科学杂志采访WHO调查组组长关于为什么起源于实验室非常不可能与他们不再继续朝那个方向努力

by Fb china today, at 16 February 2021, tags : 武汉病毒所 点击纠错 点击删除
使用CN2/CN2GIA顶级线路，支持Shadowsocks/V2ray科学上网，支持支付宝付款，每月仅需 5 美元
## 加入品葱精选 Telegram Channel ##

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/02/politics-was-always-room-who-mission-chief-reflects-china-trip-seeking-covid-19-s

回答很有意思， 关于”非常不可能”
中国同事已经做了很多工作评估了那个可能…

Q: At Friday’s press conference in Geneva, WHO director-general Tedros seemed to contradict you by saying that with respect to the origins of SARS-CoV-2, “all hypotheses are on the table.” Was it a mistake to call the lab origin hypothesis “extremely unlikely?”

A: No. We first developed a pathway of all the possible ways the virus could be introduced into the human population in late 2019. A lab accident is one hypothesis, another is the direct introduction from an animal host, and the others are different versions of intermediary hosts.

For each hypothesis, we tried to put facts on the table, look at what we had in terms of arguments, and then make an assessment of each. It was already a big step to have Chinese colleagues assess and evaluate such a hypothesis based on what we had on the table, which was not much.Yes, lab accidents do happen around the world; they have happened in the past. The fact that several laboratories of relevance are in and around Wuhan, and are working with coronavirus, is another fact. Beyond that we didn’t have much in terms of looking at that hypothesis as a likely option.

关于为什么世卫组织不在继续朝实验室泄露方向努力

需要另外的机制，我们没有能力…

**Q: But will someone else investigate? **

A: Remember that the report is the outcome of a joint team of Chinese experts and international experts. If others want to pursue that hypothesis, it’s there, it’s being discussed openly and accepted. As I said, this would not be something that this team, or I believe even WHO alone, would be able to move forward on. That would have to be, I believe, a United Nations-wide approach in consultation with member states, if that was something that the international community would want to move forward with.

另：他在接受cnn采访中说武汉病毒因该早在12月之前就在武汉传播，因为掌握了13个变种。而且希望再次回到武汉调查。（在发布会开始中国代表说没有显示武汉病毒12月之前爆发， 在武汉的调查到此结束…）

品葱用户 CV121 评论于 2021-02-17

小弟不才，稍為整理一下(大意)。原文大概有14 條問題，答案實在太長就不 POST了。

如真有興趣，翻看原文答案，其實已透露很多訊息，沒有明說而巳。問題大意翻譯一下:

1)   這次任務有那些最為驚訝的地方
2)   譚書記似乎對你們的"極不可能" 結論有懷疑
3)   什麽導致調查組得出"極不可能"的結論
4)   有甚麽新發現令你們得出"極不可能"的結論
5)   會否由另外團隊繼續調查
6)   其他人會否繼續調查
7)   不用"極不可能"字眼會否更好
8)   病毒經冷鏈傳播說法有否証據
9)   調查組如何繼續
10) 記者會中結論武漢在12/19 前沒有廣泛傳播，但有報導說中國並未充份分享所有資訊
11) 因何有人說曾跟中方有激烈討論
12) 有否其他激烈討論
13) 最有可能病毒傳播的情形為何
14) 全世界都在關注你們，有人說你們在武漢新聞發佈會像是中國的PR又一次勝利

 個人認為記者問題十分精準，歡迎各路英雄補充。

Politics was always in the room.’ WHO mission chief reflects on China trip seeking COVID-19’s origin
By Kai KupferschmidtFeb. 14, 2021 , 8:00 AM

**Science’**s COVID-19 reporting is supported by the Heising-Simons Foundation.

The World Health Organization (WHO) mission to China to probe the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic had a bumpy start, so it’s perhaps no surprise that the team’s departure from China didn’t go entirely smoothly either. A 9 February press conference in Wuhan to summarize the mission’s findings was widely hailed within China, but criticized elsewhere.

During the press conference, WHO program manager and mission leader Peter Ben Embarek and team member Marion Koopmans praised China’s cooperation during the 4-week investigation. They said it was “extremely unlikely” that SARS-CoV-2 originated in a Chinese laboratory and said the team would not investigate that hypothesis further. But they kept open the possibility that the virus arrived in Wuhan on frozen food, a route promoted aggressively by Chinese media to suggest the virus was imported from elsewhere in the world.

