reSee.it - Related Video Feed

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.

Gain of function research funded by the NIH in a lab in Wuhan is under scrutiny. Senator Rand Paul accused Dr. Anthony Fauci of funding the lab, which was initially criticized by the media. However, the NIH now admits to funding risky research in Wuhan. The theory that COVID-19 originated from a lab leak gains traction as evidence suggests it came from the lab, not animals. Lab leaks have happened before, and the FBI and Department of Energy support the lab leak theory. Gain of function research involves making viruses stronger, but its effectiveness in creating vaccines is questionable. The media's lack of curiosity about the origins of COVID-19 is concerning. The NIH continues to fund gain of function research, posing a potential risk to humanity.

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.

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.”

Speaker 0 denies funding gain of function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Speaker 1 reveals that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) funded research on a bat coronavirus at the Wuhan lab, making it more contagious. Speaker 2 questions Dr. Fauci about his previous statement, but he stands by it. Speaker 3 mentions a letter raising concerns about experiments in the Wuhan lab. Speaker 0 interrupts and accuses Senator Paul of lying. Speaker 2 argues that if the virus originated from the lab, those who funded it should be held responsible. Speaker 4 states that the NIH admitted funding gain of function research at the Wuhan lab, contradicting Dr. Fauci's claims. Speaker 0 maintains that he has never lied before Congress.

EcoHealth Alliance was partnering with this Wuhan lab to create to do gain and function research. That's right. We just have never been able to have somebody say it and it was that exact experiment that led to this COVID bug. We are we are working on that with, Jay Bhattacharya and look forward to being able to share that, hopefully, very soon. That that specific Link. Correct. Between the gain of function research and what we saw with COVID nineteen. I mean, that would be extraordinary because just so the audience knows, if that's true, if it was Peter Daszak's research with the Wuhan so called bat lady that caused this pandemic, then we did fund it. Then Anthony Fauci helped fund the pandemic. These things that he denied over and over and over to senator Rand Paul's questioning. That's right. Under oath. It it

Before the COVID pandemic, the transcript claims that Dr. Fauci, as head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, provided millions in U.S. taxpayer dollars to fund “dangerous gain-of-function research” on bat coronaviruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, work it says is now widely viewed as the source of an unintentional lab leak that sparked the pandemic. It says the speaker, in support of President Trump’s “maximum transparency mandate,” is releasing never-before-seen communications and documents on the speaker’s final day as Director of National Intelligence. The transcript alleges the documents show how Fauci worked with “politicized career leadership” in the intelligence community to suppress the truth about his actions, the virus’s lab leak origins, and his role in directing U.S. funding for the research. It claims the documents expose Fauci’s “direct role” in influencing and manipulating intelligence community assessments on COVID-19 and that Fauci lied to Congress in 2024 under oath by denying knowledge of or participation in discussions with intelligence officials about viral research. It also states that multiple intelligence community whistleblowers testified that they faced retaliation for challenging manipulation of intelligence about the virus’s origins. The transcript says it reveals a “pattern” of suppressing dissent and silencing critics. The transcript attributes three roles to Fauci that it says shield him from scrutiny: (1) funding dangerous gain-of-function coronavirus research linked to “big pharma” and their pursuit of universal vaccines; (2) serving as a behind-the-scenes advisor who, with hand-picked experts, pushed the intelligence community to endorse a natural animal origin to hide the gain-of-function research Fauci funded; and (3) acting as a pandemic pundit who publicly pushed “lies, disinformation, and censorship” across multiple platforms. According to the transcript, “hundreds of reviewed emails” show that the intelligence community “almost always” incorporated Fauci’s recommendations, including promoting a “fraudulent paper” as legitimate information for intelligence consideration. It says senior analysts praised Fauci as an “unbiased guide” to coronavirus experts while ignoring experts who might dissent from Fauci’s narratives. The transcript reiterates that it claims Fauci lied to Congress in 2024 before the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic by denying he spoke to any intelligence agency about COVID, and says the released correspondence directly contradicts that sworn testimony. It further describes alleged whistleblower retaliation, including threats of retaliation, marginalization, career setbacks, a contractor terminated days after coming forward to ODNI, and managers telling those who advocated for or expressed dissent on the lab leak hypothesis that leadership would determine promotions. It also claims senior leaders undermined whistleblowers by removing anonymity required in the process and insisted managers or attorneys be present during ODNI meetings, creating an intimidation atmosphere.

