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！

Shang_Ri_La 发表于 2021-06-06 14:46

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

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？

美国人行动很快啊，Peter Daszak被人肉了

[url]https://peterdaszak.com/[/url]

都是明白人，有啥好装的呢？

理工科智商正常的，都知道新冠大概率是从武毒所泄露的，可以争论的，无非是作为科学研究无意泄露的，该是作为生化武器有意为之。

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。

都是明白人，有啥好装的呢？

理工科智商正常的，都知道新冠大概率是从武毒所泄露的，可以争论的，无非是作为科学研究无意泄露的，该是作为生化武器有意为之。

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。

diaoshan 发表于 2021-06-07 12:43

作妖的根本还是为了钱 无他

可是作死了那么多人

当年中央电视台做的专题节目，介绍武毒所团队的工作：[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96oAOzcM5vs[/url]

去年1月初的一篇文章，Peter Daszak的名字赫然在列：

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。

北京时间2020年1月9日，国际顶尖学术期刊 Science 杂志官网就此次肺炎疫情再次发表了科学报道，题为：Scientists urge China to quickly share data on virus linked to pneumonia outbreak（科学家敦促中国迅速分享与肺炎暴发有关的病毒数据）。

该报道称，世界各地的科学家们迫切的希望中国能尽快分享更多关于这种新病原体的信息，包括序列信息、该新病原体可能引起的疾病以及传播途径。

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。)

但也有很大的不同。事实证明，SARS相对容易在人群中传播，在被控制之前，它在37个国家/地区造成774人死亡。而武汉市的肺炎病例比SARS轻得多，并且似乎没有人与人之间的传播，尽管有些研究人员并不十分确定。

现在与2003年的另一个关键区别是，中国的科学技术迅速发展。中国现在的实验室能力、临床能力、疫情爆发控制能力现在都提高了几个数量级。此次武汉不明原因肺炎事件，中国与外界的沟通上做的比非典期间更好，但也并不完美。

科学家推测武汉的病人是被市场上出售的动物感染的。香港大学病毒学家Malik Peiris说：“查明确切的物种是关键。可能还有其他市场也正在传播类似的病毒，因此对这些市场进行检测以预防类似疫情的爆发是很重要的。

圣犹达儿童研究医院的流感研究专家Robert Webster说：“这种新的疾病再次表明，不应该再允许活体动物进入市场，它们很容易携带冠状病毒。如果不断地让活体动物与人类接触，这种病毒传播将时有发生。到目前为止，我们很幸运，并没有广泛的人与人之间的传播。”

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。

泰国曼谷机场开始从武汉过来的乘客是否发烧

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

他妈的，看了报道，水太深了。

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。

他妈的，看了报道，水太深了。

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。

might 发表于 2021-06-07 16:26

这是什么地方的报道啊？

美国人行动很快啊，Peter Daszak被人肉了

[url]https://peterdaszak.com/[/url]

fopen 发表于 2021-06-07 12:39

他应当以叛人类罪连同中国团伙一起送上国际法庭

他应当以叛人类罪连同中国团伙一起送上国际法庭

noshock 发表于 2021-06-07 19:08

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

这是什么地方的报道啊？

fopen 发表于 2021-06-07 18:59

就是楼主发的新闻，memo扫描件都有

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

CleverBeaver 发表于 2021-06-07 19:10

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。

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

CleverBeaver 发表于 2021-06-07 19:10

是的，现在应该先调查一下去年是哪些人压制调查

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.

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

CleverBeaver 发表于 2021-06-07 19:10

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。

WSJ前总编、特约编辑Gerard Baker对美国建制派在新冠起源问题上”步调一致”表现的拷问

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?

回复 183楼Shang_Ri_La的帖子

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。

说新冠起源的事你跑到这里讥笑别人网名， 真有点中国外交部的风采， 你是超市买螃蟹时学的英文吧? bluecrab? 我觉得crawfish比较适合你

Shinlg 发表于 2021-06-05 20:21

哈哈哈