
through that and that's one way of quickly adapting and pushing natural selection to adapt a virus towards
humans Dr Alina Chan has written extensively about this how this virus didn't show up clunky and poorly
transmissible this virus showed up immediately very transmissible in humans
as if it had been pre-adapted in a lab Dr ebite Dr Gary tells us that he's wedded
to the scientific method and that uh he considered all the different
possibilities in proximal Origins I know you're a professor and I'm assuming you've been the senior author on many
papers I assume that you teach your younger uh researchers what is good
scientific method and not good scientific method in the abstract of proximal Origins Dr G and his fellow
authors State categorically that the virus is not a laboratory construct that doesn't sound
to me like open-mindedness and I wonder what you would tell a younger researcher or someone you're instructing in the
scientific method about putting uh categorical statements into a scientific
paper well it's important to emphasize that the paper in question proximal origin of SARS cov2 published in March
2020 was not a research article it was an opinion piece it was published as a
commentary which is the section in the journal that holds opinion pieces and
editorials so it was an opinion piece the authors were stating their opinion
but that opinion was not well founded in March of 2020 there was no basis to
state that as a conclusion as opposed to Simply being a hypothesis moreover we
know we know that compelling evidence has been presented as a result of Congressional inquiry in the house that
four of the authors of that paper Dr Anderson Dr Gary Dr Holmes and Dr
Rambo in their private Communications show clearly that they knew the
conclusion that they stated in that article was invalid so in terms of what I would tell
a younger scientist I would be mentoring I would tell a younger scientist that you do not State a conclusion without
evidence even in an opinion piece in a scientific journal and you never under
any circumstances in a scientific journal State conclusions that you know to be unsound that represents scientific
misconduct it represents scientific misconduct up to and including fraud and
the paper in question the proximal origin paper has been recommended for review of retraction two requests one in
2023 and one in 2024 were submitted by teams of scientists to the journal in
question to the journal editors asking them to add an editorial expression of concern and to initiate a review for
retraction of the article I know of no other example in modern scientific
history or Publications where a publication has come forward pronouncing with such Authority that the lab leak is
implausible it is not a laboratory construct while privately saying this is no fraking con conspiracy theory looks
like it did I'm 9010 I'm 5050 but no doubt in the paper in fact we know that
it went back and forth with Dr fouchi with editors who say we want the statements to be stronger we want the
conclusions to be stronger that was actually coming from nature at the time we want you to doctor it up and even be more strong because we're making a
political Point here that's where we should have known we were off track that these people were politicians and that
they were pushing an idea because as Dr Collins finally admitted one of the emails this is about the business of
science with China this will disturb our relations with China if anybody questions this Dr
Quay the idea that this came from the fish market I thought had been discredited by virtually all of
scientists now I'm really surprised it's still being presented here I know that uh the Chinese the CDC George G over
there uh basically said that they no longer consider it and actually if you think about it from their perspective
we're not sure if we can trust them but at the same time the Chinese if they would rather have it come from a lab or
the market I think we choose the market over the lab if anything they would be if we were going to think they were dishonest and be dishonest toward saying
hey we found some animals but I if you could revie stepwise just a little bit slower some of the evidence for why it's
not there the amount of animals tested the animal handlers compared to SARS one
but also the idea of this uh genetic diversity that uh you know when SARS one
came about the first time I think it tried hundreds of times cuz these animal viruses don't infect humans well in the
beginning I tried hundred times over and over again and even in the end SARS one didn't transmit between humans very well
that's why containment worked and that's why quarantine worked because it wasn't very infectious but go through a little
bit step by step the evidence of why anybody still maintaining that it came from the market is is misguided sure I
mean let me let me agree with Dr Gary about SARS one being a spillover and let me elaborate a little bit there were 11
cities 11 markets three different lineages and a 30 nucleotide difference
among the initial cases in patients which approximat it's about a year of posterior diversity at is called SARS
two of course there's there's it's either in one market or it's in no markets there's no other prop proposal for for a market origin from it 457
animals were tested in the market zero were found to be infected SARS 1 92
animals 100% infected the the the the uh the vendors the wildlife vendors in SARS
1 were all infected we have 10 vendors here none of them are infected one vendor had bamboo Rats from from
Southern China where the backbone comes from he was he wasn't infected his animals weren't infected uh SARS 2 has
no posterior diversity so it really as as Dr Anderson said it's one jump from one animal to one human the most likely
place that happens is in a laboratory and again to be clear when you say an animal it could be it could be a petri dish it could be animal cells and a
petri dish the the question of where the origins came from is the question of where the animal is and they've tested
96 animals in nature and they've tested zero animals at Wuhan Institute of rology that's where we need to look
thank you I'll reserve the rest for a second round Senator hasson you recognized for
your questions well thanks chair Peters and reing member Paul for holding this hearing thank you to all of our
Witnesses for being here today um Dr cins one of the areas of inquiry in this
hearing is obviously whether research funded by the United States government has appropriate oversight however
private companies universities and independent research institutions are also engaging in Cutting Edge research
while their research has the potential to cure diseases and boost our economy unless they accept Federal funding there
is very little Federal oversight to ensure that private labs are engaged in safe and ethical research what safety
procedures are in place for research facilities that don't receive government funding and are there oversight measures
that either government or independent authorities should put in place to monitor work at these Labs including
Labs working on Gene synthesis uh thank you Senator um the uh
the oversight of privately funded research is much less than that of federally funded research in terms of
both bios safety biocurity and duus research oversight um what we've seen in
um the area of dual use research oversight for example and the most recent um policy that the bid Administration released uh only applies
to Fally funded research um however there is the ability for federal agencies to require their their Grant
recipients to apply this new policy to all research including that's privately funded uh but that requires special
Authority that some agencies may have but others would need um legislation to give them that that ability that
wouldn't cover research that's only conducted by privately funded entities but it would expand the scope of of research that that is uh in order to
expand the scope of of oversight to all privately funded research would require um legislative action um and um along
the lines of the The Proposal I include in my written statement for the establishment of a national bi risk management agency that would have
authority over bios safety bioc and du research oversight regardless of source of funding because the end of the day it
shouldn't matter where the funding comes from in terms of making sure this research is being done safely securely and responsibly thank you for that um
another question to you Dr cin we've heard a great deal about the risks of certain types of research involving
dangerous pathogens and the need for robust oversight on the type of experiments that are performed we've
heard less about the potential risks for from researchers performing off the books or unsupervised experiments that
may be risky or unethical how serious are the risks posed by malicious or unethical insiders and are the United
States and international Authority ities equipped to sufficiently mitigate these
risks um so um following the the revelations that Bruce Ivans was
responsible for the anthrax tax um which happened in 2009 um the United States took a much uh Stronger stance on trying to prevent Insider threats at at facilities and so the federal select agent program which focus on biocurity uh included a number of measures to try and better monitor science of access to to pathogens in terms of ensuring that remain um uh they they do not become security risks um that kind of um uh efforts to mitigate Insider threats does not exist in the side of the duus research oversight um there is a lot of um emphasis on self-governance by research institutions and by piis to basically govern their own labs and make sure that work is not being done that is um as you said off the books or or is any way unethical but so it is really at this point on the ownness is on Research to make sure that the work activity being done on their facilities is in compliance with all relevant um laws and regulations so that is an area that um is currently a gap in our oversight of this kind of research okay thank you uh one more question for you when it comes to biocurity the US domestic security is obviously tied to International efforts what happens halfway across the globe can clearly impact Us in the United States Dr you're involved in the global biolabs initiative which is an organization that tracks all the highest biocurity level labs in the world are there Labs that are of particular concern and if so what action should Congress and the executive branch take to improve their safety and thus our national security um as we documented in our report last year on um Global biolabs um there's been a building boom in BSL 4 um Labs since the start of the the pandemic and so there number of countries that are now building their first bsl4 Labs um that don't have their National bios safy and bios legislation regulations in place and so countries like the Philippines uh Kazakhstan um Saudi Arabia um are trying
