of research supported by the nih. one of the drugs is now being studied through trials directly funded by the nih, one of which is treating individuals before any symptoms, an even earlier stage than before so called secondary prevention trial. through these, we're trying to work for exposure to more diverse populations. and in terms of what this could mean for the public, we are preparing for when final fda approvals and cms coverage occurs, to do what we can to monitor and ensure that we understand in populations that are diverse -- rural, urban, racial, ethnic, which are likely to differ in just which treatment and what time is best , that we have the structure in place to optimize their impact on society. this is the next stage. having found successful interventions to, to learn from these first leads and to optimize them. so i agree with you. the impact on the broader population could be huge, and it is all research commitment to be prepared to assess this. >> thank you. dr. volker, i am very concerned about the

nih and other things. one of the examples of not in every instance if you spend money to necessarily get a better result. but there is definitely plenty of evidence that nih does occur. and dr., this i would highlight particularly the increasing toll amount of money, dr. tailback, i highlight that to you. and what has happened. but in the area of alzheimer's, i think we have seen significant difference in, perhaps you can't tie it to the additional resources that this subcommittee, this congress is providing to nih. and i would be happy if you would like to confirm that more resources to make a difference, dr. otis? >> i would be happy to confirm that they have made it a difference, the enormous progress we have seen could not have happened in this space without the increased support and investment in research. similarly, we'll do our best to continue -- whenever resources are available. >> could you put that on personal terms? what it might mean for a family or a individual who is in darkness with alzheim

>> i think nih enough. i think fda can do some further steps to help here and certainly is a high priority for the kerner commission as well as janet to try to make progress. the hardest thing about doing trials in a real-world setting is you have to deliver real world care. the solution of, well, let's just expand our funding for traditional an h trials by bringing in protocol reviewers and local oversight of the trial conditions and data collectors and all that just doesn't lend itself to the delivery of care in routine practice. remember, healthcare organizations are pretty stretched these days financially. has to be something simple. the good news is we got a lot better electronic david andat we used to. a lot of the data for payment is pretty darn accurate. we've gote healthcare systems that are no longer working at the one clinician level so we are not talking about a traditional small crimes trial that would have come from white hey, one academic, this one institution pairing up with a few of his or

>> you want to -- >> nih is where we are focused. we are looking at all kinds of things and there are so many issues going on in hhs, there may be others later but not that i have -- my back pocket that i'm holding onto for some reason, we've been investigating the actions at o r r but don't know any appointment problems at this moment but we may find more as we move forward. >> do individual members of the committee plan to support any potential legal actions against policies or appointments? >> at this point as the chair has said shining a light on it, we have questions we want to get answered before determining what the next steps are and the secretary has a couple weeks to respond and he will also be before the committee at the end of the month. >> what other members of the administration -- does that mean it looks like previous administrations improperly appointed everyone? not being able to find anything? >> we have evidence that previous administrations have properly followed the law in appointing these individuals. >> what ar

as we think about the agencies are three primary agencies inac the cdc and the fda and the nih. they all function very differently during the pandemic and so my hope was to spend time talking about how the fda successes and it was not perfect but it did a pretty darn good job. what we can learn from that thinkingng about how to fix the cdc and the nih going forward and making road right more robust public health infrastructure. and doctor janet woodcock, a few thoughts from you. >> well, i don't want to criticize my fellow agencies but i would say, we do not have a systemic approach to medical chronic testing in response. it's very very fragmented and all of the showed like with the pendant make a right. the cdc struggled i think a great deal because of the distributed nature of the public health system. in another country, that had more nationalized public health system in healthcare system as well. were able to respond more like systematically because they were unified some kind of central approach coming unified approach. so i think that we suffer from this you know which we

