我就想知道现在这些新的信息和闫丽梦发的那两篇文章所提出的猜测是不是吻合？

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。。。

新冠就是照妖镜 骗子那么多

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！

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

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？

你知道下一届美国总统是谁吗请问？说不定是donald trump，也可能有缅甸式的coup奥

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.businessinsider.com/michael-flynn-said-us-should-have-a-coup-like-myanmar-2021-5%3Famp

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。

purpledee 发表于 2021-06-06 13:24

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！

你知道下一届美国总统是谁吗请问？说不定是donald trump，也可能有缅甸式的coup奥

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.businessinsider.com/michael-flynn-said-us-should-have-a-coup-like-myanmar-2021-5%3Famp

manysea1 发表于 2021-06-06 14:23

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？

确实是正统杂志，胸大无脑淑女的正统严肃杂志。

出现在美发美甲店椅子上，永远不会出现在大学政治专业图书馆书架上。

探听名人隐私，狗仔队，Paparazzi。政治报道也是走狗仔路数，充满脑补，耸人听闻，戏剧化情结。

数次因为编造耸人听闻故事而被告到法院。

比如波兰斯基一案，名利场说波兰斯基在Elaine餐馆搞幼女，但是事实是，波兰斯基一个月后才第一次去那家餐馆。法院判名利场撒谎诽谤。

用这种狗仔队文化来写科学溯源，结果可想而知，猜测，编造，耸人听闻，猎奇。。。充满娱乐精神，独独没有科学精神和专业素养。一个关心精液胜过关心DNA杂志，写科学溯源，可想最后写成什么。

fitzroy 发表于 2021-06-06 06:30

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！

仔细读了全文，不觉得有任何证据指向实验室问题。就像现在还有人否认六十年代美国登月一样。

damulvv 发表于 2021-06-06 11:50

大家各入法眼，公道自在人心

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

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

用这样的杂志的文章来佐证自己的观点，一股浓浓的轮味。。

purpledee 发表于 2021-06-06 09:18

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。

Paul奇怪还是Peter奇怪

.岸. 发表于 2021-06-06 13:40

我指last name.

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.

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…

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

目前尚无新瓜

但这个Hitler视频是个简单粗暴的总结

回复 120楼Shang_Ri_La的帖子

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。

回复 120楼Shang_Ri_La的帖子

你懂不懂什么叫Opinion， Commentary

谁都可以造谣，但是不代表WSJ立场。

fitzroy 发表于 2021-06-06 16:28

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

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

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!

名利场这篇报道，有几家严肃刊物报道了？