这里 The furin cleavage site consists of four amino acids PRRA, which are encoded by 12 inserted nucleotides in the S gene. A characteristic feature of this site is an arginine doublet. This insertion could have occurred by random insertion mutation, recombination or by laboratory insertion. The researchers say the possibility of random insertion is too low to explain the origin of this motif. Surprisingly, the CGGCGG codons encoding the two arginines of the doublet in SARS-CoV-2 are not found in any of the furin sites in other viral proteins expressed by a wide range of viruses. Even within the SARS-CoV-2, where arginine is encoded by six codons, only a minority of arginine residues are encoded by the CGG codon. Again, only two of the 42 arginines in the SARS-CoV-2 spike are encoded by this codon – and these are in the PRRA motif. https://www.news-medical.net/news/20210217/The-origin-of-SARS-CoV-2-furin-cleavage-site-remains-a-mystery.aspx edit 楼下的潮水叔说这个需要专家解释 我给你找了一个专家说的
这里 The furin cleavage site consists of four amino acids PRRA, which are encoded by 12 inserted nucleotides in the S gene. A characteristic feature of this site is an arginine doublet. This insertion could have occurred by random insertion mutation, recombination or by laboratory insertion. The researchers say the possibility of random insertion is too low to explain the origin of this motif. Surprisingly, the CGGCGG codons encoding the two arginines of the doublet in SARS-CoV-2 are not found in any of the furin sites in other viral proteins expressed by a wide range of viruses. Even within the SARS-CoV-2, where arginine is encoded by six codons, only a minority of arginine residues are encoded by the CGG codon. Again, only two of the 42 arginines in the SARS-CoV-2 spike are encoded by this codon – and these are in the PRRA motif. https://www.news-medical.net/news/20210217/The-origin-of-SARS-CoV-2-furin-cleavage-site-remains-a-mystery.aspx CleverBeaver 发表于 2021-05-09 23:24
这里 The furin cleavage site consists of four amino acids PRRA, which are encoded by 12 inserted nucleotides in the S gene. A characteristic feature of this site is an arginine doublet. This insertion could have occurred by random insertion mutation, recombination or by laboratory insertion. The researchers say the possibility of random insertion is too low to explain the origin of this motif. Surprisingly, the CGGCGG codons encoding the two arginines of the doublet in SARS-CoV-2 are not found in any of the furin sites in other viral proteins expressed by a wide range of viruses. Even within the SARS-CoV-2, where arginine is encoded by six codons, only a minority of arginine residues are encoded by the CGG codon. Again, only two of the 42 arginines in the SARS-CoV-2 spike are encoded by this codon – and these are in the PRRA motif. https://www.news-medical.net/news/20210217/The-origin-of-SARS-CoV-2-furin-cleavage-site-remains-a-mystery.aspx CleverBeaver 发表于 2021-05-09 23:24
https://thebulletin.org/2021/05/the-origin-of-covid-did-people-or-nature-open-pandoras-box-at-wuhan/ For the lab escape scenario, the double CGG codon is no surprise. The human-preferred codon is routinely used in labs. So anyone who wanted to insert a furin cleavage site into the virus’s genome would synthesize the PRRA-making sequence in the lab and would be likely to use CGG codons to do so. “When I first saw the furin cleavage site in the viral sequence, with its arginine codons, I said to my wife it was the smoking gun for the origin of the virus,” said David Baltimore, an eminent virologist and former president of CalTech. “These features make a powerful challenge to the idea of a natural origin for SARS2,” he said. [1]
Notice he said it is “a powerful challenge。。。”, not a proof.
Nicholas Wade is a science writer, editor, and author who has worked on the staff of Nature, Science, and, for many years, the New York Times.
最近西方媒体又有炒作新冠实验室起源的势头，而且还怀疑美国一些研究机构研究者也可能知情，下面是WSJ的一篇评论(非新闻),也提到了上面一篇文章。 https://www.wsj.com/articles/china-fauci-and-the-origins-of-covid-11620419989?mod=trending_now_opn_4 China, Fauci and the Origins of Covid Did the virus come from a Chinese lab funded by the celebrated doctor’s U.S. government institute? By James Freeman May 7, 2021 4:39 pm ET In February of 2021, a security guard moves journalists away from the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China''''''''s Hubei province. PHOTO: NG HAN GUAN/ASSOCIATED PRESS Before Covid-19 ravaged the world, Dr. Anthony Fauci’s National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases funded coronavirus research that included work at China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology. The idea was to study the ability of such viruses to attack humans, but could a Fauci-funded experiment actually be the source of the deadly global infection? In an exhaustive account of the viral possibilities published this week by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Nicholas Wade argues that the Chinese lab is the most likely source of the world-wide agony. https://twitter.com/R_H_Ebright/status/1390131060445437955 Left-leaning journalists who don’t like where this story is going may struggle to dismiss the author given his establishment credentials. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists describes him this way: The former Timesman writes:
The virus that caused the pandemic is known officially as SARS-CoV-2, but can be called SARS2 for short. As many people know, there are two main theories about its origin. One is that it jumped naturally from wildlife to people. The other is that the virus was under study in a lab, from which it escaped... it seems to me that proponents of lab escape can explain all the available facts about SARS2 considerably more easily than can those who favor natural emergence.
