Deputy Staff Director & Chief Counsel, HSGAC
| Authored | 545 |
| Substantive (25+ words) | 79 |
| Threads posted in | 1 |
| Distinct active days | 1 |
| Words authored | 12,289 |
| Received (incl. group broadcast) | 611 |
Received counts include every message sent to a channel this person belonged to. That measures presence, not participation.
72 sentences were extracted and attributed to this person. Most are not their own opinion. Reporting the total as “72 statements” would misrepresent them.
| Person | Medium | Msgs | Span |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ralph S. Baric | interview | 1,104 | 2026-04-10 – 2026-04-10 |
| David T. Lambeth III | interview | 560 | 2026-04-10 – 2026-04-10 |
| Harry Kazenoff | interview | 560 | 2026-04-10 – 2026-04-10 |
| William Henderson | interview | 557 | 2026-04-10 – 2026-04-10 |
| Clark Ervin | interview | 554 | 2026-04-10 – 2026-04-10 |
| Jake Greenberg | interview | 546 | 2026-04-10 – 2026-04-10 |
Showing: own voice, substantive needs context quoted / not their view all
And so we have a document that shows that Peter Daszak asked for that, for Zhengli Shi to acknowledge that grant back in 2015.
Baric Transcribed Interview (Redacted), p.47 · original PDF · in context
I don't want to misstate it -- I mean, he said, "Does USAID fund gain-of-function research?
Baric Transcribed Interview (Redacted), p.49 · original PDF · in context
Was it because there was a concern that it could be perceived that there was gain-of-function work occurring after the pause?
Baric Transcribed Interview (Redacted), p.50 · original PDF · in context
-- that they specifically said "we want you to do gain-of-function research."
Baric Transcribed Interview (Redacted), p.92 · original PDF · in context
And so you said that it would be -- this was gain-of-function.
Baric Transcribed Interview (Redacted), p.95 · original PDF · in context
So what they would be spraying in the caves would not be the gain-of-function?
Baric Transcribed Interview (Redacted), p.97 · original PDF · in context
It's from 2023, on pangolin beta coronaviruses, where it looks like you would be providing original material to Vincent Munster from RML.
Baric Transcribed Interview (Redacted), p.117 · original PDF · in context
If it's not classified -- I don't want you to have a false sense of security that if we talk about that, it's not classified, it's not.
Baric Transcribed Interview (Redacted), p.122 · original PDF · in context
It is worth pointing out that the senior author on our paper - Bob Garry - has published a significant number of papers on coronaviruses, including on the SARS spike protein, and even commented on this on the virological.org website prior to the call taking place (https://virological.org/t/analysis-ofwuhan-coronavirus-deja-vu/357).
Baric Transcribed Interview (Redacted), p.140 · original PDF · in context
Importantly, our study was an evolutionary study based on genomic information, which is the only way to investigate the origins of SARS-CoV-2 - we believe all the authors on our paper have a strong demonstrated record in answering exactly those types of questions for a multitude of viruses. 3.
Baric Transcribed Interview (Redacted), p.140 · original PDF · in context
We have attached our first draft of what would eventually become our paper from Feb 7, which was circulated to everyone on the call.
Baric Transcribed Interview (Redacted), p.140 · original PDF · in context
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. 7.
Baric Transcribed Interview (Redacted), p.140 · original PDF · in context
At the time, there were indeed rumours - which persists to this day - that SARS-CoV-2 was an engineered virus, but these certainly did not > wrote: ta come from us.
Baric Transcribed Interview (Redacted), p.140 · original PDF · in context
Indeed, the great irony is that 99.9% of the feedback we have received on our paper - including death threats - are people accusing us of dismissing the lab escape theory too quickly.
Baric Transcribed Interview (Redacted), p.140 · original PDF · in context
Jon On Jul 25, 2020, at 7:22 AM, ofu8ledu8z <ofu8ledu8z@protonmail.com> wrote: EMAIL]I Hello Jon dposite Given your recent mentions of the origin of SARS-CoV-2 I thought you might be interested to hear the bizarre backstory of the paper "The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2" (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9).
Baric Transcribed Interview (Redacted), p.140 · original PDF · in context
But, incredibly, Andersen et al. turned around and submitted the Proximal paper to Nature with the exact opposite claim, i.e., that the virus was NOT human engineered.
Baric Transcribed Interview (Redacted), p.140 · original PDF · in context
It was then sent to Nature Medicine, where it was soon published.
Baric Transcribed Interview (Redacted), p.140 · original PDF · in context
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.
Baric Transcribed Interview (Redacted), p.140 · original PDF · in context