Whistleblower alleges COVID-19 coverup in Senate hearing

[0:00] that a laboratory leak was the most likely origin of COVID-19, and that those conclusions [0:05] were buried, softened, or withheld from Congress while the public was told to trust a different [0:11] story. [0:12] For years, Americans were told to trust the experts, trust the agencies, trust the intelligence [0:18] community, and trust the officials who assured us that they were following the science. [0:24] But the evidence before the committee tells a very different story. [0:27] They will expose a system in which a small circle of officials, scientists, grantees, [0:34] and intelligence advisors move from agencies to agency, meeting to meeting, briefing to [0:40] briefing, reviewing one another's work and shaping one another's conclusions and presenting [0:46] those conclusions to Congress and the public as if they were independent conclusions. [0:51] Only it was not independent, it was a circle. [0:55] One part of that circle is a body most Americans have never heard of, the Biological Sciences [1:00] Expert Group, known as BSEG, or the B Group. [1:05] BSEG operates under the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. [1:09] Its stated purpose is to give the intelligence community access to outside scientific experts [1:14] on biological threats. [1:17] Sounds reasonable, but not if those experts are not independent. [1:21] For example, Dr. Ralph Baric collaborated with Dr. Zhengli, Xi, and Wu Han to create gain-of-function [1:28] coronaviruses. [1:30] But Dr. Baric was also part of BSEG and an active consultant to intelligence agencies on [1:35] the origins of COVID-19 pandemic. [1:39] Likewise, Peter Daszak received hundreds of millions of dollars from the U.S. government [1:44] and worked with Dr. Xi also on these gain-of-function experiments. [1:48] Daszak was even sent to China with the WHO to investigate the origins of COVID. [1:55] So the very scientists that were commissioned to investigate COVID were, in some cases, the [2:01] very scientists who were complicit in the origins of the gain-of-function experiments that [2:06] may well have created COVID. [2:09] In essence, the intelligence community pays researchers to review work and write papers. [2:15] NIH funds their grants. [2:17] The CIA then consults them and gives them access to classified information. [2:22] The national academies publish their work. [2:25] Policymakers then cite the result as a consensus. [2:28] But it's a circle. [2:30] At the center of the government side of this circle was Dr. Anthony Fauci. [2:34] For years, Dr. Fauci was not merely a public health official speaking from the NIH. [2:40] He had a long-standing relationship with the national security and intelligence apparatus [2:45] on biological threats, dangerous pathogens, classified life sciences researches, pandemic [2:51] preparedness, and COVID origins. [2:53] Again and again, documents show him being brought into national security discussions far beyond [3:00] ordinary public health messaging. [3:03] During COVID, intelligence officials arranged for Dr. Fauci to review highly classified intelligence [3:08] assessments that could not even be sent outside the White House complex. [3:13] But how can Anthony Fauci objectively comment on a discussion of COVID origins when he approved [3:19] the very funding that may have caused the pandemic virus? [3:23] From the outset of the pandemic, Dr. Fauci shaped the conclusions. [3:30] He referred to the idea that the pandemic originating in the lab was a conspiracy. [3:36] That it was a conspiracy theory. [3:38] Dr. Fauci convened the now infamous February 1st, 2020 call. [3:44] Some scientists on that call privately raised serious concerns about a laboratory origin. [3:49] Yet ironically, those same scientists later co-authored the proximal origin paper, which publicly dismissed [3:56] the lab leak hypothesis. [3:58] One author received a $9 million grant from Dr. Fauci's own agency after he changed his opinion [4:05] from lab leak on the private phone call to natural origin in public. [4:10] At the same time, Dr. Fauci coordinated with the national academies on coronavirus origins and public-facing [4:16] messaging. [4:19] These were not independent experts reaching a consensus. [4:22] They were part of the same machine designed to reach the same conclusion. [4:28] The question is not whether the government may consult experts. [4:32] The question is whether those experts were independent, whether conflicts were disclosed, [4:37] whether dissenting views were preserved, whether the lab leak possibility was fairly evaluated, [4:44] and whether Congress and the American people received the truth or a curated result. [4:50] When Congress asked these questions, government officials lied to our face. [4:54] They classified the documents. [4:56] They suppressed the information. [4:58] They changed the definitions. [5:00] They invoked sources and methods. [5:02] They told Congress only what they wanted Congress to know. [5:06] In 2023, John Radcliffe, the former director of national intelligence, [5:11] testified before Congress with a stark warning. [5:14] He said a lab leak was the only explanation credibly supported by intelligence, science, [5:19] and common sense. [5:21] He warned that partisan politics and analyst disagreement with Trump administration policy, [5:28] Trump derangement syndrome, had created illegitimate roadblocks to the truth. [5:33] I agree. [5:34] He said the COVID-19 Origin Act, which Congress passed unanimously, [5:39] should finally make intelligence on COVID's origins public. [5:43] I couldn't agree more. [5:45] Despite a unanimously passed law, though, requiring the declassification of all information related [5:51] to COVID origins, the deep state still resists this congressional mandate. [5:57] Our witness today will explain what happened inside the CIA. [6:01] According to his testimony, CIA scientific analysts concluded multiple times between 2021 and 2023, [6:09] that a lab leak was the most likely origin of COVID-19. [6:13] Yet those conclusions never shaped the official narrative, never made the intelligence report. [6:19] Congress was never told. [6:20] It was not until after the 2024 election that the outgoing Biden administration directed the CIA [6:28] to issue an assessment, not because of new intelligence, but so officials could walk out of the [6:33] door claiming there was nothing left to find. [6:36] That is not analysis. [6:38] That is a cleanup operation. [6:41] This hearing is about more than one witness, one assessment or one agency. [6:46] It's about a federal apparatus that told the American people to trust the science [6:51] while hiding the machinery that shaped the science. [6:54] It's about an intelligence community that relied on outside experts whose conflicts were never disclosed. [7:02] It's about public health officials with access to intelligence that Congress has struggled to obtain. [7:09] It's about researchers and advisors cycling through grants, contracts, classified briefings, [7:14] federal service and advisory committees, and presenting the results as independent, even though they weren't. [7:21] The cover-up is not just about protecting one research grant. [7:24] It's about protecting an entire network of labs, grants, intermediaries, and bureaucratic architecture, [7:30] quietly engineered to outlast any moratorium, any congressional inquiry, and any election. [7:37] After millions died, children lost years of learning, small businesses were destroyed, [7:44] civil liberties were restricted, and dissenting Americans were censored and smeared. [7:49] The government owes its people the evidence. [7:53] Our witness is testifying publicly today at great personal risk. [7:57] He and other brave whistleblowers have come forward because the truth was being buried, [8:01] because government secrecy cannot become government impunity. [8:06] I want to acknowledge the Trump administration officials who made good on their commitment [8:11] to transparency and cooperated with this investigation. [8:14] Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy, Director of NIH Jay Bhattacharya, [8:21] Director of the National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, and former Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, [8:28] they set a standard. [8:29] I expect the rest of the administration to meet it. [8:32] We owe the American people a complete record. [8:35] We owe every family harmed by this pandemic a government that does not hide behind secrecy, [8:41] conflicts, and curated science when the stakes are life and death in public starting today. [8:48] I want to note for the record that Mr. Erdman is appearing today pursuant to a subpoena issued by [8:58] this committee on May 5, 2026. This is a public hearing. The witness is a current CIA employee and has [9:06] previously provided testimony to the committee in a classified setting. If a question calls for [9:12] classified information, or if the witness believes any answer may implicate classified information, [9:17] the witness should advise the committee before answering, and the committee will address the [9:21] matter through the appropriate procedures. The transcript of the witness's prior classified [9:27] deposition has not been finalized and has not completed classification review. Members and the witness [9:33] should not quote from, characterize, or seek confirmation of deposition testimony that may contain [9:38] classified information in this public setting. It is the practice of this committee to swear in the witness. [9:46] Will you please stand and raise your right hand? Do you swear that the testimony you will give before [9:53] this committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? So help you God. [9:58] Thank you. You may be seated. James E. Erdman III is a CIA senior operations officer. He's a decorated [10:11] officer with decades of intelligence and national security experience. Before joining the CIA in 2013, [10:18] he served with the 2nd Battalion 75th Ranger Regiment and as a foreign services officer at the [10:23] Department of State. He recently completed a joint duty assignment with the Office of the Director of [10:29] National Intelligence Director Initiatives Group. Mr. Erdman holds a Bachelor of Science in Biology with a [10:35] minor in Chemistry from Western Oregon University and has received the Director of National Intelligence [10:41] National Intelligence Award and the CIA Intelligence Medal of Merit. Mr. Erdman, you are recognized for [10:48] your opening statement. Good morning, Chairman Paul and other members of the Oversight Committee. [10:58] Thank you for the complimentary introduction and I appreciate the committee's dedication to [11:04] transparency and accountability. I am a career CIA operations officer and as you mentioned, I was on [11:14] joint duty assignment at the Office of Director of National Intelligence Directors Initiatives Group or the [11:19] DIG between March 2025 and April 2026. I was responsible for leading the DIGS investigation into COVID origins, anomalous [11:30] health incidents, and