[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]