Wednesday, March 3, 2021

Churchill’s Prophetic Warning: ‘An Iron Curtain Has Descended’

 Joseph Loconte

No speech from a foreign visitor ever created a greater uproar than that delivered by Winston Churchill at an obscure Midwestern college just months after the end of the Second World War. As it turned out, no speech proved more prophetic about the deadliest assault on human freedom in the history of world civilization.

Many expected Churchill’s talk at Westminster College in Fulton, Mo., on March 5, 1946 — modestly titled “The Sinews of Peace” — to reflect on the defeat of fascism by the three great wartime allies, the United States, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union. Instead, it was a message of foreboding. A new crisis moment for Europe, and for the world, had arrived: a struggle between communism and the democratic West. “A shadow has fallen upon the scenes so lately lighted by the Allied victory,” Churchill warned. “From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic, an iron curtain has descended across the Continent.”

Left-leaning historians blame Churchill’s address as the catalyst for the Cold War. Eleanor Roosevelt, carrying on the political legacy of her dead husband, was aghast, fearing that Churchill’s message would compromise the peacekeeping mission of the newly created United Nations. The liberal press denounced the talk as “poisonous” and Churchill as a “warmonger.”

A truly noxious speech, however, had been delivered by Joseph Stalin just a few weeks earlier to Communist Party apparatchiks in Moscow. Largely forgotten today, it did about as much to expose the unbridgeable divide between East and West as Churchill’s peroration.

“It would be wrong to think that the Second World War broke out accidentally,” Stalin began. “As a matter of fact, the war broke out as the inevitable result of the development of world economic and political forces on the basis of present-day monopolistic capitalism.” Thus, Stalin repeated Marx’s assault on capitalism for distributing resources unequally. He parroted Lenin’s claim that greedy capitalist states inevitably went to war with one another. Peace was possible, he suggested, but only after communism had triumphed around the globe. The message was clear: The historic contest between socialism and democratic capitalism was at a high-water mark.

Stalin’s address was a tissue of lies and omissions. He portrayed the Soviet Union as the fierce opponent of fascist rule in Europe. In fact, Stalin made a secret pact with Hitler’s Germany to divide up the continent among themselves. The agreement allowed the Soviet Union to invade and occupy eastern Poland in 1939 as Hitler invaded from the west, triggering the Second World War. For 22 months, in fact, the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were allies; Germany sold weapons to the USSR and the USSR sold grain and oil to Germany.

Stalin also assured his audience that the policy of collectivized agriculture was “an exceedingly progressive method” to modernize the Soviet economy. In reality, the forced collectivization of private farms, begun in 1928, created a human catastrophe. Many peasants fought to hold onto their plots of land: five million were deported and never heard from again. The government seized their grain, and the result was a man-made famine. By 1934, upwards of 13 million Soviet citizens died unnatural deaths — from mass murder and starvation — because of Stalin’s communist vision.

Ironically, Stalin spoke the truth when he boasted that “no skeptic now dares to express doubt concerning the viability of the Soviet social system.” At least 700,000 “skeptics” — anyone even mildly critical of Marshal Stalin — were murdered during the “Great Purge” of 1936–38. The secret police, show trials, assassinations, torture, prison camps, ethnic cleansing: Virtually no tool of terror was left untried to silence dissent.

All these facts informed Churchill’s assessment of the Soviet Union. But the most alarming truth about Stalin’s Russia was its forcible absorption of Eastern Europe into the communist fold. For months, Churchill had watched with growing apprehension as Stalin violated the agreements he made with the Allies at their 1945 Yalta Conference, promising free and democratic elections in Eastern Europe. Communist fifth columns were now at work, wholly obedient to Moscow.

“The Communist parties, which were very small in all these Eastern States of Europe, have been raised to preeminence and power far beyond their numbers and are seeking everywhere to obtain totalitarian control,” Churchill said. “Whatever conclusion may be drawn from these facts — and facts they are — this is certainly not the Liberated Europe we fought to build up.”

Every description Churchill offered of Soviet designs over Europe proved entirely accurate. His judgment of communism as “a growing challenge and peril to Christian civilization” was being validated in every state that fell under its malign influence.

Indeed, America’s most important diplomat in Moscow had reached the same conclusions at almost precisely the same moment. George F. Kennan’s “Long Telegram,” arguing for a policy of “firm containment” against the Soviet Union, arrived at the State Department just days before Churchill arrived in Fulton. “It is clear that the United States cannot expect in the foreseeable future to enjoy political intimacy with the Soviet regime,” Kennan wrote. “It must continue to expect that Soviet policies will reflect no abstract love of peace and stability, no real faith in the possibility of a permanent happy coexistence of the Socialist and capitalist worlds, but rather a cautious, persistent pressure toward the disruption and weakening of all rival influence and rival power.”

Franklin D. Roosevelt’s delusional portrait of Stalin as “Uncle Joe,” a cheerful partner in building a global democratic community, was dead in the water. Nevertheless, it is difficult, from our historical distance, to grasp the feeling of dread that Churchill’s words must have caused in a war-weary population. He clearly sensed the enormous task he was asking his American audience to embrace: to engage its economic, military, and moral resources to check Soviet ambitions in Europe and beyond. “I do not believe that Soviet Russia desires war,” he said. “What they desire is the fruits of war and the indefinite expansion of their power and doctrines.”

The United States, he suggested, must not make the mistake it made after the First World War, when it abandoned the League of Nations and left Europe to its fate. It must help ensure that the United Nations will become an effective force for peace and security, “and not merely a cockpit in a Tower of Babel.” Most importantly, though, Churchill called for a “special relationship” between America and Great Britain: the sharing of military intelligence, mutual-defense agreements, and strategic cooperation to support and promote democracy.

