Bill Gurley: Searching for Feynman

频道: All-In Podcast
视频: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4Q7zAayW20
原文语言: en
统计: 共 49 轮 · Bill 33 · 主持人 8

[0:00]

Silicon Valley royalty, legendary investor Bill Gurley.

硅谷殿堂级人物，传奇投资人 Bill Gurley。

[0:04]

Track record's incredible.

战绩惊人。

[0:05]

The legend who backed Uber and Zillow, who's lived through every major tech cycle for over 25 years.

这位传奇人物投过 Uber 和 Zillow，25 年多来亲历了每一轮重大科技周期。

[0:11]

You're not just a commentator, right? You've been an operator.

你不只是个评论员，对吧？你是真正下场干过的人。

[0:15]

I'd love to unlock this latent human potential. There's been no time in the history of the world where you can learn faster. You can increase your surface area for luck. I'm not a big fan of these dystopian narratives. The thing to do right now is to run as fast as you can.

我很想把人类身上沉睡的潜力释放出来。人类历史上从来没有哪个时代，能让你学得像现在这么快。你可以扩大自己的「幸运表面积」。我不太认同那些反乌托邦的叙事。眼下该做的，就是拼尽全力往前跑。

[0:32]

Please welcome Bill Gurley.

有请 Bill Gurley。

[0:45] Bill

It's good to be here again. Three years ago, I gave a talk on regulatory capture and this group was quite kind in how they reacted and how that video was promoted. And I'm very happy we got that word out into the public discourse. Obviously, today you hear it quite a bit. Um I have a different topic I'm going to talk to you about today. It's not I'm not going to talk about AI. Um it's a serious topic and so there might not be as many fun joke parts in it. Um but it's something that's been weighing on my mind for the past five or six years and I'm thankful that the team here allowed me to come to talk to you about it and I'm hopeful that we can have an impact by getting the word out on this as well. I'm going to start by talking to you about some catastrophes that have happened in the world and how humans normally respond to them. This is the Champlain Towers in Surfside, Florida. You may remember in June of 2021 when the building suddenly collapsed. 98 people died. What happened? There were design errors from the very beginning. There was poor maintenance schedule. And then the the board of the condominium did not listen to an inspection report that said they needed to take care of this. Three different things. That's kind of the institutional failure. The technical failure was different and you can see it here. This is a New York Times article.

很高兴再次来到这里。三年前，我在这儿讲过监管俘获（regulatory capture），在座各位当时反响非常热情，那段视频也被大力推广。我很高兴我们把这个词带进了公共讨论——显然，如今你经常能听到它。今天我要讲一个不一样的话题。不是——我今天不讲 AI。这是个严肃的话题，所以可能不会有那么多好笑的段子。但这件事已经在我心头压了五六年，很感谢这里的团队让我来跟大家讲讲它，也希望这次同样能把话传出去，产生一些影响。我先从世界上发生过的一些灾难讲起，看看人类通常是怎么应对的。这是佛罗里达州瑟夫赛德（Surfside）的尚普兰大厦（Champlain Towers）。大家可能还记得，2021 年 6 月，这栋楼突然倒塌，98 人遇难。到底发生了什么？一是从一开始就存在设计错误；二是维护计划做得很差；三是公寓的业主委员会没有理会一份检查报告，而那份报告明确说了这个问题必须处理。三件不同的事，这算是制度性失败（institutional failure）。技术性失败（technical failure）是另一回事，大家可以在这里看到。这是《纽约时报》的一篇报道。

[2:07] Bill

Hopefully they can push play so you can see it's a it's a 3D article. If if if they can't make it play, you'll have to watch it on your own. Here we go. But the reason I want you to see this isn't to talk about the details of exactly how this collapsed. It turned out the pool deck was exposed to salt water air, corroded. The pool deck collapsed into the basement which took out the structural columns and the building came down. But what I want you to take away from this is the New York Times and its investigative team had excruciating detail about how this happened which comes from doing primary investigative work. There were four other parallel investigations that happened. The NIST is the National Institute of Standards and Technology. After 9/11, they were assigned as a federal agency to go investigate what happened in a building collapse. These two individuals, Matheny Reimann and Bell, would spend five years on this. Alan Kilshimer is the wolf of building collapses. He's who you call when you want to figure out what happened. The town of Surfside hired him. Judge Randal would convene a grand jury in the state of Florida to investigate this and there were 17 victim lawsuits which got put under a single class. Croppen was the the defendant or the litigant and Hanzman was the judge that did that. All of these different groups were doing investigations on their own. Sometimes running into each other, sometimes helping each other out, but all trying to get at what caused the failure.

希望后台能点一下播放，这样大家就能看到，这是一篇 3D 报道。要是放不出来，大家就只能自己回去看了。好，开始了。不过我让大家看这个，并不是要细讲它究竟是怎么塌的。后来查明，泳池平台长期暴露在含盐的海风里，被腐蚀了。泳池平台塌进了地下室，把承重柱也带垮了，整栋楼随之倒下。但我想让大家记住的是：《纽约时报》和它的调查团队把事情的经过挖到了极其详尽的程度，而这靠的是扎扎实实的一手调查。同时还有另外四路平行调查。NIST，也就是美国国家标准与技术研究院（National Institute of Standards and Technology），在 9·11 之后被指定为负责调查建筑倒塌原因的联邦机构。这两位，Mitrani-Reiser 和 Bell，在这件事上花了五年时间。Allyn Kilsheimer 算是楼房坍塌界的「狼先生」——想查清到底出了什么事，找的就是他。Surfside 镇请来的正是他。Randal 法官在佛罗里达州召集了大陪审团来调查此事；另外还有 17 起受害者诉讼，被合并成了一起集体诉讼。Croppen 是这个案子的被告——或者说诉讼方——主审法官则是 Hanzman。所有这些团队都在各自调查，有时撞到一块儿，有时互相帮忙，但都在努力查清这次事故的原因。

[3:40] Bill

One particularly heroic group was the Miami Herald. They had just gone through bankruptcy. They had a new executive editor named Monica Richardson. But they went after this hard. The beat reporter Alan Leibowitz, was on the scene within 2 hours. Sarah Blaskey would lead an investigative team. They would eventually find Don Lehman, who was a professor at the University of Washington, and she would join the team. Um they would have they would staff up to 37 people on this. They have a 3D uh model that's equally impressive to New York Times one, and they would deservedly win a Pulitzer Prize for the work that they did. Um when they won it, Monica Richardson, the executive editor, who also won an award for executive editor of the year from her peers, said, "We will continue to investigate the collapse to find answers to how this happened to ensure a tragedy like this never happens again." Now, finding the failure cause doesn't help if you don't prevent. This is a list of some of the changes that went into all the condominium rules in Florida, and thankfully multiple other states, especially coastal states, adopted them. So, you have change that causes prevention. That's what you want to have happen when these things happen.

