PAUL: "I think the reasoning behind him being so resistant, so livid and so full of ad hominem is he realizes that once the public realizes that the NIH under his leadership funded the Wuhan lab, that is beyond question they did, the NIH funded the lab, but once the public figures out that they were doing very, very dangerous research there, gain of function research, taking dangerous animal viruses and making them more transmissible to humans, once everybody puts this together, he realizes where the blame is going to attach. He has at least tangential responsibility. If this came from the lab that he was funding, my goodness, can you imagine the moral culpability that the man has? But you also have to place this in context. Since 2012, he has said repeatedly that yes, an accident can happen, but the research is worth it. Even if an accident were to cause a worldwide pandemic, the research is worth it. That judgment call is something that most Americans or people who have family members, the 4 million people who died would say, 'You know what? Maybe that research isn’t worth it if this contagion actually came out of a lab where they are doing this research.' They also do this research in the United States. They do it in Galveston and in North Carolina. So this is a big debate, not just over blame, but over whether or not this could happen again in the United States."