约瑟夫•默科拉博士|PCR 检测传奇:我们被骗了吗?

2021年3月1日08:41:59约瑟夫•默科拉博士|PCR 检测传奇:我们被骗了吗?已关闭评论 54019799字阅读65分59秒

总的来说,似乎很清楚的是,大规模使用 PCR 检测是不合适的,而且对于保护人群的安全几乎没有什么作用。它的主要结果只不过是一种错误观念的延续,即健康的、没有传染性的人会对他人构成致命威胁,我们必须避免社会交往。

约瑟夫•默科拉博士|PCR 检测传奇:我们被骗了吗?

Story at-a-glance:


Curative offers a PCR test using spit rather than swabs from the back of your nasal cavity.Initially only authorized for use on symptomatic patients,the company has requested the U.S.Food and Drug Administration expand its authorization for use on asymptomatic individuals.

治疗提供了一个 PCR 检测使用唾液而不是拭子从你的鼻腔后面。该公司最初只批准用于有症状的患者,现已请求美国食品和药物管理局扩大其对无症状患者的使用授权。

According to company data,the spit test accurately identifies about 90%of positive cases when compared against a nasopharyngeal PCR test set to 35 cycle threshold(CT).

根据公司数据,唾液试验与鼻咽 PCR 试验设定的35周期阈值(CT)相比,准确识别阳性病例约90%

According to the FDA,that comparative CT is too low,and will produce too many false negatives.This,despite the scientific consensus,which states anything over 35 CTs is scientifically unjustifiable as it produces enormous amounts of false positives

根据美国食品及药物管理局的说法,比较 CT 值太低,会产生太多的假阴性。尽管科学界一致认为任何超过35 ct 的结果都是不科学的,因为它会产生大量的误报

According to an April 2020 study,a CT of 17 must be used to obtain 100%confirmed real positives.Above 17 cycles,accuracy drops dramatically.At 33 cycles,the false positive rate is 80%.Beyond 34 cycles,the false positive rate reaches 100%

根据20204月的一项研究,17 CT 必须用来获得100%确认的实际阳性。超过17个周期,精确度急剧下降。在33个周期中,假阳性率为80%。超过34个周期,假阳性率达到100%

Because the PCR test cannot discern between live virus and dead,noninfectious viral debris,the timing of the test is important.Recent research shows the median time from symptom onset to viral clearance confirmed by viral culture is seven days,whereas the PCR test continues to detect nonviable(noninfectious)SARS-CoV-2 for a median of 34 days.

由于 PCR 检测不能区分活病毒和死病毒、非感染性病毒碎片,因此检测的时间非常重要。最近的研究表明,从症状出现到病毒清除经病毒培养证实的中位时间为7天,而 PCR 检测继续检测非活性(非传染性)SARS-CoV-2,中位时间为34天。

For several months,experts have highlighted the true cause behind the COVID-19 pandemic,namely the incorrect use of PCR tests set at a ridiculously high cycle count(CT),which falsely labels healthy people as"COVID-19 cases."In reality,the PCR test is not a proper diagnostic test,although it has been promoted as such.

几个月来,专家们一直在强调2019冠状病毒疾病流行病背后的真正原因,即错误使用 PCR 测试设置在一个荒谬的高周期计数(CT),其中错误地标签健康的人作为"2019冠状病毒疾病病例"实际上,PCR 检测并不是一种正确的诊断检测,尽管它已经被推广。

An important question that demands an answer is whether the experts at our federal health agencies and the World Health Organization were really too ignorant to understand the implications of using this test at excessive CT,or whether it was done on purpose to create the illusion of a dangerous,out-of-control pandemic.

需要回答的一个重要问题是,我们的联邦卫生机构和世界卫生组织的专家是否真的太无知,以至于无法理解在过度 CT 检查中使用这种检查的含义,还是故意制造出一种危险的、失控的流行病假象。

Regardless,those in charge need to be held accountable,which is precisely what the German Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee(Außerparlamentarischer Corona Untersuchungsausschuss,or ACU),intends to do.