其中特别英勇的一路是《迈阿密先驱报》（Miami Herald）。他们刚经历过破产，新来了一位执行主编，叫 Monica Richardson。但他们对这件事穷追不舍。跑这条线的记者 Alan Leibowitz 两小时内就到了现场。Sarah Blaskey 带领一支调查小组。他们后来找到了华盛顿大学的教授 Dawn Lehman，她也加入了团队。他们在这件事上前后投入了多达 37 个人。他们也做了一个 3D 模型，和《纽约时报》那个同样惊艳；他们凭这份工作拿下了普利策奖，实至名归。获奖时，执行主编 Monica Richardson——她本人也被同行评为年度执行主编——说：「我们会继续调查这次倒塌，找出它是怎么发生的，确保这样的悲剧永不重演。」不过，找到了事故原因，如果不去预防，也无济于事。这是佛罗里达州所有公寓管理规定中新增的一部分改动；值得庆幸的是，其他好几个州，尤其是沿海各州，也采纳了这些规定。于是，改变带来了预防。出了这种事，你希望看到的就是这样的结果。

[4:53] Bill

737 Max crash. Unfortunately, there were two crashes, October 2018 and March 2019. For those of you don't know know what happened, let me give you the really short version. Airbus had come out with a plane that was incredibly fuel efficient, and they were starting to take share from Boeing. Boeing wanted to respond. If they built a new plane, it required tons of hours of teaching and training, and and that makes it harder to sell. So, they decided they would attach a fuel-efficient engine to an old plane, the 737. That's how you get the name 737 Max. The problem is the engine was too big, and they had to move it forward on the wing. When you move it forward on the wing, the plane is imbalanced. And and they had this problem during test flights when it would occasionally tip up. So, they wrote a piece of software, secret software called MCAS, MCAS, and they put it in there without telling anybody. And if if the sensor went off and told them the plane was tipping up, the autopilot would push it down. The poor pilot that was flying the Ethiopian Airways flight, his sensor malfunctioned. The The The software thought that the plane was tilting up and it pushed it into the ground. That's what happened.

737 MAX 空难。很不幸，一共有两起：2018 年 10 月一起，2019 年 3 月一起。不了解来龙去脉的朋友，我给你们讲个极简版。Airbus 推出了一款极其省油的飞机，开始从 Boeing 手里抢市场份额。Boeing 想要反击。可如果造一款全新的飞机，就需要大量课时的教学和培训，那样会更难卖。于是他们决定把一台省油的发动机装到一款老飞机——737——上。737 MAX 这个名字就是这么来的。问题是发动机太大了，只能在机翼上往前挪。发动机往前一挪，飞机就失去了平衡。试飞时他们就遇到过这个问题，机头偶尔会往上翘。于是他们写了一段软件——一段秘密软件，叫 MCAS——装了进去，谁也没告诉。只要传感器报警，提示机头在上翘，自动驾驶就会把机头往下压。那位驾驶埃塞俄比亚航空航班的可怜飞行员，他的传感器出了故障。软件以为飞机在往上抬，就把它一头压向了地面。事情就是这样。

[6:11] Bill

There were many people that investigated this. I call them the six searchers. The US government did a Senate commission, a House commission, and the DOJ went after it. KNKT is the Indonesian firm that are the Indonesian agency that had the right to inspect the black boxes. They could tell very quickly the pilot was fighting the autopilot. The press played a key role. Dominic Gates had followed Boeing for the Seattle Times for 16 years. He would win a Pulitzer for his work here. Peter Robison wrote a book called Flying Blind. You can tell why it would have that title. 57 whistleblowers sent letters into the Senate to tell on Boeing. The victims' families showed up and were ever-present and put pressure on Congress to make sure something happened. And the The head of the pilot union was very upset that that they had put this piece of software in there and not told the pilots. Boeing tried to come have a sit-down with the pilots' union and they secretly recorded what Boeing said and gave it to the press. And then when they wouldn't respond to Boeing's request, the pilots' union issued FOIA requests against Boeing. It's unheard of. Now, in these situations where you have six searchers, you also have blockers.

调查这件事的人有很多，我管他们叫「六路追查者」（six searchers）。美国政府方面，参议院成立了委员会，众议院成立了委员会，DOJ（司法部）也介入追查。KNKT 是印尼有权检查黑匣子的机构（印尼国家运输安全委员会）。他们很快就看出，飞行员一直在跟自动驾驶较劲。媒体发挥了关键作用。Dominic Gates 在《西雅图时报》（Seattle Times）跟踪报道 Boeing 已有 16 年，他后来凭这件事的报道拿了普利策奖。Peter Robison 写了一本书，叫《Flying Blind》（盲飞）——你们能猜到它为什么叫这个名字。有 57 位吹哨人写信给参议院，举报 Boeing。遇难者家属也站了出来，始终在场，向国会施压，确保事情有个结果。飞行员工会的负责人非常愤怒：他们把这段软件装了进去，却没告诉飞行员。Boeing 想过来跟飞行员工会坐下谈谈，工会偷偷录下了 Boeing 说的话，交给了媒体。后来他们不再回应 Boeing 的请求，飞行员工会还针对 Boeing 提交了 FOIA（《信息自由法》）申请。这简直闻所未闻。在这种有六路追查者的局面里，也会有阻挠者（blockers）。

[7:27] Bill

And unfortunately, in this case, both Boeing and the FAA were being unhelpful in trying to find out what happened. Boeing initially accused the pilots of not being trained well enough. The FAA refused document requests to the Senate panel. And one thing I would tell you about these big organizations, when you put a spotlight on them, they can feel the weight of that spotlight, and they circle the wagons. I think part of it's institutional. I don't think they're necessarily evil. They're just they they have a sixth sense about how to respond when they're put on the spotlight that. Um the other thing that's interesting here is a lot of people came to think that Boeing and the FAA were working as one. Um Senator Ted Cruz, when he had the head of the FAA in front of in front of the Senate, literally accused him of being captured. There's our favorite word again. Um and he even said to him, "Sir, do you know you don't work for Boeing?" Um it one one of the real failures here in this case, 45 days after the first crash, almost everyone knew the MCAS software was at fault, and no one grounded the plane. Boeing didn't ground the plane, the FAA didn't ground the plane, and the second crash. I mean, the first crash should have never happened because that piece of software should have been identified, which would have required retraining, but the second crash should have really never happened.

很遗憾，在这起事件里，Boeing 和 FAA（美国联邦航空管理局）在查明真相上都不怎么配合。Boeing 起初指责飞行员培训不足。FAA 拒绝了参议院调查小组调取文件的要求。关于这些大机构，我想告诉大家一点：当你把聚光灯打到它们身上，它们能感受到那道光的分量，于是就抱团自保。我觉得这部分是机构本身的属性使然。我不认为它们就一定是邪恶的。它们只是……一被放到聚光灯下，就有一种知道该怎么应对的第六感。这里另一件有意思的事是，很多人开始觉得 Boeing 和 FAA 其实是一体的。参议员 Ted Cruz 把 FAA 负责人叫到参议院问话时，直接指责他已经被「俘获」了——又是我们最爱的那个词。他甚至对他说：「先生，您知道您不是给 Boeing 打工的吗？」这件事里真正的失败之一在于：第一次空难发生 45 天后，几乎所有人都知道是 MCAS 软件出了问题，却没有人让这款飞机停飞。Boeing 没有停飞，FAA 也没有停飞，于是发生了第二次空难。我的意思是，第一次空难本就不该发生，因为那段软件本该被识别出来——识别出来就得重新培训飞行员——但第二次空难更是万万不该发生。

[8:54] Bill

I wanted to share with you I don't want to go through this in detail, but these are the two different committees in the House and the Senate, and I just want to highlight that they were decidedly bipartisan. DeFazio was the head of the House Committee, very active. Ted Cruz and Wicker were super active. No one thought this was anything that should be partisan, nor should it be. It turns out the scientific community has a process they use when they want to do failure analysis. It's called CAPA, captive and preventive action. And there are there are five steps. You detect, you investigate, confirm root cause, correct, and prevent. And it's all about prevention. You want to stop this from happening again, but you can't skip root cause. That's a that's a requirement. You don't know how to fix it if you don't know exactly what happened. Um CAPA is required by law by the FDA and pharmaceuticals and medical device, the aerospace industry has regulations that require this type of process if you have a failure. Now, let's move on. Hurricane Katrina, 2005. Um Look at look at these stats. They're horrible. 1,800 deaths, 400,000 people displaced, damage $125 billion. What happened here? Well, the Army Corps of Engineers that built the levee want you to believe that the water went over the levees. But that's, you know, an an act of God, natural disaster. But this was only a hurricane, a category 3 level hurricane. What in fact happened was the levees gave way from underneath. They washed under. Um and that's what's unfortunate is this was a preventable accident as well.

