235:, pointing out that "origin story" of the virus was still missing key details and that an objective analysis necessitated "addressing some uncomfortable possibilities," including an accidental release from a laboratory. When asked by UnDark why he thought Daszak and others pushed so strongly against the possibility of a lab leak, Relman said they may have wanted to "deflect perceptions of their work as endangering humankind".
171:
to flag Daszak's conflict of interest, but received no response. Horton later responded in a UK parliament session. Horton said to the committee "We trust authors to be honest with us and authors trust us to deal with their work confidentially and appropriately. Sometimes that system breaks down, and
361:
published a letter from a group of 16 virologists, biologists, and biosecurity specialists saying that more evidence is needed before any definitive conclusions on the origins question and calling for further investigations into a lab leak. The letter stressed that "Research-related hypotheses are
296:
published an addendum, saying "There may be differences in opinion as to what constitutes a competing interest." It also invited Daszak and other authors of the letter to amend their competing interest statements. Daszak amended his statement to describe the research he has done in southeast Asia,
309:
Following the addendum to the first letter, the authors of the first letter published a second letter, reaffirming their view that the pandemic has natural origins. The letter asserted that "careful and transparent collection of scientific information" on every potential hypothesis, but that they
185:
that the letter had a "chilling effect" on scientific research and the scientific community by implying that scientists who "bring up the lab-leak theory ... are doing the work of conspiracy theorists". The letter was deemed to have "effectively ended the debate over COVID-19's origins before it
146:
letter "helped to guide almost a year of reporting, as journalists helped to amplify Daszak's message and to silence scientific and public debate." This affected reporting on the origins of the virus, "characterising the lab leak theory as unworthy of serious consideration".
186:
began". Further criticism of the letter was focused on the fact that, according to emails obtained through FOIA, members involved in producing the letter concealed their involvement "to create the impression of scientific unanimity" and failed to disclose conflicts.
232:
1297:
325:
Stanley
Perlman, who signed both letters, said the original letter addressed the lab leak bioengineering scenario only and that the second letter addresses the scenario where a natural virus was accidentally released.
1487:
258:
reported
Calisher had "completely changed his position", saying he believes that "there is too much coincidence" to ignore the lab-leak theory and that "it is more likely that it came out of that lab."
1415:
The Lancet had previously only published letters supporting the natural origin theory, the possibility that the virus emerged in the wild and spilled over to humans, probably via the wildlife trade.
262:
In an email to Undark
Magazine, Stanley Perlman wrote that versions of the lab leak idea differed in whether they posited the virus was engineered in a lab before leaking, explaining that the
528:
1442:
1462:
202:
that "Contrary to the letter writers' assertion, the idea that the virus might have escaped from a lab invoked accident, not conspiracy." Wade opined that the signatories of the
1287:
343:
saying "We must take hypotheses about both natural and laboratory spillovers seriously until we have sufficient data" and that "theories of accidental release from a lab and
251:
is reported to have said "I'm convinced that what happened is that the virus was brought to a lab, they started to work with it…and some sloppy individual brought it out".
279:
said that had the experiments being done at the laboratory in Wuhan been disclosed by those involved, he would have "at least asked questions" before signing the letter.
1141:
224:
was shocked by the letter and its complete dismissal the lab leak possibility, saying that it was apparent that "the science world was not playing above board."
1497:
1428:
1053:
213:
noted that the conflicts of interest involving virologists denying that the pandemic could have come from a laboratory in Wuhan were "simply unprecedented."
1406:
400:
689:
1245:
552:
1161:
969:
380:
said that the search should be "guided by scientific principles" that would consider multiple scenarios for the origin of the pandemic.
247:, three signatories' said that upon further reflection, they thought a laboratory accident was plausible enough to merit consideration.
1073:
771:
1535:
1339:
573:
507:
949:
199:
362:
not misinformation or conjecture" and that "Scientific journals should open their columns to in-depth analyses of all hypotheses."
160:
said that the letter's conclusion was premature, saying that some scientists "closed ranks", fearing for their careers and grants.
929:
725:
347:
spillover both remain viable." The letter also criticized the WHO report on covid origins for dismissing the lab-leak theory.
1545:
1540:
711:"I Visited a Chinese Lab at the Center of a Biosafety Debate. What I Learned Helps Explain the Clash Over COVID-19's Origins"
427:"Statement in support of the scientists, public health professionals, and medical professionals of China combatting COVID-19"
987:
377:
172:
in this particular case Peter Daszak should certainly have declared his competing interests right at the beginning."
1266:
841:
425:
Calisher, Charles; Carroll, Dennis; Colwell, Rita; Corley, Ronald B.; Daszak, Peter; et al. (March 7, 2020).
297:
with various different institutions including the Wuhan
Institute of Virology. Daszak also recused himself from
93:
of the COVID-19 disease. Different versions of the lab origin hypothesis present different scenarios in which a
954:
405:
255:
206:
letter behaved as "poor scientists" for "assuring the public of facts they could not know for sure were true."
70:
121:, said they were focused on dispelling these rumours, though the letter did not make this distinguishment, as
391:
said scientists open to the possibility of a laboratory accident should not be labeled conspiracy theorists.
47:, and condemning theories suggesting that the virus does not have a natural origin, which it referred to as "
1530:
934:
180:
168:
152:
43:) was a statement made in support of scientists and medical professionals in China fighting the outbreak of
557:
271:
102:
1357:
Helden, Jacques van; Butler, Colin D.; Achaz, Guillaume; Canard, Bruno; et al. (October 16, 2021).
744:"Science and Technology Committee : Oral evidence: Reproducibility and Research Integrity, HC 606"
710:
311:
1091:
Calisher, Charles H.; Carroll, Dennis; Colwell, Rita; Corley, Ronald B.; et al. (July 17, 2021).
57:
on
February 19, 2020, and signed by 27 prominent scientists, gaining a further 20,000 signatures in a
1250:
1192:
694:
62:
1359:"An appeal for an objective, open, and transparent scientific debate about the origin of SARS-CoV-2"
1492:
1463:"Let Scientific Evidence Determine Origin of SARS-CoV-2, Urge Presidents of the National Academies"
1146:
1058:
618:
384:
98:
1319:
1447:
1271:
1226:
1034:
823:
670:
364:
194:
17:
292:
Following criticisms from the public that Daszak had failed to disclose certain relationships,
1525:
1388:
1218:
1179:
Bloom, Jesse D.; Chan, Yujia Alina; Baric, Ralph S.; Bjorkman, Pamela J.; et al. (2021).
1122:
892:
815:
662:
529:"Opinion | A preprint provides ammunition to conspiracy theories about SARS-CoV-2 origin"
456:
276:
82:
48:
1378:
1370:
1208:
1200:
1112:
1104:
1024:
1014:
882:
872:
805:
652:
487:
446:
438:
340:
1429:"Scientists in Lancet letter call for 'evidence-based' evaluation of Covid lab leak theory"
641:"The COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis: did the media fall victim to a misinformation campaign?"
1324:
743:
319:
248:
210:
157:
114:
90:
66:
1488:"Scientists battle over the ultimate origin story: Where did the coronavirus come from?"
1196:
1054:"UK scientist with links to Wuhan lab 'recuses himself' from inquiry into Covid origins"
593:
1383:
1358:
1267:"Another Group of Scientists Calls for Further Inquiry Into Origins of the Coronavirus"
1213:
1117:
1092:
1029:
1002:
887:
860:
451:
426:
221:
176:
1374:
1108:
1019:
442:
1519:
1230:
1038:
827:
674:
388:
189:
970:"Did the coronavirus leak from a lab? These scientists say we shouldn't rule it out"
1093:"Science, not speculation, is essential to determine how SARS-CoV-2 reached humans"
988:"Christian Drosten im Interview – "Warum hat er mich nicht einfach mal angerufen?""
842:"Top Trump officials pushed the COVID-19 lab-leak theory. Investigators had doubts"
512:
315:
228:
139:
122:
794:"COVID-19: Lancet investigation into origin of pandemic shuts down over bias risk"
910:
861:"Opinion: To stop the next pandemic, we need to unravel the origins of COVID-19"
164:
1407:"Jury still out on lab-leak COVID-19 origins, researchers say in Lancet letter"
233:
Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
950:"Nature-based or lab leak? Unraveling the debate over the origins of COVID-19"
118:
94:
86:
58:
53:
476:"Prevalence in News Media of Two Competing Hypotheses about COVID-19 Origins"
1204:
1180:
877:
793:
640:
578:
533:
106:
1392:
1222:
1142:"Strongest evidence yet suggests natural origins for Covid, say scientists"
1126:
896:
819:
666:
492:
475:
460:
508:"Experts fear false rumours could harm Chinese cooperation on coronavirus"
598:
344:
217:
44:
1443:"COVID-19 origins: The Lancet's U-turn, Biden's take and the China link"
1320:"Scientists demand fresh investigation into coronavirus lab-leak theory"
930:"The Wuhan Lab Leak Question: A Disused Chinese Mine Takes Center Stage"
772:"The origin of COVID: Did people or nature open Pandora's box at Wuhan?"