See all of our coverage of the coronavirus outbreak

Some journalists and scientists called the event a double win for China and demanded more evidence for the rejection of the lab theory. And on 12 February, WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus appeared to publicly push back against the team, saying, “All hypotheses are on the table” with respect to the pandemic’s origins. Meanwhile, media reports have suggested WHO team members were disappointed about not getting access to certain data, for instance on Chinese patients with respiratory symptoms who may have been some of the earliest COVID-19 cases.

WHO plans to release a summary report of the mission’s finding as early as next week; a full report will come later.

Science had an hourlong video interview with Ben Embarek on Saturday after his return to Geneva. An epidemiologist and food safety scientist, he has experience both with China—he worked at WHO’s Beijing office between 2009 and 2011—and with coronaviruses, as the head of the agency’s effort to investigate the animal origin of the Middle East respiratory syndrome virus after its emergence in 2012.

Ben Embarek defended the much-debated press conference, explained why the lab escape hypothesis has not been ruled out, and summarized what was learned about when, where, and how SARS-CoV-2 first infected humans. This interview has been edited for brevity and clarity.

Q: What was the most surprising experience during your mission?

Q: At Friday’s press conference in Geneva, Tedros seemed to contradict you by saying that with respect to the origins of SARS-CoV-2: “All hypotheses are on the table.” Was it a mistake to call the lab origin hypothesis “extremely unlikely”?

Q: But what led you to use the “extremely unlikely” label? Did you learn anything that made it less likely?

Q: But my question is whether you learned anything new in China. Now that you’ve been there, do you have more reason to say it’s “extremely unlikely” than before?

Q: So, it will be investigated further, just not by you and your team?

Q: But will someone else investigate?

Q: Would it have been better to project less certainty at the press conference in Wuhan? The way most journalists understood it, the way I understood it, was that this has been ruled out.

Q: Another scenario that you outlined was that the virus was transmitted through frozen food. What is the evidence for that?

Q: How are you moving forward on this?

**Q: At the press conference you also said it was becoming clearer that there was no widespread transmission of the virus before December 2019. But there have been **reports that China did not share all of the data on 92 patients who had flulike symptoms in 2019. (One team member has tweeted that her quotes on that topic were “twisted,” however.) How confident are you that there was no spread of the virus prior to December 2019, what data are still missing, and why?

Q: Several people have said there was a heated debate about this. Why?

Q: Is there any other debate that got similarly heated?

Q: If you take all of this together, what do we know? What’s the most likely scenario for how and when SARS-CoV-2 started to circulate?

Q: You have the eyes of the world on you. You are working in a country that plays by its own rules. Isn’t there a danger that if you concentrate on the science, you end up being politically naïve? Some people have said the Wuhan press conference was basically a public relations (PR) win for the Chinese government.

Posted in: 

doi:10.1126/science.abh0598

品葱用户 uefw328 评论于 2021-02-16

调查组里的Peter Daszak有利益冲突：The Lancet 关于SARS-CoV-2“自然起源”的声明之内幕，世卫调查员谈冠状病毒（TWiV 615）。

从他的推文中可以看出他毫不掩饰他的亲中立场。

不过组长Ben Embarek 还是坚持他留下来：

The spokesman for Dr. Daszak told us that any questions about his potential conflict of interest should be referred to WHO. Dr. Ben Embarek said that he sees no problem in having Dr. Daszak on his investigative team: “Of course the WHO team will have discussion with the scientists and researchers in Wuhan. And therefore it is good to have on the team someone who knows the area well.”

2月15日的wsj的文章《Who Are the Covid Investigators?》中提到了调查组里Peter Daszak和Marion Koopmans的背景，指出他们有利益冲突：

A decade ago Ms. Koopmans’s deputy, Ron Fouchier, made international news by modifying a deadly flu virus to spread between ferrets. If an investigation finds it likely that the Covid-19 pandemic was caused by gain-of-function research, that would have repercussions for labs around the world, including at Erasmus MC.

