You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time. 在根本价值观生死存亡的关头，利益，真的不是决定因素。 你低估了自文艺复兴，思想启蒙后西方文明的力量！
The Science Suggests a Wuhan Lab Leak The Covid-19 pathogen has a genetic footprint that has never been observed in a natural coronavirus. By Steven Quay and Richard Muller June 6, 2021 11:59 am ET ILLUSTRATION: MARTIN KOZLOWSKI The possibility that the pandemic began with an escape from the Wuhan Institute of Virology is attracting fresh attention. President Biden has asked the national intelligence community to redouble efforts to investigate. Much of the public discussion has focused on circumstantial evidence: mysterious illnesses in late 2019; the lab’s work intentionally supercharging viruses to increase lethality (known as “gain of function” research). The Chinese Communist Party has been reluctant to release relevant information. Reports based on U.S. intelligence have suggested the lab collaborated on projects with the Chinese military. But the most compelling reason to favor the lab leak hypothesis is firmly based in science. In particular, consider the genetic fingerprint of CoV-2, the novel coronavirus responsible for the disease Covid-19. In gain-of-function research, a microbiologist can increase the lethality of a coronavirus enormously by splicing a special sequence into its genome at a prime location. Doing this leaves no trace of manipulation. But it alters the virus spike protein, rendering it easier for the virus to inject genetic material into the victim cell. Since 1992 there have been at least 11 separate experiments adding a special sequence to the same location. The end result has always been supercharged viruses. A genome is a blueprint for the factory of a cell to make proteins. The language is made up of three-letter “words,” 64 in total, that represent the 20 different amino acids. For example, there are six different words for the amino acid arginine, the one that is often used in supercharging viruses. Every cell has a different preference for which word it likes to use most. In the case of the gain-of-function supercharge, other sequences could have been spliced into this same site. Instead of a CGG-CGG (known as “double CGG”) that tells the protein factory to make two arginine amino acids in a row, you’ll obtain equal lethality by splicing any one of 35 of the other two-word combinations for double arginine. If the insertion takes place naturally, say through recombination, then one of those 35 other sequences is far more likely to appear; CGG is rarely used in the class of coronaviruses that can recombine with CoV-2. In fact, in the entire class of coronaviruses that includes CoV-2, the CGG-CGG combination has never been found naturally. That means the common method of viruses picking up new skills, called recombination, cannot operate here. A virus simply cannot pick up a sequence from another virus if that sequence isn’t present in any other virus. Although the double CGG is suppressed naturally, the opposite is true in laboratory work. The insertion sequence of choice is the double CGG. That’s because it is readily available and convenient, and scientists have a great deal of experience inserting it. An additional advantage of the double CGG sequence compared with the other 35 possible choices: It creates a useful beacon that permits the scientists to track the insertion in the laboratory. Now the damning fact. It was this exact sequence that appears in CoV-2. Proponents of zoonotic origin must explain why the novel coronavirus, when it mutated or recombined, happened to pick its least favorite combination, the double CGG. Why did it replicate the choice the lab’s gain-of-function researchers would have made? Yes, it could have happened randomly, through mutations. But do you believe that? At the minimum, this fact—that the coronavirus, with all its random possibilities, took the rare and unnatural combination used by human researchers—implies that the leading theory for the origin of the coronavirus must be laboratory escape. When the lab’s Shi Zhengli and colleagues published a paper in February 2020 with the virus’s partial genome, they omitted any mention of the special sequence that supercharges the virus or the rare double CGG section. Yet the fingerprint is easily identified in the data that accompanied the paper. Was it omitted in the hope that nobody would notice this evidence of the gain-of-function origin? But in a matter of weeks virologists Bruno Coutard and colleagues their discovery of the sequence in CoV-2 and its novel supercharged site. Double CGG is there; you only have to look. They comment in their paper that the protein that held it “may provide a gain-of-function” capability to the virus, “for efficient spreading” to humans. There is additional scientific evidence that points to CoV-2’s gain-of-function origin. The most compelling is the dramatic differences in the genetic diversity of CoV-2, compared with the coronaviruses responsible for SARS and MERS. Both of those were confirmed to have a natural origin; the viruses evolved rapidly as they spread through the human population, until the most contagious forms dominated. Covid-19 didn’t work that way. It appeared in humans already adapted into an extremely contagious version. No serious viral “improvement” took place until a minor variation occurred many months later in England. Such early optimization is unprecedented, and it suggests a long period of adaptation that predated its public spread. Science knows of only one way that could be achieved: simulated natural evolution, growing the virus on human cells until the optimum is achieved. That is precisely what is done in gain-of-function research. Mice that are genetically modified to have the same coronavirus receptor as humans, called “humanized mice,” are repeatedly exposed to the virus to encourage adaptation. The presence of the double CGG sequence is strong evidence of gene splicing, and the absence of diversity in the public outbreak suggests gain-of-function acceleration. The scientific evidence points to the conclusion that the virus was developed in a laboratory. Dr. Quay is founder of Atossa Therapeutics and author of “Stay Safe: A Physician’s Guide to Survive Coronavirus.” Mr. Muller is an emeritus professor of physics at the University of California Berkeley and a former senior scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
The Lab-Leak Theory: Inside the Fight to Uncover COVID-19’s Origins Throughout 2020, the notion that the novel coronavirus leaked from a lab was off-limits. Those who dared to push for transparency say toxic politics and hidden agendas kept us in the dark. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/06/the-lab-leak-theory-inside-the-fight-to-uncover-covid-19s-origins 2019年9月，病毒数据库下线的时间，和武汉同期应对新冠病毒感染者的演练，纯属巧合？ They paid one visit to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, where they met with Shi Zhengli, as recounted in an annex to the mission report. One obvious demand would have been access to the WIV’s database of some 22,000 virus samples and sequences, which had been taken offline. At an event convened by a London organization on March 10, Daszak was asked whether the group had made such a request. He said there was no need: Shi Zhengli had stated that the WIV took down the database due to hacking attempts during the pandemic. “Absolutely reasonable,” Daszak said. “And we did not ask to see the data…. As you know, a lot of this work has been conducted with EcoHealth Alliance…. We do basically know what’s in those databases. There is no evidence of viruses closer to SARS-CoV-2 than RaTG13 in those databases, simple as that.” In fact, the database had been taken offline on September 12, 2019, three months before the official start of the pandemic, a detail uncovered by Gilles Demaneuf and two of his DRASTIC colleagues. June 6, 2021 更新 我把最近一个月以来围绕新冠病毒溯源的主要事件按时间线总结了一下，欢迎大家评论补充 May 5: Former New York Times science reporter Nicholas Wade, writing in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, reviews the evidence and makes a strong case for the lab-leak theory. He focuses in particular on the furin cleavage site, which increases viral infectivity for human cells. His analysis yields this quote from David Baltimore, a virologist and former president of the California Institute of Technology: “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. These features make a powerful challenge to the idea of a natural origin for SARS2.” https://thebulletin.org/2021/05/the-origin-of-covid-did-people-or-nature-open-pandoras-box-at-wuhan/ May 7: James Freeman, Assistant editor, editorial page, The Wall Street Journal became the first reporter of a major news outlet challenging the intertwined relationship among China, Fauci and Origins of COVID https://www.wsj.com/articles/china-fauci-and-the-origins-of-covid-11620419989 May 11: During a Senate hearing on the pandemic response, Paul alleged that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) had been sending funding to the Wuhan lab, which then "juiced up" a virus that was originally found in bats to create a super virus that can infect human cells. Paul pressed Fauci on the theory that the novel coronavirus was created in the Wuhan lab, and then somehow escaped, either because of an accident or because it was deliberately released. https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/552857-rand-paul-clashes-with-fauci-over-coronavirus-origins May 14: Eighteen prominent scientists publish a letter in the journal Science, saying a new investigation is needed because “theories of accidental release from a lab and zoonotic spillover both remain viable.” One signer is Ralph Baric, a virologist who worked closely with Shi. https://science.sciencemag.org/content/372/6543/694.1 May 17: Another former New York Times science reporter, Donald G. McNeil Jr., posts on Medium: “How I Learned to Stop Worrying And Love the Lab-Leak Theory.” He quotes W. Ian Lipkin of Columbia University — who had signed the March 2020 letter in Nature Medicine — as saying his mind had changed in light of new information. https://donaldgmcneiljr1954.medium.com/how-i-learned-to-stop-worrying-and-love-the-lab-leak-theory-f4f88446b04d May 23: WSJ published an exclusive news piece which reports three researchers from