unidentified anomalous phenomena. I'm here today to discuss the COVID cover-up, the national [11:43] security implications associated with the DIGS investigative findings, and CIA refusal to comply with lawful [11:50] oversight as well as how we remedy these problems. Intelligence community leaders and senior analysts downplayed the [12:00] possibility that the COVID pandemic originated as a result of a lab incident. Motives are difficult to [12:08] define given the scope of the DIGS review. Intentional or not, the IC's actions resulted in a cover-up, wasted resources, [12:19] and a failure to properly inform policy makers. Public health policy would have been very different had the [12:27] American public been made aware that a virus from a lab in China was going to serve as the foundation for an [12:35] emergency use authorization mRNA products being mandated by the former administration. Dr. Fauci's role in the [12:49] cover-up was intentional. Dr. Fauci influenced the analytical process and findings by leveraging his [12:56] position to ensure the IC consulted with a conflicted list of curated subject matter experts, public health [13:05] health officials, and scientists. This included some of the authors of the paper, The Proximal Origin of [13:12] SARS-CoV-2, and other public health experts who have been in his orbit for the last 20-plus years. Some of the [13:20] scientists were part of the Biological Sciences Experts Group, or the BSEG, an office of the Director of [13:28] National Intelligence Advisory Body whose members often received considerable funding from NIAID and public [13:35] health agencies. The BSEG scientists influenced national laboratory WMD research, policy decisions, [13:47] finished analysis, and other intelligence matters, creating misaligned incentives and conflicts of [13:54] interest, as well as counterintelligence issues. Since 2006, the BSEG consulted part-time on biodefense [14:06] issues for the IC while conducting government-funded research and holding academia positions, [14:13] as well as maintaining roles in public health institutions, and serving as members in the [14:17] National Academy of Science. They received funding from NIAID and other agencies for vaccine research, [14:26] USAID's PREDICT project, the cooperative threat reduction program, and even worked with Chinese [14:32] scientists on coronavirus and other pathogen studies pursuing vaccines. There was no oversight [14:44] monitoring how this web of relationships influenced research, policy, and public health in any holistic way [14:52] for over 20 years. In fact, several of the BSEG scientists helped Dr. Fauci rewrite definitions of [14:59] gain-of-function in 2015 to lift a funding pause on dangerous research. Still others participated in [15:06] event in planning event 201 in 2019. This was a coronavirus pandemic tabletop exercise, curiously [15:14] similar to the events that played out during the COVID-19 pandemic, and it was attended by Dr. Fauci [15:20] and individuals with IC ties like former DNI Avril Haines. The CIA and DNI analytic managers responsible [15:31] for examining the origin of COVID made decisions inconsistent with the conclusions of subject matter experts and [15:39] analytical tradecraft, consistently favoring the theory of zoonosis or natural origin. Following the CIA's [15:48] COVID relook that culminated in 2023, the CIA retaliated against analysts supporting the lab leak [15:55] hypothesis. CIA analysts were not bribed. The analysts that supported the 2023 lab leak conclusion took every [16:10] administrative measure available to them to address their deep concerns regarding the analytic integrity of [16:17] their finished intelligence. CIA managers retaliated against them for their refusal to agree with [16:26] management's middle-of-the-night anonymous rewrite of the analysis, which changed the assessment to a [16:33] non-call judgment. Dr. Anthony Fauci's influence over the IC's COVID origin analysis and the witting and [16:46] unwitting role some BSEG scientists and IC personnel played in the cover-up exposed why this issue is of deep concern. [16:54] Failure to address the United States government's inability to differentiate between public health and [17:01] biodefense and the oversight resistant ecosystem of life science actors has been fertile ground for [17:09] increasingly dangerous continental United States gain-of-function research as well as similar research conducted in [17:16] U.S. government-supported labs abroad. Post-9-11 changes in public health and biodefense roles and [17:26] responsibilities have blurred the lines between scientists, the military, the intelligence community. It has [17:34] resulted in a deliberately opaque and excessively redundant biodefense research policy and financial [17:41] infrastructure seemingly intended to escalate bureaucratic bloat. This is a national security crisis caused by the [17:50] inability to provide real oversight. The systematic failures associated with muddled boundaries between [18:03] biodefense and public health and an overly complex infrastructure have been exacerbated by documented [18:10] efforts to circumvent oversight. CIA did not comply with lawful oversight during the digs investigation. [18:18] The behavior significantly impacted Director Gabbard's implementation of several EOs issued during this [18:25] administration and tasked to the dig. The CIA refused to provide information necessary to understand why [18:33] analytical standards at the CIA were violated. The CIA illegally monitored the computer and phone usage [18:43] of dig personnel, their investigations, and contact with whistleblowers. These were Americans being spied upon [18:52] illegally while executing duties directed by the President and under the authority of the Director of National [18:58] National Intelligence. One CIA contractor assisting with the digs investigation into the events that transpired [19:06] between 2022 and 2023 was fired by the CIA one day after meeting with the dig. When the dig ceased operations, [19:21] the CIA also took back 40 boxes of JFK files and MKUltra files being processed for declassification by DNI Gabbard. [19:32] The legislative and executive branches will continue to be misinformed if this type of behavior is not [19:39] addressed. The partial partial solution to dangerous gain of function has already been laid out in Executive [19:46] Order 14292, Improving the Safety and Security of Biological Research. We need a comprehensive review of [19:55] government-funded life science research and a move back to pre-9-11 definitions of gain of function and WMD [20:02] research, particularly in the IC and DHS. More broadly, we need effective oversight. We must hold [20:14] agencies responsible for failure to comply with Executive Order 14292 and oversight must have teeth. [20:21] You must be willing to pull the purse strings and, if necessary, convene another church committee. [20:28] The results of our investigation would have been impossible without whistleblowers willing to come [20:42] forward. They are indispensable agents for reform. Despite statutory law, agency regulation, and training [20:57] requirements, whistleblowers are almost never protected. Whistleblower protections always seem to [21:06] protect the agency. Every time the CIA investigates itself, they coincidentally find no wrongdoing. [21:13] When they do identify issues, they hold the system responsible. That last statement is a verbatim [21:22] response from a Europe and Eurasia Mission Center lawyer when the CIA Office of Inspector General did [21:29] identify shortcomings so serious, oversight bodies were holding meetings about it three years after [21:35] the events transpired. It was in response to the question, was anyone held accountable? Apparently, [21:46] the system is good enough. The only way we solve this issue is with real accountability for failure to [21:56] comply with Executive and Legislative Branch oversight and an escape valve where whistleblowers can [22:03] continue to contribute to mission free from retaliation. All IG elements need to be removed from the [22:11] agencies and fall under a separate entity controlled by the IC Inspector General. The personnel in IG elements [22:19] should be 1811 certified with regular DOJ and Legislative Oversight Reporting responsibilities. [22:28] Thank you. And my written written statement provides far more details related to these issues. I look [22:34] forward to your questions. Thank you, Mr. Erdman. Is it your testimony that there is still resistance from [22:41] the CIA to comply with the law we passed to declassify all the COVID information? Yes. One of the things that [22:54] I think is new today that I'm hearing from your testimony is that from an early period of time, [23:00] you believe in the information you're aware of, is that CIA scientists from an early time after the pandemic began, [23:09] 2020, 2021, were concluding that the lab leak was the most likely hypothesis? Yes, Senator. I'd like to offer some [23:21] qualifications on that as well. A lot of the issues occurred at the interagency space. At the National Intelligence [23:31] Council, the individuals responsible for conducting or writing WMD analysis. And many of those individuals [23:40] are on JDA from the CIA. But yes, very early, as early as 2020, there were agencies within the IC [23:51] circulating papers that said, hey, there's, for example, DOE circulated a paper in May of 2020 [23:59] that said that all the conditions were present for a lab leak. And I could go through the timeline. [24:07] But yes, my short answer is yes, periodically throughout 2020, all the way to 2024. Yes. [24:15] I think the arguments, you know, pro and con for what is the evidence on whether this came from a lab or [24:19] came from nature are still important. So for years, we've been asking the CIA to produce the scientists, [24:25] either in a classified setting or a public setting to discuss the arguments. I don't see any reason why [24:31] the arguments should be classified. You know, one of the arguments that's made publicly is that [24:36] the source looks like it came from a single source of RNA, not like five different types of viruses or 20 [24:43] different types, like you had with SARS 2003, but it came from one source. And virtually everybody argues [24:49] that sort of indicates a lab and not a nature. And so those arguments are important scientific arguments [24:55] to have. But we've been prevented from having them. We've been preventing from getting all of the [25:00] declassified information. But what I think is of importance that's new today is that your testimony [25:08] is that the CIA scientists were concluding that it was lab. But then with this, there was a 90 day study [25:15] in 2021. And this study was done by NIC led by NIC. Tell us what NIC is again. It's the National [25:22] Intelligence Council and individuals responsible for writing various WMD and and bio related issues. [25:31] So when they had this study, they had CIA scientists telling them, look, the evidence, [25:36] the scientific evidence looks like it came from the lab. But then