167:
for "scientific propaganda and thuggery". Metzel wrote to Lancet editor
105:
virus. Some early rumors focused on the deliberate leak of a virus as a
61:
petition. The letter generated significant controversy over the alleged
1292:
1288:"COVID-19 lab leak theory cannot be ruled out, leading scientists say"
810:
657:
339:
In May 2021, a group of 18 prominent scientists published a letter in
553:"The Lab-Leak Theory: Inside the Fight to Uncover COVID-19's Origins"
368:
described The Lancet's decision to publish the letter as a "u-turn".
101:
to humans, including a laboratory-acquired infection of a natural or
690:"WHO adviser accuses COVID-19 lab-leak theory critics of 'thuggery'"
109:
or accidental leak of an engineered virus. Some signatories of the
1074:"Under-fire Lancet admits conflict of interest on lab-leak letter"
619:"Lab Leak: A Scientific Debate Mired in Politics — and Unresolved"
594:"Covid origins: Scientists weigh up evidence over virus's origins"
220:, Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs
1246:"Group of scientists argues COVID-19 lab theory without evidence"
85:, rumors and speculation arose about the possible lab origins of
726:"Wuhan lab leak 'now the most likely origin of Covid', MPS told"
322:, who signed the first letter, did not sign the second letter.
911:"Stanford scientist calls for investigation of Wuhan lab leak"
1003:"Addendum: competing interests and the origins of SARS-CoV-2"
574:"The rise and fall of British virus hunter Peter Daszak"
928:
Jeremy Page; Betsy McKay; Drew
Hinshaw (May 24, 2021).
310:
believe it unlikely that the virus leaked from a lab.
1340:"The Sudden Rise of the Coronavirus Lab-Leak Theory"
1162:"Nobody knows how to engineer a virus from scratch"
865:Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
163:The letter was criticized by media commentator
1318:Steer, George; Cookson, Clive (May 14, 2021).
8:
1265:Gorman, James; Zimmer, Carl (May 13, 2021).
401:Investigations into the origin of COVID-19
1382:
1212:
1116:
1028:
1018:
886:
876:
809:
656:
491:
450:
787:
785:
69:it had on scientists proposing that the
27:Controversial letter on COVID-19 origins
1001:Editors of The Lancet (June 26, 2021).
634:
632:
613:
611:
609:
546:
544:
417:
859:Relman, David A. (November 24, 2020).
1181:"Investigate the origins of COVID-19"
7:
792:Thacker, Paul D. (October 1, 2021).
266:letter focused more on engineering.
1427:Basu, Mohana (September 20, 2021).
724:Knapton, Sarah (15 December 2021).
709:Hvistendahl, Mara (June 19, 2021).
1286:Guy Faulconbridge (May 13, 2021).
97:progenitor of SARS-COV-2 may have
25:
639:Thacker, Paul D. (July 8, 2021).
200:Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
125:insisted on a "broad statement".
551:Eban, Katherine (June 3, 2021).
527:Prasad, R. (February 20, 2020).
474:Rozado, David (24 August 2021).
18:Lancet letter (COVID-19 origins)
1300:from the original on 2021-11-25
1052:Gulland, Anne (June 22, 2021).
81:From the early outbreak of the
51:". The letter was published in
231:published an opinion piece in
1:
1375:10.1016/S0140-6736(21)02019-5
1244:Swanson, Ian (July 6, 2021).
1140:Newey, Sarah (July 6, 2021).
1109:10.1016/S0140-6736(21)01419-7
1020:10.1016/S0140-6736(21)01377-5
443:10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30418-9
198:science writer, wrote in the
1078:Times Higher Education (THE)
688:Lonas, Lexi (June 9, 2021).
378:National Academy of Sciences
372:National Academy of Sciences
301:s COVID-19 origins inquiry.
1562:
1536:Academic journal articles
269:In an interview with the
238:
1411:South China Morning Post
751:Committees.parliament.uk
406:COVID-19 lab leak theory
138:According to journalist
71:COVID-19 lab leak theory
65:of its authors, and the
1205:10.1126/science.abj0016
935:The Wall Street Journal
878:10.1073/pnas.2021133117
245:The Wall Street Journal
239:Signatories' statements
153:The Wall Street Journal
1413:. September 18, 2021.
