WASHINGTON, D.C. - On July 11, Chairman Brad Wenstrup (R-OH) of the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic released an interim staff report. The report provides information about the Select Subcommittee's investigation into the lab-leak hypothesis and how it was handled by public health officials in the United States. The report specifically focuses on the drafting, publication, and reception of "The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2" publication.
The report is titled "The Proximal Origin of a Cover-Up: Investigating the Possibility of a Lab Leak by the 'Bethesda Boys'" and found the original paper's co-authors argue in support of a zoonotic origin, citing extensive influence by the NIH and flawed analysis, along with a lack of evidence.
The report presented several important findings, including Dr. Fauci, Dr. Collins, and the NIH being involved in the drafting and publication process of "Proximal Origin." According to the report, Dr. Fauci made two suggestions to Dr. Andersen about drafting a paper on the lab leak theory. Meanwhile, Dr. Collins supported the publication and agreed with the content of the paper titled "Proximal Origin." The co-authors referred to the nation's leading health officials as the "Bethesda Boys" due to their familiarity and collaboration with the NIH's involvement.
The report alleges the co-authors of "Proximal Origin" may have presented a biased perspective by selectively interpreting the available evidence in line with Dr. Fauci's desired narrative. The report says the facts and science used to draw conclusions in "Proximal Origin" have yet to be proven or verified, and some arguments presented by the publication may contain inaccurate assumptions and noticeable inconsistencies.
Click here for the latest news updates and to join in the conversation.According to Dr. Kristian Anderson, one of the authors of the study, the co-authors may have allowed political factors to influence the scientific aspects of "Proximal Origin". In private slack messages, Dr. Anderson expressed his opinion that politics being involved in science can be undesirable, but acknowledged that it is difficult to avoid, particularly in certain situations. The report says co-authors and Dr. Collins also made efforts to downplay the lab leak theory, possibly driven by a desire to maintain diplomatic relations and avoid favoring any particular country.
According to the report, Nature initially declined to publish the article titled "Proximal Origin" due to concerns that it did not adequately address the possibility of a lab leak theory. The co-authors made revisions to their paper, incorporating more assertive language that would definitively dismiss the possibility of a lab-leak hypothesis. The report says this was done with the aim of securing approval from Nature Medicine.
The House Oversight Committee says Examining any potential COVID-19 cover-up is crucial for upholding scientific integrity in the future. They also claim the scientific paper has been recognized as one of the most impactful papers in history, ranking fifth in terms of its influence. As of now, it has been accessed more than 5.8 million times and cited approximately 2,800 times. Given the extensive reach and questionable findings of this paper, it is important to examine the process and publication of it in order to avoid hindering scientific discussion in future pandemics.
The investigation conducted by the Select Subcommittee is ongoing. There are still pending requests for transcribed interviews and documents from Dr. Fauci and Dr. Collins. The Select Subcommittee intends to fulfill these requests.
According to some critics, there have been claims that certain health officials in America may have downplayed or disregarded the lab leak theory, suggesting that their actions were driven by a particular narrative rather than objective truth or scientific evidence.
According to Chairman Wenstrup, the Select Subcommittee's report suggests that the conclusions presented by the co-authors of Proximal Origin may be inaccurate and potentially influenced by a political motive. He says that limiting scientific discussion and categorizing individuals who consider the potential of a lab-leak as 'conspiracy theorists' had a detrimental impact on public confidence in our health authorities.
He believes it is important for Americans to understand the reasons behind the NIH's shift away from honesty, transparency, and reliance on factual information, and that the report is focused on achieving that understanding.
The report contains Slack messages and emails exchanged between the co-authors, complete transcripts of interviews with all U.S.-based contributors to the paper, and an analysis of the coordinated effort to downplay the lab-leak theory.
In addition, the report states that Dr. Fauci had knowledge of NIH funds being allocated for gain-of-function research related to COVID-19, which were directed to the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
The report suggests that this institute could potentially be the source of the COVID-19 virus. According to news reports, documents have been presented by the NIH indicating that funding for gain-of-function research was provided by NAIAD during Dr. Fauci's tenure, and that this funding was directed towards the Wuhan Institute of Virology specifically for the study of what became COVID-19.
0 Comments