they brought in Anthony Fauci. [25:40] And is it your opinion that Anthony Fauci was able to overrule the scientist or get NIC to conclude [25:49] somehow that there wasn't a conclusion to be at here, we're going to be neutral, contradicting what [25:54] the scientists were telling them? So there's two questions there. And I want to break them up into two. [25:59] One is, where were the injection points Dr. Anthony Fauci? Where did Dr. Anthony Fauci and when did he inject [26:06] himself into the IC? And the other half of that question, if I'm, if I'm, and I don't want to [26:11] extrapolate too much here is, okay, what happened with, with why was there a change in analysis? [26:17] So I'll start with the, if it's okay, Dr. Paul, Senator, I'll start with Dr. Anthony Fauci. [26:24] There were two instances on three February 2020 and four June 2021. Anthony Fauci had contact with the [26:32] interagency. And what, how to sort of broadly generalize this is that that contact was happily [26:42] pursued within the IC. They wanted that contact. And he provided a curated list of subject matter [26:50] experts, which coincidentally wrote the proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2. So it's, it's not like he came [26:56] in and said, you have to do X, Y, and Z, provided recommendations. It's when you look at, when you [27:03] look at, uh, what has already been publicly released about, uh, Dr. Fauci, and then what you're seeing [27:09] under the curtain at the IC, where you realize, okay, there is a narrative that was being generated [27:14] by his contact, not just with experts here in the United States, but experts in Australia and the UK. [27:21] And that's the public facing piece. And, you know, he, he tries to, he had tried to sort of keep his [27:26] hands clear of, I, I didn't, I didn't have anything to do with the proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2. [27:31] But in the meantime, he's pushing those authors and individuals that have been in his orbit [27:37] into the IC as experts. And, uh, I'll jump to, to June, 2021. We, we, as the IC at the NIC, [27:47] um, happily pursued those recommendations. And, um, in one email, which I'll describe to you, [27:55] um, the person in charge of, of leading the 90-day study, um, you know, he introduced himself to the [28:02] community that, uh, on what they, on what they were supposed to be doing. And then, um, the community [28:09] said, he said, listen, we've got these people we should be talking to. And, uh, another very senior [28:15] NIC officer sent a direct email to him saying, hey, considering that Dr. Fauci is a public health [28:20] expert, are you sure we should be relying on this? Shouldn't we, shouldn't we have a separate set? [28:28] And in this instance, the, the individual responded, no, in this case, um, Dr. Anthony Fauci is a subject [28:35] matter expert. However, that's directly contradicting his public testimony of being a subject matter. [28:40] Part of the job in intelligence when you interview someone is assessing their truthfulness, their, um, [28:47] potential biases or conflicts of interest. Did anyone ever bring up that Anthony Fauci approved [28:53] the research that went on in Wuhan and that it might not be in his interest for the conclusion [28:58] to be that it came from a lab that he had funded? That there might be a conflict? Did anybody ever [29:03] bring up that he might not be an objective witness? That was one example of an email. No one laid it [29:08] out quite that clearly. You're piecing it together. We were piecing it together from multiple emails, [29:14] from multiple agencies, multiple documents. It was, it was, it was more subtle than that. Nobody [29:20] said this is happening. And unfortunately, I think they probably should have. It was all, [29:24] it was all out there. But your conclusion is that, um, changing from the scientific consensus [29:32] of it being from a lab to a neutral position by the CIA was significantly influenced by Anthony Fauci? [29:38] It was significantly influenced by Anthony Fauci's, uh, injecting himself into the IC. And to go to the [29:46] second part of your question about what happened, uh, particularly during the 90-day study, uh, we have [29:51] documentation, uh, that shows that as of August 12th, uh, the CIA was considering calling this a lab leak, [30:00] August 12th of 2021. And then, um, that changed on August 17th of 2021. Right. And unfortunately, [30:07] because the CIA would not provide us documentation that we asked for, we, we can't, we have no idea [30:12] why that changed. And that, that's sort of essential. And they weren't alone because we know the FBI [30:16] was coming to the same conclusion that it was lab leak as well as, um, the FBI. Uh, Senator Ernst? [30:23] Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Really appreciate you being here today. Um, I know that this has been a, [30:32] a topic for many of us for many years and we continue to get pushback from the federal government [30:39] as we're trying to uncover, uh, the truth to this matter. Um, for years, folks who discussed a [30:46] possible COVID lab origin were dismissed as conspiracy theorists. They were censored. Um, [30:54] some were even fired from their jobs. If there was or is a conspiracy, then U S government officials [31:03] and U S funded scientists keeping secret should be publicly questioned under oath about what they knew [31:10] and when they knew it. But U S funded scientists somehow are still protected from being questioned [31:17] publicly, even though they received millions of taxpayer dollars from NIH, DHS, DOE, and DOD. And look, [31:27] folks, um, I've long warned about a potential government cover cover up of the truth, which our [31:34] brave witness again, thank you, Mr. Erdman, uh, has confirmed to us today. I've called for answers [31:41] from Dr. Ralph Baric, an expert virologist who showed the intelligence community in January [31:47] 2020 before the American people knew about the pandemic that quote, we may be on the verge of [31:55] a global pandemic and quote, yet nothing was done to share this information with the American people. [32:02] I exposed that the Wuhan lab received $1.4 million in federal funds fought to cut off every single [32:09] cent flowing to that lab. And I won on this for the taxpayers. And I haven't backed down from fighting [32:16] for more information on the true COVID origins. And yet Congress is still here six years later, [32:24] begging agencies to share answers and for committees to make relevant documents public. [32:30] We are tired of Washington cover ups. And if they aren't our screw ups here in the U S, why would the U S [32:37] government cover up for the CCP and other countries? So Mr. Erdman, Americans would have been angry to learn [32:46] in early 2020 that their government may have played a role in COVID-19's creation. Would you say such [32:53] thinking influenced the intelligence community to suppress a lab leak origin theory? I would say [33:02] that there, there's evidence in the emails, uh, that it was part of the calculus. I wouldn't say, [33:09] so it's, it's, it's very difficult. It's more subtle. There's sort of a zeitgeist that runs underneath [33:17] the analysis. And I'll, I'll, I'll provide a conversation I had with one of our whistleblowers. [33:23] And I asked, and he, this individual was, is an incredibly talented scientist. And I said, I asked that [33:32] individual, why don't you, why don't you actually go forward, go public? There's, there's a lot of reasons [33:38] not to do that. There's a whole bunch. His comment was, um, nobody wants, uh, the lab, nobody wanted the [33:48] lab leak conclusion. And, um, I'm concerned that there's too many people willing to make excuses [33:55] for China in this organization for the wrong reasons. Um, that, that's, that was pervasive. [34:05] And so the individuals we talked to, um, they never said, you know, one for one, you know, it's because [34:14] they disliked the sitting president or they were, they were, uh, trying to cover up like managers [34:21] were trying to cover up for China, but it was a pervasive, uh, undercurrent is how they described it. [34:28] And I think, I think to answer your question, um, there's certainly, uh, re reluctance to, uh, [34:39] reluctance to provide information that would be geopolitically destabilizing or provide ammunition, [34:48] ammunition for, um, actions that maybe they thought would be unwise. Did I answer your question, [34:55] Senator? Yes, you did. And it's, it's troubling to hear that there's an undercurrent of making excuses [35:01] for China as well. Um, I, deeply troubling. Um, we spend millions of dollars to have an early warning [35:09] intelligence system. And yet today I'm hearing the system may have been alerted, um, but no one was [35:16] acting on the information. Uh, do you think that's an accurate statement? I can't speak to the health [35:23] agencies. I can say that the IC was certainly where, um, early on that, that looked like there might be [35:28] an issue. And so the intelligence that had come in, I don't think they sat on it. I don't think [35:34] they sat on the intelligence. Now that speaks to maybe, uh, a broader issue with the interaction [35:41] between IC elements and non-IC elements. Maybe there's, there's some improvements that could be [35:46] made there, but I, I didn't see the IC sitting on information, uh, extraordinarily long. Okay. It could [35:52] have been, um, agencies then extraneous to the IC. Right. And, and, you know, the bureaucracy is real. [36:00] I mean, it, there's, it's just every day sometimes feels like a fight just to get simple things done. [36:05] And that's just part of working in a large organization. So I'm not making excuses. I'm [36:10] just saying from the intelligence perspective, um, I think they identified fairly quickly that this might [36:16] be an issue. And with this as an issue, uh, typically we go back, we do after action reviews. [36:24] Do you think this is something that the U S government has learned from? Uh, I see you grimace. [36:31] Maybe share a little bit about that because if this is a system wide, across a federal government, [36:38] you know, how do we stop this from happening again? What lessons have we learned from this? If any, [36:43] um, you're still coming forward as a whistleblower. Uh, so what have we taken away from this and, [36:49] and how do we prevent this from happening in the future? Whether it's, you know, the spread of a [36:54] pandemic or, you know, what happened within the agency? So I really don't want to go beyond IC too [37:02] much because I'm not part of like the health establishment. I'm not, I'm not in that organization, [37:06] but part of the reason the dig was pulled together as a task force. It was a temporary tool to, [37:14] to perform something like an after action review and get at the bottom of what happened. [37:20] And if you're asking me, did we learn anything? Well, the problem is, um, we did not receive support [37:27] from the CIA in terms of, and I, I've documented in my transcribed interview and I don't want to go [37:32] into the specifics of that, but there were very specific lists of information we needed so that [37:38] we could put into context what happened. Um, and so no, I don't think we've learned [37:44] our lesson when it comes to, uh, transparency and reform. Um, we didn't get the documents we needed. [37:51] Senator, your, your committee issued, uh, what was it, uh, 14 subpoenas in January of 2025 [37:58] requesting documents. And Director Gabbard did her absolute best to try and force the IC to start [38:04] producing these documents. And they, a bunch of them got sent over to ODNI, and, but we still didn't get all of [38:10] them. Like, and, and so what I'll say is, like, we, we did not get the documents we needed from the CIA, [38:18] State INR, um, and so the lessons in terms of the transparency and reform, I don't think those occurred. [38:26] And they can only occur, and they can only occur if we actually do a, a full review of what happened [38:32] during COVID. And again, there's a, there's a fair question. How long do you want to be backwards [38:38] leaning looking at COVID? That's a fair question. You, you only have limited resources, limited time, [38:42] limited personnel. And we have limited experts that work within the CIA, and they've got forward [38:49] facing threats. The reason COVID is so important is because what we did find is that there is a [38:59] much larger meta problem sitting on top of COVID. Um, the fact that we have these, these scientists, [39:06] and again, I'm not vilifying any of these, these scientists we contracted in to come to the IC, [39:12] we desperately need their, their expertise. And so when we invite them in, we're inviting them in [39:19] because we want their help. And so we need them. But those same scientists, it's this ecosystem that, [39:25] that has a lot of money involved. You've got, they're involved with the National Academy of Science, [39:32] for example, some of them. And you know, National Academy of Science also helps with our WMD policy [39:39] for the US government. Unfortunately, the National Academy of Science also has a great number of [39:45] Chinese researchers that co-publish. And so if we're not careful, we're going to have Chinese [39:51] researchers helping us draft US WMD policy. That's not a good thing. You've got the counter threat [39:58] reduction program that involves some of these IC scientists. And once you start cross pollinating [40:03] like that, being able to tease out and really provide proper oversight becomes so, so difficult. [40:10] And you're talking about also multiple funding streams from multiple different places. It's a [40:16] very complex problem. COVID, we need the AAR, so that we, and it already pointed to the bigger [40:23] problem. So maybe that's enough. Great. But we need that. Thank you, Mr. Erdman. Thank you, [40:27] Mr. Chair. Senator Ernst, one thing I would interject [40:30] as far as lessons from my perspective is the scientists overseeing gain of function research [40:36] can't be the scientists receiving the money. Right. [40:39] So we voted last year on the Risky Research Review Act. It would be a presidential commission, [40:44] but the scientists that oversee gain of function would not be receiving NIH grants. Part of it is that [40:49] Fauci had a fiefdom, this enormous fiefdom, and he was controlling the funds. But then there was a danger of [40:55] that he doles it out to people who agree with him. And I think that was happening. [40:58] Senator Moreno. Point well taken. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [41:02] Mr. Erdman, first of all, thank you for your service to our nation in the past, current, and future. [41:08] Quick question for you, because I've obviously never been in the CIA. Is it easy to be a whistleblower? [41:15] Is it easy to kind of think about, hey, I'm going to go outside the normal chain of command, [41:20] or does it come with personal risk, career risk, et cetera? [41:22] Mr. Erdman, I do not believe whistleblower protections are sufficient to protect whistleblowers. [41:30] So it's not easy. So it's not easy for you to be here, especially you're serving now today. [41:33] What is your reaction when you look at the diocese and you see that there's not a single [41:37] solitary Democrat member here to listen to your testimony? How does that make you feel? [41:41] Mr. Erdman, my goal in being here is threefold. You know, I want to talk about COVID. [41:49] I get that, but I'm saying... [41:50] Mr. Erdman, I wish they were there. I wish they were there. [41:53] You're taking personal risk. You're serving the country. You're not partisan. [41:57] This is not about politics, but somehow it's become about politics because the Democrats [42:02] don't even want to hear the conversation about what obviously was a grave error that this country [42:07] made during COVID. And unlike previous situations, there's never been a situation, certainly not in [42:13] my lifetime, where you had decisions made that affected generations of America, of Americans, kids [42:19] that were absolutely deprived of their childhood, businesses that were destroyed, families that [42:25] were torn apart, memories that you'll never get back, trillions of dollars of economic loss. [42:31] We should at least have a conversation that isn't partisan. And yet, just for the record, [42:37] there's not a single solitary Democrat senator that's willing to sit in this chamber and listen [42:43] to your testimony. I think that's an outrage and an insult to people like you. [42:46] So I'm going to bring a little more levity to what I just said. Back in June of 21, you talked about [42:52] that, which is interesting. June of 21. I remember June of 21 as something that came up during a comedy [42:59] show. I'm not somebody who listens to Stephen Colbert, but he had Jon Stewart on. And he said, [43:05] I'm paraphrasing Jon Stewart. I will not deliver it with the same kind of comedic punch. But it said, [43:11] oh my god, there's been an outbreak of chocolatey goodness near Hershey, Pennsylvania. What do you [43:17] think happened? Like, oh, I don't know. Maybe the steam shovel mated with a cocoa bean. Or it's maybe [43:23] the expletive deleted chocolate factory. Maybe that's it. And simple joke talking about, or maybe the [43:30] simplest solution is maybe the virus leak happened from the virus lab in the city of Wuhan. Or maybe [43:38] this chain of events of animals mating to each other all over the world resulted in this virus. [43:44] What ended up happening is that Jon Stewart was immediately tortured. The Washington Post called [43:50] his joke a dangerous weapon of propaganda. They called them conspiratorial. And he got massive [43:59] personal backlash. That was in June of 21. So does it turn out that the chocolatey goodness came from [44:05] the chocolate factory in Hershey, Pennsylvania? Yeah. Just as Director Ratcliffe said in 2020, [44:13] it sure looks like the chocolatey factory is actually where the chocolate came from. [44:17] Yeah. And in fact, it's funny that we're all sitting here today because in that same torture of [44:23] Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert said that maybe Jon Stewart was somehow a spy of Senator Johnson. [44:32] Because Senator Johnson was the one Senator that was saying this from the very beginning, [44:38] has continued to hold that accountability. And I applaud Senator Johnson for his absolutely [44:44] relentless pursuit of the truth in all of this. But let me just spend the last few minutes here [44:50] talking to you about something that you mentioned, which is near and dear to my heart. And I think all [44:55] these hearings are important. What you said is super critical. And again, I applaud you for taking and [45:01] having the courage to come here and your detailed and methodical review of all this. But where's the [45:07] accountability? This is what I hear from my constituents all over Ohio. It's like, great, [45:13] you got a hearing, you said this, and that happened. But they want to see the perp walks. Where are the [45:19] people who made these decisions? And where, how do we hold them accountable? Anthony Fauci is sitting, [45:26] probably sipping margaritas somewhere, with his multimillion dollar financial success as a result of [45:33] duping the American people into putting an experimental virus and a vaccine into their bodies, [45:39] or risk losing their jobs. He's not accountable to anybody. He's having a great life. He was featured [45:45] on Vogue magazine. He sat there for a cover shot for a day, trying to get beauty shots of him, which I [45:51] imagine the photographer found difficult. Where do you think, where do you think we are on a path to [45:56] accountability? So I don't work at DOJ. And so I can't speak to prosecutions or perp walks or any of [46:03] that stuff. But what I'll say is, and I want to go back to the first thing you mentioned here about [46:09] the American public, I think, and this is my opinion, I'm not expressing myself as a CIA officer, [46:16] or on loan to DNI, whatever it is. I think we really want both Democrats and Republicans to show up [46:24] and communicate and cooperate on issues. Because part of the most important, and you all know this, [46:31] I'm sorry, legislative branch, they have some power of oversight. You guys are not, you can't make DOJ [46:42] prosecute anybody. You can reach across the aisle, and you can try and get these people to pull the [46:49] purse strings when agencies are behaving poorly. And you know, from my perspective, and I don't mean to [46:58] criticize anyone, we need the legislative branch to start pulling purse strings. It's got to be with [47:05] teeth if you want accountability. And this is perfect. This forum here is perfect. It's about [47:11] the transparency piece. You can't act unless people know. On the accountability side, I can tell you [47:18] that Director Gabbard is doing her best to pursue accountability with all of the investigations that [47:24] were undertaken by the DIG. And you know, we can serve everything up, and it's up to DOJ to take action at [47:32] that point. And I can't speak to DOJ, but yeah. No, I understand that. And I think what the American [47:39] people would even expect at a minimum is just an apology. An apology for putting the country through [47:45] this, not giving the proper information. I think that would go a long way. But certainly there was [47:50] clearly bad actors. Mr. Chairman, you talked about the conflicts of interest. The way you described it [47:55] is very nice, but ultimately it's corruption. I mean, when somebody's getting paid to give an opinion [48:01] that's not fact-based and that leads to personal gain, that's just flat-out corruption. And what [48:07] makes America unique is that we don't allow that kind of corruption in our government. And so I think [48:12] ultimately where this all has to land is there has to be explicit accountability for individuals who [48:20] profited off of the misinformation, the shaming of Americans, and the systematic destruction of lots [48:27] and lots of things in this country. