Editor: Zhongkang / Source: Newtalk / https://www.aboluowang.com/2026/0730/2414699.html /
Image : Former White House COVID-19 advisor Anthony Fauci recently testified before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, citing the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and refused to answer questions about his role in the U.S. government's response to the pandemic. (Image retrieved from X Nick Sortor Geographic Reference Information) 
According to CNN, former White House COVID-19 advisor Anthony Fauci, during a hearing before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee on 29 July 2026, cited the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and refused to answer questions about his role in the U.S. government's response to the pandemic, sparking strong dissatisfaction among Republican members of Congress. Committee Chairman Rand Paul stated that the committee will assess whether to pursue "contempt of Congress" proceedings against Fauci's refusal to testify after the hearing.
Fauci was a key figure in U.S. pandemic response policy, serving for a long time as director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and as the White House's chief medical advisor during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, he and Republican Senator Paul have clashed for years over issues such as the origin of the virus, pandemic control measures, and whether the government should be held responsible for related research funding.
Image : Wuhan Institute of Virology P4 Laboratory. Photo from China News Service
According to reports, Fauci initially refused to voluntarily appear at the Senate hearing, and Paul subpoenaed him in June, requiring him to cooperate with a congressional investigation. At the start of the hearing, Fauci stated that, on the advice of his lawyers, he would exercise his Fifth Amendment right to refuse to answer questions that could involve "self-incrimination."
Fauci subsequently refused to answer 15 questions posed by Paul, citing the Fifth Amendment for each one. Paul argued that Fauci had no right to refuse to respond to the congressional investigation on this basis, and stated that even former President Biden's pardon did not completely absolve him of legal responsibility.
Paul warned at the hearing that refusing to provide testimony as required by Congress could constitute obstruction of congressional investigation, and the committee would consider subsequent measures, including whether to file for contempt of Congress.
Image : Ben Hu, a researcher at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) in China, has been identified by U.S. officials as one of the initial COVID-19 cases. (Illustrative image retrieved from Twitter @Maks_NAFO_FELLA Geographical Reference Information)
Meanwhile, according to a report by The Epoch Times today (30 July 2026), a recently declassified document released by the U.S. Congress indicates that Chinese military scientist Zhou Yusen sent suspected coronavirus-related samples to a research institution in Minnesota, USA, via express delivery in November 2018, more than a year before the large-scale outbreak of COVID-19 in China.
According to declassified documents from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, in November 2018, customs officials seized three sample bottles wrapped in paper towels and sealed with wax at Wayne County Airport in Detroit. The courier stated that the sender was Zhou Yusen and the recipient was Fang Li, a professor in the Department of Pharmacology at the University of Minnesota Medical School.
The samples were subsequently transferred to the FBI's Weapons of Mass Destruction Agency for testing. Documents show that FBI forensic analysts determined the sample contained "precursor mRNA" and some substances related to the spike protein of porcine epidemic diarrhea virus (PEDV).
Image : The journal *Science* published an interview on the 24th with Shi Zhengli, an expert at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, Chinese Academy of Sciences. (Image from the *Science* website science.sciencemag.org)
Zhou Yusen previously served as the director of the Pathogenic Molecular Biology Research Laboratory at the Institute of Microbiology and Epidemiology, Academy of Military Medical Sciences, and held related research positions at the State Key Laboratory of Biosafety for Pathogenic Microorganisms. Information indicates that he collaborated with Shi Zhengli, a researcher at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, who was known as the "Bat Woman" for her long-term research on bat viruses.
The report also mentions Li Fang, a researcher in the field of coronavirus cell invasion mechanisms and structural biology, whose research was funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). However, a 2020 U.S. government investigation report indicated that some researchers who collaborated with Li Fang were found to have ties to the Chinese Communist military and the "Thousand Talents Program," and were therefore placed under national security scrutiny.
The report stated that foreign researchers with connections to Chinese Communist entities and involved in sensitive biological research areas may pose a potential risk to U.S. national security.