Mr. Wade describes a key Chinese researcher whose work received support from Dr. Fauci’s institute via a U.S. group called EcoHealth Alliance:
Researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, led by China’s leading expert on bat viruses, Shi Zheng-li or “Bat Lady,” mounted frequent expeditions to the bat-infested caves of Yunnan in southern China and collected around a hundred different bat coronaviruses...
It cannot yet be stated that Shi did or did not generate SARS2 in her lab because her records have been sealed, but it seems she was certainly on the right track to have done so. “It is clear that the Wuhan Institute of Virology was systematically constructing novel chimeric coronaviruses and was assessing their ability to infect human cells and human-ACE2-expressing mice,” says Richard H. Ebright, a molecular biologist at Rutgers University and leading expert on biosafety.
Mr. Wade then details at length why he believes a lab-created virus in this case is much more likely than a natural one. His case in the following paragraphs contains much jargon but his argument is clear: The scourge was particularly suited to attack humans and yet there’s little if any evidence showing a natural evolution from a virus that attacks bats to a virus that attacks people:
It’s documented that researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology were doing gain-of-function experiments designed to make coronaviruses infect human cells and humanized mice. This is exactly the kind of experiment from which a SARS2-like virus could have emerged. The researchers were not vaccinated against the viruses under study, and they were working in the minimal safety conditions of a BSL2 laboratory. So escape of a virus would not be at all surprising. In all of China, the pandemic broke out on the doorstep of the Wuhan institute. The virus was already well adapted to humans, as expected for a virus grown in humanized mice. It possessed an unusual enhancement, a furin cleavage site, which is not possessed by any other known SARS-related beta-coronavirus, and this site included a double arginine codon also unknown among beta-coronaviruses. What more evidence could you want, aside from the presently unobtainable lab records documenting SARS2’s creation?
Proponents of natural emergence have a rather harder story to tell... No one has found the bat population that was the source of SARS2, if indeed it ever infected bats. No intermediate host has presented itself, despite an intensive search by Chinese authorities that included the testing of 80,000 animals. There is no evidence of the virus making multiple independent jumps from its intermediate host to people, as both the SARS1 and MERS viruses did. There is no evidence from hospital surveillance records of the epidemic gathering strength in the population as the virus evolved. There is no explanation of why a natural epidemic should break out in Wuhan and nowhere else. There is no good explanation of how the virus acquired its furin cleavage site, which no other SARS-related beta-coronavirus possesses, nor why the site is composed of human-preferred codons. The natural emergence theory battles a bristling array of implausibilities.
There seems to be some debate about whether the Wuhan coronavirus work really did involve “gain-of-function” research—genetically engineering viruses to attack people under the premise that such research assists in learning how to counter future threats. In February the website PolitiFact , “All parties involved in the grant to the Wuhan Institute of Virology have denied that it involved gain-of-function research.” PolitiFact attributed a quotation to the National Institutes of Health, the parent agency of Dr. Fauci’s organization:
The NIH told us: “The research supported under the grant to EcoHealth Alliance Inc. characterized the function of newly discovered bat spike proteins and naturally occurring pathogens and did not involve the enhancement of the pathogenicity or transmissibility of the viruses studied.”
But PolitiFact also stated:
MIT biologist Kevin Esvelt reviewed a paper that appears to have been published with financial assistance from the grant. According to Esvelt, certain techniques that the researchers used seemed to meet the definition of gain-of-function research.
This column contacted the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases this afternoon on this issue and a spokesperson says, “We’ll get back to you.” This column will be updated if NIAID comments. Rep. Mike Gallagher (R., Wis.) wrote to Dr. Fauci on Wednesday in search of some answers:
The State Department has detailed several concerning revelations, including that the U.S. government has reason to believe several researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) became sick in autumn 2019 with symptoms consistent with COVID-19, before the first public cases emerged in that community...
How much U.S. government funding has gone to the WIV over time, and how much of that supported gain-of-function research? Did U.S. government funding go to the WIV even during the 2014-2017 U.S. moratorium on funding gain-of-function research?