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [48:30] Thank you, Senator. Senator Johnson. [48:33] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And another excellent hearing. [48:38] I feel your pain and frustration in terms of trying to do oversight investigation and [48:44] issuing subpoenas that are not responded to, certainly not in full, barely responded to generally. [48:50] What responses we get are generally non-responsive responses, just a bunch of bureaucratic gobbledygooks. [48:55] So again, I appreciate your efforts, though. Mr. Erdman, I appreciate you coming forward. [49:03] One thing I know as former chairman of the full committee and now as the chairman of the [49:08] department of subcommittee investigations is we do not protect whistleblowers. We have [49:12] laws dating back over 100 years, and the government is the worst offender in terms of retaliating [49:20] against whistleblowers, even though there's all kinds of these legal protections. So I appreciate you doing [49:24] this. I'll also note, because nothing shocks me anymore with our colleagues from the other side [49:31] of the aisle, but I'm shocked that not one of them showed up here. I think one showed up to [49:37] register his attendance and then gone. I agree with you. It is well past time for us to have a church [49:44] committee. We're not going to get bipartisan support for a church committee. There's no curiosity on [49:51] the other side about what's happening inside the deep state. And that's really my question. Who is running [49:57] the deep state? I've got example after example in agency after agency. Very legitimate oversight [50:06] requests. I subpoena documents. You don't get squat. Now, I asked for your testimony last night, [50:16] and I realized and I really appreciate the fact that the committee staff and chairman Paul is very [50:22] very concerned about retaliation against you. Apparently, they didn't clear your testimony here [50:26] with the CIA. Is that true? No. So you're appearing as a real as a true whistleblower, [50:33] publicly right off the bat. I'll do and I'm sure Senator Paul and staff will do everything we can to [50:38] prevent retaliation. What is your game plan after this? You're done with the the in D&I and the DIG [50:46] organization. What do you plan going back to CIA? I returned to CIA on was it April? I'm back at CIA. I [50:53] just took a couple weeks vacation after the it was a long year and I was tired. So I took some time off. [50:58] So were you welcome back? I just I just arrived and I'm I've got a desk and I'm [51:05] they're talking to me about what comes next. I mean, do you have any concerns about me keeping this? [51:10] Because originally we said you can't keep this after the the hearing, but it sounds like now I can keep [51:15] it. I mean, do you have a concern? Because again, I don't want to harm you in terms of what you've [51:18] written here. I've had a chance to go through it yet. You can keep it. Okay. Should we distribute this [51:23] publicly? Please hold on that. For the time being, I will. You know, John Radcliffe was very helpful [51:32] when he was in that position, you know, at D&I. Now he's director of the CIA. What is preventing the [51:44] CIA from totally cooperating with with the D&I? I don't know. What would you say you've been in the [51:52] CIA? Who's running this show? Here's what I'll say. We had requests. We have a formal process that we [52:01] sent those requests over and I detailed in the transcribed interview the dates and what those [52:05] requests were for. There was it appeared to be bureaucratic slow rolling until the government [52:12] shutdown happened. That is that is the technique they use. I mean, they look at every administration [52:16] or every director of CIA and if they don't agree with them, this too shall pass, right? They just [52:21] wait them out. I mean, that's happening right now in both of our investigations. So again, I'm calling for [52:28] a church-like commission. We'll call it the Paul Johnson Commission, okay? We need to figure out [52:35] who runs the deep state. But in my final three minutes, because I held what I thought was a [52:40] blockbuster hearing two weeks ago. It was very good. And this is on my investigation in terms of [52:48] the harms done by the COVID injection. And I'm going to talk about it right now because it's not being [52:54] covered by the legacy media. Alternate Media, yes. Fox News, Fox Businesses had me on. I went on, [53:02] supposed to be on CNN last week. And I sent in my report and told them that's what I want to talk [53:08] about. They canceled the appearance. You know, oh, that's not why. Sure it is. So this is what, [53:14] and I can do this in two minutes and 20 seconds. This is what we uncovered. This is what is being [53:19] covered up by now the legacy media. On March 1st of 2021, Dr. Peter Marks, head of CBER, [53:30] the organization within FDA that approves vaccines and also is supposed to surveil those vaccines, [53:36] Post Market Force Safety, was given a multi-page briefing by the main data mining analysts within [53:42] FDA working with the inventor of the algorithm they used to analyze the VAERS, the Vaccine Adverse [53:48] Event Reporting System. That briefing told Dr. Marks that the current algorithm, because of the [53:56] nature of the massive number of claims coming into VAERS, by the way, from 1990 until 2020, [54:04] on average, about 280 deaths were reported in VAERS associated with the vaccine. 2021 is over 21,000. [54:14] Nothing to see here. But anyway, so they're using an algorithm. They were warned that this algorithm, [54:20] because the Moderna and Pfizer are so close together, the way they're analyzing is going to [54:25] mask and hide safety signals. That's March 1st, 2021. 26 days later, a new state-of-the-art algorithm, [54:34] developed by the inventor of the original algorithm, was presented to senior FDA officials, [54:40] showing 49 cases of extreme masking, 25 safety signals, including sudden cardiac death, [54:49] pulmonary infarction, Bell's palsy, different types of strokes. Month after month after month, [54:53] they continue to do this data mining. They continue to show additional safety signals. [54:59] Did Peter Marks, did Anthony Fauci, did President Biden go to the American public and say, [55:05] hang on here, we've got some data, we've got some concerns? No. No. They blame the unvaccinated for [55:14] continuing the pandemic. This is a pandemic of the unvaccinated. We need to mandate this. This is what [55:25] government does. This is what the deep state does. I can't explain it all, my investigation now, [55:32] because I finally got documents. This would never have happened if we didn't have documents. And by [55:38] the way, just like we found that David Morin's email that now is a result in prosecution, where, [55:45] you know, he has a foily, he showed him how to make emails disappear, send me something sensitive [55:49] to my Gmail. We have the same types of evidence in our report. We need to get to the bottom of this, [55:56] and right now I'm just using this moment. I need the mainstream media, CBS, ABC, CNN, to step forward [56:06] and start covering what is a major scandal. How many thousands, tens, hundreds of thousands of people [56:13] are permanently disabled or possibly lost their life because our FDA hid the fact that there were [56:21] safety signals screaming at them with the COVID injection. So again, you can't answer all my [56:28] questions in terms of who's, but we need to figure out who is running this deep state. Thank you, [56:33] Mr. Chairman. Senator Johnson, I completely concur with the call for a church committee, [56:37] but I'll tell you how difficult it is. The church committee was like 1975, 50 some odd years ago. [56:43] I've been trying to get the classified version of the church committee for over two years, but I'm [56:48] being blocked by the intel committee, including someone from our own party is blocking having me, [56:54] they've shown me a room with 400 boxes, and I can go look in all the boxes to see if I can find it. [56:59] My staff's not allowed to go in the room, but they will not reveal to me something that's 50 years [57:04] old that should be declassified for the public, much less for me. Maybe we should go together and [57:08] probably only takes us about four or five years to dig through all the boxes. That's right. [57:12] Senator Holling. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Erdman, thank you for being here. In March of 2023, [57:17] the Senate unanimously passed legislation requiring the Office of the Director of National Intelligence [57:23] to declassify all, I believe the exact language is, declassify any and all information related to [57:30] potential links between the Wuhan Institute of Virology and the origins of COVID-19. I have some [57:35] familiarity with this legislation because I wrote it. It passed the House unanimously. President Biden [57:41] signed it into law under, I think, popular duress. As you may remember, well, first of all, are you [57:47] familiar with this law? Oh, of course, yes. As you may recall, it set a statutory deadline of just [57:51] a couple of months later, which the Biden administration promptly ignored and blew [57:55] through. When they finally did release the report, I think we've got a picture of it here that will [57:59] appear over my shoulder. It was all of five pages. Here it is. Wait for it. Five pages. Remember, [58:05] the law says any and all information. Five pages, heavily redacted, even the five pages. I think one of [58:12] those pages is like a cover, a cover note or something. Yeah, here it is. The executive summary, [58:17] five pages. This is, according to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, this is [58:22] this is any and all information related to COVID-19 and the Wuhan Virology Lab. Now, you've been on this [58:30] task force that has reviewed these documents. Is this all the information the United States government [58:36] had? That is not all the information. And I'll tell you a little story about that if you'd like. [58:41] Please. A story about your five pages there. So there was a classified report being written [58:47] at the time all of this was going on. And I assumed as I'm reading through the documents that [58:52] that they would just take that classified report, which didn't look like that, and they would just [58:59] redact it. And because I'm reading through the documents, but that is not what happened. They [59:04] decided to write a different paper instead of what was already. Who do you say they? Who's they? [59:11] The National Intelligence Council. The National Intelligence Council was [59:14] was at the time that the law passed was doing a thorough review or doing a review. We don't know [59:19] how thorough. How many pages? You've been on this task force. You've gotten a sense of if it's not five [59:24] pages. How many pages worth of information would you guess the United States government was in [59:29] possession of related to Wuhan lab and COVID possible links? I can tell you that Director Gabbard [59:37] is working through I believe 2,000 pages. Two thousand? They're trying to get released in the [59:42] in the first batch. This is a the the the law states yes any and all, but there's still the requirement [59:48] to run it through the different agencies to ensure that there's not some sources and methods. But [59:54] there's there's like 2,000 pages. 