无论如何,那些负责人需要被追究责任,这正是德国科罗纳议会外调查委员会(Außerparlamentarischer Corona Untersuchungsausschuss,简称 ACU)打算做的。

They're in the process of launching an international class-action lawsuit against those responsible for using fraudulent testing to engineer the appearance of a dangerous pandemic in order to implement economically devastating lockdowns around the world.I wrote about this in"Coronavirus Fraud Scandal—The Biggest Fight Has Just Begun"and"German Lawyers Initiate Class-Action Coronavirus Litigation."


FDA demands higher false positives


An interesting case detailed in a Jan.21 Buzzfeed article that raises those same questions in regard to the U.S.Food and Drug Administration is its recent spat with Curative,a California testing company that got its start in Jan.2020.It has since risen to become one of the largest COVID-19 test providers in the U.S.

一个有趣的案例详细记录在121 Buzzfeed 的一篇文章中,这篇文章对美国食品和药物管理局提出了同样的问题。从那时起,它已经成为美国最大的2019冠状病毒疾病考试提供商之一。

Curative's most popular PCR test differs from other providers in that it uses spit swabbed from the patient's tongue,cheek and mouth rather than from the back of the nasal cavity.

最流行的 PCR 检测不同于其他提供者,它使用从病人的舌头、脸颊和嘴巴而不是从鼻腔后部的唾液擦拭。

In April 2020,the FDA issued an accelerated emergency use authorization for the Curative spit test,but only for patients who had been symptomatic within the two weeks prior to taking the test,as the data available at that time showed it failed to catch asymptomatic"cases."


However,the test was subsequently used off-label on individuals without symptoms anyway,and the company has been urging the FDA to expand its authorization to include asymptomatic individuals based on newer data.


In Dec.2020,Curative submitted that data,showing its oral spit test accurately identified about 90%of positive cases when compared against a nasopharyngeal PCR test set to 35 CT.

202012月,治疗提交的数据,显示其口腔唾液测试准确地确定了约90%的阳性病例与鼻咽部 PCR 测试设置为35 ct

The FDA objected,saying that Curative was comparing its test against a PCR that had a CT that was too low,and would therefore produce too many false negatives.According to the FDA,the bar Curative had chosen was"not appropriate and arbitrary,"Buzzfeed reports.

美国食品药品监督管理局反对,说硫化剂检测与 PCR 比较,后者的 CT 值太低,因此会产生太多的假阴性。Buzzfeed 报道称,根据美国食品药品监督管理局的说法,硫化剂公司选择的条目"不合适,也不合理"

This is a curious statement coming from the FDA,considering the scientific consensus on PCR tests is that anything over 35 CTs is scientifically unjustifiable.

这是来自 FDA 的一个奇怪的声明,考虑到 PCR 检测的科学共识是任何超过35 ct 的都是不科学的。

From the start,the FDA and the U.S.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended running PCR tests at a CT of 40.This was already high enough to produce an inordinate number of false positives,thereby labeling healthy people as"COVID-19 cases,"but when it comes to Curative's spit test,the FDA is demanding they compare it against PCR processed at a CT of 45,which is even more likely to produce false positives.

从一开始,FDA 和美国疾病控制和预防中心就建议在 CT 值为40的情况下进行 PCR 测试。这已经高到足以产生过多的假阳性,从而标记健康人为"2019冠状病毒疾病病例",但当谈到硫化剂的唾液测试,FDA 要求他们比较 PCR 处理的 CT 值为45,这更有可能产生假阳性。

The FDA's concern is that Curative's test is missing infections and giving infectious people a clean bill of health.However,in reality,it's far more likely that the test is accurately weeding out people who indeed are not infectious at all and rightly should be given a clean bill of health.It seems the FDA is merely pushing for a process that will ensure a higher"caseload"to keep the illusion of widespread infection going.

美国食品药品监督管理局关注的是硫化剂的测试缺少感染并且给予感染者一个健康证明。然而,在现实中,更有可能的是,这项测试正确地剔除了那些确实没有传染性的人,而且应该给他们开一张健康证明书。似乎 FDA 只是在推动一个程序,以确保更高的"案件量",以保持广泛感染的幻觉继续。

When are you actually infectious?


A persistent sticking point with the PCR test is that it picks up dead viral debris,and by excessively magnifying those particles with CTs in the 40s,noninfectious individuals are labeled as infectious and told to self-isolate.In short,media and public health officials have conflated"cases"—positive tests—with the actual illness.

