Following a lengthy political career as President Biden’s Chief Medical Adviser and Director of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Dr. Anthony Fauci resigned to face criticism in federal court where lawyers judged him “not credible”.
Last Monday, the attorneys presented “Exhibit 1,” a legal document, which included incriminating evidence. In this paper, “Proposed Facts” are presented that create a troubling image of Dr. Fauci’s purported behavior, namely that it is dubious and manipulative in character.
JUST IN: Trump 24K Golden Dollars – Available Now!
Attorneys determined that Dr. Fauci’s sworn testimony from late 2022 in the case Louisiana, Missouri, et al. v. Biden was “not credible” via a thorough analysis of his recorded conduct. This decision was supported by more than 300 pages of evidence on file.
Dr. Fauci failed to recollect or retain crucial information 386 times throughout his sworn testimony! He often uses the phrases “I don’t recall” or “I do not recall” which says a lot about how much and how in-depth he is managing to keep us secure at this particular moment.
The “lab leak theory” of SARS-CoV-2 has been the subject of apparent misrepresentations in a recent court evidence, calling into doubt Dr. Anthony Fauci’s reliability. Investigation has revealed that he misrepresented connections to experts like Peter Daszak from EcoHealth Alliance, Shi Zhengli (aka “the Bat Woman”), and Ralph Baric at University of North Carolina as well as communications with authors of a scientific paper dismissing claims of lab leaks in favor of natural origins.
Additionally, the evidence in the case suggests that Dr. Anthony Fauci probably deceived Congress by using “gain of function” research instead of the required “Pause” in such studies. Moreover, Fauci tried to disprove the “lab leak theory” and lied to the investigators about the steps he took to do so. The previous director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Dr. Robert Redfield, was excluded from discussions with researchers on the lab leak idea, apparently because of Redfield’s opinions on the working hypothesis.
“First, in early months of 2020, Dr. Fauci worked closely with Dr. Francis Collins and Jeremy Farrar to orchestrate a campaign to discredit and suppress the opinion that SARS-CoV2, the virus that causes COVID-19, leaked from a laboratory at the Wuhan Institute of Virology— an opinion that has recently been confirmed as likely true,” According to the legal exhibit. “Early in the pandemic, Dr. Fauci was aware that NIAID, under his direction, had funded dangerous gain-of-function research on coronaviruses at that laboratory, and he sought to discredit and suppress the lab-leak theory to deflect the scandal and blame associated with potential responsibility for the deaths of millions in the ensuing pandemic. He engaged in a campaign of deception to discredit the theory, and as a result of his efforts, the lab-leak theory was heavily censored on social media.”
“On December 30, 2011, Dr. Fauci co-authored an op-ed with Dr. Francis S. Collins in the Washington Post entitled A Flu Virus Risk Worth Taking. In this op-ed, Dr. Fauci and Dr. Collins advocated for creating potentially dangerous viruses in laboratories, writing that ‘important information and insights can come from generating a potentially dangerous virus in a laboratory.’ According to Fauci and Collins, ‘[u]nderstanding the biology of … virus transmission has implications for outbreak prediction, prevention and treatment,’ and ‘[i]dentifying threatening viruses can also facilitate the early stages of manufacturing vaccines that protect against such a virus in advance of an outbreak.’ They further argued that ‘identifying the molecular Achilles heel of these viruses can allow scientists to identify novel antiviral drug targets that could be used to prevent infection … or better treat those who become infected’.”
“Dr. Fauci and Dr. Collins acknowledged the significant risks associated with such research, writing that ‘[s]afeguarding against the potential accidental release or deliberate misuse of laboratory pathogens is imperative.’ But they believed that those risks were contained, writing that “engineered viruses … are maintained in high-security laboratories.’ They further state that ‘scientists, journal editors, and funding agencies involved are working together to ensure that access to specific information that could be used to create dangerous pathogens is limited to those with an established and legitimate need to know’.”