我想跟大家分享一下——不展开细讲了——这是众议院和参议院的两个委员会，我只想强调，它们是毫无疑问的两党合作。众议院委员会主席 DeFazio 非常积极，Ted Cruz 和 Wicker 也极其积极。没有人觉得这件事应该分党派，它也本就不该分。原来，科学界做失效分析（failure analysis）时有一套专门的流程，叫 CAPA，也就是纠正与预防措施（Corrective and Preventive Action）。一共五步：发现、调查、确认根本原因、纠正、预防。核心就是预防——你要防止这种事再次发生，但你不能跳过找根本原因这一步，这是硬性要求。不确切知道发生了什么，你就不知道该怎么修。在制药和医疗器械领域，FDA（美国食品药品监督管理局）依法强制要求执行 CAPA；航空航天业也有法规，要求一旦出了故障就必须走这类流程。好，我们继续。2005 年，卡特里娜飓风。看看这些数字，触目惊心：1800 人死亡，40 万人流离失所，损失 1250 亿美元。这里发生了什么？修建堤坝的美国陆军工程兵团（Army Corps of Engineers）想让你相信，是洪水漫过了堤坝。可那样一来，就成了天灾、成了自然灾害。但这不过是一场飓风，一场 3 级飓风。实际情况是，堤坝是从底下垮掉的——底部被水掏空了。不幸的是，这同样是一场本可以避免的事故。

[10:31] Bill

Um as with these others, you have searchers and blockers. The House had a had a commission, the Senate had a commission, the press played a key role. Mark Schleifstein and and John McQuaid um had written a series 3 years earlier about how this could happen. They would win two Pulitzers. I actually had a chance to talk with John about it. Um the NSF, the National Science Foundation cared so much about this they did a bake-off for to have another team doing investigation and these two professors from the University of California led that. And then the the state of Louisiana hired a team out of LSU. And they all investigated and I you know, I talked to John sometimes, once again, running into each other, sometimes blocking, sometimes sharing notes, but all and they all came to the exact same conclusion that this was a man-made error. The US Corps of Engineers is the one that built the levees and they naturally, as I talked about, are going to act as blockers. What's weird here is they asked the American Society of Civil Engineers if they would um join the investigation, join the internal investigation, they paid them a million dollars. Um and over time, they would just get kind of encapsulated inside the Army Corps and become blockers themselves.

和其他案例一样，这里也有追查者和阻挠者。众议院成立了委员会，参议院也成立了委员会，媒体发挥了关键作用。Mark Schleifstein 和 John McQuaid 早在三年前就写过一组系列报道，讲这种事可能会怎样发生。他们后来拿下了两项普利策奖。我还真有机会跟 John 聊过这件事。NSF，也就是美国国家科学基金会（National Science Foundation），对此极为重视，专门搞了一轮遴选，让另一支团队也来做调查，由加州大学的这两位教授牵头。然后，路易斯安那州政府又从 LSU（路易斯安那州立大学）请了一支团队。他们都做了调查——我跟 John 聊过几次——同样是有时撞到一块儿，有时互相设阻，有时交换笔记，但最终他们都得出了完全相同的结论：这是人为失误。堤坝是美国陆军工程兵团修的，所以正如我前面说的，他们自然会扮演阻挠者的角色。奇怪的是，他们去请美国土木工程师学会（ASCE）加入调查——加入他们的内部调查——还付了对方 100 万美元。结果久而久之，这个学会就像被裹进了陆军工程兵团内部，自己也成了阻挠者。

[11:46] Bill

When this dust all settled, Raymond Seed, the uh professor from U Cal, he wrote a 42-page report to the ASCE explaining all the times that they blocked. That document's on the internet, you can go see it. Like 42 pages, that's a lot of blocking. Um the other thing that happened here that's great is prevention. Um these different investigations led to 90 recommendations. Those changes were made and the seawalls have held uh as $15 billion seawalls have held now for uh 20 years, which is great. Let me move through a couple more real quickly. This is Fukushima. 2,200 deaths, 154,000 displaced, 200 billion in cleanup. Um what happened here is is pretty simple. The seawall in front of the nuclear plant was 5.7 m. The water went over the wall, took out the generators, the cores started to melt down, there was no way to cool them, and the disaster happened. Um there were internal documents that showed they expected tsunamis in a 30-year window to be in the 10 to 15-m range, and they buried the report. So, if you'd simply raised the wall, this never happened. But it didn't happen. And in a lot of these cases, there's a combination of a technical failure and an institutional failure. The technical failure is what happens, you know, to the product or the service or the building or the seawall. The institutional failure is why did the humans let that become a weak point here?

等尘埃落定，加州大学的教授 Raymond Seed 给 ASCE 写了一份 42 页的报告，逐一说明他们每一次设阻的经过。那份文件网上就能找到，大家可以去看。42 页啊，那可是相当多的阻挠。这里另一件好事是预防。这些不同的调查一共提出了 90 条建议，相关改动都落实了；那些海堤——花了 150 亿美元修的海堤——到现在已经扛了 20 年，这很了不起。我再快速过几个。这是福岛。2200 人死亡，15.4 万人流离失所，清理花了 2000 亿。这里的情况相当简单：核电站前面的海堤高 5.7 米。海水漫过了堤，冲毁了发电机，堆芯开始熔毁，根本没法冷却，灾难就此发生。有内部文件显示，他们预计 30 年内会出现 10 到 15 米级别的海啸，却把这份报告压了下来。所以，只要把海堤加高，这一切根本不会发生。可他们就是没加高。在很多这样的案例里，技术性失败和制度性失败是交织在一起的。技术性失败，是产品、服务、建筑或者海堤本身出了什么问题；制度性失败，则是：人为什么会任由它变成薄弱环节？

[13:16] Bill

Um as with the others, the searchers and blockers oppressed played a role. Martin Fackler would at the New York Times spent 20 years in the Tokyo bureau. He would be a Pulitzer finalist. Mr. Yoichi Mitsu took a third the third-place paper and added 20 investigators to his staff to go after this. Had a huge impact, won two awards. The Japanese citizens were out in force both protesting and filing claims. And just like the FAA and Boeing, TEPCO was the company running the power plant, NISA was the regulator, and they blocked and they and they blocked and they got in the way. And in fact, the failure was partially just a result of regulatory capture once again that they they weren't playing the right role of regulator and regulatee, they'd almost become friends. Now, the real hero of this story is a guy named Kiyoshi Oh Kurokawa. Um he was asked by the Japanese parliament to lead the first ever private investigation they've ever had in their country's history. And they had they had a lot of power. They they were told that no one on the committee could have any institutional connection to the regulator or the power company. They had the full authority to go after anybody in any way. And they had a ton of meetings. Here are some of the stats.

和其他几起一样，这里也有追查者（searchers）和阻挠者（blockers）。媒体发挥了作用。《纽约时报》的 Martin Fackler 在东京分社待了 20 年，后来还入围了普利策奖决选。Yorimitsu 先生在一家排名第三的报纸，给手下增派了 20 名调查记者专门追查此事，影响巨大，还拿了两个奖。日本民众也大举行动起来，既上街抗议，也纷纷提出索赔。而跟 FAA 和 Boeing 如出一辙——TEPCO（东京电力公司）是运营这座核电站的公司，NISA（日本原子力安全保安院）是监管方——他们一再阻挠、处处设障。事实上，这次失败在一定程度上又是监管俘获造成的：他们没有扮演好监管者与被监管者各自的角色，双方几乎成了朋友。而这个故事里真正的英雄，是一位名叫 Kiyoshi Kurokawa（黑川清）的人。日本国会请他牵头一项调查，这是日本有史以来第一次民间调查。他们手握很大的权力：按规定，委员会里任何人都不得与监管机构或电力公司有任何机构上的关联；他们获得了充分授权，可以用任何方式追查任何人。他们开了大量的会。这里是一些数据。

[14:36] Bill

Kurokawa, when he kicked this off, said he had three mandates that he wanted to adhere to. One, he cared about human safety. He didn't want it to be a battle about nuclear energy. Two, he said the investigation should definitely result in recommendations. And third, he knew the weight of this because of Three Mile Island and Chernobyl from a global perspective, and he cared about that. Now, interestingly, he's a medical doctor. He's not a nuclear physicist, but he led this this commission with a level of grace and professionalism that that makes him a hero from my perspective. All these searchers are heroes from my perspective. He would publish a report 7 months later. Interestingly, they chose to publish it in English first because they were worried about global transparency and how they were perceived. And in the in the first sentence he says "The accident at the power plant cannot be regarded as a natural disaster. It was profoundly man-made and it could have and should have been prevented." Powerful. One last one. This is the Challenger shuttle disaster. January 1986. I remember where I was. It was a Tuesday. I was in college. It was a long time ago. Um Everyone If you've seen the documentaries, you know what happened here. The O-rings on the solid rocket boosters weren't designed for cold.