Their common democratic ideals, he explained, were the basis for a unique partnership to thwart the despotic aims of Soviet communism:

We must never cease to proclaim in fearless tones the great principles of freedom and the rights of man which are the joint inheritance of the English-speaking world and which through the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, the Habeas Corpus, trial by jury, and the English common law find their most famous expression in the American Declaration of Independence. . . . Here is the message of the British and American peoples to mankind.

Critics denounced this language as rank chauvinism and cultural imperialism. Legendary columnist Walter Lippmann called the speech an “almost catastrophic blunder.” In an interview with Pravda, dutifully transcribed in the New York Times, Stalin compared Churchill to Hitler: “Mr. Churchill, too, has begun the task of unleashing war with a racial theory, stating that only nations that speak the English language are . . . called upon to rule the destinies of the whole world.”

Any frank assessment of how the Cold War ended, however, would admit the decisive role played by the United States and the United Kingdom, over the course of four decades, in resisting Soviet aggression. The Berlin airlift, the creation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the defense of Western Europe, the support for the democratic revolutions in Eastern Europe that brought down the Soviet empire — in each case the “special relationship” between America and Great Britain tipped the scales toward freedom.

In a remarkable moment of candor, Mikhail Gorbachev, who presided over the dissolution of the Soviet Union, endorsed the central message of Churchill’s speech in his farewell address on Christmas Day, 1991. The Cold War, “the totalitarian system,” “the mad militarization” that “crippled our economy, public attitudes and morals” — it all had come to an end, and there was no turning back. “I consider it vitally important to preserve the democratic achievements which have been attained in the last few years,” he said. “We have paid with all our history and tragic experience for these democratic achievements, and they are not to be abandoned, whatever the circumstances, and whatever the pretexts.”

Seventy-five years ago, Churchill dared to imagine such an outcome. But it depended upon these two great democratic allies, Great Britain and the United States, sharing a “faith in each other’s purpose, hope in each other’s future, and charity towards each other’s shortcomings.” And, with history as a guide, such an outcome would not arrive without a supreme effort of national will. “If all British moral and material forces and convictions are joined with your own in fraternal association,” he said, “the highroads of the future will be clear, not only for us but for all, not only for our time, but for a century to come.”

Joseph Loconte is the director of the B. Kenneth Simon Center for American Studies at the Heritage Foundation and is working on a book about Winston Churchill at the 1945 Yalta Conference. Nile Gardiner is the director of the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom at the Heritage Foundation.

Wednesday, February 24, 2021

写下这首热传长诗的河北女网民被“寻衅滋事”获刑

 近日,中国政府公布了一位因在新冠疫情期间发布博文而获刑六个月的网民的刑事判决书,显示当局认为她发布了官方辟谣的虚假信息和未经证实的信息。离疫情在中国集中爆发已经过去了一年,中国人如今还有追问这场人道灾难的权利吗?


中国裁判文书网日前公布的《张文芳寻衅滋事罪一审刑事判决书》显示,她发布的长篇博文包含了官方辟谣的虚假信息和部分未经核实的信息。

转述信息有罪?

判决书显示,去年清明节当天,家住河北三河的张文芳在新冠疫情遇难者的全国性哀悼活动当天,通过名为“玛丽莲梦六”的新浪微博账号,发布了一篇长文,其中提到有隔离场所中一千人共用一个卫生间、有人隔离在家被饿死、有人为了买肉从十楼爬下来等情况。法院认为,其中一些内容已被官方辟谣,另一些则是虚假内容。张文芳未经考证就发表上述言论、并被大量转阅,造成了严重恶劣的社会影响。

文件显示,张文芳发文当晚,当地警方就将其传唤到派出所接受调查,并在四月底逮捕。去年九月,她因寻衅滋事罪获刑六个月。

旅居加拿大的前北京执业律师赖建平认为,如果这位网民并未无中生有,而只是转述了一些信息,那么这样的罪名是不成立的。

“如果她只是错误地引用了别人的材料来判断一个事实或情况,并加以转述,我不认为这是在造谣。”

在湖北多地“封城”、全国各地进行封闭式管理的那段日子里,被困家中的亿万中国民众接受外界信息的唯一渠道通常就是互联网。有人发布求救信息、有人传播各大医院的现场视频、还有人转发一个又一个人间惨剧。

谁来悼念他们?

记者注意到,这篇题为《那个坐在阳台上敲锣鸣病的人》的文章全文采用了“那个……的人”的句式,试图罗列国内疫情高峰期的残酷景象,包括“那个怕传染给家人而给自己挖好坟偷偷上吊的人”、“那个被派出所罚写100遍《出门一定要戴口罩》的人”、“那个在领导检查时,在楼上大喊‘都是假的’的人”等等。

文中的部分情节的确难以证实,但另一些事件确有发生。比如,“那个写下‘能、明白’并印上红手印死了两次的人”指的是因在疫情初期发出警告而被当局训诫、后死于新冠肺炎的武汉眼科医生李文亮;“那个说出‘早知道有今天,我管他批评不批评,老子到处说’的人”指的是武汉市中心医院急诊科主任艾芬;“那个写下60篇封城日记,被封号数次,被群氓围殴谩骂的人”指的是武汉作家方方。不过,这些人当中有的被官方选择性纪念、有的被网民群起攻之、还有的直接被“和谐”。

一位因安全原因不愿具名的的武汉市民对记者说,官宣一向报喜不报忧,即便有人仅凭网上获取的一些信息有感而发,也是人之常情,而当局却容不下这些心声。

“直到现在我都不知道(公民记者)方斌的下落。不是说我们怕死,人都会死的,但如果是在这个过程中被折磨至死,谁会不怕呢?” (其声音经过处理)

好了伤疤忘了疼?