we are tragically -- the nih has $42 billion. barda, which is a part of the poppa act has another billion dollars. they could not do the most basic clinical research we needed done to answer the basic questions to enter the controversies in the conspiracy theories. to finally get at the questions americans were asking, which is how does it spread? from touching surfaces? do i need to import 20 gallons of alcohol on my groceries? dr. fauci was telling teachers in july to where gloves and goggles. or was that spread airborne? that could have been answered in 24 hours. one week of clinical research to answer where sea peak of viral shedding, how long do you need to quarantine for, do masks work? we could have ansell this with definitive basic research early. they did not. i think it is fair to ask how did they do in preparing us for the pandemic? we spent over $20 billion over the last 20 years. what has that done for us? how many lives were saved during the covid pandemic because of investors by poppa -- pahpa or barda. they have d

he told me direct quote no doubt, unquote, nih was funding this research in wuhan refuting dr.fauci claims. i'll start with you, mr. ratcliffe. you agree with dr. redfield? >> i do. >> even what we know now, if you were in dr. fauci position would you have denied the nih role in gain of function research at the wuhan lab? >> no. >> do you think dr. fauci lied under oath? >> i think that some of dr. fauci's testimony is inconsistent with some of the intelligence that we have the remains classified as well is inconsistent with some information that is publicly available. >> did you think that president biden should declassify all information related to covid origins, every single document as was requested and passed by the legislature? >> with the caveat that we always have to be careful about protecting our sources and methods, particularly though sources and methods as it relates to what the intelligence community uniformly agrees is our number one threat from a nation state actor standpoint. but that caveat, providing as much information about our intelligence as possible of p

fourteen nih officials including doctor fauci held unlawful positions and exercised authority that they didn't have, which included approving $26 billion in grants. this is unprecedented. and it calls into question the validity of every decision that these officials have made since december, 2021 to june, 2023 including the awarding a new grant to equal health alliance, which is even more egregious has been health and human services cover-up for more than a year the administration misled the committee throughout the investigation and our question has been a pretty simple one. can you show us the documents. the question can you show us the documents and we are still waiting. there needs to be accountability. no one is above the law. americans need to know their tax dollars are being spent responsibly, effectively and that the people making these decisions are lawfully authorized to make them. so, with that i am going to turn it over to the chairman of the oversight and investigation subcommittee. >> this is very frustrating. it isn't typical of the biden administration not to follow the

more tragically, the nih has 42 billion dollars. barda, which is a part of the phpa, act has another billion dollars. and they couldn't do the most basic clinical research we needed done quickly, to answer the basic questions to end the controversies and the conspiracy theories. to finally get up the questions americans were asking us, how does it spread? is it from touching surfaces? do i need to pour 20 gallons of alcohol on my groceries? fauci was telling teachers in july to wear gloves. and goggles. or was it spread airborne? that could've been answered in 24 hours. in one of our psl four laps. or in one week of clinical research to answer the question, when are you most contagious? what is the peak day of viral shedding? how long you have to quarantine for? do masks work? we could have answered this with definitive basic clinical research early, they didn't. and so i think it's fair to ask, how did they do and preparing us for the? pandemic we spent over 20 billion dollars on phpa over the last 20 years. what has that done for?

the nih officials and after the term has expired in 2021 so the directors with the nih director being in official, the directors are recommended by the nih director health and human services. and it contradicts that the nih director has so i am hoping to ask a simple question from march of last year, who reappointed the director in december of 2021? the nih director from the paperwork. >> we have said to you appointments we have made, we stand by that and read this very clearly. be appointed to the secretary. >> is there a form with director called signature reacquainting the directors? i will you not provided to us? >> there is ample evidence that is valid under. law and we stand by them. >> is reform, a letter provided? >> we've already provided that and my team will follow up on the. >> june 8, 2023 new signed affidavits in reacquainting nih directors, was at the first time you signed the? >> again, the evidence -- >> okay. what evidence? >> the process we'vea: appointed we've asked in writing. >> i have another question. do you agree directors qualify? >> can you repeat that? >> a

