[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
INVESTIGATING THE PROXIMAL ORIGIN.
OF A COVER UP
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SELECT SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CORONAVIRUS
PANDEMIC
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JULY 11, 2023
__________
Serial No. 118-48
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Accountability
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available on: govinfo.gov,
oversight.house.gov or
docs.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
53-002 WASHINGTON : 2023
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY
JAMES COMER, Kentucky, Chairman
Jim Jordan, Ohio Jamie Raskin, Maryland, Ranking
Mike Turner, Ohio Minority Member
Paul Gosar, Arizona Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina Columbia
Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts
Gary Palmer, Alabama Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia
Clay Higgins, Louisiana Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois
Pete Sessions, Texas Ro Khanna, California
Andy Biggs, Arizona Kweisi Mfume, Maryland
Nancy Mace, South Carolina Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York
Jake LaTurner, Kansas Katie Porter, California
Pat Fallon, Texas Cori Bush, Missouri
Byron Donalds, Florida Jimmy Gomez, California
Kelly Armstrong, North Dakota Shontel Brown, Ohio
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania Melanie Stansbury, New Mexico
William Timmons, South Carolina Robert Garcia, California
Tim Burchett, Tennessee Maxwell Frost, Florida
Marjorie Taylor Greene, Georgia Becca Balint, Vermont
Lisa McClain, Michigan Summer Lee, Pennsylvania
Lauren Boebert, Colorado Greg Casar, Texas
Russell Fry, South Carolina Jasmine Crockett, Texas
Anna Paulina Luna, Florida Dan Goldman, New York
Chuck Edwards, North Carolina Jared Moskowitz, Florida
Nick Langworthy, New York
Eric Burlison, Missouri
Mark Marin, Staff Director
Mitchell Benzine, Subcommittee Staff Director
Marie Policastro, Clerk
Contact Number: 202-225-5074
Miles Lichtman, Minority Staff Director
Contact Number: 202-225-5051
------
Select Subcommittee On The Coronavirus Pandemic
Brad Wenstrup, Ohio, Chairman
Nicole Malliotakis, New York Raul Ruiz, California, Ranking
Mariannette Miller-Meeks, Iowa Minority Member
Debbie Lesko, Arizona Debbie Dingell, Michigan
Michael Cloud, Texas Kweisi Mfume, Maryland
John Joyce, Pennsylvania Deborah Ross, North Carolina
Marjorie Taylor Greene, Georgia Robert Garcia, California
Ronny Jackson, Texas Ami Bera, California
Rich Mccormick, Georgia Jill Tokuda, Hawaii
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on July 11, 2023.................................... 1
Witnesses
----------
Dr. Robert Garry, Professor, Tulane University School of Medicine
Oral Statement................................................... 6
Dr. Kristian Anderson, Professor, Scripps Research
Oral Statement................................................... 7
Written opening statements and the written statements of the
witnesses are available on the U.S. House of Representatives
Document Repository at: docs.house.gov.
Index of Documents
----------
Documents entered into the record during this hearing are listed
below.
* Working Paper, Chretien and Cutlip, ``Critical Analysis of
Andersen et al. The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2'';
submitted by Rep. Wenstrup.
* Overview, Department of Health and Human Services; submitted
by Rep. Dingell.
* Democratic Staff Report, July 2023; submitted by Rep. Ruiz.
* Questions for the record to: Dr. Andersen; submitted by Rep.
Mfume.
* Questions for the record to: Dr. Garry; submitted by Rep.
Mfume.
Documents are available at: docs.house.gov.
INVESTIGATING THE PROXIMAL ORIGIN
OF A COVER-UP
----------
Tuesday, July 11, 2023
House of Representatives
Committee on Oversight and Accountability
Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m. in
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Brad R. Wenstrup
(Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Wenstrup, Malliotakis, Miller-
Meeks, Lesko, Cloud, Joyce, Greene, Jackson of Texas,
McCormick, Jordan, Comer, Ruiz, Dingell, Mfume, Ross, Bera,
Tokuda and Raskin.
Dr Wenstrup. The Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus
Pandemic will come to order. Welcome, everyone.
Without objection, the chair may declare a recess at any
time. Pursuant to rule 7D of the Committee on Oversight and
Accountability, and at the discretion of Chairman Comer, Mr.
Jordan, a Member of the full Committee, may participate in
today's hearing for the purposes of questions.
Pursuant to rule 9D with the Committee on Oversight and
Accountability, and at the discretion of the Chair, the Select
Subcommittee may recognize staff for questions for a period not
to exceed 15 minutes per side after all Members that wish to be
recognized have been.
I now recognize myself for the purpose of making an opening
statement.
Today, the Select Subcommittee is holding a hearing to
examine the drafting, publication, and critical reception of
the publication entitled The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2.
``Proximal Origin'' came to two primary conclusions: First,
that COVID-19 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully
manipulated virus; and second, that no type of laboratory-based
scenario is plausible.
This is not an attack on science, it's not an attack on
peer review, and it's not an attack on an individual. We're
examining whether government officials, regardless of who they
are, unfairly and perhaps biasedly tipped the scale toward a
preferred origin theory. We're examining any conflicts of
interest, biases, or suppression of scientific discourse
regarding the origins of COVID-19.
And we're examining the science of proximal origin, because
while I believe it's not solely a scientific question, the
science behind the origins is vital. In one word, we're
examining the scientific methodology applied to the origins
question.
In my mind at this point, I view the processes to be
flawed. If we're to do better in the future, we must make every
effort to mend our flaws.
And overall, 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 perhaps 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 1 million Americans and has
had a crushing effect on all of humankind.
In the earliest stages of the pandemic, scientists and
public health authorities raced to understand this novel
coronavirus--called ``novel'' for good reason--to understand
how it's spread, who is at risk, its origins, and most
importantly, how to prevent loss of life.
As work advanced gradually on most of these fronts, the
origins question stalled. Did it come from a natural spillover
transferred from a bat to an intermediate source to a human, or
was it the result of a laboratory or research-related accident?
In other words, did it come from a lab?
Honestly, we may never know with 100 percent certainty the
origins of COVID-19, especially without full, legitimate
cooperation and transparency from all involved.
However, we do know some things for certain, that the
drafting, coordination, and publication of Proximal Origin and
downplaying the lab leak was antithetical to science. Not my
words, that's what Dr. Redfield, the former CDC director and
renowned virologist, testified to our Select Subcommittee in
March.
He testified that science never selects a single narrative.
We foster debate, and we're confident that with debate, science
will eventually get to truth.
Did we do that?
That wasn't the case with Proximal Origin. Dr. Andersen,
testifying today, wrote that the authors' main work over the
past couple of weeks have been focused on trying to disprove
any type of lab theory.
While it's true that the scientific method consists of
raising a hypothesis and then testing the hypothesis, often
through falsifiability, it's not true, nor appropriate, to make
definitive conclusions based on falsification process, riddled
with assumptions. Assumptions are not science.
To be clear, the goal of science is to prove and disprove.
Regardless, it would be seemingly misleading to assume that
Proximal Origin proved or disproved anything it sought to test.
Its conclusion is flawed as it relies on unsupported
assumptions, including guessing what a hypothetical scientist
would do in hypothetical experiments.
The facts are that the authors of Proximal Origin
ultimately took a one-sided, educated guess. They guessed that
in the previous three years science would discover a furin
cleavage site in a SARS-related virus or viruses, and it
didn't.
They guessed that maybe the WIV, the Wuhan Institute of
Virology, wasn't working with pangolin viruses. And they were
wrong, as related by ODNI, the Office of the Director of
National Intelligence.
Perhaps most troubling, it appears that the authors' views
on a potential lab leak changed abruptly after the February 1
conference call with Drs. Fauci and Collins. The authors
continued their pursuit to disprove the lab leak theory and
fully support the nature theory, employing faulty assumptions
and willfully ignoring circumstantial evidence that tended to
support a lab leak hypothesis.
Why? Why?
They also tended to act more akin to politicians than
scientists. Dr. Rambaut, Dr. Fauci, Dr. Collins all expressed
concerns that the lab leak theory, if verified, would have
significant, international, political implications particularly
for China.
Dr. Fauci also wrote that downplaying a lab leak would
limit the chance of new biosafety discussions that would
unnecessarily obstruct future attempts of virus culturing.
These are quotes.
Why try to avoid biosafety discussions when people are
dying? Science should be clear, even when politics are not.
On April 16, Dr. Collins expressed dismay that Proximal
Origin didn't fully squash the lab leak theory and asked Dr.
Fauci if there was anything more they could do to put it down.
I want to pause on ``anything more we can do'' for a
second. That would suggest that they already did do something.
Maybe this was a reference to Proximal Origin. I don't know for
sure.
But on the very next day, on April 17, 2020, Dr. Fauci
cited Proximal Origin from the White House podium when asked if
COVID-19 leaked from a lab. He used Proximal Origin to downplay
the lab leak theory. Why? Based on what absolute truth?
The question as to the origins of COVID-19 is fundamental
to helping us predict and prevent future pandemics, protect our
health and our national security, and prepare the United States
for the future and to save lives.
I look forward to a strong, on-topic discussion today. I
would now like to recognize Ranking Member Ruiz for the purpose
of making an opening statement.
Dr. Ruiz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our
witnesses for being here today.
Three years ago, when reports emerged of a deadly, highly
transmissible, novel virus, the race to better understand this
threat and how we could fight it began.
Scientists, doctors, and public health officials from
across the globe sought to answer key questions like how the
virus spread, how it would impact our most vulnerable, and what
we could do to treat it.
While now we have those answers, one mystery remains
unsolved. How did this virus even come to be in the first
place? Since the first outbreak of COVID-19, researchers in the
scientific community have worked tirelessly to get to the
bottom of this very issue.
Our intelligence community has conducted a sweeping
assessment of the novel coronavirus' origins at President
Biden's direction.
So, let me just remind everybody here, there is currently
no consensus on how this virus came to be. Whether it came from
a lab or from nature is still unknown. Two Federal agencies
still assess, with low and moderate confidence that the virus
originated in a lab, and four government agencies still assess,
with low confidence, that the virus came about through natural
transmission.
While the facts remain unknown, we should let our expert
communities continue to do their jobs while we, as lawmakers,
focus on policies to help prevent the next pandemic and save
future lives.
But instead of doing that, we are here interrogating
researchers who wrote a paper three years ago so that my
colleagues can push a partisan narrative and disparage our
Nation's public health officials and institutions in the
process.
So, let's just be clear. This isn't about building trust in
public health and science. No, it's about tearing it down,
about manufacturing a problem and manufacturing distrust to
justify an extreme partisan agenda. It's about scoring
political points by maligning public health officials who
worked tirelessly throughout the pandemic to reduce harm and
save lives.
What's worse is, the preconceived conclusions being pushed
create confirmation bias that inhibits experts from conducting
objective, politics-free, scientific, and intelligence
investigations, to actually help us understand the virus'
origins in order to prevent and prepare for the next pandemic.
Nearly five months have gone by since the start of this
Select Subcommittee. Since then, we focused on the wrong
priorities and wasted time on this hyper partisan investigation
which, by the way, has ended up disproving my Republican
colleagues' own theory.
So, let's go over the facts. The crux of their theory rests
on a February 2020 conference call where they say Drs. Fauci
and Collins began a campaign to suppress the lab leak theory.
Their own investigation has thus far revealed the opposite.
In fact, documents and interview testimony provided to the
Select Subcommittee, at my Republican colleagues' request,
confirms that Drs. Fauci and Collins hardly participated on
that call.
What's more, my colleagues claim that Drs. Fauci and
Collins orchestrated the Proximal Origin paper. Again, their
own investigations has thus far revealed the opposite.
In fact, the records and testimony of those involved in the
paper reveal that Drs. Fauci and Collins, quote, played no role
in the drafting of the paper, unquote.
No, the Select Subcommittee's investigation has confirmed
it was actually a scientist by the name of Dr. Jeremy Farrar
who convened the conference call my Republican colleagues have
hyperbolized who paved the way for the drafting and publication
of the paper so much so that the authors described him as,
quote, a leader, and quote, a father figure of the paper, and
who my Republican colleagues didn't even bother to invite to
this hearing.
Look, I've said from the day I was appointed Ranking Member
that my top priority for the Select Subcommittee is focusing on
forward-looking policies to prevent and prepare for future
pandemics, to take the lessons from the past and make them
actionable solutions for the future.
I reiterated this in a letter I sent last month to my good
friend and colleague, the chairman. But if we're going to
continue down this path of political theater, then the very
least we can do is stick to the facts.
That is why my Democratic colleagues and I released our own
report this morning detailing the evidence the Select
Subcommittee has received so far that dispels these baseless
allegations against Dr. Fauci and Dr. Collins. And that is why
we invited Dr. Farrar to appear before this Subcommittee,
because we are committed to following the facts.
And if my Republicans colleagues are so interested in
having a serious debate about the publications of this paper
and the science behind it, then they should want to hear from
the one person who led this effort from the beginning.
So let me conclude by saying this, as we pass the one-
quarter mark of the Select Subcommittee's work this Congress,
there is still time to change course. There is still time to
pursue an objective analysis of the virus' origins that is free
from political interference, a comprehensive, rigorous, and
objective consideration of all potential possibilities of how
COVID-19 emerged.
And there is still time for us to shift our focus to
crafting good policies that will prevent and prepare us for the
next pandemic.
So once again, I invite my colleagues on the other side of
the aisle to join us in putting the needs of the American
people above political theater. So, let's reject the extreme
rhetoric targeting our Nation's scientists, let's disregard the
conspiratorial accusations without proof against our Nation's
public health officials, and let's finally start to work
together of helping to save future lives.
I yield back.
Dr. Wenstrup. Thank you. I want to point out, we invited
every author of Proximal Origin--Dr. Eddie Holmes, Dr. Andrew
Rambaut--but both declined that invitation. Dr. Farrar is not
listed as an author, yet he was invited by the minority, and
apparently he declined.
Dr. Lipkin has been voluntarily cooperating with our
inquiry, but due to unforeseen circumstances, we have excused
his testimony today, rightfully.
And finally, Dr. Michael Farzan's counsel said it would be
inequitable and create a damaging misimpression to Dr. Farzan
to include him on a panel regarding the paper with the actual
authors.
So, our witnesses today are Dr. Robert Garry. Dr. Garry is
currently a professor at the Tulane University School of
Medicine. He holds his doctorate in microbiology from the
University of Texas, and he is an author of the Proximal Origin
paper.
Dr. Kristian Andersen. Dr. Andersen is currently a
professor in the department of immunology and microbiology at
Scripps Research. He holds a doctorate in immunology from the
University of Cambridge, and he is the corresponding author of
the Proximal Origin paper.
Pursuant to Committee on Oversight and Accountability rule
9G, the witnesses will please stand and raise their right
hands.
Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony that you
are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth so help you God?
Dr. Wenstrup. Thank you. You may be seated.
Let the record show that the witnesses all answered in the
affirmative.
The Select Subcommittee certainly appreciates you all for
being here today, and we look forward to your testimony. Let me
remind the witnesses that we have read your written statements,
and they will appear in full in the hearing record. Please
limit your oral statement to five minutes.
As a reminder, please press the button on the microphone in
front of you so that it is on, and the Members can hear you.
When you begin to speak, the light in front of you will turn
green. After four minutes, the light will turn yellow. When the
red light comes on, your five minutes has expired, and we
kindly ask you to please wrap up.
I now recognize Dr. Garry to make an opening statement.
STATEMENT OF DR. ROBERT GARRY
PROFESSOR
TULANE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE
Dr. Garry. Chairman Wenstrup, Ranking Member Ruiz,
distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for
inviting me to testify today.
For the last 40 years, I have worked as a professor at
Tulane University School of Medicine. I've devoted my life's
work to understanding emerging viruses. At the onset it is
important that I make these statements in my personal capacity.
I am not speaking on behalf of Tulane University.
Although we have all lived through a very challenging viral
pandemic, my personal perspective has been different than most.
For nearly 20 years, I've worked closely with scientists and
clinicians at the Kenema Government Hospital in Sierra Leone.
KGH is a major site for research on the virus that causes Lassa
fever.
Ten years ago, Ebola virus emerged just 50 miles from
Kenema. Ultimately this Ebola outbreak would claim the lives of
thousands of people, including dozens of healthcare workers at
the Kenema Government Hospital.
Having lost many close colleagues to an outbreak of a
deadly virus, the December 2019 reports of cases of a novel
pneumonia in Wuhan, China, were ominous. They raised the
specter of a possible and impending global disaster caused by a
novel airborne virus; one I worried that the world would be
ill-equipped to handle.
Shortly after the first release of the SARS-CoV-2 genetic
sequence, I participated in an in-depth, molecular and
phylogenetic analysis of the virus with a group of other
scientists. We wrote a peer-reviewed publication in Nature
Medicine, titled, The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2.
In the paper, we concluded it was likely that SARS-CoV-2
had evolved naturally. We specifically did not rule out a
laboratory origin. Instead, we discussed three possible origin
scenarios.
The first scenario was direct spillover from a bat to a
human. The second was spillover from a bat to an intermediate
animal and then to a human. The third scenario was a lab
origin.
We considered the possibility that some of SARS-CoV-2
features, including a receptor binding domain and a furin
cleavage site, may have arisen during passage in a laboratory.
We quickly observed these noble features in related
coronaviruses which provided the straightforward evolutionary
path for SARS-CoV-2 to emerge in nature. We concluded that
natural origin scenarios were most plausible.
Based on the then available scientific evidence, we did not
believe that laboratory-based scenarios, including
bioengineering, were plausible.
Much new evidence in support of the natural origin of SARS-
CoV-2 has accumulated since we wrote Proximal Origin. The
Huanan Market in Wuhan was shown to be the early epicenter of
the COVID-19 outbreak.
Most of the earliest diagnosed human cases from December
2019 lived in the immediate neighborhood around this market,
including those that did not work or shop there.
In contrast, no clustering was observed in 2019 around the
campuses of the Wuhan Institute of Virology, as would be
expected if entry of SARS-CoV-2 into humans involved a
laboratory accident.
The distribution of SARS-CoV-2 in the Huanan Market is also
important. SARS-CoV-2-positive samples were clustered in the
southwest corner of market where live SARS-CoV-2 susceptible
mammals were sold.
