I don’t know if the original source of this ploy is Dr Fauci himself but I’ve certainly seen this line as one of the primary ‘arguments’ against lab leak. It goes like this – previous pandemics, such as Sars-Cov-1, have come from nature and zoonotic spill over so it is likely that this one does too. This is a video of Dr Fauci explaining this in May 2021:
As Senator Marco Rubio points out in the video the intermediary animal for Sars-Cov-1 was found in 4 months. (I’ve seen the 4 months figure for Sars-Cov-1 quoted by some researchers e.g. here. I’ve also calculated a longer timeline of 11 months – see my post here and note 1, still less than the current 22 months and counting for Sars-Cov-2). As the Senator says despite China’s huge interest in finding the intermediary animal now – about 22 months after the start of the pandemic it has not yet been found.
The idea that previous pandemics have come from natural spill over so this one must too really seems to be one of the main ‘arguments’ for the natural emergence theory. But it is not scientific. 1) It simply ignores the coincidence of the epicentre of the pandemic being within a few Km of a lab conducting risky experiments with precisely this type of virus 2) if natural emergence happens then so do lab leaks; if a lab leak has not yet led to a pandemic that isn’t proof that it won’t. This line breaks the basic rules of probability. If you toss a coin ten times and you get heads 10 times what are the odds you will get tails on the eleventh toss? Still 50-50. The fact that previous pandemics have emerged from natural spill over does not mean that this is what happened in this case. Nor does the fact that previous lab leaks have not led to pandemics mean that this is not what happened in this case. – Further; this view does not take account of the specifics of what was happening in Wuhan; sustained handling of bats, playing with viruses which had already infected humans, (the one from the mine), and mutating viruses in the lab specifically to see how infectious they could be to humans. Ironically – one of the other arguments which is deployed against the lab-leak theory goes like this: “ok; the genetic structure of Sars-Cov-2 is a little unusual for nature but hey we are talking about natural selection and there is a first for everything.” (See this argument reported by Wade here: in the section ‘Comparing the rival scenarios of SARS2 origin’). On the one hand the argument is “unusual events tend not to occur” and then on the other hand “unusual events even very rare ones can and do occur”.
Fauci has two threats. 1) A serious Congress or Senate (I don’t know exactly which it would be) investigation taking all the evidence including subpoenaing key players from Eco Health Alliance concluding that the lab leak was almost certain and 2) some unexpected leak from China confirming the lab leak. The latter is unlikely. One imagines that if it was a lab leak all the forensic evidence has long since been cleaned up and a defector would only have their word and could be dismissed as unreliable. It is interesting that the Democratic party is blocking all enquiries. (Who wouldn’t want to find the origins of a world-wide pandemic?) But that might not last for ever.
Emails obtained from Fauci’s NIAID (apparently they had to be dragged out of them by a lawsuit) show that the key player in all this Peter Daszak who channelled NIAID/NIH funds to the Wuhan lab via his Eco Health Alliance certainly thought he was doing gain-of-function research with Fauci’s dollars. He even thanked the NIAID for funding gain-of-research funding at the Wuhan lab! “We are very happy to hear that our Gain Of Function research funding pause has been lifted“.
This confirms what Rand Paul has established by his hard work – the work done at the WIV and funded by the NIAID/NIH was to all intents and purposes “gain-of-function”. Fauci’s NIAID simply messed about – and continues to mess about with – the definition in order to be able to fund the work despite a ban on such work and then (after 2017) a requirement to have it approved by a special committee.
Basically it was Gain of Function work to the people doing it but for technical compliance reasons the funders used a different definition.
This is the long-awaited follow-up between Senator Rand Paul and the NIH’s Dr Fauci. Readers of this blog may recall that in a previous encounter Dr Faucci looked Rand Paul in the eye and articulated clearly and with great emphasis. “The NIH did not fund gain-of-function research in Wuhan”. See the video below at 1.32. Since then of course the NIH has had to issue a clarification about this. And now (see above 3m) we are told that “gain-of-function” is a “nebulous” concept. If it is “nebulous” then how could he at the earlier hearing have so categorically denied that he funded it? Dr Fauci is lying.