Image : Globally, COVID-19 vaccine side effects have emerged, and many people have died as a result of vaccination. Screenshot from FergusWalsh Twitter
COVID-19: Why did the White House stop at the "most likely" explanation?
The White House recently launched a dedicated webpage on the origins of the novel coronavirus, publicly stating that a laboratory leak is the "most likely" origin of the virus, and listing five supporting reasons. This change signifies a clearer public stance from the U.S. government than in the past, and has once again drawn international attention to the question of the virus's origin.
However, what is more noteworthy is not whether the White House has changed its position, but rather its restraint in wording. The White House used "most likely" instead of "proven" or "confirmed." This is not a word game, but reflects the current limitations faced by international investigations.
The COVID-19 pandemic has caused millions of deaths worldwide. For such a global public health disaster, the international community has every reason to hope that the true origin of the virus will be determined. This is not only about accountability, but also about how to prevent similar tragedies from happening again. If it can be confirmed that the virus originated in nature, it will help strengthen wildlife monitoring and disease prevention systems; if it is ultimately proven to be a laboratory accident, it will promote further improvements in global laboratory safety standards. Regardless of the final answer, an investigation based on sufficient evidence is itself the most basic explanation to the victims worldwide.
Unfortunately, as the investigation has progressed to this point, the real difficulty is no longer in proposing various hypotheses, but in the lack of crucial evidence to end the controversy.
Consider an extreme scenario: the objective fact is indeed an accidental leak from the laboratory. Given China's current circumstances, is it certain that the international community can ultimately prove this fact? The answer is not necessarily optimistic. The crucial data that truly completes the chain of evidence, such as experimental records, virus databases, original samples, health data of laboratory personnel, and incident records, are all held by the relevant institutions. If this data cannot be fully, independently, and completely verified, then what the outside world can obtain is mostly circumstantial evidence, intelligence analysis, and logical reasoning, rather than decisive evidence sufficient to end the dispute.
In other words, even if the objective truth exists, it may not meet the standard for public proof. This is precisely the biggest dilemma currently facing the investigation into the origin of the virus.
This is why, although the White House listed a laboratory leak as the "most likely," it did not further announce that it was "proven." This is not because the US government lacks confidence in its judgment, but because within the scope of currently publicly available evidence, it is difficult to cross the boundary between "most likely" and "proven." In this sense, given the current reality that international investigations cannot proceed further, "most likely" is actually close to the limit that can be achieved through public statements.
At the same time, this does not mean that China has shaken off reasonable suspicion from the outside world. On the contrary, precisely because key original data has long been unable to be independently investigated, the laboratory leak hypothesis can neither be completely ruled out nor definitively proven. The world is not facing a situation where "China has been proven responsible," nor where "China has been proven completely innocent," but rather a state of perpetual stagnation outside the boundaries of evidence.
In fact, continuing the investigation may not be entirely detrimental to China itself. If the final investigation proves that the virus did not originate in a laboratory, China will be able to shed long-standing international skepticism; if the investigation finds that a laboratory accident did indeed occur, the international community can use this information to improve global biosafety systems and reduce the risk of similar incidents in the future. The value of the investigation lies not in necessarily finding someone to bear responsibility, but in confirming the facts as close to the truth as possible.
What is truly regrettable is that as time goes by, much original data, samples, and records may gradually disappear, and the international community's chances of obtaining a final answer become increasingly slim. If key evidence cannot be fully verified, the world may forever remain at the "most likely" judgment, unable to reach a conclusion that has been "proven."
For a pandemic that has claimed millions of lives and profoundly altered the world's political, economic, and social order, this is perhaps the greatest regret. It's not that the world didn't propose various hypotheses, but rather that, during the most crucial investigative phase, the international community consistently failed to obtain sufficient primary evidence to verify these hypotheses. The White House's recent shift in rhetoric reflects this reality to some extent: it has pushed its public stance to a relatively high level allowed by current evidence, but a chasm created by the lack of evidence still separates it from truly ending the controversy.