insisted on transferring they authority and appoint director from the secretary to the director of nihver the objections t of the obama administration 2016. it is wrong to deliberately mislead the public. it is strange to do so involvig language gop members were themselves. this congress my republican colleagues had taken everyav opportunity to align public health officials. in selling this trust in our research agencies and public health expert republicans are playing a dangerous game. americans depend on the work of these dedicated public servants to keep us safe and healthy. it is t time for the harassmento end. this committee has real work to do. on so many issues preparing for the next pandemic, tackling devastating drug shortages, protecting online privacy developing solutions to reduce climate pollution that's wreaking havoc and costing us more every day. the care of unaccompanied children is among the issues that demands congresses attention. let's focus on that issue today instead of the fabricated one. mr. secretary we are committed to making sure coats are part does its job

in a recent energy and commerce oversight hearing, i asked the nih acting director about the nih's grossnegligence and monitoring in the ecohealth alliance grant and sovereign grant to the wuhan institute of virology. he admitted that we might not have heard all of the information and research reports from w. ivey and ecohealth. he insisted, however, that he was sure that the coronavirus research at w i the was completely unrelated to sars covid two. now with this information, we know and the fact that china deleted data and ask the nih to delete data, do you believe that we can have certainty that the virus did not come from the wuhan lab and that u.s. funding was not used for covid-19 related research? >> absolutely we cannot do that. i'll say that if you look back and you'll see that it's declassified. now i'm sure you'll have your classified briefings. but the declassified information now was in september of 2019, three things happened in that lab. one is they deleted the sequences. that's highly irregular. researchers don't usually like to do that, the second thing that they did was

we had the fda, cdc and nih which all functioned very differently during the pandemic. i hope was to spend time talking about how the fda's successes, which was not perfect but did a pretty darn good job, and what we can learn from this, thinking about how to fix the cdc and nih going forward. to make a more robust public health infrastructure. dr. janet woodcock, a few thoughts from you to start us off. >> i do not want to criticize my fellow agencies but i would say that we do not have a systemic approach to medical product development, testing, and response. it is very fragmented. all these cracks showed like with the pandemic. the cdc struggled a great deal because of the distributed nature of public health systems in other countries that had a more nationalized public health system were able to respond more systematically because they were unified into there was some kind of central approach. i think that we suffer from this . we celebrated our federated nature, but we also were victims of it in some extent. from the fta standpoint, they take the public health data

. >> i was describing an nih-funded study -- >> you didn't cite any -- >> i was describing an nih-funded-- >> reclaiming my time. >> published in usc medical -- >> reclaiming my time. it's mine. i ask the witness to stop talking. >> martha: i want to let you do it here. this recording of a video from a dinner with some journalists from the "new york post." in it -- i'll let you put it in your own words. in the video, you say reports indicate that there may have been some genetic direction for this virus if it was manipulated. explain. >> i actually -- studies don't say it was -- suggested that it was deliberately manipulated. i never suggested that. in fact, i said the opposite. what the study said is that certain races were more affected by covid than other races. there was a long list of the races that were minimally affected and those maximally affected. i was not saying that this was something that was deliberately done. i was describing the results of this study. >> martha: so you believe there's bio weapons work going on in china and in the united states that is trying to determine

. >> i was describing an nih.is not surprising a disease would have a disproportionate impact on certain races. i was describing a study funded by nih that was performed by half a dozen scientists from cleveland clinic and that study showed the docking site for the -- of the covid virus was particularly compatible with certain races. chiefly with people of african dissent. least of all, people from finland. people and certain germanic races. chinese were less susceptible than ashkenazi. it was designed to preserve certain races. i was not suggesting that. >> i look at your life, your uncle is the president of the united states. we know so much about the presidency of your uncle. your father, the attorney general at the time, and then your father makes a run for president and he was assassinated. you have suggested you believe it was a conspiracy within our government, intelligence agencies, you mention the cia, and that you believe yourself today because of your last name, that your life could be in jeopardy. why

to be clear, the letter states, quote, nih ic directors are recommended for appointment by the nih director and approved for appointment by the secretary of health and human services. we then received a letter last friday also from secretary egurin that contradicts her may 5th letter and acenterred -- asserts that the nih now believ- [inaudible] so i'm hoping to ask a simple question, one that we first asked march of last year. who appoints, who reappoints objection. mr. cornyn: mr. president, on monday, president biden's department of justice filed suit against my state, texas, over our efforts to secure our boarderings -- our border. of the 2,000-mile southern border, texas has a 1200-mile border with mexico. of course, that's been the epicenter of the humanitarian and public safety crisis that we've seen get nothing but worse over the last two years. it's almost laughable if it wasn't so serious. the administration filed suit over what it called humanitarian concerns, which is more than a little ironic. this is the same administration whose policies have ushered in an unprecedented human