In March 2023, my colleagues and I found that raccoon dog
and civet cat DNA and RNA were present in the wildlife stall
that contained the highest numbers of SARS-CoV-2-positive
samples in the market. This is equivalent to finding a smoking
gun carrying the main suspect's DNA at the exact scene of the
crime.
Theories of COVID-19 must be investigated in a transparent
manner. The Subcommittee, for example, has told that the
cleavage of the furin site reorients the receptor binding
domain so that it can specifically bind to a human receptor.
This is untrue. The same witness described human arginines
which do not exist.
Three and a half years into the COVID-19 pandemic, it is
still my opinion that there is no credible scientific evidence
for a lab-based origin for SARS-CoV-2.
We do remain dangerously ill-equipped to prevent or manage
the emergence of novel viruses. I support the efforts of the
Subcommittee to better understand the origins of coronavirus
pandemics. Understanding viral origin plays an important role
in developing strong policies to help prevent the next
potential pandemic.
Dr. Wenstrup. Thank you. I now recognize Dr. Andersen to
give an opening statement.
STATEMENT OF DR. KRISTIAN ANDERSEN
PROFESSOR
SCRIPPS RESEARCH
Dr. Andersen. Thank you. Chairman Wenstrup, Ranking Member
Ruiz, and Members of the Select Subcommittee, I'm Kristian
Andersen, professor of Scripps Research. I've spent most of my
scientific career studying infectious diseases, including
origins.
Today's hearing has targeted a paper my colleagues and I
published, titled, The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2. In this
paper, we concluded that the virus very likely emerged as the
result of a zoonosis, that is, a spillover from an animal host.
This remains the only scientifically supported theory for
how the virus emerged. If convincing new evidence were to be
discovered suggesting otherwise, we would, of course, revise
our conclusions. This is science.
My initial hypothesis starts that SARS-CoV-2 was likely an
engineered virus. This was based on limited data and
preliminary analyses where I had observed features that
appeared to be unique.
However, we soon discovered that those features are readily
found in related coronaviruses, and the virus itself looks to
be a clear product of natural selection and not actual
engineering.
Allow me to briefly outline how we went from these early
hypotheses to later conclusions. First, Proximal Origin was
based on scientific evidence and analyses by a team of
international experts with extensive track records in studying
infectious disease emergence.
Second, the paper was peer-reviewed by independent experts
resulting in multiple revisions.
Third, we have continued to pursue independent
investigations into the origin of the pandemic and published
our results.
Fourth, additional research by other researchers support
our early conclusions.
Today, I hope to share more about this important research
with the goal of being better prepared for future pandemics.
However, I must first address several allegations made about
our work.
The Select Subcommittee Majority has alleged that our paper
was orchestrated by Dr. Anthony Fauci to cover up a lab origin
of SARS-CoV-2 as directed during a February 1, 2020 conference
call.
It has also been suggested that a grant awarded to myself
and colleagues from five different countries was a quid pro quo
for changing our conclusions. These allegations are false.
First, the claim that Dr. Fauci prompted the drafting of
Proximal Origin to disprove the lab leak is not true. In an
email to the journal, Nature, I stated, prompted by Jeremy
Farrar, Tony Fauci, and Francis Collins, we have been working
through much of the primarily genetic data to provide agnostic
and scientifically informed hypotheses around the origin of the
virus.
There was no prompting to disprove or dismiss a potential
lab leak. In fact, when I outlined my initial hypothesis about
a potentially engineered virus, Dr. Fauci told me--and I'm
paraphrasing here--if you think this virus came from a lab, you
should write a scientific paper about it.
Not only is this not a prompt to disprove the lab leak
theory, it was specifically predicated on our initial
hypothesis of a lab-associated virus.
The allegations that Dr. Fauci prompted the drafting of
Proximal Origin to disprove the lab leak is, quote, mine from
an email I wrote to participants of the February 1 conference
call.
The scientific method is based on two basic concepts of
one, formulating hypotheses, and two, testing those hypotheses,
often by trying to disprove them.
My initial hypothesis was a lab theory. When I stated that
we were trying to disprove any type of lab theory, I was
specifically referring to us testing our early hypothesis. This
is textbook science in action.
Some have alleged that I have received a Federal grant in
exchange for the conclusions made in our Proximal Origin paper.
There is no connection between the grant and the paper. Funding
decisions on the grant were made before the pandemic--months
before the February 1 conference call.
In closing, we live in a world in which the risk of
devastating pandemics is real and is ever increasing. We need
more research and commitment to science, not less.
However, scientists, including myself, who dedicate their
professional lives to impactful research are being targeting
and used as pawns in a political game.
I hope this hearing can be a starting point for more
productive conversations and actions of working together to
contribute to an increased knowledge of pandemics for our
safety and the safety of future generations.
Thank you.
Dr. Wenstrup. Thank you.
I now recognize myself for questioning.
Dr. Andersen, Dr. Garry, I want to, again, thank you both
for coming today and offering your scientific insights on the
origins of COVID-19. We appreciate your professional training
and your experience as you outlined in your testimonies. Your
role and voice in the ongoing public discussion about COVID's
origin is an important one.
In your letter with your co-signers to Nature magazine, you
highlight that notable features of SARS-CoV-2 genome that
include, among other characteristics, its high affinity for
human ACE-2, and the presence of a polybasic furin cleavage
site. Both characteristics enable the virus to infect humans
effectively and contributes to SARS-CoV-2 ability to cause
illness or pathogenicity.
Your letter or opinion piece, published in Nature magazine
in April 2020, also indicates that some pangolin coronaviruses
exhibit strong similarity to SARS-CoV-2 in the receptor binding
domain, including all six key RBD residues.
Your letter also states that this feature is found in some
Malayan pangolins imported to Guangdong Province. You have
stated that pangolins may have played some role in the
recombination event that led to the COVID pandemic. Is that
correct?
Dr. Andersen. That is not correct. I don't think pangolins
played a role in the pandemic per se. The fact that we find
similar viruses in pangolins and there is a recombinant history
of the virus themselves, however, that recombinant history is
very likely in bats----
Dr. Wenstrup. Thank you.
Dr. Garry?
Dr. Andersen [continuing]. And not actually in pangolins.
Dr. Garry. So, I agree, I don't think there's a direct
route from a pangolin to SARS-CoV-2.
Dr. Wenstrup. That's interesting because there were
comments that might make people believe otherwise that weren't
necessarily in Proximal Origin but were in the comments made
amongst the researchers. Would you agree with that, sir?
Dr. Garry. I would agree with that, but there's been a lot
of----
Dr. Wenstrup. Thank you.
Dr. Garry [continuing]. Extra work since then.
Dr. Wenstrup. Thank you. There has been. There has been a
lot of extra work since three years ago. I would agree with
that, and I think we should all be open-minded to that extra
work.
So, is it correct to say that in order for a recombination
of coronaviruses to occur that the susceptible animals, such as
a pangolin, and the reservoir host for the virus have to be in
close physical contact and that the recombination events happen
within the same subgenus of virus? Would that be correct?
Dr. Andersen. That is incorrect. As I already stated, those
recombination events likely happens in bats, not actually in
pangolins.
Dr. Wenstrup. Well, there's been discussion about it coming
from a pangolin, and I'm curious how a pangolin coronavirus
found in Guangdong Province could swap genes with susceptible
animals in Hubei Province.
Dr. Andersen. There's no reason to suspect----
Dr. Wenstrup. I'm not asking you a question right now, Dr.
Andersen. Let me just finish my statement, please. We cannot
conduct this in this manner, but I will let you speak, because
I'm making a scientific point here, based on some of the
discussions that I saw take place between the members of the
authorship. OK?
And I'll give you your chance to rebut it, because we want
the truth and we want to know the scientific process, and we
want to have the scientific discussion, not talking over each
other but actually having a discussion. Is that fair?
Dr. Andersen. That is fair.
Dr. Wenstrup. OK. So, Guangdong Province is approximately
603 miles away from Hubei. You note in your Committee testimony
that high risk animals were discovered at the Huanan Market.
You also note the genetic footprints of susceptible animals,
specifically raccoon dogs, were found at the market.
Were pangolins or bats sold in the Wuhan Seafood Market?
Dr. Andersen. Not that we know of.
Dr. Wenstrup. Not that I know of either.
Has there been any genetic evidence for pangolin existence
in the market?
Dr. Andersen. Not that we know of, no.
Dr. Wenstrup. Not that I know of either.
Were any animal samples taken from the market positive for
SARS-CoV-2 or from farms supplying the Wuhan animal markets?
Dr. Andersen. There were no relevant animals that could've
been positive for the virus----
Dr. Wenstrup. Yes.
Dr. Andersen [continuing]. Sample at the market because
they had been removed prior to.
Dr. Wenstrup. Or from the farms where they came from, none
are reported.
Were any environmental samples recovered from the market
positive for SARS-CoV-2?
Dr. Andersen. Yes.
Dr. Wenstrup. Yes.
Dr. Andersen. Several.
Dr. Wenstrup. Now, Dr. George Gao, the former director of
the Chinese Center for Disease Control publicly stated that the
Huanan Seafood Market was not likely the original source of the
outbreak. Former CDC director in China stating that the market
could have served as an amplifier or a super-spreading venue.
Could you see the market being a super spreader venue?
Dr. Andersen. The data is inconsistent with that scenario.
Dr. Wenstrup. Inconsistent or consistent?
Dr. Andersen. Inconsistent.
Dr. Wenstrup. Really? People might argue that.
The second genomic SARS-CoV-2 finding you mentioned in your
written testimony cited the presence of a polybasic furin
cleavage site which contributes significantly.
Dr. Andersen, is it plausible that such a furin cleavage
site could be inserted by a scientist, such as in 2007 by U.S.
research from Montana State University? Is it plausible?
Dr. Andersen. If you look at the furin cleavage site that
we are specifically finding in SARS-CoV-2, it has never been
used in experiments prior to this. Further, the furin cleavage
site itself is suboptimal and likely out of----
Dr. Wenstrup. So, I'm asking----
Dr. Andersen [continuing]. Suggesting that this is a clear
result of natural selection and not----
Dr. Wenstrup. I'm hearing what you say, Doctor, and I
appreciate that, but you said something there that stands out
to me. And I think you're referring to nothing ever published.
And that doesn't mean it's not plausible or possible. And
that's where I stand different from you.
And I know throughout a lot of the things that I'm reading;
we've talked about nothing being published. A lot of things get
published long after they're done, and some things never get
published, and we'll get into that.
Are you aware of the proposal that EcoHealth Alliance
submitted in March 2018 to DARPA that outlined their intent to
work with researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology to
conduct genetic engineering that included inserting novel
receptor binding domains found in SARS coronaviruses from the
wild in human-adapted furin cleavage sites to assess the effect
of their infectivity in humanized mice, and according to Dr.
Zhengli Shi, possibly using palm civets? Are either of you
aware of the proposal that EcoHealth Alliance submitted in
March 2018?
Dr. Andersen. I assume you refer to the proposal DEFUSE.
Yes, I am aware of that.
Dr. Wenstrup. Dr. Garry?
Dr. Garry. Yes, I'm aware of the proposal.
Dr. Wenstrup. Based on your professional experience and
training, could deliberate recombinant research result in a
virus with characteristics consistent with SARS-CoV-2?
Dr. Andersen. I think it's important that we take a step
back and focus on what's possible versus what is plausible or
probable and what we actually have evidence for. Anything is
possible.
In our own Proximal Origin paper, for example, we say that
we cannot disprove or prove any of the origin hypotheses. That
was true at the time of writing that paper. That is true today
as well.
However, it's important that we focus on what do we
actually have evidence for.
Dr. Wenstrup. Exactly.
Dr. Andersen. And what do we have evidence for is that if
you looked at the DEFUSE proposal, for example, is that--and I
will admit it's a little messy written, so it's not clear
exactly what they're proposing, but first of all, the work
that's being proposed here is to be conducted in the United
States, not in China.
Specifically, they're talking about S2 proteolytic cleavage
sites and glycosylationsites. That's not the specific site
that's actually present in SARS 1--in SARS 2. So, if you look
at the proposal of DEFUSE and ask the question, could that
plausibly have led to the creation of SARS-CoV-2, is that in
the world of possibilities, sure.
However, is it plausible to think that that work would
alert to this virus? My professional opinion on that is no.
Dr. Wenstrup. You mentioned something--and I'm not saying
this in some kind of an arrogant way, but you mentioned--I
think there's times when we don't know what we don't know, and
I think that needs to be considered. So, when something is
possible or plausible, we don't know one way or the other.
And I sit on the Intelligence Committee. When COVID
started, I was interested in what was happening as a physician,
what is happening to people, how do we treat it.
But we started finding other things, and it aroused our
curiosity. So, I will say that I think it's important that as
more comes out, that you keep that in mind.
I want to skip ahead to some of the things--there's more I
would want to talk about, but I would say that there are so
many revelations that have come about since the paper was
written.
I'm just curious if the Proximal Origins team would be
willing to gather together and take another look at the lab
theories with agnostic peer review, and can you do it without
social media censoring or name-calling, or should we rely on
the work of Dr. Jean-Paul Chretien and Dr. Greg Cutlip for
their more comprehensive and detailed approach that we see from
their scientific report produced in May 2020?
Would you be willing to regroup and maybe take a look at
evidence that has come out or maybe evidence that hasn't even
been revealed to the public yet?
Dr. Andersen. As I stated in my opening statement, is there
any new evidence that were to be unearthed suggesting that this
could potentially have been associated with a lab, of course,
we will consider that.
However, it's important to understand, too, that the kinds
of independent investigations that we have done as a scientific
team, are agnostic to the potential origin of the virus.
We are simply looking at the virus itself, we're looking at
early cases, we're looking at positivity of the samples, and
those just happened to cluster around a particular market
linked directly to the billion-dollar wildlife trade in China.
That's an agnostic view of what does the evidence actually tell
us.
Dr. Wenstrup. Dr. Garry, an answer to my question?
Dr. Wenstrup. Your microphone.
Dr. Garry. Of course, we're willing to look at new
evidence.
Dr. Wenstrup. I appreciate that.
I now recognize the Ranking Member, Dr. Ruiz, from
California for five minutes of questions. Or more.
Dr. Ruiz. For more than five months, under the guise of
investigating the origins of the novel coronavirus, the Select
Subcommittee has scrutinized the drafting and publication of
the Proximal Origin paper.
The Select Subcommittee has demanded thousands of pages of
internal documents from researchers involved in the paper,
conducted transcribed interviews with these researchers,
subpoenaed their private communications, and now called two of
them to testify at today's hearing.
We have undertaken all of this work, but to what end? Has
targeting these researchers and probing the publication of this
paper meaningfully advanced our efforts to prevent and prepare
for future pandemics?
Or has it been about fishing for evidence to prove their
confirmation bias, their theories, with a goal of advancing a
predetermined partisan narrative targeting Dr. Fauci, Dr.
Collins, and our Nation's scientists and public health
officials?
Dr. Andersen, let me ask my first question to you. In your
view as a leading virologist who studies emerging pathogens,
has the Select Subcommittee's examination of your paper done
anything to prevent and prepare our Nation for the emergence of
future novel viruses?
Dr. Andersen. Not to my knowledge, no.
Dr. Ruiz. OK. Dr. Garry, same question to you. Has the
Select Subcommittee's examination of the Proximal Origin paper
done anything to prevent and prepare our Nation for the
emergence of future novel viruses?
Dr. Garry. Not to this date.
Dr. Ruiz. OK. When I joined the Select Subcommittee as
Ranking Member, I hoped that we could work together on the
challenging but critically important mission of identifying
forward-looking solutions to prevent and prepare for future
pandemics.
You know, I'm an emergency medicine physician. I want
actionable items to do something that will help relieve pain,
suffering, and save lives. I take that doctor's approach in my
work in Congress, and I want to do meaningful work that will
help save lives, prevent a future pandemic, and prepare for the
future pandemic.
And this included taking a serious look at whether SARS-
CoV-2 emerged from a natural zoonotic transfer or from a
research-related incident so that we could propose substantive
policies to prevent the emergence of the next deadly, novel,
airborne virus.
But instead of examining this question seriously and
objectively, the Select Subcommittee has so far only leveraged
it to target our Nation's scientists and to vilify our Nation's
public health officials.
And in doing so, the Select Subcommittee has undermined the
critical mission of preventing and preparing for future
pandemics.
As a result of unproven, conspiratorial accusations without
proof, like those suggesting Dr. Fauci and Dr. Collins covered
up the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic, trust in science in
our Nation's public health institutions has suffered.
The Pew Research Center found that fewer than 3 in 10
Americans have a great deal of confidence in scientists to act
in the public's interest.
So, while manufacturing of distrust is largely happening
along party lines, it will hurt us all and our public health in
the long run, whether you are Republican, Democrat, or
Independent.
And we are already seeing the consequences. For example,
threats against scientists and public health officials have
surged in the wake of these accusations, which could have long-
term impacts on our ability to cultivate a strong and growing
work force to protect our public health, to work during the
next pandemic.
Dr. Andersen, you've been the subject of these threats.
Could you please describe the threats and harassment you've
experienced since the publication of the Proximal Origin paper?
Dr. Andersen. I'll say the paper itself has not resulted in
threats. However, the misinformation, disinformation, and
conspiracy theories around the paper have resulted in
significant harassment and threats including everything from
typical targets on social media to emails to telephone calls to
my office, to my own phone, to death threats.
Dr. Ruiz. Can you give us an example of one of those death
threats to you and yours?
Dr. Andersen. Of course. I'll--one example, for example,
will be online, where there are so-called kill lists, and I
have found myself on those lists, together with my co-authors,
together with many other colleagues involved in anything from
origin research to vaccine research. For example, Peter Hotez
has been a frequent target of many of these same threats.
Dr. Ruiz. And do they say why they want to harm you?
Dr. Andersen. I think the conspiracy theory here which is
amplified by the Select Subcommittee's Majority here, is that,
basically that the virus was created and that American
scientists played a role in that and have been covering that
up.
And the suggestions that there have been quid pro quos, in
turn, of covering this up, all of which, as the record clearly
shows, is false. And these in themselves result in these
threats.
Dr. Ruiz. And so, these manufactured conspiratorial
accusations without that proof instills these emotions from the
public that listens to them and results in an aggressive,
threatening environment for you and other scientists?
