美国科学家Dr.James Lyons-Weiler发表重磅文章：Moderately Strong Confirmation of a Laboratory Origin of 2019-nCoV-中等强度确认新型冠状病毒为实验室起源。 大概内容：有明确的证据表明，新型冠状病毒基因组合中的一个新序列是在实验室被合成出来的。 也就是说，这个新型冠状病毒有可能是在实验室里被合成出来的。 James Lyons-Weiler, PhD 2-2-2020 Dr. Marc Wathelet commented that he was puzzled about my report of a spike protein gene homologous to part of the pShuttle-SN vector, given that spike glycoproteins are found in bat coronavirus. He urged me to analyze the homology (sequence similarity) of the SARS-like spike protein element I reported with other spike proteins, saying that any scientist working on coronviruses would be surprised if there were not a spike protein. I replied in comment that I, too, would expect protein sequence level homology due to shared conserved domains, but assured him that I would undertake further genome sequence-level (nucleotide) analysis as the location of the novel sequence relative to the other spike proteins is certainly of interest. A few recent publications (sent to me by followers/readers) contained further bat coronavirus accession numbers, and SARS accession numbers, so I procured the spike protein coding sequence (CDS) of these from NCBI’s nucleotide database and aligned them using Blast, with the sequence from the first 2019-nCoV protein as the anchor. (Oddly, that Genbank entry does not label the S protein CDS as a spike glycoprotein, instead annotating it only as a “structural protein”). The resulting massive alignment confirms a major unique inserted element in 2019-nCoV not found in other bat coronaviruses, nor in SARS in the homologous genomic position: This is why full genome phylogenetic trees cannot tell the full story of recombinant viral evolution. Blasting the novel sequence region against all non-viral sequences (to pick up vector technology) again results in pShuttle-SN (no surprise) but now this time is also picked up a recombinant coronavirus clone Bat-SRBD spike glycoprotein gene from UNC, USA. (Genbank entry) and other synthetic constructs. As I published earlier, before anyone points fingers at the Chinese, note that recombinant viruses have been in play in laboratories all across the world in many nations. The overlap occur at the 3′ end of the novel region (search restricted from 21600-22350 bp in the query 2019-nCoV sequence originally blasted against the other coronavirus CDS. It could arguably merely be that I selected too large a region; I chose the region visually to include the fully potentially inserted sequence including any homologous vector elements at the 5′ or 3′ end. It is worth pointing out that due to the length of overlap, the sequence strength is considered moderately strong: highly significant E-value, high %identity, but short sequence length. These findings cannot be considered strong validation for obvious reasons: produced by the same analyst, using (part) of the same data. Spike proteins determine receptor binding for entry into cells, and 2019-nCoV appears to, like some bat species SARS coronavirus, target ACE2 receptors [1]. For those tracking closely, I confirmed that the novel inserted sequence in the large alignment above is the same as the novel sequence I reported a few days ago. The sequence of interest is here. inserted-portionDownload [1] Hou et al., 2010. Angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) proteins of different bat species confer variable susceptibility to SARS-CoV entry Arch Virol 155:1563-1569 https://www.msi.umn.edu/~lifang/otherflpapers/bat-ace2-archivesofvirology-2010.pdf
These results do show, however that the novel sequence is not likely present in other coronaviruses. Thus, it still seems prudent that this inserted sequence in 2019-nCoV become the focus on urgent research, and that laboratory sources be included in the search for the origins of 2019-nCoV and potential targets for treatments and expected pathophysiology in patients infected with 2019-nCoV. I am grateful to Dr. Wathelet for this inquiries and requests for additional clarification.