A few other comments – notice that Dr Fauci is trying to confuse and throw Rand Paul off the scent by throwing a lot of scientific terms at him and then, rather amusingly, falls over the words himself. (I don’t feel pity for Dr Fauci – the pandemic has killed millions of people and it is long past time he stopped playing games with legal positions and artful wording and just came clean).
Fauci then says “I have no responsibility for the current pandemic”. The whole point is he does not know that and cannot know that. No one (outside of the Wuhan labs and the Chinese leadership of course) knows for sure if Sars-Cov-2 came from the lab or nature. According to US intelligence it is quite literally 50-50. Fauci cannot know that he has no responsibility. His organisation funded the risky experiments (call them gain of function or not) in Wuhan that may well have led to the pandemic. At best he can say (and one imagines this is what he thinks in private) “I hope to goodness I don’t have any responsibility for the current pandemic”. Finally, he tries to score a rhetorical point by saying that Paul had said the NIH still funds the WIV when (he says) the last funding point was in August last year. This is just a rhetorical point to try to discredit Rand Paul in the eyes of the viewer; it is hardly a question of substance. August last year was already long after they should have stopped funding this lab – a key suspect in being the source of the pandemic. (It seems that one research grant is suspended; Paul’s point is that the NIH has left open the possibility of continuing to fund the WIV. )
The problem with Dr Fauci is it is hard to keep up with the lies. When I initially wrote this post I simply missed the next one. But it is an egregious lie – Fauci is deliberately telling it for the benefit of the “people who are listening” – knowing that many, who are not following this story closely, will fall for it. Fauci specifically responds to Paul’s claim that the “preponderance of evidence is that the pandemic came from the lab” by saying that the “majority of card-carrying viral phylogeneticists and molecular virologists believe … that it is much more likely that this was a natural occurrence”. (Small point – Fauci lies again and says that Paul said “overwhelming amount of evidence”; he didn’t, he said “preponderance of evidence” which is a different degree of probability. Fauci is instinctively misrepresenting Paul’s argument; Fauci is on a course of lies and he is looking for angles to bolster his false story; misrepresenting Paul’s views is one of his go-to tactics). Here Fauci is recycling the notorious March 2020 letter in Nature Medicine where a group of virologists including one who can be linked to Fauci, Kristian G. Andersen (Fauci had a call with him and he attended a crisis management meeting with him early on in the pandemic when the possibility of a lab leak first appeared) - wrote that “Our analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus” .  But, as Nicholas Wade (former Nature writer) points out there are ways of manipulating viruses which do not leave any sign of artificial manipulation. One of these is called serial passage – when a virus is repeatedly passed through a cell culture to engender rapid mutation.  The internal genetic evidence from the virus cannot establish conclusively that it did not come from a lab. (See also this point confirmed by Stanford molecular biologist Dr David Relman ). Fauci must know this. He is lying and doing so quite deliberately and as he himself admits in his presentation – for the benefit of the “listeners at home”. Further point; (again as Fauci will know) – the evidence which supports the lab leak theory does not depend on the genetic analysis of the virus; there are multiple pieces of circumstantial evidence (the Chinese cover-up, the fact that the supposed intermediary animal has not been found, the sheer coincidence of the geographic location of the start of the pandemic – a few Km from a lab carrying out research into precisely this type of virus, a lab which had already been reported as being insecure by US officials, hundreds of Km away from the place that the bats actually live, and much more). Finally – notice Fauci’s “card-carrying viral phylogeneticists and molecular virologists”. He has to say this because there are in fact many perfectly bona-fide viral phylogeneticists and/or molecular biologists who assert either that the virus shows signs of having been manipulated or that it cannot be said for certain that it hasn’t been (for the reason given above; there are invisible techniques).  Probably the specific use of the phrases “viral phylogeneticists and molecular virologists” is more ‘word salad’ – Paul’s characterisation of Fauci’s presentation – maybe he wants to exclude molecular biologists because there are plenty of them who confirm that there are virus manipulation techniques which do not leave a trace and who are open to the lab leak hypothesis. By using the phrase “card-carrying” Fauci is trying to say that those who disagree with this this view are somehow mavericks – out there, unreliable. Of course this is a circular argument since we can safely assume that any virologist who says that the virus could have been manipulated will be regarded by Fauci as not “card-carrying”. He is in fact resorting to abuse of academics and professionals who take an opposing view. In science you can’t simply dismiss qualified tenured scholars as being “not card-carrying” because they disagree with you. (His reliance specifically on molecular virologists as opposed to molecular biologists may reflect the fact that these people – virologists – have the most to lose in funding terms if virus manipulation work comes under public scrutiny so Fauci can rely on them to form a wall of silence).