Kurokawa 在调查启动时说，他要坚守三项使命。第一，他关心的是人的安全，不希望这变成一场关于核能的论战。第二，他说这次调查一定要落到具体的建议上。第三，有三里岛和切尔诺贝利在前，他清楚这件事在全球层面的分量，也很看重这一点。有意思的是，他是一名医生，不是核物理学家，但他领导这个委员会时展现出的风度和专业精神，让他在我眼里成了英雄。在我眼里，所有这些追查者都是英雄。7 个月后，他发布了调查报告。有意思的是，他们选择先发布英文版，因为他们在意全球层面的透明度，也在意外界如何看待他们。报告第一句话就写道：「核电站的这场事故不能被视为自然灾害。它彻头彻尾是一场人祸，本可以、也本应该被避免。」很有力量。最后一个案例。这是挑战者号航天飞机灾难，1986 年 1 月。我记得当时我在哪儿——那天是星期二，我还在上大学。那是很久以前的事了。看过那些纪录片的人都知道当时发生了什么：固体火箭助推器上的 O 形环（O-ring）并不是为低温设计的。

[16:00] Bill

Turns out it was cold that morning in Florida and that flaw caused a problem. Unfortunately, the subcontractor that had worked on that piece tried to object the night before that they shouldn't launch and he got shut down. So, you have a technical failure and institutional failure once again. Now, I can talk about a lot of searches and blockers, but I'm just going to talk about one, Richard Feynman, who was already mentioned during the All-In conference this week. Um Richard Feynman to was a professor at Caltech. Um when when the shuttle Challenger blew up, Ronald Reagan created the Rogers Commission and they added mostly insiders. Neil Armstrong, they had astronauts, they had generals, they had people from Washington, people from NAS NASA executives. But, someone had the idea that they should put Feynman on there. And I think they wanted like a stamp of approval from a physicist. The good The good news is it made a lot of sense. He's one of the most famous scientists of all time. He won a Nobel Prize and he worked on the Manhattan Project. So, he had a lot of credibility. What they didn't know is he's fiercely independent, he's highly truth-seeking, and he has zero time for unnecessary diplomacy. They didn't know that was coming.

结果那天早上佛罗里达偏偏很冷，这个缺陷就酿成了问题。不幸的是，负责这个部件的分包商前一天晚上曾试图提出反对，说不应该发射，但他被压了下去。所以，这又一次是技术性失败加上制度性失败。追查者和阻挠者我能讲的有很多，但我只讲一位：Richard Feynman（理查德·费曼），这周的 All-In 大会上已经有人提到过他。Richard Feynman 当时是加州理工学院（Caltech）的教授。挑战者号爆炸后，Ronald Reagan 成立了罗杰斯委员会（Rogers Commission），成员大多是圈内人：有 Neil Armstrong，有宇航员、有将军，有华盛顿来的人，还有 NASA 的高管。但有人想到，应该把 Feynman 也放进去。我觉得他们大概是想找一位物理学家来盖个章、背个书。好在这确实很说得通：他是有史以来最有名的科学家之一，拿过诺贝尔奖，参与过曼哈顿计划，所以公信力很高。他们不知道的是，这个人极其独立，执着于追求真相，对不必要的圆滑周旋一点耐心都没有。他们没料到会迎来这么一位。

[17:19] Bill

Um He didn't want to do it. He said he hated Washington. I kind of get that. Um His wife talked him into it, but once he did it, he cleared his schedule. He took everything off his calendar for 6 months into the future. None of the other commission members did that. And he started doing investigation on his own before he ever went to Washington. He's like showing up at NASA facilities and like asking to meet with people. And when he got to Washington, none of the other members wanted to act that way. In fact, Neil Armstrong told him, you know, we just evaluate, we don't investigate. It was too late. He was already doing it. Now, three fun facts about this. Um First of all, there's a famous story, if you watch any of the documentaries, where Rogers runs into Neil Armstrong in the bathroom and says, "Feynman's being a real pain in the ass." Um The second thing is, he staged a stunt on live television. He found some material that was similar to the O-ring and and in front of everybody, he dipped it in his cold ice water in front of him and picked pulled it out and cracked it to show the failure. It infuriated the rest of the commission. And then lastly, when he submitted all his notes to the commission, they wrote a final report, they didn't They really kind of smoothed over everything and he was pissed. And so he called Rogers and said, "You know what? Take my name off of it." Of course, he'd already done the thing on TV. There's no way they could take their name off of it. They caved. Appendix F to the report is all of his notes included in their entirety.

他本来不想干。他说他讨厌华盛顿——这我多少能理解。是他妻子劝他接下的，可一旦接下来，他就清空了日程，把往后 6 个月日历上的所有安排全推掉了。委员会里没有别的成员这么做。而且他还没去华盛顿，就已经开始自己调查了：他会直接跑到 NASA 的各个设施，要求跟人见面谈。等他到了华盛顿，其他成员谁都不想这么干。事实上，Neil Armstrong 还对他说过：我们只负责评估，不负责调查。可已经晚了，他早就在查了。关于这件事有三个趣闻。第一，有个很有名的故事，看过任何一部相关纪录片的人都知道：Rogers 在洗手间碰到 Neil Armstrong，对他说：「Feynman 真是烦死人了。」第二，他在电视直播上导演了一出好戏。他找来一块和 O 形环材质相似的材料，当着所有人的面，把它泡进自己面前那杯冰水里，再拿出来一掰就裂了，以此演示故障所在。这把委员会其他人都气坏了。最后，他把自己所有的笔记都交给了委员会，可委员会写出的最终报告并没有……基本上把所有问题都粉饰过去了，他火冒三丈，于是打电话给 Rogers 说：「这样吧，把我的名字从报告上撤掉。」当然，他已经在电视上来过那么一出了，他们根本不可能把他的名字撤掉。他们让步了。报告的附录 F 就是他的笔记，一字不删、全文收录。

[18:46] Bill

Now, why am I talking to you about all these catastrophes and searchers and blockers and heroes like Kurokawa and Feynman? Because I want to talk to you about COVID-19. In December of 2019, COVID-19 caused 15 million deaths, disrupted every life on the planet, and cost our globe 45 trillion dollars. It was particularly hard on children. You've read about learning loss. My kids were in high school and college and missed 3 years of the most formative years of your life. I never want to live through this thing again in my life. But guess what? For all the For all the other catastrophes, I told you what root cause is. Six years later, we don't know. So, forgive me if I'm unafraid of what some AI guy's chatbot is going to do to humanity when you can't tell me what this thing already did. My my my P second COVID is way higher than my P doom. And if their models are so smart, tell me what happened here. Let's get them working on this problem. I want to I want to put this in perspective. I've added up all the deaths and costs of the five catastrophes I taught walked through with you, and you get to 5,000 deaths and $349 billion. COVID is 3,000 times bigger than that. Feynman in one of the documentaries said someone was telling him he needed to be nicer, and he said, "But seven people died."

