(机器译文，稍修改) 6park.com
记者: 埃布赖特博士(Dr. Ebright)，您是公开信的26个科学家签署人之一，公开信已停止了世卫组织召集的特派团临时报告的发布，并重新开始了CoV-2起源辩论。您认为该世卫组织/中国联合小组的最终报告是否将终止COVID起源争议？ 6park.com
埃布赖特:不会。 6park.com
公开信详细说明了世卫组织-中国武汉合作团队的结构和功能局限性：独家的中国现场工作，缺乏对实验室装置或数据库的完全访问权限，报告制作过程中的共识性流程…… 6park.com
可信的调查应具有以下职权范围：1）确认实验室起源的可能性，2）确保研究人员可访问处理蝙蝠SARS相关冠状病毒的武汉实验室的记录，样本，人员和设施，3）已启用收集证据，而不仅仅是见面拍照，4）授权进行数月而不是几天的调查。 5）可信的调查也将有无利益冲突的调查人员，而不是作为研究对象和/或与研究对象紧密相关的人员。 6park.com
记者:您已经说过几次，世卫组织的武汉之行实际上是“演戏”。 6park.com
埃布赖特:是的，世卫组织成员（愿意, 至少在一种情况下，是热情的）是虚假信息的参与者。 6park.com
预先商定的WHO研究的“职权范围”甚至没有承认该病毒实验室来源的可能性，甚至没有提到武汉病毒研究所（WIV），武汉市疾病预防控制中心（CDC）或武汉生物制品研究所。 6park.com
关于检查人员，世卫组织任务小组的至少一名成员，即生态健康联盟主席彼得·达斯扎克博士 (Dr. Peter Daszak) 似乎存在利益冲突，应该使他无资格参加对COVID-19大流行病起源的调查。 6park.com

 6park.com
(原文) 6park.com
记者: Dr. Ebright, you are one of the 26 scientific signers of the Open Letter that stopped the release of the WHO-convened mission Interim Report and has reopened the CoV-2 origin debate. Do you think the final report of this WHO/China joint team is going to shut down COVID origin controversy? 6park.com
埃布赖特:No. 6park.com
The Open Letter explains in detail the structural and functional limitations of the WHO-China Wuhan collaborative team: exclusive Chinese field work, lack of complete access to lab installations or databases, consensus process in report making… 6park.com
A credible investigation would have had Terms of Reference that: 1) Acknowledged the possibility of laboratory origin, 2) Ensured access of investigators to records, samples, personnel, and facilities at the Wuhan laboratories that handle bat SARS-related coronaviruses, 3) Enabled collection of evidence, not mere meet-and-greet photo-ops, 4) Authorized an investigation of months, not mere days. And 5) A credible investigation also would have had conflict-of-interest-free investigators, not persons who were subjects of the research and/or closely associated with subjects of the investigation. 6park.com
记者:You have said several times that this WHO mission was literally “a charade”. 6park.com
埃布赖特:Yes, its members were willing –and, in at least one case, enthusiastic– participants in disinformation. 6park.com
The pre-negotiated “Terms of Reference” for the WHO study did not even acknowledge the possibility of a laboratory origin of the virus and did not even mention the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), the Wuhan Center for Disease Control (CDC) or the Wuhan Institute of Biological Products. 6park.com
Regarding the inspection personnel, at least one member of the WHO mission team, Ecohealth Alliance President Dr. Peter Daszak, seems to have conflicts of interest that should have disqualified him from being part of an investigation of the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic.