生物与医学2022science.org
武汉华南海鲜市场是 Covid-19 大流行的早期中心
Huanan Seafood Market in Wuhan was early epicenter of the Covid-19 pandemic
入门 · 约 45 分钟读完前置知识：流行病学基础、SARS-CoV-2 背景
导读
这篇发表于 Science 的论文通过流行病学与空间分析，指出武汉华南海鲜市场是新冠疫情最早的暴发中心，市场内售卖野生动物的摊位与早期病例高度相关。不过该结论在科学界并非没有争议，有评论指出其数据分析存在缺陷，且始终未在市场相关动物中检出病毒。
HN 关注点：疫情起源这一敏感问题：论文支持'市场动物传人'说，但评论区大量讨论实验室泄漏假说及中国政府信息不透明带来的证据缺失。
HN 评论精选
这几条评论里：质疑 4
质疑质疑论文结论，指出分析有缺陷且未找到感染动物
抛开阴谋论不谈，Worobey 的这篇 Science 论文在科学界并非一致认可，其数据分析被指出存在部分缺陷。这里有一篇引用了多篇反对该论文结论的文献的讨论：https://inference-review.com/article/thunder-out-of-china。另一个令人起疑的事实是，与以往所有 SARS 疫情不同，从未发现任何动物对新冠检测呈阳性。（编辑：感谢指正——是未找到源头动物。）
dangom查看英文原文
Conspiracy theories aside, Worebey's Science paper is not unanimously well received by the scientific community, and the data analysis was shown to be partly flawed. Here's a discussion on inference pointing to references and sources that argue against the results of the paper: https://inference-review.com/article/thunder-out-of-china It also raises eyebrows the fact that no animal has ever been found to be positive for COVID, in contrast to all of the previous SARS pandemics. EDIT: thanks everyone for correcting my assertion. No source animal was found.
质疑认为缺乏动物宿主证据，市场起源说在演化上难以自洽
这类调查的一个问题是，没有相关方真正希望真相大白。实验室不会允许任何人来查看它在做什么，除非中共倒台，而那时记录恐怕早已被抹去。问题在于确实没有任何证据：从未在与市场相关的中国陆地动物中检出 SARS-CoV-2。我们知道鸟类可以传播它，但它总得来自某处，而野外从未找到病毒储主——不像埃博拉、马尔堡、MERS 等病毒。市场里出现了两个变异株，但考虑到 SARS-CoV-2 在人类中变异出首个变异株之前已经传播了数百万人，假设某个前体病毒在市场里经过数百万次迭代变成 SARS-CoV-2，然后又重复发生两次，这合理吗？
manv1查看英文原文
One problem in these kinds of investigations is that nobody involved really wants the truth to be known. The lab isn't going to let anyone poke around and see what it was doing until the CPP falls. And even then records have probably been wiped already. The problem is that there really isn't any evidence. SARS-COV-2 has never been detected in any Chinese land animals associated with the market. We know that birds can transmit it, but it needs to come from somewhere. There's no reservoir of the stuff found in the wild...unlike viruses like Ebola, Marburg, MERS, etc. There were two variants in the market...but given the speed at which SARS-COV-2 variants have mutated in humans, well, how likely is it that the market was the source? SARS-COV-2 went through millions of humans before the first variant popped out. Is it reasonable to assume that some progenitor virus went though millions of iterations to become SARS-COV-2 in the market, then did it again and again? But however unlikely, this is where we are today. Was it just bad luck that some virus entered an immuno-compromised animal at the market and mutated...twice?
质疑讽刺官方'市场起源'说法如同核电站推卸责任，不可信
我想知道，那些 seemingly 愿意相信中共在这件事上自利说法的人，是否也会同样相信：当镇上核电站导致饮用水被辐射污染后，电站老板声称'不是我们干的，是街上别人干的'——这和这套说法的可信度差不多。
ejb999查看英文原文
I wonder how many people who are seemingly willing to believe the self-serving CCP party-line on this, would be just as believing of the owners of a nuclear power plant in their town, once the drinking water became radioactive, claiming "it didn't come from the plant, someone else down the street must have done it" - that is just about as believable as this.