2,000 pages. 2,000 pages. I want to show you what Admiral Haynes, [1:00:00] Director Haynes, said to me when I wrote to her, Senator Braun and I wrote to her following this [1:00:05] outrageous ridiculous report. She wrote back to me and said, well we only we classified, we declassified [1:00:11] only what we could without endangering sources and methods. Only only what we could. Five pages of [1:00:17] summary that itself has redactions. The five pages have redactions. And you're telling me there are [1:00:23] literally thousands of documents. Why are they hiding all of this material? I can tell you that [1:00:30] the interagency process of declassification is highly bureaucratic and that is being worked. [1:00:36] And I think you'll saw you saw just a few days ago Director Gabbard released some information about [1:00:41] the lab. Was it was Director Haynes, Avril Haynes, was she involved in making the decision not to release [1:00:46] the material? I don't have any proof that she was involved in the direct decision. I have no [1:00:53] emails saying that directly. But it's her it was her it was her office and it's her signature on the [1:00:58] letter to me. It's her office that sent the five pages and she's the one who said this is what we [1:01:02] have. This is all we have. You're telling me there were 2,000 plus documents. No I'm telling you that [1:01:07] the first swath of documents that we're looking to there's many many more than that. I got you many many [1:01:13] more. Let me tell you what this this so-called five-page report what it said in its substance [1:01:18] to the extent there was any. They said number one that nothing that was researched at the Wuhan lab [1:01:22] could plausibly be a progenitor of SARS-CoV-2. Number two they said there is no evidence of any [1:01:30] research-related incident involving Wuhan employees that might have been related to the pandemic. [1:01:35] Now in your experience given what you have seen are those true statements? Some of that would have to [1:01:44] be covered and classified but no they're not true. If we wanted to get into details I don't believe [1:01:50] that's true. So the United States government first deliberately violated a law passed by Congress [1:01:56] signed by the President that ordered them to release all information related to the Wuhan lab. [1:02:01] Number one. Number two they then violated the law again by withholding thousands and thousands of [1:02:07] pages that they had at the time and knew were covered by the law. Number three the conclusions so [1:02:11] called they released to the public are false. If that is not a cover-up I don't know what is [1:02:18] and if our elected officials and unelected officials in this case in the IC and ODNI if [1:02:25] they can get by with blatantly violating the statutes of this country and lying to the American [1:02:30] people I'm sorry but we don't have a democracy anymore. I don't know what it is but it's not a [1:02:35] democracy because we the people aren't in charge. These people are in charge and they're lying to us [1:02:41] every single day. You said in your opening statement that Dr. Fauci, speaking of someone who's not [1:02:50] exactly a truth teller, that Dr. Fauci intervened to put his thumb on the scale of what information [1:02:57] the intelligence community, the IC, could review in when they did their initial assessments of [1:03:02] whether or not the Wuhan lab was linked to COVID. What exactly did he do? So let me clarify that. So he [1:03:10] he reached in and he provided a this list of scientists and subject matter experts that we [1:03:16] should we should talk to you and it's not like he's saying you will go talk to them. He doesn't [1:03:21] have the power to do that technically. It's just that the bureaucracy in place at the time was [1:03:27] perfectly happy to pursue those recommendations even when there was a number of individuals who [1:03:34] expressed concern saying at least one for sure that said are you sure we want to do this? He's [1:03:39] he's a policy maker and we need to have our intelligence cycle. And he had a point of view, [1:03:44] did he not? He certainly did. And what was that point of view? Just refresh our memories. [1:03:49] He believes it's natural origin. He still does. Of course. I mean, he said this over and over. Now, [1:03:54] he would have reason to given that he supported gain of function research to the Wuhan lab, [1:03:59] lied about it to Congress, lied about it repeatedly to the chairman, as I recall. So his hands are dirty in [1:04:06] this. And yet here he is intervening behind the scenes. It's not it's bad enough that he's out [1:04:11] there misleading the public behind the scenes. He's trying to intervene to stop our own intelligence [1:04:16] community who are supposed to work for the public from actually accurately assessing the evidence. [1:04:20] This is unbelievable. This is unbelievable. And then people wonder, gee, why are the American people [1:04:25] not trustworthy, not trusting of elected officials? I wonder why are they? I'll tell you why, [1:04:32] because they're repeatedly, we are repeatedly lied to by these people, lied to and lied to and lied to. [1:04:39] I want to thank you, Mr. Erdman, for your testimony. I just want to note, I think we've only scratched the [1:04:44] surface here. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this hearing. And I just want to point out when you've [1:04:48] got a witness who's saying under oath that the report that the government issued lied to the American [1:04:54] people, that it is false. We've got a big problem in this country. We've got a big, [1:04:59] big problem and we haven't begun to solve it yet. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:05:02] Senator Moody. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think this is one of the most important [1:05:08] hearings we will hold during this administration. I think when the world, when the country went mad, [1:05:15] and I don't care if you consider yourself a blue state or a red state, the country went mad and [1:05:21] people were craving leadership and leadership that truly was based on science, not someone that [1:05:29] alleged they were following science and seemed to care more about controlling the public. [1:05:33] I think this is one of the most important hearings. And I think everyone that actually showed up today, [1:05:41] and you see who is here involved and taking part in this hearing, are the ones that want on behalf of [1:05:48] the American people who are, by the way, are supposed to be in charge of the United States of America, [1:05:54] want to get to the bottom of what happened. And not just because that's right, so that the people that [1:06:00] are in charge of this nation understand, understood what happened, but so that this never happens again. [1:06:07] And if we are trying to prevent a government that is trying to control a populace based on nothing, [1:06:13] based on no justification, and making sure that that never happens again, I just want it to be very [1:06:18] clear to everyone in this room or anyone who has taken the time to watch that cares about their country [1:06:24] and understands what it means to protect freedom. I just want them to see who showed up today, [1:06:31] and who is participating, and who has thanked you for coming out bravely and disclosing these facts, [1:06:40] what happened, and your opinion based on your years, decades of experience. I, for one, [1:06:46] hailing from the great free state of Florida, you know, Florida used to be known for flamingos. [1:06:51] We're now known for freedom. That is because what took place over the last administration, [1:06:57] and when churches were closed, when businesses were closed, when schools were closed, when people were [1:07:03] shut up in their apartments, when families were prohibited from socializing and gathering, [1:07:09] many were kept from their loved ones when they died, all under this guidance of government [1:07:17] leading based on science. We, we really have to go back and question that because that cannot happen [1:07:26] in this country, and I think many of us that were in charge at the time question how we never, [1:07:31] ever allowed that to happen, and certainly in Florida, I am so proud, along with Governor DeSantis, [1:07:37] we, we led against that tide in many respects, and when people were still being told to stay at home, [1:07:45] don't let your kids go to school, don't go to church, all of these things that seem insane right [1:07:51] now, we didn't. We stood up for the truth. We tried our best to discern what was true, what was not, [1:08:00] what didn't make sense, and let me tell you why things didn't make sense. And we've, first of all, [1:08:06] you had your secretary of HHS, which was basically invisible, checked out. Those are words of the Biden [1:08:12] administration at the time. Officials from the Biden administration said, Secretary Becerra was [1:08:18] invisible, checked out, an unfortunate choice for the role. And then you had Dr. Fauci, who came out [1:08:24] and contradicted himself constantly. At one point, he even admitted later, he told people people [1:08:30] shouldn't be walking around with masks on, and later he said that was because we were trying to control [1:08:34] the supply for healthcare professionals. It wasn't based on any science, but then later he told everyone [1:08:40] to wear masks repeatedly. The six-foot rule seemed to have been just crafted out of thin air with no [1:08:49] basis in science whatsoever. In fact, he said that rule sort of just appeared when he testified, [1:08:59] and that guidance on the shutdown of schools and small businesses was arbitrary and not based on any [1:09:06] science. So I just want to make sure the American people hear that. You had a government who's supposed to [1:09:09] be limited and stay out of people's lives, coming in and offering guidance. Many times it was done under [1:09:16] mandates to close businesses, people's livelihoods, to keep children from being educated, to keep people [1:09:27] from expressing their faith and gathering to show freedom of of religion and their faith and expression. [1:09:36] I mean, unbelievable what happened during the COVID years. I was so proud of my state along with [1:09:43] Governor DeSantis. We launched a grand jury investigation because the federal government [1:09:48] sure wasn't doing it, and we got to the bottom of some of this what was being said publicly by those that [1:09:57] we had trusted in these positions and how that was not actually the truth in the science. That was where [1:10:05] the name the free state of Florida has come from. And I'm so glad now to be here as the one of the newest United States [1:10:12] senators bringing that experience, that