08/03/2022 / By Ethan Huff
To get to the bottom of where the Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) originated, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is set to co-lead the first ever congressional hearing on gain-of-function research.
Paul will be joined by Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.), who despite being a Democrat is apparently also curious about the origins of the Fauci Flu, which most certainly did not originate at a Wuhan wet market as was originally claimed by the media.
Scheduled to take place on August 3, the hearing comes as Republican scrutiny concerning the alleged virus is increasing. (Related: Remember when Rand Paul called for a “criminal referral” of Tony Fauci for causing the plandemic?)
According to reports, the hearing, entitled “Revisiting Gain-of-Function Research: What the Pandemic Taught Us and Where Do We Go from Here,” will be held by the Senate Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs Committee’s Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Spending Oversight, of which Paul and Hassan are ranking member and chair, respectively.
“Gain-of-function research has historically been supported by tax dollars both domestically and internationally; as such, this hearing lies at the intersection of the subcommittee’s two primary jurisdictional responsibilities – monitoring emerging threats and conducting oversight of federal spending,” reads a statement from Paul’s office.
After continued denial from the powers that be concerning the “lab leak” theory of covid’s origins, both the State Department and various experts have been leaking circumstantial evidence to show that the Chinese Virus was probably cooked up in a lab.
Tony Fauci and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) are directly responsible for funneling the money needed for covid’s creation, which appears to have been a co-endeavor by both the United States military industrial complex and communist China.
Gain-of-function research had previously been suspended by the NIH itself due to the dangers involved with it, but for some reason it was resumed in 2017 after Donald Trump was elected president.
“However, serious questions remain about whether that protocol is sufficient to protect the U.S. and the world from the potential negative consequences of this research,” the statement from Paul’s office further reads.
“Moreover, the debate over what gain-of-function research is and what it is not, is not settled.”
We know that Peter Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance “charity” is also heavily involved in the scandal, having siphoned money from American taxpayers to build the Chinese Flu and potentially other deadly bioweapons.
Paul recently introduced a bill to amend the $280 billion CHIPS Act, effectively banning the type of work that Daszak, Fauci and others are accused of doing once and for all.
“The move was objected to by Democrats, even though the Senate had previously unanimously agreed to the measure in a 2021 version of the bill,” notes The Epoch Times about the status of Paul’s bill.
“There’s a great deal of evidence that this pandemic arose out of the [Wuhan] lab,” Paul declared on the Senate floor the other day. “The emergence of COVID serves as a reminder that dangerous research conducted in a secretive and totalitarian country is simply too risky to fund.”
Among the witnesses who appeared at the last hearing in support of Paul’s position were Dr. Richard H. Ebright, the laboratory director at the Waksman Institute of Microbiology; Dr. Steven Quay, chief executive officer of Atossa Therapeutics, Inc.; and Dr. Kevin M. Esvelt, an assistant professor of Media Arts & Sciences of MIT Media Lab.
“I’m thankful it’s starting,” wrote a commenter at the Times about Paul’s efforts to unveil the truth. “Now, U.S. senators can define gain-of-function, not Fauci.”
The latest plandemic-related news can be found at Pandemic.news.
Sources for this article include:
Tagged Under:
big government, bioweapons, Censored Science, congressional hearing, conspiracy, corruption, COVID, Fauci, gain-of-function, Maggie Hassan, military-industrial complex, pandemic, Plandemic, Rand Paul, real investigations, research, science deception, science fraud
This article may contain statements that reflect the opinion of the author
COPYRIGHT © 2017 RESEARCH NEWS