一年前,多位试图展现武汉真实情况的公民记者被噤声,多位记录疫情百态或批评当局抗疫表现的作家和知识分子遭到舆论谴责或被捕。

武汉疫情蔓延期间,《财新》是国内少有的发布了一系列深度报道的媒体之一。财新传媒常务副主编高昱曾在去年年末发文说:“这个国家的惨痛损失变成了凯歌礼赞,教训已被忽略,甚至都看不到几个人还在追问。” 高昱的这篇文章已在中国被“和谐”。

赖建平认为,每逢大灾大难,中共都会严控舆论导向,让独立声音永远见不到光。

“不管是天灾还是人祸,每一次最终都被转化成了为统治者歌功颂德的素材。当局很善于丧事喜办,很善于把整个社会的苦难转变成他们执政的合法性。”

中国公安部表示,截至去年2月21日,各地警方查处了5500多起编造、故意传播虚假及有害信息的案件。国际组织“中国人权捍卫者网络”(CHRD)随后发报告说,他们收集的近千起相关案件显示,涉案人员都是因在网上发表或分享关于新冠疫情的言论或信息而被处罚的。

那个坐在阳台上敲锣鸣病的人

那个坐在阳台上敲锣鸣病的人。

那个深夜追着殡车凄厉地喊着“妈妈”的人。

那个在一千人共用一个卫生间的隔离所看《政治秩序的起源》的人。

那个开着货车在高速路上流离失所没有归处的人。

那个坐着死去被家人抱住头等待殡葬车的人。

那个隔离在家中被饿死的人。

那个怀有身孕花了20万最终因无力承担而被放弃治疗的人。

那个怕传染给家人而给自己挖好坟偷偷上吊的人。

那个无处就医又怕传染妻小从桥上一跃而下自我了断的人。

那个90岁高龄为60多岁儿子排到一张床位而在医院守了五天五夜的人。

那个在求医院床位的微博下评论:“我家人刚过世了,空出一个床位,希望能帮到你”的人。

那个先是骂着求助者嚎丧影响心情随后又只能以同样方式呼救的人。

那个为求助而现学会用微博发了一句你好的人。

那个被盘查时用围巾捂住嘴,因买不到口罩而羞愧哭泣的人。

那个用橘子皮当口罩的人。

那个爸爸妈妈爷爷奶奶全家都死了只好孤身一人去民政局报到的人。

那个把抵工钱的口罩全部捐出去的人。

那个写下“安心赴死”“是时候奉献出自己”的人。

那个写下“能、明白”并印上红手印死了两次的人。

那个不眠不休建设完火神山医院返回村里,却被自己村人视为瘟神的人。

那个身患白血病需要去北京进行骨髓移植,却没有途径出城,痛到想要安乐死的人。

那个穿着寿衣打电话求一张床位未果,崩溃倒下的人。

那个因疫情做不了血液透析,在社区门口哀求无果跳楼自杀,自杀后6小时遗体才被拉走的人。

那个被派出所罚写100遍《出门一定要戴口罩》的人。

那个未戴口罩被扇巴掌扇出血的人。

那个喊着我饿啊我要饿死了,老婆孩子都在家挨饿,想必你们肚子是饱的吧的人。

那个以养蜂为生、因疫情导致蜜蜂无法转场最后自杀的人。

那个无处收治怕感染老婆孩子,写下遗书想将自己的遗体用于科学研究,愿天下人不再受病痛折磨,而后留下钥匙和手机离家出走,最后死在回老家途中的人。

那个写下“死后遗体捐给国家。我老婆呢?”的人。

那个因为封城禁车只好背着妈妈四处问诊,一路走了三个小时的人。

那个把刚出生的孩子托付给医院,写下“生孩子已花光仅有的积蓄,走投无路流落至此”的人。

那个为了出门买肉,从10楼爬下来的人。

那个守着爷爷的尸体过了5天,并给爷爷盖上被子的孩子。

那个重症被治愈后回家发现家人都去世了,在楼顶上吊自杀了。

那个60多岁独自一人承担派出所60多个警察的采购、洗菜、做菜、洗碗、打扫厨房,最后累到在走廊里哭的人。

那个在武汉街头流浪了20多天,头发白了一半的人。

那个没钱买手机上网课,而将妈妈治疗精神疾病的药物一把吞下的人。

那个25岁从央视辞职,在最危险的时候去武汉直播,对着门外将要把他带走的人,背诵少年强则国强,少年弱则国弱的人。

那个在领导检查时,在楼上大喊“都是假的”的人。

那个从坍塌的泉州酒店救出三个孩子尸体后大哭的人。

那个写下60篇封城日记,被封号数次,被群氓围殴谩骂的人。

那个只有七八岁懵懂跟随大人队伍里为父母领取骨灰的人。

那个苦口婆心有理有据给政府公务人员打电话说病毒要防、人也要吃饭,最后轻轻叹了口气的人。

那个深受病人爱戴,因戴口罩而被医院训斥,后感染病毒死去的人。

那个说出“早知道有今天,我管他批评不批评,老子到处说”的人。

Thursday, February 18, 2021

世卫顾问:实验室泄露并非是阴谋论

 Jamie Metzl是世界知名的基因学专家,是世卫组织的顾问,也是美国总统拜登的亲近人士,他从一开始就认为新冠病毒可能来自实验室泄露,而世卫调查团的“令人震惊”的中国之行更使他坚信病毒来自实验室。以下他与法国观点周刊亚洲部门记者Jérémie André的访谈内容。


Jérémie André: 您在观看世卫组织调查团在武汉发表的记者会时有何感想?