Fauci is lying. Knowingly, and completely shamelessly. Presumably he is banking on the lab leak never being 100% established as true – and in this case he can simply get away with it.
Did Dr Fauci fund WIV in violation of his own agency’s protocols on gain-of-function research? The definition which is used by Dr Ebright of Rutgers University, who says he did, is that of the US Department of Health and Human Services. Under this definition the work funded at the WIV was gain-of-function. Fauci was required to submit applications to fund gain-of-function research to a review board. The research conducted at the WIV and funded by the NIAID was not sent to this review board for approval. Fauci has explained that this was because it did not meet the definition of “gain-of-function”. It seems that the definition used by his agency is narrower than that of other parts of the US Government i.e. the Department of Health and Human Services. (See Addendum 2 below). Fauci’s legal defence to being responsible for the pandemic is discernible by watching all the encounters between him and Senator Rand Paul.  It is: I cannot be held responsible for breaking the rules when I didn’t pass this research application to the review board because it did not meet the internal NIAID definition of gain-of-function. There is nothing in the published material (by WIV) that links the research we funded to Sars-Cov-2. We are of course only responsible for checking the published work. This is why the we have recently rebuked Eco Health Alliance for not reporting details of the gain-of-function WIV results, which we funded, in a timely fashion.  (Though it doesn’t explain why it took them so long to do it of course ). We have always had good results from Chinese grantees in the past. Therefore legally we can demonstrate due diligence. Therefore even if the virus came from the lab I have no legal responsibility. Meanwhile I will continue to try to shoot down the lab leak theory (by lying) because in this game it helps to have multiple walls of defence.
Rand Paul’s point of course is that if the virus came from the lab (in one way or another) Fauci has moral responsibility. He funded dangerous work in a known-to-be-unsafe lab, work which has singularly failed to bring any benefit; the justification for the research is it could help deal with Coronavirus epidemics and of course nothing has come from WIV which has helped with the current pandemic.  He has prevaricated and danced around the issue using careful wording to secure his own personal legal defence while the dead bodies pile up around him. The reason that Dr Fauci goes on about speaking for the benefit of the “listeners at home” is that he knows that he is not fooling Rand Paul. But he is still hoping to fool the American public. And, with the help of the much of the media, who are carefully looking away from this story, he is probably continuing to fool many.
Final note. For those interested in forensic psychology this could provide a useful case study. Look how Fauci repeatedly misspeaks and mixes up his words. Just one example; he seizes on what he thinks is an opportunity to discredit Paul by saying that Paul had said he stills funds the WIV – and Fauci thinks he can say he doesn’t. Fauci, with a certain theatrical flourish, says “I even wrote it down as you were writing”. He means of course “as you were speaking” but he’s muddling everything up. He is very nervous. Why is he so nervous? Because he is – and he knows it only too well – treading on the very very thin ice of his fragile legal defence; which could crack at any moment. Or, in other words, he is nervous because he is lying.
This Vanity Fair articles goes into detail about the NIH’s backtracking around what exactly they funded in Wuhan. (It also supports the fact that there are many credible scientists with relevant expertise who are at least open to the possibility of a lab leak as the source of the pandemic). It also describes how an earlier Eco-Health alliance grant application specifically sought funding for work at WIV to insert a furin cleavage site into a coronavirus. The application was refused but we can speculate that perhaps they went ahead and did the work anyway (maybe getting funding from another source).
