On the evening of October 21, THE CNN website published an article attacking Dr. Yan, piecing together the opinions of six people and carrying out far-fetched questioning. However, most of them were political attacks without Posting the theme. ¹
The article described: ” As part of its review, CNN spoke with a half-dozen experts from multiple institutions. “
Take a look at the six so-called experts’ comments on Dr. Yan’s thesis:
One is Angela Rasmussen, a virologist at Columbia University.
In the CNN article, we did not find her corresponding response to Yan’s thesis and arguments, but some abusive words such as “deception”, “propaganda”, “politicization” and “nonsense”. She also had to admit that Dr. Yan’s paper “was written in very professional language and sounded like a proper scientific paper”.
Second, Professor Anna Mapp, University of Michigan.
CNN also did not publish the professor’s rebuttal of Yan’s thesis, only saying that she agreed with Angela Rasmussen.
It would be a waste of time to take a second look at such “technocrats”.
Third, Daniel R. Lucey (Daniel R. Lucey) of Georgetown University.
The professor, who has met Dr. Yan, is said by CNN to have been mildly critical of him and admits that he is not a molecular virologist. The funniest thing is that CNN published his question: Why did the Chinese Communist Party would release such a government-designed virus in Wuhan?
Dr. Yan has already replied to the world: “You should ask the CCP!”
Fourth, Nancy D. Connell,
Fifth, Gigi Kwik Gronvall,
Both work at The Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. One would expect to see people working at one of the world’s top research institutions showing the world’s top levels of rebuttal, argument selection and process, but they came as a surprise.
CNN’s articles only saw their objections to the two “notes” of Yan’s doctoral dissertation, the objection to citing the GNEWS article, and the pseudonym of the co-author.
Two of Dr. Yan’s papers have hundreds of annotations. Regardless of whether they are right or wrong (the author is not a virus major), the experts only use two annotations to discuss things. Is there a new interpretation of the idiom “nitpicking”?
What is the problem of citing GNEWS articles and mutual quotes written by the co-authors of the paper?
Using a pseudonym is a means of self-protection during a time when the Chinese communists are rampant. When the world understands the evil and demonic communists from the adventures of Dr. Yan, you will not accuse this angel who saves mankind!
It could be found that the Health and Safety Center of Johns Hopkins University has two brands. The other is the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Wikidata shows that “in memory of Michael Bloomberg’s financial support and commitment to the school and Johns Hopkins University, the institute was then renamed as the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health on April 20, 2001. Over the past few decades, Bloomberg has donated a total of US$2.9 billion to Johns Hopkins University.”²
Understood, the gold master Michael Bloomberg, Wang Qishan’s old friend, was told by Mr. Miles Guo that Bloomberg has repeatedly declared that Wang Qishan is the most powerful figure in Communist China.
Sixth, Anthony Fauci,
Needless to say, Fauci couldn’t tell the truth!
Please refer to the my GNEWS article on October 5, 2020: “Fauci, how long can you hide it! — The judge has ordered, submit the communication record.”