Jamie Metzl : 世卫组织调查团与中国当局共同举行的这场记者会十分令人震惊,触及了底线!与其进行认真地病毒调查,世卫组织地特派专家们却成为中国官方的宣传人员,传播什么冷冻食品传染病毒的可能性,而将实验室泄露的问题一律排除,我相信这并不是当初他们前往中国之前的想法。但是,他们从一开始就处于弱势,无论是专家小组的组成还是在中国的调查方式都由北京强加,专家们不能获得他们所需要的数据,更不能自由独立地展开调查。

Jérémie André: 但是,世卫组织专家组有成员确认说他们获得了病毒自然来源地证据,他们认为这同饲养以及买卖野生动物有关,这是事实吗?

Jamie Metzl : 这些都只不过是猜想,他们只不过是重复中方的观点,既然华南海鲜市场销售冷冻食品,但是,上述说法已经提出一年多来,专家们依然没有拿出明确的证据证明病毒从动物传染给人类的具体例证。所以,世卫组织的专家们事实上应该承认他们在中国并没有发现任何新的证据,应该承认他们到中国是为了收集第一手的资料为进行更加深入的研究,而如何缺乏必要的数据,他们就无法进行调查。所以,我认为他们的中国之行只是为了收集资料,而并不是进行调查。世卫专家们的错误就在于将一个初步的推论当作是一个最终的调查结果。

Jérémie André: 那世卫专家为什么要这么做?

Jamie Metzl : 我觉得这里面有许多心理因素。专家小组的成员们首先感到十分荣耀能够被挑选参加一个如此重要的调查团。他们在被隔离两周之后才在中国科学家的陪同下,在中国官方的监督之下进行调查,最后他们被邀请参加记者会,他们的目的是为了显示与中国方面的紧密合作。而事实上,他们的行为缺乏明知。不过,这也是由于世卫组织这种机构的性质,因为他的存在依赖于其成员国,世卫组织并不希望与他的任何一个成员国对抗,而且他的运作本身充分依赖于其各大成员国。不过,世卫组织已经意识到他们与中国之间存在问题。

Jérémie André: 在离开中国之后,世卫组织专家组组长Peter Ben Embarek在接受科学杂志采访时完全改变了其在武汉时的立场,世卫总干事谭德赛也同样排除了冷冻食品传播病毒的可能性,并且强调不排除实验室泄露,这究竟是什么原因?

Jamie Metzl : 包括我在内的与世卫高层有接触的人都明确提出世卫专家组在武汉新闻发布会上的言论与立场缺乏证据,尤其是有关冷冻食品的说法。今天看来,这一点更加明显。谭德赛能够即使更正立场,值得庆贺,必须明白的是,世卫组织是一个十分脆弱的机构。新冠疫情爆发之后,世卫组织的第一个专家团就因为来自北京的阻挠而推迟了一个月才得以前往中国,世卫组织十分清除他们与中国政府之间存在问题,不过,无论如何,中国今天是国际上一个重大的国家。谭德赛能够及时更正这已经是第一步,下一步要看的是专家组将公布的调查报告的内容,报告必须强调进行国际性的调查的必要性。

Jérémie André: 您个人从一开始就认为病毒可能来自实验室泄露,在没有任何证据的前提下,您的推测是建立在什么论据上的?

Jamie Metzl : 我确实从疫情爆发的初期就认为病毒可能来自实验室泄露,我认为这并不是阴谋论。作为世卫组织的顾问,基因研究专家以及对亚洲十分了解的专家,我有充分的理由相信实验室泄露论。因为我知道,如果因冠状病毒传染而引发大规模传染,那么,病原地应该在蝙蝠出没的中国的热带地区,而不应该爆发在武汉这样的大都市,这里是大陆性气候,离蝙蝠等动物十分遥远,这里的居民也没有人吃蝙蝠。另外,我对中国十分了解,曾经撰写了研究东南亚古代历史的论文,我知道中国政府是一个不可信任的政权。对他们来说,编写历史是他们赖以生存的支柱。2003年,非典时期,正如2019年年底时一样,他们首先想到的是如何掩盖事实。政府删除了有关实验室的所有数据,关押试图向外界传播真相的公民记者。必须指出的是,北京政权是一个继续对毛泽东顶礼膜拜的政权,而专家们今天一致认为,毛泽东在大跃进时期饿死了4500万中国人。

Jérémie André: 实验室泄露具体会是如何发生的呢?

Jamie Metzl : 必须强调的是怀疑病毒来自实验室泄露并不是指控中国当局蓄意犯罪,有目的地的对外散布病毒。1999年,美军误炸中国驻南斯拉夫领事馆时我在美国政府任职,我知道许多中国人都认为是美军蓄意轰炸,但是,事实并非如此,因为事故确实难免会发生,而不可饶恕的是试图掩盖事故,并且阻挡任何人进行调查。今天我们都知道,2012年,中国云南有六名矿工患有类似新冠病毒感染的疾病,他们中有三人死亡。2013年,武汉病毒实验室的学者前往云南采集了病毒,并且将病毒带回实验室,检测除了一个被叫做RATG13的病毒基因序列,这一病毒被认为是最接近Sars-Cov-2的病毒。我们也知道武汉实验室从事基因增进功能的研究(gain-de-fonction ),也就是给病毒增加一些新的功能,目的是增加冠状病毒进入人体细胞的功能,这可能也是为什么新冠病毒的S蛋白能够如此轻易地侵入人体细胞,类似地研究地目的并不是要制造生物武器,而是为了研究一旦带有类似功能地病毒自然出现应该如何应对。至于病毒如何会在武汉传播?这其中有几种可能性:或者是研究人员被病毒感染,或者实验室没有合适地处理垃圾。在中国官方拒绝提供任何信息地前提下,我们只能停留在猜测阶段。而这更加显示了实验室泄露的可能性。

Jérémie André: 搞清除病毒来源为何如此重要?为何不能对此不再追究而集中精力致力于应对疫情?