China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology became sick enough in November 2019 that they sought hospital care, according to a previously undisclosed U.S. intelligence report that could add weight to growing calls for a fuller probe of whether the Covid-19 virus may have escaped from the laboratory. https://www.wsj.com/articles/intelligence-on-sick-staff-at-wuhan-lab-fuels-debate-on-covid-19-origin-11621796228 May 24: Anthony Fauci, apparently “changed” his mind, admitted earlier this month that he is no longer convinced that the Covid-19 pandemic originated naturally. Same day, Dr. Scott Gottlieb, the 23rd commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), said the growing number of reports provide an increasing amount of circumstantial evidence supporting the theory that the virus could have escaped from a lab. https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/24/politics/fauci-donald-trump-coronavirus/index.htmlhttps://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/24/gottlieb-says-theres-growing-circumstantial-evidence-that-covid-may-have-originated-in-a-lab.html May 26: President Biden ordered the Intelligence Community to redouble their efforts to collect and analyze information that could bring us closer to a definitive conclusion, and to report back in 90 days. Same day, The Editorial Board of WSJ endorsed the credibility of The Virus Lab Theory https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/05/26/statement-by-president-joe-biden-on-the-investigation-into-the-origins-of-covid-19/https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-virus-lab-theorys-new-credibility-11622066808 June 2: Uncovered Emails Show Fauci’s deep involvement in Gain of Function research https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/20793561/leopold-nih-foia-anthony-fauci-emails.pdf June 3: Vanity Fair published a nearly 12,000-word article by award-winning journalist Katherine Eban; it''''''''s much worth reading on the bottom line question of whether COVID-19 indeed stemmed from a lab leak. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/06/the-lab-leak-theory-inside-the-fight-to-uncover-covid-19s-origins June 6: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/covid-19-wuhan-origins-60-minutes-2021-06-06/#apphttps://www.wsj.com/articles/the-science-suggests-a-wuhan-lab-leak-11622995184 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/znisx0wQMGA
The Science Suggests a Wuhan Lab Leak The Covid-19 pathogen has a genetic footprint that has never been observed in a natural coronavirus. By Steven Quay and Richard Muller June 6, 2021 11:59 am ET ILLUSTRATION: MARTIN KOZLOWSKI The possibility that the pandemic began with an escape from the Wuhan Institute of Virology is attracting fresh attention. President Biden has asked the national intelligence community to redouble efforts to investigate. Much of the public discussion has focused on circumstantial evidence: mysterious illnesses in late 2019; the lab’s work intentionally supercharging viruses to increase lethality (known as “gain of function” research). The Chinese Communist Party has been reluctant to release relevant information. Reports based on U.S. intelligence have suggested the lab collaborated on projects with the Chinese military. But the most compelling reason to favor the lab leak hypothesis is firmly based in science. In particular, consider the genetic fingerprint of CoV-2, the novel coronavirus responsible for the disease Covid-19. In gain-of-function research, a microbiologist can increase the lethality of a coronavirus enormously by splicing a special sequence into its genome at a prime location. Doing this leaves no trace of manipulation. But it alters the virus spike protein, rendering it easier for the virus to inject genetic material into the victim cell. Since 1992 there have been at least 11 separate experiments adding a special sequence to the same location. The end result has always been supercharged viruses. A genome is a blueprint for the factory of a cell to make proteins. The language is made up of three-letter “words,” 64 in total, that represent the 20 different amino acids. For example, there are six different words for the amino acid arginine, the one that is often used in supercharging viruses. Every cell has a different preference for which word it likes to use most. In the case of the gain-of-function supercharge, other sequences could have been spliced into this same site. Instead of a CGG-CGG (known as “double CGG”) that tells the protein factory to make two arginine amino acids in a row, you’ll obtain equal lethality by splicing any one of 35 of the other two-word combinations for double arginine. If the insertion takes place naturally, say through recombination, then one of those 35 other sequences is far more likely to appear; CGG is rarely used in the class of coronaviruses that can recombine with CoV-2. In fact, in the entire class of coronaviruses that includes CoV-2, the CGG-CGG combination has never been found naturally. That means the common method of viruses picking up new skills, called recombination, cannot operate here. A virus simply cannot pick up a sequence from another virus if that sequence isn’t present in any other virus. Although the double CGG is suppressed naturally, the opposite is true in laboratory work. The insertion sequence of choice is the double CGG. That’s because it is readily available and convenient, and scientists have a great deal of experience inserting it. An additional advantage of the double CGG sequence compared with the other 35 possible choices: It creates a useful beacon that permits the scientists to track the insertion in the laboratory. Now the damning fact. It was this exact sequence that appears in CoV-2. Proponents of zoonotic origin must explain why the novel coronavirus, when it mutated or recombined, happened to pick its least favorite combination, the double CGG. Why did it replicate the choice the lab’s gain-of-function researchers would have made? Yes, it could have happened randomly, through mutations. But do you believe that? At the minimum, this fact—that the coronavirus, with all its random possibilities, took the rare and unnatural combination used by human researchers—implies that the leading theory for the origin of the coronavirus must be laboratory escape. When the lab’s Shi Zhengli and colleagues published a paper in February 2020 with the virus’s partial genome, they omitted any mention of the special sequence that supercharges the virus or the rare double CGG section. Yet the fingerprint is easily identified in the data that accompanied the paper. Was it omitted in the hope that nobody would notice this evidence of the gain-of-function origin? But in a matter of weeks virologists Bruno Coutard and colleagues their discovery of the sequence in CoV-2 and its novel supercharged site. Double CGG is there; you only have to look. They comment in their paper that the protein that held it “may provide a gain-of-function” capability to the virus, “for efficient spreading” to humans. There is additional scientific evidence that points to CoV-2’s gain-of-function origin. The most compelling is the dramatic differences in the genetic diversity of CoV-2, compared with the coronaviruses responsible for SARS and MERS. Both of those were confirmed to have a natural origin; the viruses evolved rapidly as they spread through the human population, until the most contagious forms dominated. Covid-19 didn’t work that way. It appeared in humans already adapted into an extremely contagious version. No serious viral “improvement” took place until a minor variation occurred many months later in England. Such early optimization is unprecedented, and it suggests a long period of adaptation that predated its public spread. Science knows of only one way that could be achieved: simulated natural evolution, growing the virus on human cells until the optimum is achieved. That is precisely what is done in gain-of-function research. Mice that are genetically modified to have the same coronavirus receptor as humans, called “humanized mice,” are repeatedly exposed to the virus to encourage adaptation. The presence of the double CGG sequence is strong evidence of gene splicing, and the absence of diversity in the public outbreak suggests gain-of-function acceleration. The scientific evidence points to the conclusion that the virus was developed in a laboratory. Dr. Quay is founder of Atossa Therapeutics and author of “Stay Safe: A Physician’s Guide to Survive Coronavirus.” Mr. Muller is an emeritus professor of physics at the University of California Berkeley and a former senior scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Shang_Ri_La 发表于 2021-06-06 15:56
On January 14, 2021, Daszak and 12 other international experts arrived in Wuhan to join 17 Chinese experts and an entourage of government minders. They spent two weeks of the monthlong mission quarantined in their hotel rooms. The remaining two-week inquiry was more propaganda than probe, complete with a visit to an exhibit extolling President Xi’s leadership. The team saw almost no raw data, only the Chinese government analysis of it. They paid one visit to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, where they met with Shi Zhengli, as recounted in an annex to the mission report. One obvious demand would have been access to the WIV’s database of some 22,000 virus samples and sequences, which had been taken offline. At an event convened by a London organization on March 10, Daszak was asked whether the group had made such a request. He said there was no need: Shi Zhengli had stated that the WIV took down the database due to hacking attempts during the pandemic. “Absolutely reasonable,” Daszak said. “And we did not ask to see the data…. As you know, a lot of this work has been conducted with EcoHealth Alliance…. We do basically know what’s in those databases. There is no evidence of viruses closer to SARS-CoV-2 than RaTG13 in those databases, simple as that.” In fact, the database had been taken offline on September 12, 2019, three months before the official start of the pandemic, a detail uncovered by Gilles Demaneuf and two of his DRASTIC colleagues. 现在Daszak被披露出来是去年二月专家公开信的幕后推手，同时他上面这段关于武毒所数据库的回答也并没有说服力，这个事情是不是应该再跟进一下，让武毒所把这个数据库交出来呢？
