Better in their words…

It began in late January 2020. Even before SARS-CoV-2 had its final name, IPAK broke ranks with the scientific establishment, publishing a forensic analysis that dared to ask what others would not: Had SARS-CoV-2 emerged from a laboratory? The evidence—unexplained gain-of-function signatures, engineered vector motifs, a unique furin cleavage site—was clear to any honest analyst. For revealing this possibility, IPAK and its president James Lyons-Weiler were mocked, smeared, and censored. Their warnings were algorithmically buried. The consensus was manufactured. The heretics were exiled.¹ ²

But the truth has gravity. And we persisted in the face of fraud. It’s time for our victory lap.

Five years later, that gravity pulled a tectonic admission into the public sphere. On the November 2025 episode of “Pod Force One,” FDA Commissioner Dr. Marty Makary made the most damning official statement to date: Dr. Anthony Fauci was not just wrong about COVID’s origin—he led the cover-up.³

Dr. Anthony Fauci being grilled by Sen. Rand Paul during a hearing to examine the federal response to COVID-19 on Tuesday, January 11, 2022, at Capitol Hill in Washington, DC. Photo Credit: Greg Nash.

Makary, a surgical oncologist and former Johns Hopkins professor, is not given to hyperbole. Yet he was unequivocal. Fauci convened secret midnight calls, commissioned ghostwritten denials, and transformed objective science into a protective narrative. The now-infamous paper, “The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2,” was not an independent rebuttal. It was a memo from the defense team disguised as peer-reviewed research—initiated, shaped, and approved by Fauci himself.⁴ ⁵

Makary called the episode an American tragedy. That is a gross understatement. It is one of the most consequential scientific frauds ever perpetrated by a public official.

We now know the timeline. After IPAK broke the internet with the news on January 30 that sequence evidence existed of direct laboratory manipulation, a top virologist told Fauci the virus appeared lab-derived the next day.⁶

WFour days later, those same voices flipped. Per script. They co-authored a paper claiming the virus could not have been engineered. The reason? Fauci and NIH Director Francis Collins asked them to. And in the months that followed, those authors received millions in NIH funding.⁵

Most now see this as an attempt to gain control of the narrative from the get-go. The only problem was that IPAK was presenting evidence that seemed indisputable.

Behind the scenes, Obama-era prohibitions on gain-of-function research had already been gutted.⁷ EcoHealth Alliance was receiving U.S. tax dollars to conduct chimeric virus experiments in Wuhan—where safety protocols barely exceeded that of a dentist’s office, as Makary put it.⁸

And yet, when the outbreak occurred, the U.S. government didn’t investigate. It pardoned. Fauci was granted legal immunity by President Biden in December 2024 for any offense committed since 2014.⁹ The media fell in line. Social platforms weaponized terms of service to suppress dissent. Lab-origin theorists were deplatformed while WHO, NIH, and CDC recited a chorus of natural spillover with no proof.¹⁰

The tide is turning. The House Oversight Committee has confirmed Fauci’s direct commissioning of the Proximal Origin paper.⁵ Internal emails show panic, political calculations, and coordinated deception. Now, for the first time, the FDA’s own commissioner has said what only heretics dared: the official narrative was a lie.

At IPAK and at Popular Rationalism, we do not exist to confirm consensus. We exist to dismantle illusions. We mapped funding flows, timelines on agency reversals, and exposed the meta-fabric of institutional control that enabled this scandal. Because this is not just about a virus. This is about the attempt to collapse scientific integrity under the weight of power. This is about Fauci’s failure.

Makary’s statement is historic. Not because he confirmed the lab-leak theory—we did that in January 2020.¹ ² But because it signals the fall of the immunity complex that protected those who shaped the pandemic response.

The cover-up failed. We made sure of it.

Now comes the full reckoning.

IPAK’s January 2020 Heresy and How It Was Treated

At the end of January 2020, IPAK published an analysis arguing that the most parsimonious explanation for the emerging virus involved research activity at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. A January 30 statement pointed directly at WIV, and a February 2 technical post argued for “moderately strong confirmation of a laboratory origin.”¹ ²

The February post examined spike protein binding domains and the furin cleavage site—features consistent with prior manipulation or lab adaptation.² Fact-checkers dismissed it immediately. The Lancet published a February 19, 2020 statement labeling any lab-leak suggestion a “conspiracy theory.”³ That letter, coordinated by Peter Daszak, failed to disclose his financial and research ties to WIV.⁴

In March 2020, a short commentary by Hao et al. attempted to discredit IPAK’s early analysis reporting that

“Dr James Lyons-Weiler … made an appalling online statement … which claimed [SARS-CoV-2] was most likely constructed via laboratory recombination.”

They tried to claim pShuttle-SN, the tech I found evidence of in the SARS-CoV-2 sequence itself, was not a vector technology.