Jamie Metzl : 倘若一家飞机实事,大家都认为必须找到实事的原因从而加强航空安全。因此,必须找到病毒的真实来源以避免类似的疫情不再发生。发生大规模流行病的威胁确实存在,气候变化,大规模工业养殖业等等都是爆发大流行病的因素,但是,如果是实验室的科学家引发的流行病,那就更加应该加强安全。我们不能够让类似的灾难再度发生。这并不应该是一个政治敏感问题。令人遗憾的是特朗普总统最先提出了实验室泄露的问题并且将它作为政治操作的素材。

Jérémie André: 您不担心会被认为与特朗普同流合污吗?

Jamie Metzl : 我是一个进步主义者,我一生都为捍卫人权而奋斗。我并不是特朗普的支持者,很遗憾是他最先提出了实验室泄露的可能,并且以此掩盖其政府在诸多问题上的失败,但是,特朗普提出的并不一定都是错的!

Jérémie André: 您非常了解拜登总统,您认为他对追踪病毒来源会做些什么?

Jamie Metzl : 我建议调查可以以以下三种方式进行:明确制定一个科学的病毒源头调查所必须遵循的步骤,这完全又可能在世卫组织的框架之下进行。倘若真如 Peter Ben Embarek 所言世卫组织无力负责调查工作,那就必须组建一个民主国家的联合调查,不仅对病毒的源头进行调查,而且还必须对应对疫情等多个方面的情况展开调查。最后,美国民主与共和应该效仿当年911事件之后组建两党调查委员会,其目的并不是追究某一个人的责任,而是为了使未来更加安全。

Jérémie André: 您对Peter Ben Embarek 提出的将案件递交给联合国处理的建议有何评论?

Jamie Metzl : 对联合国来说将是一个巨大的挑战,但我认为应该作出尝试。当然,为此必须赋予联合国足够的权力,例如,效仿当年对核武器以及生物武器的审查人员给予足够的权力。这也可以加强联合国的影响力。

原文链接: https://www.lepoint.fr/monde/covid-la-these-du-laboratoire-de-wuhan-n-est-pas-une-theorie-du-complot-17-02-2021-2414409_24.php

Tuesday, February 9, 2021

接种新冠疫苗后,体内抗体会被当做是感染病毒产生的吗?

         你接种新冠疫苗了吗?

    经过一年多的努力,应对新冠病毒的疫苗已经整装待发,数支疫苗已经获得紧急使用授权或批准上市,全球数千万人已率先完成接种。

  一些人开始有了新的担忧:接种新冠疫苗后,身体内会产生新冠病毒抗体,做核酸检测和抗体检测会呈阳性吗?会被误认为确诊病例吗?

  大家可以记住这个答案:接种疫苗不会被当成确诊病例。

  疫苗是如何帮助人类预防疾病的?

  这一切需要从疫苗与检测的原理说起。在病毒入侵人体后,免疫系统可以识别到病毒,放出抗体把病毒团团抱住,使其不能够感染人体,从而保护身体健康。

  早在1796年,人类就学会了利用这个特性对抗传染病。我们用病毒上不会让人生病的成分接种人体,也能够产生针对病毒的抗体,这就叫做免疫力。接种的成分,被称为疫苗。

新型冠状病毒灭活疫苗 图片来源:新华社记者 张玉薇 摄 新型冠状病毒灭活疫苗 图片来源:新华社记者 张玉薇 摄

  在科技的发展下,人类已经拥有了多种方式快速大量制备疫苗。把新冠病毒的活性消灭以后,它还能引起人体的免疫反应,但不能够在人体里复制,这就是灭活疫苗。

  使用生物技术,生产病毒上特定的成分,也能让人类获得免疫力。重组疫苗和载体疫苗等用的就是这个办法。

  此外,还有一种新的方法制作核酸疫苗。核酸疫苗不需要接种病毒的成分本身,只需要接种病毒合成的模板。核酸模板进入人体内后,再变成病毒的片段,让人得到免疫力。

  人体的免疫系统非常“智能”,当首次感知到病毒等抗原时,会快速地产生一种叫IgM的抗体应对初次感染。在应对的同时,还会通过把病毒的特征“记住”,形成记忆B细胞,进入休眠状态。如果病毒一直在体内复制,或再次遇到同类病毒,记忆B细胞能够重新激活,大量复制。重新激活的记忆B细胞会大量产生另一种叫IgG的抗体。这个过程中,IgM抗体负责初期的应急处理,IgG抗体则是后续增援的主力大部队。

  简单来说,新冠疫苗的作用是,提前让身体知道新冠病毒“长什么样”,再遇到新冠病毒的时候,身体能大量产生抗体消灭病毒,保卫我们的健康。

新冠病毒的结构示意图 图片来源:作者提供 新冠病毒的结构示意图 图片来源:作者提供

  注射疫苗为什么无法影响检测结果?

  患者体内有新冠病毒的抗体,疫苗接种者体内也有新冠病毒的抗体。新冠检测的时候,会被当成当成确诊病例吗?