Dr. Andersen. Correct. And I think understandably so,
because we have all lived through a devastating pandemic with a
lot of personal consequences to a lot of different people, and
we are all suffering and hurting.
And I think the focus has been on, there is a need to blame
somebody for this. There's a need to deflect from our own
personal suffering, and this has been part of that.
Dr. Ruiz. And so how does this kind of harassment undermine
the ability of scientists to do critical work that helps to
promote our understanding of emerging public health threats?
Dr. Andersen. I think it sets a terrible example for future
scientists looking at the attacks directed against us, for
example, and if I was a future scientist and looking at that
and saying, maybe I'm not going to go into infectious disease
research.
If I'm an emergency care physician or a nurse saying, maybe
infectious disease is not for me because I've seen all the
different harassments going on here.
So, from that perspective, it's damaging.
It's also incredibly damaging to our own work. We do study
the origins of pandemics, including this one, but myself and
Dr. Garry next to me, we study a lot of different viruses,
together with colleagues in Africa, for example, and these
viruses continue to pose threats, and of course that work is--
is less active than it would have been.
Dr. Ruiz. So, confirmation bias is when you already have
a--are convinced 100 percent of a certain outcome, and your
world view will now be seen through a lens of that belief. And
so regardless of the facts and the evidence presented to you,
you will formulate that based on what your already preconceived
notion is, and you will work to prove what you already believe
exists.
How does that harm our public health researchers in this
investigation when people are continuing to push a narrative
that involves intimidating public health scientists by bringing
them here, yelling at them, accusing them if they're not
aligned with their confirmation bias, with their preconceived
notion?
Dr. Andersen. I think it's deeply unhelpful.
Dr. Ruiz. As a physician and public health expert, I am
deeply troubled that the Select Subcommittee has prioritized
its time and resources on advancing an extreme partisan
narrative over fulfilling our obligation to the American
people, to mitigate future public health threats.
And so, I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
to cease their misguided efforts that endanger science and
public health, and I yield back.
Dr. Wenstrup. Before I recognize the next witness, I, with
unanimous consent, want to submit for the record working paper
from May 26, 2020, Critical Analysis of Andersen et al, the
Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2, written by scientists at Defense
Intelligence Agency and the National Center for Military
Intelligence.
I now recognize Ms. Malliotakis from New York for five
minutes of questions.
Ms. Malliotakis. Dr. Andersen, do you believe that the
former CDC director, Dr. Redfield, is a conspiracy theorist?
Yes or no? Yes or no?
Dr. Andersen. I think to the question of whether the former
director is a conspiracy theorist is not really something I
have thought about, so I don't like to label people as such.
Ms. Malliotakis. Well, I don't know how because you just
accused everyone who believes that there was a lab leak to be a
conspiracy theorist. And back in March, the former director of
the CDC, Dr. Redfield, came before this Committee, and he said
that it was not scientifically plausible that the virus went
from a bat to humans and subsequently became one of the most
infectious viruses in history.
When asked why he was excluded from the February conference
call that both of you, as well as ten other scientists had with
Dr. Fauci, Dr. Redfield told us that Dr. Fauci wanted a single
narrative surrounding the origins of COVID.
But both you--Andersen, Garry--also expressed concerns
about the genetic make-up of the virus just days before the
initial draft of this paper came out. So, are you both
conspiracy theorists at that time?
On January 29, 2020, Dr. Fauci emailed you after you had
expressed concerns to him on a phone call that you believed
COVID would have been engineered. He told you that if this was
true, you had to contact the FBI. You did not do that, correct?
Dr. Andersen. I believe the email says that he will contact
the FBI.
Ms. Malliotakis. OK. Do you know, have either of you had
contact with the FBI, yes or no, to your knowledge?
Dr. Andersen. At the time? No.
Ms. Malliotakis. OK. But then you reaffirmed those
engineering concerns in an email to Dr. Fauci which you say,
the unusual features of the virus make up a really smart part
of the genome and that after discussions earlier today, Eddie,
Bob, Mike, and myself all find the genome inconsistent with
expectations from evolutionary theory.
Again, were you a conspiracy theorist at that time, and did
you share these same concerns on the February 1 conference
call? Because Dr. Garry went so far as to say, ``I really can't
think of a plausible natural scenario when you get from the bat
virus, or one very similar to it, COVID-19 where you insert
exactly four amino acids, 12 nucleotides, and all have to be
added at the exact same time to gain this function. I just
can't figure out how this gets accomplished in nature.''
So then within a matter of days, something changed, and
that's what this Committee is trying to get to the bottom of.
What happened within that three-day period between the
conference call and the paper that all of a sudden you did a
180 and it couldn't possibly come from a lab, or maybe, but
you're all saying that, you know, this was, by sure, from
nature? What happened in those three days?
Dr. Garry. Well, we examined the genomes more closely, we
looked at other coronaviruses, and there was some new data that
came. There was----
Ms. Malliotakis. Where did that data come from?
Dr. Garry. The scientific literature, you know, the
publication of the pangolin genomic sequence showed that there
was a receptor binding domain that was very close to the----
Ms. Malliotakis. And exactly what my colleague here brought
up?
Dr. Garry. Yes, exactly.
Ms. Malliotakis. OK. Interesting.
Dr. Garry. And it was a very important piece of data
because it showed that a lot of the theories about, you know,
the virus having been engineered or put together in a
laboratory were not true because here was a virus in nature
that had a receptor binding domain with exactly the same
structure.
Ms. Malliotakis. Well, I just find it interesting based on
what my other colleague here, the Chairman of the Committee,
said, and with reply to the issue of the pangolins.
But something else that happened between those two days is,
one of your colleagues who is not here today, was invited--Dr.
Rambaut--he said--I don't know if I should say this in
Committee room or not, but given the blank show that this would
happen, if anyone seriously accused the Chinese of even
accidental release, my feeling is we should say that given
there is no evidence of a specifically engineered virus, we
cannot possibly distinguish between natural evolution and
escape so we are content with ascribing it to natural
processes.
His concern was would he piss off China. That's what his
concern was.
So, look, something happened here. Politicians may flip-
flop. Scientists do not flip-flop in a matter of 72 hours. And
whether it was the fear of accusing communist China for this
leak, whether it was needing to get the FBI involved and what
that might lead to down the line, whether it was the fact that
millions of U.S. dollars had made their way, by the way, to
communist China--interesting chart I have here, $3.7 million.
Were any of you aware during any of these--whether it was
drafting this paper or conversations with Fauci that communist
China received $3.7 million of American tax dollars, including
through--to the Wuhan Institute of Virology? Did that ever come
up in any conversations with Dr. Fauci?
Dr. Garry. It did not.
Ms. Malliotakis. OK. Dr. Andersen, no?
Dr. Andersen. It did not. And while everyone was aware of
some of the work, I was not aware of the funding going because
that is obviously irrelevant to understanding the origin
itself.
I should point out, though, that in terms of labeling
people as conspiracy theorists, is that considering a potential
lab leak is a perfectly reasonable and scientifically justified
question to ask. I, myself, have asked it. I have not called
people, that believe or think that this could have come from a
lab, conspiracy theorists.
Ms. Malliotakis. OK. Well, I'd like to just take my time
back because I've run out, and I just only want to acknowledge
that it's not just Dr. Redfield, right? We had the Department
of Energy come out with their conclusion that they believe it
was likely from a lab. It is the FBI that also says it was
likely from a lab, and I just wanted the record to reflect
that. Thank you.
Dr. Wenstrup. I now recognize the Ranking Member of the
full Committee, Mr. Raskin of Maryland, for actually seven
minutes.
Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. We're all
interested in finding out the origins of the COVID-19 epidemic
to make sure that such a nightmare never happens again to us.
And we need the facts. Some people clearly want to politicize
the question. Some people think that the finding that it all
started with a lab leak would somehow absolve Donald Trump of
his lethally reckless response to the pandemic. Of course, his
response was dangerously dysfunctional, regardless of how it
got started. And his own advisor on COVID-19, Deborah Birx,
said that we lost hundreds of thousands of American lives
because of the flaws in the response.
But even if the virus came from a lab, as indeed it could
have, we don't know that yet, that would only deepen Donald
Trump's culpability because he was the one who repeatedly and
enthusiastically praised China's early handling of the pandemic
and assured us that we was working closely with President Xi on
the response to it. So, let's just get the facts straight and
leave all the political myth making aside.
Now, we've heard claims repeatedly that Dr. Fauci and Dr.
Collins set up the February 1, 2020, conference call as part of
a plan somehow to suppress the lab leak theory. But the
Committee Majority's own June 2023 subpoena to Dr. Andersen
says that it was Dr. Farrar who organized the conference call.
Well, which is it?
Dr. Andersen, it's my understanding that the conference
call was indeed set up by Dr. Farrar so top scientists could
discuss SARS-CoV-2 genomic features and whether those features
could illuminate the origins of the virus.
Is that correct that it was set up by Dr. Farrar?
Dr. Andersen. That is correct.
Mr. Raskin. OK. Dr. Farrar provided the agenda and the
roster of attendees via email. You can see in the top box here,
in red, the agenda, and in the bottom box in red the roster of
attendees. In the agenda, Dr. Farrar, assigned himself the role
of introducing and defining the focus of the call, setting up
desired outcomes, and establishing next steps afterwards.
Neither Dr. Fauci, nor Dr. Collins were assigned roles on this
agenda.
Dr. Garry, it looks like this was in every material respect
Dr. Farrar's call. Is that how you remember it?
Dr. Garry. It is how I remember it.
Mr. Raskin. And what contributions did Dr. Fauci or Dr.
Collins make, or did they mostly just listen?
Dr. Garry. Well, they did mostly just listen. They had very
little to offer on the science. I think they were there to
gather information.
Mr. Raskin. OK. Now, Dr. Andersen, you said you began
yourself with the initial hypothesis that there had been or may
have been a lab leak, but you ended up not believing in that
theory. Why? How did you change your mind?
Dr. Andersen. I think it's important to understand that
we're talking about early hypotheses here on which our thinking
over time evolved, and that then led to the conclusions
published in a peer review paper. I would like to point out
that this timeline of three days, I don't know where that's
coming from.
The paper was published on the 17th of March, 2020. That's
45 days after this conference call. What's important to
understand is that the thinking evolved from initially thinking
that this could have been engineered to relatively rapidly
discount that idea as being inconsistent with the available
evidence. However, the lab leak theory itself or the idea of a
lab leak can be many different things. And our continued
evolution of that then followed that I was quite convinced that
maybe it was cultured.
And then from there eventually realized that actually that
is also unsupported, and that's what led to the conclusions in
Proximal Origin.
Mr. Raskin. But I have your paper, The Proximal Origin of
SARS-CoV-2, in which you write: Our analyses clearly show that
SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully
manipulated virus. Did Dr. Fauci or Dr. Collins pressure you to
come to this conclusion or to suppress the lab leak theory?
Dr. Andersen. They did not. That is fully a conclusion of
the authors on the paper.
Mr. Raskin. OK. Now, one of the things I admire in what
you've been saying is that you follow the scientific method.
You say at the--in the conclusion in your paper: Although the
evidence shows that SARS-CoV-2 is not a purposefully
manipulated virus, it is currently impossible to prove or
disprove the other theories of its origin described here.
In other words, we fundamentally don't know. But have there
been papers following your original paper that have caused you
to revise the view that you have now and to go back to your
original hypothesis.
Dr. Andersen. No, but I will say there has been additional
data and analysis, which obviously we have taken all of those
into consideration. However, these early conclusions remain to
this date.
Mr. Raskin. OK. And, well, let's move on to an email that
you sent to your co-authors. You wrote--and this has been I
think much misunderstood: Our main work over the last couple of
weeks has been focused on trying to disprove any type of lab
theory.
Now, you explained in your opening statement that you meant
pursuing the scientific process by which you have a hypothesis
which stands unless it's disproven. Is that right? Is that what
you meant by that?
Dr. Andersen. That is correct. I'm referring to the concept
of what's called falsification as Chairman Wenstrup mentioned
too, yes.
Mr. Raskin. The falsification of a theory.
Dr. Andersen. Yes.
Mr. Raskin. All right. So, has there been any attempt, to
your knowledge, to censor any papers that would contradict the
conclusions that you arrived at here? Or put it differently,
you mentioned in your opening testimony that Dr. Fauci had
encouraged you to write a paper about the lab theory, if that's
where the evidence took you. Is that right?
Dr. Andersen. That is correct. I'm not aware of, you know,
whether papers has been censored, specifically, focused on the
lab leak. I will say, again, if you look at the scientific
evidence, it all points in one direction, which is the single
market in the middle of Wuhan in China as the starting point of
this pandemic.
There are many papers out there that have described
potential lab leaks, which are typically using sort of gods of
the gaps type of analogies where you're trying to say that the
data is not perfect, so everything remains still possible. And
that's something we agree with. As we specifically say, in the
paper, you cannot disprove or prove any of the hypotheses.
After origin, that was true at the time, and that's still today
true.
Mr. Raskin. Well, I just want to commend you for following
the scientific method here, for being open to all new evidence,
and all new data, and not succumbing to a series of political
polemics and attacks. Mr. Chairman, thank you very kindly.
I yield back to you.
Dr. Wenstrup. I now recognize the chairman of the full
Committee, Mr. Comer, from Kentucky for five minutes of
questions.
Mr. Comer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Discovering the origins
of COVID-19 is vital. It's vital to preparing for future
pandemics and to save lives. Dr. Andersen, in your prepared
testimony, you say that you're being investigated because,
``Published peer review 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 shit show that would
happen if anyone serious accused the Chinese of even accidental
release.''
Dr. Andersen, you responded to this message, ``Yup, 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.
Mr. Comer. Do you have any experience in the foreign
service or diplomatic course?
Dr. Andersen. I do not. I'm a Danish citizen.
Mr. Comer. OK. Thank you. You were the one with the
preferred political narrative. And 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, end quote.
We heard in our last hearing that the Biden administration
was working with social media companies to censor the lab leak
theory. I think you had preferred political narratives
backward, sir. When was your first conversation with Dr. Fauci
about the origins of COVID-19?
Dr. Andersen. I believe that was on the 31st of January,
2020.
Mr. Comer. And, yes or no, he suggested you write a paper
during that conversation, correct?
Dr. Andersen. Dr. Fauci suggested that I consider writing a
paper, specifically, predicated on my initial hypothesis, which
was that of a lab associated virus, correct.
Mr. Comer. Then you had the February 1 conference call that
had Dr. Fauci, Dr. Collins, and Dr. Farrar on it, correct?
Dr. Andersen. There were several scientists, including
those, yes.
Mr. Comer. Was Dr. Tabak also on that call?
Dr. Andersen. I believe he was on the call. I'm unsure
about that.
Mr. Comer. Did Dr. Fauci reiterate a suggestion to draft a
paper on that call?
Dr. Andersen. I don't believe that he directly suggested
it, but there was support for us looking further into the
origin of the pandemic, yes.
Mr. Comer. Well, did the February 1 conference call lead to
the drafting of Proximal Origin?
Dr. Andersen. At the time, no. These are separate events.
Eventually, the conclusions from that conference call, further
conversations among the authors ultimately lead up in the March
17, 2020 paper, the Proximal Origin. However, the purpose of
that conference call was not to write a paper.
Mr. Comer. Well, I want to shift to the conclusions of that
paper. First, our analysis clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not
a laboratory construct or purposefully manipulated virus.
Dr. Andersen, do you stand by that statement?
Dr. Andersen. I do.
Mr. Comer. Dr. Garry, do you stand by that statement?
Dr. Garry. I do.
Mr. Comer. Dr. Garry, are there research techniques that
can purposefully manipulate a virus without leaving a trace?
Dr. Garry. There are.
Mr. Comer. What about having a virus be a laboratory
construct without leaving a trace?
Dr. Garry. If I understand your question correctly, yes, I
believe there are.
Mr. Comer. So, you can't make that conclusion with
certainty then?
Dr. Garry. We didn't base it on those facts, though, sir.
It was other facts and other evidence that we gathered during
the course of our investigation.
Mr. Comer. Well, next you conclude that you do not believe
that any type of laboratory-base scenario is plausible. Dr.
Andersen, do you stand by that statement?
Dr. Andersen. I do, and I think it's important to
understand that while we are talking about a purposefully
manipulated virus, specifically, what we are referring to in
the paper here and as you will see from the record, we have
handed to the Committee is that we are talking about the idea
of building this virus with the intent of creating this virus.
For example, a bioweapon would be an example of this. The
normal engineering of a virus, while I certainly believe that
that is fully inconsistent with the evidence, we have available
to us, is not specifically what we're talking about here. In a
laboratory construct, we are talking about many of the
different reverse genetic systems----
Mr. Comer. OK.
Dr. Andersen [continuing]. Available for SARS-like
coronavirus.
Mr. Comer. This is my last question. Dr. Garry, a recent
interview you said saying that statement went too far. Did that
statement go too far, and is a laboratory-based scenario for
the origin of COVID-19 plausible?
Dr. Garry. So, I said maybe we went too far. And I think in
that particular statement that is really out of context with
the, you know, almost a six-hour interview that I gave to a BBC
reporter. We're talking again about the scientific method. I am
simply just referring to the fact that we were early at the
time in the analysis. And that, yes, we would change our minds
if other evidence, other data came forward to support another
theory.
So, you know, a scientist that is a hundred percent certain
of their conclusions is not a very good scientist. That you
need to evaluate new data and go back. And that's all I was
referring to in that sentence.
Mr. Comer. Mr. Chairman, my time has expired.
Dr. Wenstrup. I now recognize Ms. Ross from North Carolina
for five minutes of questions.
Ms. Ross. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Just this
morning, the Select Subcommittee Democrats released a report to
correct on the record the allegations that Dr. Fauci and Dr.
Collins had involvement in the Proximal Origin paper.
And I'd like to revisit some of the questions that Mr.
Raskin asked about who organized and facilitated that paper.
And I want to be clear that I'm not suggesting that there's
anything untoward or nefarious about the paper or the events
leading to its publications. But my colleagues on the other
side of the aisle have made allegations today, unsupported
allegations, that I believe misrepresent who did what for the
paper and why.
From what I understand, again, this all started on February
1, 2020, in a conference call where some virologists and
scientists, including those from outside of the United States,
got together to discuss a novel coronavirus and make an
analysis of its genomic features.
