https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01529-3 应该是目前最有权威性的文章。如果nature都被污染不可信，那灯塔国国将不国。 简短的看了看，文章的结论其实和WHO的大同小异，如果说WHO的report说lab leak的可能性是extremely unlikely，那这篇文章把lab leak的可能性加高到了the most probable的whatever反义词： There’s not yet any substantial evidence for a lab leak. But scientists don’t have enough evidence about the origins of SARS-CoV-2 to rule out the lab-leak hypothesis, or to prove the alternative — that the virus has a natural origin. Many infectious-disease researchers agree that the most probable scenario is that the virus evolved naturally and spread from a bat either directly to a person or through an intermediate animal.
虽然没有rule out lab leak的可能性，文章还是讨论驳斥了以下的几个著名的阴谋论点： 1.Is it suspicious that no animal has been identified as transmitting the virus to humans? 2.Is it suspicious that the WIV is in Wuhan? 3.Does the virus have features that suggest it was created in a lab? 这里把Baltimore的statement澄清了一下。 4.Is it true that SARS-CoV-2 must have been engineered, because its perfect for causing a pandemic? 5.Did researchers collect SARS-CoV-2 from a mine? 这篇文章其实和Anderson一年前在nature medicine的关于新冠起源的文章tone很接近。Anderson说lab leak improbable。这篇文章说nature origin most probable. It is improbable that SARS-CoV-2 emerged through laboratory manipulation of a related SARS-CoV-like coronavirus.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01529-3 应该是目前最有权威性的文章。如果nature都被污染不可信，那灯塔国国将不国。 简短的看了看，文章的结论其实和WHO的大同小异，如果说WHO的report说lab leak的可能性是0.1%(extremely unlikely)，那这篇文章把lab leak的可能性加高到了5%(the most probable的whatever反义词）： There’s not yet any substantial evidence for a lab leak. But scientists don’t have enough evidence about the origins of SARS-CoV-2 to rule out the lab-leak hypothesis, or to prove the alternative — that the virus has a natural origin. Many infectious-disease researchers agree that the most probable scenario is that the virus evolved naturally and spread from a bat either directly to a person or through an intermediate animal.
虽然没有rule out lab leak的可能性，文章还是讨论驳斥了以下的几个著名的阴谋论点： 1.Is it suspicious that no animal has been identified as transmitting the virus to humans? 2.Is it suspicious that the WIV is in Wuhan? 3.Does the virus have features that suggest it was created in a lab? 这里把Baltimore的statement澄清了一下。 4.Is it true that SARS-CoV-2 must have been engineered, because its perfect for causing a pandemic? 5.Did researchers collect SARS-CoV-2 from a mine?
应该是目前最有权威性的文章。如果nature都被污染不可信，那灯塔国国将不国。
简短的看了看，文章的结论其实和WHO的大同小异，如果说WHO的report说lab leak的可能性是extremely unlikely，那这篇文章把lab leak的可能性加高到了the most probable的whatever反义词：
There’s not yet any substantial evidence for a lab leak. But scientists don’t have enough evidence about the origins of SARS-CoV-2 to rule out the lab-leak hypothesis, or to prove the alternative — that the virus has a natural origin. Many infectious-disease researchers agree that the most probable scenario is that the virus evolved naturally and spread from a bat either directly to a person or through an intermediate animal.
虽然没有rule out lab leak的可能性，文章还是讨论驳斥了以下的几个著名的阴谋论点：
1.Is it suspicious that no animal has been identified as transmitting the virus to humans? 2.Is it suspicious that the WIV is in Wuhan? 3.Does the virus have features that suggest it was created in a lab? 这里把Baltimore的statement澄清了一下。 4.Is it true that SARS-CoV-2 must have been engineered, because its perfect for causing a pandemic? 5.Did researchers collect SARS-CoV-2 from a mine?
这篇文章其实和Anderson一年前在nature medicine的关于新冠起源的文章tone很接近。Anderson说lab leak improbable。这篇文章说nature origin most probable.
It is improbable that SARS-CoV-2 emerged through laboratory manipulation of a related SARS-CoV-like coronavirus.
https://forums.huaren.us/showtopic.html?topicid=2691398
从基本上斥之为无稽之谈，到从新开始讨论可能性，其实就是质变 不能指望一群自视甚高的家伙立即无条件承认错误
Nature这篇作者是两个science reporters,WSJ上倾向于泄露说的是两个大牛教授,所以单纯讲科学根据还是后者更有力。而且Natuee这篇的反驳没有硬科学,大牛们说的很具体的生物方面的疑点都没有提及。这篇更大的意义是Nature自己都不敢再坚持病毒自然说了。
文章怎么发的 五毛懂吗？投稿 editor 选。 选哪个论点来发，还是editor 说了算。土共 是nature的衣食父母 知道不。
写这篇文章的是两个journalist。跟科学屁关系都没有。
从阴谋论，到可能性，是巨大跳跃。自然杂志只是对几个问题进行了它们的解释而已。它显然否定了自己去年的阴谋论，所以才会考虑lab leak 说。
英语看不懂还想赚五毛？
他无形中证明自己错了，他一定不知道去年Nature 的观点。
真的要谢谢Baltimore 不然#DRASTIC就付诸东流了也
他的拎重点让我们阴谋论者重拾希望 更有意思的是看到了Andersen的表演 还有Fauci的emails
今年对人心的感受 收获颇丰
关于FCS她是站Andersen那边的
还说你们普通人听到风就是雨 Baltimore说了就认了 我觉得那个FCS序列是no big deal
突然觉得很多搞科学的一点都不客观 哎
胡说八道，nature跟WHO有半毛钱关系？你读过吗
21世纪了，还有一大堆人相信1969登月是假的，你找谁说理去啊 造谣实验室泄露又拿不出证据的人，不理就是了
尤其是跟大选德国服务器事件同一拨人造的谣
造谣自然传播又拿不出证据的人，不理就是了。 你有没有证据说自然传播？更没有。 所以攻击探索真实努力的，不理就是了。