493:10.3390/socsci10090320
1546:Medical controversies
1541:Biology controversies
1467:Nationalacademies.org
974:MIT Technology Review
383:In an interview with
150:In an interview with
63:conflicts of interest
37:(also referred to as
1369:(10309): 1402–1404.
1013:(10293): 2449–2450.
516:. February 20, 2020.
40:Calisher et al. 2020
1493:The Washington Post
1197:2021Sci...372..694B
917:. December 3, 2020.
871:(47): 29246–29248.
572:Spence, Madeleine.
385:The Washington Post
357:In September 2021,
272:Süddeutsche Zeitung
156:, social scientist
134:Critical commentary
49:conspiracy theories
1448:The Times of India
1272:The New York Times
1103:(10296): 209–211.
990:. 9 February 2022.
437:(10226): e42–e43.
365:The Times of India
275:in February 2022,
227:In November 2020,
209:Rutgers professor
811:10.1136/bmj.n2414
658:10.1136/bmj.n1656
625:. March 17, 2021.
330:Counterstatements
312:William B. Karesh
277:Christian Drosten
83:COVID-19 pandemic
73:be investigated.
16:(Redirected from
1553:
1510:
1509:
1507:
1505:
1500:on June 22, 2021
1496:. Archived from
1484:
1478:
1477:
1475:
1473:
1459:
1453:
1452:
1439:
1433:
1432:
1424:
1418:
1417:
1403:
1397:
1396:
1386:
1354:
1348:
1347:
1336:
1330:
1329:
1315:
1309:
1308:
1306:
1305:
1283:
1277:
1276:
1262:
1256:
1255:
1241:
1235:
1234:
1216:
1176:
1170:
1169:
1158:
1152:
1151:
1137:
1131:
1130:
1120:
1088:
1082:
1081:
1080:. June 22, 2021.
1070:
1064:
1063:
1049:
1043:
1042:
1032:
1022:
998:
992:
991:
984:
978:
977:
966:
960:
959:
946:
940:
939:
925:
919:
918:
907:
901:
900:
890:
880:
856:
850:
849:
838:
832:
831:
813:
789:
780:
779:
768:
762:
761:
759:
757:
748:
740:
734:
733:
721:
715:
714:
706:
700:
699:
685:
679:
678:
660:
636:
627:
626:
615:
604:
603:
590:
584:
583:
569:
563:
562:
548:
539:
538:
524:
518:
517:
504:
498:
497:
495:
471:
465:
464:
454:
422:
341:Science Magazine
335:Science Magazine
113:letter, such as
21:
1561:
1560:
1556:
1555:
1554:
1552:
1551:
1550:
1516:
1515:
1514:
1513:
1503:
1501:
1486:
1485:
1481:
1471:
1469:
1461:
1460:
1456:
1441:
1440:
1436:
1426:
1425:
1421:
1405:
1404:
1400:
1356:
1355:
1351:
1346:. May 27, 2021.
1338:
1337:
1333:
1325:Financial Times
1317:
1316:
1312:
1303:
1301:
1285:
1284:
1280:
1264:
1263:
1259:
1243:
1242:
1238:
1178:
1177:
1173:
1160:
1159:
1155:
1139:
1138:
1134:
1090:
1089:
1085:
1072:
1071:
1067:
1051:
1050:
1046:
1000:
999:
995:
986:
985:
981:
968:
967:
963:
948:
947:
943:
927:
926:
922:
909:
908:
904:
858:
857:
853:
848:. 15 June 2021.
840:
839:
835:
791:
790:
783:
776:Thebulletin.org
770:
769:
765:
755:
753:
746:
742:
741:
737:
723:
722:
718:
708:
707:
703:
687:
686:
682:
638:
637:
630:
623:Undark Magazine
617:
616:
607:
602:. July 9, 2021.