On Thursday the ranking member on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R., Wash.), and two Republican colleagues on the committee wrote to Secretary of State Antony Blinken to “request that the U.S. Department of State release unclassified documents and declassify other documents for public release, as appropriate, related to the assertion in the Department’s January 15, 2021 Fact Sheet that the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) in Wuhan, China collaborated with the Chinese military in conducting classified research, including laboratory animal experiments.” Did any of the results of those experiments leave the lab and make their way around the world? ***
https://thebulletin.org/2021/05/the-origin-of-covid-did-people-or-nature-open-pandoras-box-at-wuhan/ For the lab escape scenario, the double CGG codon is no surprise. The human-preferred codon is routinely used in labs. So anyone who wanted to insert a furin cleavage site into the virus’s genome would synthesize the PRRA-making sequence in the lab and would be likely to use CGG codons to do so. “When I first saw the furin cleavage site in the viral sequence, with its arginine codons, I said to my wife it was the smoking gun for the origin of the virus,” said David Baltimore, an eminent virologist and former president of CalTech. “These features make a powerful challenge to the idea of a natural origin for SARS2,” he said. [1]
Notice he said it is “a powerful challenge。。。”, not a proof. yolandos 发表于 2021-05-09 23:36
最近西方媒体又有炒作新冠实验室起源的势头，而且还怀疑美国一些研究机构研究者也可能知情，下面是WSJ的一篇评论(非新闻),也提到了上面一篇文章。 https://www.wsj.com/articles/china-fauci-and-the-origins-of-covid-11620419989?mod=trending_now_opn_4 China, Fauci and the Origins of Covid Did the virus come from a Chinese lab funded by the celebrated doctor’s U.S. government institute? By James Freeman May 7, 2021 4:39 pm ET In February of 2021, a security guard moves journalists away from the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China''''''''s Hubei province. PHOTO: NG HAN GUAN/ASSOCIATED PRESS Before Covid-19 ravaged the world, Dr. Anthony Fauci’s National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases funded coronavirus research that included work at China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology. The idea was to study the ability of such viruses to attack humans, but could a Fauci-funded experiment actually be the source of the deadly global infection? In an exhaustive account of the viral possibilities published this week by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Nicholas Wade argues that the Chinese lab is the most likely source of the world-wide agony. https://twitter.com/R_H_Ebright/status/1390131060445437955 Left-leaning journalists who don’t like where this story is going may struggle to dismiss the author given his establishment credentials. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists describes him this way: The former Timesman writes:
The virus that caused the pandemic is known officially as SARS-CoV-2, but can be called SARS2 for short. As many people know, there are two main theories about its origin. One is that it jumped naturally from wildlife to people. The other is that the virus was under study in a lab, from which it escaped... it seems to me that proponents of lab escape can explain all the available facts about SARS2 considerably more easily than can those who favor natural emergence.
Mr. Wade describes a key Chinese researcher whose work received support from Dr. Fauci’s institute via a U.S. group called EcoHealth Alliance:
Researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, led by China’s leading expert on bat viruses, Shi Zheng-li or “Bat Lady,” mounted frequent expeditions to the bat-infested caves of Yunnan in southern China and collected around a hundred different bat coronaviruses...
It cannot yet be stated that Shi did or did not generate SARS2 in her lab because her records have been sealed, but it seems she was certainly on the right track to have done so. “It is clear that the Wuhan Institute of Virology was systematically constructing novel chimeric coronaviruses and was assessing their ability to infect human cells and human-ACE2-expressing mice,” says Richard H. Ebright, a molecular biologist at Rutgers University and leading expert on biosafety.
Mr. Wade then details at length why he believes a lab-created virus in this case is much more likely than a natural one. His case in the following paragraphs contains much jargon but his argument is clear: The scourge was particularly suited to attack humans and yet there’s little if any evidence showing a natural evolution from a virus that attacks bats to a virus that attacks people:
It’s documented that researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology were doing gain-of-function experiments designed to make coronaviruses infect human cells and humanized mice. This is exactly the kind of experiment from which a SARS2-like virus could have emerged. The researchers were not vaccinated against the viruses under study, and they were working in the minimal safety conditions of a BSL2 laboratory. So escape of a virus would not be at all surprising. In all of China, the pandemic broke out on the doorstep of the Wuhan institute. The virus was already well adapted to humans, as expected for a virus grown in humanized mice. It possessed an unusual enhancement, a furin cleavage site, which is not possessed by any other known SARS-related beta-coronavirus, and this site included a double arginine codon also unknown among beta-coronaviruses. What more evidence could you want, aside from the presently unobtainable lab records documenting SARS2’s creation?
Proponents of natural emergence have a rather harder story to tell... No one has found the bat population that was the source of SARS2, if indeed it ever infected bats. No intermediate host has presented itself, despite an intensive search by Chinese authorities that included the testing of 80,000 animals. There is no evidence of the virus making multiple independent jumps from its intermediate host to people, as both the SARS1 and MERS viruses did. There is no evidence from hospital surveillance records of the epidemic gathering strength in the population as the virus evolved. There is no explanation of why a natural epidemic should break out in Wuhan and nowhere else. There is no good explanation of how the virus acquired its furin cleavage site, which no other SARS-related beta-coronavirus possesses, nor why the site is composed of human-preferred codons. The natural emergence theory battles a bristling array of implausibilities.