品葱用户 五毛头目赵英俊 评论于 2021-02-17

联动世卫专家：2019年12月武汉市疫情范围比先前所想更广泛，且已发展出13种病毒株 - 新·品葱 (pincong.rocks)
充钱了你还是最棒的！

品葱用户 台灣來的麻雀 评论于 2021-02-17

咩，所謂獨立調查就是走個過場。。。

品葱用户 telsa10 评论于 2021-02-17

既然你們的中國同行們都調查過了, 你們又相信他們的調查結果, 請問你們這次去武漢是去幹什麼? 讓他們發個郵件/微信/whatsapp給你們不就好了嗎?

品葱用户 yongtaonunu 评论于 2021-02-17

世卫真是被中共深度渗透了。就像品葱也被法轮功渗透一样。

品葱用户 nmff 评论于 2021-02-16

这就对路了，WHO调查淆=美匪毛衣站淆=伊拉克核查淆嘛。本来，你在巴格达被美军占领之前去问责化学阿里就是不可能的。化学阿里当然在美国核查伊拉克期间作威作福，各种嘲笑美国人无知软弱好骗。
当然了，核查淆同时也注定了化学阿里的悲惨下场。而且与伊拉克核武器没有造成人员伤亡不同，武肺造成了全球无数的生命财产损失，这是核查伊拉克的那群人没事的主要原因。因此，我建议世卫组织专家组成员在五年内申请在华庇护，不然的话他们大概率逃不过麦卡锡浪潮的。然后申请了庇护的专家们就会和马斯克一样生动演绎杨家将淆了。

品葱用户 **五毛头目赵英俊

								NZRdlClr5** 评论于 2021-02-17

>> 説老實話，現在到這個時間了，病毒都在全世界趴趴走超過一年了要是真有什麽實驗室泄露的證據，也早就…

是的，支那那么心虚，处理了一年害怕露马脚，只能说明是实验室泄露可能性大。

品葱用户 uefw328 评论于 2021-02-17

As I said, this would not be something that this team, or I believe even WHO alone, would be able to move forward on. That would have to be, I believe, a United Nations-wide approach in consultation with member states, if that was something that the international community would want to move forward with.

其实调查组长之前也是持这样的观点（https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-world-needs-a-real-investigation-into-the-origins-of-covid-19-11610728316）：

“If our studies point to a possible lab accident, then other international mechanisms would be involved to document such an event. It would take time and additional types of expertise.”

品葱用户 **killreddragon

								NZRdlClr5** 评论于 2021-02-16

>> 你找不到更早之前的病原體就是找不到傳染路徑啊……再說一年還不夠消滅證據嗎

你支还能给全部病毒所员工乃至周边所有人换血不成，你要你支能够允许广泛的采血取样调查，肯定是能够查出点东西的。

品葱用户 **CV121

								fb_china_today** 评论于 2021-02-16

>> 记者问问题的角度大概可以说明科学杂志自己的立场

這個同意

品葱用户 NZRdlClr5 评论于 2021-02-16

説老實話，現在到這個時間了，病毒都在全世界趴趴走超過一年了
要是真有什麽實驗室泄露的證據，也早就被掩埋乾净了
就算你叫福爾摩斯來，所有的證據都是中共加工過的，所有的「實驗室泄露」證據都被銷毀了，甚至還可能加了一堆噪音在裏面擾亂搜查，就連福爾摩斯恐怕也搜不出個所以然
哪怕你知道中共曾經銷毀了一批文件，你掌握了他們銷毀文件的證據，你也無法證明那些文件是武漢實驗室和武漢肺炎泄露有關的報告
這件事永遠會是一個陰謀論，無法證實，但無法證僞
另外，我是陰謀論者

品葱用户 呆呆加速师 评论于 2021-02-16

谭书记想当和事佬，两边拿好处，俄爹答应吗？老子答应吗？美帝军火商答应吗？我水军话糙理不糙，武汉病毒就是从实验室跑出来的生化武器。

品葱用户 **killreddragon

								NZRdlClr5** 评论于 2021-02-16

>>

当然，我也不相信who有可能还能找到实验室泄漏的证据，不过嘛，这种反复横跳，一边想要给不可能从实验室泄漏站台，一边又拉不下脸来显得自己太无耻，也足够可笑了，感觉就是谎话都编不圆。

品葱用户 sousou 评论于 2021-02-17

他在接受cnn采访中说武汉病毒因该早在12月之前就在武汉传播，因为掌握了13个变种

如果这个说法是真的，那么按照科学的逻辑，至少病毒不是在12月开始在武汉传播的是正确的。
因为不可能短时间变异13个变种。按照现在看，至少在8月份就已经开始传播了。