know what you are talking about. >> senator rand paul claiming newly surfaced e-mails prove the former nih director was lying during that testimony. the center sends a criminal referral to the doj. e-mail says suspicion was heightened by the fact that scientists at wuhan university were known to have been working on bat viruses related to human infection and the outbreak originated in wuhan. ganahl good morning, senator. >> good morning, thanks for having me. >> ainsley: what happens now, he said no gain of function research, it might be semanhuntics and now this e- mail is resurfacing. >> he is caught red-handed and proved the lie in his words. he said, we don't fund research in wuhan. we found the paper and grant number proving it came from his agency, he said, we are functioning it, and it is not gain of function. we have documents from february of 2020 in the height of the pandemic, he is saying we're suspicious this virus could have come from the lab. he describes the projects, which he said there is nothing to see here. we have in his own words admitting it was gain of function and a

function research in the wuhan institute and even in the earliest days of the crisis, fauci is told the nih is sending money to the wuhan lab and told by dr. christian anderson some features of covid look engineered. he convenes a big conference with a bunch of scientists and they say, it could have come from a lab. a few days later, at least five scientists on the conference call change their tune, we do know their papers were sent for approval to dr. fauci and francis collins. you are look as a wild conspiracy theorist if you brought up the lab leak theory. y were removed from social media, posts were censor and now it is clear that it is more than likely that this came from the lab. >> todd: you made the point it was to cow down to china. which individual? you and i didn't send money, it looks like it was this establishment of fauci and his cronies that did the malfeasance of getting that money over there. >> carley: just two weeks ago, the united states stopped sending money to wuhan. >> todd: way to strike when the irons are hot, america. >> carley: we have this story, parents of a 22-

the special diabetes program plays a crucial role in fighting this disease because it supports nih research into type one diabetes that has lead to breakthroughs in diabetes prevention and treatment. given this program does so much good for so many families back home it should be no surprise that has strong bipartisan support here in congress. i was pleased orca senator alexander to reauthorize this program back in 2020 when we led the help committee together. vice chair collins is such a tremendous leader in that effort and is a tireless champion on this issue as cochair of the diabetes caucus along with senator shaheen. i am very glad to have an vice chair collins who will lead this hearing today. i have heard from so many patients fighting this disease it can be really hard. here in congress we need to make things easier and give people hope and show we are serious about breakthroughs to permit, treat and cure diabetes. that includes continuing to authorize this crucial program and to support it and hopefully reauthorize again this year. we also need to make life saving insulin affordabl

this was happening at same time christian had grant proposal with nih, which makes this interesting they were talking about the origin of covid. >> yeah, this was never about science, this was about the business of science. if the will money trail and see millions exchanging hands in first few months of 2020 to the people who said nothing to see here, couldn't have happened in the lab. never been a cover-up in history of politics that was so completely documented they were lying to us. every private e-mail says it might have come from the lab. my goodness, it was manipulated and goes on and on and on. the one lead virologist who is saying it is conspiracy theer tow say it came from the lab, he is saying in private, this is no conspiracy theory, in all likelihood, it could have come from the lab. in public, they print an article that anthony fauci commissions them and says get this written up as soon as possible and he works to edity this and when published, it says this virus is not a laboratory construct. none of them believe they knew with certainty it wasn't, they thought it would har

