回复 1楼blazer43201的帖子 这是哥伦比亚大学的Dr. Angela Rasmussen的评论 我不懂，不评论 https://news.yahoo.com/steve-bannon-linked-groups-push-191602344.html But other virologists disagree and say the paper makes false claims about a number of basic facts. “Basically, it's all circumstantial and some of it is entirely fictional,” Dr. Angela Rasmussen, a virologist at Columbia University, told The Daily Beast of the study. The paper leads with a claim that the coronavirus' genes are "suspiciously similar to that of a bat coronavirus discovered by military laboratories" in China—an assertion Rasmussen says shouldn’t be surprising because “they are related SARS-like coronaviruses.” The study’s authors made a similar claim about a portion of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein—which viruses use to breach and infect cells—and wrote that it’s similar to the original SARS virus in a “suspicious manner” and suggests genetic manipulation. “SARS-CoV also used ACE2 as a cellular receptor, as do other SARS-like bat coronaviruses,” Rasmussen says. “It is not suspicious and is in fact expected that the receptor binding domains that bind the same protein would be similar.” Rasmussen also said that the paper misrepresented basic facts about another part of coronavirus spike proteins known as furin cleavage sites. The authors claim that SARS-CoV-2’s cleavage site is “unique” and unseen elsewhere in nature. But according to Rasmussen, “Furin cleavage sites occur naturally in many other beta-CoVs, including MERS-CoV and other SARS-like bat coronaviruses.”
回复 1楼blazer43201的帖子 这是哥伦比亚大学的Dr. Angela Rasmussen的评论 我不懂，不评论 https://news.yahoo.com/steve-bannon-linked-groups-push-191602344.html But other virologists disagree and say the paper makes false claims about a number of basic facts. “Basically, it's all circumstantial and some of it is entirely fictional,” Dr. Angela Rasmussen, a virologist at Columbia University, told The Daily Beast of the study. The paper leads with a claim that the coronavirus' genes are "suspiciously similar to that of a bat coronavirus discovered by military laboratories" in China—an assertion Rasmussen says shouldn’t be surprising because “they are related SARS-like coronaviruses.” The study’s authors made a similar claim about a portion of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein—which viruses use to breach and infect cells—and wrote that it’s similar to the original SARS virus in a “suspicious manner” and suggests genetic manipulation. “SARS-CoV also used ACE2 as a cellular receptor, as do other SARS-like bat coronaviruses,” Rasmussen says. “It is not suspicious and is in fact expected that the receptor binding domains that bind the same protein would be similar.” Rasmussen also said that the paper misrepresented basic facts about another part of coronavirus spike proteins known as furin cleavage sites. The authors claim that SARS-CoV-2’s cleavage site is “unique” and unseen elsewhere in nature. But according to Rasmussen, “Furin cleavage sites occur naturally in many other beta-CoVs, including MERS-CoV and other SARS-like bat coronaviruses.” houpigtiger 发表于 2020-09-16 10:48
她发的连 preprint 都发不了，只是一个blog commentary Richard H. Ebright@R_H_Ebright · 54m Zenodo is not a preprint server. And, as a commentary with no new primary scientific results--the Yan blog post would not be accepted by bona fide preprint servers. (bioRxiv or medRxiv do not accept reviews, much less op-eds.)
坐等业内人士评论。 不要再说闫丽梦没实锤了，证据都销毁了哪儿来的实锤。 我倒是好奇为什么这个研究以前没人做过，按理说都是公开信息。
这是哥伦比亚大学的Dr. Angela Rasmussen的评论 我不懂，不评论
https://news.yahoo.com/steve-bannon-linked-groups-push-191602344.html
But other virologists disagree and say the paper makes false claims about a number of basic facts. “Basically, it's all circumstantial and some of it is entirely fictional,” Dr. Angela Rasmussen, a virologist at Columbia University, told The Daily Beast of the study. The paper leads with a claim that the coronavirus' genes are "suspiciously similar to that of a bat coronavirus discovered by military laboratories" in China—an assertion Rasmussen says shouldn’t be surprising because “they are related SARS-like coronaviruses.”
The study’s authors made a similar claim about a portion of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein—which viruses use to breach and infect cells—and wrote that it’s similar to the original SARS virus in a “suspicious manner” and suggests genetic manipulation. “SARS-CoV also used ACE2 as a cellular receptor, as do other SARS-like bat coronaviruses,” Rasmussen says. “It is not suspicious and is in fact expected that the receptor binding domains that bind the same protein would be similar.”
