was made in。。。你当大家都不懂英文吗 ANTHONY “TONY” FAUCI has become the scientific face of America’s COVID-19 response, and he says the best evidence shows the virus behind the pandemic was not made in a lab in China.
回复 2楼ysunny的帖子 he also doesn’t entertain an alternate theory—that someone found the coronavirus in the wild, brought it to a lab, and then it accidentally escaped.
Q: One topic in the news lately has been the origins of SAR-CoV-2. Do you believe or is there evidence that the virus was made in the lab in China or accidentally released from a lab in China?
A: If you look at the evolution of the virus in bats, and what's out there now is very, very strongly leaning toward this [virus] could not have been artificially or deliberately manipulated—the way the mutations have naturally evolved. A number of very qualified evolutionary biologists have said that everything about the stepwise evolution over time strongly indicates that it evolved in nature and then jumped species.
Q: Sure, but what if scientists found the virus outside the lab, brought it back, and then it escaped?
A: But that means it was in the wild to begin with. That's why I don't get what they're talking about [and] why I don't spend a lot of time going in on this circular argument.
he also doesn’t entertain an alternate theory—that someone found the coronavirus in the wild, brought it to a lab, and then it accidentally escaped. hsu0811 发表于 5/5/2020 2:17:41 AM
既然引用, 就引用全好吧。 Fauci says. Based on the scientific evidence, he also doesn’t entertain an alternate theory—that someone found the coronavirus in the wild, brought it to a lab, and then it accidentally escaped.
既然引用, 就引用去全好吧。 Fauci says. Based on the scientific evidence, he also doesn’t entertain an alternate theory—that someone found the coronavirus in the wild, brought it to a lab, and then it accidentally escaped.
Conclusions In the midst of the global COVID-19 public-health emergency, it is reasonable to wonder why the origins of the pandemic matter. Detailed understanding of how an animal virus jumped species boundaries to infect humans so productively will help in the prevention of future zoonotic events. For example, if SARS-CoV-2 pre-adapted in another animal species, then there is the risk of future re-emergence events. In contrast, if the adaptive process occurred in humans, then even if repeated zoonotic transfers occur, they are unlikely to take off without the same series of mutations. In addition, identifying the closest viral relatives of SARS-CoV-2 circulating in animals will greatly assist studies of viral function. Indeed, the availability of the RaTG13 bat sequence helped reveal key RBD mutations and the polybasic cleavage site.
The genomic features described here may explain in part the infectiousness and transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2 in humans. Although the evidence shows that SARSCoV- 2 is not a purposefully manipulated virus, it is currently impossible to prove or disprove the other theories of its origin described here. However, since we observed all notable SARS-CoV-2 features, including the optimized RBD and polybasic cleavage site, in related coronaviruses in nature, we do not believe that any type of laboratorybased scenario is plausible.
More scientific data could swing the balance of evidence to favor one hypothesis over another. Obtaining related viral sequences from animal sources would be the most definitive way of revealing viral origins. For example, a future observation of an intermediate or fully formed polybasic cleavage site in a SARS-CoV-2-like virus from animals would lend even further support to the natural-selection hypotheses. It would also be helpful to obtain more genetic and functional data about SARSCoV- 2, including animal studies. The identification of a potential intermediate host of SARS-CoV-2, as well as sequencing of the virus from very early cases, would similarly be highly informative. Irrespective of the exact mechanisms by which SARSCoV- 2 originated via natural selection, the ongoing surveillance of pneumonia in humans and other animals is clearly of utmost importance.
Conclusions In the midst of the global COVID-19 public-health emergency, it is reasonable to wonder why the origins of the pandemic matter. Detailed understanding of how an animal virus jumped species boundaries to infect humans so productively will help in the prevention of future zoonotic events. For example, if SARS-CoV-2 pre-adapted in another animal species, then there is the risk of future re-emergence events. In contrast, if the adaptive process occurred in humans, then even if repeated zoonotic transfers occur, they are unlikely to take off without the same series of mutations. In addition, identifying the closest viral relatives of SARS-CoV-2 circulating in animals will greatly assist studies of viral function. Indeed, the availability of the RaTG13 bat sequence helped reveal key RBD mutations and the polybasic cleavage site.