U.S. Report Found It Plausible Covid-19 Leaked From Wuhan Lab The 2020 lab report was used by the State Department in its own inquiry during Trump administration The Wuhan Institute of Virology in China’s Hubei province on Feb. 3. PHOTO: NG HAN GUAN/ASSOCIATED PRESS By Michael R. Gordon and Warren P. Strobel June 7, 2021 7:03 pm ET WASHINGTON—A report on the origins of Covid-19 by a U.S. government national laboratory concluded that the hypothesis claiming the virus leaked from a Chinese lab in Wuhan is plausible and deserves further investigation, according to people familiar with the classified document. The study was prepared in May 2020 by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California and was drawn on by the State Department when it conducted an inquiry into the pandemic’s origins during the final months of the Trump administration. It is attracting fresh interest in Congress now that President Biden has ordered that U.S. intelligence agencies report to him within 90 days on how the virus emerged. Mr. Biden said that U.S. intelligence has focused on two scenarios—whether the coronavirus came from human contact with an infected animal or from a laboratory accident. People familiar with the study said that it was prepared by Lawrence Livermore’s “Z Division,” which is its intelligence arm. Lawrence Livermore has considerable expertise on biological issues. Its assessment drew on genomic analysis of the SARS-COV-2 virus, which causes Covid-19, they said. Scientists analyze the genetic makeup of viruses to try to determine how they evolved and spread in the population. Proponents on both sides of the debate over the origins of Covid-19 have cited such analysis to try to make their case. A spokeswoman for Lawrence Livermore declined to comment on the report, which remains secret. The assessment is said to have been among the first U.S. government efforts to seriously explore the hypothesis that the virus leaked from China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology along with the competing hypothesis the pandemic began with human contact with infected animals. One person who read the document, which is dated May 27, 2020, said it made a strong case for further inquiry into the possibility the virus seeped out of the lab. The study also had a major influence on the State Department’s probe into Covid-19’s origins. State Department officials received the study in late October 2020 and asked for more information, according to a timeline by the agency’s arms control and verification bureau, which was reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. The study was important because it came from a respected national laboratory and differed from the dominant view in spring 2020 that the virus almost certainly was first transmitted to humans via an infected animal, a former official involved in the State Department inquiry said. The State Department’s findings, which were vetted by U.S. intelligence agencies, were made public in a Jan. 15 fact sheet that listed a series of circumstantial reasons why the Covid-19 outbreak might have originated as a result of a lab accident. They include the assertion that “the U.S. government has reason to believe that several researchers inside the WIV became sick in autumn 2019” with symptoms that were consistent with Covid-19 or a seasonal flu. The Journal reported last month that this assertion was based, at least in part, on a U.S. intelligence report, that three WIV researchers became sick enough in November 2019 that they sought hospital care. White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki has said that the information on the three researchers came from a foreign entity and that additional corroboration is needed. Biden administration officials have also noted that the State Department’s Jan. 15 fact sheet acknowledges that the U.S. government doesn’t know precisely where, when and how the virus was first transmitted to humans. The existence of the Lawrence Livermore study was reported by the Sinclair Broadcast Group last month and was noted in a recent article by Vanity Fair. In his statement on May 26 calling for a fresh intelligence investigation, Mr. Biden didn’t reference the classified Lawrence Livermore report, but he said that U.S. national laboratories, overseen by the Energy Department, would augment the spy agencies’ work. After the initial public reports about the Lawrence Livermore study, Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce Committee—who are conducting their own investigations into Covid-19’s origins—wrote the lab’s director, Dr. Kimberly Budil, requesting a classified briefing on the issue. Secretary of State Antony Blinken said in a recent interview with Axios that was broadcast on HBO Max that the U.S. needs to get to the bottom of what happened to prevent or mitigate the effects of future pandemics. The Chinese government, he added, hasn’t provided sufficient access or information to advance international probes into Covid-19 origins. “What the government didn’t do in the early days and still hasn’t done is given us the transparency we need,” Mr. Blinken told Axios.
America’s Covid Groupthink Functioned Like China’s Repression Marching in ideological lockstep is less forgivable in a society where one has a choice in the matter. By Gerard Baker June 7, 2021 1:03 pm ET Dr. Anthony Fauci speaks to the media in Washington, March 12, 2020. PHOTO: MICHAEL REYNOLDS/SHUTTERSTOCK What we eventually learn about the origins of Covid-19 may implicate China’s government in failure and falsehood on a grand scale. But before we get too carried away with the endemic failures of the communist order, we should ponder that the episode has exposed layers of rottenness in critical institutions of American civil society that are similarly damning. China’s officials may well be culpable of a combination of incompetence, recklessness and deceit. But in an authoritarian regime, they might not have had much individual agency in the matter. In this country, scientists, bureaucrats, journalists and executives of Big Tech companies suppressed the story not out of fear of imprisonment or death, but of their own volition, out of ideological or even venal motives. You may well ask: Whose culpability is greater? It’s not simply that the lab-leak theory was “debunked,” as news organizations repeatedly told us when anyone tried to raise it a year ago. It wasn’t even permitted to be considered. Discussion of the topic was deliberately extinguished on tech platforms, in the respectable scientific journals and in newsrooms. Some highly influential figures in the “scientific community” were the first to block serious consideration of the thesis that the viral pathogens escaped from a Chinese government laboratory. Letters in the Lancet and Nature in the early days of the pandemic from an impressive constellation of experts dismissed the lab-leak idea, and in the case of the former, denounced it as a conspiracy theory. Thanks to a recent release of emails under the Freedom of Information Act, we now know that some of the scientists dismissing the idea had themselves expressed concerns that the zoonotic explanation they were publicly championing might not be right. We also know that in the case of the Lancet letter, some of the correspondents were involved in similar research and had a strong professional interest in denying the possibility of an engineered virus. Scientists differ in their methods and conclusions—and do so in good faith. It’s possible some believed there was a genuine scientific basis for rejecting challenges to the official Chinese version of events. But this dismissal of the lab-leak idea is of a piece with the politicization of science that’s been a feature of the last few years. The obsession with debunking anything Donald Trump said and the fear of being accused of racism undoubtedly colored the judgment of many whose job is to consider only the empirical evidence. Last year, many scientists beclowned themselves by bowing to the prevailing political pieties with their absurd assertion that taking part in protests on behalf of Black Lives Matter was literally salubrious, whereas taking part in protests against lockdowns was lethally reckless. If too many American scientists failed to help us get a proper understanding of the origins of Covid, they seem to have been abetted by like-minded people in the permanent bureaucracy. Emails to and from Anthony Fauci uncovered last week show that while there were some genuinely diligent officials determined to get to the truth, too many in positions of power seemed keen to stamp out a proper investigation. As Katherine Eban reported in Vanity Fair last week, officials from two separate bureaus in the State Department warned against a proper investigation for fear of opening a “can of worms.” Again we have good grounds to suspect that officials in a bureaucracy that had already undermined Donald Trump’s presidency with baseless allegations about Russian collusion seemed intent on suppressing any suggestion, however well-supported it might be, that Trump officials might be right about a critical issue of state. Yet the largest responsibility for the failure to consider in a timely fashion the lab-leak theory lies with the media. Journalists were once marked by their curiosity. Now the only thing that’s curious about many of them is their lack of curiosity when a story doesn’t fit their priors. Instead of pursuing the tantalizing suggestion that the official Chinese and World Health Organization account might not be true, they simply signed onto it and dismissed anyone who didn’t as a kook or a xenophobe. Their ideological cousins in Silicon Valley then firmly shut the door on the story by blocking access to articles that didn’t fit the approved version. In each field—science, government, media and tech—there were surely independent-minded people who did seek the truth. But they were no match for the groupthink and coverup. It seems increasingly likely that Chinese officials mishandled research and misrepresented and misinformed the public. But they did so under pain of punishment, even death, in a system designed to suppress that kind of information. In this country, constitutionally protected, free and independent scientists, bureaucrats, journalists and others did the same. What’s their excuse?