There seems to be some debate about whether the Wuhan coronavirus work really did involve “gain-of-function” research—genetically engineering viruses to attack people under the premise that such research assists in learning how to counter future threats. In February the website PolitiFact , “All parties involved in the grant to the Wuhan Institute of Virology have denied that it involved gain-of-function research.” PolitiFact attributed a quotation to the National Institutes of Health, the parent agency of Dr. Fauci’s organization:
The NIH told us: “The research supported under the grant to EcoHealth Alliance Inc. characterized the function of newly discovered bat spike proteins and naturally occurring pathogens and did not involve the enhancement of the pathogenicity or transmissibility of the viruses studied.”
But PolitiFact also stated:
MIT biologist Kevin Esvelt reviewed a paper that appears to have been published with financial assistance from the grant. According to Esvelt, certain techniques that the researchers used seemed to meet the definition of gain-of-function research.
This column contacted the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases this afternoon on this issue and a spokesperson says, “We’ll get back to you.” This column will be updated if NIAID comments. Rep. Mike Gallagher (R., Wis.) wrote to Dr. Fauci on Wednesday in search of some answers:
The State Department has detailed several concerning revelations, including that the U.S. government has reason to believe several researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) became sick in autumn 2019 with symptoms consistent with COVID-19, before the first public cases emerged in that community...
How much U.S. government funding has gone to the WIV over time, and how much of that supported gain-of-function research? Did U.S. government funding go to the WIV even during the 2014-2017 U.S. moratorium on funding gain-of-function research?
On Thursday the ranking member on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R., Wash.), and two Republican colleagues on the committee wrote to Secretary of State Antony Blinken to “request that the U.S. Department of State release unclassified documents and declassify other documents for public release, as appropriate, related to the assertion in the Department’s January 15, 2021 Fact Sheet that the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) in Wuhan, China collaborated with the Chinese military in conducting classified research, including laboratory animal experiments.” Did any of the results of those experiments leave the lab and make their way around the world? ***
Not simply a YES or No. I remember years ago on the US side even in 2015 there were serious questions on why there is any need for such rearch to make a virus be able to bind to humans and as a consequence, the fundings were cut and rearch stopped if I remember correctly. I have been down the rabbit hole before I realized that without co-operation from Wuhan there will never be any somoking gun.
The problem is the consequences for accepting such assertion ... thus you actually need proof (or a smoking gun) to even make such assertion. Anything less simply won't stick.
Concern about safety conditions at the Wuhan lab was not, it seems, misplaced. According to a fact sheet issued by the State Department on January 15,2021, “ The U.S. government has reason to believe that several researchers inside the WIV became sick in autumn 2019, before the first identified case of the outbreak, with symptoms consistent with both COVID-19 and common seasonal illnesses.” David Asher, a fellow of the Hudson Institute and former consultant to the State Department, provided more detail about the incident at a . Knowledge of the incident came from a mix of public information and “some high end information collected by our intelligence community,” he said. Three people working at a BSL3 lab at the institute fell sick within a week of each other with severe symptoms that required hospitalization. This was “the first known cluster that we’re aware of, of victims of what we believe to be COVID-19.” Influenza could not completely be ruled out but seemed unlikely in the circumstances, he said. 这个也很有意思 记得石正丽当时说过五毒一个人都没病
“Since 1992 the virology community has known that the one sure way to make a virus deadlier is to give it a furin cleavage site at the S1/S2 junction in the laboratory,” writes Dr. Steven Quay, a biotech entrepreneur interested in the origins of SARS2. “At least eleven gain-of-function experiments, adding a furin site to make a virus more infective, are published in the open literature, including [by] Dr. Zhengli Shi, head of coronavirus research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.”
啥叫你们？你是墙内的翻墙出来你们政府认为是违法的。还是你们政府雇佣网军，你们靠此赚钱？你们以为你们是赵家人？计划生育杀了多少人，你们以为你们政府不敢故意投毒中国人？ Malik Peiris专门秘密去武汉两次去看投毒状况，现在逃走了。没做亏心事逃什么逃？ 美国早就掌握确凿证据是实验室制造，现在是第二阶段故意投毒的论证阶段。 没这些确凿证据能让全世界联合起来开着航母在东海南海转？
🔥 最新回帖
死亡率2%，怎么会全挂掉？！
诺奖可比赚钱难多了。
怎么说呢，觉得应该比现在情况hate asian更惨。不是每个人都是理性的。我真心希望不是人造的病毒。
按这个时间顺序应该是泄漏了，疫苗还没来得及做成功。。
这种威胁毁灭全人类的恶言ID，应该永封。请和我一起举报。
🛋️ 沙发板凳
能展开阐述一下吗
The furin cleavage site consists of four amino acids PRRA, which are encoded by 12 inserted nucleotides in the S gene. A characteristic feature of this site is an arginine doublet. This insertion could have occurred by random insertion mutation, recombination or by laboratory insertion. The researchers say the possibility of random insertion is too low to explain the origin of this motif. Surprisingly, the CGGCGG codons encoding the two arginines of the doublet in SARS-CoV-2 are not found in any of the furin sites in other viral proteins expressed by a wide range of viruses. Even within the SARS-CoV-2, where arginine is encoded by six codons, only a minority of arginine residues are encoded by the CGG codon. Again, only two of the 42 arginines in the SARS-CoV-2 spike are encoded by this codon – and these are in the PRRA motif.