to um construct facilities but they don't yet have the regulatory infrastructure that they need to make sure those labs can be operated safely securely and responsibly uh in addition um countries like China and India who already operate bs4 labs are planning on building additional Labs uh as well um and so in all of these cases uh there's a need for uh making sure that these you know at the national level that the right U bius management policies are in place and then at the laboratory level that these um policies are being followed properly uh and there are a number of of measures that the both the US and internationally through who and other entities could take to try and ensure that these uh regulations are um in place and are being followed properly and and can you elaborate on what those steps would be sure so um there is a um uh a international standard for biorisk management um that um uh creates a a framework for how do you ensure that Safety and Security is prioritized across your laboratory and your research Enterprise it's called ISO 35001 um it was negotiated end of 2019 but has not been widely adopted yet um by labs around the world having that kind of international standard is very useful because it provides the best practices for bios safety and biocurity and it includes a um a process by which you need to document how you're complying with that standard that documentation then becomes available for audit in the event that you need you need to have any kind of Investigation um by local National interational authorities to to ensure that the facility is operating properly and is is operating safely and securely so that kind of standard provides an international um metric for measuring whether or not a a lab is is operating to the international standards that we we would hope they would be thank you very much
Thank you Mr chair thank thank you Senator Johnson you recognized for your questions thank you Mr chairman I want to thank you and the ranking member for holding this uh very important hearing uh we need a lot more of these um I want to thank all the witnesses for your very detailed testimony and I'd encourage anybody viewing this hearing to go online and read the detailed testimony I think you find it very difficult to not come away after reading that that you know we may not have a Smoking Gun but the circumstantial evidence is strong that this was a man-made virus and that it was probably leaked from a lab probably at the Wuhan Institute of biology um you know one thing that's convinced me very early on I've been convinced this quite some time is just the cover up I mean the fact that Chinese took down data sets so all a sudden you couldn't find a Smoking Gun because it
no longer exists and we'll probably never uh know that but also the cover up here within the US government I've been
doing uh oversight on our response to co which by the way was a miserable failure
we're 4% of the world's population we apparently experience 16% of the deaths supposedly the most modern Med you know
medical system in the world that's a miserable failure and so we need to do a lot of oversight not just on the origin
which is an important aspect of this but on everything okay um if we're serious
about this by the way we we got to start letting spena start flying I'll do this one more time I've done this multiple
times this is the 50 final pages of fouche's emails by the way the only reason we realized that fouchi was
engaged in a cover up with Dr Gary is the fact that we had to foyer these they
didn't turn these over which they should have we had to foyer them had to go to court uh our staff is taking the 4,000
pages that we got that were redacted narrowed those down to 400 pages and they allowed us to look at
these things unredacted in a reading room 350 pages but not the final 50
in terms of the coverup my guess is the Smoking
Gun exists somewhere under these heavy redactions so my my suggestion actually
my my uh plea to the chairman is to issue subpoena to get these final 50 pages
then maybe we'll get a full extent of of the extensive cover up uh Dr
Gary I don't know have you ever used the word conspiracy theory as it relates to the leak have you ever accused people who
put that thing forward their bunch of conspiracy theorists not in not in my public okay well I tell you who I tell
you who has is the chief editor-in chief of nature ma magazine that published the proximal origin he said talking about
your study your cover up great work will put conspiracy theories about the origin
of SARS kovi 2 to rest will you at least admit that people
who are raising the possibility of a lab leak were not conspiracy theorists that there were legitimate
concern about gain function research creating this chimeric virus of course
sir I mean that would include us at the very beginning that's that's prog that's progress because again lot awful lot of
people's reputations were ruined by this coverup and by the accusations of people being a conspiracy theorists Dr ebite
you know the purpose of this hearing really is to talk about the danger of gain of fun function research you know
right now we're we're about ready to be scaremonger I think we're already being scare mongered on
h5n1 uh back in 2000 late 2011 the world learned of two scientific
teams one in University of Wisconsin Madison uh one in the Netherlands uh that had apparently it
said each of these labs create h5n1 viruses that had gained the ability to spread through the air between ferrets
the animal M used to study how flu virus might behave in in humans that's pretty
darn dangerous stuff right that is primarily what led to the moratorium and gain and function correct that is
correct what possible reason is there to be producing what nature probably couldn't
produce why are we doing this it's important to emphasize that
the research in question has no zero civilian practical application
gain of function research on potential pandemic pathogens is not used and does
not contribute to the development of vaccines and is not used and for and
does not contribute to the development of drugs so so so again the that rationale for all this research is
exactly that in case we have to respond in case but that's the rationale in case we have to respond to a bioweapon attack
okay uh we need a defense mechanism so that's that's the reason for example the defense department is has spent $42
million or funded Eco Health Alliance for $42 million in US aid for 53 million
correct so the current definition is research that is reasonably anticipated
to increase either the transmissibility or the virulence of a potential pandemic pathogen that
research does not contribute to developing countermeasures against
potential P that's the rationale they Ed you know the thing they really scared the public on was the 1918 flu pandemic
correct uh even Anthony fmit most people who died of the flu pandemic died of
pneumonia because we didn't have antibiotics correct bacterial pneumonia I think one of the things we have
to provide oversight is the sabotage of early treatment using widely available
cheap and safe generic drugs we didn't do that I mean from my standpoint the first thing we ought to be doing in any
kind of pandemic is is there some way to treat this and let doctor be doctors let them practice medicine yeah I'm I'm sure
you're familiar with the concept of Miller's ratchet correct of what Miller's ratchet okay well it's it's it's
basically what viruses generally do is they'll become more transmissible but less pathogenic okay because again it
doesn't do a virus snuffs itself out Ms snuffed itself out SARS snuffed itself out except there were a couple lab leaks
that produce Cyrus outbreaks correct so again my point is are we making things
worse with human intervention producing vaccines that are that are not sterilizing that allow variants to be
produced and things like antibod dependent enhancement again there's an awful lot of concern that we don't even
consider here because we we're on this Quest to Have a vaccine for
everything produce vaccines for viruses haven't even been created yet in the lab again that's the question we ought to be
asking this committee is is what in the world are we doing what's the rationale for doing this and are we actually
causing more harm than good with vaccine development I would
disagree the vaccines vaccines in general do not pose significant harms
and offer significant benefits with respect to the gain of function research
which creates new threats biological threats that do not exist currently and
might not naturally come into to existence in a decade a century or a millennium that research creates threats
and those threats are existentially risky threats and that research is being conducted without a justifiable
rationale there is no rationale in terms of development of counter measures
industry develops vaccines and Therapeutics against diseases currently in humans not against diseases that
don't yet exist and need to be made in a lab we could use a public debate
regarding all things vaccin the profit motive of it and everything else but that's for another day thank you Senator
