reSee.it - Related Video Feed

In the investigation into the origins of COVID-19, it has been significant to discover that a scientific debate on the topic was actively suppressed worldwide. Sir Richard Dearlove, former head of British spy agency Mi6, claims that Anthony Fauci led the stifling of this debate. Meetings were held where one side of the argument was supported while the opposing view was denied media attention. Instead of disclosing suspicions about a lab leak, Fauci diverted attention away from this theory. Despite claims by evolutionary virologists that the virus evolved naturally, there was no intelligence or scientific data supporting this. These developments have shed light on the suppression of the origins debate. (116 words)

In 2021, Fauci denied funding gain of function research in Wuhan, China, but the definition was changed after Tabak's statement. The NIH website altered the definition to only include research capable of creating a pandemic pathogen. Fauci initially denied any involvement, but the definition was changed later. This semantic play raises questions about the truthfulness of their statements.

The speaker is working with Jay Bhattacharya and Secretary Kennedy to investigate US-funded gain of function research, including at the Wuhan lab, which they believe may have led to the COVID-19 pandemic. They aim to provide evidence linking this research to the pandemic. The speaker claims Anthony Fauci denied this research under oath and may have sought a preemptive pardon. They argue that gain of function research continues in biolabs worldwide, posing a risk of future pandemics. The speaker faced criticism for warning about US-funded biolabs in Ukraine. The speaker questions why the intelligence community was reluctant to conclude that COVID-19 originated in a lab, contrasting this with instances where they quickly make assumptions without conclusive evidence. They attribute this to the politicization of intelligence, citing the Iraq War as an example of intelligence being used to influence policy.

This virus likely did not originate naturally; it stems from scientific arrogance. In the early pandemic days, there were claims about a wet market origin, but evidence soon emerged showing many cases unrelated to it. By early January, I informed the National Security Council and Anthony Fauci that the virus was highly infectious in humans, suggesting a lab origin. The Wuhan Institute of Virology is well-known for coronavirus research, making the lab leak theory plausible. Despite discussions, Fauci maintained a focus on the wet market hypothesis, disregarding other possibilities. I believed a broader scientific investigation was necessary, but only a single hypothesis was considered.

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

The speakers discuss whether the NIH funded gain of function research and its potential role in the pandemic. There is a heated exchange between a senator and a speaker who denies responsibility for any deaths. The possibility of Dr. Fauci lying under oath is raised, and it is suggested that American tax dollars funded the research. The Luban Institute is mentioned as conducting gain of function research. Dr. Redfield expresses concern that the virus may have been engineered. Gain of function research is defined as increasing a pathogen's transmissibility or pathogenicity. It is concluded that gain of function research did not stop the pandemic, but rather caused it.

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

The Chinese State Council Information Office claims COVID originated in the U.S. A special team is investigating COVID's origins, with findings on covid.gov. Work is being done with Jay Bhattacharya and Secretary Kennedy, looking at U.S. funded gain of function research at the Wuhan lab and other biolabs, which has led to health crises. The goal is to find the specific link between gain of function research and COVID-19. If Peter Daszak's research with the Wuhan lab caused the pandemic, then the U.S. funded it, and Anthony Fauci denied it under oath. Gain of function research is ongoing in biolabs worldwide, like in Ukraine. Warning against U.S. funded biolabs in Ukraine led to accusations of being a Russian asset. The intelligence community was reluctant to say COVID came from a lab, possibly due to the politicization of intelligence. This politicization dates back to intelligence used to justify the Iraq regime change war.

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

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

The speaker suggests that American tax dollars funded gain-of-function research that created the virus. They claim that Dr. Fauci and various government agencies, including the NIH, State Department, USAID, and DOD, were involved. They argue that Fauci funded a study that taught Chinese military scientists how to build weapons of mass destruction and hide human tampering on the virus. They question why the U.S. government would fund such research and why they were teaching Chinese scientists. They also mention the CIA's involvement and their role in the cover-up. The speaker raises concerns about the lack of medical benefit and the potential bioweapons implications.

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

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

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

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

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

New evidence suggests that Dr. Anthony Fauci may have been involved in bringing a coronavirus strain to the US before the pandemic. Documents reveal that in 2018, Fauci's team visited the Wuhan lab, obtained a virus, and transported it to a lab in America. They also took Egyptian fruit bats from a Maryland zoo to Montana and combined them with the coronavirus. Despite this, Fauci acted surprised when the virus started spreading. The White Coat Waste Project claims that Fauci has a history of experimenting on animals and warns that funding for more bat labs is being allocated from COVID relief funds. The nominee for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) supports gain of function experiments and funding for labs in China and other unaccountable nations. The focus should be on exposing these labs and holding those responsible accountable.

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

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

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

The origin of the virus is debated, with some suggesting a lab leak in China. The NIH denies funding gain of function research in Wuhan, but acknowledges funding research on a bat coronavirus. The debate centers on whether the research involved gain of function, which aims to increase transmissibility to humans. Accusations are exchanged, with one party claiming misinformation and the other calling for prosecution.

The speaker is working with Jay Bhattacharya and Secretary Kennedy to investigate US-funded gain of function research, including at the Wuhan lab, and its potential link to the COVID-19 pandemic. They aim to provide evidence showing why ending this research is in the American people's best interest. The speaker claims that Anthony Fauci funded the pandemic and then denied it under oath to Senator Rand Paul. They also suggest Fauci sought a preemptive pardon from President Biden. The speaker was attacked for warning against US-funded biolabs in Ukraine, fearing potential pathogen releases. The speaker questions why the intelligence community was reluctant to conclude that COVID-19 originated in a lab, suggesting politicization of intelligence to meet objectives or influence policy. They draw a parallel to the intelligence used to justify the Iraq regime change war and its consequences. The speaker emphasizes the need to address these issues within the intelligence community and highlights the importance of leadership.

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

American tax dollars likely funded gain-of-function research that created the virus, according to the speakers. They mention funding from various government agencies, including NIH, the State Department, USAID, and DOD. They argue that Dr. Fauci, under whose direction the research was conducted, is responsible for teaching Chinese military scientists how to build weapons of mass destruction. They also claim that Fauci funded a technique called seamless ligation, which hides human tampering on the virus. The speakers question the justification for funding such research and highlight the involvement of USAID, the Department of Defense, and the CIA. They suggest a cover-up and raise concerns about the origins of the virus.

The transcript revolves around claims and counterclaims regarding whether the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Dr. Anthony Fauci funded gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Dr. Fauci denies that the NIH and NIAID "categorically" funded gain-of-function research in Wuhan and states he has never lied to Congress. He asserts Senator Paul does not know what he is talking about. Others claim the NIH provided grant money to a research group that conducted experiments with bat coronaviruses in Wuhan. They allege the NIH acknowledged funding research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology that unexpectedly made a bat coronavirus more contagious. One speaker states that the NIH funded controversial gain-of-function research using coronaviruses at the Wuhan lab, contradicting Dr. Fauci’s claims. Another speaker suggests that evidence points to the virus originating from the lab and that those who funded the lab will be held responsible.