Fauci, Wuhan and the Billions Spent Testing Australians
Dawn Kelly | asKING QUESTIONS
Anthony Fauci was once presented to the world as the authoritative voice of the COVID-19 response.
Governments, media organisations and social media platforms repeatedly told the public to trust the experts, follow the science and accept extraordinary restrictions on their lives.
Yet on 29 July 2026, when Fauci appeared before a United States Senate committee examining the origins and handling of COVID-19, he reportedly invoked the Fifth Amendment 111 times.
He declined to answer questions about gain-of-function research, American funding connected to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, the origins of COVID-19 and statements he made during the pandemic.
He even declined to answer deliberately simple questions about the day of the week, the colour of his tie and the carpet in front of him.
Invoking the Fifth Amendment is a constitutional right and is not, by itself, proof of guilt. However, it allows a witness to refuse to answer when an answer may expose them to criminal liability.
That leaves an unavoidable question:
If the public was expected to trust Anthony Fauci when he helped shape policies affecting billions of people, why is he now unwilling to answer questions about the decisions made behind closed doors?
The Fauci pardon
Before leaving office in January 2025, President Joe Biden granted Fauci a full and unconditional pardon covering any federal offences he may have committed or taken part in from 1 January 2014 until the date of the pardon.
The pardon was not an admission that Fauci committed a crime. Biden presented it as protection against politically motivated prosecution.
Nevertheless, the starting date deserves scrutiny.
In 2014, the US National Institutes of Health awarded EcoHealth Alliance a grant titled Understanding the Risk of Bat Coronavirus Emergence. Part of that funding was subsequently directed to the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
Why did Fauci’s pardon reach all the way back to 1 January 2014?
Was the date simply chosen to cover the whole period of his relevant public service, or was it connected to decisions surrounding coronavirus research and its funding?
The pardon may protect Fauci from federal prosecution for conduct covered by its terms, but it does not answer the questions the public is asking.
You can read the wording of the pardon in the official US Department of Justice pardon document.
What is gain-of-function research?
Gain-of-function research involves altering a biological agent so that it acquires a new or enhanced capability.
In virus research, that could include:
- increasing its ability to infect cells;
- enabling it to infect another species;
- increasing its transmissibility;
- increasing the severity of the disease it causes; or
- helping it evade immunity, vaccines or treatments.
Scientists argue that this research can help them understand how viruses might evolve naturally, identify potential pandemic threats and develop vaccines or treatments.
Critics argue that intentionally creating more capable pathogens introduces a catastrophic risk. If an altered virus accidentally escapes, the research intended to prevent a pandemic could potentially help cause one.
That is not an imaginary risk. Laboratory accidents and escapes have occurred before.
The battle over definitions
The controversy is complicated by the difference between the broad scientific meaning of gain of function and the narrower regulatory category known as enhanced potential pandemic pathogen research.
Fauci maintained that the NIH did not fund gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute because the experiments did not meet the narrow regulatory definition applying at the time.
However, NIH officials later acknowledged that some of the research met the broader definition of gain of function.
The 2024 US congressional investigation found that experiments conducted under the EcoHealth Alliance grant gave coronaviruses new or enhanced activity. It concluded that Fauci’s categorical statements to the Senate were, at a minimum, misleading.
Fauci’s position was that when he said “gain of function,” he meant the narrower regulated category of gain-of-function research of concern.
That distinction may be technically important, but was it clearly explained to the public?
If an experiment expands the range of species or cells a virus can infect, has that virus not gained a function?
If a bat coronavirus is modified or combined with other genetic material to test whether it can infect humanised cells or animals, should the public be told simply that no gain-of-function research occurred?
This is why definitions matter. Scientific language should clarify risk—not conceal it.
The findings and testimony are detailed in the US House Select Subcommittee’s interim report on EcoHealth Alliance, NIH and the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
EcoHealth Alliance and Wuhan
American taxpayer funding was awarded to EcoHealth Alliance, led by Peter Daszak, to investigate bat coronaviruses and their potential to emerge in humans.
EcoHealth then provided sub-awards to the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
This did not mean the United States directly ordered scientists to create COVID-19. Nor does it prove that SARS-CoV-2 was manufactured or escaped from the Wuhan laboratory.
What it establishes is that American money supported coronavirus research in Wuhan and that serious questions later emerged about the experiments, reporting requirements, safety controls and government oversight.
EcoHealth submitted an important progress report almost two years late. US authorities subsequently suspended and debarred EcoHealth and Daszak from federal funding for five years.
The uncomfortable question remains:
Were the organisations involved in this research also allowed to influence the investigation into whether such research may have contributed to the pandemic?
Daszak was selected as the only American member of the early World Health Organization investigation into the origins of COVID-19. Given his organisation’s relationship with the Wuhan Institute, was that appropriate?
Was the lab-leak question suppressed?
In the early stages of the pandemic, the possibility of a laboratory accident was widely portrayed as a conspiracy theory.
People asking whether COVID-19 could have emerged from the Wuhan Institute of Virology were dismissed as spreading misinformation. In some cases, the theory was characterised as racist because it had become associated with Donald Trump.