lab, the association that the wuhan institute of virology research likely violated protocols of the nihsafety is undisputed. as such, there is risk the lab, not only previously violated but currently violating and will continue to violate protocols of the nih on biosafety. health and human services says the wuhan lab won't get another dollar from the us government but the lab already received one. $4 million in us grants from 2014 to 2019, since the start of the pandemic the lab has come under increased scrutiny because of the controversial gain of function research done there and suspicion the covid may have leaked from it. the suspension of funding comes as we are learning top scientists who publicly denied the lab leak theory actually believe it was possible if not likely. that according to new messages released by independent journalist matt taibbi, and two of their colleagues. >> top scientists, top advisers to doctor anthony fauci misled congress when they claimed what they were doing was science, the messages show they were engaged in politics, responding to what they called high

money were on the line with the work doing with the wuhan lab and grants that virologists get from nihcorrect? that's all involved in this. >> yeah it. involves money. but as you will recall, when anthony fauci came before my committee, he said absolutely he funded no gain of function research in china. we have email where he describes the research they are doing. they said you know what? we are suspicious of the lab because we know they are doing gain of function research. he describes the project but the project he described is the project he funded so everything he has been telling us from the very beginning has been a lie we have documented it's a lie and it's a felony to lie to congress. i have referred him not once but now twice to the attorney general of the united states for prosecution but, as you know, this attorney general is the most partisan attorney general we have ever had. and it's good luck on getting him to do his job. >> laura: at least anthony fauci has a plumb position at georgetown university, senator. so they take care of their own. it's great to see you because

nih lied and said they made the appointments, couldn't produce the documents.g chart again that was not accurate and then he just recently retroactively made these appointments but it raises a lot of questions because dr. fauci, dr. glass and others are no longer in these positions. >> is he retired and beyond the reach of your committee? >> they were making decisions over billions of dollars of grants without a proper appointment. they did not follow secretary did not follow the constitution or federal law insuring these individuals were acting lawfully. >> dana: one of the things we found here. the first you were seeing this given to our show and fox news so viewers could hear first about the house select subcommittee on covid. you will say on january 31st, 2020, dr. fauci prompted proximal origin, the goal was to disprove the lab leak theory to avoid blaming china. they employed fatally flawed science to achieve its goal. they used proximal origin with an attempt to keep secret the lab leak theory. will you hear from dr. fauci? >> we want to hear from him. a

they were funding it through usaid and nih, i think, in the end gave about $26 million in funding to the wuhan lab. but u.s. aid which was functioning as the cia surrogate gave over 46 million, the pentagon also gave a lot of money. >> jesse: you didn't answer my question. the question was is the cia still capable of political assassinations in the united states? >> i couldn't say yes or no to that question. i think that there is -- i couldn't say. even with my uncle's assassination, you can't really say the cia killed john f. kennedy. can you say members of the cia. people working for the cia were definitely involved. people like e. howard hunt, david astley phillips. david morales. people who have confessed from it. many of them death bed confessions. they may have been operating on a rogue basis. rather than the cia doing it. these were people who were involved in the miami station who were angry at president kennedy for refusing to invade cuba and also -- >> jesse: you are an avenger in a way. you are coming back and saying unpopular things. kind of a populist on the left. do you

it's a crime to lie to congress, do you wish to retract your statement of may 11 where you claim the nihresearch in wuhan. >> senator paul i have never lied before the congress and i do not retract that statement. you do not know what you are talking about. >> gillian: kentucky senator rand paul has filed a criminal referral to the justice department from that back in 2021. newly surfaced emails he claims from fauci back in 2020 proves he was lying to congress about gain of function research happening in a wuhan lab. so, bring in charlie hurt, fox news contributor, washington times -- you are not opinionator, you are editor, mr. hurt. smoking gun paul says it is? >> it certainly does raise a lot of questions and you know, i would tend to think it is. clearly this was an email that has surfaced that has just been recently unredacted from a year and a half before that testimony, in which dr. fauci was clearly talking about the gain of function that he and other scientists, including other american scientists knew was going on in that lab. so at the very least, it certainly does raise some