我为什么要跟大家讲这么多灾难，讲追查者和阻挠者，讲 Kurokawa 和 Feynman 这样的英雄？因为我想跟大家聊聊新冠（COVID-19）。从 2019 年 12 月开始，新冠造成了 1500 万人死亡，打乱了地球上每一个人的生活，让全世界付出了 45 万亿美元的代价。它对孩子的打击尤其大——大家都读到过关于学习损失的报道。我的孩子们当时在上高中和大学，错过了人生中最关键的成长阶段里的 3 年。这辈子我再也不想经历一次这种事了。可你猜怎么着？前面所有那些灾难，我都能告诉你根本原因是什么。而这一次，六年过去了，我们仍然不知道。所以请原谅我，我并不害怕哪个搞 AI 的家伙做的聊天机器人会对人类干出什么来——眼前这个东西已经造成的后果，你们都还没法告诉我是怎么回事。我的 P(second COVID)——也就是再来一次新冠的概率——远远高于我的 P(doom)（AI 导致人类末日的概率）。要是他们的模型真那么聪明，那就告诉我这里到底发生了什么。让它们来攻克这个问题吧。我想帮大家把量级摆清楚：我把刚才带大家过了一遍的五场灾难的死亡人数和损失加起来，一共是 5000 人死亡、3490 亿美元。新冠是它的 3000 倍。在一部纪录片里，Feynman 说有人劝他应该客气一点，他回答：「可是死了七个人啊。」

[20:44] Bill

If If you If you have to get through niceties and seek truth when seven people died, how are you supposed to behave when 15 million people die? I can take it even further. I add up all plane accidents, all hurricanes, all nuclear accidents, all building collapses, all space accidents. You still only get 1/3 of the way to what happened with COVID. We should want to know what happened here so we can stop this from happening again. Here's what didn't happen, and this is shocking because all these wonderful people, all these well-intended people did this in the other cases, which were much smaller, and they did it in a purposeful and meaningful way. There's no committed newsroom with over 30 investigators on COVID. None of the major papers did that. There was no Gates or Schles- Schlesinger or Flackerd, like a a dogged investigative reporter that had the backing of his newsroom going after this. No bipartisan Senate congressional committees, like you had in Katrina and 737 Max. You didn't have a standalone investigation with someone like Fineman or or or Kirakawa. Um there was no science-funded investigation. The The NIST and the NSF launched them in these other two cases. NIH didn't fund a third-party investigation here, and no massive victims' lawsuit to figure out what happened.

如果死了七个人，你都得抛开客套去追查真相，那死了 1500 万人的时候，你又该怎么做？我还可以说得更极端一些：把所有空难、所有飓风、所有核事故、所有楼房倒塌、所有航天事故全部加起来，也才只到新冠的三分之一。我们理应想知道这里到底发生了什么，这样才能阻止它再次发生。下面说说哪些事没有发生——这很令人震惊，因为在其他那些规模小得多的案例里，这么多了不起的人、这么多出于善意的人都做了这些事，而且做得有目标、有意义。没有哪个编辑部专门投入 30 多名调查记者来追查新冠，没有一家大报这么做。没有 Gates、Schleifstein 或 Fackler 那样背后有编辑部撑腰、咬住不放的调查记者去追这件事。没有像卡特里娜飓风和 737 MAX 那样两党合作的参众两院调查委员会。也没有由 Feynman 或 Kurokawa 这样的人主导的独立调查。没有由科研机构出资的调查——在另外那两个案例里，NIST 和 NSF 都发起了调查，而这一次，NIH（美国国立卫生研究院）并没有资助第三方调查。也没有大规模的受害者诉讼去查清真相。

[22:07] Bill

So, what went wrong? I'm going to share some thoughts with you, and I I want you to be aware of a couple piece of information that I think are kind of new or new to be understood. Um but I and I want to make one one qualification. This has been bothering me for a long time. I've read a ton. Um I I'm sure there are people that are smarter than me on this, but I'm got to be top 1% in terms of how much information I've consumed. The first thing I would tell you is these five people were relied on as experts. You know the first two, Francis Collins, Anthony Fauci. Peter Daszak runs something called the EcoHealth Alliance. It's a nonprofit that did virology research. Jeremy Farrar was ahead of the Welcome Trust that funded a lot of this stuff and went on to work at the WHO. And then Ralph Baric is the top virologist in the US at the University of North Carolina. What I'm here to tell you is they weren't experts, they were blockers. They acted exactly like FAA and Boeing and NASA did in these other situations. And I'm going to give you four reasons why I know they're blockers. First, they're virol- virology insiders. So, as I said, there's going to be a natural instinct to circle the wagon when someone shines a spotlight on you.

那么，问题出在哪儿？我来分享一些想法，也想让大家知道几条信息，我觉得它们算是比较新的，或者说是刚开始被人们弄明白的。不过我想先做个说明：这件事困扰我很久了，我读了大量资料。我相信在这个问题上有比我更聪明的人，但就消化过的信息量而言，我肯定排得进前 1%。首先我要告诉大家，这五个人曾被当作专家来倚重。前两位大家都知道：Francis Collins、Anthony Fauci。Peter Daszak 掌管着一家叫 EcoHealth Alliance 的机构，这是一家做病毒学研究的非营利组织。Jeremy Farrar 曾执掌 Wellcome Trust（惠康基金会），这家基金会资助了很多这方面的研究，他后来去了 WHO（世界卫生组织）工作。还有 Ralph Baric，他在北卡罗来纳大学，是美国顶尖的病毒学家。我今天要告诉大家的是：他们不是专家，他们是阻挠者。他们的所作所为，和 FAA、Boeing、NASA 在其他那些事件里一模一样。我给大家四个理由，说明我为什么认定他们是阻挠者。第一，他们是病毒学圈内人。就像我说过的，当有人把聚光灯打到你身上时，人会本能地抱团自保。

[23:18] Bill

Two, they led a misinformation campaign to take us off the lead and to tell us not to search. I'm going to tell you about that in a second. Three, they were all outspoken gain-of-function advocates prior to COVID coming along. And if you don't know what gain-of-function is, it's when you take a virus and you make it intentionally more dangerous to animals or humans. They felt that that was smart to do. Obama had outlawed it. They were constantly promoting to try and make it more happen more often. Fauci in 2011 wrote an article in the Washington Post, an editorial, where he said the pros outweigh the cons. Now, if you talk to any behavioral psychologist, if you've told the world we should definitely do this and the pros outweigh the cons, there's zero chance you can be impartial when it comes to figuring out what happened because to go home at night and think that something you did contributed to the death of 15 million people would be impossible to go to bed. Your brain's much more likely to trick you into just thinking it didn't happen. You wouldn't be allowed on a jury if you had that kind of uh bias. And the fourth reason, and the most important reason I know they're blockers, is cuz they didn't search. I tell you they stopped searching, but they never started searching.