Johnson Senator Marshall you're recognize for your questions thank you Mr chairman I think it's first of all it's
important to remember why we're here today we're here today because we don't want to have another pandemic like this
I think it's important that we recognize that a million Americans have lost a loved one and they're still looking for
closure we have 15 million Americans with long Co and perhaps if we knew the
origin of Co and the development maybe that would give us a clue how to treat
us um I want to start with Dr Quay and go back to the
diffuse grant for just a second uh this is a grant by Ecco health and Peter
dassk recall that Peter dasic is David Moran's BFF
um and that Grant was denied but yet it lays out a framework
for the development of of covid-19 and you went through six or seven several
reasons that are absolutely consistent that they said they would do X and they did X and what are the chances of all
those things ending up in a covid virus yeah well again just as a reminder so
they they said they were going to go to a particular spot in southern China uh to get a virus they were going to make
sure that it had diversity from sarwan of about 25% they were going to put it into uh humanized mice to enhance its
ability to recognize the receptor binding domain they're going to fear in cleavage site in a very particular spot
you know out of 13,000 letters in the spike protein they said in the grant they were going to put it at a spot
called the S1 S2 Junction they they they said uh and so all of those were found
in SARS K2 its nearest neighbor is from the same area it's it has a 99% binding
affinity for the for the human receptor SARS one jumped into humans it only had 15% of the epidemic changes it needed to
become epidemic do you think the chances of all six or Quantified it because I like statistics and it's one in 1.2
billion so a one in a billion chance all that comes to fruition there were some comments on that Grant in the margin so
Dr baric North Carolina developed the technology for the the protein Spike he
taught Dr she he gave them humanized M again this was all funded with usaid
grant grant money as well what we're some of the comments in the margin you think that are significant well this is important because the the the PO the
folks told DARPA we're going to do this research in North Carolina under very high safety conditions in the grant
that's what they wrote the marginal comments in drafts that were only obtained through foas set a different
thing dassk said hey we're gonna we're going to shift this over to Wuhan because it'll be cheaper faster uh we'll
get a lot more done that way baric says boy if us scientists knew this was going on they would think this is crazy this
is in the marginal comment so they in a way they weren't truthful with DARPA in the gr so Dr baric Who you along with Dr
Fier the father of gain of function knew that that other scientists and America would have a fit if this was being done
here yeah and again so fast forward to January 2020 these two science scientists dasic and baric sitting down
with the sequence of SARS kov 2 and a computer would know within one hour this thing has all the features of what we
proposed in that Grant and the fact they either didn't tell anybody or the people they told didn't do anything about it
meant that they that human to human transmission was not a we were not aware of that and asymptomatic transmission we
were not aware of this is the first new respiratory virus that's asymptomatic great let's come back I'm going to use
that and come back to that point in Ju in just a second you know we went through what I call the smoking guns that really show Beyond a reasonable
doubt that this virus was made in a a laboratory move on China it was synthetic uh you know everywhere from
the geography of where it shows up for the first time to uh the fact that there was virus already spread to multiple
continents by the time the wet Market break occurs they never have found the intermediate species with SARS and Ms it
took months to find an intermediate species anyone that says the raccoon dog is the intermediate species is just
laughable science uh no progenitor viruses um and the timeline they were
developing a vaccine already November 2019 Dr she has taken down the DNA lab banks in September 2019 she takes down
another the lab bank here in this country I maybe March of the next year as well but of all the smoking guns and
this is the hardest to explain to people is just the the genetic makeup of this virus and you pointed out the protein
Spike the protein Spike alone be like a person that the protein Spike that fits into a lung cell would be like the
chances of a person walking in the room with a key that fits the lock on those doors I mean it was a perfect protein
Spike you mentioned the fur and cleavage site there's other spots but I wanted to talk about the o f8 site for just a
second uh Dr qu what's the significance of this o rf8 site so or8 is a protein
that's down near the right hand side of the of the virus uh it is not in the final virus it is secreted into the
bloodstream and it does two things uh early in the infection it it blocks interferon expression so you don't you
don't sweat you don't have a fever you don't show the symptoms of an infection and later in the infection it blocks
what's called antigen MHC presentation so we learned from HIV that a virus that
can block the ability of pieces of the virus to be presented to the immune system is a virus that is very hard to
make antibodies against very hard to fight against it uh two Master's thesis uh during 2015 that have only been
published in Chinese no papers came from it at the W in of rology created a
synthetic cloning system for ORF a so gain of function research around things
that make viruses asymptomatic and things that that make them not be able to make antibodies to are are Beyond The
Pale of what what uh you know Dr ebite has said in terms of the civilian use Dr
Civ so really this or of8 is a synthetic link sequence never found in nature and
they place it in here right they place this link in here for the purposes of
the two cardinal sins the cardinal sin of asymptomatic uh virus and then
transmission with without that symptom as well and the inability to make an immune response I mean that's the
cardinal sins of G of function research what what purpose would there be if you're wanting to develop vaccines is
there any civilian purpose or is this in fact a bioweapon I can't say it's a
bioweapon because that's in the mind of the person that made it but but it is it is highly unusual highly synthetic they
were doing synthetic biology around it and its two functions are quite remarkable with respect to uh what kind
of research you would do in the civilian World Dr abber is there a possibility that it could have been a dual purpose that there could have been used as a
bioweapon so the original SARS virus SARS kov1 yeah is a tier one select
agent in the United States so it is in the group of pathogens and biological
toxins that our federal government has identified as having high potential for use as a bioweapon in biowarfare biot
terrorism or biocrime it by definition Miss therefore according to our federal government is a
bioweapon agent it is not a bioweapon but it is an agent that potentially
could be used is there any good use any good reason to put this in the vi in the virus if you're developing a vaccine I
would return to my general comment on gain of function research on potential pandemic pathogens that research has no
civilian practical application researchers undertake it because it is
fast it is easy it requires no specialized equipment or skills and it
was prioritized for funding and has been prioritized for publication by scientific journals these are major
incentives to researchers worldwide in China and in the US the researchers
undertake This research because it's easy they get the money and they can get the
papers Senator Marshall Senator Scott you right nice for your questions first I want to thank the chair and the reike
member for hosting this hearing um we she did this a lot I think we there's a lot that we still need to learn the co
pandemic was devastating for our country as we all know the response by the Biden Administration the media has done nothing but amplify the consequences of
this crisis and erode trust in our federal government not long ago anyone asking questions about the origins of
covid and the possibility of this virus resulting from a Lad Leak were branded as conspiracy theorists just like the H
100 Biden laptop story The Experts said this was disinformation and ways to campaign against members of Congress
medical professionals and everyone else asking questions to discre them as liar and
extremist Anthony FY led the charge in this public smear campaign and I think it's great that he's not there
anymore we know this is that that this is not only a credible Theory but the most likely cause of the pandemic common
shine it can't be trusted and because the bid Administration has chosen weak easement of the CCP we still hav't
forced accountability or got the answers the American public deserve HS Office of
the Inspector General did a review of the Eco Health Alliance and his management of the grant contract Eco
Health received funds and had the Wuhan insit as a subcontractor his minor Senator that NIH
requires annual data reporting for what we spend money on and the research data the Wuhan Institute never never provided
or only provided partial data Eco health either failed to submit or submitt incomplete data nhh failed to police
their own grant program and allowed this to slide for years about 85% of eal
Health's budget comes from federal research grants I I have no idea why NIH
would think it's a good idea to give us tax dollars to communist China seems like a pretty poor idea to me Dr E ebite
would it make sense to hold Grant recipients accountable for the failure to comply with the terms of their grants
