When journalists & scientists talk about overwhelming evidence for a natural origin of Covid, they're often referring to 2 papers by the Proximal Origin authors & friends. Many scientists like @mbw61567742 have thoroughly refuted these papers, even on a technical level by catching key errors. Their peer-reviewed analysis are published by statistics or economics journals rather than life sciences journals. Many life sciences journals declared their bias for a natural origin of Covid in 2020 and, six years on, still will not publish letters arguing for a lab origin.

A successful hearing with Anthony Fauci would establish the following for the public record: 1. NIAID funded virus hunting & genetic engineering of novel coronaviruses at low biosafety (BSL2). This body of work could have caused the pandemic. 2. When Covid emerged, Fauci did not ask the Wuhan lab's partners in the US, specifically EcoHealth Alliance @PeterDaszak and @UNC Ralph Baric, to share data or research proposals written with the Wuhan scientists. NIAID did not search for progress reports from EcoHealth otherwise they would've known the 2019 report was late and missing. They would've also seen from a 2018 EcoHealth report that a SARS-like virus had been accidentally enhanced to be deadlier in humanized mice - yet NIAID did not suspend funding or send the project for additional review. 3. NIAID never had access to the Wuhan lab's database of samples or virus sequences. So they do not know of all viruses collected (especially after 2015) and studied using NIAID funding. 4. Fauci's senior advisor implicated Fauci (alongside numerous co-conspirators, scientists and journalists) in their own stated attempts to break federal records law. "I forgot to say there is no worry about FOIAs. I can either send stuff to Tony on his private gmail, or hand it to him at work or at his house. He is too smart to let colleagues send him stuff that could cause trouble." 5. Fauci supported and advised the publication of a letter, Proximal Origin, to shut down the lab leak hypothesis but his role (funder of the authors) was not disclosed in the letter. If this is acceptable practice, it sets a dangerous precedent for researchers in other critical areas (e.g., vaccine safety) to write opinions without disclosing the involvement of funders with strong competing interests (e.g., pharmaceutical companies). 6. The coronavirus hunting and downstream genetic engineering funded by NIAID was not required for the development of any of the Covid vaccines, therapeutics, or medical countermeasures. It did nothing to predict the outbreak in Wuhan or prevent the pandemic. 7. Research that can create pandemic pathogens should be regulated by an independent entity with standardized screening and review processes. The risks are shouldered by the public, which is not even informed about potentially catastrophic research happening in their own cities.