Republicans on the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic are discussing whether COVID-19 was the result of a weaponized virus and whether international organizations and even the U.S. intelligence community obfuscated evidence after the virus began to spread around the world.
The special panel investigating the virus origins met for its second hearing on Tuesday. At the hearing, lawmakers heard from former Director of National Intelligence (DNI) John Ratcliffe, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs David Feith, and intelligence analyst Mark Lowenthal.
U.S. intelligence assessments on the origins of COVID-19 remain inconclusive. The FBI and the U.S. Department of Energy have concluded with “moderate confidence” and “low confidence” respectively, that COVID-19 spread from a lab leak. Meanwhile, other intelligence agencies have given low-confidence support to the idea that the virus was the result of a natural jump from animals to humans.
Ratcliffe, who began serving as DNI in May of 2020, during the early stages of the U.S. COVID-19 response, testified (pdf) that “a lab leak is the only explanation credibly supported by our intelligence, by science and by common sense.”
Lowenthal, a witness called by the Democratic minority on the panel, testified (pdf) that “absent greater cooperation and transparency from China—which seems highly unlikely—we may never resolve [the issue of COVID-19’s origins] with certainty.”
Several Republicans on the panel indicated they are satisfied with the level of evidence thus far supporting the lab leak theory, which posits that an outbreak at the Wuhan Institute of Virology lead to the spread of COVID-19 around the world.
“That’s where the origin of [COVID-19] came from, that city and that lab, basically, that said, they were asking funds for gain of function research,” Rep. Rich McCormick (R-Ga.) told NTD News. “Natural conclusion: there’s no other alternatives. So, therefore, that’s where it came from.”
McCormick said the Chinese regime’s opposition to outside investigations of COVID-19’s origins also supports the theory that the virus was the result of dangerous experimentation with viruses.
“I mean, it’s pretty simple. If you have nothing to cover up, why are you covering it up?” McCormick said.
Was the Virus Weaponized?
Treating the lab origin theory as a given, McCormick went on to debate with himself whether the virus that leaked was being intentionally weaponized or whether scientists were experimenting for a more benign purpose
“I think it’s a high probability that it came from the Wuhan lab because of research [on] gain-of-function. Whether it was intentionally being weaponized, that’s more debatable and I don’t want to make jumps in that, because that really doesn’t help us come to our natural conclusion,” McCormick said.
McCormick said a lab-engineered virus should be treated with concern, regardless of whether it was meant to be weaponized, stressing “we need to take this seriously because it has dire consequences.”
When asked about the possibility that the Chinese regime intentionally weaponized the COVID-19 outbreak, Rep. Mike Cloud (R-Texas) repeated assessments that the regime hoarded protective equipment and delayed sharing information about the virus during the early stages of the virus outbreak.
“[Chinese officials] were not a partner in this at all, in helping relieve humanity from this scourge that occurred or was birthed, I guess, in their country,” Cloud said.
The Chinese Embassy in the United States criticized lawmakers for focusing on China ahead of the Tuesday hearing.
“According to the announcement, the hearing is to examine ‘China’s complicity in the COVID-19’ crisis and hold China accountable. We firmly oppose it,” Chinese Embassy Counselor Li Xiang wrote in an emailed statement to committee chairman Rep. Brad Wenstrup (R-Ohio) on Friday.
Rep. Greene Criticizes US Intel Community
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) criticized the U.S. intelligence community’s response to the virus and its lack of definitive answers on the origins of COVID-19.
“[The U.S. intelligence community] still won’t admit whether it came from the Wuhan lab or not. And I think we have a real problem in our intelligence community,” Green said. “They’re pretty much designed to protect the government that they serve, and I think their unwillingness to reveal the true information means that they’re helping cover up something.”
During the hearing, Lowenthal testified that intelligence analysts are often “asked to address issues for which there may not be a final definitive answer.”
“Analysts tend to live in a world where there may be several possibilities, each with its own degree of certainty and uncertainty,” Lowenthal added. “This can be very frustrating to policymakers who want an answer. Given the available intelligence and our own expertise, a specific answer cannot always be determined.”
Lowenthal also cautioned against intelligence issues becoming politicized.
“Intelligence may sometimes be discomforting and may even run counter to preferred policy preferences, but this does not mean that it is partisan or subjective,” Lowenthal said. “It becomes increasingly difficult for intelligence officers to do their best work when they are put under consistent partisan pressure or when they are consistently accused of being partisan.”
While Lowenthal pushed back on criticisms of the intelligence community’s lack of definitive answers on COVID-19, Feith said a “campaign to stigmatize and discredit the lab-leak explanation went into overdrive once President Trump publicly expressed interest in the subject on April 15.”
Feith condemned an April 30, 2020 statement from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), which said it “concurs with the wide scientific consensus that the COVID-19 virus was not manmade or genetically modified.”
“This statement was dubious at the time and is even more so in retrospect. There was no ‘wide scientific consensus,’ only the manufactured appearance of one,” Feith said of the ODNI statement. “In citing one, the IC used the authority of unnamed others as a shaky crutch. It also used slippery, undefined language.”