If the Covid-19 virus does turn out to have escaped from a Wuhan laboratory, even by accident, the world will erupt in fury. The pressure to “do something about it” — to find a way to punish China for its negligence and its coverup — will be intense. So here’s my modest suggestion, should that unhappy situation arise: Whatever we decide to do, let’s take the time to think things through, rather than acting out of unreasoning anger. 我完全赞同
现在都要付费，不是 pay as you go, 而是 pay indefinitely. 你可否转一下作为闲谈一部分？ noshock 发表于 2021-06-07 21:57
Technology & Ideas The world’s anger will be terrible to behold. By Stephen L. Carter June 4, 2021, 4:00 PM MDT If Covid Did Escape From a Wuhan Lab, Brace Yourself Ever since President Joe Biden ordered U.S. intelligence agencies to investigate reports that the Covid-19 virus might have escaped from a laboratory in Wuhan, commentators have argued over what difference it makes if the theory turns out to be right. Here’s why the answer matters: The discovery that the virus had a human origin would give the coronavirus saga what it’s lacked: a villain. And that’s a problem. If a virus that has killed nearly 600,000 people in the U.S. and close to 4 million around the world turns out to have escaped from a laboratory in China, the formless fear that has immobilized most of the world for the last year and a half, at last given a target, might coalesce into fury. And fury, when widely shared, is hard to control. Don’t get me wrong. It’s important to know the truth, and some degree of anger might be good for us. One of the many tragic features of the pandemic has been the way that efforts at public dialogue about causes, remedies, and, yes, whether the virus itself might be human-made, were for the most part stilted and lost, the angry murmurings of a people all but immobilized by anxiety. To be sure, we sought villains as best we could: The whole mess was Donald Trump’s fault, the shutdowns were a power grab by blue elites, the real problem was bureaucratic incompetence. But this was mostly the performance of pain without adequate information. We can include in this category the pretense that scientists were certain that Covid-19 was not of human origin — and that those who suggested otherwise were dangerous cranks. That fantasy was exploded by the meticulous reporting of the veteran science writer Nicholas Wade in an article published in May in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Wade’s persuasive case that the novel coronavirus escaped containment at the Wuhan Institute of Virology — which was conducting research on altering viruses so they would more easily jump from animals to humans — has reopened a debate we should have been having all along. Biden’s order is a consequence. But here’s where one might worry. Research on risk perception shows that we tend to fear human-made harms more than natural ones, even when the natural ones have greater likelihood or severity. Some research suggests that human-made harms make us angrier too. The distinction makes sense. It’s easy to hate, say, a terrorist group like ISIS. There’s no point in hating an earthquake. But anger generally doesn’t do us any favors. Some people think better when they’re angry; most think worse. Moreover, there’s a well-known finding in social science that anger leads us to be irrationally optimistic about our ability to solve a problem. It may be, as Ross Douthat has suggested, that a confirmation that the Covid-19 virus escaped from a Chinese laboratory would lead to a major propaganda advantage in the geopolitical battle over hearts and minds. Such victories matter. But they’re not likely to satisfy the all-too-literal American mind, which, when roused to anger, invariably seeks more concrete satisfactions: invade this, regulate that, throw so-and-so in jail. Anger seeks catharsis, often in the urge to “do something.” Lots of bad policy is driven that way. The Sept. 11 experience offered a catharsis because the nation was able to strike back. On the other hand, the intensity of national fear and anger created an atmosphere in which it was difficult to engage in serious public debate about the merits of the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. What about regulation? Perhaps evidence that Covid-19 was of human manufacture would bring about international consensus that all experiments on viruses that might jump to humans should be carried out at a higher level of biohazard safety. As Wade points out, however, the problem is often less what the rules demand than what researchers find convenient. (It’s not as though deadly viruses have never escaped containment in the West.) Besides, as the British astrophysicist Martin Rees reminds us in his 2003 book “Our Final Hour,” rules are not universally followed. No matter how strictly we regulate the handling of dangerous microbes, Rees writes, “the chances of effective enforcement, worldwide, are no better than current enforcement of laws against illegal drugs.” Just a single rule-breaker, he notes, “could trigger widespread disaster.” Which is to say that even if the Covid-19 virus didn’t escape from an improperly contained lab, sooner or later one will. Which brings me to my final thought. Biden’s order to the intelligence agencies was a good thing. But the 90-day deadline smacks of political theater. The U.S. needed two decades to figure out what went wrong at Pearl Harbor. We had trouble tracking Osama bin Laden to a compound he had reportedly occupied for five years. That we will uncover the truth about the origin of the pandemic in three months seems ... unlikely. If the Covid-19 virus does turn out to have escaped from a Wuhan laboratory, even by accident, the world will erupt in fury. The pressure to “do something about it” — to find a way to punish China for its negligence and its cover-up — will be intense. So here’s my modest suggestion, should that unhappy situation arise: Whatever we decide to do, let’s take the time to think things through, rather than acting out of unreasoning anger. To contact the author of this story: Stephen L. Carter at [email protected]
回复 195楼fopen的帖子 补充一下作者简介 Stephen L. Carter is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist. He is a professor of law at Yale University and was a clerk to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall. His novels include “The Emperor of Ocean Park,” and his latest nonfiction book is “Invisible: The Forgotten Story of the Black Woman Lawyer Who Took Down America's Most Powerful Mobster.”
估计在科研领域的合作要有不少收敛了。这种前沿生物科技应该在更受控的条件下进行。
没用，啥好感态度的，都是瞎扯，没人会和钱过不去。资本家只认钱。
就好比去大街上拉一个人，都说环保好，超市里一个环保的5块钱，不环保的1块钱，照样5块钱的滞销。
这个世界上只信利益不信正义的人太多了，中国政府这些年在西方形象一直也不咋滴，但是不影响这些西方政客跟中共该勾兑勾兑
问题是现在没有任何东西是离了中国玩不转的，而且中国制造的优势也越来越弱。根本不像是你说的一块钱和5块钱的差别。你的观点类似于是不是中国不出口内裤，世界上其它国家的人就要光屁股了？
Paul奇怪还是Peter奇怪
别停留在时薪就是一切的原始概念上了。
产业链的优势，了解一下。
全世界找不到任何一个国家，你要什么就可以生产什么。缺什么都可以在方圆200mile的地方运过来。如果一个供应商提价，相似的供应商有10几个，轻轻松松换一个。
也找不到任何一个国家，可以保持稳定的政局，不至于4年后政策一变，投资血本无归。
行了吧，那女的就是个骗子，她的文章从来没有在权威杂志正式发表过。。。
学术界的态度吧 都是funding driven
所以才会需要一堆不是科学家title的去挖掘真相了
Anderson去年二月写email给Fauci说不像自然起源 五月在nature发文说支持自然起源 而后拿了2米的funding
现在疯狂的删推
然后还有那么多态度模糊的科学家们 为嘛？不想得罪金主啊！
我知道有产业链优势。但是不是无法替代。现在已经有很多电子产品基地在转移了，随着劳动力价值增高还会继续转移。就如同以前电子产品都是日本制造，不是后来也转移了？没有什么是一成不变的。像你这种夜郎自大好像离了中国别人都穿不上裤子的观点完全不值一提，你这种观点对中国没有任何益处。日本好歹还有技术领先，中国就是密集劳动力聚集，技术上也没有什么别人不可取代的优势。密集劳动力还是比较容易取代的 。至于政策稳定你说的简直就是笑话。中国是政策最不稳定的，不可预见的风险非常大，下一届中国领导人还不知道是谁呢？
You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.
