by Dr. James Lyons-Weiler, PhD, Popular Rationalism, ©2023, reposted with permission
(Jul. 15, 2023) — WASHINGTON — The Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic held a hearing titled “Investigating the Proximal Origin of a Cover Up” to examine the potential conflicts of interest and suppression of scientific discourse by the National Institutes of Health surrounding the drafting, publication, and critical reception of the infamous “The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2” (Proximal Origin) correspondence. Select Subcommittee members asked Dr. Kristian Andersen and Dr. Robert Garry — co-authors of Proximal Origin — about their effort to skew scientific evidence to fulfill Dr. Fauci’s vision of a single narrative in support of a natural COVID-19 origin. Drs. Andersen and Garry testified to the political motivations for suppressing the lab leak hypothesis and detailed the lack of science available to support their declared conclusions. Members also questioned the witnesses about their inclination to protect the Chinese government and demanded accountability for the apparent disregard of the scientific process while drafting the paper. Information gained from this hearing will help the Select Subcommittee conduct further investigations into the unforced errors by the NIH during the COVID-19 pandemic — specifically the role Dr. Fauci and Dr. Collins played in squashing scientific discourse during the pandemic.
Key Takeaways
- Former NIAID Director Dr. Anthony Fauci and Former NIH Director Dr. Francis Collins were directly involved in the drafting, publication, and public promotion of Proximal Origin — a paper written to suppress the COVID-19 lab-leak hypothesis.
- There was a coordinated effort between public health officials in the United States government and expert scientists to craft a narrative that would advance the zoonotic origin of COVID-19 in order to protect the Chinese government from any potential criticism and repercussions.
- The conclusions drawn by the co-authors of “Proximal Origin” rest on insufficient evidence, draw inaccurate assumptions, and have never been proven or verified by the wider scientific community.
- Dr. Kristian Andersen confirmed the U.S. funded gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology fell below recommended bio-safety markers.
- Scientific integrity was abandoned by Dr. Fauci, Dr. Collins, and the co-authors of Proximal Origin in favor of political expediency. Suppressing a legitimate scientific theory to advance the preferred narrative of senior government officials is egregious and must be fully investigated.
- There is still more work to be done to hold public health officials accountable for their actions during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Select Subcommittee emphasizes its outstanding request for transcribed interviews and documents from Dr. Fauci and Dr. Collins.
Member Highlights
Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic Chairman Brad Wenstrup (R-Ohio) lead the Proximal Origin investigation with three potential reasons why the co-authors, aided by Drs. Fauci and Collins, argued in favor of a zoonotic COVID-19 origin theory.
Chairman Wenstrup: “We’re examining whether scientific integrity was disregarded in favor of political expediency – maybe to conceal or diminish the government’s relationship with the Wuhan Institute of Virology or its funding of risky gain of function coronavirus research. Or maybe to avoid blaming China for any complicity, intended or otherwise, in a pandemic that has killed more than one million Americans and has had a crushing effect on humankind itself.”
Oversight and Accountability Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) grilled Proximal Origin co-author Dr. Kristian Andersen on the coordinated effort to protect the Wuhan Institute of Virology and the Chinese government from diplomatic repercussions by suppressing the lab leak hypothesis.
Chairman Comer: “Dr. Anderson, in your prepared testimony, you say that you’re being investigated because ‘published, peer reviewed studies that go against the preferred political narrative.’ Now, that goes opposite to what we have seen. The preferred political narrative has always been to attack those that think this may have come from a lab. Your co-author says on the poster right behind me what the real political narrative is. ‘Given the sh** show that would happen if anyone serious accused the Chinese of even accidental release.’ Dr. Anderson, you responded to this message ‘Yep, I totally agree. That’s a very reasonable conclusion, although I hate when politics is injected into science, but it’s impossible not to, especially given the circumstance.’ Sir, do you have a degree in political science or international relations?”
Dr. Andersen: “I do not.”
Chairman Comer: “Do you have any experience in the Foreign Service or diplomatic corps?”
Dr. Andersen: “I do not.”
Chairman Comer: “Okay. Thank you. You were the one with the preferred political narrative. You said it right there. This preference was reiterated by Dr. Collins, saying that the lab leak theory would, quote, do great potential harm to science and international harmony.”
Read the rest here.