Dr. Andersen, is it accurate to say that because this was
not their area of expertise, Dr. Fauci and Dr. Collins attended
the call with a goal of hearing what you and other experts,
including your eventual co-authors thought of the virus'
genomic features?
Dr. Andersen. That is correct.
Ms. Ross. And in the period following the call, you and
your coauthors began to work on what would become the Proximal
Origin paper. Is that correct?
Dr. Andersen. That is correct.
Ms. Ross. The Select Subcommittee has reviewed thousands of
pages of documents and communications between you and your
coauthors.
In our review, it became abundantly clear that Dr. Fauci
and Dr. Collins had little to no involvement in the paper.
For example, Dr. Andersen, when asked about Dr. Fauci and
Dr. Collins' role in the paper, you told the Select
Subcommittee staff, ``They played no role in the paper.'' Is
that correct?
Dr. Andersen. That is correct. I think it's important to
understand that we are talking about an international group of
known experts drafting a paper. The whole idea that NIH
directors would have a role in that paper is obviously false.
So, it is true to say that, yes, they played no role in this
paper. Of course, they appeared to have been interested in the
paper because they were interested as known experts in the
conclusions and the research itself.
Ms. Ross. Thank you. In my remaining time, let me turn to
you, Dr. Garry. In the final stages of drafting the paper, you
sent an email to your co-authors stating, quote--Jeremy Farrar,
you were referencing him, had been an amazing leader. You also
told Select Subcommittee staff that Dr. Farrar played a
substantial advisory role throughout the drafting of the paper.
Is that correct?
Dr. Garry. That is correct.
Ms. Ross. And did Dr. Fauci or Dr. Collins ever influence
the conclusions drawn in your paper?
Dr. Garry. Not in any way.
Ms. Ross. So, it seems to me when we don't have the cameras
rolling, even my Republican colleagues might concede that Dr.
Fauci and Dr. Collins did not organize or facilitate the
Proximal Origin and that Dr. Farrar did instead. For example,
on March 5, 2023, Select Subcommittee Republican staff memo
stated, and I quote: Dr. Farrar led the drafting process of the
Proximal Origin paper.
And the subpoena my Republican colleagues issued as part of
this investigation last month acknowledges that Dr. Farrar
``organized'' the February 1, 2020 conference call that they
allege led to the Proximal Origin paper.
These findings underscore the fact that scientific rigor,
especially in the face of global health emergencies requires
international cooperation among experts in the field--
epidemiologists, virologists, doctors, and public health
experts like Dr. Fauci and Dr. Collins must be included in the
discussions concerning how we investigate and respond to
pandemics.
However, just their cooperation and inclusion is not
evidence of collusion or secrecy. It's simply the way the
scientific process works. This kind of coordination enables us
to have accurate information, strong lines of communication,
and ultimately helps us save the most lives.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
Dr. Wenstrup. I now recognize Dr. Miller-Meeks from Iowa
for five minutes of questions.
Dr. Miller-Meeks. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. And I
thank our witnesses for appearing here today. Do either of our
witnesses, can you comment on why the origin of SARS-CoV-2
would be important?
Dr. Garry. Well, we need to figure out how this pandemic
started so that we can put measures in place to prevent the
next one. There will be another coronavirus outbreak or
spillover that could potentially lead to a pandemic. Let's
figure out how it happens so that we can stop that.
Dr. Miller-Meeks. And Dr. Andersen?
Dr. Andersen. Yes, I would agree with that. I think it's--
first of all, it's the natural thing to do. We're all humans.
We want to understand what happened here. And I think from that
perspective itself I think it's important. But as Dr. Garry
said is that the ability to take corrective action and
understand what specifically led to this pandemic so we can
hope to do better and prepare better for future ones is an
important one.
Dr. Miller-Meeks. Thank you. And the reason I wanted you to
state that on the record is because of comments within your
testimony and comments of my colleagues on the other side of
the aisle. Since the pandemic, I am also a physician. I'm a
former director of the Iowa Department of Public Health. We had
a hearing on origins with the Select Subcommittee on the
Coronavirus Pandemic in 2021.
And from the time we were looking at origins, I have said,
specifically, the reason it's important to understand the
origins is not to undermine scientists, it's not a conspiracy
theory, it's not a political hoax, it is for three reasons. And
those three reasons are to prevent and respond to the next
pandemic, one. The international community and scientists, in
particular, have a vested interest in understanding what type
of laboratory research is done and what type of laboratory
safety. Critically important.
No. 2, disclosure. The international community has a vested
interest in disclosure occurring properly and within 24 hours
if, in fact, there is a virus or bacteria that's released that
could lead to a pandemic. And then, No. 3, the ethics of what
kind of research is done and in what laboratories and if we
have assurances that those laboratories and those scientists
can be trusted.
So, my colleague mentioned that it was natural to have
collaboration and to get information from various scientists
around the world. And I would agree with that. Did you have
collaboration and consensus and readily available data from the
Wuhan Institute of Virology?
Dr. Andersen. Only what was in the public domain.
Dr. Miller-Meeks. Dr. Garry?
Dr. Garry. The same answer.
Dr. Miller-Meeks. OK. I would also like to point out that
when you have a phone call, and four days later you--a paper is
presented, and as you said, you're looking at data, when did
you put the paper up for--submit it for publication?
Dr. Andersen. Seventeenth of February.
Dr. Miller-Meeks. OK. But yet, there was changes to that
paper or changes, as you both have said and stated within your
testimony, that you got information which led you to believe
that it was improbable or that a laboratory leak was not
available. So, it seems to me the paper was constructed and
then sent for publication, and then data came out after that.
So, specifically, in reference to the paper, one of the
referees said: There are two recent reports about coronavirus
and pangolins. The authors might want to comment on these.
Dr. Andersen, you stated: We have included these references
as well as several others that have investigated pangolin CoV.
In addition, we should point out that these additional pangolin
CoV sequences do not further clarify the different scenarios
discussed in our manuscript. There is nothing in these reports
that changes our statements regarding a potential role of
pangolins.
Then you also--a second referee asks another question that
says they're surprised that you did not hypothetically refute a
lab origin. And once the authors published their new pangolin
sequences, the lab origin will be extremely unlikely. Your
response was: Our manuscript is written explore the potential
origins of SARS-CoV-2. We do not believe it is speculative.
Unfortunately, the newly available pangolin sequences do not
elucidate the origins of SARS-CoV-2 or refute a lab origin.
Hence, the review is incorrect on this point.
There is no evidence on present data that the pangolin CoVs
are directly related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Yet, in your
paper, you dispute and consider highly improbable, supposedly,
having new data and information, highly improbable that SARS-
CoV-2 emerged through laboratory manipulation.
I'm not suggesting that laboratory manipulation was
deliberate or was a bioterrorism, but by your own statements,
Dr. Andersen, it seems to me that you're actually saying that
it's inconclusive whether or not this emerged accidentally or
on purpose from a laboratory, or if there was a manipulation,
or if it came from science despite the thousands of animals
that had been looked at to see if it could have emerged.
I think my time is up, and I think it's--what we're finding
today is that it's not as conclusive as you would like us to
believe that it emerged through nature. Thank you, and I yield
back.
Dr. Wenstrup. I now recognize Dr. Bera from California for
five minutes of questions.
Dr. Bera. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First off, Dr. Garry,
Dr. Andersen, thank you for being here. I'm a physician, a
faculty member at UC Davis, was an associate dean there. And I
appreciate--you didn't sign up for this--but I appreciate that
you're here. And for all the scientists, doctors, and others
that worked through this pandemic, you know, some of the abuse,
challenges that they've had to face, again, I apologize for
that.
You know, as someone who has spent most of my time in
Congress thinking about pandemic preparedness and global health
security on national commissions, putting recommendations in
place, traveling to Sierra Leone post the Ebola epidemic to try
to get there, I understand how important this work is.
I'm going to limit my comments to the topic today, which is
proximal origin. You know, if I go back to, you know, January
2020 when we first started talking about--this Congress had its
first briefing, I think, in the third week of January in the
CVC auditorium. At that point, I raised--and again, Dr. Fauci
was one of the briefers--the importance of getting to the hot
zone, getting our scientists, the best in the world, to Wuhan
and to the hot zone to understand proximal origins. Obviously,
that did not happen. So, you know, there was appropriate
criticism of how the Chinese were handling the early days of
that pandemic.
The scientific community did the best that they could to
try to understand the origins. And, you know, I appreciate the
work that was published in your paper. I appreciate the
openness to thinking about, you know, whether origins were from
a lab leak versus, you know, a wet market. We continue to
explore that.
To my colleague, Dr. Miller-Meeks, I agree with a lot of
what she said. It is important for us to understand and
continue to try to gather information to understand that--given
that we may never reach a conclusion, I also want to be
forward-looking.
I think it's appropriate for this Committee because it is a
vehicle we have as Congress to look at lab security and lab
safety and, you know, to think about recommendations, working
with the scientific community. Because, you know, this type of
research is going to continue. And it's important for us to
understand and prepare not just for future pandemics, because
we will see those pandemics in the future, but also, there are
bio threats around the world. There are bad actors around the
world. And we have to be doing that research, so we have
appropriate countermeasures and the like.
In addition, though, we shouldn't discount the theory that
this emerged from a wet market, because we should also explore
and work with the international community to prevent that type
of leak from animals to humans. Because we also know zoonotic
transmission of viruses is bound to happen and is the origin of
many new novel pandemics. Would both of you agree that we
should be thinking about both of these. Dr. Andersen?
Dr. Andersen. Yes, I agree. I think it's important that,
you know, there are several different objectives here. One is
the scientific question of the origin. But, of course, given
what we have learned about coronaviruses, including the one
causing the pandemic, but also all the related ones that have
since been discovered, I do think we need to reconsider our lab
safety practices around these viruses, specifically. And that's
because of what we have learned during the pandemic. And that's
an important discussion, too, that I totally agree with.
Dr. Bera. Dr. Garry?
Dr. Garry. Well, we certainly, as virologists, take lab
safety very seriously. The very lives of my students and myself
and others working around the laboratory depends on taking
those issues very seriously. And there are very good guidelines
in place. I agree with Dr. Andersen that we need to rethink
some of those, given, you know, the potential threat of wild
coronaviruses coming over. We should probably do all those
studies at biosafety level 3 instead of lower biosafety levels.
But those are logical things that the scientific community will
put in place.
Dr. Bera. Great. And, again, I think that's where Congress
should work with the science community and take guidance from
science community as opposed to nonscientists in Congress
dictating what might happen and what lab safety should look
like.
I also just in the few minutes that I have, I would hate
for this Committee or Congress to conclude that we shouldn't be
collaborating with the international community, having labs
around the world. Because if we want to prevent pandemics, we
have to go out there where the pandemics are originating and
work with those scientists around the world. And it would be a
dangerous conclusion for this Committee to say we shouldn't be
working with labs around the world. We absolutely have to work
with those labs. Thank you. And I'm out of time.
Dr. Wenstrup. I now recognize Mrs. Lesko from Arizona for
five minutes of questions.
Mrs. Lesko. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you both of
you for being here to testify. I'm first going to ask--I'm
going to ask the same question first of Dr. Garry. In your
documented emails to both--or to Dr. Fauci and others dated
before or around the same time as the February 1 conference
call, both of you seemed absolutely convinced that COVID-19 was
not from nature.
In fact, Dr. Andersen, when you spoke to Committee staff
when they interviewed you, you were very concerned about the
origin of COVID-19 and wondered if you should contact the FBI
or CIA about your concern. Yet, on February 4, 2020, which was
three days after the conference call, Dr. Jeremy Farrar sent an
email to Dr. Fauci and Dr. Collins. It says, ``Please treat in
confidence a very rough first draft from Eddie and team. They
will send on the edited cleaner version later, pushing WHO
again today.''
Dr. Garry, is this the very rough first draft referring to
the Proximal Origin paper?
Dr. Garry. It was a report that was going to go back to the
original people on the teleconference. You know, were there
elements in that report that we eventually incorporated into
Proximal Origin? Yes. But it wasn't a draft of that paper per
se. We hadn't even decided whether we were going to write one
or not.
Mrs. Lesko. Dr. Garry, how much of that original draft do
you think was included in the published Proximal Origin paper?
Dr. Garry. I haven't sat down and compared the two
documents, so I don't really know how to answer that.
Mrs. Lesko. Thank you. Dr. Andersen, I have the same
question for you. Was that first draft of the Proximal Origin
paper on February 4?
Dr. Andersen. I think it's important to understand what our
conclusions were in the----
Mrs. Lesko. Sir, could you answer the question?
Dr. Andersen. Is that we--what you see----
Mrs. Lesko. Was it your understanding that it's the
Proximal Origin paper?
Dr. Andersen. This is not the Proximal Origin paper as Dr.
Garry stated. This is draft report based on our discussions so
far. And we conclude that we believe deliberate engineering can
be ruled out with a high degree of confidence. But we also
state that----
Mrs. Lesko. That was on February 4.
Dr. Andersen. This is on February 4.
Mrs. Lesko. Fourth----
Dr. Andersen. Correct.
Mrs. Lesko. You thought that it could be ruled out.
Dr. Andersen. Deliberate--no.
Mrs. Lesko. Oh, deliberate----
Dr. Andersen. No. Importantly, we talk about deliberate
engineering. However----
Mrs. Lesko. Got it.
Dr. Andersen. I want to point out that we also specifically
mentioned that the current data are consistent with all three,
meaning the three scenarios----
Mrs. Lesko. All right.
Dr. Andersen [continuing]. Described in the final paper.
Mrs. Lesko. Thank you. Dr. Garry, my next question. You
told Congresswoman Malliotakis that there was new evidence. And
she said in the three days before your scientist team sent an
initial draft of Proximal Origin, you said that that was not
really the original draft but had pieces of it. Is it normal
for a scientist to totally change? Because I read your email
from, I think, it was February 1. You know, it said, you know,
this can't be nature. This is, you know, basically--I'm
paraphrasing--too coincidental. This couldn't all line up
together. To change in three days, is that normal?
Dr. Garry. So, I think we need to step back a little bit
from that one email. That was one email that I sent, you know,
amongst literally hundreds of communications amongst--with my
coauthors with other scientists, other people I was talking to
about the origins.
And in that particular email that you were talking about, I
was doing what scientists very often do, and that is, you know,
take a devil's advocate position. So, the questions that we
were trying to answer is, you know, could have come from a
laboratory? And I was taking that position, well----
Mrs. Lesko. Thank you, sir. I have 42----
Dr. Garry. OK. Sure.
Mrs. Lesko [continuing]. Seconds left. I have a very
important question for both of you that I'm trying to
understand. So, Dr. Redfield told us in March 2023 this year
that the--either the Wuhan Institute of Virology or China
itself deleted the COVID sequence in September 2019.
He also said that they turned over control of the WIV in
September 2019 to the military--Chinese military. He also said
that the WIV changed the ventilation at their lab in the fall
of 2019. If China wasn't trying to cover up something, why
would they do this? Both of you.
Dr. Garry. You know, I'm not a member of the Intelligence
Committee. I don't have privileged information in terms of what
was going on there. I really don't have any basis to answer
that question.
Mrs. Lesko. But you don't think it's unusual for China to
cover up things if nothing happened, if it was all natural?
Dr. Garry. Well, I'm also not an expert on Chinese
politics, so I really don't have a professional answer for you
there.
Mrs. Lesko. Dr. Andersen?
Dr. Andersen. All of this seems routine to me. The fact
that you have a BSL-4 laboratory getting their air condition
units upgraded, for example, seems unrelated, as the
intelligence community has also concluded is that that is
unrelated to the later emergence of the virus.
Mrs. Lesko. How about turning over to military control or
to delete the COVID sequence, is that just normal? Normal
procedure?
Dr. Andersen. So, I have no comment on the first. I think
it's important to understand that the deletion you're talking
about is specifically about a data base, not actually the SARS-
2 sequence itself.
And that data base has been on and off and seems to finally
be taken offline in February 2020 and not actually in September
2019. Also, we know that this pandemic very likely started in
the mid to late November 2019. So, I think with certain--quite
a lot of certainty we can say that these events are unrelated.
Mrs. Lesko. Well, that seems very unusual to me, and I
yield back. Thank you.
Dr. Wenstrup. I now recognize Mr. Mfume from Maryland for
five minutes of questions.
Mr. Mfume. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to
thank you and the Ranking Member. I want to thank our witnesses
who have endured us for the last couple of hours.
And I certainly want to thank the Members of this Committee
who continue to try to make sure that we stay within our own
guidelines in terms of what we're approaching and how we're
approaching it and what we, of course, hope to achieve.
I've used this microphone in other occasions during this
hearing to argue that we went through COVID-19 in real time.
Every day was different, every week was different, every month
was different, and unfortunately every year was different. And
so there was a constant building process with building blocks
about what we knew and what we didn't know; what we should do,
or what we should never do.
And we came through that better as a Nation because of the
science which so many of us relied on and the data and the
approach that the healthcare industry took, particularly,
doctors and physicians over and over again while many of us
were free of that exposure in that sense.
And so, what we seem to do here is retrospective
investigation, which I'm not necessarily opposed to, but I get
the sense we do it with a vendetta. Like, I think this was
wrong, and you were the one that did it.
Or I think this was wrong, and you conspired to do this.
That's not going to get us very far. Not at all. Given the
critical role that science plays in advancing our understanding
of emerging viruses, I'm appalled every time I hear some of my
colleagues turn to politicizing and vilifying the researchers.
Somebody had to do the research. Somebody had to come up
with conclusions. Somebody had to follow the data. Somebody had
to make an assessment. And so, it's a little strange to me that
we will vilify the people who did that at the time when we
needed them the most, because now we're operating in
retrospective lens.
We in this Subcommittee, Mr. Chairman, have attacked
physicians; we've attacked labor unions; we've attacked public
health officials; we've attacked teachers; we've attacked
healthcare workers; we've really attacked the CDC and the NIH;
we've attacked, as you've heard today, Dr. Fauci, Dr. Collins,
previously Dr. Walensky; we've attacked Joe Biden.
We're in an attack mode instead of what I thought would be
a real fact-finding mode about what do we do to get ready for
the next novel virus, which could be set upon us at any time?
And so, in the six months that this Committee has operated, I
don't think that we've got an answer. I haven't seen what our
steps are, if that's the case, how do we proceed? And if that
is the case, we've got to rely on researchers and physicians
all over again.