在根本价值观生死存亡的关头，利益，真的不是决定因素。 你低估了自文艺复兴，思想启蒙后西方文明的力量！
不是有人说吗，美国选一个狗来当总体照样转。中国你试一试？
王顾左右而言他
有些人，对问题本身从不正面回应 相反，他们要么诋毁提出问题的人， 要么对提出问题的渠道打压封堵
解决不了问题，还解决不了有问题的人？！
求求你们，来点创意和新意好不好！
大家各入法眼，公道自在人心
逐渐脱钩 直至冷战
这就是我们正在经历的
情势正在起变化
当然，这些年来被中共当局腐蚀拉拢或者落有把柄的人的声音也会放大 但要相信，这就是所说的垂死挣扎的表现
仿佛这个世界离开了中国大陆就会停转了一样 图样图森破
你到现在没有提出任何事实的反驳，就是像小丑那样跳来跳去，发出某种特殊气味。
我指last name.
The possibility that the pandemic began with an escape from the Wuhan Institute of Virology is attracting fresh attention. President Biden has asked the national intelligence community to redouble efforts to investigate.
Much of the public discussion has focused on circumstantial evidence: mysterious illnesses in late 2019; the lab’s work intentionally supercharging viruses to increase lethality (known as “gain of function” research). The Chinese Communist Party has been reluctant to release relevant information. Reports based on U.S. intelligence have suggested the lab collaborated on projects with the Chinese military.
But the most compelling reason to favor the lab leak hypothesis is firmly based in science. In particular, consider the genetic fingerprint of CoV-2, the novel coronavirus responsible for the disease Covid-19.
In gain-of-function research, a microbiologist can increase the lethality of a coronavirus enormously by splicing a special sequence into its genome at a prime location. Doing this leaves no trace of manipulation. But it alters the virus spike protein, rendering it easier for the virus to inject genetic material into the victim cell. Since 1992 there have been at least 11 separate experiments adding a special sequence to the same location. The end result has always been supercharged viruses.
A genome is a blueprint for the factory of a cell to make proteins. The language is made up of three-letter “words,” 64 in total, that represent the 20 different amino acids. For example, there are six different words for the amino acid arginine, the one that is often used in supercharging viruses. Every cell has a different preference for which word it likes to use most.
In the case of the gain-of-function supercharge, other sequences could have been spliced into this same site. Instead of a CGG-CGG (known as “double CGG”) that tells the protein factory to make two arginine amino acids in a row, you’ll obtain equal lethality by splicing any one of 35 of the other two-word combinations for double arginine. If the insertion takes place naturally, say through recombination, then one of those 35 other sequences is far more likely to appear; CGG is rarely used in the class of coronaviruses that can recombine with CoV-2.
In fact, in the entire class of coronaviruses that includes CoV-2, the CGG-CGG combination has never been found naturally. That means the common method of viruses picking up new skills, called recombination, cannot operate here. A virus simply cannot pick up a sequence from another virus if that sequence isn’t present in any other virus.
Although the double CGG is suppressed naturally, the opposite is true in laboratory work. The insertion sequence of choice is the double CGG. That’s because it is readily available and convenient, and scientists have a great deal of experience inserting it. An additional advantage of the double CGG sequence compared with the other 35 possible choices: It creates a useful beacon that permits the scientists to track the insertion in the laboratory.
Now the damning fact. It was this exact sequence that appears in CoV-2. Proponents of zoonotic origin must explain why the novel coronavirus, when it mutated or recombined, happened to pick its least favorite combination, the double CGG. Why did it replicate the choice the lab’s gain-of-function researchers would have made?
Yes, it could have happened randomly, through mutations. But do you believe that? At the minimum, this fact—that the coronavirus, with all its random possibilities, took the rare and unnatural combination used by human researchers—implies that the leading theory for the origin of the coronavirus must be laboratory escape.
When the lab’s Shi Zhengli and colleagues published a paper in February 2020 with the virus’s partial genome, they omitted any mention of the special sequence that supercharges the virus or the rare double CGG section. Yet the fingerprint is easily identified in the data that accompanied the paper. Was it omitted in the hope that nobody would notice this evidence of the gain-of-function origin?
But in a matter of weeks virologists Bruno Coutard and colleagues their discovery of the sequence in CoV-2 and its novel supercharged site. Double CGG is there; you only have to look. They comment in their paper that the protein that held it “may provide a gain-of-function” capability to the virus, “for efficient spreading” to humans.
There is additional scientific evidence that points to CoV-2’s gain-of-function origin. The most compelling is the dramatic differences in the genetic diversity of CoV-2, compared with the coronaviruses responsible for SARS and MERS.
Both of those were confirmed to have a natural origin; the viruses evolved rapidly as they spread through the human population, until the most contagious forms dominated. Covid-19 didn’t work that way. It appeared in humans already adapted into an extremely contagious version. No serious viral “improvement” took place until a minor variation occurred many months later in England.
Such early optimization is unprecedented, and it suggests a long period of adaptation that predated its public spread. Science knows of only one way that could be achieved: simulated natural evolution, growing the virus on human cells until the optimum is achieved. That is precisely what is done in gain-of-function research. Mice that are genetically modified to have the same coronavirus receptor as humans, called “humanized mice,” are repeatedly exposed to the virus to encourage adaptation.
The presence of the double CGG sequence is strong evidence of gene splicing, and the absence of diversity in the public outbreak suggests gain-of-function acceleration. The scientific evidence points to the conclusion that the virus was developed in a laboratory.
Dr. Quay is founder of Atossa Therapeutics and author of “Stay Safe: A Physician’s Guide to Survive Coronavirus.” Mr. Muller is an emeritus professor of physics at the University of California Berkeley and a former senior scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
大家坐稳，大幕刚刚拉开…
目前尚无新瓜
但这个Hitler视频是个简单粗暴的总结
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/Qh5ZPquXbds
你懂不懂什么叫Opinion， Commentary 谁都可以造谣，但是不代表WSJ立场。观点意思就是WSJ没法确认真实性。
嗯 但这俩作者没有必要造谣吧？相反Fauci是棵大树 想在他底下乘凉的都需要支持自然起源说
现在都在疯狂删推
正面回应什么？ 男星女星有没有hanky panky，拉上窗帘谁都不知道，这时不就拼报道者的信誉。 你到底知道什么内幕可以用来背书八卦杂志报道？
Brilliant! Fantastic!