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.

According to Speaker 1, Dr. Fauci was informed via email on January 27, 2020, that NIAID had a financial connection to the Wuhan Institute through EcoHealth Alliance. Speaker 1 believes NIH was funding gain of function research. Speaker 1 also claims American tax dollars likely funded gain of function research that created the virus, not only from NIH, but also from the State Department, USAID, and DOD.

Did USAID fund coronavirus research in Wuhan, China? We did not fund gain of function research. The PREDICT program, which ended in 2019, did have grants that may have gone to the Wuhan Institute of Virology. I have requested records from the PREDICT program to understand the funding and research conducted, but USAID has not provided these documents. Despite multiple requests and a letter from 25 senators, we have received no information. We want to know about any grants related to coronaviruses, especially those that could have led to COVID-19. The lack of transparency raises suspicions about what information is being withheld. We seek clarity on all research proposals related to coronaviruses funded by the U.S. government.

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.

If COVID-19 originated from risky experiments at the Wuhan lab, it's important to note that the lab received funding from America. During a congressional hearing, Senator Paul questioned Dr. Fauci about the NIH's funding of gain-of-function research in Wuhan, to which Fauci denied lying. However, a scientific paper from 2012 written by Fauci supports the benefits of gain-of-function research despite the risk of a pandemic. The decision to lift the ban on gain-of-function research during the Trump administration remains unclear. Former President Trump mentioned that Fauci did not inform him about the Wuhan Institute of Virology's activities, and emails later revealed Fauci's discussions about the possibility of genetic manipulation. Trump stopped the payments to the Chinese lab upon discovering them. Despite the controversy, Trump believes his administration did a great job with the vaccine and Operation Warp Speed.

Senator Paul accuses Dr. Fauci of lying to Congress about funding gain of function research in Wuhan. Dr. Fauci denies lying and stands by his previous statement. The debate centers around the definition of gain of function research and whether the funded research qualifies. Senator Paul argues that the research increased the transmissibility of animal viruses to humans, making it gain of function. Dr. Fauci disputes this and asserts that the origins of SARS-CoV-2 are still unknown. The exchange becomes heated as Senator Paul suggests that those who funded the lab, including Dr. Fauci, should be held responsible for the pandemic. Dr. Fauci strongly denies this accusation.

We did not fund gain of function research in Wuhan. A bat coronavirus was enhanced in a lab. NIH funded research at Wuhan Institute, making a virus more contagious. Fauci denies lying to congress. Questions raised about experiments in Wuhan lab. NIH funded EcoHealth Alliance for bat coronavirus experiments. Fauci denies lying, blames Senator Paul. NIH admitted funding gain of function research in Wuhan lab. Fauci insists he did not lie.

Anthony Fauci was aware of funding for the Wuhan lab from the start and has been involved in a cover-up alongside multiple government agencies. Despite Congress declassifying information, evidence is still being withheld. Emails from February 2020 reveal Fauci's concerns about the virus being manipulated and its potential origins in the Wuhan lab, contradicting his public statements over the past three years. Additionally, a safety committee meant to oversee such funding was bypassed, as Fauci allowed the funding to proceed without their review. This revelation could have significant consequences for Fauci.

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.