why not require the prime Grant to fully reimburse the government if they are one of their subcontract sees fail to fully
comply with the terms of the grant seems like we do that with our personal life if somebody does the wrong thing they
owe us the money back so what do you think we do currently hold the grantee
responsible not only for the primary award but for sub awards for subcontracts when a researcher submits a
grant proposal to NIH when a researcher submits each annual Grant progress
report to NIH the researcher signs a certification box and that certification
box says that the researcher will comply with the terms and condition of the Grant and will provide full and factual
information upon request subject to administrative civil and criminal
penalties so the basis for accountability exists has Ecco Health been held
accountable have they giv us any money back uh to my knowledge there has been no clawback of funding from Eco Health
there has however been an immediate suspension that went into effect uh a
month ago both of Eco Health Alliance and then this month of its president a suspension of eligibility for federal
funding of all forms and a referral uh for debarment from eligibility for
federal funding from all sources have you do you know any instances where NIH
has ever held anybody accountable and gotten the money back yes so this has happened in number of cases examples
include data fraud other examples include sexual harassment or other forms
of abuse that are outside the terms and conditions of the grant so why do you think they haven't gotten the money back
from Eco Health why haven't they been held accountable I would place that burden on
Congress and on the White House in that the NIH is unlikely to move toward
clawback without motivation from either Congress or the white house it's their
job it is their job but it is also the job of our legislative branch through
its oversight responsibility and our executive branch through its primary
responsibility to ensure that jobs are carried out do you know anybody at NIH has ever been fired for a failure to do
it do their job you mean an NIH staff yeah as part of the administrative staff
at NIH you have you heard of anybody I do not has any anybody you know have ever been fired from NIH over what they
did with by not uh enforcing um the Eco Health uh grant program not to my
knowledge okay so as you said Eco Health has been suspended by further funding with possible dpartment but they're
currently appealing it do you think it's right to debar them absolutely so when you so how long should they be debarred
for the debarment term specified by law typically is 3 years the dearment
proceeding meetings determine first whether a debarment will occur and then determine the duration the term of the
dearment I would recommend a permanent debarment given the number of terms and
conditions of the eal Health Alliance grants that were violated and the severity of those
violations so Wuhan Institute of V virology has been debarred for 10 years
do you think it' be should be permanent and why hasn't it been yes I do I do not know why why do
why do you think it wasn't permanent uh I do not know okay so does anybody else have any
any background of why NIH doesn't enforce their own I mean it's their it's it's it's their own
rules have you guys have you heard of people anybody from NH being being dis
being reprimanded fired or anything over the Eco health no why do y'all
think I I think the retired uh head of the niid should be asked that
question okay all right thank you thank you Senator Scott Senator
Romney you're recognized for your questions thank you Mr chairman ranking member for the hearing um I I'd like to get a sense of um
there's a lot of energy and passion around was it from an animal or was it a lab leak uh and and I must admit I don't
understand why there's so much energy around that strikes me that we'll never be 100% sure I presume about one or the
other we might be 98% or something but we'll always be a little uncertain and
given the fact that it could have been either we know what action we ought to take to protect from
either and and so why there's so much passion around it makes me think it's
more political than scientific but maybe I'm wrong so the action it strikes me that based on what I've heard we
shouldn't be financing gain to function research what I heard was there's no particular reason for it uh other than
military Warfare and we shouldn't do that anyway so one we know that uh whether it came from an animal or not we
shouldn't be financing gain of function research number two we should insist that any place we send Money Follows the
international ISO standards I I didn't get the number uh Dr coalin but I I you
had a number there that suggested that people uh have to follow so we shouldn't be getting money or going to Labs that
don't follow those International standards and number three uh whether it was from a wet Market or the Wuhan lab
China's to blame uh both those things were in China
and uh and so if we're looking for someone to blame we know who it is it's the Chinese and they should take
responsibility for it and should have opened themselves up to complete uh disclosure um so am am I wrong here here
is there a reason there's so much energy around whether it came from uh a wet
Market or a lab in both cases the action is simple we should clean up the wet labs and number two we should tighten
EXC me the wet markets and number two we should tighten the labs what please go ahead Dr
Quay well I'll just say briefly I mean I think I think the energy is around the fact that paychecks salaries careers are
based on continuing gain of function research by some of the most vocal people uh in this
in this debate and I think if you follow the money you'll see the answer thank you Dr Gary what's your
thought well I you know a lot of the talk around gain and function research depends on how you how you define it and
the definition is very important I mean there's some informal definitions they're very technical definitions and
we have to get that part right because if you define it in a way that basically interferes with uh a lot of biomedical
research on viruses and on other things too cancer research everything um you're going to really the biomedical
research Enterprise so let's get that right um I don't think you know just
blanket we should stop funding all gain and function research because some of that is important like you know for
developing animal models of new diseases as they come forth you have to select for a virus that can actually replicate
in a a stinct animal that that you can use in the lab so if you don't permit
gain of function research we won't be able to respond to a new threat because we won't be able to make animal models
so getting that right getting that definition right is very important I think that the office of Science and Technology policy um new guidelines for
this type of research is very clear uh it's a good step forward um you should
look at that and see what you can do best to uh you know to codify that into some kind of
legislation yeah Dr E right you concur with that point of view that that we need to Define exactly what kind of
research is okay and which is not which has a beneficial purpose and which has only malevolent purpose the definition
of gain of function research has been clear there is a legally controlling
official definition from the US policy that was in effect from 2014 to 2017 and
there has been an official legally controlling definition in the US policy that has been effect in effect from 2018
to the present the definitions have never been in question but the intensity that you asked about at the start of
your series of questions the intensity comes from those who are practitioners
of gain of function research and related high-risk research on potential pandemic
pathogens who have for two decades successfully resisted Federal oversight
of their activities for two decades who have insisted on self-regulation a
without external oversight and who would like this to continue despite the very
real possibility even though as you say not a certainty of the fact the the very
real possibility that SARS K2 a pandemic that killed 20 million and cost 25 trillion may have come from precisely
that category of research that is the basis of the intensity only after there
is an acknowledgement and I see this acknowledgement today in a bipartisan fashion among members of this committee
from both parties only after there is an acknowledgement that there is a very real possibility not a remote
possibility but a very real possibility of a lab origin will there be the political will to impose regulation on
this scientific community that has successfully resisted and obstructed
regulation for two decades every other component of biomedical research that
poses risks or has significant consequences has regulation Federal Regulation with force of law in place
there's regulation of human subjects research there's regulation of vertebrate animal research there's
regulation of embryonic stem cell research but in this category of research which is the most significant
in terms of consequences and potentially existential risk There is almost no
regulation with force of law no regulation with force of law for for bios safety for any pathogen other than
the smallpox virus and no regulation with force of law for biorisk
management for any pathogen that needs to change that's what produces this
intensity and and it strikes me that that uh uh whether uh covid came from a
lab or it came from a wet Market that issue still has to be addressed
absolutely and so I'm I'm not going to get so excited about where Co happened to come from what I know is that
something very dangerous could come from gain of function research if it's not properly regulated how to define where
those boundaries are and what one can do and one can't do that's some something that we ought to be focused on even if
we became 98% sure it came from a a a wet Market that wouldn't mean that gain of function research could it by itself