The genomic features described here may explain in part the infectiousness and transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2 in humans. Although the evidence shows that SARSCoV- 2 is not a purposefully manipulated virus, it is currently impossible to prove or disprove the other theories of its origin described here. However, since we observed all notable SARS-CoV-2 features, including the optimized RBD and polybasic cleavage site, in related coronaviruses in nature, we do not believe that any type of laboratorybased scenario is plausible.
More scientific data could swing the balance of evidence to favor one hypothesis over another. Obtaining related viral sequences from animal sources would be the most definitive way of revealing viral origins. For example, a future observation of an intermediate or fully formed polybasic cleavage site in a SARS-CoV-2-like virus from animals would lend even further support to the natural-selection hypotheses. It would also be helpful to obtain more genetic and functional data about SARSCoV- 2, including animal studies. The identification of a potential intermediate host of SARS-CoV-2, as well as sequencing of the virus from very early cases, would similarly be highly informative. Irrespective of the exact mechanisms by which SARSCoV- 2 originated via natural selection, the ongoing surveillance of pneumonia in humans and other animals is clearly of utmost importance.
新闻标题：Fauci: No scientific evidence the coronavirus was made in a Chinese lab
新闻稿件内容节选：
ANTHONY “TONY” FAUCI has become the scientific face of America’s COVID-19 response, and he says the best evidence shows the virus behind the pandemic was not made in a lab in China.
“If you look at the evolution of the virus in bats and what's out there now, [the scientific evidence] is very, very strongly leaning toward this could not have been artificially or deliberately manipulated … Everything about the stepwise evolution over time strongly indicates that [this virus] evolved in nature and then jumped species,” Fauci says. Based on the scientific evidence, he also doesn’t entertain an alternate theory—that someone found the coronavirus in the wild, brought it to a lab, and then it accidentally escaped.
One topic in the news lately has been the origins of SAR-CoV-2. Do you believe or is there evidence that the virus was made in the lab in China or accidentally released from a lab in China?
If you look at the evolution of the virus in bats, and what's out there now is very, very strongly leaning toward this [virus] could not have been artificially or deliberately manipulated—the way the mutations have naturally evolved. A number of very qualified evolutionary biologists have said that everything about the stepwise evolution over time strongly indicates that it evolved in nature and then jumped species.
Sure, but what if scientists found the virus outside the lab, brought it back, and then it escaped?
But that means it was in the wild to begin with. That's why I don't get what they're talking about [and] why I don't spend a lot of time going in on this circular argument.
至于被问到病毒会不会是在实验室外被找到，带回实验室，又被泄露出来。Fauci的回答是”But that means it was in the wild to begin with. That's why I don't get what they're talking about why I don't spend a lot of time going in on this circular argument."
新闻标题：Fauci: No scientific evidence the coronavirus was made in a Chinese lab
新闻稿件内容节选：
ANTHONY “TONY” FAUCI has become the scientific face of America’s COVID-19 response, and he says the best evidence shows the virus behind the pandemic was not made in a lab in China.
“If you look at the evolution of the virus in bats and what's out there now, [the scientific evidence] is very, very strongly leaning toward this could not have been artificially or deliberately manipulated … Everything about the stepwise evolution over time strongly indicates that [this virus] evolved in nature and then jumped species,” Fauci says. Based on the scientific evidence, he also doesn’t entertain an alternate theory—that someone found the coronavirus in the wild, brought it to a lab, and then it accidentally escaped.
One topic in the news lately has been the origins of SAR-CoV-2. Do you believe or is there evidence that the virus was made in the lab in China or accidentally released from a lab in China?
If you look at the evolution of the virus in bats, and what's out there now is very, very strongly leaning toward this [virus] could not have been artificially or deliberately manipulated—the way the mutations have naturally evolved. A number of very qualified evolutionary biologists have said that everything about the stepwise evolution over time strongly indicates that it evolved in nature and then jumped species.
Sure, but what if scientists found the virus outside the lab, brought it back, and then it escaped?
But that means it was in the wild to begin with. That's why I don't get what they're talking about [and] why I don't spend a lot of time going in on this circular argument.
至于被问到病毒会不会是在实验室外被找到，带回实验室，又被泄露出来。Fauci的回答是”But that means it was in the wild to begin with. That's why I don't get what they're talking about why I don't spend a lot of time going in on this circular argument."
ANTHONY “TONY” FAUCI has become the scientific face of America’s COVID-19 response, and he says the best evidence shows the virus behind the pandemic was not made in a lab in China.