品葱用户 九投习 评论于 2021-02-17

成员中有一人和病毒实验室「蝙蝠女」石丽正同流合污的！

品葱用户 killreddragon 评论于 2021-02-16

我个人怀疑，你支一方面把who的入境调查时间控制得极短，然后另一方面画饼许诺谭德塞说还有第二次调查，然后谭德塞就用第二次调查要求who的科学家闭嘴少说两句。
你支就想用这种每次调查只给一丁点东西的方式，把这个调查拖上个十年八年的。

品葱用户 有勞聖駕 评论于 2021-02-16

昨天看了这篇采访，看完以后淡淡叹了一口气。其实早就可以料到会这样。玩文字游戏的砖家，永远不可能大白的真相。

品葱用户 天下為公 评论于 2021-02-17

真的有心讓人來調查，就不會拖延一年，有甚麼證據，早就清理得一乾二淨

品葱用户 **killreddragon

								NZRdlClr5** 评论于 2021-02-17

>> 證明不可能比證明肯定要難得多而證明肯定，在現狀看來，也是無望（我是說沒有希望，這是一個比較實踐…

要说难也没那么难，只要who能够调查出一个有确实证据支持的非实验室传染路径就行了，但你支不敢，所以不配合调查啊。who给我的感觉就是既想给你支刷墙，又因为你支不积极配合调查，有点儿无从下口，而且说话需要给自己留后路。
所以最终结果就是，一边述说偏向于你支想要的答案，像什么很可能大概率之类的，但又什么问题都不敢说死，说白了就是讲废话。

品葱用户 **killreddragon

								NZRdlClr5** 评论于 2021-02-17

>> 因為不存在這麼一個確實證據啊……如果真是非實驗室，那頂多在野外找到它的「祖先」，因為找到現在的…

流行病研究又不是单纯的找祖先，是要找传播路径的啊，看传播路径上有没有支那实验室不就行了，至少如果支那不是把所有证据全部毁灭的话，确定传播路径上有没有支那实验室肯定是做得到的。就算如今，如果支那能允许对所有武汉的病毒实验室员工取血采样调查，我觉得应该也能得出结果，然而支那不敢。

品葱用户 HFirework 评论于 2021-02-16

这意思是，这个可能性没什么材料用于评估吧，那是废话，匪共怎么会允许对自己不利的材料泄露

品葱用户 fb_china_today 评论于 2021-02-17

罪犯都很想说服人们证据已经销毁追查是徒劳。发现武汉在12月已经有13种变种大概就是对这种叙事的驳斥, 不管WHO是什么渠道获得(没准两面人的贡献)。

品葱用户 **NZRdlClr5

								killreddragon** 评论于 2021-02-16

>> 当然，我也不相信who有可能还能找到实验室泄漏的证据，不过嘛，这种反复横跳，一边想要给不可能从…

證明不可能比證明肯定要難得多
而證明肯定，在現狀看來，也是無望（我是說沒有希望，這是一個比較實踐的概念而非理論上的不可能）

品葱用户 **NZRdlClr5

								killreddragon** 评论于 2021-02-16

>> 要说难也没那么难，只要who能够调查出一个有确实证据支持的非实验室传染路径就行了，但你支不敢，…

因為不存在這麼一個確實證據啊……
如果真是非實驗室，那頂多在野外找到它的「祖先」，因為找到現在的病毒也說明不了什麼，反正現在全世界都是病毒。但你不知道祖先如何變成現在的
所以只能說可能性，話說科學本來就這樣來著，話從來不能說太死
科學家都知道話不能說死，文科生就以為這只是攪渾水

品葱用户 **NZRdlClr5

								killreddragon** 评论于 2021-02-17

>> 流行病研究又不是单纯的找祖先，是要找传播路径的啊，看传播路径上有没有实验室不就行了，至少如果不…

你找不到更早之前的病原體就是找不到傳染路徑啊……
再說一年還不夠消滅證據嗎

品葱用户 **fb_china_today

								CV121** 评论于 2021-02-17

>> 小弟不才，稍為整理一下(大意)。原文大概有14 條問題，答案實在太長就不 POST了。如真有興…

记者问问题的角度大概可以说明科学杂志自己的立场

点击品葱原文参与讨论

最简单好用的 VPS,没有之一，注册立得 100 美金
comments powered by Disqus

See Also