  答案是,不会。

  接种疫苗之后,体内只会留有特别少的IgM抗体像保安一样巡逻警戒。当不幸感染新冠肺炎的时候,身体会迅速叫醒休眠的记忆B细胞,这批“援军”能够迅速产生大量IgG抗体,对抗新冠病毒。IgM抗体和进行后续增援的IgG抗体,可以帮助判断一个人是否感染了新冠病毒。

  目前的抗体检测时用抗体试纸,抗体检测可以通过试纸在十几分钟内快速看到结果。如果你具有某一种新冠抗体,试纸上就能够在相应的位置看到红线。两种抗体同时阳性,试纸上有两条红线,才能说明一个新感染新冠肺炎的患者体内的免疫系统正在与新冠病毒激烈搏斗。如果只有一种抗体阳性,则需要通过进一步的核酸检测来判定。

抗体检测的红线。上一行为阳性,下一行为阴性。抗体检测的红线。上一行为阳性,下一行为阴性。

  需要强调的是,因为存在局限性,一般不会使用这种方法。

  而核酸检测,即检测体内是否含有新冠病毒的RNA,是目前国内判断是否感染新冠病毒的主要依据。新冠病毒中,RNA由病毒的衣壳包裹,衣壳外还有一层包膜。三层结构中,只有最中间的核酸,即RNA才是检测的目标,而新冠疫苗用的是病毒最外层包膜的刺突蛋白。接种疫苗之后,并不会影响核酸检测的结果。

核酸检测与核酸疫苗的靶点核酸检测与核酸疫苗的靶点

  了解了核酸检测原理后,新的问题出现了。之前提到的核酸疫苗也是核酸,核酸疫苗会不会影响核酸检测结果呢?

      事实上,新冠病毒的核酸序列一共约有三万个碱基,用于核酸疫苗只有约四千个碱基。为了保证核酸检测的准确性,通常需要对新冠病毒核酸的两个位置进行检测。这两个位置不在核酸疫苗上,所以不会影响核酸检测结果。部分核酸检测试剂盒会检测单个位置或三个位置,仍然与核酸疫苗不重叠。

  除了碱基位置不重叠外,用于核酸检测的荧光PCR检测是一种灵敏的技术,不仅能检测出病毒的核酸,还能检测出病毒核酸的多少。由此也可以判断到底是注射了疫苗,还是感染了病毒。

  新冠肺炎的疫苗和诊疗方案经过了无数科学家和医务工作者的完善。精度稍差但更便捷的抗体检测,巧妙地对两种抗体进行了严格规定,在准确的同时不放过病毒的蛛丝马迹。作为黄金标准的核酸检测,因为疫苗不包含病毒核酸,不会混淆实际感染者和接种新冠疫苗的人群。

  因此,接种疫苗后,可以放心地配合检疫人员进行每一次核酸检测或抗体检测,不用担心被误认为感染者。

  即使你有着中彩票般的“运气”,在一种检测方式中不小心遇到了假阳性,检测人员也会让你重新进行更严格的二次检测。此时你不必焦急,不用慌张,相信医护人员,耐心等待结果即可。

Monday, February 8, 2021

Enough with America's 'thank you for your service' culture. It's betrayal, not patriotism.

 Joseph Biden just became America’s fourth post-9/11 “war president.” He now ends speeches with “May God protect our troops.” First lady Jill Biden even penned a children's book titled, "Don’t Forget, God Bless Our Troops." Their son Beau was a soldier — and his parents suspect toxic “burn pit” exposure on his Iraq tour caused the brain cancer that later killed him. Both Jill and Joe repeatedly foreground military and veteran sacrifices — with good reason.

But just what is the best way for Americans to honor and respect veterans’ sacrifices?

Responses to this question tend to be as diverse as America itself. There's no single right answer, but there are plenty of wrong ones. One thing has become abundantly clear: America’s “thank you for your service” culture doesn't help veterans — or society.

Our country’s military is continually misused, and no amount of pyrotechnics, flag-waving, priority airline boarding, discount nachos, bumper stickers or military flyovers can fix that. For two decades, the U.S. government has knowingly sent its service members to self-perpetuating and self-defeating wars.

That’s not patriotism — that’s betrayal.

Deception in broad daylight

A more effective alternative to such lobotomized patriotism — and a better way to honor veterans' service — is to get informed about how the troops are used and to dissent whenever the military is not used wisely. Historically, veterans sacrificed plenty to preserve the rights that Americans enjoy.

Return the favor. Get informed, demand transparency, prevent the squandering of such service.

Enough of the painful updates: End America's Guantanamo Bay chapter for detainees and for 9/11 families like mine

But respect for our military must begin before they become veterans — before they’ve sacrificed limbs, lives and mental health supporting bad policy. Because by then, it’s already too late. Instead, respect military service by ensuring that everyone who dons a uniform — beginning the moment when minors approach recruiting tables in high school lunchrooms — has informed consent about what they’re actually signing up for.

Isn’t it fascinating that many teachers would never expose children to graphic images of dead soldiers in classrooms, but those same students can be misled in broad daylight, at schoolhouses turned de facto recruiting stations? Consequently, American youths could unwittingly become those very dead bodies.

U.S. soldiers in Wardak province, central Afghanistan, in 2019.
U.S. soldiers in Wardak province, central Afghanistan, in 2019.

Informed consent is a critical component of respect. And if our society believes that images of amputees or dead civilians — and statistics about suicide, post-traumatic stress disorder or drug abuse — are too explicit for underage audiences, perhaps its military should quit recruiting children.

Therefore, we advocate for our Pentagon and the rest of America’s war-making machine — the ever-euphemistic defense establishment — to adopt a code consistent with the American Medical Association’s ethics opinion on informed consent: “Patients have the right to receive information and ask questions about recommended treatments so that they can make well-considered decisions about care.” The AMA guidance further states that physicians — in our scenario, war doctors — should present relevant information about the “burdens, risks, and expected benefits of all options.”

Needless suffering, home and abroad

What, then, are some of the recruiting risks worth mentioning?

For starters, a survey by The Washington Post and the Kaiser Family Foundation reported that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan "have caused mental and emotional health problems in 31% of vets — more than 800,000 of them."

In one of the largest surveys available on post-9/11 veterans, “40% of veterans polled had considered suicide at least once after they joined the military” and roughly 20 veterans and active-duty service members committed suicide daily in the past several years — a truly staggering figure. That’s “more suicides each year than the total American military deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq," as a New York Times editorial board member characterized it.