Rasmussen also said that the paper misrepresented basic facts about another part of coronavirus spike proteins known as furin cleavage sites. The authors claim that SARS-CoV-2’s cleavage site is “unique” and unseen elsewhere in nature. But according to Rasmussen, “Furin cleavage sites occur naturally in many other beta-CoVs, including MERS-CoV and other SARS-like bat coronaviruses.”
是这个道理。。。 其实二月份mitbbs都讨论烂了，PRRA这个点位的事情，闫丽梦就是把二月份所有讨论用英语汇总写了一遍 PRRA在自然界中很常见，我记得小鼠肝炎病毒就有来着
不知道这里能不能发mitbbs链接，有兴趣的可以看一看，那会儿茫茫多帖子，闫博士拾人牙慧，就成了专家了？？？ http://www.mitbbs.com/article_t/Military/55991381.html http://www.mitbbs.com/article_t/Military/55995173.html http://www.mitbbs.com/article_t/Military/56019515.html
现在均价是两毛，所以高级一点的像luming，可能是五毛。
我也看不懂，但是我写过论文啊，知道peer review很重要啊，连个peer review都没有的“论文”，呵呵。还有，网站啥时候被骇瘫？你要相信这个论文是你的事情，你开心就好。
这么惨？先降价然后再回到原价以示奖励？
为什么说peer review才行？这是什么事件，还要走正常途径提交审稿peer review发期刊？她写的paper，网上发preprint，是让全世界的病毒学家公开来讨论。全世界疫情还找不到有效药物和治疗方法，抢时间重要。她又不需要发Scienc给自己攒学术credit。参与讨论的科学家，能针对她paper的内容反驳验证，才是意义所在。真相越辩越明。
均价上涨到5法币了啊，你还没拿到吗？
哈哈哈，peer review，鼓掌，good point！我觉得你可以再仔细研读一下论文，也许还有什么“标点符号错误”，“论文分段结构有问题”等更多“大谬误”来佐证你的观点。
即使是发在peer reviewed期刊上的，也会有人有不同意见。 而闫的文章也是4名PhD署名的。 Rasmussen主要意见是这个furin cleavage sites。我们之所以知道这个furin cleavage sites，就是因为有其它病毒有。 但是这个furin cleavage sites出现在Covid19这个特定位置，是其它SARS没有的，所说的unique
她发的连 preprint 都发不了，只是一个blog commentary
Richard H. Ebright @R_H_Ebright · 54m
Zenodo is not a preprint server.
And, as a commentary with no new primary scientific results--the Yan blog post would not be accepted by bona fide preprint servers. (bioRxiv or medRxiv do not accept reviews, much less op-eds.)
世界上的巧事是有很多。单说你这个故事，没有证据，什么结论都不能得出，除非做亲子鉴定。在没有dna的年代，那么多冤假错案就是被你这种观察入微的人假设定罪的，加上一句，怎么会那么巧？就轻易毁了别人的一生。所以还好这是个看证据的年代，而不是推论这么巧就能定罪的年代。
agree
纯就这个问题质询一下啊。很简单的逻辑问题 实验室合成出一个现有病毒 ！= 现有的病毒自然不存在。
类似于 合成出胰岛素 ！= 自然界不存在天然胰岛素
这个比喻还是挺恰当的。 现在学术界的问题是事先有个无罪假设。别人需要提供无比确凿的证据。这个也对。但是现在大部分证据被销毁的情况下你该怎么办？学术界的答案就是放弃调查。估计现在没有什么证据能够达到令学术界满意的程度。
但是在这个事关重大的事情上真的应该放弃吗？还是应该努力接近真相? 难道没有人该发声吗？
我觉得闫丽梦等人就提供了另一个思路。我也觉得为什么不用概率的方法评价一下吗。想法有些类似 "Naive Bayes"的想法：如果有几个独立的证据都倾向于证明一个假设，哪怕每个证据只是略微胜出一些，比如 60：40, 那最后的假设成立的可能性会很大。
现在看到的反驳还没法反驳概率上的可能性。即使有一个证据没有闫丽梦说的那么强。但是并不能改变结论的方向性。比如闫丽梦说可能性是99%，反驳成立的话可能性是80%。有区别，可能登不上学术期刊。但是还是很让人毛骨悚然的。
Peer review的重要性都不知道，这就是华人上的平均水平吧
你知不知道啥叫peer review? 和你这种人解释真是浪费我时间，我回去干活了
科研环境里，fictional 可是个很重的词 西方peer review 这种模式确实很牛，客观性很重要，谁也带不走风向