第二，他们主导了一场散布错误信息的运动，把我们从线索上引开，叫我们别去追查。这个我待会儿细说。第三，在新冠出现之前，他们全都是功能增益（gain-of-function）研究的公开鼓吹者。如果你不知道什么是功能增益，就是拿一种病毒，故意让它对动物或人类变得更危险。他们觉得这么做很明智。Obama 当年禁止过这种研究，他们却一直在大力推动，想让这类研究做得越来越多。Fauci 2011 年在《华盛顿邮报》（Washington Post）上写过一篇评论文章，说这类研究利大于弊。你去问任何一位行为心理学家都会知道：如果你曾向全世界宣称我们绝对应该这么做、利大于弊，那么在查清真相这件事上，你根本不可能保持公正。因为晚上回到家，一想到自己做过的事可能促成了 1500 万人的死亡，你是不可能睡得着的。你的大脑更可能骗你，让你干脆相信这事没发生过。有这种偏见的人，是当不了陪审员的。而第四个理由，也是我认定他们是阻挠者最重要的理由：他们根本没有追查。我本想说他们停止了追查，可他们压根就没开始过。

[24:33] Bill

And they should have been searching. They should still be searching. There are people that did search. They're not at large institutions. The two on the bottom, DRASTIC is a loosely affiliated group of scientists that came together and share information. They have a website. You should follow them. Um it's like 20 Nick Sherleys that are all virologists or scientists. Um US Right to Know is a non-profit that's filed the majority of the FOIA claims here and um, you can donate to them. I have. But, I want to tell you about these five heroes. They're heroes of mine that have been actively trying to find out what happened from the very beginning. Alina Chan was one of the first molecular biologist that that realized that the virus looks like it was designed for humans. She wrote a book with Matt Ridley. And here's some really good news. In the past couple of years, the New York Times has published two of her op-eds. I would rather it be the investigative team at the New York Times, but it's a start. They're really good. Read both of them. Katherine Eban was the first person to really stick their neck out and say, "We're not looking at this the right way." She published an article oddly in Vanity Fair titled The Fight to Discover COVID Origins. And I I think the title's important because the fight was about the discovery process.

而他们本该去追查，现在也仍然应该追查。确实有人在追查，但他们都不在大机构里。最下面这两个：DRASTIC 是一个松散的科学家团体，大家聚到一起分享信息。他们有个网站，你们应该关注一下。这个团体就像是 20 个 Nick Shirley（美国的独立调查类 YouTube 博主），只不过个个都是病毒学家或科学家。US Right to Know 是一家非营利组织，这件事上大部分的 FOIA 申请都是他们提交的，大家可以给他们捐款——我就捐了。不过我想跟大家讲讲这五位英雄。在我心目中他们是英雄，从一开始就一直在积极追查真相。Alina Chan 是最早意识到这种病毒看起来像是为人类而设计的分子生物学家之一。她和 Matt Ridley 合写了一本书。还有个特别好的消息：过去这几年，《纽约时报》刊登了她的两篇评论文章。我倒更希望是《纽约时报》的调查团队来做这件事，但总算是个开始。这两篇写得非常好，都去读一读。Katherine Eban 是第一个真正敢冒风险站出来说「我们看待这件事的方式不对」的人。说来也怪，她的文章发在《名利场》（Vanity Fair）上，标题是《The Fight to Discover COVID Origins》（探寻新冠起源之战）。我觉得这个标题很重要，因为这场斗争恰恰是围绕「探寻」这个过程本身展开的。

[25:52] Bill

Emily Kopp worked for US Right to Know. She may know more than anybody. She's been the one uncovering all of these documents. And we've been getting more and more documents each and every day, so we're learning more. Zeynep Tufekci is a professor at Princeton who also writes sometimes for the New York Times. I'm going to tell you something she did recently that I think is super important. And then Alison Young wrote a book called Pandora's Gamble that looks at all of the lab leak failures that have happened prior to COVID, which is an interesting and relevant data point to study if you want to consider whether or not that was part of the problem. These five women have been attacked for sticking their neck out. Some of them directly by the men on the previous slide. And I think that's completely unreasonable. Um, I think they're heroes. Now, there's two things I want to tell you about and then I'll and then I'll I'll wrap it up. There's two pieces of information you should know about. I said earlier that the five experts blockers had had created a misinformation campaign to take us off the lead. I think that's an understatement on what they created a highly successful misinformation campaign to convince everyone that lab that animal spillover was a decidedly determined cause of this and that anyone that considered a lab leak even thought about or asked a single question was a conspiracy theorist and they were successful at it. They leveraged the the scientific journal community which they understood. The proximal origins paper went out. Like this thing was written in like a week. There's no way you did an investigation. They just wanted to to to get it out there and then the Lancet had a similar one.

Emily Kopp 曾在 US Right to Know 工作。她可能比任何人都更了解内情——这些文件都是她一份份挖出来的。而且我们每天都在拿到越来越多的文件，所以了解得也越来越多。Zeynep Tufekci 是普林斯顿的教授，也时常给《纽约时报》写文章。待会儿我要讲她最近做的一件事，我觉得非常重要。还有 Alison Young，她写了一本书叫《Pandora's Gamble》（潘多拉的赌局），梳理了新冠之前发生过的所有实验室泄漏事故——如果你想判断实验室是不是问题的一部分，这是一个有意思、也很相关、值得研究的数据点。这五位女性因为挺身而出而遭到攻击，其中有些人正是被上一张幻灯片上的那几位男性直接攻击的。我认为这完全不合理。嗯，我认为她们是英雄。好，还有两件事要告诉你们，然后我就收尾。有两条信息你们应该知道。我前面说过，那五位专家——也就是「阻挠者」——搞了一场误导运动，把我们从线索上引开。我觉得这么说还是轻了：他们搞的是一场非常成功的误导运动，让所有人相信动物溢出（animal spillover）已经被明确认定为病因，而任何考虑过实验室泄漏、哪怕只是想过、或者问过一个问题的人，都是阴谋论者——而且他们成功了。他们借助了自己熟悉的学术期刊圈子。「Proximal Origin」那篇论文发了出来。这东西大概一个星期就写完了，根本不可能做过调查，他们就是想赶紧把它推出去。然后《柳叶刀》（The Lancet）也发了一篇类似的。

[27:42] Bill

These these papers have been cited over and over and over again. If you try and like go through Wikipedia, you just always end up going back to them. So they were highly successful. They also somehow made this thing partisan. Using the word conspiracy theory with Trump back I don't know how it happened but they were able to get people in their surveys and polls. People what do you think caused COVID? And if you're Democrat or Republican you have a different answer. That's nuts. Like there's no way that should be relevant in this discussion. Um Recently more and more of this information's come out and so you have um more more understanding of how they came to write these papers. Like and you can see inconsistencies between what they think and what they wrote. Um Zeynep put this on Twitter 45 days ago and I think she chose her words very carefully. She said incontrovertible proof of a conspiracy to cover up and deny the possibility it well may be a lab mishap orchestrated from the highest levels of the scientific establishment and a self-serving group of scientists who deliberately deliberately misled the public. Those are strong words. She put that up 45 days ago. It has 400,000 views and zero community notes, at least today. Maybe tomorrow it will have some.

这些论文被一遍又一遍地引用。你去翻维基百科，最后总会绕回到它们身上。所以他们非常成功。他们还不知怎么地把这件事变成了党派问题——「阴谋论」这个词和特朗普绑在了一起。我也不知道是怎么做到的，但他们做到了：在各种调查和民调里问人们「你认为新冠是什么引起的？」，民主党人和共和党人的答案不一样。这太离谱了，这件事跟你投谁的票根本不该有关系。嗯，最近越来越多的信息被披露出来，所以我们对他们当初是怎么写出这些论文的了解得更多了——你能看到他们心里的想法和他们写出来的东西之间的矛盾。嗯，Zeynep 45 天前在 Twitter 上发了这条，我认为她的措辞非常谨慎。她说：「无可辩驳的证据表明，存在一场掩盖并否认这种可能性的共谋——它很可能是一场实验室事故——由科学界最高层策划，由一小撮只顾自身利益、蓄意误导公众的科学家实施。」这话说得很重。她 45 天前发的，有 40 万次浏览，没有一条社区笔记（community notes）——至少到今天为止。也许明天就会有。

[29:01] Bill

Um Katherine Eban was was more terse but equally opinionated. She calls it manufactured consensus. If you feel strongly, you think you know what happened in COVID, you need to understand that this happened. It took people off the scent. Three years after COVID, the DRASTIC team uncovered this document. It's called the DEFUSE proposal. Who's heard of the DEFUSE proposal? Raise your hand. This is nuts. Look, it's like three people. Okay? Um no major journals ever covered the DEFUSE proposal. It's um There was a survey of scientists who who they said, "Do you What do you think caused it?" If they said animal spillover, they said, "Have you heard of DEFUSE?" Only 70 Only 22% had. 78% said they'd never heard of it. What's the DEFUSE proposal? Three years after COVID, DRASTIC uncovered this document. You can go download it. It's real. Um it was a proposal by EcoHealth Alliance, Peter Daszak's company, to that connects the top virologist at Duke in North Carolina with the top virologist at Wuhan, the the bat lady, uh Shi Zhengli. And there's a proposal that they're going to insert a furin cleavage site at the S1 and S2 junction of a bat coronavirus because they think it'll make it more viral in animals.