become a huge danger to humanity and therefore we ought to regulate it is that is that something you gentlemen
agree with or am I making a mistake I completely agree with you Senator Romney that's well stated thank thank you thank
you Senator rney Senator Hol recognized for your questions thank you very much Mr chairman thanks for holding this hearing thanks for the witnesses for
being here you know I have to say I think one of the worst things that happened in the covid era is that our
own government deliberately withheld information from us from the American
people tried to propagandize the American people used the arms and
agencies of government to actively censor americ Americans who dared to question the propaganda and they're
still lying to us and I'll give you the proof of it I wrote the Bill that requires the administration to
declassify the intelligence intelligence assessments and reports related to the origins of covid-19 now listen I just
want to say everybody sitting on this dis has read these I've read them I guarantee you my colleagues have read
them I know what the energy Department concluded I know what the FBI concluded I knew what they concluded years ago
because we could read them when people like Dr fouchy were out there saying the labak hypothesis was totally discredited
in nonsense you could go read the intelligence and no our own government thought otherwise and at this late hour
this government still refuses to release the intelligence they are blatantly
disregarding blatantly disregarding the law that this body passed the Senate passed unanimously
unanimously the propaganda involved in the origins of covid-19 is a astounding to me it recalls the worst of the
wartime propaganda in years past when the government would deliberately lie to people and here that's what they have
been doing with covid-19 and are still doing it you know you had this whole cabal of led by Dr fouchy and others who
as soon as the lab leak hypothesis that we now know is a lot more than a hypothesis as soon as it's mentioned
what what did fouchy do we know because this has all been litigated in the federal district court in fact in
multiple federal courts I've got the finding of fact from the court right here they lay it all out fouchy goes to
the who asks the who to intervene to discredit the lab leak he then speaks
against it multiple times from the podium at the White House he then does countless media interviews I mean my
gosh what show has he not been on he's still on TV spewing this misinformation as he would call it but he did these
multiple interviews where he says no way no how lab leak not possible at all and
then he coordinates and the whole federal government coordinates with the biggest tech companies in the world to
suppress and media companies to suppress any American who would ask questions about it it's absolutely disgraceful Dr
Gary you were part of this propaganda effort I mean you were right at the center of it it's astounding you wrote
this piece this nature magazine piece or whatever it was that we've heard
testimony here today nature medicine 17th 2020 we've heard testimony here today from other scientists on the panel
that it's basically an opinion piece you said at the time that definitively SARS
Co 2 is not a laboratory construct is not a laboratory construct of course our
own government key agencies have concluded otherwise and on the basis of this Dr fouchy and others cited this
this piece and went out to use it to mobilize our own government to answer
people who ask questions about people lost their jobs because of this they lost their jobs they lost their standing
they were kicked off Facebook they were kicked off Twitter do you regret being part of this effort this propaganda
effort sir I I was I was simply just writing a paper about our scientific
opinions about where this virus came from oh no you weren't you said in an email that we now have that you tried to withhold but that we have February 2nd
2020 you wrote I really can't think of a plausible natural scenario where you can
get from the bat virus or one very similar to it to this I I'm quoting you
I just can't figure out how this gets accomplished in nature it's stunning of course in the lab it would be easy well
of course and I actually figured it out that's the whole point of that you figured it out you you wrote this while
you were writing your propaganda piece while you writing that somewhere around February 2 it was exactly February 2 and
you testified that you were writing your proximal origin paper in early February so you're you're saying that what did it
come to you overnight there was new data that came like a a revelation from God no overnight you conclud I got it I got
it I figured it out I figured it out and now I can definitively rule out it's
amazing is that what happened it's just the scientific method oh it's just SCI oh it's the scientific method that
happened and lightning speed and then was used to propagandize and lie to and
shut down as a scientist who supposedly supposed to follow facts do you regret
the fact that your work was used to censor your fellow scientists it was
used to censor ordinary Americans who ask questions about the virus do you do you regret that when when you write a
paper I mean you get it in the journal I we can't control what happens after oh I see so you're not responsible at all
this is It's amazing nobody who is involved in any of this is responsible never they're not responsible people
have lost their jobs yeah people have lost probably their Healthcare associated with their jobs people have
been run out of public they're not available in polite Society you can't
show your face because my gosh you question but you you don't have anything to do with it why has so many of your
papers your other papers been retracted or subjected to formal expressions of concern yeah well why is that there's a
long story behind that um four of them right I mean You' you've had an in July 26 2021 virology retracted a
pay-per-views also in 2021 the Journal of General virology retracted another of your papers in March of 2022 an
expression of concern was added by an editor of yet another journal to another of your papers in April 4th of 2024 a
third scientific paper of yours was retracted from the Journal of medical virology is this normal those papers
didn't come from my lab but you know I'm certainly helping they're not yours they're not mine no oh so so your I'm on
the paper but they did not come work that that God gave you in a flash of inspiration remains absolutely un
unimpeachable unimpeached I I we stand by that do you stand by your your assertion and your nature piece that uh
SARS Co 2 is not a laboratory construct could not be uh we do and that's exactly
the same uh could possibly conclusion that the intelligence Community came to oh no that is a lie let's stop right
there that is a lie I have read the intell the intelligence community did
not come to that conclusion multiple intelligence Community agents and
components have concluded it was likely a lab leak and they concluded that at the same time that you and your people
were propagandizing the American public and using the channels and influence of
the American government to censor ordinary Americans that is the truth I'm not going to sit here and allow you to
lie any further Dr Gary you have disgracefully participated in shameful
propaganda that has been one of the worst chapters in this country's history with the government propagandizing its
own people and you know what you may be right about the I'm not a scientist I don't know but what I do know is what I
do know is it is wrong it is wrong to censor and lie to the American public it
is wrong to withhold critical information from them and it is wrong to countenance that and to say oh I just
had nothing to do with it gee I wish we could have done better you should have done better sir you should have done
better and because you didn't people have suffered thank you Mr chairman could I I Dr You' like I think he can
respond to your question yeah so I actually Senator Holly I'm going to agree with you with about something I I
do think that that we should learn more information from the intelligence Community what they found uh I agree
with you that they should be more open uh and tell where those conclusions came
from you know at the FBI and at the energy Department all the agencies
should come forth with with more information so there's there's a point we can agree with I mean that was an interesting exchange but you know I all
we did was write a paper nature medicine and 3,000 words it's been one of the
most uh scrutinized papers in history it's held up very well it wasn't an
attempt to to uh you know distort things and to mislead the American public it
was just simply a paper like the many other scientific papers that I've written in my career let's uh we'll move
on to a second round we tell the members we have a vote that I believe has already been called we also have a hard
stop at little after 12 so the second round will be five uh minutes um and
I'll start actually Dr I'll just pick up from your answer there A lot has been directed towards the the paper that you
wrote in the research that went in into that uh does the science since uh the
paper uh came out to strengthen your argument or weaken it uh what does the science show it absolutely strengthens
it I mean we published a series of papers after the proximal Origins paper all of them you know conclusively moving
towards the the uh you know the natural origin hypothesis so nothing you know we
stand by that paper it was a good paper we uh we're currently uh seeing
enormous uh changes uh in technology in the biological sciences from artificial intelligence to biological design tools
even uh robot Laboratories where experiments can be conducted from from really anywhere on the globee Dr uh
coblence my my question for you is in your opinion will these types of technological changes make it easier or
or harder for us to determine the origins of future future