【Dr. James Lyons-Weiler is the founder and CEO of the Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge, also known as IPAK. He is the author on 57 peer-reviewed publications, and has written and published three books, one on Ebola, another on Cures vs. Profits and a third on The Environmental and Genetic Causes of Autism”. He, along with other scientists at IPAK, perform research in the public interest aimed at finding ways to reduce human suffering using funds donated from the public and that he raises at IPAK educational events. His latest research shows that US FDA has never issued a pediatric dose limit for aluminum that considers body weight, and finds that on the CDC schedule, infants are in aluminum toxicity 70% of their days, which is 14 times more days that on an alternate schedule. His research program is currently focused on aluminum toxicity, autoimmunity, and the differences in health outcomes between highly vaccinated and unvaccinated children.】
I was sent a copy of this book by a "medical freedom" lobbying group that focuses on opposing vaccination mandates.
The author, James Lyons-Weiler has an impressive-sounding list of degrees in various realms of science including basic biology, zoology, ecology and molecular biology (although not in fields directly related to the arguments he makes in this book, such as immunology, neuroscience and pediatrics). While he apparently has not conducted any research into autism (according to a PubMed literature search), you'd expect that someone with his credentials is capable of analyzing and understanding current knowledge in the field and summarizing it for his readers.
Disappointingly, "The Environmental and Genetic Causes of Autism" does not do this. Instead, it serves mainly to express and justify the author's poorly-supported views about what causes autism, in particular a polemic against vaccination.
What we're in for first surfaces in a preface in which Lyons-Weiler expresses his belief that immunization causes autism and calls for "reform in vaccine safety" as a solution. It becomes even more clear in the book's dedication to a Who's Who of antivaxers, including Russell Blaylock, Gary Null, Brian Hooker, Anne Dachel and even Andrew Wakefield, whose unethical and fraudulent research involving the MMR vaccine cost him his license to practice medicine and severely damaged the credibility of the anti-vaccine movement (it is one of many ironies that Lyons-Weiler thanks Wakefield, and just a few pages later declares that he wrote his book "to defend science").
The book could be divided into several sections - one detailing the diagnosis and characteristics of autism (sprinkled with the author's and others' theories as to why vaccines and other "toxins" are to blame), another more explicitly targeting vaccines and the forces the author perceives as shutting down the truth about them, and the author's proposals for classifying autism risk and preventing/mitigating it.
Early on, Lyons-Weiler shows that he doesn't accept basic facts about autism acknowledged by the vast majority of experts in the field. He refers to major increases in autism diagnoses while dismissing clear-cut evidence that an overwhelming proportion of this increase is due to changes in dignostic criteria. On the subject of vaccines, divergence between the author and the scientific community as a whole becomes even more glaring. For example, Lyons-Weiler (LW) goes on about perceived risks of mercury preservative (for the rational, a dead issue since thimerosal was removed from virtually all childhood vaccines in 2001 with no effect on autism rates) and aluminum-based adjuvants, relying on a relative handful of papers with dubious relevance while failing to cite a huge amount of research vindicating the safety of vaccines containing them (ironically, LW accuses the CDC of ignoring vaccine-autism studies). LW cites two alleged vaccine-associated disorders, ASIA syndrome and macrophagic fasciitis, not telling readers that neither has been accepted by the medical community as actual syndromes. In particular, macrophagic fasciitis describes microscopic foci in muscle believed to represent tiny aluminum-containing deposits secondary to vaccine injection, but no one has convincingly shown that such microscopic deposits are a marker for vaccine-induced illness. You'd never know from this book that infants get far more aluminum from infant formula than from vaccines.
LW remarks that the Institute of Medicine (a highly respected source of independent reviews of medical practices) found that most studies used to support thimerosal safety were "fatally flawed". The IOM has repeatedly issued reports based on comprehensive review of the literature, finding that vaccines have an excellent safety record and that claims of harm (including from thimerosal) are not justified. But I am unable to find the IOM's conclusions anywhere in this book (remember, this is an author who repeatedly suggests that his opponents are hiding something and "cherry-picking" research; the irony is again rich). LW attempts to toss out much of the research vindicating vaccine safety on the justification that its methodology was incapable of detecting small negative effects in the study population. This is puzzling seeing that LW is simultaneously arguing that autism spectrum disorders have become very common and thus should be detectable in competent vaccine safety studies. Sorry, but you can't have it both ways.