And I think it poisons the water if we have already sort of
predisposed the--who we think they are, why they are operating,
what's wrong with them. The basic claims in the scientific
article that we've talked about was developed to suppress the
lab leak theory. It was somehow demanded by the U.S. Government
or else.
That's an incredible disservice, in my opinion. We don't
want to frighten off the very processes, the people, the
industries, or anything else that will help us if and when
something like this happens again.
So, I did not mean to get on a soapbox and make a speech. I
actually have a few questions. I'll submit those in writing, if
you would, Mr. Chair? But I just want to thank these two
persons before us today and the others who have come before us
and have had to feel like the weight of the world's been on
their shoulders when all they really did was what they were
supposed to do based on their profession, based on their desire
to save lives.
And as has been mentioned before, we followed other
routines articulated by Dr. Birx, who was with Mr. Trump at the
time, who said we've lost millions of lives by doing the wrong
thing like recommending bleach and telling the American public,
don't worry, come Easter we'll all be in church together. And
we were not in church together for another three Easters after
that.
I yield back.
Dr. Wenstrup. I now recognize Dr. Joyce from Pennsylvania
for five minutes of questions.
Dr. Joyce. Thank you, Chairman Wenstrup, and Ranking Member
Ruiz for holding today's hearing. And thank you to both Dr.
Andersen and Dr. Garry for testifying before this Committee
today.
This Committee has worked tirelessly peeling back the
layers on the events that transpired amidst the devastating
coronavirus pandemic. The Members of this Committee have been
charged with a great responsibility by the American people. Our
job is to shine a spotlight on the public health officials and
agencies for their mishandlings and to hold them accountable.
We are tasked with analyzing their misguided, their
ambiguous, and their flawed policies so that we can learn how
to better prepare and address any potential public health
emergencies in the future. Further, this Committee's
investigations will finally expose the true origins of this
deadly virus that destroyed millions of lives and livelihoods
across the globe.
In April, just a few short months ago, this Committee held
a hearing where the former director of the National
Intelligence Agency, John Ratcliffe testified. In that
testimony, Director Ratcliffe said, and I quote, ``If our
intelligence and evidence supporting a lab leak theory was
placed side by side with our intelligence and evidence pointing
to a naturally occurring spillover theory, the lab leak side of
the ledger would be long and overwhelming, while the spillover
side would be nearly empty.'' Nearly empty.
Dr. Andersen, this quote came from the former director of
National Intelligence and someone who has access to the most
sensitive information provided by our intelligence community.
If this is the case, can you explain how the Proximal Origins
piece of which you are an author totally contradicts that
information from our intelligence community?
Dr. Andersen. The Proximal Origins paper is the result of
scientific work by international well-known experts. I think
it's important to realize that if you look at the recent report
from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence
community is that one of their conclusions is that there's no
indication that there is pre-pandemic research holdings,
including----
Dr. Joyce. Please allow me to address what information we
had in front of us. I'm addressing what we heard Ratcliffe tell
this--to tell us as a Committee that that wasn't the case. That
overwhelmingly the information at hand provided by the
intelligence communities showed that this was not a naturally
occurring process.
Dr. Andersen, in your testimony, you said the recently
declassified report from the Office of the Director of National
Intelligence does, as you said, conclude that there is no
evidence to suggest this virus came from the lab. However, the
ODNI also states in their reports the Department of Energy and
the Federal Bureau of Investigation assessed that a laboratory-
associated incident was the most likely cause of the first
human infection of SARS-CoV-2.
Dr. Andersen, you also said in your testimony we do not
believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is
plausible. And yet the conclusions by the Department of Energy
and the FBI directly contradict your position. How do you bring
that together?
Dr. Andersen. I think you can say that our conclusions
completely contradict their conclusions, too. I think it's
important to understand that we're looking at different things
here. You're talking about the intelligence community. If you
look at the scientific literature, the scientific evidence for
this pointing to a single market in the middle of Wuhan is
overwhelming. There is----
Dr. Joyce. But the Intelligence Committee had access to
both scientific and the investigative reports. They had that
overview. And their conclusions strongly contradict what your
single conclusion projects.
And we as a Committee have heard this repeatedly that the
overview from both the FBI and the Department of Energy support
that there was a lab leak, support that the most likely cause
of the first human infection of SARS-CoV-2 was a laboratory
incident. We've recognized how that occurred.
We as a Committee have formed what we feel is most
important and understanding all the information that's brought
forward to us, and that information points directly to a lab
leak.
My time has expired, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
Dr. Wenstrup. I now recognize Ms. Dingell from Michigan for
five minutes of questions. I'm sorry, Ms. Tokuda from Hawaii.
Ms. Tokuda. Thank you very much, Chair. Once again, we find
ourselves being faced by our Republican colleagues that have
convened another hearing under the guise of investigating the
pandemic's origins to advance their extreme conspiratorial
narrative against Dr. Fauci, Dr. Collins, and our Nation's
scientists and public health experts. I'd like to take a bit of
a moment during my time to set the record straight about a
number of things that have been said today.
First of all, one of the things we heard earlier was that
scientists don't flip-flop. No. Scientists focus on facts and
the data before them, which can change in a matter of 72 hours
or, yes, even 45 days between the time of discussion and the
time of report, especially when we were dealing with a virus we
know very little about that even until this day is rapidly
changing and evolving.
So, I ask both of you to assert coercion or political
persuasion as the result of why that change took place during
the 72 hours. Is this, in fact, a false statement when we're
considering just the way that the scientific process works and
the rapidly evolving changing--the rapid evolving information
that we're having at that time took place?
Dr. Andersen. I think again it's important to understand
that it's our thinking that is evolving. We're talking about
the change from early hypotheses to realize that a subset of
those can, in our opinion, be discarded with a relatively high
degree of confidence. And that happens within just a few days
when we are specifically talking about a purposefully
manipulated virus.
That's an evolution of our thinking. It is not a flip-flop.
It is an early hypothesis which ends up being unsupported
followed by other hypotheses that are still on the table.
Ms. Tokuda. And so, isn't it important that we, in fact,
support this evolution of our thinking and our research in
order for us to more quickly be able to really ascertain the
proximal origins of things like the COVID-19 virus to start to
really begin to save lives?
Dr. Andersen. I think it's important that we continue to
consider any and all evidence known and potentially to come in
future. And that is exactly what we are doing as the scientific
community, which may end up with previous hypotheses all of a
sudden being no longer supported, for example. This is not a
flip-flop. This is simply the scientific process.
Ms. Tokuda. See, one of my concerns is when politicians
start throwing around words like flip-flop, we are actually
creating a very chilling effect on the scientific process on
our scientific community. I share the concerns that have been
raised in this hearing by our Ranking Member, by the good
gentleman from Maryland that we're poisoning the water when it
comes to active research in science that is looking at saving
lives, taking care of our people.
I worry that politicians continue to overreach and quite
frankly weaponization of the discussions around the origin of
COVID-19 will, in fact, heighten this chilling effect on the
ability for our scientists and public health officials to
thoroughly investigate and study future disease outbreaks,
public health crises, and be able to meaningfully connect that
and convey to the public.
Dr. Garry and Dr. Andersen, do you think political
weaponization of the origins of COVID-19 will have a chilling
effect on scientific research, international collaborations
going forward, and quite frankly result in lives lost; our
inability to really respond to public health crisis when it
arises?
Dr. Garry. You know, I'm a scientist. I try not to let all
the din of the politics around me influence my analyses, my
experiments, the choices that I make, when I you know, work
together with other scientists to write a publication. So, you
know, I understand what you're saying about the politics being
influenced.
But I can tell you that we did not let those factors
influence our writing of the Proximal Origins paper or any of
the other, you know, papers in Science and PNAS and any other
journals that we've written that influence our thinking about
the origins of SARS-CoV-2 in any way.
Ms. Tokuda. Dr. Andersen, did you want to respond?
Dr. Andersen. I think the whole reason I'm here today is
because it's been politicized. The title is the Proximal Origin
of a Cover Up. I think there's no question that why--whereas
the science itself is a scientific process focused on evidence
analyses and then publications and peer reviewed journals,
which is exactly what we have been doing. People are free to
disagree with that, whether it's the intelligence community or
other scientists. That's why we published the papers.
I think, again, the reason why I'm here today is because of
that politicization of that whole process, and I think it is
deeply damaging. I think there's a need to rebuild trust. I
think it's important to understand that scientists and
politicians need to work together. And I think the way to do
that, I think, is just focus on the facts and focus on the
actual evidence.
Ms. Tokuda. Thank you. I think we absolutely do have to
focus on the facts. I think that for researchers like yourself
and others going forward have to double think what they put on
their Slack messages and channels and their emails and their
text threads and instead not be distracted from the actual work
of the research. What will end up is lives lost. It will cost
us time to actually getting to what the origins of these
disease and public health crises are. So, we have stop the
weaponization of the origins of COVID-19 discussion.
Thank you, Chair. I yield back.
Dr. Wenstrup. I now recognize Mr. Cloud from Texas for five
minutes of questions.
Mr. Cloud. Thank you, Chairman. Dr. Garry, how many years
have you spent in the field of immunology?
Dr. Garry. I'm a virologist. OK.
Mr. Cloud. Virology. Sorry.
Dr. Garry. About 45.
Mr. Cloud. Forty-five, that is significant, no doubt. I
think--I'm not a scientist and don't pretend to be. But I think
it's hard sometimes for the American people when we go through
things, and we read things like where two days prior to a draft
being released you are saying literally I really can't think of
a plausible natural scenario where you get from a bat virus to
one very similar to it to COVID.
You said, I just can't figure out how this gets
accomplished in nature. It's stunning. And then two days later
while it wasn't the Proximal Origins paper, it was basically
the conclusion that you had out-ruled that as a hypothesis.
And you said, you know, what new data came available. We
imagine it took--you know, there's two days between that and
February 4. Your statement--I assume it took a day to write the
draft, and so that's one heck of a data dump in one single day
that would change 42 years of experience that led to this
previous hypothesis--45 years, I believe. Was it? You said it
was because of some new data that became available on the
pangolin.
And, Dr. Andersen, you agreed with this in an interview in
The New York Times. You said, ``For example, we looked at data
from COVID being found in other species such as bats,
pangolins, which demonstrated that other features first
appeared unique to COVID were in fact in other related
diseases.''
But during the peer review part, you said that was not data
that was included; that the pangolin information had no leaning
into the conclusions you made. Is that correct?
Dr. Andersen. So, the timeline keeps changing here. First,
it's two days, it's three days, it's four days. It's actually
45 days when we're talking about the----
Mr. Cloud. It's 45 days before the draft was published. I
think there was a peer review period, and within two days the
conclusion had changed from, oh, this is not going to-to oh,
it's impossible that this could have happened. So that is true.
And then you spent some time actually drafting Proximal
Origins, and then you had it peer reviewed. During the peer
review process, they brought up--there was questions asked to
you, and you said there is no evidence on present data that
pangolin COVID are directly related to COVID-19, in spite of
the fact that a year later you said the opposite of that on
national TV.
And so that's concerning to me. You also said that anyone
believes anything contrary to, you know, the wet market theory
is a conspiracy theorist. And then you corrected that
statement, but you certainly said that those of us in the
Majority, that's not a scientific statement, that's a political
statement.
You've also said the only scientific data that is correct
points to proximal origins, to natural origins. Yet we have the
FBI, the DOE, we have a number of other scientists who have
worked in this field for decades also pointing to this. Are you
concerned that the lab in China deleted information?
Dr. Andersen. So, I think there's a lot of questions in
there. There's a lot of words at least. But I think the
important thing is, again, if you look at the intelligence
community, for example, the majority of them believe this is
natural, right? If you look at the recent report, it says
almost all agencies agree that SARS-CoV-2 was not genetically
engineered. That's one of our main conclusions in the Proximal
Origin----
Mr. Cloud. And in the origin information, they're changing
their viewpoint. That was originally, and new information has
come out. Do you have access to classified information?
Dr. Andersen. I do not. I think it's important to realize,
though, that----
Mr. Cloud. Do you think that the CCP is a trusted partner?
Dr. Andersen. I don't think the CCP is a trusted partner,
no.
Mr. Cloud. OK. You said you based your conclusions a lot on
the publicly available data coming out of the lab. That
publicly available data is what China has made available to the
public. And at the meantime we see them destroying data. We see
them not allowing us access to the lab to research anything.
And then we also see scientists disappearing who worked in
China. You don't find that concerning, and that doesn't cause
any sort of suspicion?
Dr. Andersen. I think it's important to understand that the
conclusions are based in part on evidence from China. Of
course, the pandemic started in China, so necessarily early
data on cases and what happens at the market will necessarily
have to be from China itself. However, several of our
conclusions do not rely on evidence from China.
For example, the majority of the conclusions in Proximal
Origin are based on publicly available data, which is not just
from China, that's from elsewhere as well. In later papers, a
lot of our conclusions can be replicated using data that is
from outside of China.
So, there's no specific reliance on any single data set.
There's also not--importantly, there's not one single piece of
data that would convince me it's this or it's that. And I think
the pangolins, which continue to be misrepresented of what we
actually mean, is an important point of that. The reviewer said
that based on the pangolin data, you can just reject any
potential lab leak origin.
And we say you can't do that. The pangolin data itself is
insufficient to do that. You need look at the consilience of
evidence, and you need to look at all the evidence in concert.
And that's exactly what we are doing in Proximal Origin.
And that is also one of the reasons why our thinking on
this particular question evolved over time from early
hypotheses to later conclusions published in the peer review.
Mr. Cloud. Can you not acknowledge that there are qualified
scientists in this field who disagree with you?
Dr. Andersen. Absolutely.
Mr. Cloud. Are they conspiracy theorists?
Dr. Andersen. They are not conspiracy theorists. And I
think it's important to have scientific----
Mr. Cloud. Thank you. My time's up. I yield back.
Dr. Andersen [continuing]. Debate and disagreement debate.
Dr. Wenstrup. I now recognize Ms. Greene from Georgia for
five minutes of questions.
Mr. Greene. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In 2012, six miners
working in a bat-infested mine in southern China caught a
coronavirus, had symptoms like COVID-19, and three died. But we
didn't see a worldwide pandemic. We didn't see millions of
people die. We didn't see governments shut down their
economies, take away freedoms such as speech, freedom of
religion, freedom basically to work a job and support our
families.
After that, samples of that virus were taken to the Wuhan
Institute of Virology. The only biosafety level 4 lab in China.
The Wuhan Institute of Virology did gain-of-function research
on these samples and other samples of coronaviruses. In autumn
of 2019, the SARS-CoV-2 virus appeared in Wuhan. The closest
known relative to the virus extracted from the miners held at
the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
Even early in the outbreak, the virus was well adapted to
human-to-human transmission. Wuhan authorities worked to
silence dissenters and those affiliated in the Wuhan Institute
of Virology. The CCP authorities lobbied the WHO to announce an
international emergency and blocked scientific investigations
access into the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
Here's what's interesting. Chinese military Major General
Chin Way was put in charge of containment of COVID-19. He is
the CCP's top biological weapons expert and raises questions
about Chinese military involvement at the Wuhan Institute of
Virology.
Dr. Garry, Dr. Andersen, I'll ask each of you one at a
time. Why would they put the top biological weapons expert in
charge of containment of a virus, a virus that was very similar
to the one that a few miners caught in 2012, that by the way
didn't turn into a pandemic? Why would China put their top
biological weapons expert in charge instead of just another
virologist? Dr. Garry.
Dr. Garry. Representative Greene, I don't have any idea. I
have no idea.
Mr. Greene. OK. Dr. Andersen?
Dr. Andersen. I can't comment on that. I think it's
important to realize--I assume you're referring to the virus
RaTG13? And what is very clear is that RaTG13 cannot have led
to SARS-CoV-2. These are very unrelated viruses.
Ms. Greene. Well, it's interesting, though, that you all
wrote a paper claiming to know exactly the origins of COVID-19,
but China put their top biological weapons expert in charge of
containment.
On January 15, 2021, the Department of State released a
fact sheet entitled: Activity at the Wuhan Institute of
Virology. It discussed three primary areas of concern. First
one, illnesses inside the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The U.S.
Government believes several researchers inside the lab became
sick in the fall of 2019 before the CCP first reported cases of
COVID-19. That was in the lab.
The CCP prevented journalists, investigators, and global
health authorities from accessing the lab, including
interviewing the researchers that fell sick in 2019. It sounds
like they were concerned about so-called conspiracy theories
just like you are.
Ms. Greene. There was also research at the lab, starting in
at least 2016. The Wuhan Institute of Virology was researching
RaTG13 just as you mentioned, the bat coronavirus, with the
closest relationship to SARS-CoV-2, 96.2 percent similar.
The Wuhan Institute of Virology has published record of
dangerous gain-of-function research, gain-of-function like our
government has funded with grants through EcoHealth. I'm sure
you're familiar.
There's secret military activity at the lab. The U.S.
Government determined that the lab collaborated on publications
and secret projects with the CCP Military since at least 2017.
Perhaps that's why they put their top biological weapons expert
in charge of containment because they were very aware of the
type of research that was going on at the lab, where people
that worked at the lab got sick with COVID-19 first.
But you guys think this came from nature. Do you still
believe it came from nature, Dr. Garry, Dr. Andersen?
Dr. Garry. Yes. I do believe that the natural origin, via
the wildlife trade, is the most likely origin based on all the
science, all the data that we've analyzed.
Ms. Greene. Dr. Andersen?
Dr. Andersen. I do. And I think it's important to--you
mentioned the sick researchers here. In the recent report
again, the IC continues to assess that this information neither
support nor refutes either hypothesis of the pandemic's origin
because the researchers' symptoms could've been caused by a
number of diseases such as in the middle of the flu----
Ms. Greene. Actually, Dr. Andersen--I'll reclaim my time--
the IC believes that the origin of COVID-19 is from the lab.
Most of the intelligence community believes that, and they've
stated so. So has the Energy Department, and so do many other
doctors and researchers believe that it came from the lab.
And from all of this evidence, it's very clear that China
also believed it came from the lab. But it's unfortunate that
you all are speaking the same pro-China talking points as some
of our colleagues on our Committee. And I think it's more
important to really recognize it probably came from the lab.
I yield back.