https://www.news-medical.net/news/20210217/The-origin-of-SARS-CoV-2-furin-cleavage-site-remains-a-mystery.aspx
edit 楼下的潮水叔说这个需要专家解释 我给你找了一个专家说的
证据不充分就慢慢调查呗，妄想这次还要靠糊弄过去全世界人民觉得很玄阿，靠恐吓或者封口是没戏的。想想新冠想精确致导一样到中国唯一一个有P4研究新冠的城市爆发，你觉得很正常吗
我觉得可以从科学的角度中性讨论。
前者都可以给你做成铁案，后者要证明还不是轻而易举，关键就看政治气候是不是到位。
春江水暖鸭先知，谭德赛的态度转变已经够说明情况了。
全文没提到这个诺贝尔奖得主啊
作者还是个OB
等于说这个furin cleavage site上codon的使用是不符合SARS2或其它coronavirus的背景的
估计whoever想要压制这条消息的最近太忙 压不住了
对，不应该是栽赃的政治目的，应该是科学的研究病毒变化重组发展的目的。The truth 的科学态度。
生物我不懂，等专家们 peer review。
https://thebulletin.org/2021/05/the-origin-of-covid-did-people-or-nature-open-pandoras-box-at-wuhan/
For the lab escape scenario, the double CGG codon is no surprise. The human-preferred codon is routinely used in labs. So anyone who wanted to insert a furin cleavage site into the virus’s genome would synthesize the PRRA-making sequence in the lab and would be likely to use CGG codons to do so. “When I first saw the furin cleavage site in the viral sequence, with its arginine codons, I said to my wife it was the smoking gun for the origin of the virus,” said David Baltimore, an eminent virologist and former president of CalTech. “These features make a powerful challenge to the idea of a natural origin for SARS2,” he said. [1]
Notice he said it is “a powerful challenge。。。”, not a proof.
最近西方媒体又有炒作新冠实验室起源的势头，而且还怀疑美国一些研究机构研究者也可能知情，下面是WSJ的一篇评论(非新闻),也提到了上面一篇文章。
https://www.wsj.com/articles/china-fauci-and-the-origins-of-covid-11620419989?mod=trending_now_opn_4
China, Fauci and the Origins of Covid Did the virus come from a Chinese lab funded by the celebrated doctor’s U.S. government institute?
By James Freeman May 7, 2021 4:39 pm ET
Before Covid-19 ravaged the world, Dr. Anthony Fauci’s National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases funded coronavirus research that included work at China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology. The idea was to study the ability of such viruses to attack humans, but could a Fauci-funded experiment actually be the source of the deadly global infection? In an exhaustive account of the viral possibilities published this week by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Nicholas Wade argues that the Chinese lab is the most likely source of the world-wide agony.