Wednesday’s hearing of the House’s Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Epidemic exposed Fauci and Collins’ worries on the inadequate safety procedures at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
“We have learned that the Wuhan Institute has poor biosafety and was conducting this research at only biosafety level two, described as ‘the Wild West’ by Dr. Jeremy Farrar, a virologist from the UK, now chief scientist for the WHO,” Rep. Brad Wenstrup (R-OH), chair of the subcommittee, made a notation.
Yet, even before the COVID-19 pandemic, Drs. Collins and Fauci were well-known public supporters of laboratory studies that “generating a potentially dangerous virus in a laboratory,” The court document noted.
According to the exhibit, this kind of study, which involves “generating a potentially dangerous virus in a laboratory” is known as “gain-of-function” research. Dr. Fauci affirmed in court “[g]ain of function is a very potentially misleading terminology, and that was one of the reasons why several years ago outside groups, not the NIH … did away with the terminology ‘gain of function’ because it can often be very confusing and misleading.” Yet Dr. Fauci confirms that “the NIH” did not “d[o] away” Dr. Fauci’s internal email also makes use of the word and the phrase “SARS Gain of Function” The lawyers followed by outlining the study on bat coronaviruses carried out by Dr. Shi Zhengli and colleagues at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which was partially supported by Dr. Fauci’s NIAID via the subgrants from the EcoHealth Alliance.
The discussion first focused on legal issues before moving on to prospective financing sources for the contentious gain of function study being conducted at the Wuhan Institute of Virology by renowned infectious diseases specialist Dr. Anthony Fauci.
“On June 1, 2014, Dr. Fauci’s NIAID funded a grant to the EcoHealth Alliance for the five-year period June 1, 2014, to May 31, 2019. Fauci Ex. 2, at 2. The title of the project was ‘Understanding the Risk of Bat Coronavirus Emergence.’ The project’s Abstract stated: “This project will examine the risk of future coronavirus (CoV) emergence from wildlife using indepth field investigations across the human-wildlife interface in China, molecular characterization of novel CoVs and host receptor binding domain genes, mathematical models of transmission and evolution, and in vitro and in vivo laboratory studies of host range.”
According to the Abstract, one of the project’s “three specific aims” would be to “[t]est predictions of CoV inter-species transmission” by doing two types of study to increase the bat coronaviruses’ capacity to infect humans: “reverse genetics,” i.e., altering the viruses’ genetic makeup to make them more contagious; and “virus infection experiments” using “humanized mice,” i.e., repeatedly exposing humanized mice to bat coronaviruses in order to cause changes that make the viruses more contagious to human cells (a procedure known as “serial passage”). The Abstract specifically stated: “Predictive models of host range (i.e.[,] emergence potential) will be tested experimentally using reverse genetics, pseudovirus and receptor binding assays, and virus infection experiments across a range of cell cultures from different species and humanized mice.”
Dr. Fauci tried to show that the wide phrase “reverse genetics” may include things other than gain-of-function research, as claimed by the lawyers present, with sharp insight and strong argument. (“I’m not really quite sure what they’re
referring to. Reverse genetics can mean many things.”). But Dr. Fauci admits that “reverse genetics” means “[m]anipulation of a virus, recombination, things like that.” In 2015, Drs. Baric and Zhengli conducted research funded by a grant leading to the creation of an advanced virus containing components from other viruses that was considerably more infectious and dangerous in humans: “reverse genetics” had been used to generate this chimeric strain described as having “SARS Gain-of-Function.” These striking results were noted internally by none other than Dr. Fauci himself.
Dr. Fauci said throughout their legal procedures that he was only “vaguely” aware of NIAID financial assistance for EcoHealth Alliance prior to his deposition, which was a shocking admission! (see: “I’m vaguely familiar with the fact that EcoHealth Alliance has been doing research on trying to understand the bat coronavirus emergence” and “I have no recollection of the initiation of this grant.”)
