Report from American elected officials on COVID: additional context

The release of the report of a special subcommittee of the American Congress on different aspects of the pandemic provokes strong reactions on social networks and in the media.

Some find it confirmation that vaccines were harmful, even though he says nothing of that. Others are convinced that SARS-CoV-2 was created in the laboratory, although the report provides no new evidence in this sense.

The subcommittee report concludes in particular that the virus causing COVID-19 has most likely emerged from a laboratory in Wuhan, China. He also alleges that the director of the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the time, Dr. Anthony Fauci, attempted to hide this information.

He also criticizes several of the actions of American institutions during the pandemic: government spending as well as the social and economic consequences of confinements – particularly with regard to school closures – are among the recurring themes.

The Republicans were in the majority within this subcommittee, and led it. The 520-page report was written under the direction of Republican Brad Wenstrup, chairman of the subcommittee.

However, Democratic members of this subcommittee reject some of the report’s conclusions (New window) and believe that the exercise failed to shed significant light on the questions it wanted to address.

This nuance is omitted from many of the discourses circulating about the report, often presented as being bipartisan. However, the Democratic members of the subcommittee published their own 57-page report on December 2 (New window)who criticizes the work of their Republican colleagues.

In their report, the Democrats accuse the Republicans of having abandoned the initial objective of the exercise, namely prevent and prepare for future pandemics. According to them, the Republican members rather wanted to advance their political agenda, which has contributed little to the essential work of anticipating future public health crises and saving lives in the future.

With these subcommittees, we are in classic parliamentary work, that of controlling government action.explains Julien Tourreille, researcher at the Observatory on the United States of the Raoul-Dandurand Chair.

The subcommittees are led by the party that has the majority in Congress, so right now it’s the Republican Party that has the ability to set their agenda.

The majority party can give the impetus on the subjects that we will deal with and on the people that we will invite. And in writing the report, they are the ones who hold the pen and can direct it. Because yes, these committees, sometimes, can be used for partisan purposes to try to support a speech made by the partyhe adds. The fact that it is politicized, that there is an angle, it is not surprising.

What does the report tell us about the origins of the virus?

The report alleges that SARS-CoV-2 is probably appeared due to a laboratory or research-related accident.

He cites in particular comments made by the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from 2018 to 2021, Robert Redfield, and the director of national intelligence from 2020 to 2021, John Ratcliffe. Both are long-time proponents of the lab leak thesis. The latter was also designated as the next director of the CIA by President-elect Donald Trump.

Reports from American agencies to this effect, including those of the FBI and the Department of Energy, are also mentioned.

The idea that the virus escaped from the Wuhan Institute of Virology is not new. It has already been the subject of numerous reports and in-depth investigations, notably by the show Discovery.

A journalistic article in the magazine Science (New window) analyzes however that the report offers no new direct evidence of a lab leak, but summarizes a circumstantial case. It relies on several testimonies that were heard during the congressional subcommittee hearings, not on new revelations.

The fact remains that at present, there is no scientific consensus on the origins of the virus and the report does not allow definitive conclusions to be reached.

This is also what Democrats on the subcommittee argue in their report, who point out that we may never get to the bottom of the story without greater transparency from China. Today, a zoonotic origin and a laboratory accident are both plausible, as is a ‘hybrid’ scenario reflecting a mixture of the twowe can read there.

The origin of the virus continues to be studied by many scientists and new information sometimes emerges. For example, an analysis (New window) presented last week at a virology conference in Japan revealed that some animals at the seafood market in Wuhan showed immune responses similar to those that would be provoked by a SARS-CoV-2 infection at the start of the pandemic.

What does the report say about Dr. Fauci?

The subcommittee report also addresses The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2an influential paper (New window) written by many virologists at the start of the pandemic. They maintained that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a deliberately manipulated virus.

The report indicates that The proximal origin was a order by Dr. Fauci in an attempt to discredit the lab leak thesis. During subcommittee hearings, two authors of the paper strongly denied (New window) that it was an order from Dr. Fauci, ensuring that the latter had no influence on its content.

That said, the idea that Dr. Fauci influenced The proximal origin is not from yesterday. Emails made public by The Information in January 2023 (New window) show that Dr. Fauci was heavily involved in discussions surrounding the paper and was kept informed of changes in his various drafts. However, there is no evidence that he launched the idea of ​​writing it or that he decided on its directions.

The report’s authors who spoke at the hearing insisted that Dr. Fauci was there to encourage open discussion and thorough investigation of the lab leak theory, not to sweep it under the carpet. carpet.

Open in full screen mode

What does the vaccine report say?

Although some commentators claim that the report lifts the veil on the ineffectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines, the report says quite the opposite.

We can read there that the vaccines were largely safe and effective and that they have played a crucial role in reducing the severity of COVID-19 symptoms. The Biden administration, however, is criticized for having exaggerated the vaccine’s ability to prevent infection and transmission.

The operation Warp Speeda $10 billion initiative launched by the Trump administration to accelerate the development and marketing of a vaccine, is applauded. Operation Warp Speed ​​was a great success and helped save millions of liveswe can read.

But the speed with which Pfizer’s vaccine was approved under Biden and the various vaccine mandate policies – which have caused more harm than good, according to the report – are then criticized.

The decision arbitrary of the Biden administration to offer booster doses of the vaccine to all Americans before health agencies have given their approval to such an initiative is also denounced.

Finally, the report criticizes the vaccine pharmacovigilance system in the United States, which would be insufficient and not transparentas well as the compensation program for vaccination victims, which would not have failed to manage a mass vaccination program.

The History of the COVID Subcommittee

The subcommittee on the coronavirus pandemic was originally created in April 2020 (New window). Initially, its aim was to ensure that taxpayer dollars are used wisely and efficiently in response to the pandemic and to assess the government’s preparedness and response to the crisis.

At the time, Donald Trump was president, Democrats had a majority in Congress, and Nancy Pelosi was Speaker of the House.

Republican representatives voted unanimously against the creation of the subcommittee (New window)believing that it was a partisan exercise that would serve to discredit President Trump.

When Republicans took control of Congress in 2023, they changed the direction (New window) of the subcommittee so that it examines in particular the origins of COVID-19 and the mandates concerning the wearing of masks and vaccination.

Reviewing government spending was also among his goals.