Dr. Wenstrup. I now recognize Dr. Jackson from Texas for
five minutes of questions.
Dr. Jackson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Andersen, and Dr. Garry--Dr. Andersen in particular
here--I just wanted to address one thing here to start with. I
know this has been mentioned again, but I just wanted to
reiterate this. You emailed Dr. Fauci prior to the February 1
call, and you said, ``the unusual features of the virus make up
a really small part of the genome.''
And then you went on to say, after discussions earlier
today, Eddie, Bob, Mike, and myself all find the genome
inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory.
Later on in the phone call, the phone call that followed,
Dr. Farzan said, so I think it becomes a question of how do you
put all this together, whether you believe this is a series of
coincidences, what you know of the lab in Wuhan, how much could
be in nature, accidental release or nature event. I am 70/30.
Dr. Garry, you stated, I really can't think of a plausible
natural scenario where you get from the bat virus to one very
similar to it to where you insert exactly four amino acids, 12
nucleotides that all have to be added at the exact same time to
gain this function. I just can't figure out how this gets
accomplished in nature. It's stunning, you said.
Nevertheless, three days later--and I cleared this up in
the hearing, so thank you. I thought this was the initial
release of the Proximal Origins, but it wasn't, but
nevertheless four days later, I have this email here, and it's
been mentioned already by one of my colleagues here, but I just
want to reiterate it again. This is an email on February the
4th that was initiated, at least what I have here, by Dr.
Holmes, who I wish was here so he could answer a couple of
questions I have about this email.
But it says, it's addressed to Jeremy Farrar, and it says,
here is a summary so far. Will be edited further. It's
fundamental science and completely neutral as written. Did not
mention other anomalies as this will make us look like loons.
I have no idea what that means. I'd love to find out, but
he's not here to answer that question.
It was replied to by Dr. Farrar who also cc'd Dr. Fauci and
Dr. Collins and said, please treat in confidence, a very rough
first draft from Eddie and the team. They will send an edited,
cleaner version later.
Dr. Francis Collins replied, very thoughtful analysis, and
then Dr. Jeremy Farrar replied with something which I don't
know what it is because the vast majority--every bit of his
response is redacted out. So, I don't know exactly what that
was.
But my question was, is it during--you've cleared up that
this was not the initial draft of Proximal Origin, that this
was a response email or a followup draft report, whatever you
want to call it, in response to the phone call that took place
on February the 1.
My question for both of you is, at that particular point
when this information, this draft summary, was forwarded to Dr.
Collins and Dr. Fauci, referencing the phone call that you'd
had days earlier, were your conclusions changed, had your
hypothesis changed at that particular point?
Dr. Andersen. I can take that. I think, let me just go back
to the original email because there's--there's other sentences
in that email that I think is important to--first of all, I
say, we have a good team lined up to look very critically at
this, so we should know much more at the end of the weekend.
I also say, but we have to look at this much more closely,
and there's still further analyses to be done, so those
opinions could change.
When you're looking at our February 4 summary, which is the
one that you're referring to here, our main conclusion is that
we believe deliberate engineering can be ruled out with a high
degree of confidence.
However, referring to both lab leaks, specifically the
tissue culture hypothesis that we describe in Proximal Origin,
our conclusion at the time of February 4, is that current data
are consistent with all three. It is currently impossible to
prove or disprove either.
Dr. Jackson. OK. Dr. Garry, what about you, because you
specifically said--I mean, Dr. Andersen said he doesn't believe
it was engineered, but he said he hadn't ruled out a lab leak
in that particular thing.
Dr. Garry, you specifically said that, you know, you find
it completely stunning and implausible that, you know, that you
insert four amino acids and 12 nucleotides all that have to be
at the exact same time to gain this function. That sounds like
engineering to me.
Dr. Garry. Well, again, Representative Jackson, I think I
started to, or I tried to address this before. That was a
single email out of a lot of communications that I was having
with people like Dr. Andersen and others.
And in that particular email, I was, you know, raising my
concern about this one feature of the virus----
Dr. Jackson. Let me ask you this question because you it--
you did explain that.
Dr. Garry. Yes.
Dr. Jackson. Let me just ask you guys real quick. So,
you're telling me that, like, you know, and this was the actual
first publication of Proximal Origin was published on February
16, 2020. It was posted in the--on the website Virological.
So, from February 1 to February 16, are you telling me that
you gathered all of this additional information? Because we
know what your initial hypothesis was, or your initial
conclusions were to start with before--you gathered every bit
of this new additional information which we don't know exactly
what it was or where it came from, you completely changed your
hypothesis, you collaborated with your co-authors, and you
wrote the Proximal Origin paper all in that period of time?
I just want to know--my time is up, but I just want you to
know that sounds completely ridiculous to the American people,
and it's completely in step with what a lot of people think is
going on here, is that Dr. Anthony Fauci and Francis Collins
realized that they had been implicated in the production or in
the creation of this virus, and they were doing everything they
could, including get at both of you to come on board as tools,
or vehicles, to undermine that theory.
Thank you. My time is up.
Dr. Wenstrup. I now recognize Dr. McCormick from Georgia
for five minutes of questions.
Dr. McCormick. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I totally agree that early hypotheses change. As for the
politization of this and the accusations made that this is
entirely political, I think we do have something to learn about
finding out the true origins of this disease.
It's interesting that when they talk about censoring and
politization of something, only one side that I remember was
ever censored, and it was our side. And when I say ``our
side,'' I mean the fact it was a lab leak.
I was censored as the emergency physician who treated
thousands of patients and who has a background taught by an
equally adept professor in virology, at medical school that
taught us diseases propagate.
One of things I thought was interesting, I think it's very
wise of you to admit that there is many possibilities, and just
to lay it out in front of the people, since I'm the summary--
summary person today, it's interesting that any other crossover
virus, or any virus that's ever really existed for the most
part still exists in society today.
It's very hard to get rid of an entire subset of viruses by
itself. We still have the common cold, for example. We still
have Avian flu. We still have swine flu. And those still
propagate in those species because they don't just go away.
They continue to get switched around, and it still exists in
society today.
What I think is interesting is that I haven't seen any
evidence--and I read your papers, by the way. I love reading
and learning, and I consider myself a student of the game--and
I saw how we talked about the raccoon dogs and the civet cat
having DNA and RNA in the same place where they found the vast
preponderance of the coronavirus in that market.
However, what we didn't see is that there was any immune
response by those animals to this virus that supposedly can
propagate inside of that species also, which would be a natural
way to propagate a virus by virology standards, which you have
to admit, if exists in the species, it has to be able to
propagate and continue. It doesn't just go away.
It's not just found in the same proximity of a species but
inside the species with antibodies and resistance. To say that
it's just because it's in the same area somewhere that a dog
was found or a cat was found or a pang---whatever you want to
say, is for me just like smear some COVID on this wood and say,
look, it came from this wood.
To give our people who are watching this, who are maybe not
medical background to understand, that's obviously impossible.
Just like it's impossible to have a virus that exists inside of
an animal species go away or not have any sort of immune
response or any propagation if that's where it came from in the
beginning.
And that's where I find a huge hole in your theory. As
scientists--I love science--I'm trying to follow your science,
and I don't get it. I just don't get it.
It doesn't matter if it's found in the same area. Did it
continue to live in that species? Is it still--I know for a
fact China has looked for it hard and killed lots of animals
trying to find it and cannot find this natural immune response
and this natural propagation inside of these species.
So therefore, my natural conclusion is, it didn't come from
there. What I do know, if I use just logical thinking--and I've
heard your responses, so I get it, and I don't really have too
many questions because I've heard your responses over and over
again.
But I just want, from a scientific standpoint, I want to
summarize this for folks who aren't scientists. I just
explained the science behind this, that if you can't find it,
you can't find the immune response, you can't find the disease
propagating inside of a species, then it really never existed
in that species, and, therefore, that's not scientific.
And likewise, if you have a science lab talking about
actually developing something and wanting funding for it, in
other words, gain-of-function, and then it centers around that
same lab that asked for it, I agree with your initial
assumption, Dr. Garry, that most likely it came from a lab, and
I think that's where the evidence has continued to point.
Ironically when it got politicized it was myself and others
that believe like me in the science that got censored. That's
the irony of this. And yet I'm accused of politicizing this.
I just want to make it very clear for those people who are
watching who are not scientists, that this is a scientific
discussion, but it's also a political discussion because we
have to figure out where it came from in order to deal with the
next pandemic.
And if we're going to tie--to assume that we're going to
stop the evolution of viruses in the wild, that's not something
we can really do much for. We can prepare for it, but we can't
stop that.
But we can stop gain-of-function research when we admit
that that's where the disease came from. And I think that's
what this discussion is about, and that's why it's important to
actually combine the science with common sense, and we come to
a natural conclusion.
And with that, I yield.
Dr. Wenstrup. I now recognize Mrs. Dingell from Michigan
for five minutes of questions.
Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to say to my colleagues, we all want the facts. We
need the facts because we have an enormous responsibility as
Members of this Committee to make sure we are ready for the
next pandemic, which you all are--got a lot more doctors'
degrees on your side. I'm not one, but it's coming.
And not one person over here has said, and the Intelligence
Committees have said, we don't know where the leak has come
from. Could have been a lab leak, could've been other ways,
we're studying it, we want the facts.
The Select Subcommittee's purported investigations into the
origins of the coronavirus, which for five months has largely
focused on the publication of this paper, has included a
number--and I am so offended by some of the things I've heard
today--of baseless allegations against our Nation's scientists,
our public health experts, including Dr. Fauci and Collins. And
instead of being on a mission to destroy two people, I wish we
were on a mission to get the facts.
So, I'd like to address them, starting with the egregious
claim that Dr. Fauci bribed Dr. Andersen and other authors of
the Proximal Origin paper to suppress the lab leak theory with
a $9 million Federal grant.
Dr. Andersen, in your written testimony, you describe these
allegations as, ``absurd and false,'' and explain that key
funding decisions for this grant, including its scoring and
review by independent experts, was made even before the first
outbreak of COVID-19.
Dr. Andersen, would you please reiterate for the Select
Subcommittee why my Republican colleagues' allegations that Dr.
Fauci bribed you and your co-authors with Federal grant funding
are categorically false?
Dr. Andersen. They are categorically false.
Mrs. Dingell. In fact, the information Dr. Andersen laid
out is publicly available for everyone, those watching, get the
facts, including my Republican colleagues, to see online at
NIH's website.
We have a picture here to make sure everyone is absolutely
clear on this. Let's take a look at this ourselves. As you can
see here, NIH's grant data base plainly notes--plainly--fact,
facts, I like facts--that this grant passed through the NIH's
scientific merit review in November 2019.
Dr. Andersen, if the grant were scored and reviewed as part
of the NIH's transparent--transparent--merit-based process in
November 2019, is there any way that the awarding of the grant
could've been used as a bribe during the February 1, 2020
conference call?
Dr. Andersen. Excluding the possibility that somebody is a
time traveler, no, that is just not possible given the
timeline.
Mrs. Dingell. Dr. Garry, do you agree?
Dr. Garry. I agree.
Mrs. Dingell. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to submit a copy of
the funding information for Dr. Andersen's grant which lays out
the timeline of its NIH review for the record.
With my remaining time, I'd like to----
Dr. Wenstrup. Without objection.
Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
--I'd like to address the broader allegation that Dr. Fauci
and Dr. Collins were involved in any sort of campaign to
suppress the lab leak theory through the publication of
Proximal Origin.
Dr. Andersen and Dr. Garry, you sat for nearly 20 hours of
transcribed interviews with Select Subcommittee staff. During
those interviews you were asked questions about Dr. Fauci's and
Dr. Collins' involvement with the paper.
Dr. Garry, in your interview, you told the Select
Subcommittee that Dr. Fauci and Dr. Collins never contacted you
or gave you advice about writing that paper.
In fact, you stated that neither Dr. Fauci, nor Dr.
Collins, quote, did anything really to influence the paper in
any way.
Dr. Garry, is that correct?
Dr. Garry. That's correct.
Mrs. Dingell. And Dr. Andersen, in your interview, you
refuted the idea that Dr. Fauci and Dr. Collins sought to
suppress scientific inquiry into the origins of COVID-19. You
told the Select Subcommittee staff, quote, not only did they
not do that, they encouraged scientific inquiry into the
origins of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Dr. Andersen, is there anything you want to add regarding
that statement?
Dr. Andersen. That statement is correct. That was exactly
what they did.
Mrs. Dingell. The suggestion, my friends, that Dr. Fauci
and Dr. Collins were engaged in some sort of intricate cover-up
to suppress the lab leak theory and bribe researchers is
reckless, irresponsible, and grossly inaccurate.
These baseless attacks on our Nation's scientists and
public officials need to stop. I want to get to the origin of
what happened. I may even in my heart wonder with my colleagues
on the other side of the aisle. But we're not going to get to
it making reckless statements.
Thank you, and I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Wenstrup. I now recognize Mr. Jordan from Ohio for five
minutes of questions.
Mr. Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Andersen, should we be doing gain-of-function research?
Dr. Andersen. I think fundamental virology research which
includes gain-of-function research is important. However, such
research should, of course, be done safely.
Mr. Jordan. Was gain-of-function research being done, Dr.
Garry, at the lab in Wuhan, China?
Dr. Garry. I have not reviewed all of the research that was
being done at the Wuhan Institute, so I don't really have a
professional opinion on----
Mr. Jordan. Do you have a professional opinion, Dr.
Andersen?
Dr. Andersen. To my knowledge----
Mr. Jordan. I know you got professional opinions about lots
of things, but do you have one on that?
Dr. Andersen. To my knowledge, there is no gain-of-function
research. Although there is work involving chimeric viruses,
for example, as we discuss in our Proximal Origin paper.
Mr. Jordan. Was the lab in China up to the code for doing
the kind of research that you just described, Dr. Andersen?
Dr. Andersen. I don't know about any of their codes,
anything going on at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
Mr. Jordan. Would it be up to--would it be--my
understanding is, it wasn't. Do you think it was up to the code
necessary to do the kind of research that you think they were
doing there?
Dr. Andersen. Again, I can't talk to the code of the lab
itself. I think what is clear from the published research from
the Wuhan Institute of Virology was that a lot of this research
was done at biosafety level 2, which I considered at the time
to be insufficient and today, especially given the diversity of
related viruses that were found----
Mr. Jordan. So just to be clear, you guys don't know
whether they were doing gain-of-function research or not. You
think they weren't. I think they were. You think they weren't.
But regardless of that, what they were doing there, the
biosafety level at that lab wasn't up to the code it should've
been for the research they were doing?
Dr. Andersen. Doing this type of research at BSL-2 using
bat coronaviruses is commonly done at BSL-2. The lab work
being--or the animal work, I should say, is done in BSL-3.
Again, this is all----
Mr. Jordan. What level lab would you want? If you're doing
the research, Dr. Andersen or Dr. Garry, what level would you
want--2 or 3?
Dr. Andersen. This would, again, typically be--this would
typically be approved at biosafety level 2. However, as I said
have from the beginning, is that I believe, especially given
everything we know, based on how many of these coronaviruses we
have, that this kind of work should, in future, via
international regulations be done at BSL-3.
Mr. Jordan. It should be done at a higher level than it was
done there----
Dr. Andersen. Correct.
Mr. Jordan [continuing]. Is what you're saying? Got it. All
right. And should it go through--we have this process, Dr.
Garry, this P3 process, this approval process for this type of
grant money to be used and this type of work to be done. Should
it go through that process before it's approved?
Dr. Garry. I mean, in your hypothetical, yes, I mean, of
course, we should follow the regulations.
Mr. Jordan. OK. So, my understanding is American tax
dollars went to this lab in China. Is that right, Dr. Garry?
Dr. Garry. I don't know what--I don't have any information
myself about----
Mr. Jordan. It's been commonly reported that EcoHealth--
EcoHealth sent the money there. American tax dollars were used
in the Wuhan lab, this lab we've been talking about.
Dr. Garry. Again, I haven't reviewed the financial
transactions between NIH and EcoHealth Alliance.
Mr. Jordan. OK. Dr. Andersen, just real quick--and I know
you touched on this earlier--so on January 31, the now email
that--you know, somewhat famous email that you sent, virus
looks engineered, virus not consistent with evolutionary
theory, you know, I think that was part of that email and
comments Dr. Garry made was what prompted the conference call.
And then four days later you come back and basically say,
if you believe it came from a lab, then you're some--it's some
crackpot theory. And what happened in that--I mean, that's a
pretty dramatic change in four days, and I know you've talked
about it before, but that's what I think I find so concerning
is, you went from virus looks engineered, not consistent with
evolutionary theory, to, you're crazy if you think it all came
from a lab, and that all happened in four days.
Dr. Andersen. So that is a misrepresentation of what the
email actually says. Let me just read that sentence because I
say, the main crackpot theories going around at the moment
related to this virus being somehow engineered with intent, and
that is demonstrably not the case.
I'm very specifically referring to the fact that this is
engineered with intent, i.e., a bioweapon. At the time I still
believed----
Mr. Jordan. OK. Fair enough. So, you're saying there wasn't
an intention to have it, this, you know, done in a lab, but--so
you're not saying it couldn't have come from a lab?
Dr. Andersen. That is correct. At that time of writing this
email, in fact, I thought the plausibility of this being a lab-
cultured virus was still high. I kept that belief until mid to
late February.
Mr. Jordan. Do you think that--you know, you've been strong
on the zoonotic theory. Do you think it could've come from a
lab, even today as you sit here?
Dr. Andersen. Not as I sit here today, no, I think the
plausibility of this having come from the lab, given the
evidence, I don't find that plausible at all.
Mr. Jordan. The FBI is wrong? People who dis---people think
it came from a lab is wrong? The fact that American tax dollars
went to a lab in China, a lab that wasn't up to code, should've
been level 3, even based on what you guys say, wasn't up to
code, doing I think potentially gain-of-function research, and
it breaks out in that town in China, but somehow, no, it can't
even be possible that it came from a lab? It has to be the
zoonotic approach.
Dr. Andersen. It is possible. As I'm saying, I don't find
it plausible, or maybe I should say probable, given the
evidence that we have available to us.
Again, anything is possible, and as we are saying in the
Proximal Origin paper, and also in later papers, is that it is
currently impossible to prove or disprove any version of the
origin, whether lab or not.
Mr. Jordan. OK. Thank you.