PCR 检测的一个持久的症结在于,它会检测到死亡的病毒碎片,通过过度放大这些带有 ct 的颗粒,在40多岁时,非感染性个体会被标记为具有传染性,并被告知进行自我隔离。简而言之,媒体和公共卫生官员将"病例"(阳性检测)与实际疾病混为一谈。

Medically speaking,a"case"refers to a sick person.It never ever referred to someone who had no symptoms of illness.Now all of a sudden,this well-established medical term,"case,"has been arbitrarily redefined to mean someone who tested positive for the presence of noninfectious viral RNA.

从医学上讲,"case"指的是生病的人。它从未提到过没有任何疾病症状的人。现在突然之间,这个广为人知的医学术语,"病例",被任意重新定义为,检测出非感染性病毒 RNA 呈阳性的人。

The research is unequivocal when it comes to who's infectious and who's not.You cannot infect another person unless you carry a live virus,and you typically will not develop symptoms unless your viral load is high enough.


As it pertains to PCR testing,when excessively high CTs are used,even a minute viral load that is too low to cause symptoms can register as positive.And,since the test cannot distinguish between live virus and dead viral debris,you may not even be carrying a live virus at all.

由于它适用于 PCR 检测,当使用过高的 ct 时,即使是一分钟的病毒载量太低,不能引起症状,也可以登记为阳性。而且,由于这种检测不能区分活病毒和死病毒碎片,你甚至可能根本就没有携带活病毒。

These significant drawbacks are why PCR testing really only should be done on symptomatic patients,and why a positive test should be weighed as just one factor of diagnosis.Symptoms must also be taken into account.If you have no symptoms,your chances of being infectious and spreading the infection to others is basically nil,as data from 9,899,828 individuals have shown.

这些显著的缺点就是为什么 PCR 检测只应该在有症状的病人身上进行,为什么阳性检测应该作为诊断的一个因素来衡量。还必须考虑到症状。如果你没有任何症状,你的传染性和传染他人的机会基本上是零,正如来自9899828个人的数据所显示的。

Of these,not a single person who had been in close contact with an asymptomatic individual ended up testing positive.This study even confirmed that even in cases where asymptomatic individuals had had an active infection,and had been carriers of live virus,the viral load had been too low for transmission.As noted by the authors:


"Compared with symptomatic patients,asymptomatic infected persons generally have low quantity of viral loads and a short duration of viral shedding,which decrease the transmission risk of SARS-CoV-2.

与有症状的病人相比,无症状感染者的病毒载量通常较低,病毒脱落的时间较短,从而降低了 SARS-CoV-2的传播风险。

"In the present study,virus culture was carried out on samples from asymptomatic positive cases,and found no viable SARS-CoV-2 virus.All close contacts of the asymptomatic positive cases tested negative,indicating that the asymptomatic positive cases detected in this study were unlikely to be infectious."

"在目前的研究中,对无症状阳性病例的样本进行了病毒培养,没有发现活的 SARS-CoV-2病毒。所有无症状阳性病例的密切接触者均呈阴性,表明本研究发现的无症状阳性病例不大可能具有传染性。"

PCR picks up dead virus for weeks after infection has cleared

PCR 检测感染清除后数周内的死亡病毒

Because the PCR test cannot discern between live virus and dead,noninfectious viral debris,the timing of the test ends up being important.One example of this was presented in a letter to the editor of The New England Journal of Medicine,in which the author describes an investigation done on hospitalized COVID-19 patients in Seoul,South Korea.

由于 PCR 检测不能区分活病毒和死病毒,非感染性病毒碎片,因此检测的时间非常重要。在写给《新英格兰医学杂志》编辑的一封信中,作者举了一个例子,信中作者描述了在韩国首尔对住院的2019冠状病毒疾病患者进行的一项调查。

Whereas the median time from symptom onset to viral clearance confirmed by cultured samples was just seven days,with the longest time frame being 12 days,the PCR test continued to pick up SARS-CoV-2 for a median of 34 days.The shortest time between symptom onset to a negative PCR test was 24 days.

从症状出现到培养样本确认的病毒清除的中位时间仅为7天,最长的时间框架为12天,PCR 检测继续检测 SARS-CoV-2,中位时间为34天。从症状出现到 PCR 检测阴性的最短时间是24天。

In other words,there was no detectable live virus in patients after about seven days from onset of symptoms(at most 12 days).The PCR test,however,continued to register them as"positive"for SARS-CoV-2 for about 34 days.The reason this matters is because if you have no live virus in your body,you are not infectious and pose no risk to others.