592:
591:
587:
571:
570:
566:
550:
549:
542:
526:
525:
521:
506:
505:
501:
480:Social Sciences
473:
472:
468:
424:
423:
419:
414:
397:
374:
355:
337:
332:
320:Bernard Roizman
307:
290:
285:
283:Lancet response
249:Bernard Roizman
241:
211:Richard Ebright
158:Filippa Lentzos
136:
131:
115:Stanley Perlman
91:causative agent
79:
67:chilling effect
28:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
1559:
1557:
1549:
1548:
1543:
1538:
1533:
1531:2020 documents
1528:
1518:
1517:
1512:
1511:
1479:
1454:
1434:
1419:
1398:
1349:
1344:The New Yorker
1331:
1310:
1278:
1257:
1236:
1171:
1153:
1132:
1083:
1065:
1044:
993:
979:
961:
941:
920:
902:
851:
833:
781:
778:. May 5, 2021.
763:
735:
716:
701:
680:
628:
605:
585:
564:
540:
519:
499:
466:
416:
415:
413:
410:
409:
408:
403:
396:
393:
373:
370:
354:
349:
336:
333:
331:
328:
306:
303:
289:
286:
284:
281:
254:In June 2021,
240:
237:
222:David Stilwell
195:New York Times
177:Katherine Eban
169:Richard Horton
135:
132:
130:
127:
78:
75:
26:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1558:
1547:
1544:
1542:
1539:
1537:
1534:
1532:
1529:
1527:
1524:
1523:
1521:
1499:
1495:
1494:
1489:
1483:
1480:
1468:
1464:
1458:
1455:
1450:
1449:
1444:
1438:
1435:
1430:
1423:
1420:
1416:
1412:
1408:
1402:
1399:
1394:
1390:
1385:
1380:
1376:
1372:
1368:
1364:
1360:
1353:
1350:
1345:
1341:
1335:
1332:
1327:
1326:
1321:
1314:
1311:
1299:
1295:
1294:
1289:
1282:
1279:
1274:
1273:
1268:
1261:
1258:
1253:
1252:
1247:
1240:
1237:
1232:
1228:
1224:
1220:
1215:
1210:
1206:
1202:
1198:
1194:
1191:(6543): 694.
1190:
1186:
1182:
1175:
1172:
1167:
1163:
1157:
1154:
1149:
1148:
1147:The Telegraph
1143:
1136:
1133:
1128:
1124:
1119:
1114:
1110:
1106:
1102:
1098:
1094:
1087:
1084:
1079:
1075:
1069:
1066:
1061:
1060:
1059:The Telegraph
1055:
1048:
1045:
1040:
1036:
1031:
1026:
1021:
1016:
1012:
1008:
1004:
997:
994:
989:
983:
980:
975:
971:
965:
962:
957:
956:
951:
945:
942:
937:
936:
931:
924:
921:
916:
912:
906:
903:
898:
894:
889:
884:
879:
874:
870:
866:
862:
855:
852:
847:
843:
837:
834:
829:
825:
821:
817:
812:
807:
803:
799:
795:
788:
786:
782:
777:
773:
767:
764:
752:
745:
739:
736:
731:
730:The Telegraph
727:
720:
717:
712:
705:
702:
697:
696:
691:
684:
681:
676:
672:
668:
664:
659:
654:
650:
646:
642:
635:
633:
629:
624:
620:
614:
612:
610:
606:
601:
600:
595:
589:
586:
581:
580:
575:
568:
565:
560:
559:
554:
547:
545:
541:
536:
535:
530:
523:
520:
515:
514:
509:
503:
500:
494:
489:
485:
481:
477:
470:
467:
462:
458:
453:
448:
444:
440:
436:
432:
428:
421:
418:
411:
407:
404:
402:
399:
398:
394:
392:
390:
389:Marcia McNutt
386:
381:
379:
371:
369:
367:
366:
360:
353:
350:
348:
346:
342:
334:
329:
327:
323:
321:
317:
313:
305:Second letter
304:
302:
300:
295:
287:
282:
280:
278:
274:
273:
267:
265:
260:
257:
252:
250:
246:
243:According to
236:
234:
230:
225:
223:
219:
216:According to
214:
212:
207:
205:
201:
197:
196:
191:
190:Nicholas Wade
187:
184:
183:
178:
173:
170:
166:
161:
159:
155:
154:
148:
145:
141:
133:
128:
126:
124:
120:
116:
112:
108:
104:
100:
96:
92:
88:
84:
76:
74:
72:
68:
64:
60:
56:
55:
50:
46:
42:
41:
36:
34:
19:
1502:. Retrieved
1498:the original
1491:
1482:
1470:. Retrieved
1466:
1457:
1446:
1437:
1422:
1414:
1410:
1401:
1366:
1362:
1352:
1343:
1334:
1323:
1313:
1302:. Retrieved
1291:
1281:
1270:
1260:
1249:
1239:
1188:
1184:
1174:
1165:
1156:
1145:
1135:
1100:
1096:
1086:
1077:
1068:
1057:
1047:
1010:
1006:
996:
982:
973:
964:
953:
944:
933:
923:
914:
905:
868:
864:
854:
846:Politico.com
845:
836:
801:
797:
775:
766:
754:. Retrieved
750:
738:
729:
719:
704:
693:
683:
648:
644:
622:
597:
588:
577:
567:
556:
532:
522:
513:The Guardian
511:
502:
483:
479:
469:
434:
430:
420:
382:
375:
363:
358:
356:
351:
338:
324:
316:Peter Palese
308:
298:
293:
291:
270:
268:
263:
261:
253:
244:
242:
229:David Relman
226:
215:
208:
203:
193:
188:
181:
174:
162:
151:
149:
143:
140:Paul Thacker
137:
110:
99:spilled over
80:
52:
39:
38:
32:
31:
29:
1504:February 4,
1472:February 4,
915:Taiwan News
756:February 4,
558:Vanity Fair
299:The Lancet'
192:, a former
182:Vanity Fair
175:Journalist
165:Jamie Metzl
1520:Categories
1363:The Lancet
1304:2021-11-03
1097:The Lancet
1007:The Lancet
486:(9). 320.