I yield back.
Dr. Wenstrup. I now recognize Majority staff for 15 minutes
of questions.
Mr. Benzine. Dr. Garry, Dr. Andersen, it's good to see you
again. Mitch Benzine, I'm the staff director for the Majority
staff. I have a couple follow-up questions based off your
responses to the Members and want to start with, Dr. Andersen,
something you just said, that intentionally engineering is
equivalent to a bioweapon. Do researchers not intentionally
modify viruses that don't turn into bioweapons?
Dr. Andersen. Again, I think that the unfortunate fact here
is that the words used here early on are confusing. When I'm
saying, ``engineered with intent,'' what I specifically mean is
that you engineer the virus with the intent of creating
something like SARS-CoV-2. For example, something that is
highly transmissible between humans, binds well to the ACE-2
receptor, and that requires the intent of people to create that
virus specifically.
At the time of writing the email, the crackpot theory
which--and I should say I use ``crackpot'' because I thought
several people thought I was a crackpot at the time--is that
I'm specifically referring to the call from the National
Academy of Sciences which was specifically based on the idea of
a bioweapon.
So, that's what I'm referring to there, but of course the
intention to engineer any virus, any kind of engineering, would
be intentional, right? But specifically, what I am referring to
here is the idea that the intention of creating this virus.
Mr. Benzine. OK. I want to ask some questions, just base
knowledge while you were drafting Proximal Origin and go back
and forth here. So, to both of you, Dr. Garry, Dr. Andersen,
were you aware of all the research being conducted at the Wuhan
Institute of Virology leading up to the drafting of Proximal
Origin?
Dr. Garry. No, I'm not--I don't see how we could possibly
be aware of all of it.
Dr. Andersen. That is correct. I mean, I will say, we were,
of course, well aware of what has been published, which is what
raised their initial hypothesis which was that this could
potentially have come from a lab was because we were aware of
the type of research going on at the Wuhan Institute of
Virology.
Mr. Benzine. But not all the research?
Dr. Andersen. Of course not, no.
Mr. Benzine. I mean, you've testified--both of you
testified previously that it's maybe not common, but
researchers don't always publish everything, at least
contemporaneously?
Dr. Andersen. No, I don't think most researchers publish
their results contemporaneously.
Mr. Benzine. Are you aware-Dr. Garry, Dr. Andersen, were
you aware at the time that the Wuhan Institute of Virology was
conducting research on pangolin viruses?
Dr. Garry. I was not aware of it.
Dr. Andersen. No.
Mr. Benzine. Both of you, were you aware that the Wuhan
Institute of Virology was conducting experiments that involved
intentionally simulating natural recombination events?
Dr. Garry. In a broad sense, I guess there had been some
experiments that were published in the literature that
involved, you know, making pseudo viruses and other things that
would involve recombination, yes.
Dr. Andersen. Yes, and I think both certainly were well
aware of the chimeric viral work that they were doing, which is
inserting spike proteins, for example, from one virus into
another virus using well established backbones like BIV1. I was
very aware of that work, yes.
Mr. Benzine. Were you aware that the Wuhan Institute of
Virology had the capability to conduct those experiments
without leaving a trace?
Dr. Andersen. It is well known that you can do cloning
systems that leave no trace. However, if you look at published
papers from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, the vast majority
of them do, in fact, leave traces.
But of course, the awareness was, I think we even discuss
it in the Slack messages that you have, that, of course, it's
possible to create recombinant viruses, for example, that don't
leave a trace of the recombination itself.
Mr. Benzine. I'm just wondering how you're able to take
genetic engineering off the table so quickly when you don't
have awareness of what the Wuhan Institute of Virology is
doing, they can conduct experiments without a trace, and they
were, in fact, doing research on bat and pangolin viruses?
Dr. Andersen. Again, we're talking about intentional
engineering here, and if you look at the virus itself, you look
at the viral genome, talk about the furin cleavage site, for
example, is that the furin cleavage site is suboptimal in the
sense that this is a crap furin cleavage site.
Further, it appears to be inserted out of frame. These are
the clear signatures of natural evolution because natural
evolution is just good enough, whereas engineering typically we
will be a precise insertion of something that will either be
used before or certainly something that would've been optimal.
And this particular furin cleavage site, which has since
evolved in the human population, is not an example of that.
Mr. Benzine. But in Proximal Origin, you eliminate not just
intentional engineering, also not a laboratory construct. How
were you able to eliminate that, not knowing what was going on?
Dr. Andersen. So, again, as I explained in my written
statement, we are talking about the laboratory constructs,
specifically referring to the well-known backbones being used
and a purposefully manipulated virus, i.e., the virus with an
intent.
We don't actually talk about engineering per se, because
that's a broader term. So, we don't specifically say that the
data eliminates that one, but I will say my personal opinion,
as we also state, is that I don't find that particular version
of events to be plausible.
Mr. Benzine. Sitting here today, do you think the language,
that language in Proximal Origin, is confusing or doesn't
fulfill your intent?
Dr. Andersen. I think it's a scientific paper written for a
scientific community. I think overall, given how fast that
paper was written and given just everything going on at the
time, I actually think the language is clear. Could it be
clearer? Sure. Could have been better explanations? Sure.
It could've been longer, but we didn't have that ability to
do that, but importantly, that's what we have continued to
publish research on this particular question, where we can add
additional evidence and analyses that adds to these early
conclusions that we made in this particular paper. I think
overall those conclusions are very clear.
Mr. Benzine. Dr. Garry, do you think that could've been
written more clear for the intentional engineering bioweapon
language?
Dr. Garry. Yes. I mean, you're always, you know, better
prepared in hindsight, right? So, you know, I think the paper
has stood up very well to the scientific community and as a
basis for, you know, moving forward with some of our other
studies that we did, you know, looking into the origin of the
virus.
Mr. Benzine. Still regarding the experiments that were
taking place at the Wuhan Institute, did either of you have any
conversations with Peter Daszak about those experiments while
drafting Proximal Origin?
Dr. Andersen. We did not. I think, again, the type of
experiments ongoing at the Wuhan Institute of Virology were
well known based on the published literature, and again, this
is why in the first place we raised the likely--what I thought
was the likely hypothesis of a lab-associated virus.
And I think that is also the reason why some of the
suggestions from our colleagues that we could just dismiss that
hypothesis out of hand without any further analysis or even
consideration of that particular theory or thought was wrong at
the time, and that's because we were well aware of the type of
work that was ongoing.
Mr. Benzine. Dr. Garry, did you have any conversations with
Dr. Daszak?
Dr. Garry. I did not.
Mr. Benzine. Dr. Andersen, you testified in response to
Mrs. Lesko's questions that the Wuhan Institute's sequence data
base was actually removed in February 2020, not in September
2019. Did you ever access it in that interim time?
Dr. Andersen. I did not, no.
Mr. Benzine. OK. Dr. Garry?
Dr. Garry. No, I didn't.
Mr. Benzine. I want to shift gears a little bit and go back
to kind of the early days and the conference call. You've
talked about this, so we can run through it briefly.
Dr. Andersen, did you have a call with Dr. Fauci on January
31, 2020?
Dr. Andersen. I did.
Mr. Benzine. Was anyone else on that call?
Dr. Andersen. No.
Mr. Benzine. And on that call, you testified here, and you
testified in your interview that he suggested drafting a peer-
reviewed paper about whether or not it came from a lab. Is that
a fair characterization?
Dr. Andersen. Again, the suggestions as I recall it, given
that my initial hypothesis was that of a lab-associated virus,
was that he said that if I thought this came from the lab, I
should consider writing a paper on it.
Mr. Benzine. And then you were both on the conference call
on February 1, 2020, correct?
In earlier questions, in earlier testimony, you testified
that Dr. Farrar set up the February 1 conference call, he was
the organizer of the February 1 conference call. In the email
from Dr. Fauci to you, Dr. Andersen, from January 31,
memorializing your phone call with him, Dr. Fauci wrote, I told
him--referencing you--that as soon as possible, you and Eddie
Holmes should get a group of evolutionary biologists together
to examine carefully the data to determine if your concerns are
validated. Does that sound like setting up the conference call?
Dr. Andersen. That is not setting up the conference call.
As I mentioned that conference call was set up by Dr. Farrar.
In terms of who should be on the conference call, he conferred
with Eddie and Eddie conferred with us for suggested names, for
example.
Mr. Benzine. How do you read that statement then? What did
Dr. Fauci tell you about convening a group of evolutionary
biologists?
Dr. Andersen. Again, to my--I don't actually know what he's
saying here, but, again, that process, as far as I remember,
was already ongoing because Jeremy Farrar, himself, was going
to organize this conference call.
Again, as far as I know, Dr. Fauci had no role in the
conference call itself. That was fully Jeremy Farrar's,
conceived from the emails.
Mr. Benzine. And then you testified earlier today that Dr.
Fauci reiterated maybe not the suggestion to draft a peer-
reviewed paper but his support for a peer-reviewed paper on
February 1 call? Is that correct?
Dr. Andersen. I don't recall whether he specifically
suggested a paper, but, yes, he was certainly supportive of us
continuing to look into this particular question.
But as we have both mentioned is that we don't actually
remember Dr. Fauci having any particular role in that
conference call itself.
Mr. Benzine. And then you had clarified in your transcribed
interview that initially it wasn't about publishing, like,
despite Dr. Fauci's suggestion for a peer-reviewed paper, your
initial thought was more of an internal report back to the
teleconference group, not necessarily publishing that? Is that
correct?
Dr. Andersen. That is correct. I think at the time I just
wanted to look at this more closely with a set of trusted
colleagues and well-known experts and looking at these kinds of
questions. Whether that would eventually result in a paper was,
for me, too premature to even think about.
Mr. Benzine. Did the initial drafts of that report provide
a lot of the backbone for Proximal Origin?
Dr. Andersen. I think that if you look at their--for
example, the different scenarios that we are considering, there
are scenarios that we eventually end up considering in Proximal
Origin as well. So, did those early drafts and reports and
summaries lay the basis for a later paper? Yes, of course.
However, that was, at the time, not for the purpose of
specifically creating a paper.
Mr. Benzine. So, would it be fair to characterize, since it
laid the basis, that the February 1 conference call also laid
the basis for Proximal Origin?
Dr. Andersen. I wouldn't say so. I think scientists have
discussions and conversations all the time that then later on
end up in being actual papers. But, again, the conference call
was not for the purpose of writing a paper. It was for the
purpose of discussing the questions that I specifically had
raised with Eddie Holmes first and then him with Jeremy Farrar.
Mr. Benzine. Were drafts of Proximal Origin and/or the
report sent to Dr. Collins and Dr. Fauci along the way?
Dr. Andersen. There were--the summary drafts which you have
seen, the actual drafts of the paper, I think we probably
changed to a paper form maybe on February 8 or something like
that, those were not shared with Dr. Fauci or Collins.
Mr. Benzine. Either on any emails on it or on phone calls,
did Dr. Fauci or Dr. Collins ever ask any questions about your
analysis?
Dr. Andersen. I don't recall. I mean, again, there is some
questions, I believe from Dr. Fauci, for example, around ACE-2
mice, for example. So, I think he had questions like--like
that, but whether there was any questions to the specific
analyses or to our specific conclusions, no. My assumption is,
he was probably relatively busy at the time.
Mr. Benzine. Shifting gears again, Dr. Garry, and I think
you might have corrected it in your verbal statement but not
your written statement. In your written statement you state
that in November 2022, you and your co-authors obtained access
to large files containing the DNA and RNA sequences from the
environmental samples taken from the Huanan Market, but the
subsequent papers said that those samples were accessed in
March. Was that a typo in your statement?
Dr. Garry. Yes. That was my mistake.
Mr. Benzine. OK.
Dr. Garry. I take responsibility for that. It was March.
Mr. Benzine. In both of your testimoneys, you say Proximal
Origin specifically do not rule out the lab origin--or a
laboratory origin and say it's currently impossible to prove or
disprove the other theories being discussed there.
On February 19, Dr. Daszak of EcoHealth cited your paper to
support the statement, quote, overwhelmingly conclude that
COVID-19 originated in wildlife. Did you know Dr. Daszak was
going to use your paper that way?
Dr. Andersen. It's common for other scientists to cite
papers, so----
Mr. Benzine. Do you agree that Proximal Origin
overwhelmingly concluded that COVID-19 originated in wildlife?
Dr. Andersen. That was our conclusion in Proximal Origin,
yes.
Mr. Benzine. In the press release, released by Scripps when
the paper was published, Dr. Andersen, you were quoted as
saying, we can firmly determine that COVID-19 originated
through a natural process.
And a spokesman for Wellcome Trust, Dr. Farrar's former
organization, who the minority laid out played a crucial role
in Proximal Origin, said, quote, Proximal Origin concludes that
COVID-19 is the product of natural evolution.
Were you involved in drafting that press release?
Dr. Andersen. The one for Scripps Research?
Mr. Benzine. Uh-huh.
Dr. Andersen. Yes.
Mr. Benzine. Do you agree with those two statements, that
Proximal Origin concluded COVID-19 is the product of natural
evolution?
Dr. Andersen. I agree with those statements, yes.
Mr. Benzine. How many scenarios in Proximal Origin were
laid out?
Dr. Andersen. There are three separate scenarios
specifically laid out, but we considered many.
Mr. Benzine. The press release from Scripps only lays out
two. Was there a reason you left out serial passage?
Dr. Andersen. Again, serial passage is not supported, and
that's probably why it's left out. But, again, serial passage
is clearly described in the paper itself, but as we say, our
opinion is that we do not find that to be plausible.
Mr. Benzine. In the discretion of the chair, I'd ask for
about two more minutes.
Dr. Wenstrup. So, ordered.
Mr. Benzine. The minority report that was released this
morning laid a lot of the responsibility on Dr. Farrar, that
Dr. Farrar organized the conference call, Dr. Farrar prompted
the paper, Dr. Farrar was involved in where it was published,
Dr. Farrar made at least one edit to the paper.
Do you agree with the minority's characterization that Dr.
Farrar was heavily involved in Proximal Origin?
Dr. Andersen. I do not.
Mr. Benzine. You testified in your transcribed interview,
Dr. Andersen, that Farrar was the, quote, father figure of
Proximal Origin. Can you explain what that means a little bit?
Dr. Andersen. Dr. Farrar is a scientist with a lot of
expertise in all kinds of different areas, not so much origins,
but he has researched infectious diseases most of his life and
understands a lot of what's going on out there, that we don't.
So, from that perspective, he was very encouraging us to
look at this particular question but had no specific role in
the process itself, did not influence the conclusions, did not
influence the drafting, other than the single edit that you
mentioned there.
He had several conversations with Eddie Holmes at the time,
and I don't know what those conversations were about
specifically, but that's why I describe him as a father figure
because I think that captures it.
But, again, the specific role of him was not to lead the
drafting of the paper, nor was it to lead the conclusions of
the paper, for example.
Mr. Benzine. And was that why he was not credited on the
paper?
Dr. Andersen. I believe that Eddie Holmes asked whether he
wished to be credited, because, again, he did not add
substantially to any of the science in the paper. I think
that's why he is left uncredited.
Mr. Benzine. All right. In my final seconds, I have one--or
two questions for each of you.
Dr. Garry, are you aware or were involved in every
communication that Dr. Farrar had with Dr. Fauci and Dr.
Collins?
Dr. Garry. I was not.
Mr. Benzine. Dr. Andersen, were you aware or involved in
every conversation between Dr. Farrar and Dr. Fauci and Dr.
Collins?
Dr. Andersen. I was not.
Mr. Benzine. And then the final question, Dr. Garry, were
you consulted by the intelligence community during their
drafting and publication of their declassified assessment?
Dr. Garry. The first Biden assessment?
Mr. Benzine. Yes.
Dr. Garry. I was.
Mr. Benzine. Which agencies?
Dr. Garry. The FBI and the CIA.
Mr. Benzine. Dr. Andersen, those same two questions to you.
Dr. Andersen. The same.
Mr. Benzine. FBI and CIA?
Dr. Andersen. Correct.
Mr. Benzine. All right. Thank you.
My time is expired, and I yield back.
Dr. Wenstrup. I now recognize the minority staff for 15
minutes of questions.
Mr. Pellegrini. Dr. Andersen, I just wanted to ask a couple
of factual questions about some of the things we've discussed
here today. The first is just on pangolins. We've talked a fair
amount about pangolins. I wanted to clarify something.
Is it right that at the time that the paper was being
written, there were two different things going on in terms of
pangolins, right? There was, on the one hand, the fact that
there was a pangolin coronavirus that had the six key amino
acid residue mutations.
Separately from that, if I understand correctly, there were
public reports, or somebody had said to you all, that there had
been a discovery of a pangolin coronavirus that was a 99
percent match across its entire genome to SARS-CoV-2. Do I
understand that basic situation correctly?
Dr. Andersen. That is correct, yes.
Mr. Pellegrini. OK. So, as you guys sort of grappled with
the role that the pangolins were playing here, if I understand
correctly, it turned out that the pangolin virus in question
was not, in fact, a 99 percent match. What did it end up being,
90 or 91? Something like that?
Dr. Andersen. Something like that, yes, correct.
Mr. Pellegrini. All right. So when the dust settled on the
pangolin issue, is it right that the pangolin virus was
important in the sense that this indicated to you that nature
was capable of producing the key mutations that we were seeing
in SARS-CoV-2, and that fact has obvious scientific
significance, but the hunt for a Progenitor virus, with respect
to SARS-CoV-2, remained unsolved, had to continue, and in that
sense, the pangolin was not itself conclusive as to the origins
of the virus? Is that a fair summary of the pangolin situation?
Dr. Andersen. Yes, I think that it's a fair summary in the
sense--and, in fact, I have an email to that effect where I
say, I think, at least we need to wait until we hear about this
potential 99 percent, because, of course, if we had a near
identical virus in pangolins, that, in itself, would be
critically important.
But that turned out just not to be correct. In fact, it was
the receptor binding domain that was 99 percent identical.
That, in itself, is very important because it tells you that
that particular receptor binding domain exists in nature.
Really importantly too is that it does not mean that
pangolins themselves were necessarily involved in the
recombination event of SARS-CoV-2, since we have seen in the
Lara viruses, BANAL viruses for example. We have found receptor
binding domains that are, in fact, as similar to SARS-CoV-2 as
the ones that we find in the pangolins.