https://twitter.com/R_H_Ebright/status/1390131060445437955
Left-leaning journalists who don’t like where this story is going may struggle to dismiss the author given his establishment credentials. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists describes him this way: The former Timesman writes: Mr. Wade describes a key Chinese researcher whose work received support from Dr. Fauci’s institute via a U.S. group called EcoHealth Alliance:
Mr. Wade then details at length why he believes a lab-created virus in this case is much more likely than a natural one. His case in the following paragraphs contains much jargon but his argument is clear: The scourge was particularly suited to attack humans and yet there’s little if any evidence showing a natural evolution from a virus that attacks bats to a virus that attacks people:
There seems to be some debate about whether the Wuhan coronavirus work really did involve “gain-of-function” research—genetically engineering viruses to attack people under the premise that such research assists in learning how to counter future threats. In February the website PolitiFact , “All parties involved in the grant to the Wuhan Institute of Virology have denied that it involved gain-of-function research.” PolitiFact attributed a quotation to the National Institutes of Health, the parent agency of Dr. Fauci’s organization:
But PolitiFact also stated: This column contacted the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases this afternoon on this issue and a spokesperson says, “We’ll get back to you.” This column will be updated if NIAID comments. Rep. Mike Gallagher (R., Wis.) wrote to Dr. Fauci on Wednesday in search of some answers: On Thursday the ranking member on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R., Wash.), and two Republican colleagues on the committee wrote to Secretary of State Antony Blinken to “request that the U.S. Department of State release unclassified documents and declassify other documents for public release, as appropriate, related to the assertion in the Department’s January 15, 2021 Fact Sheet that the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) in Wuhan, China collaborated with the Chinese military in conducting classified research, including laboratory animal experiments.” Did any of the results of those experiments leave the lab and make their way around the world? ***
谢谢！
用诺奖的名头去中国赚钱？你确定不是在搞笑吗？难道全世界只有中国？搞科研的都是为了圈钱？看来猜测皇帝用金斧头的人还真不是少数。
网上的文章讲了很多，实验室基金是美国的，美国教授申请，subcontract给武汉，合作对象是北卡的教授。
这事是比较糊涂账，如果真的实验室不小心。
穷人乍富不都这样的，以为自己寰宇第一呗，历史在一遍遍重演而已，可怜的是那波还没富起来的却被被打鸡血当炮灰的
去年就这么猜测了
无论谁制造的，泄漏是个大问题。
https://medium.com/microbial-instincts/critical-analysis-of-the-new-preprint-that-prove-sars-cov-2-is-manmade-d9eed3c7c858
大家都学过统计 lightening strikes twice at the same spot 概率多小
是
这是high school biology
https://forums.huaren.us/showtopic.html?topicid=2506126 https://forums.huaren.us/showtopic.html?topicid=2502184
Not simply a YES or No. I remember years ago on the US side even in 2015 there were serious questions on why there is any need for such rearch to make a virus be able to bind to humans and as a consequence, the fundings were cut and rearch stopped if I remember correctly.
I have been down the rabbit hole before I realized that without co-operation from Wuhan there will never be any somoking gun.
科学的声音被压制那么久 实在难以下咽
The problem is the consequences for accepting such assertion ... thus you actually need proof (or a smoking gun) to even make such assertion. Anything less simply won't stick.
北卡教授Baric 是研究冠状病毒和疫苗专家，和石的合作2015后结束了。美国不让继续搞下去了。这个文章abstract真的是触目惊心, 什么s protein, ACE2, 当时疫苗对engineering后的病毒没效。石肯定继续在武汉研究所搞下去了。 https://www.nature.com/articles/nm.3985
作者里除了石，还有一个中国人Xing-Yi Ge，不知道她是否知道一些内情
详细的分析文章在这里：
https://nicholaswade.medium.com/origin-of-covid-following-the-clues-6f03564c038
Wall Street Journal 对这件事的报道在这里：
https://www.wsj.com/articles/china-fauci-and-the-origins-of-covid-11620419989
我觉得要点是：
最重要的是PRRA 那个片段， Bat family根本没有，还有一段，也是在Bat family 极少见， 这些都在Covid-19 virus 里。 如果是mutation所致，自然界中一个中间体都没发现。
这行业的专家可以指点一下。
是呀，想做成铁案就可以做，没有证据创造证据
关键要挖出大卫巴尔的摩夫妇跟李洪志的关系，比如有没有入教，剩下的就比较好办了。
是啊，如果真查出来是TG的，海外华人会被牵连的更惨。
对，我也看过这篇，所以是赖不到美国头上的。 石后来在中国复旦的一个讲座就是关于蝙蝠冠状病毒跨种传播的研究。
你如果曾经生活在中国，你信吗？
那美国为嘛不让讨论lab origin？
此地无瓜？
信。 按照现在的种族灭绝规定，限制自由，文化灭绝和强制堕胎都是。 劳改，去年禁止内蒙用蒙语授课，计划生育，都是种族灭绝行为。汉族也是受害者。
不对，都是老美和西方的的错，追根溯源，搞出了现代生物化学，否则也就没啥新冠，转基因婴儿了.....