It appears based on the first video above that Fauci does not define the research he was funding in Wuhan as being “gain-of-function” because he only applies that definition (now reinvented as “enhanced pathogens of pandemic potential or EPPP” or P3CO) to research which takes a virus which is already very significantly infectious to humans and which sets out to make it much more so. The work in WIV involved taking a coronavirus from bats and seeing under what circumstances it could become more infectious to humans . To define this as not gain-of-function or P3CO Fauci has to assert that bat coronaviruses are not already highly infectious to humans. True – but since they can so easily become so (Sars-Cov-1) it seems a pretty fragile position. It is at best a technical legal defence that he has not broken his own department’s protocols on funding this type of research – not an answer to legitimate political questions about responsibility for funding the research.
For example Richard Ebright Professor or Molecular Virology at Rutgers University. – See remarks quoted in  above. See also: https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/03/18/1021030/coronavirus-leak-wuhan-lab-scientists-conspiracy/ – This Sky news story is mainly about shooting down the lab leak theory but also states that “Sky News has spoken to four other scientists who believe that the lab theory should not be ruled out, though they did not say it was more likely than a natural explanation” – I’ve see this elsewhere in Sky – they mention “other scientists” but don’t give their names. This supports the view that there are professional pressures being exerted on scientists to keep quite about the possibility of a lab-leak. This article in Vanity Fair also mentions credible scientists such as microbiologist Dr David Relman of Stanford who are open to the lab leak possibility. See also this interview with Dr David Relman: https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2021/05/david-relman-on-investigating-origin-of-coronavirus.html In the interview this Stanford microbiologist says “Absent that knowledge, it’s impossible to discern the origins of this virus from its genome sequence alone. ” – For Fauci presumably this means that Relman is not “card-carrying”?
I’ve been puzzling over this one quite a lot. There are two main theories for the origins of Sars-Cov-2. 1) It came from bats in Southern China known to carry coronaviruses probably via an intermediary animal. 2) It leaked accidentally from a lab in Wuhan where they were conducting risky gain-of-function experiments which were all about making coronaviruses more infectious to humans.
Neither theory has been proved. The fact is there is precious little evidence for the natural origin theory. Tens of thousands of animals have been tested to try to find an intermediary – none has been found. This does not disprove the theory. (You can’t prove a negative). But it is surprising. There is no hard evidence for the lab-leak theory. But there is a lot of circumstantial evidence. Not least – the epidemic kicked off a few Km from the Wuhan Institute of Virology where some of this dangerous work was being done. Initially a food market in Wuhan was identified as the source but that now seems not to be the case. This means that the epidemic of an infectious coronavirus (with a rather unusual genetic profile) kicked off a few Km from a lab where scientists were experimenting with these viruses – and hundreds of Km from where the coronavirus carrying bats actually live (and at a time when they were hibernating). Quite a coincidence. Another undeniable fact is that the Chinese authorities have engaged in a cover-up. A key virus database from the WIV lab disappeared from the Internet in September 2019; the first WHO mission to China was heavily controlled by the Chinese authorities; the WHO’s attempt to send a second and more robust mission has been refused by the Chinese authorities. Why run a cover-up if there is nothing to cover up?
There are of course many other points of circumstantial evidence which point towards there having been a lab-leak.
But the media is not asking any questions? Why? One reason of course relates to US politics. Trump championed the lab leak theory and the liberal statists had to push back against anything Trump said. Another – and more interesting one is that the trail leads back to the US state bureaucracy. It is highly likely that Covid-19 was accidentally but carelessly unleashed on the world by an unholy alliance of the Chinese state and the US liberal health bureaucracy who funded the research in Wuhan in violation of their own protocols. Finally – biotech is a huge and growing industry intimately linked with power, corporate profits and the surveillance state. Are they going to invite questioning of this industry? No. No wonder there is a media blackout.