unfiltered, unbiased, word for word. if it happens here or here or here or anywhere that matters, america is watching on c-span, powered by cable. jimmy tobias joins us now, independent work has appeared in the nation, the guardian, other obligations. the headline of yours that got a lot of attention recently, evolution of unredacted nih emails show the rollout of the lab origins of covid. tell us about what you found out about those early days when we were try to figure out where covid came from. guest: we obtained a cache of emails that offered an inside look, concerns among some of the world's top virologists, that covid may have been engineered or came out of a lab. these virologists reached out to dr. fauci in the early days of the pandemic in january, february 2020, and brought him these concerns. what followed were a series of intense, confidential the liberations between dr. fauci, these virologists, dr. collins, other health officials, where they really looked at the virus, discuss some of the features i thought were unusual, made them think that this may have come out of a lab. throughout these discussions, they started circulating the draft of what would become the proximal origin paper, a very influential paper in the early days of the pandemic that shaped the debate about the origins. host: what did the proximal origin paper find? guest: it came down pretty strongly in favor of a national origin. in the early drafts of this paper, the discussion they were having was different from what came out at the end. host: what are some examples of that? who was leading these discussions? guest: one of the main organizers of the confidential call was jeremy from arkham a who lead at the time the wellcome trust in the u.k., dr. fauci, dr. christian anderson of script university, and australian virologist. in the beginning of these discussions, they focused on a variety of unusual features that some of them felt could not have come out of nature but a lab. as they looked at these and started circulating the draft paper, throughout the discussion, they continued to say there is not enough data to determine the origin of this virus. somewhere along the line, they came down pretty hard on the side of natural origin. a lot of experts i interviewed for this story, some of them felt like there was an effort to downplay a laboratory leak. others felt differently. these documents are important because they offer a really inside look at discussions of the origin among some of the top officials responsible for the pandemic response. these documents were highly sought after. the reporter got them in heavily redacted form. they were shown to congress but congress was not allowed to release them publicly. it was only after a year-long foia lawsuit that we were able to get the full unredacted versions. they shed light on things that people didn't know, about how serious these top officials and virologists took the possibility that this may have come out of a lab. host: what would be the motivation for playing down a lab leak theory? guest: different people have perspectives. some of the people i spoke to thought the discussion was just science at work, hypothesizing that this could have come out of a lab. they looked at the evidence and then changed their mind. others feel there was an effort to downplay in the lab leak. one of them, he said he had no idea these discussions were taking place at the time, that he was upset when he learned about them and was sidelined from them, because he had a different perspective. he felt this came out of a lab and was not invited to the conversations that ultimately led to the paper that shaped the debate in favor of natural origin. these conversations were very important because they did set the narrative. in terms of what the motivation may have been, the nih have been giving grant money to labs in china looking into coronaviruses, doing experience -- experiments on coronaviruses. before these experiments took place, dr. fauci went to his deputy and asked him to brush him up on what nih involvement in china was. there could have been fear, if it came out of a lab, there could have been blowback to the nih. people look at these emails and they have been interpreted differently by different parties. some feel it was an effort to downplay the lab theory, others say it is just science at work. host: how does one paper shape the debate so much as you described it? guest: it was very influential, this paper, cited in 2000 media outlets. dr. fauci described it from the white house podium in april. dr. francis collins wrote a blog post about it in march 2020. it had a large impact. at the time, people didn't know that it first started being formulated in discussions between scientists and top government officials. host: if you want to join the conversation, (202) 748-8001 for republicans to call in. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independent, (202) 748-8002. jimmy tobias is our guest. the headline of his piece from the nation, unredacted nih emails show effort to rule out the lab origin of covid. that is what we are talking about. jonathan from old bridge, new jersey is up first. he is an independent. caller: i just feel like, you know, this person is using a lot of loaded language, saying it is unnamed experts of an unnamed expertise, not saying how many. wouldn't there be a good reason why they would say it is not a lab leak? we have plenty of people, elected representatives in the country who are saying things like jewish people control the weather with space lasers. i don't think that should be used as an example of an expert or anything, right? guest: there were five authors in the proximal origin paper, some of them the top virologists in the world. they were on these calls along with dr. fauci, dr. collins, jeremy ferrar. this was a pretty small group having these discussions. host: you didn't have the transcripts of the call. what were you looking at? guest: we had emails that kind of let up to the call, summarized the call but there was no transcript of the call itself. this was a discussion that lasted throughout a week more or less. it started with this concern among christian anderson and his colleagues that the virus looked potentially engineered, that was the phrase they used. that is what alerted dr. fauci. he said that if their concerns bear out, we should alert the fbi. farrar organize this call the next day, and that is where things took off my where they started looking at the features of the virus they were concerned about. some of the scientists in these exchanges, after looking at this feature, they were like, i don't understand how this comes out of nature. one scientist said it was stunning. they wrestle with things like that. after a week of these conversations, by february 8, they were still saying we don't have enough evidence to determine whether this came out of a lab or natural origin. at that time, christian anderson, the first author listed in the paper, said i don't think we should publish it. we spent the last week trying to disprove any lab theory, but we don't have any evidence. i don't think we should publish it yet. less than a month later they had put together the final draft of the proximal origin paper. differed from some original drafts. host: in your story, you talk about urgency felt by these folks to get ahead of what was happening on social media at the time as all of these theories about where covid came from, there was any urgency to have some kind of scientific explanation. guest: i think that comes across pretty clearly in the documents, that they knew people were starting to talk about the possibility it came out of a lab, and wanted to put something out in the public that presented evidence -- that is one interpretation -- others feel like they were trying to set a narrative. he felt sidelined, that this paper in particular was part of an effort to create a narrative that