Autism researchers have demonstrated that a large component of the disorder is genetic, and that susceptibility has a heritable component. Apparently, since science has not yet found a common molecular "smoking gun" leading to autism, we're supposed to be free to ignore all this evidence in favor of shaky correlations between LW's preferred toxins and the disorder.
Another major defect of this book is that while it summarizes the author's perceptions of what his preferred vaccine-related studies show, the studies themselves are not referenced in the book (it doesn't even have an index!). A little investigation by the reader would show that besides representing a minute fraction of research on the subject, the authors of LW's cited papers often lack credibility with their peers (for example, he cites a paper by the Geier and Geier father-and-son team (the father had medical licenses suspended or revoked in multiple states related to his prescribing a chemical castration drug for autistic male children, and the son was cited for practicing medicine without a license. The quality of the "research" they conducted out of their home is poorly regarded).
I'm left to wonder exactly what audience this book was aimed at. It's going to be very heavy going for non-medical professionals, faced with section and chapter headings like "Application Of Univariate Thinking In the Face Of Etiological Heterogeneity" and "Toward a Multidimensional Matrix Risk Model for Autism" (even physicians and other health care workers would face difficulty slogging through all the nomenclature and conceptualizations). Researchers into autism and related fields will not be impressed by the caliber of LW's preferred pseudoexperts, nor are they likely to react well to the frequent intimations of malfeasance, conspiracy and profiteering leveled at those whose findings differ from those of the author. This book seems most likely to be casually referred to (if not read) by antivaxers as an authoritative tome by someone they see as having impeccable scientific credentials, and thus irrefutable (never mind the far greater number of scientists with equal or better credentials, who do not agree).
I found "The Environmental and Genetic Causes of Autism" to represent a rehashing of common antivax misconceptions and claims, dressed up with a patina of science. I considered giving it two stars because some of its basic descriptions about autism diagnosis and treatment are useful, but it is far too riddled with bias and pseudoscience to recommend as an authoritative source.
这个人吗？ Lyons Weiler is a Senior Research Scientist at the University of Pittsburgh where he is the Scientific Director of the Bioinformatics Analysis Core. He earned his PhD at University of Nevada Reno in Ecology Evolution and Conservation Biology.
James Lyons-Weiler, PhD 2-2-2020 Dr. Marc Wathelet commented that he was puzzled about my report of a spike protein gene homologous to part of the pShuttle-SN vector, given that spike glycoproteins are found in bat coronavirus. He urged me to analyze the homology (sequence similarity) of the SARS-like spike protein element I reported with other spike proteins, saying that any scientist working on coronviruses would be surprised if there were not a spike protein. I replied in comment that I, too, would expect protein sequence level homology due to shared conserved domains, but assured him that I would undertake further genome sequence-level (nucleotide) analysis as the location of the novel sequence relative to the other spike proteins is certainly of interest. A few recent publications (sent to me by followers/readers) contained further bat coronavirus accession numbers, and SARS accession numbers, so I procured the spike protein coding sequence (CDS) of these from NCBI’s nucleotide database and aligned them using Blast, with the sequence from the first 2019-nCoV protein as the anchor. (Oddly, that Genbank entry does not label the S protein CDS as a spike glycoprotein, instead annotating it only as a “structural protein”). The resulting massive alignment confirms a major unique inserted element in 2019-nCoV not found in other bat coronaviruses, nor in SARS in the homologous genomic position:
[1] Hou et al., 2010. Angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) proteins of different bat species confer variable susceptibility to SARS-CoV entry Arch Virol 155:1563-1569 https://www.msi.umn.edu/~lifang/otherflpapers/bat-ace2-archivesofvirology-2010.pdf
发了没用，国内会觉得贼喊捉贼。。。
请问你以什么身份打假？
萧铭谈到过篇文章…讲的比较谨慎……但是确实有人工合成痕迹
系统提示：若遇到视频无法播放请点击下方链接
https://www.youtube.com/embed/S9o2AvZmGXo
不敢说是什么 但疫情初起几个专家就一口咬定是海鲜市场野味引起的肯定是胡说 显然从那到之后一段时间这几个土鳖专家根本就不知道这个病毒是什么 现在搞没搞清楚都难说
坐等专家鉴定。
不过从早期中共欲盖弥彰导致事态失控和近期开始拿石某人和美方顶锅等行为看，可能性不小
以一个理科 phd 以科研为职业的人
柳叶刀和科学杂志都已经明白无误说了海鲜市场不是唯一来源第一批四十一人里有23个人根本没去过海鲜市场…真是个神秘的病毒
那你和他身份一样吧 人家还比你工龄长
我翻了一下他的出版书的review ……有评论基本上就是在说他是个民科……
I was sent a copy of this book by a "medical freedom" lobbying group that focuses on opposing vaccination mandates.