换句话说,在病人出现症状的大约7天后(最多12),没有检测到活病毒。然而,PCR 检测在大约34天的时间里继续将它们登记为 SARS-CoV-2"阳性"。这很重要的原因是,如果你体内没有活病毒,你就不具有传染性,也不会对他人构成危险。

This then means that testing patients beyond,say,day 12 to be safe,after symptom onset is pointless,as any positive result is likely to be false.But there's more.As noted in that New England Journal of Medicine article:


"Viable virus was identified until 3 days after the resolution in fever…Viral culture was positive only in samples with a cycle-threshold value of 28.4 or less.The incidence of culture positivity decreased with an increasing time from symptom onset and with an increasing cycle-threshold value."


This suggests symptomology is a really important piece of the puzzle.If no viable virus is detectable beyond day 3 after your fever ends,it's probably unnecessary to retest beyond that point.A positive result beyond day 3 after your fever breaks is,again,likely to be a false positive,as you have to have live virus in order to be infectious.


Even more important,these results reconfirm that CTs above 30 are inadvisable as they're highly likely to be wrong.Here,they found the CT had to be below 28.4 in order for the positive test to correspond with live virus.As noted by the authors:

更重要的是,这些结果再次证实,30以上的 ct 是不可取的,因为它们极有可能是错误的。在这里,他们发现 CT 必须低于28.4,以便阳性检测符合活病毒。正如作者指出的:

"Our findings may be useful in guiding isolation periods for patients with Covid-19 and in estimating the risk of secondary transmission among close contacts in contract tracing."


Testing for dead viruses will ensure everlasting lockdowns


To circle back to the Curative PCR test,the company argues that the test is accurate when it comes to detecting active infection,and as CEO Fred Turner told Buzzfeed:

回到治疗性 PCR 测试,该公司认为这种测试在检测活动性感染时是准确的,正如首席执行官 Fred Turner 告诉 Buzzfeed:

"If you're screening for a return to work and you're picking up everyone who had COVID two months ago,no one's going to return to work.If you want to detect active COVID,what the'early'study shows is that Curative is highly effective at doing that."

"如果你正在筛选重返工作岗位的人,而且你正在接走两个月前患有COVID 的所有人,那么没有人会重返工作岗位。如果你想检测活跃的 COVID'早期'研究表明的是硫化剂在这方面非常有效。"

Again,this has to do with the fact that the Curative spit test has a sensitivity resembling that of a nasopharyngeal PCR set at a CT of 30.The lower CT count narrows the pool of positive results to include primarily those with higher viral loads and those who are more likely to actually carry live virus.This is a good thing.What the FDA wants Curative to do is to widen that net so that more noninfectious individuals can be labeled as a"case."

同样,这与这样一个事实有关,即硫化唾液试验的敏感性类似于鼻咽部 PCR 设置在 CT 30。较低的 CT 计数缩小了阳性结果的范围,主要包括那些病毒载量较高的人和那些实际上更可能携带活病毒的人。这是一件好事。美国食品药品监督管理局希望达成的是扩大这个网络,使更多的非传染性个体可以被标记为"病例"

In an email to Buzzfeed,Dr.Michael Mina,an epidemiologist at Harvard T.H.Chan School of Public Health,stated that using a CT of 45 is"absolutely insane,"because at that magnification,you may be looking at a single RNA molecule,whereas"when people are sick and are contagious,they literally can have 1,000,000,000,000x that number."

哈佛大学公共卫生学院(Harvard t.h.Chan School of Public Health)的流行病学家迈克尔·米纳(Michael Mina)博士在给 Buzzfeed 的一封电子邮件中表示,使用45 CT "绝对是疯狂的",因为在这样的放大倍数下,你可能看到的是一个单一的 RNA 分子,而"当人们生病并具有传染性时,他们的 CT 值可能是这个数字的100万倍。"

Mina added that such a sensitive PCR test"would potentially detect someone 35 days post-infection who is fully recovered and cause that person to have to enter isolation.That's crazy and it's not science-based,it's not medicine-based and it's not public health-oriented."