这么说WM 小粉红们可满意了？
老婆是华人，十有八九入教了
怎么泄漏啊
这锅中共碰都不敢碰
现在就死猪赖着，看你有啥招
背地里投毒哪有什么证据
时正理自己说漏嘴。说担心实验室泄漏整晚睡不着觉。
这个人好像是关键人物
我之前看了很多五毒招postdoc的广告都是他的实验室的
都是关于把hiv和coronavirus一起放在蝙蝠体内养的
所以我马上想到了这里面在搞进化实验
这个也是很奇怪的 不知道要盖住什么
这谣言张嘴就来！
当时有盆友转给我国内不知是哪儿的网文，文里还附上了北卡教授都照片。我一看老头很眼熟、嗯、当年还上过他的课。不知道怎么八杆子打不着，俺们北卡的老教授就这样躺枪了！
你上过教授的课，跟这个教授从事什么研究 有什么关系
所以加拿大和gates基金会也在里面参与了?harvard那位大牛教授跑去武汉一个不知名大学兼职也确实挺奇怪的
海外华人也是受害者，倒是美国某些科研工作者是不是干净
这个也很有意思 记得石正丽当时说过五毒一个人都没病
都这会儿了还有人相信不是人工的吗？
无怪那么多人争着打疫苗
对病毒学懂得不是特别多，不过PRRA这玩意不是已经吵了一年多了吗？而且随着对新冠研究的深入，越来越发现这个PRRA序列的重要性。这个新插入的片段确实没有在这个属的其他病毒的FCS上看到过，但是在别的冠状病毒的其他部位有类似的序列，所以很多人推测有可能是在自然界或者实验室里面两种冠状病毒同时感染了同一个宿主然后发生了重组。
当然话又说回来，有自然产生的可能性不代表这个PRRA就肯定不是人工插入的，不过这就不是科学问题而是政治问题了。
你不难接受，但有的人就难了。
好比说真的证明中国泄露甚至投毒，美国死亡的60万家庭有足够的力量促使美国政府进行某种程度报复。但任何报复，对于苹果特斯拉这种在中国利益巨大的企业都会很难受。 我没说这是对的，但这就是现在的政治生态。
想起那个基因编辑婴儿，虽然在前面被曝光的是中国人，实际上好几个美国大学的教授都有参与，最后顶锅的是中国人
人工的和打疫苗有什么关系。。。？
故意投毒毒中国人？你们高兴就好。。。
sars肯定不是人工的，但sars的威力强大，传染性强，致死率高，可能引起了某些人的心仪。否则军方也不会成立实验室专门研究sars。
https://www.rfi.fr/cn/%E4%B8%AD%E5%9B%BD/20201227-%E6%96%B0%E5%86%A0%E7%97%85%E6%AF%92%E6%BA%AF%E6%BA%90-%E4%B8%A5%E9%98%B2%E5%A4%96%E4%BA%BA%E9%9D%A0%E8%BF%91%E7%9A%84%E4%BA%91%E5%8D%97%E9%80%9A%E5%85%B3%E8%9D%99%E8%9D%A0%E6%B4%9E%E5%BC%95%E5%8F%91%E5%85%B3%E6%B3%A8
中国云南墨江县通关镇，2012年4月25日，一名42岁的男子被送进昆明医院，他已连续咳嗽两周，发高烧，呼吸窘迫。第二天，又有三名年龄32至63岁的类似患者住进了医院。第三天又有一名45岁的男子住进了医院，一周后，一名30岁的具有同样症状的男子也住进了同一医院。
他们全都或多或少具有相同的严重肺炎症状。他们的胸部扫描显示双侧肺部受损，并伴有磨砂玻璃混浊，现已公认这是2019新冠病毒的特征。其中三个患者显示出血栓形成的迹象，血管阻塞也是2019新冠病毒Covid-19并发症的典型特征。 他们六人都在墨江县通关镇的一个废弃矿场工作。那里住满了蝙蝠。六个人在矿洞里工作长达两个星期，在飞来飞去蝙蝠的鸟粪坑中挖掘。他们中的三人分别住院十二，四十八和一百零九天后在医院死亡。两个最年轻的住了不到一周后脱险，另一个46岁的男子住院四个月后才出院。
BBC报道说，这三人的死亡现在成为有关该病毒的起源，以及病毒是来自自然界还是实验室的重大科学争论的中心。通关铜矿的三名工人在身处一个满是蝙蝠的矿洞后身亡，这引发了人们怀疑他们感染了蝙蝠冠状病毒。因此，在死亡事件发生后，武汉病毒所的科学家们开始认真地对通关矿洞的蝙蝠进行取样。不出意料，他们在接下来三年里多次走访并检测出293种冠状病毒。但除了一篇简短的论文外，关于他们在这些考察中收集到的病毒的信息发表甚少。 2020年春季武汉疫情爆发，社交媒体上重新出现了已被遗忘的墨江矿工的故事。在推特上，一个匿名帐户剖析一篇发布在用于发表大学硕士论文的中文官方平台上的论文，论文作者李旭（Li Xu） ，论文详细介绍了以上六个人的病情。2014年3月，《科学》杂志简述了这个故事，并提到了在同一矿山的老鼠身上发现了一种新型副粘病毒（MojV），一种来自不同冠状病毒家族的病毒。