The author, James Lyons-Weiler has an impressive-sounding list of degrees in various realms of science including basic biology, zoology, ecology and molecular biology (although not in fields directly related to the arguments he makes in this book, such as immunology, neuroscience and pediatrics). While he apparently has not conducted any research into autism (according to a PubMed literature search), you'd expect that someone with his credentials is capable of analyzing and understanding current knowledge in the field and summarizing it for his readers.
Disappointingly, "The Environmental and Genetic Causes of Autism" does not do this. Instead, it serves mainly to express and justify the author's poorly-supported views about what causes autism, in particular a polemic against vaccination.
What we're in for first surfaces in a preface in which Lyons-Weiler expresses his belief that immunization causes autism and calls for "reform in vaccine safety" as a solution. It becomes even more clear in the book's dedication to a Who's Who of antivaxers, including Russell Blaylock, Gary Null, Brian Hooker, Anne Dachel and even Andrew Wakefield, whose unethical and fraudulent research involving the MMR vaccine cost him his license to practice medicine and severely damaged the credibility of the anti-vaccine movement (it is one of many ironies that Lyons-Weiler thanks Wakefield, and just a few pages later declares that he wrote his book "to defend science").
The book could be divided into several sections - one detailing the diagnosis and characteristics of autism (sprinkled with the author's and others' theories as to why vaccines and other "toxins" are to blame), another more explicitly targeting vaccines and the forces the author perceives as shutting down the truth about them, and the author's proposals for classifying autism risk and preventing/mitigating it.
Early on, Lyons-Weiler shows that he doesn't accept basic facts about autism acknowledged by the vast majority of experts in the field. He refers to major increases in autism diagnoses while dismissing clear-cut evidence that an overwhelming proportion of this increase is due to changes in dignostic criteria. On the subject of vaccines, divergence between the author and the scientific community as a whole becomes even more glaring. For example, Lyons-Weiler (LW) goes on about perceived risks of mercury preservative (for the rational, a dead issue since thimerosal was removed from virtually all childhood vaccines in 2001 with no effect on autism rates) and aluminum-based adjuvants, relying on a relative handful of papers with dubious relevance while failing to cite a huge amount of research vindicating the safety of vaccines containing them (ironically, LW accuses the CDC of ignoring vaccine-autism studies). LW cites two alleged vaccine-associated disorders, ASIA syndrome and macrophagic fasciitis, not telling readers that neither has been accepted by the medical community as actual syndromes. In particular, macrophagic fasciitis describes microscopic foci in muscle believed to represent tiny aluminum-containing deposits secondary to vaccine injection, but no one has convincingly shown that such microscopic deposits are a marker for vaccine-induced illness. You'd never know from this book that infants get far more aluminum from infant formula than from vaccines.