pandemics uh the the advances you just discussed will definitely make it more complicated to do that uh on the one
hand we are going to have much more sophisticated capabilities to uh analyze viral genomes and do the kind of
analyses that are are some of the feature of Dr Gary's work to understand the evolution of these pathogens and
where they come from and so that will be incredibly useful investigating any future um outbreak uh on the other hand
the fact that there these Technologies are going to be globally diffused the fact that there are a growing number of high in maximum containment Laboratories
that conduct High consequence research will make it uh a more complicated process because there'll be more potential sources for uh outbreaks
whether they're they're naturally occurring or or from laboratory so um the Technologies are not a
negative but they're not a Panacea and but it's definitely going to be a much more complicated Endeavor to to go through this exercise in the
future very good Dr Cay a question uh for for for you uh we we know the the US
intelligence Community has reported that that a few scientists at the uh wam lab
got sick uh in December uh the the fall of 2019 uh but it's not clear that any of
them had covid-19 so my my question for you sir is what evidence do we have that
someone at the wahon lab got covid-19 before anyone else did and do you know
if these scientists actually got tested for covid-19 uh no I don't I all of my data around that relies on this the
state department uh statement there were three individuals uh we believe we know one of them at least Ben who was
responsible for some of the synthetic work in the laboratory uh reasonably young person who was hospitalized uh who
was said to have been hospitalized with a uh uh x-ray uh confirmed disease
consistent with covid-19 but not blood testing uh we do know also that in in
May of uh March of 2020 uh Dr shei reported that no one at the W ins
orology had SARS kov 2 and with another individual we did a statistical analysis
of the probability of that with the incidents in Wuhan and that is not a truthful statement uh because of that it
so those are those are the two facts I have Dr Gary you want to respon Senator
Peters could I um read from the uh intelligence committee the off director of office of National Intelligence about
these three supposed sick uh workers at the Wuhan Institute of virology and they
write while several wi research researchers fell mildly ill in Fall 2019
they experienced a range of symptoms consistent with colds or allergies with accompanying symptoms typically not
associated with covid-19 and some of them were confirmed to have been sick with other illnesses unrelated to co9 so
those the three sick workers at the web is simply a myth uh Dr qu um what specific hard
evidence uh proves that the Wuhan lab did experiments that that created the virus do we have specific hard
evidence no one of our biggest challenges is we don't know what they've done inside there we we know what they
were doing in the past we know what they did in the fall of 2019 all consistent with the things you would do if there
had been a laboratory accident there you know filing a patent the first patent
out of 600 patents for a a device to prevent a coronav virus infection in an infected worker one of the inventors on
that patent is a pla military doctor scientist um the head of the the head of
the laboratory was dismissed and a pla of soldier was put in charge of the
laboratory December 2019 so um we don't have access inside the laboratory we
probably will never have it but the genome inside the virus comports to the diffused Grant in such a way that it's
uh it's inconsistent I mean in a court of law you find someone criminally for
95% or greater probabilities and this is one in a billion which is greater than that that this is a synthetic virus so I
I don't want to put words in mouth I've been a lot of this is these are assumptions that you're making uh not not hard
evidence the hard evidence is the incidence of the features of Cyrus K2 can individually be looked at in nature
they can be identified with the frequency in nature and then you can com you can say what is the chance that each
of these were combined in one virus at the same time this is what this is what virologists do all the time in looking
for Origins and when you do that you conclude that it has a one in a billion
chance of coming from nature and it meets all seven criteria of the diffused Grant okay thank you R member Paul you
recognized for questions Dr Gary indicated that the intelligence Community was um somewhat
unified or a lot of them believe this came from animals and it's just not true the ones that have been vocal about this
and talked a lot about have been the doe which has more scientists than any other agency in Washington probably other than
NIH uh they've concluded that it did come from the lab FBI concluded it came
from the lab and we asked well whistleblower from the CIA that says the scientists that were convened to study this voted six to1 to say it came from
the lab and then they were overruled by superiors for political reasons so there's a lot of evidence that people
within the Intel agencies actually do believe that there is evidence that it came from the lab in addition to people
getting sick there's also about a week in October where they do uh imagery of who's using a cell phone and nobody's
using a cell phone in the lab for about a week so the the lab's completely empty for about a week and some people think that was during a cleanup period
but if you're sitting at home and you're sort of an independent you hear scientists over here saying gay of functions the best thing since sliced
bread and over here you're saying well we really haven't developed any meaningful uh vaccines or technology
from this you're like who do I believe and who you believe does go to character
and so we have to look at some of the statements like I say I've never seen anything like this between public and private statements so Christian Anderson
early on in this sends an email to fouchy and his fouchy uh says Bob Bob
Gary and a couple of the other virologists we think it's inconsistent this virus this genetic sequence of
covid is inconsistent with the expectations of evolutionary theory so
they they believed it didn't come from nature they had looked at this these are smart people that when they were not
looking at it when they were trying to look at it through an objective lens concluded one thing until they came to another conclusion that it might hurt
the business of Science and the arrangements they had going on with China and concluded opposite but with
Christian Anderson it's St it's dark because he says oh Bob and all these we all believe it's inconsistent with the
expectations of evolutionary 3 a week later Christian Anderson is saying what I like to use when I talk to the public
is I like to tell them it's consistent with the expectations of evolutionary theory so he goes from inconsistent to
consistent complete opposite approach within days maybe even simultaneously as these papers are being written so really
the hypocrisy of those involved and those who are saying not a laboratory construct if you want know who to
believe look at their private statements versus their public statements so we have gain of function is the best thing
since sliced bread or gain of function is a real problem now Senator Romney's like well what does it matter if there's
a chance we should do something I think he's right if you believe there's a 1% chance we should do something but if you
think there's a 1% chance or you want to sort of glad hand people at the end and say well we should do something their
argument for the people who think it's not likely to happen is going to be oh the administration's already fixed this
it's already done and all we need a few little regulatory things we don't need legislation we don't need independent
oversight we don't need people looking at this who aren't on the receiving end of the money this is the whole problem of NIH the people regulating themselves
are getting the money so the Administration has put in place some regulations to try to you know help with
the buying of Select agents and Dr Quay if you could explain to us uh what a few MIT scientists did recently and how well
the administrative regulations are working without actual Congressional legislation sure so three scientists
that MIT said they were going to be a red team and they contacted the FBI because what they were going to do was about to be potentially illegal uh and
they put together Ryon and the n and the 1918 influenza um th those two are
select agents and they're they're you know highly lethal um and they broke up
they broke the genes up in a in a particular way they added some benign genes and then they put out test orders
uh following roughly following the the White House guidelines test orders to see if if Laboratories would send them
the pieces they needed to build these viruses or Ryon um you know or or they
would stop them uh and in fact in 94% of the time they they sent the pieces right to them they purposely didn't make the
active strain of the RNA they made the the inactive strain to show that they could do it but they proved they could make rice and they proved they could
make the 1918 influenza under the guidance that have just come out of the White House in a way that uh that this
gets out where we go forward our next hearing or one of our next hearings is going to what do we do for gain of function reform what kind of committee
do we set up to look at this and if the answer is from the other side oh it's already done the White House did it this
is showing you what the White House did even if it was well-intentioned didn't work these scientists got the material
off the internet to create the Spanish Flu that killed 50 100 million people so
this is not something we should scoff at and say oh it's not a labatory construct do anything here let the administration