散布假消息不被封吗？
来源？Google到了，谢谢
A: If you look at the evolution of the virus in bats, and what's out there now is very, very strongly leaning toward this [virus] could not have been artificially or deliberately manipulated—the way the mutations have naturally evolved. A number of very qualified evolutionary biologists have said that everything about the stepwise evolution over time strongly indicates that it evolved in nature and then jumped species.
Q: Sure, but what if scientists found the virus outside the lab, brought it back, and then it escaped?
A: But that means it was in the wild to begin with. That's why I don't get what they're talking about [and] why I don't spend a lot of time going in on this circular argument.
Fauci大概就是表示病毒不是实验室制作的，是自然演化出来的。至于是不是从自然界采集，被人带回实验室又泄露出来，Fauci说那也是从自然来的啊，然后明显拒绝再往下聊这个话题了。
既然引用, 就引用全好吧。
Fauci says. Based on the scientific evidence, he also doesn’t entertain an alternate theory—that someone found the coronavirus in the wild, brought it to a lab, and then it accidentally escaped.
文章中说是based on scientific evidence, 什么scientific evidence, 一个字也没提。难道厉害国的事, 病毒所的事他都非常清楚? 替scientific evidence 不值, 在这里有被滥用嫌疑。听听这个老学究一直怎么说戴口罩的, 听着都着急。不过现在这个statement, 一点也不老学究了, 连scientist 都不能算了。
应该是指的这篇论文，这篇论文当时Fauci和NIH头连线讨论过，得出的结论和现在说的这些差不多。
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9
The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2
Conclusions
In the midst of the global COVID-19
public-health emergency, it is reasonable
to wonder why the origins of the pandemic
matter. Detailed understanding of how an
animal virus jumped species boundaries to
infect humans so productively will help in
the prevention of future zoonotic events.
For example, if SARS-CoV-2 pre-adapted in
another animal species, then there is the risk
of future re-emergence events. In contrast,
if the adaptive process occurred in humans,
then even if repeated zoonotic transfers
occur, they are unlikely to take off without
the same series of mutations. In addition,
identifying the closest viral relatives of
SARS-CoV-2 circulating in animals will
greatly assist studies of viral function.
Indeed, the availability of the RaTG13 bat
sequence helped reveal key RBD mutations
and the polybasic cleavage site.
The genomic features described here
may explain in part the infectiousness and
transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2 in humans.
Although the evidence shows that SARSCoV-
2 is not a purposefully manipulated
virus, it is currently impossible to prove
or disprove the other theories of its origin
described here. However, since we observed
all notable SARS-CoV-2 features, including
the optimized RBD and polybasic cleavage
site, in related coronaviruses in nature, we
do not believe that any type of laboratorybased
scenario is plausible.
More scientific data could swing the
balance of evidence to favor one hypothesis
over another. Obtaining related viral
sequences from animal sources would be
the most definitive way of revealing viral
origins. For example, a future observation
of an intermediate or fully formed polybasic
cleavage site in a SARS-CoV-2-like virus
from animals would lend even further
support to the natural-selection hypotheses.
It would also be helpful to obtain more
genetic and functional data about SARSCoV-
2, including animal studies. The
identification of a potential intermediate
host of SARS-CoV-2, as well as sequencing
of the virus from very early cases, would
similarly be highly informative. Irrespective
of the exact mechanisms by which SARSCoV-
2 originated via natural selection,
the ongoing surveillance of pneumonia
in humans and other animals is clearly of
utmost importance.
Fauci 说的"不是实验室泄露"的证据呢? 他不是说也是根据scientific evidence吗? 他是武毒所的领导吗。
问题是三楼也断章取义啊
蓬比奥，西点军校第一名，身为国务卿还在家里做家务
太喜欢了
我再给你整理一遍。绿色是记者和写文章稿的人说的，红色是Fauci实际说的。
新闻标题：Fauci: No scientific evidence the coronavirus was made in a Chinese lab
新闻稿件内容节选：
ANTHONY “TONY” FAUCI has become the scientific face of America’s COVID-19 response, and he says the best evidence shows the virus behind the pandemic was not made in a lab in China.
“If you look at the evolution of the virus in bats and what's out there now, [the scientific evidence] is very, very strongly leaning toward this could not have been artificially or deliberately manipulated … Everything about the stepwise evolution over time strongly indicates that [this virus] evolved in nature and then jumped species,” Fauci says. Based on the scientific evidence, he also doesn’t entertain an alternate theory—that someone found the coronavirus in the wild, brought it to a lab, and then it accidentally escaped.