Dr. Fauci admits that “NIAID has funded EcoHealth Alliance,” Yet he said that he knew nothing about this endeavor. (“[T]his is the first time that I have seen this piece of paper.”). Dr. Fauci showed early attention to address this global health problem by seeing a grant at the start of the pandemic and flagging it in an email from one of his colleagues on January 27, 2020.
“Given the public and Congressional scrutiny of this particular project and its relation to the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Fauci’s testimony on these points is not credible,” the lawyers state.
And to make matters worse, Dr. Fauci said that he did not know Peter Daszak, that he was unsure of how to pronounce Daszak’s name (“I’m not sure”), and that he was not familiar with any of these things. “do[es]n’t even
remember meeting him,” but that he “has seen a photo of himself with Daszak at a public event as the only evidence that they have met,” the lawyers note.
“In fact, Dr. Fauci has exchanged cordial emails with Daszak on a first-name basis, and he participated in a podcast with him on February 9, 2020, in which they both sought to discredit the lab-leak theory of COVID’s origins,” the exhibit continued.
“Dr. Fauci’s attempt to deny or downplay his acquaintance and familiarity with Daszak is not credible,” the lawyers submitted. “Dr. Fauci states that he does not recall whether NIAID ever authorized continued funding for Peter Daszak or EcoHealth Alliance pursuant to the exception to the Pause,” they further remarked.
Attorneys referred to a 2015 publication in Nature Medicine by Dr. Ralph Baric and focused on the comments made by Fauci about the evidence presented there.
“The 2015 Nature Medicine article clearly described gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses. The Abstract states: “Here we examine the disease potential of a SARS-like virus, SHC014-CoV, which is currently circulating in Chinese horseshoe bat populations. Using the SARS-CoV reverse genetics system, we generated and characterized a chimeric virus expressing the spike of bat coronavirus SHC014 in a mouse-adapted SARS-CoV backbone.” The article utilizes the term “reverse genetics,” which is also used to explain the EcoHealth award, to describe developing “a chimeric virus,” the attorneys point out.
In his deposition, Dr. Fauci said that “likely … several months” had passed since the COVID-19 pandemic’s start for him to first learn of this Nature Medicine publication. “it was brought to my attention in the context of questions that were raised by members of Congress about experiments that were funded by the NIAID.”
“In fact, Dr. Fauci attached this article to a confidential midnight email to his principal deputy, Hugh Auchincloss, on January 31, 2020, and directed Auchincloss to read it immediately and take unspecified actions on it on a Saturday morning,” the lawyers remarked.
“Dr. Fauci’s testimony on this point is not credible,” the attorneys added.
Dr. Ralph Baric, the corresponding author of the 2015 Nature Medicine publication, has not, in Dr. Fauci’s opinion, ever been introduced. (“I know who he is, I doubt I’ve ever met him. I may have met him at one of the meetings where there are thousands of scientists saying hi to each other…”). Indeed, the official calendar for Dr. Fauci “shows a one-on-one meeting with Dr. Ralph Baric on February 11, 2020, during the events described herein,” the exhibit states.
According to a contemporaneous Slack conversation from February 18, 2020, Dr. Baric “sat in Fauci’s office talking about the outbreak and chimeras,” The display also said that these viruses were made in a lab. Moreover, according to Dr. Fauci’s testimony, Dr. Baric may be responsible for the use of the term “SARS Gain of Function” in the attachment to his late-night email to Hugh Auchincloss.
“Dr. Fauci’s testimony on this point is not credible,” the lawyers submitted.
Dr. Fauci acknowledged his ignorance of the subject when asked to identify the mystery person known as “Bat Woman” at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, Dr. Shi Zhengli. “I’m not a hundred percent certain. I get sometimes confused with Asian names.” Yet, the so-called “bat woman,” Dr. Shi Zhengli, is a well-known researcher. “who may have caused the COVID-19 pandemic,” It has been from the start of the epidemic; also, the title of Dr. Fauci’s essay contains the word “Shi.” “forwarded to Dr. Hugh Auchincloss after midnight on February 1, 2020.”