But asking whether a virus escaped from a laboratory is not an accusation against Chinese people.
In fact, blaming Chinese culture and eating habits without adequate evidence could be considered far more prejudicial than investigating a specific laboratory that was studying bat coronaviruses in the same city where the outbreak was first detected.
Private communications later revealed that some scientists had questions about the virus’s features and origins while publicly supporting a natural-origin explanation.
That does not necessarily prove a coordinated conspiracy. Scientists may legitimately change their minds as they examine new evidence.
However, when uncertainty existed privately, why was certainty projected publicly?
Why were people censored or ridiculed for discussing a possibility that governments and intelligence agencies would later acknowledge remained plausible?
Science, funding and institutional self-protection
Scientific research is not separate from money, careers or institutional power.
Research laboratories depend on grants. Universities depend on researchers bringing funding into their institutions. Government agencies determine which projects receive money and which scientists can continue their work.
As director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Fauci occupied one of the most powerful positions in biomedical research funding.
This does not prove that scientists lied to protect their grants. It does create a potential conflict of interest that deserved far more scrutiny than it received.
If acknowledging that certain research constituted gain of function threatened future funding, professional reputations or entire research programs, how impartial could the institutions involved be when evaluating their own conduct?
The people funding, conducting or overseeing controversial research should not be the only people deciding whether that research was safe.
Fauci, fame and the media
Material reported from Fauci’s diaries has also raised questions about his relationship with media attention and celebrity.
According to reports, the diaries recorded praise from the White House, favourable news coverage, television appearances, selfies and statements about becoming one of the most famous people in America.
Enjoying public recognition does not prove scientific misconduct. But the image revealed in these accounts is difficult to reconcile with the media’s portrayal of a completely detached and impartial public servant.
Fauci became more than a medical adviser. He became a political and cultural symbol – the supposed scientific counterweight to Donald Trump.
Signs appeared in people’s yards thanking him. Media organisations treated him as a celebrity. Questioning Fauci was increasingly treated as questioning science itself.
But no individual is science.
Science is a method of investigation. It requires evidence, transparency, challenge, replication and the willingness to be proven wrong.
When a public official becomes untouchable, science risks being replaced by authority.
Was this public information – or propaganda?
Propaganda does not always consist of completely fabricated information.
It can involve selecting which facts receive attention, repeating a preferred narrative, attaching moral labels to dissenters and discouraging the public from examining competing evidence.
During COVID-19, the public was repeatedly exposed to messages built around fear, social responsibility and obedience:
Trust the science.
Stay home.
Get tested.
Follow the rules.
Do not question the experts.
People who challenged official claims could be labelled selfish, dangerous, anti-science, conspiratorial or racist.
Was this balanced public-health communication – or was legitimate uncertainty deliberately suppressed to secure compliance?
The media had a responsibility to question the people exercising extraordinary power. Too often, it appeared to promote their messages instead.
My Corona Timeline
This is not merely a story I observed from a distance. I lived through the consequences of Western Australia’s COVID response.
Hand on heart, I know that I did everything I could to raise awareness about government overreach and to understand and assert what I believed were my rights. As it turned out, I discovered just how few rights Western Australians appeared to have once emergency powers were activated.
During this period, I documented the restrictions, directions, encounters and decisions that affected my life. I also began asking questions about the expanding surveillance infrastructure surrounding us – including cameras, facial-recognition technology, number-plate recognition systems and other technologies capable of tracking and recording people’s movements.
Western Australia’s isolation, border controls, policing, mandates and emergency directions created an environment in which ordinary freedoms could be suspended with remarkably little meaningful resistance.
My Corona Timeline records what I witnessed, what I challenged and what happened when I attempted to stand up for my rights.
You can read my personal account here: My Corona Timeline.
My experience is only one part of a much larger story. But government policy is not merely something written in legislation, directions or press releases. It has real consequences for the people required to live under it.
How did PCR testing work?
While the argument about the virus’s origin continued, Australia built an enormous testing system.
RT-PCR stands for reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction.
A sample was usually collected from a person’s nose or throat. Genetic material was then extracted from the sample.
Because SARS-CoV-2 is an RNA virus, its RNA first had to be converted into complementary DNA. Primers were used to target selected genetic sequences associated with the virus.
The sample was repeatedly heated and cooled inside a thermocycler. During each cycle, the targeted genetic material was copied. After repeated cycles, a tiny amount of genetic material could be amplified into billions of copies.
Fluorescent probes allowed the machine to detect the amplification.
PCR is a highly sensitive scientific technique. However, it detects selected genetic material – it does not, by itself, demonstrate that a person was infectious or carrying intact, actively replicating virus.
The number of amplification cycles required to produce a detectable signal is known as the cycle threshold, or Ct value. A higher Ct value generally indicates that less targeted genetic material was present in the original sample.
This raises questions that deserved clear public discussion:
- What Ct thresholds were used?
- Were those thresholds consistent between laboratories?
- How often did positive results represent active infectious illness rather than small amounts of residual genetic material?
- How were false-positive and false-negative risks communicated?
- Were case numbers always presented with sufficient clinical context?