Mina 补充说,这种敏感的 PCR 检测"有可能检测出感染后35天完全康复的人,并导致这个人必须进入隔离状态。这太疯狂了,没有科学依据,没有医学依据,也没有以公共卫生为导向。"

While the FDA has issued a warning not to use the Curative spit test on asymptomatic people,Florida has dismissed the warning and will continue to use the test on symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals alike.Only Miami-Dade County is reconsidering how it is using the test,although a definitive decision has yet to be announced.


The lower the CT,the greater the accuracy

CT 值越低,准确性越高

While the FDA claims high sensitivity(meaning higher CT)is required to ensure we don't end up with asymptomatic spreaders in our communities,as reviewed above,this risk is exceedingly small.We really need to stop panicking about the possibility of healthy people killing others.It's not a sane trend,as detailed in"The World Is Suffering from Mass Delusional Psychosis."

虽然 FDA 声称高敏感度(意味着更高的 CT)是必需的,以确保我们不会最终在我们的社区中出现无症状扩散者,如上所述,这种风险是非常小的。我们真的需要停止对健康人杀害他人的可能性感到恐慌。正如《世界正遭受大规模妄想性精神病》中所详述的那样,这不是一个理智的趋势

According to an April 2020 study in the European Journal of Clinical Microbiology&Infectious Diseases,to get 100%confirmed real positives,the PCR test must be run at just 17 cycles.Above 17 cycles,accuracy drops dramatically.

根据20204月欧洲临床微生物学杂志和传染病的一项研究,要得到100%确认的实际阳性结果,PCR 检测必须在17个周期进行。超过17个周期,精确度急剧下降。

By the time you get to 33 cycles,the accuracy rate is a mere 20%,meaning 80%are false positives.Beyond 34 cycles,your chance of a positive PCR test being a true positive shrinks to zero.

当你达到33个周期时,准确率仅为20%,这意味着80%是假阳性。超过34个周期,你的 PCR 阳性检测成为真正阳性的几率降为零。

Similarly,a Dec.3,2020,systematic review published in the journal of Clinical Infectious Diseases,which assessed the findings of 29 different studies,found that"CT values were significantly lower…in specimens producing live virus culture."In other words,the higher the CT,the lower the chance of a positive test actually being due to the presence of live(and infectious)virus.

类似地,2020123日,系统综述发表在《临床传染病杂志》上,评估了29项不同研究的发现,发现"产生活病毒培养的标本的 CT 值明显较低。"换句话说,CT 值越高,由于存在活病毒(和传染性病毒)而导致阳性检测的几率就越低。

"Two studies reported the odds of live virus culture reduced by approximately 33%for every one unit increase in CT,"the authors noted.Importantly,five of the studies included were unable to identify any live viruses in cases where a positive PCR test had used a CT above 24.

作者指出:"两项研究报告说,CT 每增加一个单位,活病毒培养的几率大约降低33%"。重要的是,其中包括的五项研究在 PCR 阳性检测使用 CT 超过24的病例中无法识别任何活病毒。

In cases where a CT above 35 was used,the patient had to be symptomatic in order to obtain a live virus culture.This again confirms that PCR with a CT over 35 really shouldn't be used on asymptomatic people,as any positive result is likely to be meaningless and simply force them into isolation for no reason.

在使用 CT 超过35的情况下,病人必须有症状才能获得活病毒培养。这再次证实,CT 大于35 PCR 真的不应该用于无症状人群,因为任何阳性结果很可能毫无意义,只是无缘无故地强迫他们进行隔离。

PCR testing based on erroneous paper

基于错误试纸的 PCR 检测

In closing,the whole premise of PCR testing to diagnose COVID-19 is in serious question,as the practice appears to be based on an erroneous paper that didn't even undergo peer-review before being implemented worldwide.

最后,PCR 检测诊断2019冠状病毒疾病的整个前提是一个严重的问题,因为这种做法似乎是基于一篇错误的论文,而这篇论文在全球实施之前甚至没有经过同行审查。

Nov.30,2020,a team of 22 international scientists published a review challenging the scientific paper on PCR testing for SARS-CoV-2 written by Christian Drosten,Ph.D.,and Victor Corman(the so-called"Corman-Drosten paper").

