Untangling that Fiery Fauci-Paul Exchange

Anthony Fauci. Rand Paul. Round 2.

This week, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the Republican senator from Kentucky squared off once again during a public hearing — each accusing the other of lying about "gain-of function" research and whether the U.S. government ever funded it in Wuhan, China.

Managing Editor Lori Robertson and Science Editor Jessica McDonald looked at the exchange and explained what we know about gain-of-function research — a type of research the U.S. generally defined in 2014 as aiming to "increase the ability of infectious agents to cause disease by enhancing its pathogenicity or by increasing its transmissibility" — as well as the origins of SARS-CoV-2.

In short, there's quite a bit in dispute.

The Wuhan Institute of Virology did receive some money from a National Institutes of Health grant ($600,000), but the NIH and Fauci maintain the research done wasn't gain-of-function. Paul disagrees, and cited one scientist who is a critic of the research. There are differing opinions on what counts as gain-of-function research, and which experiments can yield valuable information on pathogens and which are too risky.

Paul also claimed that "all the evidence is pointing" to SARS-CoV-2  coming "from the lab." But as we've explained, there is no evidence linking the virus to the lab, just speculation. Many scientists with expertise in coronaviruses consider a lab escape unlikely and a natural spillover of the virus from an animal to a human the most likely scenario, based on the data we have so far.

Read the full story, "Fauci and Paul, Round 2." 

Reader: Instead of just answering a question or stating what you believe to be true, why don’t you state your source so we can do our own research? I never take what anyone says as truth. I like to do my own research and fact checking.

FactCheck.org Director Eugene Kiely: You ask, “why don’t you state your source so we can do our own research?” We do! It’s great that you want to do your own research and fact-checking. That’s why we provide hyperlinks to all the sources that we use in fact-checking. It allows our staff to fact-check our stories prior to publication, and it allows readers to do their own fact-checking of our report.

It’s true that our fact-checking articles — most of them, anyway — reach a conclusion on whether a claim is false, misleading or otherwise wrong. But we provide the information so you can draw your own conclusions. 

Wrapping Up

Here's what else we've got for you this week:

• "FactChecking Biden’s CNN Town Hall": President Joe Biden got some facts wrong and overstated others — including on the COVID-19 vaccines and automobile prices — during a CNN town hall event.
   
• "Debunking Trump’s Latest Arizona Election Claims": After a contractor hired by state Senate Republicans to look into the results of the 2020 Arizona election provided an update on its findings at a legislative hearing, former President Donald Trump issued a series of false and misleading statements about what it has uncovered.
   
• "Businessman’s Social Media Post Distorts Facts on Definition of a Pandemic": A businessman’s post on Instagram and Facebook wrongly claims that the U.S. government “changed the definition of pandemic” in 2004, suggesting that COVID-19 would not have qualified under the old definition. There’s no evidence for those claims — and COVID-19 is by all means a pandemic.
   
• "Photo Shows 2018 France World Cup Celebration, Not Vaccine Protest": Social media posts are misrepresenting an old photo from France by suggesting the sea of people in the streets shows “[p]eople are waking up against vaccine tyranny.” The photo actually shows a celebration in Paris after France won the 2018 World Cup.
   
• "CDC Data Contradict Julián Castro’s Texas COVID-19 Claims": Cases of COVID-19 are increasing in Texas, but it doesn’t have the "highest COVID positivity rate and case count in the nation" — contrary to what Democrat Julián Castro recently tweeted.
   
• "Mayim Bialik and Sons Got COVID-19 Vaccine": Actress and neuroscientist Mayim Bialik has expressed skepticism about vaccines in the past, but she says she and her two teenage children have received the COVID-19 vaccine. A Facebook post says Bialik “refuses to vaccinate,” leaving the false impression that she opposes COVID-19 vaccines.
   
• "Viral Posts Lift Bogus ‘Quarantine’ Story from Satire Site": A satire site a month ago published a joke about the Biden administration creating “quarantine camps” for the unvaccinated. Now that fabricated story is circulating online, presented as if it’s real.
   
• "More Trump Election Distortions": Former President Donald Trump offered two new distortions of the facts about election results in Georgia, a state where recounts showed he narrowly lost by 12,670 votes.

• "Afirmaciones infundadas surgen tras muertes de pilotos de aerolíneas inglesas e indias": Luego de las muertes de cuatro pilotos de British Airways y cinco de Air India, publicaciones en las redes sociales afirman sin pruebas que los pilotos murieron como resultado de recibir las vacunas contra el COVID-19. Air India dijo que sus pilotos fallecieron de COVID-19. British Airways dijo “no hay nada de cierto en las afirmaciones en las redes sociales que especulan que las cuatro muertes están vinculadas”.
   
• "Meme divulga falsedad sobre la variante delta": La variante delta del virus que causa el COVID-19 se propaga más rápido que el virus original y ha sido clasificada como una “variante preocupante” por la Organización Mundial de la Salud. Delta es ahora la variante dominante en Estados Unidos, pero un meme que ha es.
   
• "No hay nuevas revelaciones sobre la hidroxicloroquina y el COVID-19": Según conclusiones de ensayos controlados aleatorios, considerados como la evidencia más fidedigna, la hidroxicloroquina no es beneficiosa para tratar a pacientes hospitalizados por COVID-19. Sin embargo, mensajes en las redes sociales afirman que el medicamento funciona y medios conservadores promocionan un estudio observacional, no publicado aún y muy criticado, como evidencia de su efectividad.