Baric Transcribed Interview (Redacted) — page 154

1. In early Feb we had spotted some features in the SARS-CoV-2 genome that at the time appeared unusual - particularly the furin cleavage site and the receptor binding domain. 2. At this stage we thought it was to wise ask for some other expert opinion on this, so a conference call was arranged. There were indeed some coronavirus experts on the call who we chose. 3. Clearly, some people on the call were very strongly of the opinion the possibility of a lab escape was ridiculous and listed reasons why it was unlikely (although there was also some initial confusion about whether we were referring to the crazy HIV origins theory that had just been touted - obviously we were not). Some of those comments we agreed with, others we didn't. There as a long email discussion about what the data said. A take-home message from the call was that we should go away and write something to clearly set-out the background science on the issue. 4. So, we eventually wrote up a paper. Critically, however, drafts of this paper were sent to all the people on the call, including those that have leaked out the information. I've attached here the draft of the document from Feb 7 that was circulated to everyone. As you can see, it is essentially the basis of the document and people on the call commented on it. 5. Very shortly after the call the pangolin data came out. This was critical. As I wrote in an email to everyone on the call on Feb 9th: "Personally, with the pangolin virus possessing 6/6 key sites in the receptor binding domain, I am in favour of the natural evolution theory." 6. Hence, it is completely and utterly false to claim that we all thought it was a lab escape, we were corrected in our views by the coronavirus experts on the call, and then submitted a Nature paper without anyone else knowing about it. The truth is that we had a range of views among us, our paper included the pangolin data that was not available at the time of the call, and we circulated drafts of our document to everyone. I also strongly reject the idea that we should not have raised nor discussed the possibility of lab escape: as scientists we have to present all the data and discuss it openly. That's all we did. To have not mentioned the possibility of lab escape would have been negligent. Is the person who emailed you seriously suggesting that we should have not discussed these issues? Wouldn't that be a cover-up? Indeed, the great irony is that 99.9% of the feedback I've had on the paper - including death threats - are people accusing me of dismissing the lab escape theory too quickly!! Can you imagine if we had not mentioned it all? This is clearly just case of sour grapes based on some half-truths. It's telling that the person who emailed you is anonymous. I've absolutely no problem with people knowing that my views on this issue have evolved as more data have appeared. That's science. Indeed, I've told this to many people: the way see it is that we set-up an hypothesis and then tested it. As far I can tell we are only 'guilty' of following the proper scientific method. Hope this helps. Eddie