20201130日,一个由22名国际科学家组成的研究小组发表了一篇综述,对 Christian Drosten 博士和 Victor Corman(所谓的"Corman-Drosten 论文")关于 SARS-CoV-2 PCR 检测的科学论文提出质疑。

According to Reiner Fuellmich,founding member of the German Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee mentioned at the beginning of this article,Drosten is a key culprit in the COVID-19 pandemic hoax.


The scientists demanded the Corman-Drosten paper be retracted due to"fatal errors,"one of which is the fact that it was written,and the test itself developed,before any viral isolate was available.The test is simply based on a partial genetic sequence published online by Chinese scientists in January 2020.In an undercover DC interview,Kevin Corbett,Ph.D.,one of the 22 scientists who are now demanding the paper's retraction,stated:

由于"致命错误",科学家们要求撤回 Corman-Drosten 的论文,其中一个错误是,在病毒分离物出现之前,论文就已经写好了,而且测试本身也已经开发完成。这项检测仅仅是基于中国科学家20201月在网上公布的部分基因序列。在一次华盛顿特区的卧底采访中,Kevin Corbett 博士说:

"Every scientific rationale for the development of that test has been totally destroyed by this paper…When Drosten developed the test,China hadn't given them a viral isolate.They developed the test from a sequence in a gene bank.Do you see?China gave them a genetic sequence with no corresponding viral isolate.


"They had a code,but no body for the code.No viral morphology…the bits of the virus sequence that weren't there they made up.They synthetically created them to fill in the blanks…


"There are 10 fatal errors in this Drosten test paper…But here is the bottom line:There was no viral isolate to validate what they were doing.The PCR products of the amplification didn't correspond to any viral isolate at that time.I call it'donut ring science.'There is nothing at the center of it.It's all about code,genetics,nothing to do with reality…

"这份 Drosten 试卷有10个致命错误......但底线是:没有病毒分离物来验证他们的研究成果。扩增的 PCR 产物与当时分离的病毒不符。我称之为"甜甜圈科学"。它的中心没有任何东西。一切都是代码,遗传,与现实无关..

"There have since been papers saying they've produced viral isolates.But there are no controls for them.The CDC produced a paper in July…where they said:'Here's the viral isolate.'Do you know what they did?They swabbed one person.One person,who'd been to China and had cold symptoms.One person.And they assumed he had[COVID-19]to begin with.So,it's all full of holes,the whole thing."


The critique against PCR testing is further strengthened by the Nov.20,2020,study in Nature Communications,which found no viable virus in any PCR-positive cases.I referenced this study earlier,noting that not a single person who had been in close contact with an asymptomatic individual ended up testing positive.

20201120日,《自然通讯》的研究进一步加强了对 PCR 检测的批评,该研究发现在任何 PCR 阳性的病例中都没有可行的病毒。我早些时候参考了这项研究,注意到没有一个与无症状个体有过密切接触的人最终检测出阳性。

But that's not all.After evaluating PCR testing data from 9,899,828 people,and conducting additional live cultures to check for active infections in those who tested positive,using a CT of 37 or lower,they were unable to detect live virus in any of them,which is a rather astonishing finding.

但这还不是全部。在评估了9899828人的聚合酶链反应测试数据,并进行了额外的活体培养以检测那些阳性者的活性感染后,使用 CT 值为37或更低,他们无法在其中任何一个人体内检测到活性病毒,这是一个相当惊人的发现。

On the whole,it seems clear that mass testing using PCR is inappropriate,and does very little if anything to keep the population safe.Its primary result is simply the perpetuation of the false idea that healthy,noninfectious people can pose a mortal threat to others,and that we must avoid social interactions.It's a delusional idea that is wreaking havoc on the global psyche,and it's time to put an end to this unhealthy,unscientific way of life.

总的来说,似乎很清楚的是,大规模使用 PCR 检测是不合适的,而且对于保护人群的安全几乎没有什么作用。它的主要结果只不过是一种错误观念的延续,即健康的、没有传染性的人会对他人构成致命威胁,我们必须避免社会交往。这是一种妄想,正在对全球心理造成严重破坏,是时候结束这种不健康、不科学的生活方式了。




  • 本文由 发表于 2021年3月1日08:41:59
  • 除非特殊声明,本站文章均来自网络,转载请务必保留本文链接