A single line often inverts meaning once you see what it
answers, so neighbouring messages are always shown.
-
Sorry. Before Dr. Baric begins his answer I just wanted to say that one of the examples he will give he believes could implicate national security. It's not classified, but we will ask that it be redacted, and are happy to confer about that later.
-
Okay. So I'll give the straightforward ones first. When we published the 2015 paper, we did not include the full-length sequence of the chimera. And the reason we did not do that is that I initiated a conversation with NIH program and their research journal to request that that sequence not be provided so that no other person would have an exact template for how to build chimeric viruses. I never shared with the Chinese how we did it. I never provided them with the sequence. I never trained anyone from their job in coronavirus reverse genetics. So that's one example of where we specifically did not provide a sequence until after the pandemic started, when several researchers wrote Nature Medicine and said, "We want to look at the sequence to determine whether it's the cause of the pandemic."
-
And what was the sequence? DC.Scheduling@LexitasLegal.com
-
The sequence of the SHC014 chimera. So we provided that, and we also put the WIV1 sequence up in PubMed and they analyzed that sequence and agreed that it was not the cause of the pandemic.
-
2026-04-10 09:00
Christina Salazar
And that was your decision, solely. No one encourage you or suggested?
-
Nobody encouraged me or suggested it. In this case I approached the journal because, again, going back to the transmissible flu studies, it was not just the creation of the transmissible flu virus that was considered sensitive information. It was the details of the technology which also was dual-use. So it's not necessarily just the creation of the entity or the pathogen that's gain-or-function or dual-use. The methodology can be sensitive, and I felt that it was best that we did not provide that information. So that's one example.
-
Okay.
-
The second example, which is the reason why I'm reluctant to talk about it here, because I do not want to be responsible as the one who releases it to the public. If you all choose to do that then you can accept the responsibility of that. Sometimes in science you come across findings that are potentially concerning. And so in this case, Fang Li had been doing studies using biochemical approaches to identify DC.Scheduling@LexitasLegal.com the most optimal receptor binding domain possible to grab either the human ACE2 receptor or the mouse ACE2 receptor. The thought in the field from him, as a biochemist, was that would be the most optimal and most dangerous form of virus. I disagreed with him, because in reality, biochemical interactions are, in essence, a bell-shaped curve. If they can't interact very well, the virus can't get in. If they react too well, that interaction can't come apart. So the virus can't get in, and the virus, as it tries to release, gets caught up in what's called a dominant negative effect, and it will prevent virus replication. And the reason I knew this is I had overexpressed receptors before, with mouse hepatitis virus. And because there was so much receptor there, the virus, as it got in, it replicated fine, but when it came out all the spikes were stripped off of the particle. So if the interaction is too great it kills the virus. Anyone who might want to do nefarious work in science, wanted to create something, is going to think that the most efficient interaction is where you want to go. So I tested that hypothesis and showed that I was right, that the super-binding things were just as deleterious as the really poor-binding ones. I subsequently told NIH and destroyed those viruses. I have never told anyone, and I would DC.Scheduling@LexitasLegal.com recommend that this committee not release that, because then you will be responsible for telling terrorists what to do.
-
Are you aware of ?