However, the manufacturer (Clontech) classifies pShuttle-SN as a vector platform, so everyone can know the Chinese scientists were lying. And of course we at IPAK knew that pShuttle-SN had been in use at the Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center to study SARS spike protein modifications – something not published anywhere else. The Chinese scientists did now know the depth of our comprehension in Jan/Feb 2020; it was so water-tight that when the CCP realized the forensic points were ironclad they put out the word that no further Chinese rebuttals were allowed.

And with good concern. IPAK had also already conducted and circulated a report on forensic analysis further revealed that a sequence deposited by the Nanjing Military Command (AVP78042) was nearly identical in spike regions to later isolates from the Wuhan Institute of Virology (QHR63300), including motif signatures consistent with sequences isolated and studied in the US and China many years before.

We of course tried to publish these findings in public health journals, but the manuscript was repeatedly returned without review.

In the meantime, someone at NCBI changed data in the original published sequence to frustrate attempts to replicate our findings. This news was broken on The Highwire with Del Bigtree four days after the broke the story of IPAK’s findings.

This act by an NCBI employee should be investigated by OIG and the State Department. Who was working on behalf of CCP or Fauci to obfuscate? The public deserves answers.

Thus, the world only had Hao et al.’s weak assertions both mischaracterized the nature of the plasmid and failed to account for public genomic data that support concerns about prior modification. Their attempt failed.

In a podcast, this week, FDA Commissioner Makary reported:

”He (Fauci) was convening people. And the notes from those meetings revealthat all these virologists he convened had told him, ‘We think it came from the Wuhan lab,’ and the output was days later, those same scientists wrote a letter in the medical journal saying it definitely did not come from the lab.”

How Proximal Origin Manufactured Certainty

Makary also asserted this week:

“Whether or not he was involved in the experiments or funding the experiments that led to the origins of COVID, he (Fauci) was clearly 100% involved in the cover-up.”

Four days after a Fauci-led emergency call with top virologists who initially admitted the virus “looked engineered,” they published “The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2.”⁴ ⁵ The paper ruled out a lab origin, calling it “implausible.” Opinion, not evidence. Yet it lacked direct access to WIV’s virus logs or internal communications. It assumed no lab accident occurred, despite biosafety warnings.⁶ Of course, it did not address the emerging, matching positive evidence; the entire exercise was to bury the IPAK assertion to keep the tempest in the teapot. They never cited IPAK, because to do so would have been to elevate us to an equal footing and give attention to our evidence. You do not control the narrative that way. You control it by wiping the evidence clean.

The paper’s influence was disproportionate. Within weeks, media outlets, social platforms, and government spokespeople cited it to enforce orthodoxy. It became a pretext for deplatforming dissenters. Later reviews, including one in BMJ, concluded that Proximal Origin was used to suppress debate despite lacking decisive evidence.¹⁰ ¹¹

Fauci, Collins, and the Paper Trail

Internal emails released under FOIA show that Fauci and Collins coordinated the drafting of Proximal Origin.⁵ The authors privately acknowledged signs of engineering.⁶ Yet they flipped publicly, days later, after the NIH call. In March 2020, Fauci stood beside President Trump at a White House briefing and cited the paper as independent validation—with no mention of his role.

That omission constitutes a conflict of interest. The House Oversight Committee later concluded that this process “was not scientific inquiry—it was narrative construction.”⁵

Biden-Era Shifts in Official Positions

By mid-2021, U.S. intelligence agencies fractured: the Department of Energy and FBI supported a lab-leak origin. CIA and others remained neutral.⁷ In 2023, CIA concluded a lab origin was “more likely than not,” though still with low confidence.⁸

That was a political concession, not analytical rigor.

The WHO’s 2021 joint mission with China labeled a lab origin “extremely unlikely,” but later admitted limited access to data. No animal host or zoonotic pathway was ever confirmed.⁹

HHS, NIH, and EcoHealth: From Denial to Debarment

For years, NIH denied funding risky gain-of-function research. But in 2021, Principal Deputy Director Tabak admitted EcoHealth violated grant terms and conducted unreported coronavirus experiments in Wuhan.⁸ In 2023, the HHS Inspector General confirmed widespread oversight failure.⁸ In 2024, EcoHealth was suspended. In 2025, Daszak was officially debarred from federal funding.⁸

The Scientific Record as of 2025

All of IPAK’s findings are now part of the backstory, but they provide the best forensic evidence that someone in China somewhere manipulated SARS and SARS-CoV-2 spike genomes. The other circumstantial evidence (early flu-like cases in late 2019; the missing Master’s degree student; the clear expressions of concern later not repeated by Shi Zhengli, the fact that she learned protocols from Ralph Baric’s lab… they fail to tell the complete story, but the add credibility to the otherwise extraordinary IPAK claim that SARS-CoV-2 originated in the lab.

And we did all of our analyses using public donations.

