Fauci Testimony on Gain-of-Function Research Was ‘Inconsistent’ with Existing Intel, Says Ex-Director of National Intelligence

Jeff Zymeri
·4 min read
723
  • Oops!
    Something went wrong.
    Please try again later.

Former director of national intelligence John Ratcliffe told Congress on Tuesday that Anthony Fauci’s testimony under oath on gain-of-function research did not comport with the available intelligence at the time.

Appearing before the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic, Ratcliffe was asked by Representative Nicole Malliotakis (R., N.Y.) about Fauci’s sworn testimony before the Senate in November of 2021. In that hearing, Fauci told Senator Rand Paul (R., Ky.) that the NIH did not fund gain-of-function research. Malliotakis said this was despite the fact Fauci had been told in an email in January of 2021 that NIH had a monetary relationship with the Wuhan Institute through the EcoHealth Alliance. Malliotakis then asked Ratcliffe if he thought Fauci had lied under oath.

“Some of Dr. Fauci’s testimony is inconsistent with some of the intelligence that we have that remains classified as well as inconsistent with some information that is publicly available,” replied Ratcliffe.

Gain-of-function research is a controversial practice that involves making pathogens more deadly or transmissible in order to better understand current or future pandemics, and thus be able to respond faster. Funding for the research was halted in 2014 during the Obama administration due to concerns about the risks, but the NIH lifted that funding pause three years later after the creation of an oversight framework. In 2021, it emerged that U.S. taxpayers had funded such research into bat coronaviruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology through an intermediary — that is, EcoHealth Alliance.

Fauci insisted during multiple appearances before Congress that the research conducted in Wuhan did not match the NIH’s definition of “gain-of-function,” contradicting independent experts such as Dr. Richard Ebright, who have said the experiments being performed clearly qualify as gain-of-function research.

The Biden administration continues to support the practice despite widespread concerns in the scientific community that it may have contributed to the outbreak of Covid. National security council communications coordinator John Kirby explained in February that “[the president] believes that [the research is] important to help prevent future pandemics.”

Gain-of-function research continues to be probed by Congress due to the competing theories of the origins of the coronavirus: the lab-leak hypothesis and the natural-transmission hypothesis. The Energy Department joined the FBI in preferring the lab-leak hypothesis in February. Other agencies disagree.

Ratcliffe weighed into the debate on Tuesday.

“My informed assessment as a person with as much access as anyone during the initial year of the pandemic has been and continues to be that a lab leak is the only explanation credibly supported by our intelligence, by science, and by common sense,” he explained.

“From a view inside the [intelligence community] if our intelligence and evidence supporting a lab-leak theory was placed side by side with our intelligence and evidence pointing to a natural-origins or spillover theory, the lab leak side of the ledger would be long, convincing, and overwhelming, while the spillover side would be nearly empty and tenuous,” said Ratcliffe. “Were this a trial, a preponderance of circumstantial evidence compiled by our intelligence would compel a jury finding of guilty to an accusation that coronavirus research in the Wuhan labs was responsible for the pandemic.”

David Feith, former deputy assistant secretary of state for east Asian and Pacific affairs, who appeared alongside Ratcliffe Tuesday, revealed that some of his colleagues in the State Department warned against gain-of-function research early in the pandemic.

“By late 2020, colleagues flagged new U.S government information that underscored the plausibility of a lab leak,” Feith explained. “[That] Wuhan lab had a long record of secrecy about its coronavirus research and undisclosed ties with China’s military. Working with ODNI, we at State worked to make this information public. Some of our colleagues warned us not to. They said not to highlight China’s gain-of-function research lest we draw attention to the U.S. government’s own role in such research and open a Pandora’s box.”

Feith also offered his view on various agencies in the intelligence community staking a position between the two competing theories.

“We don’t need a running intelligence community straw poll as much as we need a transparent whole-of-government campaign to recognize the gravely high stakes of the lab leak possibility and pursue policy reforms,” Feith explained.

More from National Review