“Dr. Fauci’s testimony is not credible on this point,” the lawyers submitted.
In his testimony, Dr. Fauci said that he initially learned of the COVID-19 epidemic either on December 31, 2019 or “the first couple days of 2022.” Dr. Fauci recalls how he first learned of worries about the COVID-19-causing SARS-CoV-2 virus. “might have been genetically engineered or originated in a laboratory” when “[t]here was a phone call in late January of 2020, I believe, from Jeremy Farrar. There was one other person on the phone. I believe it was [K]ristian [Andersen], who piped me in on a three-way call, saying that they looked at the virus and there was some concern about the molecular configuration or makeup of the virus that made them think there was a possibility that there could have been a manipulation of the virus.”
A crucial aspect emphasized in the legal exhibit is anticipated to be discussed at the House’s Covid response hearings on Wednesday.
“Dr. Fauci states that he does not believe that anyone ever raised the concern to him before that late January call, and he specifically attests that he does not recall Dr. Robert Redfield, then-Director of the CDC, raising the concern to him in mid-January 2020. Dr. Fauci’s recollection conflicts with that of Dr. Redfield, who specifically recalls raising this issue to Dr. Fauci earlier in January 2020, and having his concerns fall on deaf ears: “Dr. Robert Redfield, a virologist and the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), had urged Fauci privately to vigorously investigate both the lab and natural hypotheses. He was then excluded from the ensuing discussions—learning only later that they’d even occurred. ‘Their goal was to have a single narrative,’ Redfield [said].”
In an argumentative interaction, Dr. Redfield criticized Dr. Fauci for excluding him from the discussion concerning Covid-19’s beginnings and said that he was pursuing an agenda without taking into account other viewpoints.
“In mid-January of 2020, … Redfield expressed his concerns in separate phone conversations with three scientific leaders: Fauci; Jeremy Farrar, the director of the U.K.’s Wellcome Trust; and Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, director general of the World Health Organization (WHO),” the legal brief went on. Redfield’s message, he says, was simple: ‘We had to take the lab-leak hypothesis with extreme seriousness.’” Dr. Fauci disputes this account and states that this conversation did not happen: “To my recollection, no.”
Dr. Fauci admits in his deposition that he was clearly interested in knowing more about the SARS-CoV-2 virus before engaging in any conversations with experts concerning possible lab leaks from Wuhan, China. He took it upon himself to have Auchincloss investigate NIAID’s coronavirus research funding so as to be informed on this critical topic of conversation before initiating dialogue concerning possible related matters and implications for all parties involved.
“And at my recollection, I brought to Hugh’s attention, saying, ‘We have to speak in the morning, because I want to find out what the scope of what it is that we are funding so I’ll know what we’re talking about.’” Fauci Depart. Dr. Fauci was very interested in learning what EcoHealth Alliance was doing: “this was the first that I had heard about specifics of what EcoHealth and what other people were doing, and I wanted my staff to say get me up to date. So that’s what I meant by you have work to do.”
Regarding the “tasks that must be done,” Dr. Fauci admits that “I wanted to be briefed on the scope of what our collaborations were and the kind of work that we were funding in China. I wanted to know what the nature of that work was.”
According to knowledgeable legal counsel, Dr. Fauci’s testimony sent an urgent message given the state of the world at the time. “strongly support the inference that Dr. Fauci sent the email to Auchincloss because he was concerned that NIAID, under his leadership, was funding research in China that might have led to the creation and leak of SARS-CoV-2, and he wanted to know the full extent of NIAID’s exposure before his call later that day with scientists and funding authorities.”
A legal document given during House Select Subcommittee hearings further demonstrated Dr. Anthony Fauci’s lengthy history of evading examination and giving inaccurate or misleading information in respect to the Covid-19 outbreak, thereby proving that he is “not credible..”
Fauci should be arrested and prosecuted for his role in this catastrophe.