LW remarks that the Institute of Medicine (a highly respected source of independent reviews of medical practices) found that most studies used to support thimerosal safety were "fatally flawed". The IOM has repeatedly issued reports based on comprehensive review of the literature, finding that vaccines have an excellent safety record and that claims of harm (including from thimerosal) are not justified. But I am unable to find the IOM's conclusions anywhere in this book (remember, this is an author who repeatedly suggests that his opponents are hiding something and "cherry-picking" research; the irony is again rich). LW attempts to toss out much of the research vindicating vaccine safety on the justification that its methodology was incapable of detecting small negative effects in the study population. This is puzzling seeing that LW is simultaneously arguing that autism spectrum disorders have become very common and thus should be detectable in competent vaccine safety studies. Sorry, but you can't have it both ways.
Autism researchers have demonstrated that a large component of the disorder is genetic, and that susceptibility has a heritable component. Apparently, since science has not yet found a common molecular "smoking gun" leading to autism, we're supposed to be free to ignore all this evidence in favor of shaky correlations between LW's preferred toxins and the disorder.
Another major defect of this book is that while it summarizes the author's perceptions of what his preferred vaccine-related studies show, the studies themselves are not referenced in the book (it doesn't even have an index!). A little investigation by the reader would show that besides representing a minute fraction of research on the subject, the authors of LW's cited papers often lack credibility with their peers (for example, he cites a paper by the Geier and Geier father-and-son team (the father had medical licenses suspended or revoked in multiple states related to his prescribing a chemical castration drug for autistic male children, and the son was cited for practicing medicine without a license. The quality of the "research" they conducted out of their home is poorly regarded).
I'm left to wonder exactly what audience this book was aimed at. It's going to be very heavy going for non-medical professionals, faced with section and chapter headings like "Application Of Univariate Thinking In the Face Of Etiological Heterogeneity" and "Toward a Multidimensional Matrix Risk Model for Autism" (even physicians and other health care workers would face difficulty slogging through all the nomenclature and conceptualizations). Researchers into autism and related fields will not be impressed by the caliber of LW's preferred pseudoexperts, nor are they likely to react well to the frequent intimations of malfeasance, conspiracy and profiteering leveled at those whose findings differ from those of the author. This book seems most likely to be casually referred to (if not read) by antivaxers as an authoritative tome by someone they see as having impeccable scientific credentials, and thus irrefutable (never mind the far greater number of scientists with equal or better credentials, who do not agree).