质疑认为官方强烈否认实验室泄漏恰恰暗示其为真
让我倾向于相信实验室泄漏论的一点是，中国政府非常强烈地否认这一说法，并竭力把讨论引向其他理论。对于不常关注中国的读者，有一点必须知道：每当中国政府 对某个报道反应非常负面（否认、攻击、破坏、转移话题），通常意味着报道是真的。中国政府在信息管理上非常糟糕。承认某个中国实验室收集并研究过新冠、且一名实验室人员意外被感染，是中国无法承认的事。某个实验室收集研究病毒完全合理，不合理的是实验室或工作人员疏忽大意把病毒释放到了全世界。
mullen查看英文原文
The one thing that makes me think the Lab Leak theory is true is that the Chinese government very very strongly denies the story and does anything it can to deflect or redirect the discussion to some other theory. For anyone reading these kinds of stories and reports but is not a regular China follower, there is one thing you really should know. Anytime the Chinese government reacts very negatively to a story (Denial, attacking, undermining, deflecting), it usually means the story is true. The Chinese government is really terrible at information management and addressing anything that might make them look bad or lose face. Just admitting a Chinese lab collected, studied and by accident a lab worker got infected with COVID is just something China can not admit. It is perfectly reasonable that some lab somewhere would collect and study the COVID virus. What is unreasonable is that the lab or a lab worker just got sloppy and accidently released that virus out to the world.
相关资源
从这篇论文所有 HN 讨论帖的全部评论里整理出来的链接。
历次讨论
- 2022Hacker News 讨论帖10 分 · 0 评
- 2022Hacker News 讨论帖10 分 · 3 评
- 2022Hacker News 讨论帖135 分 · 267 评
同领域还值得读
CRISPR 在活体动物中消除 HIV-1 感染
CRISPR eliminates HIV-1 infection in live animals
报告利用 CRISPR/Cas9 基因编辑技术在活体动物中清除 HIV-1 感染：研究人员通过腺病毒载体递送特定的 Cas9 系统，从被感染细胞中切除嵌入的 HIV 病毒 DNA。
生物与医学2017 · 1,455 分 · 239 评入门 · 约 30 分钟编辑精选保护区飞行昆虫生物量27年下降75%
75% decline over 27 years in total flying insect biomass in protected areas
这篇发表于 PLOS ONE 的研究通过在德国保护区长达 27 年的昆虫生物量监测，发现飞行昆虫总量下降了约 75%。
生物与医学2017 · 901 分 · 432 评入门 · 约 45 分钟编辑精选为什么大多数已发表的研究发现是错的
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False (2005)
这篇 2005 年发表于 PLOS Medicine 的经典论文由 John Ioannidis 撰写，论证了在统计功效不足、研究偏倚和多重检验等因素下，大多数已发表的医学研究发…
生物与医学2022 · 388 分 · 351 评入门 · 约 60 分钟编辑精选人类免疫系统的物理接线图
A physical wiring diagram for the human immune system
这篇 Nature 论文系统绘制了人类免疫系统的“物理接线图”：通过大规模实验鉴定免疫细胞表面受体之间的相互作用（包括约 30 种此前未知的受体互作），并结合定量计算模型模拟免疫…
生物与医学2022 · 342 分 · 49 评专业 · 约 90 分钟编辑精选脂肪组织在减重后仍保留肥胖的表观遗传记忆
Adipose tissue retains an epigenetic memory of obesity after weight loss
这篇 Nature 论文研究了肥胖对脂肪组织的长期影响：即使减重成功，脂肪细胞仍保留着肥胖时期的表观遗传记忆，可能解释为什么减重后容易反弹。
生物与医学2025 · 263 分 · 327 评进阶 · 约 45 分钟编辑精选