do this and I would say this if it were a republican Administration I don't care which party it's in I agree with
Scientists like Kevin eseld who equate this with nuclear weapons this is incredibly important and needs
Congressional oversight on the select agents but also on the gain of function now some people think this just started
it's incredibly uh partisan I just for a quick answer then a more extensive answer uh Dr ebri are you part of the
right-wing conspiracy are you uh somehow some kind of crazy Republican partisan I'm a registered Democrat I voted for
Biden I had a Biden sign on my lawn and had a Biden bumper that that's enough of that but the the main the main point I
wanted to make is this isn't a partisan thing in fact when I've talked to Dr ebite he says he got involved with this
after 911 when the anthra anthrax attacks came um but then more involved
in 2010 as it heated up and everybody was talking about in the scientific Community when scientists took the Aven
flu which is very very deadly in humans but like most animal virus not very
transmissible in humans and they mutated it uh fuer and others in in in
Netherlands to make it spread through the air and to spread to mammals that's a crazy thing and if people think that's
a benign use of gain of function we should never ever listen to people like that who else thinks it was benign and
we didn't need to do anything Anthony fouchy there have been these two camps there has been this debate going on for
a decade I think this a very good debate it should be an intellectual debate But
realize these are the the people Collins and and fouchy who were saying take
these people down take down the people we disagree with this is not scientific debate they were taking us off the
internet these are people are not playing under the American rules not playing under the scientific method and
they should be discounted but we have to have a real debate over this so as we
move forward and I'd like to ask you Dr eite on
this how important is it that we actually have a law passed and that we actually have Regulators that are
scientists but that are outside of the uh supply of money outside of the
exchange of grant money I think it's a matter of survival it's that
important there needs to be an entity that is independent of agencies that
fund research and perform research to eliminate the structural conflict of interests that has existed with current
self-regulation by agencies that perform and fund research thank you thank you uh
Senator Johnson where can answer your questions thank Mr chairman you know in Eisenhower's very preent uh farewell
speech he not only warned us about the military and delal complex he warned us about government funding of research he
said uh you do that scientists are going to be more interested in their Grant in obtaining a grant than pursuing truthful
science he said you end up with a scientific technological Elite that would drive public policy and I think we
would witness that during Co they drove it in a very bad Direction so I want to
talk about the cover up again Dr Gary how much have you received in government
grants over your career do you have any figure in that a
ballpark sir I'm not sure um hundreds of millions not hundreds so so I have
information that between you and Dr Christian Anderson since 2020 between
2020 2022 you received $25.2 million in Grants from the NIH that's possible
that's accurate okay so so after you write the proximal origin Theory you've been working with Dr fouchi how many
years well I don't actually work directly with Dr fouy well I mean you but you've been you You' certainly come
to his Aid and testified kind of in his uh uh support during during AIDS um but
the fact is you you you you cashiered $25.2 million in government GRS after
writing the proximal origin paper didn't you $25.2 million in Grants and again
this anth it wasn't because we Anthony Fouch has let out billions of dollars wor of Grants right he controls an off
lot of information again the point being you know why would they cover it up December or January 27th 2020 Dr fou has
informed via email that niid has been funding coron vir coron virus project in
China for the last five years okay so he's these are the emails that were foed
they weren't given to us and they're heavily redacted uh January 31st he starts conversations with Dr Anderson
you and at all um Dr Gary February 1 Dr fouchi emails and my screen went dead on
me here uh rats do you have that foui emails his uh
principal deputy director Hugh Asen slots and here's
the he said is Hugh it is essential that we speak this a. keep your cell phone on
I have a conference call at 7:45 they are will likely be over at 8:45 read this paper as well as the email that I
will forward you you will have tasks today that must be done now that that is somebody who's scrambling to cover up
his backside for funding dangerous research at the W Wuhan lab for five
years is is that correct Dr EB I'll let ask you that
question but in addition you you've basically accused Dr Gary of scientific misconduct possibly serious as fraud why
why don't you to address that because I would agree with you uh so uh both on
the proximal origin paper I have signed two letters by teams of scientists
requesting an requesting an editorial review of that paper for retraction for
misconduct and then on two of the market papers there are only four publish sorry
only two what was the misconduct your okay you've accused him but what was the misconduct your the primary misconduct
the misconduct of highest importance was stating conclusions the authors knew at
the time contemporaneously while writing the paper submitting the paper and Publishing the paper were untrue this is
the most egregious form of scientific misconduct publishing a paper where you
know the conclusions are untrue and of course the reasons the reason we didn't get those emails other than through a
court order is that the emails themselves were so unbelievably
incriminating that is they they thought one thing and wrote the exact other for an article that that was quoted like
5,800 times I mean that again as Senator Hall others point out destroyed people's careers they were
ridiculed they were vilified yes that that is scientific misconduct and fraud and and and Dr Gary
I have to say if people are boning the the fact that people no longer trust science or that uh we don't trust our
federal health agencies the reason the American public legitimately don't trust
scientists and fed Health agencies are because of people like you you bear that
responsibility for violating the Public's trust from your scientific misconduct and fraud thank you Mr
chairman Dr G you you can thank you so much so I would just encourage people to
go and read the nature medicine article the proximal Origins SARS KOB 2 we
didn't put anything in that paper that we didn't believe was true the conclusions of that paper have held up
very well in fact there's been an abundance of scientific evidence that has come forward since then to support
all the conclusions everything we wrote in that paper so there's no fraud yes
indeed some of the authors changed their mind during the course of writing that paper over a period of of weeks that's
not fraud sir that is just the way that the scientific method so Mr chairman I would ask consent to enter all these
slack messages from this you know Dr Anderson at all that group uh that have
all these quotes into our hearing record and we'll provide them to you thank you objection Senator Marshall recogniz for
your questions all right thank you Mr chairman Dr Gary I think it's also important to point out a couple things
and one is that you've received $60 million of Grants from the NIH over the years and you have your own vaccine
company and and that obviously is a bit of a conflict of interest and I don't think the scientific world really agrees
with your conclusion that it stood up to the test of times I I think the proximal Origins article is literally an
editorial literally an editorial an opinion page but unfortunately our intelligence Community took it as the
gospel I think it's also interesting to me that in within the scientific community that two agencies the
department of energy and FBI said they lean towards a lab origin of this that's public knowledge and that they have the
scientists to actually understand what the heck we're talking about to realizing that there's no way you can
that nature could have could have made this virus there's so many things wrong with your uh your your theory and all
you come back to is oh it's started in in uh the wet Market but you've yet to show us um the an intermediate host
you've let yet to show us progenitor species all the the Farms that farm these animals outside of the market how
many of those animals were positive I think that you know the answer is none I want to go down this odni route
for just a sec and it's a fact that the odni um has not complied with the law
Congress has passed legislation to declassify information related to co Origins odni is not complied placing
leaving odni in charge ensures a total uh monitoring and control of the information the misinformation that's
why we have to move this investigation outside of the odni additionally it's a fact that our
current Grant research process hides the ultimate beneficiaries of us grants research and bypasses all export
controls all of that has to be changed this is why we need an 911 style
investigation outside of cameras outside of the politics here on Capital heal to
find out why where this virus came from uh what did the US do to contribute and how do we keep this from happening again
Dr Quay I want to go back to some line of question we were going down earlier that just the research being done in Wuhan China I think that there's a
naivity upon Americans to think that the Chinese military is in one's Place doing
research and and the whv is doing research and the CCP is not involved what's it like to work in in labs and
Wuhan and the interaction between the CCP and those entities what does their day usually start with well I think one