I found "The Environmental and Genetic Causes of Autism" to represent a rehashing of common antivax misconceptions and claims, dressed up with a patina of science. I considered giving it two stars because some of its basic descriptions about autism diagnosis and treatment are useful, but it is far too riddled with bias and pseudoscience to recommend as an authoritative source.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/01/wuhan-seafood-market-may-not-be-source-novel-virus-spreading-globally
早期数据很能说明这个病毒的传染性，砖家偏说人跟人之间的传染性没法证明，睁着眼说瞎话是为了啥？
顶起这个
这才是citation
包帝要过年
中国的院士专家有几个不是水货。。。
从歪哥的贴，到武汉卫健委的申明，到政府的人与人不传染弥天大谎，说明政府早就知道真相想瞒天过海。
我不是理科的病毒耒源咱也整不明白…但是后面那一堆昏招真是主将无能累死三军
暂停是骗人的，声明是2014年暂停，但是《Nature》那篇杂志是2016年4月6日发表，2015年提交的。 这转基因病毒估计和贺建奎转基因婴儿差不多，抓北卡罗莱大学相关人员审问就知道了。
欢迎以理科phd应该具有的科学方式用有力证据质疑并打击Dr.James Lyons-Weiler的文章
再荒謬不過的是一開始就知道真相，還能讓事情壞到今天這種地步，無能的程度令人瞠目結舌
好像是北京医科大学（Beijing Medical University）董XX（YUHONG DONG）2020年2月3日写的，
这个论文是在印度人论文的基础上写的，
当然，Dong知道印度人论文已经暂时撤回了，但还是从中引用了对自己有用的信息。
他的结论好像是觉得新冠病毒不像是自然演化的，而是人工操纵的。
https://www.theepochtimes.com/scientific-puzzles-surrounding-the-wuhan-novel-coronavirus_3225405.html
中文翻译在这里：
http://cn.epochtimes.com/gb/20/2/3/n11842176.htm
这篇居然能看懂
而且易证伪
只要看viral protein会不会bind cd4 cells即可
要是你早就发现秘密了你先说呗，洗耳恭听
你有病呀！將武漢這件事甩鍋到香港,香港明明就報道了丟了一批化學物品,這批化學物品主要可以用於製作汽油彈,跟病毒一點關係都沒有,垃圾五毛造謠一定會有報應的
我也很想知道。打假也要有能力，不要是民科打假
多益网络董事长实名举报，好像也删帖了。那么是否可以更加怀疑他们怕什么，怕真相吗？
UNC本来也是值得怀疑，但人家研究的药不收中国的专利费啊
同意，但是有人就是坚持让蝙蝠背锅啊。
人家做的是基因序列对比。。。需要找源头吗？
我就不发表评论了。
虽然看上去太巧了，但是目前的证据确实还不能证明这次的新冠是武汉p4病毒泄露的衍生品
看这里：https://forums.huaren.us/showtopic.aspx?topicid=2500950&page=1
研究所1/21申请药物专利，石研究员1/23日关于肺炎病毒的论文都写好递交了，厉害国速度，细思极恐。
现在医学院就是流行behavior的论文。
我见过超级大牛的文章，一个是就是老鼠睡觉，得出时差紊乱和糖尿病的关系；看起来都想民科。
后来还有，让老鼠总是喝水，让某种特定颜色的LED灯照。
没法子，现在流行这样的东西，反而做实验的结果，许多人不太关注了。
啊哈哈哈哈
12月底分离的病毒，实验基本是通过体外细胞感染然后各种测序电镜，几个组分头行动的话作到3周出论文不是不可能的，不过要是实际抗疫中能有这么强的行动力就好了。
研究所1/21申请西药专利，然后居然还让皇上先把双黄连弄出来，西药治病的事就这么憋着到二月份美国人支援药物，真的是做到了打死，呃不，病死也不说
12月底病例才出现，他们怎么做到分离，对比，写论文，解药的专利申请一步不差搞定的？
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2001191 Gilead的药1/26日美国这边才使用在1/19日（国内1/20）入住的病人身上，难道治疗之前通知过病毒所？怎么动作这么快？但是对病毒的传染性似乎一直不了解，直到1/20日才通过终南山宣布？这是什么神操作？越思越恐。
你要是一定要用阴谋论来套的话越思越恐我也没办法。政府和病毒所确实有很多让人不满的骚操作，搞得现在谣言满天飞，但我只是觉得在没有证据的时候放大这些阴谋论对整体疫情没有什么帮助。
论文中的实验是可以在这段时间内完成的，过去的一个月各科研组不管是为了拯救人类还是抢先灌水肯定都是忙的人仰马翻，看看论文署名就知道有多少研究人员通宵达旦的干活呢。再说尽早公布病毒基因序列和跟其他冠状病毒的同源性也对接下来的治疗有指导作用，所以各大科研期刊都给开绿灯迅速过审甚至免审发表。难道非要科学界慢悠悠按平常一年攒一片大文章的速度来发表才能自证清白吗？
Gilead的药在中国的专利申请是根据体外细胞感染实验的初步结论抢注的，临床能不能站得住脚还两说，所以我不太明白你说的疑点是什么。病毒的传染性是临床和流行病学的研究课题，我不懂需要多少时间确定人人/母婴/粪口等等这些传染性或者官方公布人人传染的时间是不是有延迟，但是绝对不是做个组培细胞实验就能确定的。
是你自己脑袋里有阴谋论吧？
我只不过想探讨病毒跟病毒所有没有关系。疑点就是他们的一系列操作看起来熟门熟路，而且这个病毒确实跟他们研究的云南蝙蝠非常接近。华人网友这么神通广大，多挖掘挖掘云南蝙蝠的病毒怎么出现在武汉，说不定能让病毒所少一个危机呢
世界现在担心的是这是不是生化武器的前身