favored a natural origin. there is a lot of debate about that. my goal is not to take a side here but to remain neutral. that is one way that prominent people are reading these documents. host: do you think we will ever find out conclusively if it was a lab leak or natural origin? is that information out there? guest: another thing dr. redfield said in his testimony, he doesn't think that we will do this doing scientific research, it will come from intelligence agencies. in my article, i spoke to a doctor who said he was not optimistic that we will ever find out because of the stonewalling from china. others are more optimistic. host: dominic informed dale, ohio. republican. good morning. go ahead. you are on with jimmy tobias. caller: i love the theory growing -- you know, you cannot trust our government today. a lot of people are feeling like that, as this thing grows about coming out of a lab. that is what many of us have felt all along, that it was derived there and released. but we believe it was because fauci and george soros and bill gates, globalists, would do anything to stop the growth of america first on industry and what trade did to our country. host: jimmy tobias, what do you want to jump in on? guest: my goal for this article was to take public records, present them in the context that they were written and let people decide for themselves. i don't think there's any evidence that there was some conspiracy involving the billionaires that were mentioned. there is just no evidence of that. instead what you see in the articles is -- and this is one what one of the experts in the article told me. he saw an early effort to grapple with the unusual features of the virus. they went from fairly airing out these views toward heavily leading toward one perspective, one origin theory. that is one possible reading of what happens with these articles and emails. host: ray in napa, california. you are next. caller: what i want to say is, i think it is a conspiracy with a trump administration trying to slow down china. they probably planted this virus, didn't say anything for months, try to turn it back on the airwaves in the u.s. it seems pretty obvious to me. host: jimmy tobias, the larger question of conspiracy theories in general around covid-19. guest: there certainly have been conspiracy theories, and that is what turned this debate into the toxic debate it has become, especially in the beginning. right now, we are in a place where the intelligence agencies are looking at this question, congress is looking at the question, reporters are taking it up in a way that they have not before. i am optimistic that we will get some information and find something, one way or the other. i encourage people to really look at the evidence that has been put out there, try to take the full view, tune into the hearings and pay attention to what is happening with intelligence agencies and news media, now that this is being looked at more closely. host: c-span is a good place to go for those hearings. two minutes from last week's hearing. this is the coronavirus subcommittee. this is ariz >> what they were discussing as i was understanding was the paper in the early sort of -- the discussion that led to the paper that really set the narrative around the national origin. host: from florida, this is nelson, and independent. good morning. caller: good morning. what dr. redfield just stated, the cover-up, then went on to describe what he would call it, sounds like a cover-up to me. i would like to point out the wet bar virus was not a gain of function activity. therefore, common sense would indicate that the covid that affected the world actually did come out of the laboratory. this kind of concerns me because about 40 years ago, i read in national geographic the world finally got rid of smallpox except for a small amount that was left in a laboratory. i pray to god that gain of function testing is not going on with that. host: i want to stop you there because paul on twitter asks the question, what is gain of function? guest: i believe your guest last week commented on this. it is a term that is hotly debated, but a common understanding of it, it is experiments in labs that increase the infectiousness of viruses. that is a common way of seeing it. yeah. host: did you watch that segment? guest: i did. host: what did you think? he is somebody who has been on this for years. guest: i thought it was great. i think he was right, talking about where we are certain where this come from either doesn't have the full picture or is not telling the whole truth. this is emphasized in the hearing and intelligence community assessment. there is not agreement where this came from. there is not consensus there is not consensus or positive evidence on either side, reporting and investigation is appropriate. >> it was back in march 1 when he was on the program, i think we asked him how long he had been on the beat and nikki -- and if he had gone to china to find answers. >> i have not gone to china. it took us a euro litigation to get these documents. i have been pursuing these documents are more than a year. that has been my main focus on the beat that i cover, i cover other things as well. i do a lot of foia requests. when i saw redacted documents released in 2021 that books on the conversations, i want to see was on the reductions -- reductions. we succeeded in getting those removed. >> the article published in the nation, the garden, jimmy tobias, independent reporter taking her phone calls. john, acclaim, virginia, republican, good morning. >> i didn't think anyone is can build tells in a certain manner it came from a lab or it came from a market. but, i think we should look carefully at the gain of function aspects of this virus. how it seemed to, let's just say come out of nature and be very verlander -- verlander in the human society. i think the gain of function associated with this virus is a clear indication it came out of a lab. i would like the person there to comment about the protocols for safety issues and the french, etc., related to the wuhan lab and the problems there. >> john in claim, virginia, jimmy tobias, can you explain what a cleavage site is? >> what he mentioned about the way the virus seems to spread rapidly in the human population, that is some of that made dr. redfield in the early days of the pandemic think this came out of a lab. he said there are certain biological aspects of it that did not seem like it came out of nature. that is low things that concern him. dr. deborah birx was on tv saying something similar. that was one concerning element of the virus that set people's alarm bells off. the cleavage has been a focus for quite some time. it is still unclear to me how the scientists, dr. fauci, and others in january, february, 2020 overcame their concerns. that is something would have asked him if i spoken with them that they declined to do. that is an outstanding question. how did they overcome their concerns to publish what they published? that is an outstanding question in my mind that i'm curious about as i continue to report on the story. >> you also teach journalism at the university of montana? >> i do. >> what you think the lesson for journalists and all that we have seen in how the story has played out during covid. how journalist covered covid. what is a takeaway for students of journalism? >> a great question. i talked about this article to my students a couple weeks ago. we were talking about the pure review process, science, culture of science. i think, your listeners and viewers look at these emails, they paint a different picture than the final paper. i encourage my students, look behind the paper, try to get the story behind up your review process. dig into what is happening in the background. science is a human endeavor. there are politics involved and other things. it encourages us as reporters to scrutinize even the most prestigious individuals.