可是Fauci拉上主媒外加fb抑制言论自由是在做的太显眼了
所以才会引人遐想
dont worry
your funding will stay
戳中我了
抵赖，把头扎进沙子有什么用呢？
https://www.wsj.com/podcasts/opinion-potomac-watch/reading-dr-anthony-fauci-emails/123AE1C3-002F-4658-8DBF-69AC6C8D9A57 17’58”起
https://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2021/06/05/smerconish-the-coming-crisis-in-confidence.cnn
这文很重要，建议你重开一个新主题。
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/znisx0wQMGA Gottlieb calls for "broader view" of coronavirus origins， “National Security” perspective
再给你加一个 - msnbc的采访：
Lab leaking这件事情没有一个实锤证据。都是猜想。老美也不是完全清白，当初搞了一个伊拉克大规模杀伤性武器最后证明就是臆想。
这个有一定道理。外国资本打造了完整的产业链和公用设施。不太好全部迁出。
谢谢分享 没有什么比丛原作者口中说的话更保真的了！！！
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/NNm2uMBB-W8
你对中国产品产业链的印象还停留在过去。这次疫情就看出来了，中国才是抗风险能力最强的国家。台湾天天吹自己是华人之光是民主体制也能做到无疫情，结果这次也都破功了。越南印度更别提了。至于担心中国政策不稳定就更多虑了。至少在对外开放引进外资这方面的政策不会有大的改变。不管你喜不喜欢事实就是这样。
是会有一个过程 但不能不看到美国已经意识到保证自身产业链安全的重要性 并采取相应行动
重要的是，得道多助，美国不是一个国家在战斗！
你太乐观了。目前中国产业链是最完备,但是看起来西方不想继续这么玩下去了。拜登政府在积极游说要民主国家联合起来对抗中国,真的搞起来很多企业都要撤。别忘了三星撤得那么干净完全没有影响它的生产链。你还停留在西方资本在积极进入中国的状态,现在的大趋势是他们在往外撤。
说真的，现在对民主对言论自由对媒体对科学有开始有了点信心。只要还有自由发声的渠道，真相的力量还是最强大的。
前几个月被疯狂骂阴谋论，脑残弄得都怀疑人生了。
“Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those other forms that have been tried”
这，我是相信的
Mark收藏
成也萧何，败也萧何
物质上的东西，变化起来快着呢
商人是最贪婪的， 也是最精明的。 纵然赚钱， 但是不立危墙之下， 李嘉诚的行为就说明了这一点。
用产业链来blackmail全世界， 管得了一时， 管不了一世。
动辄把大批人关起来，这就是是“抗风险能力最强的国家”的秘诀。中国可以把全国民众都关起来，那么更是0 case. 把人不当人，大陆不以为耻，反以为荣，居然还想输出这种文化。
抓住问一下，那个KG Andersen删推是几个意思啊？是他写email给Fauci说''''potentially engineered，然后又在自然上发表了自然产生的文章吧。细想也没啥大问题啊，干嘛要删帖啊
承受不了压力的过激反应 说明多少受到良知的折磨
他因为改变对新冠病毒属性的判断，获得了funding…
是目前风口浪尖上的“网红”人物，被大家拿放大镜照了个底掉
因为他后来又拿了一笔大funding？
我也不知道 我只是和你一样的吃瓜群众 连blast都不高兴去做 起初只看到他删推 后来有人问他 他说是auto delete的
然后被揭穿auto delete这句话说谎了 （这有点小事现人品？）
再后来去看他已经直接关账户了
求内幕人士爆料
Kristian G. Andersen不但退出了推特，连LinkedIn profile也删得干干净净。
但是他自己在Scripps的官网主页上的Twitter和LinkedIn的链接都还没来得及改。
拜托能否介绍一下链接？
https://andersen-lab.com/people/#kristian
明白了，那就是说，如果支持自然起源跟得到funding是关联的，那改变看法就有可能是利益驱动的
谢谢解惑。这科学界也是一江湖啊
没有看到文章。
哈哈😄 政局稳定，不至于4年一变。。。特斯拉有不同意见 不是法治国家，换代不透明，不是政治风险吗?
顺着这篇文章里引的tweets，可以把前因后果有个概览
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/virologist-who-told-fauci-sars-cov-2-potentially-engineered-just-deleted-5000-tweets
Bingo！
系统提示：若遇到视频无法播放请点击下方链接
https://twitter.com/i/videos/1401682500846501888
是 学术界都是大ego
。。。
谢谢lz 我争取今晚跟上大部队
谢谢。我看了一些介绍，Andersen 在四天里，从“我们都认为有人工的痕迹“到”因为有新的研究证据，所以支持自然说” 4 天的“研究”导致180 度转弯！ 我想这不可能是复杂的生物科学研究过程，而是一种政治研究过程。
他花了四天 从团队外人员转变成核心人物
属于带技术入股吧
本来就是个八卦的地方，你要有正经东西写出来发正经杂志，发paper。
好几家都有报道，但是至今它家的写得最好
They paid one visit to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, where they met with Shi Zhengli, as recounted in an annex to the mission report. One obvious demand would have been access to the WIV’s database of some 22,000 virus samples and sequences, which had been taken offline. At an event convened by a London organization on March 10, Daszak was asked whether the group had made such a request. He said there was no need: Shi Zhengli had stated that the WIV took down the database due to hacking attempts during the pandemic. “Absolutely reasonable,” Daszak said. “And we did not ask to see the data…. As you know, a lot of this work has been conducted with EcoHealth Alliance…. We do basically know what’s in those databases. There is no evidence of viruses closer to SARS-CoV-2 than RaTG13 in those databases, simple as that.”
In fact, the database had been taken offline on September 12, 2019, three months before the official start of the pandemic, a detail uncovered by Gilles Demaneuf and two of his DRASTIC colleagues.
现在Daszak被披露出来是去年二月专家公开信的幕后推手，同时他上面这段关于武毒所数据库的回答也并没有说服力，这个事情是不是应该再跟进一下，让武毒所把这个数据库交出来呢？
https://peterdaszak.com/
一定要反科学反逻辑，说100%大自然，否则就是阴谋论的，那必然是有人在作妖。 从中国政府，到美国政府，到学术界，到big tech，到华人网舆论管理，睁眼说瞎话的背后，都有自己的算盘。
作妖的根本还是为了钱 无他
可是作死了那么多人
自2019年12月30日武汉华南海鲜市场出现不明原因的肺炎疫情以来，武汉卫健委做出了快速的反应和信息公开。截至目前，已确诊41例感染新型冠状病毒肺炎患者，已造成1人死亡，7人重症。所有密切接触者 739 人，其中医务人员 419 人，均已接受医学观察，没有发现人传人的病例报告。 我国于2019年12月31日首次向世界卫生组织（WHO）报告了这些罕见病例。据中国中央电视台（CCTV）报道，实验室从一名病人身上分离出的病毒在电子显微镜下显示出冠状病毒典型的尖刺状表面。 截至2020年1月7日21时，中国科学家对该病毒进行了全基因组测序，并使用核酸检测方法共检出新型冠状病毒阳性结果14例。专家组认为，本次不明原因的病毒性肺炎病例的病原体初步判定为新型冠状病毒。
以下为 Science 报道的全文翻译。 生态健康联盟总裁Peter Daszak表示：“中国的病毒学家是世界上最优秀的病毒学家，他们的工作速度非常快，效率极高，他们掌握的信息比我们现在知道的要多得多，这次疫情是中国展示他们在21世纪的公共卫生和病毒学方面所做的努力的一个机会。” 虽然致病原和疾病之间的联系还有待证实，但许多科学家对这一发现表示称赞，他们说这是中国在病毒学方面实力的证明。但是他们敦促中国尽快分享更多关于这种新病原体的信息，包括该新病原体的序列信息、可能引起的疾病以及传播途径。 伊拉斯姆斯医学中心的病毒学家Marion Koopmans表示：“我认为他们真的应该共享序列数据，这样我们就能确保如果我们有来自这个地区的旅客，我们就能检测出这种病毒。” 另外，新华社今天确认了此次疫情调查的负责人是徐建国。尽管该机构没有透露他的具体工作单位，徐建国显然是在中国疾病预防控制中心的中国传染病预防控制所工作。徐建国告诉新华社，研究人员正在继续他们的工作，以确认冠状病毒是罪魁祸首。 世界卫生组织（WHO）驻中国代表Gauden Galea今天在一份新闻声明中写道：“在短时间内初步鉴定出一种新病毒是一项显著的成就，表明中国在处理新疫情方面的能力有所提高。” 世界各地的科学家都认同这种观点，但他们还想了解更多。香港大学病毒学家Malik Peiris表示，“应该祝贺中国研究人员迅速鉴定出病原体。现在他们与世卫组织和全球公共卫生界共享该新型病毒特异的诊断性RT-PCR 测试至关重要。” 生态健康联盟总裁Peter Daszak说：“我真正想看到的是有关流行病学和病理学的信息，这样我们就都可以确信：第一，这种冠状病毒是这次爆发的原因；第二，它被控制住了，他们已经能够追踪所有的潜在病例，以便进行隔离和检测。在我看来，如果我们得不到全部的信息，疫情就有进一步传播的风险。” 德国柏林大学Charite医院的Christian Drosten说：“中国的研究人员不必担心共享信息会妨碍这种新病毒在权威杂志上发表，没有任何杂志会因为这一序列被公开而拒绝发表其论文。” 新闻报道一直谨慎地称调查结果是初步的。在2003年非典(SARS)爆发期间，中国当局和科学家感到尴尬的是过早地报道了衣原体是罪魁祸首，后来证明是一种新的冠状病毒。 杜克-新加坡国立大学医学院新兴疾病专家Wang Linfa说：“我理解为什么政治家和科学家在宣布这种新型病毒时必须格外谨慎。确定这种联系的关键步骤是在实验动物身上重现这些症状，但这可能需要几周或几个月的时间。” Wang Linfa说，武汉爆发的疫情和SARS之间的相似之处很有趣。这两起病例都出现在冬季，最初的病例与接触活禽市场出售的动物有关。(在非典疫情中，中间宿主被证明是市场上出售的果子狸。)
但科学家们说，无论在市场上传播病毒的是什么动物，都可能是从其他地方的自然宿主那里感染的。Wang Linfa 说：“如果要打赌，我敢赌它是从蝙蝠那里来的。”2003年在中国爆发的我SARS病毒，最终追溯到云南的中华菊头蝠。2012年出现的导致中东呼吸综合征(MERS)的冠状病毒也可以追溯到野生蝙蝠。蝙蝠携带了如此多的冠状病毒，而且变异得非常快。
在香港，最近几周去武汉旅行的48人中，有人出现了发烧，呼吸道感染或肺炎的症状。新加坡和韩国也隔离了来自武汉的患病旅客。到目前为止，这些人中尚未发现有人被感染疑似病毒。
原文链接： https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/01/scientists-urge-china-quickly-share-data-virus-linked-pneumonia-outbreak
最实锤的爆料，就是国务院两个副国务卿发memo对喷，一个压制手下调查，一个偷偷组panel调查。
然后还有国家实验室的提出溯源质疑，被DOE压下去，国务院去找作者DOE不让见。
这是什么地方的报道啊？
他应当以叛人类罪连同中国团伙一起送上国际法庭
我觉得这事很奇怪 不压制的话 也没那么恐怖
言论压制其实把疫情推向了高峰
就是楼主发的新闻，memo扫描件都有
本质上就是学术界腐败透顶，言论自由更不谈了。
学阀大佬一封邮件，马上可以召集出99 scientists给自己撑腰，不听话的混不下去，帮忙抬轿子的无脑拿fund。
是的，现在应该先调查一下去年是哪些人压制调查
WASHINGTON—A report on the origins of Covid-19 by a U.S. government national laboratory concluded that the hypothesis claiming the virus leaked from a Chinese lab in Wuhan is plausible and deserves further investigation, according to people familiar with the classified document.
The study was prepared in May 2020 by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California and was drawn on by the State Department when it conducted an inquiry into the pandemic’s origins during the final months of the Trump administration.
It is attracting fresh interest in Congress now that President Biden has ordered that U.S. intelligence agencies report to him within 90 days on how the virus emerged. Mr. Biden said that U.S. intelligence has focused on two scenarios—whether the coronavirus came from human contact with an infected animal or from a laboratory accident.