Respect military service by ensuring that everyone who dons a uniform — beginning the moment when minors approach recruiting tables in high school lunchrooms — has informed consent about what they’re actually signing up for.
Respect military service by ensuring that everyone who dons a uniform — beginning the moment when minors approach recruiting tables in high school lunchrooms — has informed consent about what they’re actually signing up for.

Divorce, alcohol, drugs, depression, endless “zombie” medication to mitigate endless deployments — the whole nine yards. All of it ought to be raised before any American enlists, but we do not know of a single instance where a recruiter discussed the risks of military service.

'Losers' and 'suckers': Military service made men in my family nothing like Donald Trump

Likewise, because it is one of the most traumatic, highly personal elements of combat, recruits should recognize that America’s war on terror has resulted in the deaths, often violent, of more than 100 Sept. 11's worth of civilians from Africa to Central Asia. In the final sense, war offers only needless suffering. Ignorance to its evils is more needless still.

Taken collectively, burdens and risks seem subtle and are more easily dismissed. Most citizens prefer to avert their eyes than view war through honest lenses of fear, apathy, ignorance and guilt. The Pentagon, incidentally, seems quite happy with this arrangement.

More money, fewer victories

Americans have hardly exercised informed consent for their own defense. So few even comprehend the immensity of Pentagon largesse — the largest segment of the discretionary budget — its tradeoffs, or that it’s more than the next 10 countries combined (many of them U.S. allies).

Informed consent’s absence extends to the Overseas Contingency Operations account, a slush fund designed by defense hawks to circumvent spending controls imposed on all other government agencies.

Veteran: When I came home from Afghanistan, everyone wanted to know, 'Was it worth it?'

Such consent-free exorbitant expenditures might be excusable if they produced positive results. Only the U.S. military’s win/loss record since World War II is paltry at best: a tortured tie in Korea; losses in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq; and embarrassments in Beirut and Somalia — hardly offset by the “big” wins in small wars like Grenada and Panama. That scarcely justifies such extravagant spending. Yet fearmongering from the military-industrial-congressional complex, and cynically crafted cries to “support the troops,” stifle patriotic dissent.

Demands for informed consent are unlikely to emerge among Americans long trained to quietly capitulate to war industry whims. For now, it might fall on veterans themselves to disavow endless wars — the death and injury caused — and the unsustainable spending underpinning it all.

Maj. Gen. Dennis Laich retired from the Army after more than 35 years of service. He is a graduate of the Army War College and author of "Skin in the Game: Poor Kids and Patriots." Erik Edstrom graduated from West Point and deployed to combat as an infantry officer in Afghanistan. He is the author of "Un-American: A Soldier’s Reckoning of our Longest War." Both authors are senior fellows at the Eisenhower Media Network (EMN) — an organization of independent military and national security veteran experts.

Friday, February 5, 2021

Blinken holds first call with Chinese counterpart

 Secretary of State Antony Blinken spoke with his Chinese counterpart Friday, the first conversation between the two diplomats amid an adjustment in the relationship between Washington and Beijing. 

Blinken had a phone call with Chinese Director of the Office of the Central Commission for Foreign Affairs Yang Jiechi to extend his best wishes for a happy lunar new year, according to a readout of the call from the State Department. The secretary of State pushed Yang on reports of human rights abuses against Uighur Muslims in Xinjiang and the crackdown of civil rights in Tibet and Hong Kong, among other security-related issues.

“Secretary Blinken stressed the United States will continue to stand up for human rights and democratic values, including in Xinjiang, Tibet, and Hong Kong, and pressed China to join the international community in condemning the military coup in Burma,” the State Department said.

“The Secretary reaffirmed that the United States will work together with its allies and partners in defense of our shared values and interests to hold the [People's Republic of China] accountable for its efforts to threaten stability in the Indo-Pacific, including across the Taiwan Strait, and its undermining of the rules-based international system,” it added. 

The conversation comes at a time of uncertainty in the relationship between the U.S. and China in the new Biden administration.

President Biden has adopted a tough stance on China over its crackdown on human rights and violence against the Uighurs, as well as its economic pressure on the U.S.

“American leadership must meet this new moment of advancing authoritarianism, including the growing ambitions of China to rival the United States,” Biden said this week at the State Department. “We'll confront China's economic abuses; counter its aggressive, coercive action; to push back on China's attack on human rights, intellectual property, and global governance.”

Biden is also reviewing his predecessor’s decision to designate China’s oppression of its minority Muslim Uighurs as genocide, though that review is being conducted to ensure procedures were followed, not to dispute the severity of the crackdown.

However, Biden has also expressed openness to working with China on climate change.

The interests of Washington and Beijing are intersecting in Myanmar, where a military coup is underway against a nascent democratic government. Biden is leaning on the military to stand down, but experts say he may be wary of applying too much pressure for fear of pushing the country further into China’s arms.

-----------------------update-------------------------

(Adds China foreign ministry statement)

WASHINGTON, Feb 5 (Reuters) - U.S. Secretary of State AntonyBlinken told top Chinese diplomat Yang Jiechi in a phone call onFriday the United States will stand up for human rights anddemocratic values in Xinjiang, Tibet and Hong Kong, the StateDepartment said.

Blinken also pressed China to condemn the military coup inMyanmar, and he reaffirmed that Washington will work with alliesto hold China accountable for efforts to threaten stability ofIndo-Pacific, including across the Taiwan Strait, the departmentsaid in a statement.

Yang told Blinken that the United States should "correct"its recent mistakes and that both sides must respect eachother's political systems and development paths, according to astatement from the Chinese foreign ministry.

The relationship between the world's two biggest economieshit its lowest point in decades during the presidency of DonaldTrump, and Chinese officials have expressed cautious optimismthat it would improve under the administration of Joe Biden.