. >> i was describing an nih funded study. >> no you didn't sight -- >> i was describing a an nih funded by cleveland clinic -- >> a reclaiming my time. reclaiming my time. >> usc college -- >> the time is mine, and reclaiming it, please ask the witness to stop talking. you >> asked me a question. >> allow me to answer my question. >> mister chairman, i'd like about ten seconds. >> you are slandering me incorrectly. >> josh marshall, founder and editor in chief of talking voice memo recently put a fine point on it writing, quote, what he means or believes in his heart hardly matters. he operates in this bs world, one in which you glom onto the claims most provocative, most radioactive, most opposed to, quote, establishment thinking. joining me now is josh marshall. josh, good to see you. thank you for being with us. you wrote some clear words on this. first of all, he is just wrong in telling debbie wasserman schultz the what he said what he said. you reported exactly on what he said. it's on video. it's pretty clear. but you make the point that it's almost beside the point. it's a impro

not only previously violated but is currently violating and will continue to violate protocols of the niho safety. so hhs says the wuhan lab won't get another dollar from the u.s. government. the lab did receive, though, $1.4 million in u.s. grants between 2014 and 2019. but since the start of the pandemic, the lab has come under increased scrutiny because of the controversial gain-of-function research done at that lab and the suspicion that covid leaked from it. the suspension of funding comes as we learn several top scientists who publicly denied the lab leak theory actually believed it was possible, if not likely. that's according to new messages released by independent journalist matt taibbi and others. >> the top advisors to anthony fauci misled congress last week when they claimed that what they were doing was science. the messages show they were engaged in politics, they were responding to what they called higher ups, pressure from their bosses and openly working to deceive reporters. >> shellenberger and gop lawmakers also claim the federal government was working with big tech com

that hhs secretary xavier becerra, he failed to properly and constitutionally basically appoint top nihworn in. but they're giving out grant money? can you break this story down? >> absolutely. so under the 21st century cares act, there was a requirement under section 2033 that the secretary had to appoint and reappoint officials within nih. to date, we know that that has not happened. so you have individuals like drt authorized and still issuing out grant money to the tune of $20 billion plus. including to the ecohealth alliance. now, we all know that there's a direct tie to the wuhan lab and the ecohealth alliance. we're going to get more and more information, but what we know is that the biden administration broke from traditional policy, and these officials conducted business illegally using taxpayer dollars. elizabeth: got it. congresswoman, thanks for joining us tonight. >> good to see you, liz. elizabeth: okay. this mounting, growing present danger for american taxpayers in u.s. cities. biden's border crisis, he's collapsed it, it's unleashing gang members into city shelters and

. >> i was describing an nih-funded study -- >> no, no, no -- >> i was describing an nih-funded study -- >> reclaiming my time, reclaiming my time -- >> reclaiming my -- >> usc medical -- >> the time is mine, i'm reclaiming it. please can ask the witness to stop talking -- >> you asked me a question. allow me to answer the question. maria: efforts to censor democrat candidate robert f. kennedy jr. this week at a hearing on censorship led by the subcommittee of weaponization of the federal government as ranking member stacey plaskett raised concerns that kennedy's allotted 10 minutes for an opening statement as opposed to 5 minutes. even before the hearing started, efforts to shut him down were underway with representative debbie wasserman schultz making a motion to close the hearing to the public. that motion blocked by republicans. kennedy has also run into resistance in his efforts to take on and debate president joe biden who democrat committee leaders say will be their 2024 candidate with no debating despite competition from kennedy as well as maryann williamson. finish president

he said that the nih nominee to direct the nih of president biden received $200 million from pfizer forthat people know are true but they just don't want to hear it. >> brian: but, still, you even have an out if you are a democrat. well, that horrible person named donald trump vaccine. operation warp speed was too rushed. so you have your political out. but, still, they are so worried about people saying i'm concerned about this vaccine and now people just want to get rid of the people that are front and center. they were offended that r.f.k. is getting his moment in congress. they wanted to bring him behind closed doors. what does that tell you? one thing r.f.k. jr. would do post true stories who died immediately after the vaccine these were otherwise healthy children. social media didn't like that, instagram, facebook, linkedin. even anyone associated with him was censored. at his hearing yesterday, what i really appreciated, brian, is when he talked about the so-called toxic polarization of society and how we need to be kind to one another and restore civility, that is a message peop

