其实lab origin大家都心知肚明
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
《名利场》Vanity Fair 刊发了对当前最热点话题迄今为止最为翔实的长篇调查报告 更新：追加时间线及作者访谈视频
1操作121 #
0操作122 #
回复 122楼CleverBeaver的帖子Brilliant! Fantastic!
Shang_Ri_La 发表于 2021-06-06 16:33
dont worry
your funding will stay
戳中我了
1操作123 #
名利场这篇报道，有几家严肃刊物报道了？
fitzroy 发表于 2021-06-06 16:34
抵赖，把头扎进沙子有什么用呢？
17’58”起
https://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2021/06/05/smerconish-the-coming-crisis-in-confidence.cnn
0操作124 #
5操作125 #
CBS王牌节目 60 Minutes 跟进
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/covid-19-wuhan-origins-60-minutes-2021-06-06/#app
0操作126 #
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?showinfo=0
https://www.youtube.com/embed/znisx0wQMGA?showinfo=0
Gottlieb calls for "broader view" of coronavirus origins， “National Security” perspective
3操作127 #
抵赖，把头扎进沙子有什么用呢？
17’58”起
https://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2021/06/05/smerconish-the-coming-crisis-in-confidence.cnn
Shang_Ri_La 发表于 2021-06-06 16:50
再给你加一个 - msnbc的采访：https://youtu.be/NNm2uMBB-W8
1操作128 #
很多内容大家都知道了
但也有些新料，值得花时间一读…
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.
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.
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.
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.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.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.
June 6:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/covid-19-wuhan-origins-60-minutes-2021-06-06/#app
https://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?showinfo=0
Shang_Ri_La 发表于 2021-06-05 13:52
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。
0操作129 #
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。
purpledee 发表于 2021-06-06 13:42
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。
1操作130 #
大幕正在拉开
0操作131 #
再给你加一个 - msnbc的采访：https://youtu.be/NNm2uMBB-W8
hellensiao 发表于 2021-06-06 21:51
谢谢分享
没有什么比丛原作者口中说的话更保真的了！！！
1操作132 #
0操作133 #
回复 109楼elee555的帖子
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。
5操作134 #
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。
bululu 发表于 2021-06-06 22:23
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！
5操作135 #
回复 109楼elee555的帖子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。
普罗旺斯的淡紫 发表于 2021-06-06 22:43
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。
5操作136 #
但凡对美国政治媒体互动关系有所了解的
都会理解这些媒体报道，特别是WSJ系列，
应该是知情人在背后喂料
大家坐稳，大幕刚刚拉开…
Shang_Ri_La 发表于 2021-06-06 16:16
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。
1操作137 #
感谢前排summary ，细思恐极。搞这些病毒增强的科学家有想过解药吗
1操作138 #
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。
camfis 发表于 2021-06-06 22:51
“Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those other forms that have been tried”
这，我是相信的
0操作139 #
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 published 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
Mark收藏
0操作140 #
回复 109楼elee555的帖子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。
普罗旺斯的淡紫 发表于 2021-06-06 22:43
成也萧何，败也萧何
物质上的东西，变化起来快着呢
打开收藏板块打开个人中心
边缘侧滑返回