One topic in the news lately has been the origins of SAR-CoV-2. Do you believe or is there evidence that the virus was made in the lab in China or accidentally released from a lab in China?
If you look at the evolution of the virus in bats, and what's out there now is very, very strongly leaning toward this [virus] could not have been artificially or deliberately manipulated—the way the mutations have naturally evolved. A number of very qualified evolutionary biologists have said that everything about the stepwise evolution over time strongly indicates that it evolved in nature and then jumped species.
Sure, but what if scientists found the virus outside the lab, brought it back, and then it escaped?
But that means it was in the wild to begin with. That's why I don't get what they're talking about [and] why I don't spend a lot of time going in on this circular argument.
所以Fauci通篇就没有使用scientific evidence这个词。所有提到这个词的都是编者自己加的。
他也没说病毒不是从实验室跑出来的，他说的是倾向于病毒不是人工制造的，而是自然演化的。
至于被问到病毒会不会是在实验室外被找到，带回实验室，又被泄露出来。Fauci的回答是”But that means it was in the wild to begin with. That's why I don't get what they're talking about why I don't spend a lot of time going in on this circular argument."
这人有利益冲突，应该慎言或者不说。
这个解释很到位。福齐认为病毒不太可能是经过人工改造。福齐倾向于认为是自然产生然后jumped species.
但是福齐并没有明确否认自然物种带入实验室，并从实验室“escaped”(无意泄露)的可能性。
re。怎么没有人挖一下？
哪几集？
要到参议院去听证了.......
是的。所以因为这个话，反而觉得很有可能是泄漏的，要不然直接就会明确否认了。
何建奎的话是怎么说的，得听一听。
放心，要是弗西说不出，川普哪里有更高级的真凭实据。只不过弄点果弄玄虚，好在各种没底线小报留点“真凭实据”罢了
那赶紧公布啊。我们需要真相，而真相需要证据支持，要相互辩论，相互检察才能真正拿到真相。光凭嘴上说一句有证据，一点公信力没有啊。
纯猜测，FAUCI很可能是已看过了所谓的真凭实据，所以赶紧发帖澄清自己。一旦统领公布那些“证据”，他再唱反调是不允许的。但在公布之前发表一下看法，罪过要少很多。
人家记者都说了，FAUCI明显对泄露这种阴谋论不感冒。你为啥认为能比当时在现场的记者还理解的好？
美国纳税人的370万，还是2015年。
左手出右手再进来，但进来的就和美国纳税人没关系了。
如果被中共惯用的视频了的话，他必须为其卖命？
期待听证会。
不懂为什么要拿这个说事。 建病毒所本身可以争论，但全世界各国都建，中国建也无可厚非。 中美那么多合作项目，科研领域合作太正常了，这钱不足他一人说了算，都是有政府政策策划，有关部门监督的。合作的目标肯定是互惠的，研究结果是双方得利。 实验室管理出了问题是另一码事，用这个批福奇荒谬。 有些人不动脑子，唯华必反。算了，我也是吃多了，做无用功。
你应当看看27 楼，不要下结论太快。华人版上主流见解是泄漏，不是出自生物武器。福齐 没有回答对泄漏的质疑。
我就好奇一研究艾滋病的专家整天对呼吸传染病指三道四是什么节奏？难道美国没有呼吸传染专家了？
1450 可真是无下限。如果说中国的实验室泄露，为什么不说美国的实验室泄露？话说去年七月VIRGINIA 的无名肺炎是怎么回事？
从中国当局在一月二月的举措，军管五毒所，习本人高调提生物安全，推生物安全法规等。五毒所在那个关键的时期，几乎没有任何正式表态。所有这些事实，都强烈暗示了五毒所的关联。
同看到过。本来我是一直觉得病毒是天然的，是五毒所无意泄漏了。现在看了好几个关于病毒基因片段的业内人士分析，也开始怀疑病毒是基因工程的结果，然后无意泄漏了。
Fauci = 美国钟南山
然后媒体和sb们火力全开用这个骂川普。。。
你这真是。。别人给你嚼好了喂嘴里的东西每天吃的津津有味
當初反對川普禁航中國就可疑了，後來越曝料越多。哈佛系主任可以，NIH所長當然也可以。
自然物种带入实验室然后泄露的话和吃没什么区别吧？顶多就算管理不严格。因为本来自然界就有只是武汉可能没有而已啊。