The cost of PCR testing in Australia
The Commonwealth funded PCR testing largely through Medicare and through shared arrangements with state and territory governments.
Published figures indicate that billions of dollars were spent on the national PCR testing system. One reported estimate placed the total cost at approximately $3.7 billion, including around $2.9 billion in Medicare benefits for 37.4 million tests.
At the height of the response, Australia was reportedly spending around $160 million each week on PCR testing. When PCR and RAT expenditure were considered together, the estimated weekly cost rose even higher.
Testing may have provided useful information during outbreaks, particularly for hospitals, aged-care facilities and vulnerable populations.
But was testing always appropriately targeted?
How much was spent testing healthy people without symptoms?
How many people were required to test merely to work, travel, attend appointments or comply with government directions?
And what was the measurable health benefit of this expenditure?
Western Australia’s $580 million RAT purchase
The scale of Western Australia’s rapid antigen test procurement is particularly striking.
The WA Government purchased approximately 110.7 million RATs at a total cost of about $580 million.
That was roughly 40 tests for every person in Western Australia.
Approximately 85.7 million tests were purchased through health entities, while another 25 million were purchased through the Department of Finance.
The plan reportedly began as a proposal to spend approximately $3 million on tests for health workers and returning travellers. It then expanded dramatically as government agencies attempted to secure supplies during the Omicron wave.
According to the Western Australian Auditor General, the procurement lacked a single coordinated plan. Agencies were purchasing tests independently, formal contracts were not always completed before orders were placed, and the state acquired far more stock than it ultimately distributed.
Warehousing expanded from two facilities to ten to accommodate the enormous inventory.
Large quantities remained unused, expired or required disposal, adding further storage and waste-management costs.
The Auditor General did not suggest that every purchase was unnecessary. Governments were making rapid decisions during an uncertain period and faced genuine concerns about shortages.
However, urgency does not eliminate the need for accountability.
The full findings are contained in the WA Auditor General’s report, Financial Audit Results—State Government 2021–22: COVID-19 Impacts.
Where is WA’s complete PCR bill?
Western Australian public clinics reportedly processed more than 4.7 million PCR tests.
Yet unlike the RAT procurement, there does not appear to be one clearly published figure showing the total amount the WA Government spent specifically on PCR testing.
Those costs were distributed across PathWest, public testing clinics, staffing, laboratory equipment, consumables and broader COVID-response budgets. Some costs were also shared with the Commonwealth.
This makes it difficult for the public to determine the total cost.
If governments could record millions of test results, why can they not provide taxpayers with one transparent accounting of how much the testing system cost?
Western Australians should be able to see:
- the state’s total PCR expenditure;
- the Commonwealth contribution;
- payments made to public and private pathology providers;
- the cost of testing clinics and temporary staff;
- the cost of RAT storage and disposal;
- the number of tests distributed, used, expired and destroyed; and
- the evidence used to determine whether the expenditure delivered value.
Joining the dots
These issues should not be examined in isolation.
The story begins with risky coronavirus research and disputed definitions of gain of function.
It continues with American funding flowing through EcoHealth Alliance to the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
It includes scientists privately discussing questions about the virus while the public was encouraged to accept a natural origin as settled.
It includes the media elevating Fauci to celebrity status and treating challenges to official narratives as dangerous misinformation.
It includes governments using fear and emergency powers to impose lockdowns, mandates and mass-testing requirements.
It ends with billions of dollars in public money spent on PCR and rapid antigen testing – including approximately $580 million on RATs in Western Australia alone.
Now, when asked to account for his role, one of the most influential figures in the entire response has invoked the Fifth Amendment 111 times.
That does not prove every allegation against Fauci.
It does not prove SARS-CoV-2 was deliberately created.
It does not prove the virus escaped from the Wuhan laboratory.
But it does prove that the questions have not gone away.
The questions must be asked
Where did COVID-19 come from?
What research was conducted at the Wuhan Institute of Virology?
What did Fauci, the NIH, EcoHealth Alliance and other researchers know -and when did they know it?
Why did officials rely on narrow definitions when denying that gain-of-function research had been funded?
Why was the lab-leak question suppressed?
Did media organisations investigate government claims or simply repeat them?
Were public-health messages designed to inform the public – or control public behaviour?
How much did Western Australia spend on PCR testing?
Why did WA purchase approximately 110.7 million RATs?
Who profited from the billions spent on testing?
What did taxpayers receive in return?
Most importantly, what safeguards now exist to ensure that dangerous research, institutional self-protection and government overreach cannot combine to produce the same outcome again?
The people who lived through lockdowns, lost businesses, missed funerals, became isolated from loved ones, complied with testing requirements and endured vaccination mandates deserve more than carefully managed narratives.
They deserve evidence.
They deserve transparency.
They deserve accountability.
And they deserve answers.
Dawn Kelly | asKING QUESTIONS
Author’s note: This article examines matters of public controversy and asks questions based on government records, congressional investigations, audit findings and media reports. The precise origin of SARS-CoV-2 remains disputed. References to allegations or investigative conclusions should not be interpreted as findings of criminal guilt.
Recent Comments