Transcript segment

Baric Transcribed Interview (Redacted), p.32 · baric_ti:utt:00191

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: FOIA, records and transparency

I mean, was the conversation, were they worried? What was the tone of it? I mean, we see -- and again, these have been FOIA'd -- there's a spur of sending out that paper, within hours, to multiple different people. Now, you know, a lot of the emails don't have commentary, but it's on February 1st. We know what else happened on February 1st.

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
I mean, we see -- and again, these have been FOIA'd -- there's a spur of sending out that paper, within hours, to multiple different people.	own voice, substantive	speaker_own	asserts

Statement

Grade

Attribution

Stance

I mean, we see -- and again, these have been FOIA'd -- there's a spur of sending out that paper, within hours, to multiple different people.

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

And they didn't seem to be aware of documents?
2026-04-10 09:00 Ralph S. Baric open

No. They were aware that there were documents that existed. They didn't seem to have a copy of them, and that surprised me. So I immediately said, "I'll be glad to send you the copies," and the university did, so we did.
2026-04-10 09:00 Christina Salazar open

Good thing you guys had a copy. DC.Scheduling@LexitasLegal.com
2026-04-10 09:00 Ralph S. Baric open

Well, yeah, really.
2026-04-10 09:00 Christina Salazar

I mean, was the conversation, were they worried? What was the tone of it? I mean, we see -- and again, these have been FOIA'd -- there's a spur of sending out that paper, within hours, to multiple different people. Now, you know, a lot of the emails don't have commentary, but it's on February 1st. We know what else happened on February 1st.
2026-04-10 09:00 Ralph S. Baric open

Well, I think you need to put it in context. So in China there was a massive social media barrage of speculation that the 2015 virus was the cause of the pandemic. NIH had to become aware of that at some point, and they would immediately then be worried whether everything was done properly. They had to be. And it's five years back, so again, these are things that are not going to be at the top of anyone's mind. But at the same time, they're going to want to know was everything done properly. So yeah, I think naturally that they would be concerned, naturally they'd want to know, is that virus the cause of the pandemic or not? I mean, if they didn't ask those kinds of question, they would be really irresponsible.
2026-04-10 09:00 Christina Salazar open

That's kind of irresponsible that they didn't have the paperwork too.
2026-04-10 09:00 Ralph S. Baric open

Well -- DC.Scheduling@LexitasLegal.com
2026-04-10 09:00 Christina Salazar open

That's just my commentary.

Full conversation →