Transcript segment

Baric Transcribed Interview (Redacted), p.80 · baric_ti:utt:00715

Date: 2026-04-10 09:00 (day precision)
Type: transcript segment · interview
recipient: Christina Salazar, Harry Kazenoff, David T. Lambeth III, William Henderson, Clark Ervin, Jake Greenberg
speaker: Ralph S. Baric
Topics: Natural origin / zoonotic spillover Wuhan Institute of Virology collaboration

I don't know. The authors were from Chinese groups. We could find the paper, but that was the first report. In fact, the whole genesis around the pangolin strains, these pangolin strains, is confusing because the group that published first had one sequence. And then, if I understand it correctly, those sequences and samples were picked up, I believe, by WIV researchers, or another group, and they published a completely different set of sequences. So one paper is in a very infrequently read journal, and then the other was in Nature.

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
In fact, the whole genesis around the pangolin strains, these pangolin strains, is confusing because the group that published first had one sequence.	own voice, substantive	speaker_own	asserts
And then, if I understand it correctly, those sequences and samples were picked up, I believe, by WIV researchers, or another group, and they published a completely different set of sequences.	own voice, substantive	speaker_own	asserts

Statement

Grade

Attribution

Stance

In fact, the whole genesis around the pangolin strains, these pangolin strains, is confusing because the group that published first had one sequence.

own voice, substantive

speaker_own

asserts

And then, if I understand it correctly, those sequences and samples were picked up, I believe, by WIV researchers, or another group, and they published a completely different set of sequences.

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 Ralph S. Baric open

It would depend on what data was present. Certainly the pangolin strains were identified, and I think the first paper that was published was in September of 2019, by non-WIV researchers.
2026-04-10 09:00 Christina Salazar open

And who was that?
2026-04-10 09:00 Ralph S. Baric open

I --
2026-04-10 09:00 Christina Salazar open

What organization?
2026-04-10 09:00 Ralph S. Baric

I don't know. The authors were from Chinese groups. We could find the paper, but that was the first report. In fact, the whole genesis around the pangolin strains, these pangolin strains, is confusing because the group that published first had one sequence. And then, if I understand it correctly, those sequences and samples were picked up, I believe, by WIV researchers, or another group, and they published a completely different set of sequences. So one paper is in a very infrequently read journal, and then the other was in Nature.
2026-04-10 09:00 Christina Salazar open

What's the other journal?
2026-04-10 09:00 Ralph S. Baric open

Again, I can't remember. So there's an DC.Scheduling@LexitasLegal.com issue about -- it's not clear why they found two different virus sequences in the same samples.
2026-04-10 09:00 Christina Salazar open

Okay.
2026-04-10 09:00 Ralph S. Baric open

I did actually make a molecular clone of a pangolin GD strain, and we published it --

Full conversation →