People familiar with the study said that it was prepared by Lawrence Livermore’s “Z Division,” which is its intelligence arm. Lawrence Livermore has considerable expertise on biological issues. Its assessment drew on genomic analysis of the SARS-COV-2 virus, which causes Covid-19, they said.
Scientists analyze the genetic makeup of viruses to try to determine how they evolved and spread in the population. Proponents on both sides of the debate over the origins of Covid-19 have cited such analysis to try to make their case.
A spokeswoman for Lawrence Livermore declined to comment on the report, which remains secret.
The assessment is said to have been among the first U.S. government efforts to seriously explore the hypothesis that the virus leaked from China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology along with the competing hypothesis the pandemic began with human contact with infected animals. One person who read the document, which is dated May 27, 2020, said it made a strong case for further inquiry into the possibility the virus seeped out of the lab.
The study also had a major influence on the State Department’s probe into Covid-19’s origins. State Department officials received the study in late October 2020 and asked for more information, according to a timeline by the agency’s arms control and verification bureau, which was reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.
The study was important because it came from a respected national laboratory and differed from the dominant view in spring 2020 that the virus almost certainly was first transmitted to humans via an infected animal, a former official involved in the State Department inquiry said.
The State Department’s findings, which were vetted by U.S. intelligence agencies, were made public in a Jan. 15 fact sheet that listed a series of circumstantial reasons why the Covid-19 outbreak might have originated as a result of a lab accident. They include the assertion that “the U.S. government has reason to believe that several researchers inside the WIV became sick in autumn 2019” with symptoms that were consistent with Covid-19 or a seasonal flu.
The Journal reported last month that this assertion was based, at least in part, on a U.S. intelligence report, that three WIV researchers became sick enough in November 2019 that they sought hospital care.
White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki has said that the information on the three researchers came from a foreign entity and that additional corroboration is needed. Biden administration officials have also noted that the State Department’s Jan. 15 fact sheet acknowledges that the U.S. government doesn’t know precisely where, when and how the virus was first transmitted to humans.
The existence of the Lawrence Livermore study was reported by the Sinclair Broadcast Group last month and was noted in a recent article by Vanity Fair.
In his statement on May 26 calling for a fresh intelligence investigation, Mr. Biden didn’t reference the classified Lawrence Livermore report, but he said that U.S. national laboratories, overseen by the Energy Department, would augment the spy agencies’ work.
After the initial public reports about the Lawrence Livermore study, Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce Committee—who are conducting their own investigations into Covid-19’s origins—wrote the lab’s director, Dr. Kimberly Budil, requesting a classified briefing on the issue.
Secretary of State Antony Blinken said in a recent interview with Axios that was broadcast on HBO Max that the U.S. needs to get to the bottom of what happened to prevent or mitigate the effects of future pandemics.
The Chinese government, he added, hasn’t provided sufficient access or information to advance international probes into Covid-19 origins.
“What the government didn’t do in the early days and still hasn’t done is given us the transparency we need,” Mr. Blinken told Axios.
部分科学界及部分媒体的压制与疫情的发展没有任何因果关系。有部分媒体一直支持查清来源。倒是川普的不合时言论助长疫情。
America’s Covid Groupthink Functioned Like China’s Repression Marching in ideological lockstep is less forgivable in a society where one has a choice in the matter.
What we eventually learn about the origins of Covid-19 may implicate China’s government in failure and falsehood on a grand scale. But before we get too carried away with the endemic failures of the communist order, we should ponder that the episode has exposed layers of rottenness in critical institutions of American civil society that are similarly damning.
China’s officials may well be culpable of a combination of incompetence, recklessness and deceit. But in an authoritarian regime, they might not have had much individual agency in the matter. In this country, scientists, bureaucrats, journalists and executives of Big Tech companies suppressed the story not out of fear of imprisonment or death, but of their own volition, out of ideological or even venal motives. You may well ask: Whose culpability is greater?
It’s not simply that the lab-leak theory was “debunked,” as news organizations repeatedly told us when anyone tried to raise it a year ago. It wasn’t even permitted to be considered.
Discussion of the topic was deliberately extinguished on tech platforms, in the respectable scientific journals and in newsrooms.
Some highly influential figures in the “scientific community” were the first to block serious consideration of the thesis that the viral pathogens escaped from a Chinese government laboratory.
Letters in the Lancet and Nature in the early days of the pandemic from an impressive constellation of experts dismissed the lab-leak idea, and in the case of the former, denounced it as a conspiracy theory.
Thanks to a recent release of emails under the Freedom of Information Act, we now know that some of the scientists dismissing the idea had themselves expressed concerns that the zoonotic explanation they were publicly championing might not be right. We also know that in the case of the Lancet letter, some of the correspondents were involved in similar research and had a strong professional interest in denying the possibility of an engineered virus.
Scientists differ in their methods and conclusions—and do so in good faith. It’s possible some believed there was a genuine scientific basis for rejecting challenges to the official Chinese version of events. But this dismissal of the lab-leak idea is of a piece with the politicization of science that’s been a feature of the last few years. The obsession with debunking anything Donald Trump said and the fear of being accused of racism undoubtedly colored the judgment of many whose job is to consider only the empirical evidence.
