Transcript segment

Baric Transcribed Interview (Redacted), p.28 · baric_ti:utt:00159

Date: 2026-04-10 09:00 (day precision)
Type: transcript segment · interview
recipient: Ralph S. Baric, Harry Kazenoff, David T. Lambeth III, William Henderson, Clark Ervin, Jake Greenberg
speaker: Christina Salazar
Topics: Congressional oversight Intelligence community assessments

No, it wasn't. But in the agenda items that we've seen from other officials, that's the agenda that was on there. But from your House testimony it sounded like that wasn't necessarily what was discussed.

Extracted statements

Rule-extracted, not adjudicated. The grade says what may be done with each one; read the document above before relying on any of them.

Statement	Grade	Attribution	Stance
But in the agenda items that we've seen from other officials, that's the agenda that was on there.	needs context	speaker_own	asserts
But from your House testimony it sounded like that wasn't necessarily what was discussed.	own voice, substantive	speaker_own	asserts

Statement

Grade

Attribution

Stance

But in the agenda items that we've seen from other officials, that's the agenda that was on there.

needs context

speaker_own

asserts

But from your House testimony it sounded like that wasn't necessarily what was discussed.

own voice, substantive

speaker_own

asserts

In context

A single line often inverts meaning once you see what it answers, so neighbouring messages are always shown.

2026-04-10 09:00 Christina Salazar open

If you weren't, I feel like you would've remembered, right?
2026-04-10 09:00 Ralph S. Baric open

I would think so. But you have to realize what January and February were like for me. I had constant calls going on. And so it was a blur. It really was a blur.
2026-04-10 09:00 Christina Salazar open

One of the calendar invites that we have says that the purpose of the discussion, for you coming in, was to discuss basic research that is gain-of-function, that will further understanding of coronaviruses and corona vaccine development, and two, to address the slowness of the U.S. government P3CO process. Does that sound like the conversation that you had?
2026-04-10 09:00 Ralph S. Baric open

The first part, absolutely. I don't DC.Scheduling@LexitasLegal.com recall much in the discussion of the slowness of the P3CO process. But if it says it in the email then at some point they may have wanted to discuss that. I don't know. Was that something that I said?
2026-04-10 09:00 Christina Salazar

No, it wasn't. But in the agenda items that we've seen from other officials, that's the agenda that was on there. But from your House testimony it sounded like that wasn't necessarily what was discussed.
2026-04-10 09:00 Ralph S. Baric open

I don't recall that part being in the House, so I think the House testimony is actually accurate.
2026-04-10 09:00 Christina Salazar open

So can you let us know what you all talked about and who was present?
2026-04-10 09:00 Ralph S. Baric open

Well, Fauci was present for about 5 to 10 minutes max. He got called away for a phone call in a SCIF, and so he left pretty early in the meeting. There was some basic discussion about the new virus. Ultimately, they got to, I think, what they really wanted to talk about was gain-of-function related experiments, or I think it should be potential gain-of-function related experiments, that were associated with this 2015 and 2016 paper. I was a little surprised that they didn't seem to have the paperwork that was involved in my presentation on why I thought this might be more of a loss-of-function than a gain-of-function phenotype. And so then I think a day or so later I sent them all those documents. DC.Scheduling@LexitasLegal.com
2026-04-10 09:00 Christina Salazar open

So they just didn't have them?

Full conversation →