嗯，Katherine Eban 说得更简短，但观点同样鲜明。她把它叫作「制造出来的共识」（manufactured consensus）。如果你对新冠有很强的看法、自认为知道发生了什么，你得明白发生过这样的事——它把人们从线索上引开了。新冠暴发三年后，DRASTIC 团队挖出了这份文件，叫 DEFUSE 项目书。谁听说过 DEFUSE 项目书？请举手。这太离谱了。你们看，大概就三个人。好吧。嗯，没有任何一家主要期刊报道过 DEFUSE 项目书。有一项针对科学家的调查，问他们：「你认为是什么引起的？」如果回答是动物溢出，就接着问：「你听说过 DEFUSE 吗？」只有 22% 的人听说过，78% 说从没听说过。DEFUSE 项目书是什么？新冠三年后，DRASTIC 挖出了这份文件。你可以去下载，它是真的。嗯，这是 EcoHealth Alliance——Peter Daszak 的公司——提交的一份项目书，它把北卡罗来纳州杜克大学（Duke）的顶尖病毒学家，和武汉的顶尖病毒学家、「蝙蝠女侠」石正丽（Shi Zhengli）联系在一起。项目书里提出，要在一种蝙蝠冠状病毒的 S1 和 S2 连接处插入一个弗林蛋白酶切割位点（furin cleavage site），因为他们认为这会让它在动物身上的传染性更强。

[30:21] Bill

And it's in a document. I went to AI. I said, "Let's do a clean session AI." That means don't look at anything I've ever told you before. If I were interested in helping to solve the origin of COVID, and I was using the scientific principles of Kappa to guide me, how would I react to finding the DEFUSE proposal? Look at these answers. Direct investigative lead, highly critical, major investigative lead. Yes, that would be a high priority piece of evidence. Primary document evidence, highest tier evidence class. Most people don't know about this thing. And I I would make an assertion, had this document been exposed in January of 2020, we would have had a very different conversation back then. Um, but it wasn't. The searchers are aware of the document, Rand Paul is aware of the document. Hopefully now you're all aware of the document. One other thing I I I think I need to say, um, if you ask these AI bots what would you do next in your Kappa profit process, they say you would go after documents at Duke University and University of North Carolina. And the searchers have been doing that. Unfortunately, the University of North Carolina and the state of North Carolina are blockers. They're refusing to deliver the documents. And I would encourage, if any of you have connections to UNC or know anyone on the board, I would encourage you to make them think about whatever they're protecting and whether that's more important than preventing the next one of these.

这是白纸黑字写在一份文件里的。我去问了 AI。我说：「我们开一个干净的 AI 会话。」意思是别参考我以前跟你说过的任何东西。「如果我想帮忙查清新冠的起源，并用 CAPA（纠正与预防措施）的科学原则来指导自己，我发现 DEFUSE 项目书时应该作何反应？」看看这些回答：直接的调查线索、高度关键、重大调查线索；是的，这会是高优先级的证据；原始文件证据，最高等级的证据类别。大多数人都不知道这个东西。我敢断言，如果这份文件在 2020 年 1 月就被曝光，我们当时的讨论会完全不一样。嗯，但它没有。追查者们知道这份文件，Rand Paul 也知道这份文件，希望现在你们也都知道了。还有一件事我觉得我必须说：嗯，如果你问这些 AI 机器人，在 CAPA 流程里下一步该做什么，它们会说，应该去调取杜克大学和北卡罗来纳大学的文件。追查者们一直在做这件事。遗憾的是，北卡罗来纳大学和北卡罗来纳州成了阻挠者，他们拒绝交出文件。我想呼吁：如果你们当中有人跟北卡罗来纳大学（UNC）有关系、或者认识董事会的人，请让他们想一想，他们在保护的东西，是否比防止下一次这样的灾难更重要。

[31:49] Bill

Um, if you want to learn more about this, Matt Ridley just did an interview last March with Jay Bhattacharya at NIH. It's a great way to catch up on everything people have been learning. And as we look forward, and this is where I'd love your help, let's support the searchers. We have to find a root cause to this thing. We don't want this to happen again. Um, I can't tell you that I speak for science like Anthony Fauci did, but I can tell you I speak for scientific inquiry. There's no one that should be telling you you can't search. That makes no sense whatsoever. You're not a bad person if you search, you're a good person if you search. Um, you have to move through and around the blockers. I don't think you want to attack the blockers. I think Rand Paul is making a mistake making it about prosecution. We should make it about root cause and prevention. Um this isn't partisan, it should have never been. If your view on what caused COVID is because of who you vote for, please reconsider that. Um I would ask the newsrooms to dive in, be like Monica Richardson, and then let's put a truly independent commission together. Let's find our Kure and our Fineman. I'm going to leave you with a quote. I'm way over time. I'm going to leave you with a quote that's attributed Plato that sums up what I've been thinking here.

嗯，如果你想了解更多，Matt Ridley 在刚过去的 3 月和 NIH 的 Jay Bhattacharya 做了一次访谈，是补课、了解大家目前所知一切的好途径。展望未来——这也是我希望得到你们帮助的地方——让我们支持追查者。我们必须找到这件事的根本原因（root cause），我们不想让它再次发生。嗯，我没法像 Anthony Fauci 那样说我代表科学，但我可以说我代表科学探究。任何人都不应该告诉你不许去追查，那完全说不通。你去追查，你不是坏人；你去追查，你是好人。嗯，你得绕过、穿过那些阻挠者。我不认为你应该去攻击阻挠者。我认为 Rand Paul 把它变成追诉问题是个错误，我们应该把重点放在根本原因和预防上。嗯，这不是党派问题，它本来就不该是。如果你对新冠起因的看法取决于你投谁的票，请重新想一想。嗯，我想请各个新闻编辑部深入进去，像 Monica Richardson 那样；然后让我们组建一个真正独立的调查委员会。让我们找到我们自己的 Kurokawa 和我们自己的 Feynman。我要用一句话来收尾——我已经严重超时了——用一句据说出自柏拉图的话，它概括了我在这里一直在想的东西。

[33:08] Bill

We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark. The real tragedy in life is when men are afraid of the light. Thank you.

「我们可以轻易原谅一个怕黑的孩子；人生真正的悲剧，是成年人害怕光明。」谢谢大家。

[33:17] 主持人

Wow. I got to ask you a question. Stay out here. No, no, stay out here. Stay out here. I'm going to do a question. Uh another standing ovation here. Um Bill Wow. Uh you put a tremendous amount of effort into this. Uh we've known each other for 30 years. I've seen you emotional I think two other times. One was a Jason Isbell concert. Another time you you you you your your your your top set got counterfeited or something, but this is emotional and this is personal for you. What they did to our kids is really clearly impacted you. Maybe you could talk about why it's so important that we consider the damage that was done to this generation.