Last year, many scientists beclowned themselves by bowing to the prevailing political pieties with their absurd assertion that taking part in protests on behalf of Black Lives Matter was literally salubrious, whereas taking part in protests against lockdowns was lethally reckless.
If too many American scientists failed to help us get a proper understanding of the origins of Covid, they seem to have been abetted by like-minded people in the permanent bureaucracy. Emails to and from Anthony Fauci uncovered last week show that while there were some genuinely diligent officials determined to get to the truth, too many in positions of power seemed keen to stamp out a proper investigation.
As Katherine Eban reported in Vanity Fair last week, officials from two separate bureaus in the State Department warned against a proper investigation for fear of opening a “can of worms.”
Again we have good grounds to suspect that officials in a bureaucracy that had already undermined Donald Trump’s presidency with baseless allegations about Russian collusion seemed intent on suppressing any suggestion, however well-supported it might be, that Trump officials might be right about a critical issue of state.
Yet the largest responsibility for the failure to consider in a timely fashion the lab-leak theory lies with the media.
Journalists were once marked by their curiosity. Now the only thing that’s curious about many of them is their lack of curiosity when a story doesn’t fit their priors.
Instead of pursuing the tantalizing suggestion that the official Chinese and World Health Organization account might not be true, they simply signed onto it and dismissed anyone who didn’t as a kook or a xenophobe. Their ideological cousins in Silicon Valley then firmly shut the door on the story by blocking access to articles that didn’t fit the approved version.
In each field—science, government, media and tech—there were surely independent-minded people who did seek the truth. But they were no match for the groupthink and coverup.
It seems increasingly likely that Chinese officials mishandled research and misrepresented and misinformed the public. But they did so under pain of punishment, even death, in a system designed to suppress that kind of information.
In this country, constitutionally protected, free and independent scientists, bureaucrats, journalists and others did the same. What’s their excuse?
英语中plausible 与 possible 中文表面上意思接近，都是可能，在英语上相差很大，前者意味大几率，后者意味小几率, 比如说， 90% vs 10%. 也许中文分别译成，极可能与可能，更确切。
哈哈哈
其实到现在，技术层面的讨论已经没有什么突破性意义了 真凭实据已经湮灭殆尽 多数人也已经做出了判断设定了立场
是时候讨论下一步怎么办了
有意义
美帝关于新冠的group thinking到了灭绝人性的地步了
压制言论不属于我提的“技术层面”问题 而是更深层的社会组织问题 确实值得深刻反思
看到了这篇Bloomberg的文章。。。
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-06-04/if-covid-did-escape-from-a-wuhan-lab-brace-yourself
现在都要付费，不是 pay as you go, 而是 pay indefinitely. 你可否转一下作为闲谈一部分？
If the Covid-19 virus does turn out to have escaped from a Wuhan laboratory, even by accident, the world will erupt in fury. The pressure to “do something about it” — to find a way to punish China for its negligence and its coverup — will be intense. So here’s my modest suggestion, should that unhappy situation arise: Whatever we decide to do, let’s take the time to think things through, rather than acting out of unreasoning anger.
我完全赞同
Technology & Ideas The world’s anger will be terrible to behold.
By Stephen L. Carter
June 4, 2021, 4:00 PM MDT
If Covid Did Escape From a Wuhan Lab, Brace Yourself
Ever since President Joe Biden ordered U.S. intelligence agencies to investigate reports that the Covid-19 virus might have escaped from a laboratory in Wuhan, commentators have argued over what difference it makes if the theory turns out to be right. Here’s why the answer matters: The discovery that the virus had a human origin would give the coronavirus saga what it’s lacked: a villain.
And that’s a problem.
If a virus that has killed nearly 600,000 people in the U.S. and close to 4 million around the world turns out to have escaped from a laboratory in China, the formless fear that has immobilized most of the world for the last year and a half, at last given a target, might coalesce into fury.
And fury, when widely shared, is hard to control.
Don’t get me wrong. It’s important to know the truth, and some degree of anger might be good for us. One of the many tragic features of the pandemic has been the way that efforts at public dialogue about causes, remedies, and, yes, whether the virus itself might be human-made, were for the most part stilted and lost, the angry murmurings of a people all but immobilized by anxiety.
To be sure, we sought villains as best we could: The whole mess was Donald Trump’s fault, the shutdowns were a power grab by blue elites, the real problem was bureaucratic incompetence. But this was mostly the performance of pain without adequate information.
We can include in this category the pretense that scientists were certain that Covid-19 was not of human origin — and that those who suggested otherwise were dangerous cranks. That fantasy was exploded by the meticulous reporting of the veteran science writer Nicholas Wade in an article published in May in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Wade’s persuasive case that the novel coronavirus escaped containment at the Wuhan Institute of Virology — which was conducting research on altering viruses so they would more easily jump from animals to humans — has reopened a debate we should have been having all along. Biden’s order is a consequence.
But here’s where one might worry. Research on risk perception shows that we tend to fear human-made harms more than natural ones, even when the natural ones have greater likelihood or severity. Some research suggests that human-made harms make us angrier too.
The distinction makes sense. It’s easy to hate, say, a terrorist group like ISIS. There’s no point in hating an earthquake.
But anger generally doesn’t do us any favors. Some people think better when they’re angry; most think worse. Moreover, there’s a well-known finding in social science that anger leads us to be irrationally optimistic about our ability to solve a problem.
It may be, as Ross Douthat has suggested, that a confirmation that the Covid-19 virus escaped from a Chinese laboratory would lead to a major propaganda advantage in the geopolitical battle over hearts and minds. Such victories matter. But they’re not likely to satisfy the all-too-literal American mind, which, when roused to anger, invariably seeks more concrete satisfactions: invade this, regulate that, throw so-and-so in jail. Anger seeks catharsis, often in the urge to “do something.” Lots of bad policy is driven that way.
The Sept. 11 experience offered a catharsis because the nation was able to strike back. On the other hand, the intensity of national fear and anger created an atmosphere in which it was difficult to engage in serious public debate about the merits of the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.
What about regulation? Perhaps evidence that Covid-19 was of human manufacture would bring about international consensus that all experiments on viruses that might jump to humans should be carried out at a higher level of biohazard safety. As Wade points out, however, the problem is often less what the rules demand than what researchers find convenient. (It’s not as though deadly viruses have never escaped containment in the West.)
Besides, as the British astrophysicist Martin Rees reminds us in his 2003 book “Our Final Hour,” rules are not universally followed. No matter how strictly we regulate the handling of dangerous microbes, Rees writes, “the chances of effective enforcement, worldwide, are no better than current enforcement of laws against illegal drugs.” Just a single rule-breaker, he notes, “could trigger widespread disaster.”
Which is to say that even if the Covid-19 virus didn’t escape from an improperly contained lab, sooner or later one will.
Which brings me to my final thought.
Biden’s order to the intelligence agencies was a good thing. But the 90-day deadline smacks of political theater. The U.S. needed two decades to figure out what went wrong at Pearl Harbor. We had trouble tracking Osama bin Laden to a compound he had reportedly occupied for five years. That we will uncover the truth about the origin of the pandemic in three months seems ... unlikely.
If the Covid-19 virus does turn out to have escaped from a Wuhan laboratory, even by accident, the world will erupt in fury. The pressure to “do something about it” — to find a way to punish China for its negligence and its cover-up — will be intense. So here’s my modest suggestion, should that unhappy situation arise: Whatever we decide to do, let’s take the time to think things through, rather than acting out of unreasoning anger.
To contact the author of this story: Stephen L. Carter at [email protected]
😂说你是和中国外交部一样，还真没说错
补充一下作者简介 Stephen L. Carter is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist. He is a professor of law at Yale University and was a clerk to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall. His novels include “The Emperor of Ocean Park,” and his latest nonfiction book is “Invisible: The Forgotten Story of the Black Woman Lawyer Who Took Down America's Most Powerful Mobster.”