Yang told an online forum on Tuesday that he hoped relationsbetween the two countries could return to a predictable andconstructive track, but he called on the United States to "stopinterfering" on issues of Chinese sovereignty, includingXinjiang, Hong Kong and Tibet.

Foreign ministry spokesman Wang Wenbin also said on Fridaythat "the common interests of the two countries outweighed theirdifferences" and urged the United States to "meet China halfway"to improve relations.

However, criticism of China's human rights record hascontinued unabated, with the State Department saying on Thursdaythat it was "deeply disturbed" by reports of sexual abuseagainst women in internment camps for ethnic Uighurs and otherMuslims in Xinjiang..

Biden himself has shown little sign he is in a hurry toengage with Beijing, describing China on Thursday as "our mostserious competitor" and saying Washington would continue toconfront what he described as China's "attack on human rights,intellectual property and global governance".

"But we're ready to work with Beijing, when it's inAmerica's interest to do so," he added.

The Global Times, a tabloid run by Chinese Communist Partypaper the People's Daily, said in an editorial on Saturday thatit expected the Biden administration to keep talking tough whileimproving cooperation in some areas.

"This is obviously different from the later period ofTrump's administration, which had only hyped up antagonismbetween China and the U.S.," it said.(Reporting by Eric Beech and David Brunnstrom; Additionalreporting by David Stanway in Shanghai; Editing by Kim Coghilland Stephen Coates)


The BBC’s Horrifying Uyghur-Torture Story

 Comment by editor: this reminds us during WWII, the treatment of Jew by Nazi, which was also ignored by most countries and denied by the Nazi.

The BBC has published some of the most horrifying evidence yet of the Chinese Communist Party’s mass atrocities against the Uyghurs, detailing a disgusting campaign of systematic rape and torture.

An estimated 1 million Uyghurs — and other Turkic peoples in the Xinjiang region — are detained in the CCP’s concentration camps. The brave work of the victims of this modern gulag, as well as that of the reporters and researchers who have fought to bring their stories to light, has added granular detail to the world’s understanding of an ongoing crime against humanity. The BBC story is the latest emergency call for the world to speak the truth about what’s happening in Xinjiang, and do what it can to combat it.

The BBC story features the testimony of Tursunay Ziawudun, a Uyghur woman imprisoned for nine months in the camps. Weaving together the testimony of Ziawudun and other Uyghur detainees, interviews with teachers and police in Xinjiang, in addition to satellite and primary-source analysis corroborating their accounts, the BBC reporters show that the abuses go far beyond the regime’s aggressive program of political brainwashing.

The torture endured by these Uyghur women included rape and torture with electric batons, in addition to other unspeakable acts of sexual violence. At one point, a teacher forced to work in the camps recounts witnessing the gang rape of a 20- or 21-year-old girl perpetrated before an audience of 100 detainees; the authorities subsequently punished anyone with visibly distressed reaction. Such atrocities aren’t the work of individual sadists, but are deliberate and systematic, as dictated by China’s foul totalitarian regime and Communist Party general secretary Xi Jinping.

At the end of its report, the BBC quotes Ziawudun, “They say people are released, but in my opinion everyone who leaves the camps is finished.” In her view, as the BBC puts it, that’s the point of the “surveillance, the internment, the indoctrination, the dehumanisation, the sterilization, the torture, the rape.” Ziawudun again: “Their goal is to destroy everyone. And everybody knows it.”

Indeed, everybody knows it, or should. The CCP’s campaign against the Uyghurs is not merely a disproportionate reaction to terrorist attacks and riots that took place in Xinjiang in the years leading up to the current “strike hard” campaign. The BBC report shows how rape is wielded in the camps as a weapon against the Uyghurs as a people. It’s also been used in Uyghur homes, where under a Party program, Han Chinese men are sent to live with and share the beds of women whose husbands have been detained. And in June, it was revealed that the Party is engaged in a systematic campaign to forcibly sterilize Uyghur women and abort their pregnancies.

This all fits into Beijing’s longstanding plan of settling the region with Han Chinese, and in this future, there is no place for the Uyghurs. The regime doesn’t just want to eliminate their culture; it seeks their physical annihilation.

Chinese officials have compared their treatment of the Uyghurs to spraying crop-killing chemicals, likening practicing Muslim Uyghurs to malignant tumors and Islam to a communicable disease.

The Chinese Communist Party is guilty of crimes against humanity and genocide, as the State Department found in January, and as Joe Biden said on the campaign trail and Antony Blinken affirmed during his confirmation hearing. The CCP’s brutality meets the internationally recognized legal definitions for these acts, including under the U.N.’s 1948 Genocide Convention. Debate over the meaning of these terms can be overly legalistic but being forthright about them might help galvanize more of an international response.

There’s been some progress on that front, mostly led by the United States, but few countries have even issued a sharp condemnation of the CCP’s campaign against the Uyghurs. The U.N. secretary general hasn’t. Washington stands alone in having enacted sanctions targeting the officials responsible. And despite recent governmental moves to crack down on Uyghur forced labor, too many multinational corporations remain ensnared in Xinjiang’s slave-labor-supported cotton industry.

For every story like Ziawudun’s, there are probably hundreds of thousands of others just as horrific. Absent a drastic course correction, we will learn many of them one day — while sharing in the collective shame of not having done more.

特朗普将如何输掉与中国的贸易战

 编者:本文是 保罗·克鲁格曼于2024年11月15日发表于《纽约时报》的一篇评论文章。特朗普的重新当选有全球化退潮的背景,也有美国民主党没能及时推出有力候选人的因素。相较于民主党的执政,特朗普更加具有个人化的特点,也给时局曾经了更多的不确定性。 好消息:我认为特朗普不会引发全球...