Speaker 1 says that throughout the Biden administration he sought records about decision-making and why the U.S. funded Wuhan, China research, including why evidence about the virus origin being from a lab accident was being suppressed, but “we got nothing.” He says the Biden administration “stiff-armed” him by preventing access to virtually any documents. He says many of the findings during the Biden administration came from Freedom of Information Act requests by people outside government and from court actions forcing disclosure. He says that after the new election, he received promises from Secretary Kennedy and others that documents would be revealed. He says it took about six months, with resistance he attributes not to Secretary Kennedy but to “minders” around him. He says that after finally receiving documents, they have been reviewed for about a month. Speaker 1 states that in communications between Anthony Fauci and others, including Francis Collins, Fauci is depicted telling others to read materials, then delete them, and that he allegedly instructed them to delete “this material” after reading. Speaker 1 says deleting emails and discussions about government business is illegal for someone in the executive branch. He adds that Fauci testified he did not do that, and says this creates “two crimes”: destroying federal records and a prior sworn statement that he wouldn’t do it. Speaker 1 identifies a “big question” involving what he calls an “auto pen pardon” and says it will have to be challenged. He says there are thousands of auto pen pardons and raises whether President Biden was aware. He says they interviewed the person running the auto pen, who said they never met the president, and that the person said they did not discuss it directly but heard about it from higher-ups who allegedly talked to the president. Speaker 1 says this provides “a lot to go on” and describes it as a chance for the issue to get into court and for the Department of Justice to fight it out. Speaker 1 says he has invited Anthony Fauci involuntarily; if accepted, they will bring him in, and if not accepted, they will subpoena him. Speaker 0 asks whether the alleged wrongdoing falls under the auto pen time frame, noting that in some earlier auto pen matters there were specific time frames. Speaker 1 responds that the “umbrella” was “a decade,” described as leading up to the end of Biden’s term, and says this raises questions about whether a pardon can cover crimes not alleged at the time, whether it can be “all inclusive,” and whether a pardon can be upheld if it doesn’t specify the crime. Speaker 1 contrasts this with how pardons are typically specific to an accused or trial-ready crime. Speaker 0 asks about specific consequences, including prison time, regarding destroying federal records. Speaker 1 says lying to Congress is the biggest issue, that it can be five years in prison as a felony, and that destroying records adds to the crime and is against the law. He then ties this to contemporaneous emails, asserting that while Fauci said publicly he had no idea the virus came from a lab and that it couldn’t have been gain-of-function, privately he was “very worried” about the lab because he knew it did gain-of-function research. Speaker 1 also says gain-of-function research was funded by the United States government with Anthony Fauci’s approval, and claims Fauci’s pandemic guidance about origins and about cloth masks was contradictory to privately discussed concerns, including that Speaker 1 says cloth masks do not prevent transmission.

Senator Paul accuses Dr. Fauci of lying to Congress about the NIH funding gain of function research in Wuhan. Dr. Fauci defends his statement, stating that the research was conducted in China due to the expertise of a well-known laboratory. He acknowledges that he cannot guarantee everything happening in the Wuhan lab but emphasizes the importance of studying the animal-human interface to understand potential virus infections. Senator Paul argues that gain of function research was indeed conducted and funded by the NIH, accusing Dr. Fauci of obfuscating the truth. Dr. Fauci denies this accusation.

President Biden is considering pardoning Dr. Anthony Fauci. During a congressional hearing, Senator Paul questioned Fauci about his May 11th statement regarding NIH funding for gain-of-function research in Wuhan. Fauci firmly stated he has never lied to Congress and does not retract his statement. Senator Paul accused Fauci of being responsible for the pandemic, which he claims resulted in millions of deaths and significant financial costs. He argued that Fauci's funding of gain-of-function research contributed to the virus's transmissibility in humans. Fauci countered that while some conspiracy theories are false, many hold truth, and suggested that it is Senator Paul who is misleading the public.

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.

I was accused of being part of a propaganda effort to censor those questioning the origin of the virus. I stand by my assertion that the virus is not a lab construct, which aligns with the intelligence community's conclusion. I cannot control how my work is used. It is wrong to censor and lie to the public, and I should have done better.