好吧，那不是抵赖。他说nih没有资助武汉gain of function研究，但他无法保证合作方用这钱是否会做这方面的研究。这个给人的感觉非常滑头和不负责任。另外，武汉做不做这研究不是重点，重点是做这类研究本身就是极其危险的，在哪儿做都危险，NIH没有把好关，给世界增加了风险。
Fanreninus 发表评论于
回复 '节度使' 的评论 : 同意!
节度使 发表评论于
Fauci 是个正直的科学家，攻击他的人都有不可告人的目的。
Fanreninus 发表评论于
回复 '24桥' 的评论 : 他没有抵赖，他说的是NIH的钱没有用在武汉病毒所做那类研究。
24桥 发表评论于
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK285579/
我特地去查了NIH关于gain of function的category.这篇文章应属category2或者3。Fauci的抵赖太苍白。
Fanreninus 发表评论于
回复 '24桥' 的评论 : 福奇在国会作证时，被问NIH的钱是否武汉病毒所用于做gain-of-function研究，福奇说： that the money was funneled to the Chinese lab through the non-profit EcoHealth Alliance to fund “a modest collaboration with very respectable Chinese scientists who were world experts on coronavirus.”
But Fauci emphatically denied that the money went toward so-called “gain of function” research, which he described as “taking a virus that could infect humans and making it either more transmissible and/or pathogenic for humans.”
“That categorically was not done,” he insisted.
24桥 发表评论于
gain of function的正确认知是什么？
文章中本来不会感染人的病毒经科学家们嵌合以后变成了可以感染人类细胞的病毒，这不叫gain of function 吗？
回复 '24桥' 的评论 : 这个是对gain of function的认知问题，再说这个研究并不是在武汉病毒所做的，而是在美国做的，你可以看看footnotes。
24桥 发表评论于
Fauci的电邮确实没有不妥。
有问题的是他一直否认NIH资助过病毒的“gain of function"研究，Nature的文章都发表了：https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4797993/
"A SARS-like cluster of circulating bat coronaviruses shows potential for human emergence"
白纸黑字，这难道不是功能增益的研究？
回复 '海淀网友' 的评论 : Having read the articles, I do agree with you that he acted based on self-interest. But I believe that he did it to protect his funding rather than cover up for Wuhan Virology Institute.
Sure. I acknowledged many replies ago that my Daszak topic was not quite related to your original posting. Thanks for all the patient and civilized responses. Reasonable people can disagree. Cheers.
Fanreninus 发表评论于
回复 '海淀网友' 的评论 : It doesn't mean much. Not relevant to what I wrote here. There was simply nothing in the emails to indicate that Fauci knew about lab leak and lied to the American people about it.
I never liked Newsweek or Vanity Fair. But I find it hard to contradict the themes of the two stories. Do you have any details that I can use to argue against these two stories? Particular the Newsweek story. It appears quite solid.
Fanreninus 发表评论于
回复 '海淀网友' 的评论 : I didn't say you said it. I took it from the article in the link you posted. The whole article was intended to fan up the leak flame.
Fanreninus 发表评论于
回复 'mobamo' 的评论 :
Andersen and his team later published an article in Nature Medicine, a peer-reviewed journal, which said they believed it was not plausible that COVID-19 was engineered and leaked from a laboratory.
"Although the evidence shows that SARS-CoV-2 is not a purposefully manipulated virus, it is currently impossible to prove or disprove the other theories of its origin described here," the article read. "However, since we observed all notable SARS-CoV-2 features... in related coronaviruses in nature, we do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible."
》Fanreninus 发表评论于 2021-06-03 12:21:47 “Smelled Like a Cover-Up”? :)
=====
I did not say that. I don't buy conspiracy theories from either side. I am just saying, Daszak's roll in the Lancet letter is highly questionable. The content of the Lancet letter is therefor scientifically questionable. As such, calling the lab-leak theory a conspiracy theory has no scientific foundation.
mobamo 发表评论于
"The unusual features of the virus make up a really small part of the genome (less than point one percent), so one has to look really closely at all the sequences to see that some of the features (potentially) look engineered."?
mobamo 发表评论于
经过网友的挖掘和保守派媒体的报道，其中一封写于2020年1月31日的邮件引起了最广泛的关注。这封邮件，由美国斯克里普研究院的病毒专家克里斯蒂安?安德森（Kristian G. Andersen）于当天晚上10点32分发送给福奇，里面的两句话至为关键。其中一句是这么写的：该病毒的异常特征只占基因组的一小部分（<0.1%），因此人们必须非常仔细观察，才能发现其中的一些特征可能经过设计。（The unusal features of the virus make up a really small part of the genome (＜0.1%) so one has to look really closely at all the sequences to see that some of the features (potintially) look engieered.）另外一句是这么写的：Eddie、Bob、Mike和我都发现基因组与进化理论的预期不一致。（Eddie, Bob, Mike and myself all find the genemo inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theroy.）福奇在收到邮件的次日，就给安德森发了回信，写道：“谢谢！我们很快在电话上聊。”Image1月31日的邮件截图这意味着，至少在收到邮件那一刻，福奇就已经得知病毒有可能是人工合成的。但是，在那之后的无数次面向公众的讲话中，福奇都将这件事隐藏了起来。
您的文章是说Fauci的，我给扯到Daszak上，有点离题。先致歉一下。楼主不喜欢就删掉，no hard feelings. 我质疑Daszak,是基于这段报道，声称Daszak故意隐瞒：
We now know, thanks to a Freedom of Information Act request, that Daszak orchestrated the letter to squelch talk of a lab leak. He drafted it, reached out to fellow scientists to sign it, and worked behind the scenes to make it seem that the letter represented the views of a broad range of scientists. "This statement will not have the EcoHealth Alliance logo on it and will not be identifiable as coming from any one organization or person," he wrote in his pitch to the co-signatories. Scientists whose work had overlapped with the WIV agreed not to sign it so they could "put it out in a way that doesn't link it back to our collaboration."
At the time, however, there was no hint of Daszak's organizing role. The letter helped make Daszak a ubiquitous presence in the media, where he called a lab-leak "preposterous," "baseless," and "pure baloney." He also attacked scientists who published evidence pointing to the lab. Part of the reason the lab theory made no sense, he argued, was because the Wuhan lab wasn't culturing any viruses remotely similar to SARS-CoV-2.
For a long time, Daszak was astonishingly influential. Few in the media questioned him or pointed out that his career and organization would be deeply damaged if it turned out his work had indirectly played a role in the pandemic.
