Transcript segment

In context

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

1. 2026-04-10 09:00 Christina Salazar open
   Tonie Rocke?
2. 2026-04-10 09:00 Ralph S. Baric open
   I don't know.
3. 2026-04-10 09:00 Christina Salazar open
   Do you talk to Tonie Rocke?
4. 2026-04-10 09:00 Ralph S. Baric open
   No.
5. 2026-04-10 09:00 Christina Salazar
   So no one from the government either raised this with you?
6. 2026-04-10 09:00 Ralph S. Baric open
   No. Not that I'm aware of.
7. 2026-04-10 09:00 Christina Salazar open
   Okay. I mean, it is --
8. 2026-04-10 09:00 Ralph S. Baric open
   I mean, do you have records that I could look at? I'd be glad to look at them. And I'm sorry, but again, I guess the other issues you need to put this in context are, Kristian Andersen, in the Proximity [sic] Origins paper, made a pretty articulate argument why he thought it was not engineered. And it's based on, one, you have to have a molecular clone that would be identical or DC.Scheduling@LexitasLegal.com nearly identical to SARS2, which did not exist. It certainly did not exist in my lab. The second thing you needed to do is to explain its weird insertion into the spike of the S1/S2 boundary. And it's an out-of-frame insertion that puts in four residues, when in reality there's only three residues that need to be introduced into it if you wanted to make a furin cleavage site there. And so why are there four residues there? Why is it out of frame? That doesn't make sense. So why is there a proline residue? Prolines cause kinks in proteins, so that can be very disruptive.
9. 2026-04-10 09:00 Christina Salazar open
   So you thought that the Proximal Origins argument was well articulated?

Full conversation →