So, as I mentioned to Chairman Wenstrup's earlier
questions, is that these recombination events do not require
these two animals to be in close proximity. We believe that
these recombination events happens in bats.
Mr. Pellegrini. And I think that that and the way you just
described it is consistent with the way that you and your co-
authors discussed pangolins in the final product of the
Proximal Origin paper?
Dr. Andersen. That is correct. That is correct.
Mr. Pellegrini. One point of clarification with respect to
the February 1 conference call--we spent a lot of time talking
about that--I just want to clarify, zooming out from a factual
point of view, because I think it's natural for us to think of
it as an American call, but there were quite a number of people
on that call. Just sort of starting at the center of it, it is
correct to say that Dr. Farrar organized that call. Is that
right?
Dr. Andersen. That is correct, and I don't think you can
describe it as an American call because in terms of the
scientists on the call, I believe it was probably only Dr.
Garry and myself, and I'm not American. I'm actually Danish.
But the rest of the scientists that were involved--that
were invited onto that call were primarily from Europe.
Mr. Pellegrini. That actually is what I sort of wanted to
just clarify. There are some other folks on that call who we
haven't talked about all that much today, but if I understand
correctly, were significantly involved in the dialog on that
call such as Eddie Holmes. Where is Dr. Holmes located?
Dr. Andersen. He's in Sydney, Australia.
Mr. Pellegrini. What about Andrew Rambaut?
Dr. Andersen. He's in Edinburgh, in Scotland.
Mr. Pellegrini. Ron Fouchier and Marion Koopmans?
Dr. Andersen. Yes, they're in the Netherlands.
Mr. Pellegrini. And Stefan Pohlmann.
Dr. Andersen. Germany, I believe.
Mr. Pellegrini. And Christian Drosten, where is he?
Dr. Andersen. Also Germany.
Mr. Pellegrini. OK. So, I just wanted to sort of set a
broader context in terms of what that call was and how it came
about. And there's just one more discrete thing I wanted to ask
about. There has been discussion about the extent to which,
from your original point of view, when we talk about January 31
or February 1 of 2020, the extent to which two days later your
views changed, or three days later your views changed.
My understanding, but I'd appreciate you confirming, is
that the drafts of the report, at that point, I think, took the
position that the data was indistinguishable as far as lab
serial passage or zoonotic origin. Is that right?
Dr. Andersen. That is correct. You can see those are the
direct conclusions in those early summary statements, yes.
Mr. Pellegrini. And so, the work that you and your co-
authors were doing and the input and the gathering of external
information, if I understand, went on for the next three, four,
or five weeks, ultimately culminating in the March final
product. Is that right?
Dr. Andersen. That is correct. The final paper is published
45 days later after that conference call, and, of course, our
thinking evolved over that time, so did the analyses, and also
just the availability of data.
Mr. Pellegrini. I just wanted to ask a brief question. When
we talk about the role of Dr. Farrar in the paper, I understand
that as it relates to the direct drafting of the paper, his
role was essentially limited to one particular ask for an edit,
but when we talk about his role in the broader process of the
paper, for example, Dr. Garry, there is an email from yourself,
saying, Jeremy has been an amazing leader, should be an author.
I think you both, when we talked in our transcribed
interview, confirmed that that general premise, the phrase
father figure when we talk about navigating the paper process,
talking about different publications that might make sense for
the paper to go, that sort of role in the process is an
accurate description of Dr. Farrar's role, I think. Either one
of you can confirm that that's----
Dr. Andersen. Yes, that is correct, and I think importantly
too is that Dr. Farrar is on later papers. We have a paper in,
I believe, in 2021 in the journal Cell, which is a review on
the available evidence, and Dr. Farrar is an author on that
particular paper.
Mr. Pellegrini. And when it comes to that sort of a role in
the process of the Proximal Origin paper, you both confirmed in
our interviews, but I just want to confirm one more time,
neither Dr. Fauci, nor Dr. Collins played that type of role or
really any role at all?
Dr. Andersen. That is correct.
Mr. Pellegrini. Dr. Garry?
Dr. Garry. That is correct.
Mr. Pellegrini. I have no more questions.
I yield back. Thank you.
Dr. Wenstrup. I now recognize the Ranking Member for any
closing statement that we would like to make.
Dr. Ruiz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Over the course of
today's hearing, we have heard baseless allegation after
baseless allegation and unsubstantiated claim after
unsubstantiated claim about Drs. Fauci and Collins and their
involvement with the Proximal Origin paper.
The Select Subcommittee has reviewed thousands of pages of
internal documents and conducted transcribed interviews with
authors of the paper which has only revealed that Drs. Fauci
and Collins had little to no involvement in the drafting of and
publication of the paper, findings that have only been
confirmed, once again, by testimony in today's hearing.
Rather than following the facts of their own investigation,
my Republican colleagues have only doubled down on their
unproven, conspiratorial accusations using this Select
Subcommittee's far-reaching platform to vilify our Nation's
scientists and public health experts in the name of repairing
trust after they have just manufactured distrust and destroyed
it.
Every day Select Subcommittee Republicans spend on
advancing this partisan narrative, the American people pay the
price. How? Every hour in taxpayer dollar focusing and pushing
this wrong, harmful, bias-centered narrative and political
theater, instead of on investigating our experiences to garner
forward-looking policy solutions to prevent and prepare for the
next pandemic comes at the expense of the American people and
our public health.
The fact is, the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic remain
unknown. We have heard--this is very interesting--lab for the
psychology of confirmation bias. Today I mean, we've seen it.
We have heard, you know, when you have confirmation bias, you
are set on your thinking, and now everything you do has to
prove your narrative. So, you pick and choose evidence and
data. That's one method of doing it.
The second method is, you take things out of context, or
you misrepresent the data or things that were said, like
putting it in places, in a piece of a puzzle to show your or
prove your narrative.
The third is that there's a lot of disregard of evidence or
the truth that is contrary to the narrative. So, in other
words, if you say something confirming a truth, it's skipped
over. It's disregarded. The truth just doesn't matter if it
doesn't fit the narrative.
And we've even seen flat-out lying today--lying. For
example, we have heard that the intelligence community strongly
supports that this was a lab leak theory. The reality is that
you have one agency with low confidence, you have another
agency with moderate confidence that this was a lab leak
theory. OK? Two out of the six so far, they do not strongly,
with high confidence, say that this was a lab leak. But we
heard that they do from the other side. That's a lie.
The data is there. That's not an opinion. Because the facts
has been presented. They have been studied.
The next lie, flat out, was that most of the intelligence
community agencies believe that this was a lab leak theory,
declaring it as if it was true. Yet you have four agencies--
it's math, guys--four agencies with low confidence, saying this
was zoonotic. You have two agencies with low to moderate saying
that with low and moderate confidence that this was a lab leak.
Four is more than two. Four is more than two.
So, that statement that is aligned with their narrative was
a flat-out lie, and in the absence of hard proof or access to
information by the Chinese Communist Party, we may never know
conclusively. I mean we've looked at the intelligence agencies,
we've passed a bill in a bipartisan way to make them public and
reveal. There is no smoking gun in the intelligence community.
It is still low to moderate confidence, on either side, with
the majority saying they still think it's zoonotic.
But that shouldn't stop us from considering both scenarios
and working to keep us safer from the next deadly pandemic.
We're--on this side of the aisle, we're committed to
objectively looking at the data and taking what we have in
order to create policies, whether it was a lab leak theory
that's true or whether it was zoonotic. Well, let's do
something about it that will actually result in saving lives.
So, we need to get unstuck from this partisan quicksand, as
Ranking Member of this Select Subcommittee, I take seriously
the charge of understanding the origins of the novel
coronavirus.
And as a physician and public health expert, I know how
this is crucial to our ability to better prevent and prepare
for a future public health crisis.
Unfortunately, today's hearing brought us nowhere closer to
that goal. It has only continued the partisan narrative, the
confirmation bias, that has produced threats, intimidation,
violent threats to our public health officials, the
vilification of our Nation's scientists, and continued to
manufacture distrust in our public health officials.
This, at the end of the day, will only harm our ability to
respond to future public health crises and cost more American
lives in another pandemic.
I yield back.
Dr. Wenstrup. Thank you. You know, as chairman of this
Committee, I think on behalf of the Committee, we're working on
behalf of the lives lost--lost or severely damaged, in America,
and across the globe, by a deadly virus, a virus that should
have united our country but instead divided our Nation and the
world.
I've said since the beginning, this is an after-action
review for lessons to be learned, so that we can provide a path
forward, but we have to review the previous actions, or we
learn no lessons.
I feel in talking to Dr. Garry for a moment beforehand, we
can do better, and we have to do better going forward. This
process that we have been through as a Nation is not it--as a
Nation, as a world, is not it. And we can lead the way of doing
better.
You know, our staff report that's been out investigates our
government processes, exploring how decisions were or are made,
revealing statements made in the process, such as those behind
me here, statements made by those involved directly or
indirectly.
Yes, we're exploring a potential cover-up. That is what we
are doing. It's exploring. That requires investigation. To both
of you, you received Federal dollars. We appropriate those.
Congress appropriates those Federal dollars. We have a
responsibility of oversight on behalf of our constituents and
the very taxpayers that pay you.
Sorry about that, but it's our job, whether you like it or
not. And I take it seriously.
We have discovered things like statements by Dr. Morens who
works for NIAID, send things to my Gmail. I'm getting FOIA'd
all the time--you both know what FOIA'd means, correct? Freedom
of Information Act? OK--send things to my Gmail, and I'll
delete anything I don't want The New York Times to see.
And then he criticizes reporters and scientists like Dr.
Metzl and others, calls them names that I won't repeat. And
aren't we proud? Aren't we proud?
Now, because of these revelations that we've uncovered,
NARA, the National Archives and Records Administration is
leading an investigation on Dr. Morens and his behavior. That
is our responsibility as Congress.
So, you may call it going down a rabbit hole and trying to
find vendettas, or somebody here might, but I do have a
vendetta against dishonesty. And as a doctor, I'm against
politically motivated science, which Dr. Andersen, you,
yourself, said we had to. You hate to go down--let me see if I
can find the quote, ``you hate to go down a political path, but
you had to.'' And I'm paraphrasing there.
You know, in the staff reports that have come out, the
minority's today, talking about political, our report zero
times mentions Republicans or Democrats--zero times. Their
report mentions Republicans or Democrats 38 times. Who's being
political? Who's being political?
And when Dr. Collins sends an email to Dr. Fauci on April
15, saying, do more to squash the lab leak, which essentially
is halting scientific debate, and Dr. Fauci goes out on the
White House lawn the next day, quoting Proximal Origin, saying
this came from Nature, as if definitive, I want to know why. I
want to know why that is.
I'm a physician, I've served in public health. Science has
always fascinated me.
Dr. Wenstrup. We ask why. We ask how. Dr. Garry, I think I
have your quote here where you cite--I'll put it in quotes.
``The finding of SARS-CoV-like coronaviruses from pangolins
with nearly identical RVDs, however, provides a much stronger
and more parsimonious explanation of how SARS-CoV-2 acquired
these recombination--via recombination or mutation.'' I get
that. I can see where you came up with that and wanted to know
about that.
But as we've heard today and we've had testimony before,
there were no pangolin viruses at the wet market or pangolins.
They're 603 miles away. No evidence of a bat either. Yet, ODNI
reports potentially epidemic viruses from pangolin samples are
at the WIV and have been since 2019. That's not 603 miles away.
I recognize the dangers of a wet market. I recognize the
dangers of gain-of-function research. Dr. Fauci was asked to
recognize that in an article I read from 2012 in, I think,
Weekend Australia. Dr. Fauci, on his gain-of-function
research--and I'm paraphrasing here, so forgive me--he said,
aren't you concerned that doing something like this might get
out of a lab and create a pandemic? And his response was,
basically, that the benefits outweigh the risks. Well, if this
came from a lab, I certainly don't see how the benefits
outweigh the risk.
In 2005, our own State Department talked about publicly how
China is researching bioweapons. In 2015, they even published a
book related to genetic bioweapons. I'm a soldier. I sit on the
Intelligence Committee. I'm sorry, that matters to me, and it's
not to be taken lightly. And when I look at some of the
things--you know, I hear like things said, yes, certain
intelligence agencies said low confidence, but it came from
nature, and others said it came from a lab.
Well, I'm a physician that sits on the Intelligence
Committee, and I've been looking at this since it came out at
the very beginning. And when it comes to what the Intelligence
Committee comes up with the 90-day commission, I want to know
who they talked to because it matters. And I'll get into that
in a minute. This is looking at everything. Not spouting about
Republicans or Democrats. This is looking to what happened and
what happened to this world and how did it happen, and let's
have a scientific debate.
And when Dr. Collins suggests to Dr. Fauci that we squash
one of the theories, that is stopping the debate. And that
concerns me because we pay them. And I want to know why they
wanted to do that. That's not a vendetta. That's fair.
It was important that that Select Subcommittee on the
Coronavirus Pandemic hear directly from the authors of Proximal
Origin; hear it from you to better understand how it was
drafted and published and who was involved with this process.
I thank you for your transcribed interviews, and I thank
you for being here today. I have no personal preferences to
whether COVID-19 came from a lab or if it came from nature. In
fact, in many ways, I wish it came from nature, or we can prove
that. I would feel a whole lot better than feeling something
this deadly, this lethal is being made in a lab, or held at a
lab. But I do care deeply also about gathering as much
information as possible so we can learn from the COVID-19
pandemic, so we can prevent one in the future.
I do care if science is tainted by politics, as the
Proximal Origin authors wrote in their own emails. I didn't
write that. We heard today that there are some in the
intelligence community that have confidence that COVID-19 came
from nature. But if those intelligence officials only spoke to
those with views held by the Proximal Origin authors, then they
haven't gathered all available evidence, have they?
I'm looking into that. And I have some impressions already,
having the opportunity to sit on the Intelligence Committee and
get some of those answers. And I will tell you, my impression--
and this is an opinion and impression of what I have seen--the
FBI did more work than the others, in my opinion. The
Department of Energy has more scientists than any other agency.
They have the national labs. It just so happens those are two
entities that think this came from the lab, and that should be
respected.
The Select Committee has gathered and continues to
investigate information relating to the origins of COVID-19.
The House and Senate unanimously passed a bill which the
President signed to declassify intelligence relating to origins
because it is that important for Americans to have all
available facts and data on a pandemic that affected every
single one of us.
And in some ways, I feel the Intelligence Committee in the
House of Representatives has done more digging than the
intelligence community. And that's important. And I want you to
know what we know, because I worry when people don't know what
they don't know but speak with authority.
The Select has continued to investigate this information.
We passed that bill, but ODNI violated the law with the report
that they produced. I expected hundreds of pages. You probably
have hundreds of pages--research, other things. I certainly do.
I expected hundreds of pages, and I expected answers to
questions that Americans and those on the Select have asked,
such as to who did the intelligence agency speak to in order to
draw the conclusions. I think that's important. But we don't
know that. I have some idea because the Director of National
Intelligence is cooperating and trying to provide me with as
much information as I can get.
What type of scientist, doctors or experts did they work
with to reach the answers that we have received so far? See,
transparency is nonnegotiable here. Honesty is nonnegotiable as
well. In this case, lives depend on it. Americans should be
confident in the conclusions reached.
But in order for them to be confident, they must be
provided with facts. Gathering information and uncovering
evidence is not a threat to science, it actually improves
science. Calling those who believe in the plausibility of a lab
leak conspiracy theorists does not lend credibility to vigorous
scientific debate before producing a conclusion. In fact, it
gives the appearance that the zoonotic theory was not only not
rigorously tested, but the proximal origin was based on
preconceived notions, and that evidence to the contrary was
stifled.
Grin as you may, Dr. Andersen. Grin as you may.
As to the involvement of NIH and the proximal origin, we
learned important information today with respect to the
influence exerted by Drs. Collins and Fauci. We know that Drs.
Fauci and Collins prompted the origin paper, and seemingly,
maybe Dr. Farrar as well. We can get to the bottom of that.
We know that the February 5, 2020 draft sent to Drs. Fauci
and Collins was used in the published Proximal Origin paper
because portions of that draft appear verbatim in what Nature
published. We have the email from Dr. Andersen, specifically,
thanking Drs. Fauci and Collins for their advice and leadership
as we have been working through the SARS-CoV-2 origins paper.
You wrote that, Dr. Andersen. Not me.
And before it was finalized, Dr. Andersen sent an email to
Drs. Fauci and Collins to ask if they had any comments,
suggestions, or questions about the paper. That to me is pretty
inclusive, about the paper at all. Dr. Andersen has raised the
point that there is substantive difference between about the
paper as opposed to on the paper.
But are we expected to believe this email was not a
solicitation to provide input with respect to the substance of
the paper on a paper they prompted? Prompted is not my word.
Andersen's own words clearly demonstrate the close coordination
that occurred from the inception of Proximal Origin to its
publication between the authors and NIH leadership. We too want
to take a complete look at all the facts; something that was
not done when Proximal Origin was published.
We covered the reasons and motivations as to why debate and
discourse were stifled today. If the breadcrumbs of the origin
of COVID-19 lead us directly to the doorstep of a single wet
market in central China, then we should start there and work
backward smartly. Large portions of the intel community,
however, numerous experts, and the evidence gathered indicate
confidence that the virus originated from a lab. Human-to-human
transmission has been proven to be highly contagious.
And we still haven't found the alleged animal that started
it all. But many people have died. And that's why we brought
the authors of Proximal Origins here today on behalf of all
those that have died or suffered otherwise or the unintentional
consequences of lockdowns, school closures, et cetera. But many
Americans have lost loved ones.
Millions across the globe have suffered from this pandemic.
And we need to find out how COVID-19 originated so that we can
prepare for a future pandemic. I believe that's in your hearts.
But I don't think the process is right. We need to do this so
that we make sure we base decisions off of sound science.
We don't have the luxury during a pandemic to protect
feelings or push preferred narratives or play politics. We have
a duty to find the truth and to push forward.
In closing, I do, I do truly want to thank our panelists
once again for their important and insightful testimony. But
with that and without objection, all Members will have five
legislative days within which to submit materials and to submit
additional written questions for the witnesses, which will be
forwarded to the witnesses for their response. If there's no
further business, without objection, the Select Subcommittee
stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:17 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[all]