闫这个是政治报告或是新闻报告，不是学术报告。 她的这个报告也没有在主流学术期刊发表,是在twitter 上发表的。 顶尖生物进化和微生物科学家们认为她没有提出新的观点，通篇都是 claim ，没有任何证据，没有任何可信度。 她这个完全是政治目的的炒作。
她的报告发表前没有经过同行审阅， 作者也没有提供任何 证据支持她的观点。
很多美国的 生物进化学专家都不支持她的观点， 要知道这些专家是拿美国政府funding 做实验的。
闫就是一个骗绿卡 的 轮子。
www.newsweek.com
According to six leading experts in evolutionary biology and infectious disease consulted by Newsweek, the paper offers no new information, makes numerous unsubstantiated claims and its scientific case is weak.
"This pre-print repyue ort cannot be given any credibility in its current form," says Andrew Preston, an expert in microbial pathogenesis at the University of Bath in the U.K.
The scientists Newsweek consulted also took issue with the genomic analysis of the authors. For instance, the authors point to "restriction sites" in the genetic sequence of SARS-CoV-2 as evidence that the virus was made using enzymes that act as molecular scissors to add or subtract genetic material. But "all DNA sequences in nature have restriction sites," says Arinjay Banerjee, a virologist at McMaster University, "and it is not surprising that the SARS-CoV-2 genome also has restriction sites. The evidence presented here is anecdotal."
In a tweet, Carl Bergstrom, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Washington in Seattle and co-author of Calling Bullshit: The Art of Skepticism in a Data-Driven World, called the paper in a tweet "bizarre and unfounded."
Says Preston: "The report is not based on an objective interpretation of the SARS-CoV2 genome. The interpretations made are not supported by data, are unsubstantiated and the interpretations are largely stated but not explained. The report does not appear to start with an open hypothesis about the origin of SARS-CoV2."
她的报告发表前没有经过同行审阅， 作者也没有提供任何 证据支持她的观点。
很多美国的 生物进化学专家都不支持她的观点， 要知道这些专家是拿美国政府funding 做实验的。
闫就是一个骗绿卡 的 轮子。
Fact-check: Does a New Study Give Evidence that COVID-19 Was Made In a Lab?
Leading experts in evolutionary biology and infectious disease told Newsweek that the research paper is weak; it offers no new information and makes numerous unsubstantiated claims.
www.newsweek.com
According to six leading experts in evolutionary biology and infectious disease consulted by Newsweek, the paper offers no new information, makes numerous unsubstantiated claims and its scientific case is weak.
"This pre-print repyue ort cannot be given any credibility in its current form," says Andrew Preston, an expert in microbial pathogenesis at the University of Bath in the U.K.
The scientists Newsweek consulted also took issue with the genomic analysis of the authors. For instance, the authors point to "restriction sites" in the genetic sequence of SARS-CoV-2 as evidence that the virus was made using enzymes that act as molecular scissors to add or subtract genetic material. But "all DNA sequences in nature have restriction sites," says Arinjay Banerjee, a virologist at McMaster University, "and it is not surprising that the SARS-CoV-2 genome also has restriction sites. The evidence presented here is anecdotal."
In a tweet, Carl Bergstrom, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Washington in Seattle and co-author of Calling Bullshit: The Art of Skepticism in a Data-Driven World, called the paper in a tweet "bizarre and unfounded."
Says Preston: "The report is not based on an objective interpretation of the SARS-CoV2 genome. The interpretations made are not supported by data, are unsubstantiated and the interpretations are largely stated but not explained. The report does not appear to start with an open hypothesis about the origin of SARS-CoV2."
