Fauci denied funding gain-of-function research in Wuhan, but NIH's own deputy director admitted they did

During congressional testimony in May 2021, Dr. Anthony Fauci made an unequivocal statement about U.S. funding for coronavirus research in China. "The NIH has not ever and does not now fund gain-of-function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology," he told lawmakers. The assertion was categorical, leaving no room for ambiguity. At the time, it appeared to settle a contentious debate that had consumed media coverage and dominated discussions about the origins of COVID-19.

What followed was a familiar pattern: the claim was dismissed by mainstream outlets and health officials as misinformation, a conspiracy theory without credible basis. Critics of the narrative were accused of promoting unfounded speculation. The matter seemed closed.

Yet nearly a year later, the ground shifted. In testimony before Congress, Lawrence Tabak, the Deputy Director of the National Institutes of Health, made a different admission. The NIH, he confirmed, had indeed been funding gain-of-function research—just not directly. Instead, the agency had funneled money through an intermediary organization called EcoHealth Alliance, which then distributed grants to the Wuhan Institute of Virology. This distinction proved crucial and, to many observers, fundamentally changed the nature of Fauci's original statement.

The specifics matter here. Researchers at Wuhan, using NIH-supported funding, had created chimeric coronaviruses—genetic combinations of different viral strains. These engineered viruses reproduced far more rapidly in laboratory mice than their natural counterparts. By definition, this work fell squarely within what scientists classify as gain-of-function research: genetic modification designed to increase viral transmissibility or pathogenicity.

The federal government's own documents substantiated this finding. NIH materials revealed that EcoHealth Alliance's grant proposals explicitly described the creation of chimeric viruses and their enhanced replication rates in animal models. There was no ambiguity in the scientific literature or grant documentation—the work had been conducted, and it had been funded by American taxpayer dollars, routed through the NIH.