431:The Lancet
412:References
359:The Lancet
352:The Lancet
294:The Lancet
119:Linda Saif
103:engineered
87:SARS-CoV-2
77:Background
59:Change.org
54:The Lancet
1231:234487267
1039:235494625
828:238241044
804:: n2414.
675:235760734
651:: n1656.
579:The Times
534:The Hindu
179:wrote in
129:Reception
107:bioweapon
95:bat-borne
1526:COVID-19
1393:34543608
1298:Archived
1251:The Hill
1223:33986172
1166:The Week
1127:34237296
955:ABC News
897:33144498
820:34598923
695:The Hill
667:34244293
599:BBC News
461:32087122
395:See also
345:zoonotic
288:Addendum
256:ABC News
218:Politico
45:COVID-19
1384:8448488
1293:Reuters
1214:9520851
1193:Bibcode
1185:Science
1118:8257054
1030:8215723
888:7703598
452:7159294
376:The US
1391:
1381:
1229:
1221:
1211:
1125:
1115:
1037:
1027:
895:
885:
826:
818:
673:
665:
459:
449:
318:, and
264:Lancet
204:Lancet
144:Lancet
142:, the
123:Daszak
111:Lancet
89:, the
35:letter
33:Lancet
1227:S2CID
1035:S2CID
824:S2CID
747:(PDF)
671:S2CID
1506:2022
1474:2022
1389:PMID
1219:PMID
1123:PMID
893:PMID
816:PMID
758:2022
663:PMID
457:PMID
117:and
30:The
1379:PMC
1371:doi
1367:398
1209:PMC
1201:doi
1189:372
1113:PMC
1105:doi
1101:398
1025:PMC
1015:doi
1011:397
883:PMC
873:doi
869:117
806:doi
802:375
798:BMJ
653:doi
649:374
645:BMJ
488:doi
447:PMC
439:doi
435:395
1522::
1490:.
1465:.
1445:.
1409:.
1387:.
1377:.
1365:.
1361:.
1342:.
1322:.
1296:.
1290:.
1269:.
1248:.
1225:.
1217:.
1207:.
1199:.
1187:.
1183:.
1164:.
1144:.
1121:.
1111:.
1099:.
1095:.
1076:.
1056:.
1033:.
1023:.
1009:.
1005:.
972:.
952:.
932:.
913:.
891:.
881:.
867:.
863:.
844:.
822:.
814:.
800:.
796:.
784:^
774:.
749:.
728:.
692:.
669:.
661:.
647:.
643:.
631:^
621:.
608:^
596:.
576:.
555:.
543:^
531:.
510:.
484:10
482:.
478:.
455:.
445:.
433:.
429:.
387:,
314:,
1508:.
1476:.
1451:.
1431:.
1395:.
1373::
1328:.
1307:.
1275:.
1254:.
1233:.
1203::
1195::
1168:.
1150:.
1129:.
1107::
1062:.
1041:.
1017::
976:.
958:.
938:.
899:.
875::
830:.
808::
760:.
732:.
713:.
698:.
677:.
655::
582:.
561:.
537:.
496:.
490::
463:.
441::
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.