grand jury investigation, everything that we did differently in [1:10:18] Florida and stood up to the madness, because that is how the people remain in charge of their government. [1:10:26] In the grand jury investigation that we did, we followed the evidence. We found that many of those policies, [1:10:35] including masking lockdown mandates, they lack sufficient scientific basis, and they in fact [1:10:40] caused significant harm to Floridians. The same grand jury found a pattern, I'm quoting the grand jury [1:10:46] here, this is a nonpartisan group acquired from the community to judge facts, a pattern of deceptive and [1:10:54] obfuscatory behavior from both big pharma and the federal agencies charged with regulating them with [1:11:00] respect to the COVID vaccines. So it appears from everything that we found from our own investigation, [1:11:08] an unbiased, totally separate review of what was being said publicly by the federal government compared [1:11:15] to what was actually based in science, it found that most of what was said and the events surrounding it [1:11:21] was a public health establishment that was fixated on controlling the public and forcing narratives rather [1:11:28] than protecting public health or discovering the truth. And so I am grateful that you are willing [1:11:35] to be here today. I know that this is under subpoena, but certainly it takes courage and and to be here and [1:11:44] to be a whistleblower that can get accountability for the American people. You know, Florida was years [1:11:52] ahead of the federal government's supposed experts. We're proud of that, but this is so important. [1:11:57] And so I want to know, and I have one question. We're getting to the what. What happened? We were [1:12:05] glad that Florida led on that. Even while people remained locked down, we were trying to get to the [1:12:10] answers. What happened? But in all of your reviews and what you've been able to compile and what you're [1:12:17] saying today, what is the why? Why? Why did the cover up happen? I think there's a lot of incentives, [1:12:29] misaligned incentives that have been created because of this highly opaque and complex system [1:12:36] of laboratories, life science research. And the IC is just one component of that. [1:12:44] Why did it happen inside the CIA and inside DNI and inside the the interagency space when they were [1:12:50] doing doing the the analysis over the course of four years? Part of it is iron rice bowls. [1:12:59] You know, your normal bureaucratic issues where one agency has this, another agency has that. [1:13:06] There there was groupthink. You could see it happening in real time as you read from beginning to end. [1:13:13] I'll give you a couple examples. Every time there was an open source publication that came out, [1:13:20] they're very good at grabbing that and kicking it up for the contracted scientists, you know, [1:13:26] the BSEG to take a look at and assess. And the goal, it seemed, it always leaned one direction. [1:13:33] They never took some like they never took like the publications from Sorenson and Dalgleish who [1:13:39] came out very early. I think it was July 2020 that one of the best papers written was [1:13:43] was open source by Sorenson and Dalgleish. They never took those papers and said, wow, [1:13:48] we've got a lot here. We need to make sure we get this added in. Or Dr. Stephen Quay, [1:13:52] for example, who had a lot to say about COVID origins. It was always one direction. And because [1:14:00] the interagency space seemed intent on, on, on pushing it that way. And why the interagency space? [1:14:06] I think the interagency space, I'm talking about the National Intelligence Council and the people [1:14:10] responsible for that. I mean, these are people who have relationships with the National Academy of [1:14:16] Scientists in the National Academy of Sciences. They've got relationships with the WMD community, [1:14:22] and they're all part of the same, I don't know, ecosystem. The planet, the planets are all [1:14:29] revolving around the same star. And so you get, you get groupthink. There's, there's a multitude of [1:14:38] reasons. I didn't find any smoking gun where they said, well, we got to cover this up because [1:14:44] for sure the US government paid for research in Wuhan, China. But they were certainly well aware [1:14:51] of PREDICT. They were well aware of the DEFUSE proposal that had circulated. They, they, they had [1:14:59] those products available to them. I think you get enough people shouting something down, it gets [1:15:04] shouted down. And that happened repeatedly. I do want to just, if I can take just a moment, [1:15:09] particularly about the scientists that are brought forward. I, I don't, I really, really want to [1:15:16] emphasize a couple things. And one of it is we can't vilify these scientists. I, I'm going to give [1:15:23] a very short anecdote and I hope I'm not going over on time or anything like that. But when I got hired [1:15:29] to the CIA, I, I can't tell you how proud I was. I, I really couldn't believe that they hired me. I'm sure [1:15:39] there's some friends who are like, yeah, I can't believe it either. But, but they hired me because [1:15:45] they saw potential to be able to be somebody who could recruit spies and steal secrets. That's my job. [1:15:55] Imagine you're a scientist. Imagine the US government comes to you and says, [1:16:00] listen, sir, you are a specialist in a field no one else knows about. And in fact, the PhD is, [1:16:10] the whole point of a PhD is to push beyond what's known further than anybody else in a very rarefied [1:16:17] field. Imagine you're a scientist and the CIA comes up to you and says, or the NIC, the intelligence [1:16:24] community comes up to you and says, you're special, not because we see potential, but because we know [1:16:30] you're special and we need your help. We can't vilify these people who wanted to help. We can, [1:16:38] however, boy, I might be contradicting myself here, but the system definitely needs a look. [1:16:44] Because the system has been put in place now and you've got these same people that we've said [1:16:48] you're important to the IC. We just haven't done the proper work to ensure that those people who [1:16:53] are important to the IC aren't cross-pollinated all over in other places so that they can incentivize the [1:16:59] kind of research that we need done or the white papers we need written. We have to have a holistic [1:17:08] overview. And I think it's really hard to have like one agency do their review, another agency do [1:17:14] their review, the legislative branch do their review. You know, in this case, it is a team sport. [1:17:22] So one answer also, Senator Moody, your question about the why, you know, people think, well, gosh, [1:17:28] was there a conspiracy where people, all these evil people had their hands together and they were [1:17:32] conspiring to do something bad. And I think George Carlin put it the best. He said, it isn't required [1:17:38] that you come up with a conspiracy where interests converge. And I think the interest is we funded a [1:17:44] lot of dangerous research. Accidents have happened. This was an accident. In all likelihood, this was an [1:17:49] accident. Even the Chinese probably didn't want this to happen in Wuhan. It was an accident. But the [1:17:55] interest is that if you funded that research for 10 years, wouldn't I logically want to ask you why, [1:18:02] you know, why you did this funding. And so there are dozens of people throughout government who did [1:18:07] cover this up, maybe hundreds. They don't even know each other necessarily, but they had a hand in [1:18:12] funding this research of the years. They've been in favor of it. It's been a big debate. For 20 some [1:18:17] odd years, there's been a huge debate, maybe longer. People think this is the first virus that got out. [1:18:22] One of the most, it's not as much reported, but one of the most famous viruses that got out was the [1:18:27] Russian flu of 1977. And we're not sure it came from Russia or where it came from. But the interesting [1:18:33] thing is nobody over 24 got the flu. Zero. Not one person. Why? Because the Russian flu of 1977 had the [1:18:42] exact same RNA structure as a flu in 1953 that had been kept in a lab somewhere. How do you get an [1:18:49] identical virus 30 years later? Viruses mutate every couple of months like COVID has. There is no way [1:18:55] to have an identical virus unless you got it from a lab. So proof positive that the 1977 flu actually [1:19:02] came out of a lab. An accident. Once again, an accident. There's a woman who's written about this, [1:19:07] I think her last name is young. She says that over a period of years, like 1500 major accidents [1:19:12] that she's catalogued. So it's not only about malfeasance, it's about safety of these labs. [1:19:18] In fact, some people were finally convinced that this came from Wuhan because it was a BSL-2 [1:19:23] instead of a BSL-4 for much of the time that it didn't have enough safety precautions. But even the [1:19:29] safest one, the four, still has accidents. So maybe some of these experiments, we ought to reconsider [1:19:35] whether we do them. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And it just goes to show why it's helpful to have a [1:19:40] doctor as our chairman. You could also be a witness. Thank you. We're going to conclude [1:19:45] pretty quickly. I'm going to give Senator Johnson another chance if you have another question. [1:19:50] I've got a quick question. Then I want to go someplace else. In September 2023, we apparently had [1:20:00] a CI whistleblower come forward and there are news articles written about this that six of the seven [1:20:05] analysts to describe this were bribed to change their analysis. Is that true? No. [1:20:10] No. So there's some clarifications on that. What is true? And I thank you for bringing up this [1:20:17] question, Senator Johnson, because this is one of the things I wanted to make sure the record was [1:20:21] corrected. So, and if I have just a few minutes here to sort of talk through this, there was new [1:20:30] information that came out in 2022 and it forced the community to try and conduct a relook. There were [1:20:39] 10 CIA scientists. I'm talking from the CIA side down, not on the next side. 10 CIA scientists that [1:20:44] were said, why don't you go ahead and do a COVID relook? On that team, there were seven SMEs, [1:20:51] subject matter experts, technical experts with, you know, lab experience, medical, medical experience. [1:20:58] And so they, they began their relook. And by the time they wrote their paper, they wrote a paper and [1:21:07] they said, we're assessing this as a lab leak. Eight of the 10, according to multiple whistleblowers, [1:21:15] eight of the 10 were definitely leaning in on lab leak. They sent that paper, that draft paper, [1:21:22] up to the weapons and counter proliferation center front office and said, take a look. And [1:21:32] magically a new report shows up that allegedly contradicted this, the information that had come [1:21:39] in earlier