哇。我得问你一个问题。别走，别走，留在台上，留在台上。我来问个问题。嗯，又是一次全场起立鼓掌。嗯，Bill，哇。你在这上面投入了巨大的心血。我们认识 30 年了，我大概只见过你动情两次：一次是在 Jason Isbell 的演唱会上，另一次是你的……你收藏的那一套东西被人造假了还是怎么的。但这次你是动了感情的，这对你来说是私人的事。他们对我们的孩子所做的，显然深深影响了你。也许你可以讲讲，为什么我们必须正视这一代人所受到的伤害。

[34:04] Bill

I Well, I I I mean I mean for me it's all back to prevention. Like like you have to stop it from happening again. I have zero confidence right now that if another pandemic started tomorrow, we'd have any better way to navigate it. I think we might do worse because of the the misinformation campaigns cause a lack of trust. Next time you're not going to listen to them. There's not going to be a ability for anybody to lead. And I'm I'm struck as you can tell by the presentation by the difference between the the attitude of the people that searched in these other catastrophes, how they were viewed as heroes, and what happened to the people that were looking here.

我……嗯，我是说，我是说，对我来说，一切都要回到预防。你必须阻止它再次发生。我现在完全没有信心：如果明天又爆发一场大流行，我们会有任何更好的办法去应对。我觉得我们甚至可能做得更糟，因为那些误导运动造成了信任缺失——下一次你就不会听他们的了，谁都没法站出来领导局面。你从我的演讲里也能看出，最让我触动的是这种反差：在其他那些灾难里去追查真相的人，被视为英雄；而在这件事上去追查的人，却遭遇了那些对待。

[34:40] 主持人

Yes, and it it you repeatedly talk about the power of journalism, Pulitzers, and investigative journalism specifically, which is different than clickbait journalism. There is something very virtuous about investigative journalism and those type of journalists. Maybe you could speak to that and then explain to us why people didn't go after the Pulitzer here, why they didn't put a large amount of resources to cuz that seems incredibly suspicious. And I I seem to have a recollection of how she getting a pardon, which also seems to be a red flag that you didn't bring up. So, take those two issues.

是的。你反复谈到新闻业的力量、普利策奖，尤其是调查性新闻——它和标题党新闻不是一回事。调查性新闻和那一类记者身上有一种非常可贵的品质。也许你可以谈谈这一点，然后告诉我们，为什么在这件事上没人去争这个普利策、为什么没人投入大量资源——因为这看起来非常可疑。另外我好像记得 Fauci 拿到了特赦（字幕此处识别为 how she，按上下文推断），这看起来也是一个危险信号，你没有提到。所以，请回答这两个问题。

[35:16] Bill

Well, yeah. So, on the investigative part, I mean, one of the reasons I mentioned all the Pulitzers was just to highlight that fact, right? Um there's a wonderful video on YouTube if you're interested in this topic at the Brookings Institute. Three or four of the of the ladies that I showed led a panel to talk about why the press missed this. And both Katherine and Emily Kopp pointed back to the mis- the misinformation campaign by the virology experts and how they kind of made it like a faux pas to actually ask questions. But it considering the scale, the outcome is just horrible that that happened.

嗯，是的。关于调查报道这部分——我是说，我提那么多普利策奖，就是为了凸显这个事实，对吧？嗯，如果你对这个话题感兴趣，YouTube 上有一段很好的视频，是在布鲁金斯学会（Brookings Institution）：我展示过的那几位女性中的三四位主持了一场座谈，讨论媒体为什么漏掉了这件事。Katherine 和 Emily Kopp 都把原因指向病毒学专家们的那场误导运动，说他们让「提问题」这件事本身变成了一种失礼。但考虑到这件事的规模，这样的结果真的非常可怕。

[35:52]

And and

而且，而且……

[35:52] Bill

And I would once again, I would encourage them like there's still work to do. There's still information coming out. We're getting closer. Like come on in.

我还是要再说一次，我想鼓励他们——还有工作要做，还有新的信息在不断出来，我们正在接近真相。快加入进来吧。

[35:59] 主持人

Yeah. And then there's something really tragic here in that if you asked questions this time, you were put into a conspiracy theorist who didn't trust the uh experts, and you were the damage

是啊。还有一点真的很悲哀：这一次，只要你提问题，你就会被归为不信任专家的阴谋论者，你就成了被伤害的那一方

[36:15] Bill

Yeah.

是的。

[36:15] 主持人

for asking questions. This is pure evil.

——就因为你提了问题。这是纯粹的邪恶。

[36:18] Bill

It's crazy.

太疯狂了。

[36:19] 主持人

It's I mean, it's pure evil to take the people and just say, "Hey, is it possible this came out of the Wuhan? You guys have if you you in fact funded gain of research. Why is that such a hard question for them to answer? It's

我是说，这真是纯粹的邪恶：人们只是问一句「嘿，这有没有可能是从武汉出来的？你们……事实上你们资助过功能增益（gain-of-function）研究」——为什么这对他们来说是这么难回答的问题？这……

[36:33] Bill

Well, I said I I I think a behavioral psychologist would tell you you you're you're able to fool yourself to keep your own sanity.

嗯，我说过，我……我认为行为心理学家会告诉你：人能够骗过自己，好保住自己的理智。

[36:41] 主持人

Yeah. Now, I'll just end with this. Knowing what you've known, you've put thousands of hours into this. You and I have been talking about this for three or four years now and this has been a passion project of yours and I really appreciate you sharing it with the audience. What do you believe based on what you know now is the most likely scenario of how COVID originated and and what we can learn from it just based on

是的。好，我用这个问题收尾。以你现在掌握的情况——你在这上面投入了几千个小时，我们俩聊这件事也有三四年了，这是你倾注热情的个人项目，非常感谢你把它分享给观众——根据你现在所知，你认为新冠最可能的起源是什么？我们能从中学到什么？就根据……

[37:07] Bill

Yeah, I know what I will tell you I intentionally didn't take a side on that here and cuz cuz we haven't found root cause and I would celebrate, you know, anyone that that's 100% convinced it's animal spillover to do research there. I funded US Right to Know. If you want to go search for the animals, I'll fund that, too. You should know China has tested 80,000 animals and not found a single crossover. And and they're they have a huge incentive to find one if they could.

嗯，我要告诉你的是，我在这里刻意没有选边站，因为我们还没找到根本原因。任何百分之百确信是动物溢出的人，我都欢迎他们去那方面做研究。我资助了 US Right to Know。如果你想去寻找那种动物，我也会资助。你应该知道，中国已经检测了 8 万只动物，没有发现一例跨物种传播。而他们本来有巨大的动力去找到一例——如果能找到的话。

[37:37] 主持人

Yes. The wet market theory would be absolutely free them from having fingerprints.

是的。湿货市场理论能让他们彻底撇清干系（完全不留指纹）。

[37:44] Bill

And then and then right. So so there's a massive incentive why it hasn't. But But if you want to keep looking, go look. Fauci in these documents that have been uncovered admitted there were multiple cases prior to the spreader event at the wet market, which also is another problem you have to deal with.

然后……对。所以明明有巨大的动力，却一直没找到。不过如果你想继续找，那就去找。在这些被挖出来的文件里，Fauci 承认在湿货市场那次超级传播事件之前就已经有多个病例——这也是你必须面对的另一个问题。

[37:59] 主持人

Yeah. Listen, Bill, I think this could wind up being the most important work of your life and as your friend, I'm I'm just in awe of your passion and your doggedness and any way we can support it, I I think everybody here and in the audience at All-In would love to donate to more research being done. So so we'll tweet that in the future. Let's give it up one more time for Bill Gurley.

是啊。听着，Bill，我觉得这可能会成为你一生中最重要的工作。作为你的朋友，你的热情和执着让我由衷敬佩。只要能帮上忙——我想在场的每一位、All-In 的每一位观众，都会乐意捐款支持更多的研究。我们之后会发推说这件事。让我们再一次为 Bill Gurley 鼓掌。

[38:20] Bill

Thank you.

谢谢。

[38:21]

Thank you, brother. Good to see you precious.

谢谢你，兄弟。见到你真好。