但是到目前为止，在国际科学文献中还没有发表过对这六个临床病例的精确描述。 2020年春季，当李旭的硕士论文在社交网络上流传时，墨江六个矿工的症状与Covid-19之间的相似性引起一些科学家高度关注。两名印度微生物学家Monali Rahalkar（阿加尔卡尔研究所）和Rahul Bahulikar（BAIF研究基金会）对李旭的论文进行分析后写了一篇论文，10月发表在《公共卫生前沿》上。他们在文中指出，墨江矿工的疾病可以提供“关于SARS-CoV-2(2019新冠病毒)起源的重要线索”。 世界报问道：2012墨江矿工肺病和今天肆虐的Covid-19之间究竟有什么联系？将近十年的时间跨度以及武汉与云南通江1500公里的距离，能使我们更清楚地看到新冠状病毒的起源吗？
新冠状病毒的发现 现在回到2020年1月23日，中科院武汉病毒所的研究人员在bioRxiv预印版平台发表文章指出，武汉新型冠状病毒或许来源于蝙蝠。文章把这一遗传上最接近SARS-CoV-2的病毒命名为“ RaTG13”，并公布了病毒的基因组，与导致Covid-19新冠病毒序列一致性高达96.2％。但是，关于RaTG13起源，外界知道的唯一信息是：它是在云南通关蝙蝠中菊头蝠（Rhinolophusaffinis）身上发现的。
我记得看过一段胡前几年的访谈，说他在位期间，压力最大的一段时间就是SARS，当时最担心的就是怕没控制住影响到海外去。还好基本控制在国内而且都解决了。（当然这也造成海外普通人对类似的病毒危害并不太了解，这是后话。）
要是这次在封城的同时把出国门的人也及时检测控制没有病毒流出，那现在全世界能少去世很多很多人。
有外国记者不怕死，想去探访这个矿坑，但是在接近的地方被拦截下来了。 以后去蝙蝠洞采样要小心了。想起Kentucky有个有名的洞穴，叫做Mammoth cave，里面很多蝙蝠。允许大家随便参观，还说要保护蝙蝠，因为被某种霉菌感染。其实咱们去参观真是有风险
据我所知目前最大的问题在于新冠的FCS部分比这个高度相似的RaTG13多了四个氨基酸，也就是著名的PRRA序列。多出来的这四个氨基酸导致新冠的感染力和毒性大增。现在争议最厉害的地方就在于这个PRRA到底是哪里冒出来的。如果是自然来源的话那可能就是来自基因重组，也就是两种病毒同时感染了一个宿主。
新冠关键可以无症状传播，而且五毒所的人大量徒手抓蝙蝠采集病毒也不是什么秘密，是不是直接感染了，或者被改造病毒后不小心感染，无症状传出去了，现在根本说不清楚，这也是为什么对武汉首批病人原始病历讳莫如深的原因。
自然进化的速度不会如此迅速，完美的insert 4个氨基酸。这就是cdc 前director怀疑这种进化很可能是在lab 帮助完成的。其实lab origin没啥，不小心leak也没那么致命，关健是不透明及拒绝批露武汉0号病人。这种类型病毒估计武毒所或者其他研究所freezer里还有几百种，继续下去SARS 3保不齐那天又出现。了。
病毒是可以重组的啊，比如说可能有个别的病毒上面正好有这个PRRA序列，然后RaTG13和这个病毒一起感染了某个细胞，然后复制出来的新病毒上面就有可能带着这个PRRA新片段
这些仍旧是circumferential evidence 一些事情几率很小 但是这里出现了 您说奇不奇怪 但是没用 因为一旦坐实 这个事情后果是巨大的 所以铁证才有用 其他的都没用 说难听点和阴谋论 fake news也差不离
不炒这些热点，双方都会有人失业。吃瓜的凑个热闹，不亦乐乎。
五毛轮子粉墨登场， 中崩美崩看谁先崩。
海华自己先吵崩了
我记得有人在这个版上转发过一篇有关的论文。
https://www.independentsciencenews.org/commentaries/a-proposed-origin-for-sars-cov-2-and-the-covid-19-pandemic/
这六个矿工的样本当时被送交钟南山和石正丽所在的武毒所，这六个矿工中有人当时被确诊感染了冠状病毒但具体几个人不清楚。石正丽因此组织团队去墨江采集了蝙蝠样本包括测序后命名的RaTG13。没人知道武毒所拿那些矿工样本干了什么。
啥叫你们？你是墙内的翻墙出来你们政府认为是违法的。还是你们政府雇佣网军，你们靠此赚钱？你们以为你们是赵家人？计划生育杀了多少人，你们以为你们政府不敢故意投毒中国人？ Malik Peiris专门秘密去武汉两次去看投毒状况，现在逃走了。没做亏心事逃什么逃？ 美国早就掌握确凿证据是实验室制造，现在是第二阶段故意投毒的论证阶段。 没这些确凿证据能让全世界联合起来开着航母在东海南海转？
关键是这俩病毒都不能感染蝙蝠
你说怪不怪
这也是的
所以真的是两个都逃不掉
又来了 五毛不捆绑海外华人会死啊 海华的爹妈都回不去中国 海华跟武汉病毒有什么关系
不管你愿不愿意， 捆绑是客观事实， 连日本韩国人都要被捆绑。
反正国内战狼可以过嘴瘾拉仇恨， 等SARS3一来海外华人继续挨打呗。
海外人士唯一能干的，就是在海外“反歧视”， 因为你没法管ccp干啥， 骂都不能骂，否则五毛骂你“呸，你还想切割，做梦吧！”