. >> i was describing an nih-funded study.ing an nih-funded study. >> reclaiming my time. you did not reference -- reclaiming my time. >> published in usc medical. >> the time is mine, i'm reclaiming it please ask the witness to stop talking. >> you asked me a question. allow me to answer the question. >> you are slandering me incorrectly. >> did you get anything out of that? because that's about how this hearing went for the better part of the day. just a lot of back and forth, a lot of the democratic congress people in particular trying to press rfc jr.'s stance, him trying to explain them away, and republicans did try to hone in on the idea of censorship, the power of social media companies when it comes to pedaling this kind of information, and rfk jr.'s argument was you should be able to say whatever you want on any kind of platform, which is not exactly what the first amendment says, chris, but that is part of the core of this conversation here in washington. >> so, jonathan, you have been covering the kennedys for a ver

the whole idea that nih directors would have a role in that paper is obviously false. so it is true to say yes they played no role in the paper they appeared to have been interested in the paper because they were interested as non- experts in the conclusions and the research itself. >> thankrc you. in my remaining time let me turn to you doctor gary. in thehe final stages of draftig the paper you sent an e-mail to your co-authors stating quotes jeremy, you were referencing him, had been an amazing leader. you alsosu told select subcommittee staff that doctor ferrara played ahe substantiatie advisory role throughout the drafting of the paper. is that correct? >> that is correct. >> into dr. fauci or doctor collins ever influenced the drawn in your paper? >> not in any way. >> it seems to me when we do not have the cameras rolling, even my republican colleagues might concede dr. fauci and doctor collins did not organize or facilitate the proximal origin and that doctor ferrara did rainstead. for example on march 5, 2023 select subcommittee republican staff a memo stated

i was just -- as opposed to coming to the cdc or nih, whatever. you indicated you are making strides to improve our system for data collection. you also indicated that for many institutions, the data that comes is only voluntarily provided. are you suggesting that we need to have some sort of mandatory reporting on a basis to our people not to be identified personally? do we need to do something to have a better system of collecting data and providing that to the public as well as the practitioners? >> let me know that during the public health emergency, the cdc took six months to be able to be able to negotiate these agreements, receive hospitalization data, which is why the web scraping of john hopkins was an efficient way to do this while we were working with our lawyers who use data. very similar things happen. if we are supposed to and responsible for stop the outbreak before they start, before they become emergencies, we have to have line of sight for those -- when those urgent issues, the infectious spreads are stopped. the only way we get

i was describing an nih funded study. no, no, you didn't cite. i was as i was describing, an nih funded study by cleveland clinic slamming my. please ask the witness to stop to ask me a question. reclaim. i allow. e to answer my question. slandering me on the exactly you're saying is dishonest and democrats slung every disgusting smear they could at them. >> watch. robert f kennedy jr. who peddles anti semitic tropes and baseless, xenophobic conspiracy theories which together are directed athi the jewish communitych and the chinese-american community is unbelievable. robert f kennedy jvablr. . is a is a living, breathing false flag operation. fal >> democrats were attacking rfsg jr here because earlier thise he week he cited a study claiming covid affected whites and blacks more than it did primsh and chinese. prime time doesn't know anything about that, but that's not the poinsn't knoat, but. we don't even know if rfk jrwe t believes that. >> we just know he cited decided a study and now democrats are calling him a racist anti-semite for citing

the nih announced an investment to run treatment studies for long covid. can you talk about that?> it's taken an awful long time. we've known about long covid two years. the fact that they are initiating treatment trials now is a problem. they should have gotten these underway sooner. they really wanted to be able to characterize what was going on with long covid. one of the problems is it seems like different things are going on. for some people that's probably a persistent virus and other people it is stimulation of the immune system and they wanted to know that before starting the trials. one trial is another course of paxlovid to see while after your initial case of covid, to see if that makes a difference. they are doing trials for people having problems with brain fog and cognitive problems, including trials of cognitive stimulation, a trial of a device that increases the brain blood flow. it'll be interesting to see. it'll be several months before we know of any of these work. at this point there really is no proven treatment for lung covid. kristen: the government is also