A single line often inverts meaning once you see what it
answers, so neighbouring messages are always shown.
-
You know, being on that call, that was not a decision of that group that it was engineered.
-
Did they discuss it?
-
Yes. The main problem that the evolutionary biologists were running into was about that time they only had 8 to 15 full-length genomes of the virus DC.Scheduling@LexitasLegal.com sequenced, and they had no other sequences of related viruses. There was a rumor that a pangolin virus existed with 100 percent identity, or close to 100 percent identity to SARS-2. That turned out not to be true, as the pangolin, called the pangolin GD strain, which was about 90 percent identical, I believe, is the virus they were talking about. It has a receptor binding domain that is almost identical, nearly identical to SARS-2, but it does have a couple point mutations in it. And the reason that's important is that that meant that there were natural isolates in nature that had that sequence, which means it's not engineered.
-
Okay.
-
2026-04-10 09:00
Ralph S. Baric
It was later then found that the BANAL strains on the Cambodian-Thailand-Chinese border --
-
This is --
-
BANAL-52 and BANAL-1-something or another, also had receptor binding domains that were virtually identical to SARS-2. So there's two bad viruses and pangolin virus within the clade, within that branch of SARS-2 that had identical receptor binding domains, which means that it's not engineered.
-
Would your opinion change if you knew that they WIV was conducting work on pangolin viruses around 2019, 2018? DC.Scheduling@LexitasLegal.com
-
It would depend on what strain they had. It would depend on what strain they had.