BECOME A MONTHLY SCIENCE HERO

Worobey et al. and Crits-Christoph et al. published market-linked analyses supporting zoonosis. But these were based on geographic clustering—not confirmed pathways. No intermediate host has ever been found. Critiques in PNAS, mBio, and The Lancet pointed to flaws in the “wet market” hypothesis.¹²

On the lab side, several features stand out: the furin cleavage site (not seen in close relatives), ACE2 receptor binding affinity, and a lack of intermediate evolution. Structural analyses raised the possibility of prior adaptation in lab models.¹³

Makary’s Intervention: Institutional Credibility Breaks

Makary is not a dissident. He’s a former Johns Hopkins surgeon, author of Unaccountable, and a recognized expert in medical transparency. His 2016 paper estimated medical error was the third leading cause of death in the U.S.¹⁴

As FDA Commissioner in 2025, Makary’s accusation that Fauci “led the cover-up” shifts the equilibrium. He connects the pardon, the publication suppression, and the funding pipelines. And he does so from inside the system.

Where a Rational Reader Lands

The SPECIFIC origin question remains unresolved. But we now know:

— IPAK found it first; Fauci and the CCP tried to bury it.

— The NIH steered the earliest “independent” paper against lab origin.⁵

— Officials omitted key disclosures during public communications.⁶

— FOIA emails confirm a coordinated communications strategy.⁵ — Intelligence agencies and oversight bodies have broken ranks.⁷⁸

— Peer-reviewed literature now includes strong critiques of zoonosis.¹²

— Fauci led a cover-up that started within 24 hrs of IPAK’s initial disclosure of sequence-based evidence of lab origin.

This was not a scientific debate. It was narrative management, with consequences.

The cover-up failed. Miserably. One could argue that its failure had consequences – the rise of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., the Trump second term win. Because the US public wants policies and practices based on truth. That’s why we created IPAK – The Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge. YOUR institute.

We are past the reckoning and the world now knows: IPAK, which exists to reduce human pain and suffering through knowledge, was correct.

With your monthly (subscription) donation, we will continue to do independent science on topics that impact your life.

We still have work to do.

SUPPORT US IN 2026

¹ Lyons-Weiler J. On the Origins of the 2019-nCoV Virus, Wuhan, China. JamesLyonsWeiler.com. January 30, 2020. https://jameslyonsweiler.com/2020/01/30/on-the-origins-of-the-2019-ncov-virus-wuhan-china/

² Lyons-Weiler J. Moderately Strong Confirmation of a Laboratory Origin of 2019-nCoV. JamesLyonsWeiler.com. February 2, 2020. https://jameslyonsweiler.com/2020/02/02/moderately-strong-confirmation-of-a-laboratory-origin-of-2019-ncov/

³ Calisher C, et al. Statement in support of the scientists, public health professionals, and medical professionals of China combating COVID-19. Lancet. 2020;395(10226):e42–e43. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30418-9

⁴ Andersen KG, et al. The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2. Nat Med. 2020;26(4):450–452. doi:10.1038/s41591-020-0820-9

⁴a Hao P, Zhong W, Song S, Fan S, Li X. Is SARS-CoV-2 originated from laboratory? A rebuttal to the claim of formation via laboratory recombination. Emerg Microbes Infect. 2020;9(1):545–547. doi:10.1080/22221751.2020.1738279

⁵ U.S. House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic. Hearing on The Proximal Origin of a Cover-Up. July 11, 2023. https://oversight.house.gov/release/hearing-wrap-up-suppression-of-the-lab-leak-hypothesis-was-not-based-in-science/

⁶ Email from Kristian Andersen to NIH. Jan 31, 2020. FOIA. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21038309-nih-emails

⁷ Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI). Unclassified Summary of Assessment on COVID-19 Origins. 2021. https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/Unclassified-Summary-of-Assessment-on-COVID-19-Origins.pdf

⁸ Department of Health and Human Services. Office of Inspector General. Audit Report: NIH’s Oversight of Grants to EcoHealth Alliance. Jan 2023. https://oig.hhs.gov/reports-and-publications/oas/acf

⁹ WHO-China Joint Mission Report. February 2021. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/who-convened-global-study-of-origins-of-sars-cov-2-china-part

¹⁰ Thacker PD. The covid-19 lab leak hypothesis: did the media fall victim to a misinformation campaign? BMJ. 2021;374:n1656. doi:10.1136/bmj.n1656

¹¹ van Helden P, et al. An appeal for an open scientific debate about the origin of SARS-CoV-2. Lancet. 2021;397(10285):e1. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00806-0

¹² Harrison AG, et al. Mechanisms of SARS-CoV-2 transmission and pathogenesis. Trends Immunol. 2020;41(12):1100–1115. doi:10.1016/j.it.2020.10.004

¹³ Alwine JC. mBio commentary on lab-adapted properties. mBio. 2022;13(2):e03703-21. doi:10.1128/mbio.03703-21

¹⁴ Makary MA, Daniel M. Medical error—the third leading cause of death in the US. BMJ. 2016;353:i2139. doi:10.1136/bmj.i2139

Share