of the the telling ways to see that is without visiting them is to go through the minutes of laboratory meetings which
you can you can get a hold of there in Chinese you can translate them uh and unlike uh laboratory meetings in the US
which are pretty much you start out you start presenting your data you're challenging your data and that they start with a recitation of what the
Communist party's missions are with respect to their their their position in the world and the role of their research
and it goes down a litany uh and these are by Communist party uh members who are part of every lab meeting uh present
uh and then and then they finally start talking about the the research uh into the lab but not at the beginning and
then the military takes over the wh in December uh as well to to promote the the cover up what is the interaction
between the Chinese military and the wi scientists well so the woman that took over was the one that that was most
responsible for the response uh to the SARS one uh and interestingly if you
look at the closest viruses to SARS K2 so you got ratg13 which is inside the wi
you've got you've got uh the banel viruses from Laos we know W is sampling
there the next one down are two viruses that were collected by the pla Army and
we began studying in 2017 the S2 region of the spike protein is almost identical
to those viruses that were originally collected by the pla Army the first
genetic cluster of patients that had both lineage a lineage B we're in the pla Hospital 3 kilom from the wi okay
you know I think we've debated back and forth about the benefits and risk of viral gain of function research and I'm
just going to say viral manipulation viral manipulation so we don't have to worry about your silly definitions that
are used to obscure uh the what's really happening here I'm going to ask each one
of you do you feel comfortable funding any type of biomanipulation research
with foreign entities that are hostile towards America like the CCP Dr AB
bright I think there are strong reasons for international collaboration in
science with both Allied Nations and adversary Nations however there's a line
that never should be crossed and that is research that has weapons implications
and research on Discovery and enhancement of bioweapons Agents like the research on SARS viruses in Wuhan
most surely is an example of such research I'd like to go through the questions but I I think I should be
respectful of everyone's time and thank you so much chairman for giving us a second round thank you thank you thank
you Senator Marshall U one one quick question came up for me Dr C you you
talked about the genetic features could only happen in in a lab and I'd just like to ask Dr Gary um
um to the genetic features do those could those only come from lab experiments or is there a natural uh
evolution of course not I mean Dr Quay mentioned the the virus called banal
2052 that virus is extremely close to Saros scopy 2 in fact if we isolated
both of those viruses out in nature and didn't know anything about a a pandemic
you would say those are you know in the same very close family together so Bal
52 is essentially a very close member of of SARS Kobe 2 it's got all the genetic
features of SARS Kobe 2 uh certainly the fact that that viruses in nature shows
that SARS KOB 2 could could have Arisen through a natural process Dr Ebert a
virus has no furing cleavage site as Dr Gary is aware I mean the fur and cleavage site
is not the only feature of the virus that that makes it um a virus that's able to to cause a pandemic there there
are dozens maybe hundreds of other changes that the virus has to go through before it can um you know have that
potential nobody in a laboratory would know how to put those features into any virus um let alone one that's U you know
97 or 96% similar to to SARS cob2 Dr
when you passage a virus when you do serial passage of a virus Darwin and evolution uh selects for the right
positions so when you look at 3,800 Poss ible changes in the amino acids and the
receptor binding domain all but 17 changes are are not improvements so SARS
kov 2 is at 99% perfected for the receptor binding domains of humans SARS
1 when it first jumped to humans had 15% and evolved over a couple years to get
to the pandemic stage uh you started out with a 99% perfect virus which is serial
passage so Dr Quay the banal 52 virus the receptor binding domain is uh 50
amino acids long 49 of those 50 are the same as in SARS K2 you don't have to you
know create any kind of scenario where you're passing viruses in a lab you know
that that RBD the receptor binding domain is already in nature essentially fully formed very good um so R you remember
Paul and I uh are holding these herrings and we want to be thinking about the future uh how do we uh make sure that we
handle pandemics or potential pandemics much better in the future so I'm going to ask each of you a brief question in
in the event that we never get to the bottom of uh how this uh pandemic started uh both ranking member Paul and
I believe that we've got to do everything we can uh to put forward policies that will hopefully prevent a
future uh pandemic so I'd like each of you to identify I'm going to go down I'll start with uh Mr Coen and go down
just to identify briefly in the remaining time here one or two priority actions that we should take to help us
prevent the next pandemic if there's one or two thoughts this committee should take to heart what would that be Dr
ctz so uh in order to address the threat of the natural xotic spillover pandemic
uh there really needs to be a one health approach to to bios surveillance and preventing spillover in key countries
that have um you know um ecologically are prime for for disease emergence for
the um uh lab origin possibilities we we need a much stronger Global architecture
for biorisk management uh and underlying all that we need a much stronger biosurveillance system both domestically
and internationally to detect these outbreaks as soon as possible uh and guide the medical and public health
responses we need to prevent outbreaks from becoming pandemics Dr Gary I mean I
guess my recommendation would be would be a very practical one I mean we have um bird flu in our dairy cattle in the
United States as we're speaking here um that's a very dangerous virus I would I would take a look at that and see what
we can do to um you know keep the unthinkable from happening in that virus acquiring extra features maybe
recombination with a virus from a pig maybe recombination with a virus from Human to turn that into a virus that
would be very very difficult to um control its spread right now with our current Technologies thank you Dr Gray
uh four recommendations one is to move the oversight of Select agent research uh and gain a function outside of NIH
niid uh and into some independent uh institutional review board you could model it after uh human research boards
institutional review boards number one uh number two um is is uh taking Western
biotechnology equipment which right now is the Superior Equipment us UK primarily and putting it under export
control so at least we know where the machines are going and perhaps we could put some controls over it uh number uh
three is is uh simple uh don't put these next to line you know Subways where
where accidents can happen uh and number four gain of opportunity where you don't necessarily do viral research but you go
out and try to collect a virus that has it's in a cave it has no chance of running into a human you bring it back
to a city with 11 million people uh you purify it out of a sample for feces where there's you know 200 other viruses
you make it pure you make it 10 to the 4th 10 to the 5th you know a million more copies of it setting up a
laboratory accident gain of opportunity has the same risks as gain of uh of gain
of function we should look at those thank you thank you Dr Ebert legislation should address three
subjects the first is establishing a review entity that is independent of
agencies that fund biomedical research and perform biomedical research to eliminate the conflict of interests that
exists today two the oversight must cover all forms
of research irrespective a funding source not only federally funded research but also other funded research
and must cover research both unclassified and classified in character
and three these uh these these improvements in
oversight need to be codified in law so that they are enforcable with rule of
law voluntary self-regulation voluntary guidance and
best practices have not worked and they will not work in the future so
legislation for an independent review legislation for a comprehensive review irrespective of funding source and
classification status and legislation for enforceable oversight with force of
law thank you well thank you and I'd like to thank each of our Witnesses here
for joining us today for your testimony for your expertise appreciate your Concrete Solutions as to next steps
going forward and we'll likely reach out to you again and again to continue to flesh out uh these uh these ideas
pandemics and and other infectious disease outbreaks um will unfortunately be an enduring threat to our country uh
and to our world and while the question uh of the origin of the covid-19
pandemic uh remains unresolved I think it is it's clear that there are things
that we can and must pursue to reduce biological risk here at home uh and U uh
and abroad uh I hope this committee's work will also result in restoring and maintaining the trust in public health
agencies and the scientific process as we will need to make sure uh uh we're
doing that to prevent future pandemics in this country I look forward to our continuing work together to improve the
federal government's ability to prevent to detect and to respond to biological
threats uh the record for this hearing will remain open for 15 days until 5:00 p.m. on July 3rd of 2024 for the
submission of statements and questions for the record of this hearing is now adjourned
อังกฤษ (สร้างอัตโนมัติ)
ไม่มีความคิดเห็น:
แสดงความคิดเห็น