that year. The, the multiple people we spoke to said, yeah, it didn't really contradict it, [1:21:47] but they were told, go back to the drawing board and do a reassessment. So the interagency got involved, [1:21:53] they were having discussions. So they go back to the drawing board. And by the time 2023 rolls [1:22:00] around, they've, they've got their, they've got their answer. They say, you know, six of the seven [1:22:04] technical, technical people on that team. So there's 10 people on the team, six of the seven [1:22:10] technical experts say, yep, we still think it's a lab leak. We still think it's a lab leak. And they [1:22:15] were sticking to their guns. Management changed the analytic line. They changed the conclusion to a [1:22:24] non-consensus call. Actually worse than that, they said that the exact words were, I don't want to get [1:22:34] this wrong. Excuse me. We may never precisely know the origin of SARS-CoV-2. Precisely. Precisely is not a [1:22:51] term analysts use. They use like low confidence, medium confidence. Yes, no. Precisely is a word you use [1:23:00] when you want to deliberately end discussion. Because do you know how many resources we need [1:23:05] to precisely know the origin of SARS-CoV-2? So again, I want the chairman to dilute me a little [1:23:11] bit more here. There's no bribes paid. This is just a management decision. They overrode what the, okay. [1:23:18] But the financial piece definitely needs to be looked into because they did receive an EPA. [1:23:22] They just, they got it. It's 1,500 bucks. Okay. So, so it may be true then. No, no, no, no, no. [1:23:27] Let me be very clear. There were no bribes. They received an exceptional performance award. [1:23:32] They were upset with it. And, and it was not a bribe. But what I will say. Okay. The people, [1:23:38] they were rewarded for their work. They didn't know they were going to get it. Okay. I got you. Okay. I [1:23:43] got you. And I understand this distinction. One point and one question. Just received this from Liz [1:23:50] Lyon, the CIA director of public affairs. The committee acted in bad faith by subpoenaing [1:23:55] an agency officer for testimony today without notifying CIA. Despite having already obtained [1:23:59] closed door testimony from the individual previously, the witness testifying today is [1:24:04] not appearing as a whistleblower in pursuit of the truth, but instead in response to the subpoena issued [1:24:07] by chairman Paul. This proceeding amounts to nothing more than a dishonest political theater [1:24:12] masquerading as a congressional hearing. As the CIA has already assessed, COVID-19 most likely [1:24:17] originated from the lab leak and efforts to undermine that conclusion are disingenuous. [1:24:21] I'm calling on CIA director Radcliffe and this person to apologize to chairman Paul and this [1:24:28] committee. This is not political theater. I have years and years and years of built up frustration [1:24:36] of agencies like the CIA, Department of Justice, the FBI, HHS, snubbing our oversight, giving us the big [1:24:44] middle finger. And that's really leads me into my question. You talked about how proud you were. [1:24:50] Okay. I can imagine that. I, my belief is there. I'd say most people serving in government, all these [1:24:57] agencies are doing good work. They're, they're patriots. Why aren't there more people like you? [1:25:04] I mean, you saw Josh Hawley's, Senator Hawley's, uh, the five page snub, the five page middle finger [1:25:11] saying any and all, this is it. And people inside the agencies know that's not the truth. [1:25:17] They know that is a big fat lie. What, what is going, what, what happens inside the agency that, [1:25:27] that people, good Americans, patriotic Americans, people who believe in democracy, witness that [1:25:34] and realize the agency they're working for is lying bold face to legitimate congressional oversight, [1:25:43] legitimate congressional investigations to the American people? What, what, what is causing this? [1:25:49] Two answers. One, we need more leaders like Director Gabbard, who pulls together a task force [1:25:58] of people to actually pursue this despite the difficulty in, uh, wrangling agencies to do the right thing. [1:26:07] I think the second thing I'll say is it's a minority of officers. I mean, most, most of the people [1:26:15] join the CIA are barrel chested freedom fighters. Like they're out there wanting to do the right thing. [1:26:23] As you matriculate upwards into the, into the bureaucracy, I just think that, uh, it gets easier [1:26:34] and easier to find people who are more willing to, to get along. And, you know, we can, if we want to link [1:26:40] this back to COVID, uh, you had a bunch of refuseniks out there that said no. And they were trying to [1:26:47] push these people out. And, and, um, what you really need in these organizations are, you know, [1:26:53] you can't have the whole organization saying no to everything because nothing gets done. But you've got [1:26:57] to retain the people who are sometimes a little more difficult to deal with, more willing to say no [1:27:04] over and over. Um, and I think we've, we, we, we've created a milk toast bureaucracy. I, you know, [1:27:12] when I first joined the agency, uh, the chiefs of offices had a lot of power, you know, and then [1:27:18] modernization happened and, um, they, they watered everything down and you didn't, the accountability [1:27:23] piece has to be there. Otherwise you're, this is just going to keep happening. [1:27:27] Well, again, I appreciate you coming forward again. I'm, I'm calling on director Radcliffe [1:27:31] and that communications person, this committee, this chairman needs an apology. This is not political [1:27:37] theater. This is serious oversight work. This is what the American people need to see. [1:27:41] And I just wish our Democrat colleagues had any level of curiosity. What's happening inside the [1:27:46] deep state. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. And I completely concur. And I would also like to [1:27:51] respond to the CIA spokesman. They say that we have already obtained closed door testimony. [1:27:58] Well, closed door testimony doesn't provide oversight. Public testimony provides oversight. [1:28:03] We have asked them for public testimony and for oversight. We would love to have the scientists who [1:28:08] the six or seven scientists that were commissioned to look at this. We'd love to see their report. [1:28:14] Why would we not be allowed to see their report? I can't even read that in private, [1:28:18] but that should be public. The, the science, if there are sources and methods, mark them out, [1:28:22] redact them, but we should be able to see that. But for them to have the gall to [1:28:27] say, Oh, we allowed the witness to testify in private. And that should be enough. [1:28:31] No, you were told by Congress unanimously to declassify this material. And you send us five pages. [1:28:38] Imagine how many, you, you mentioned maybe 2000 pages. DOE has a report. That's got to be [1:28:44] 40 or 50 pages. But the base documents for DOE's report are probably run into the hundreds of pages [1:28:50] just for that one report. And they did a great analysis of this, but still most of that is not [1:28:55] available to the public. Why does it need to be available? Because this is going to happen again. [1:29:00] And we need to be prepared and we need to talk about it. One of the other things we didn't get [1:29:05] to in this hearing, but we need to talk to, how do you prepare for the next pandemic? Well, one of the [1:29:09] things that actually worked was monoclonal antibodies. We need to be talking about how we can [1:29:13] quickly produce them again, how we can quickly get started on things like that. What worked and what [1:29:18] didn't work? Masks didn't work. Six feet of distancing. There was no science. They say, [1:29:24] follow the science. And yet it looks like everything that happened at the, at the CIA [1:29:29] was the politicians overruling the scientists. The scientists were concluding this came from the lab, [1:29:34] from a lab leak in all probability. The politicians were overturning them once at two in the morning. [1:29:40] So that is one of the takeaways from this is that yes, follow the science and the scientists [1:29:46] and that the scientists need to not have a conflict of interest, which leads me to the final point I'll [1:29:50] make before we conclude. I applaud the Trump administration for an executive order saying [1:29:56] no more gain of function. It is head and shoulders above anything. The Biden administration really [1:30:01] didn't do much of anything on this. The Trump administration is trying to live by that. The reason it [1:30:07] won't work forever is that people who have a Weasley way with words, let's say Anthony Fauci, [1:30:15] will come back into play and half of his lieutenants probably still work over there. One of them will [1:30:20] get in power again. And all they will simply say is, oh, creating that new virus that grows 10 times [1:30:26] faster and grows better in human cells. Well, that's not gain of function because that's what Anthony [1:30:31] Fauci was doing. He was still doing the gain of function research. He was just saying, [1:30:35] oh, the way I look at the definition, that's not really. So we do need a commission. And what I [1:30:41] proposed is the Risky Research Review Act. It'd be a presidential commission. It'll have scientists on [1:30:47] it. They will be experts, but they will not be currently in the employ of government competing for [1:30:53] grants. I think that is a conflict of interest. They have to be people outside of it. There also will [1:30:59] be some people who are national security experts as well. And we have to look at the list of things. [1:31:05] One scientist, Dr. Esfeldt, ordered off the internet under Biden's policy, he ordered snippets [1:31:11] of DNA from here and here, chopped them up, put them together, and he made the Spanish flu. [1:31:16] Now, he told the FBI he was doing it because he wanted to prove a point. He didn't create the [1:31:20] infectious portion of the Spanish flu. But he said, look, I can do it by just ordering DNA. So there are a lot [1:31:25] of things that have to be addressed. And unfortunately, it's somehow a partisan issue, [1:31:29] and we're not getting anywhere. But I want to applaud you for your courage in coming forward. [1:31:35] You did come forward at the response of a subpoena. That is a lawful subpoena. And I see no reason [1:31:42] that anyone should try to punish you. If anybody does try to punish you, I can promise you that we [1:31:47] will defend you. Thank you very much. Thank you, Senator. [1:31:50] The meeting is adjourned. Thank you. I would like to thank our witness for joining us here today to [1:31:55] share his testimony and expertise with the committee. The recording, the record for this [1:31:59] hearing will remain open until 5 p.m. on Wednesday, May 13th, 2026, for the submission of statements [1:32:05] and questions. For the record, the hearing is now adjourned. Thank you.