Scientist tells lawmakers: COVID-19 Had ‘1 in a Billion’ Chance of Emerging From Nature”

In a historic bipartisan hearing led by Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Chairman Gary Peters and ranking member Sen. Rand Paul, scientists and U.S. senators presented a “preponderance of evidence” showing that COVID-19 was a laboratory construct.

Despite China’s withholding of crucial data from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, expert witnesses Steven C. Quay, M.D., Ph.D., and Richard H. Ebright, Ph.D., presented substantial evidence favoring a lab leak over a natural spillover. Quay, an independent scientist with no financial ties, highlighted the virus’s genomic features, suggesting that there is no way the virus came from nature.

“The statistical probability of finding each feature in nature can be determined,” Quay said, “and the combined probability that SARS-CoV-2 came from nature is less than one in a billion.”

Senators expose the lies and coverup behind COVID-19 origins

In the hearing, senators criticized inconsistencies in expert testimonies regarding the origins of COVID-19. They highlighted instances where scientific conclusions, notably from Dr. Robert F. Garry, conflicted with their opinions expressed in private emails, raising concerns about scientific integrity and public transparency.

Sen. Ron Johnson called for unredacted copies of Dr. Anthony Fauci’s emails, suggesting they may contain crucial evidence regarding U.S.-funded research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Johnson said they would issue a subpoena to obtain the withheld information, aiming to uncover “smoking gun” correspondence implicating Fauci and Garry in the pandemic’s origins and coverup.

Senator Josh Hawley accused Dr. Robert F. Garry of being involved in efforts led by Dr. Anthony Fauci to suppress evidence of the lab-leak theory. Garry co-authored the “Proximal Origin” paper, which concluded in February 2020 that SARS-CoV-2 was not a product of laboratory manipulation, and any inquiry thereof was to be regarded as “conspiracy theory” followed up with a “published takedown” of any scientist that told the truth. This paper was cited by Fauci and Dr. Francis Collins to downplay the lab-leak hypothesis and censor scientists and Americans online. However, Hawley pointed out that Garry expressed doubts about the virus’s natural origins in a private email communication around the time of the paper’s publication.

Richard Ebright calls for strict oversight of gain-of-function research

One of the leading expert witnesses, Richard H. Ebright, criticized the paper for scientific misconduct, alleging that its authors reported conclusions they knew to be untrue. Hawley emphasized the repercussions that occurred because of their deception, stating that individuals lost jobs and were censored on social media for questioning the virus’s origins. When questioned by Hawley, Garry defended his role, stating he was merely presenting scientific opinions in the paper and couldn’t control its use. Later, Senator Ron Johnson questioned Garry about his government grants, revealing that he and co-author Kristian Andersen received $25.2 million from the National Institutes of Health between 2020 and 2022.

Ebright emphasized the need for stringent oversight to rein in risky gain-of-function research. He mentioned that the unethical research field is largely unregulated and poses significant biosecurity risks. He called for an independent oversight agency to manage such research to mitigate conflicts of interest and ensure public safety. Ebright is a leader at Biosafety Now, a nongovernmental organization that “advocates for reducing numbers of high-level bio-containment laboratories and for strengthening biosafety, biosecurity and bio risk management for research on pathogens.”

The gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, that Fauci’s NIAID funded through Dr. Peter Daszak’s Eco Health Alliance, has “no civilian application,” Ebright warned, adding that it’s an easy and lucrative field.

“Researchers undertake it because it is fast,” Ebright said. “It is easy, it requires no specialized equipment or skills, and it was prioritized for funding and has been prioritized for publication by scientific journals.”

The full hearing can be accessed here.

Sources include:

Submit a correction >>

Get Our Free Email Newsletter
Get independent news alerts on natural cures, food lab tests, cannabis medicine, science, robotics, drones, privacy and more.
Your privacy is protected. Subscription confirmation required.

comments powered by Disqus

Get Our Free Email Newsletter
Get independent news alerts on natural cures, food lab tests, cannabis medicine, science, robotics, drones, privacy and more.
Your privacy is protected. Subscription confirmation required.


Get the world's best independent media newsletter delivered straight to your inbox.

By continuing to browse our site you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.