Wikipedia

Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory

Latest comment: 1 hour ago by BabbleOnto in topic house committee
Learn more about this page


Origins of COVID-19: Current consensus

  1. There is no consensus on whether the lab leak theory is a "conspiracy theory" or a "minority scientific viewpoint". (RfC, February 2021)
  2. There is consensus against defining "disease and pandemic origins" (broadly speaking) as a form of biomedical information for the purpose of WP:MEDRS. However, information that already fits into biomedical information remains classified as such, even if it relates to disease and pandemic origins (e.g. genome sequences, symptom descriptions, phylogenetic trees). (RfC, May 2021)
  3. In multiple prior non-RFC discussions about manuscripts authored by Rossana Segreto and/or Yuri Deigin, editors have found the sources to be unreliable. Specifically, editors were not convinced by the credentials of the authors, and concerns were raised with the editorial oversight of the BioEssays "Problems & Paradigms" series. (Jan 2021, Jan 2021, Jan 2021, Feb 2021, June 2021, ...)
  4. The consensus of scientists is that SARS-CoV-2 is likely of zoonotic origin. (January 2021, May 2021, May 2021, May 2021, June 2021, June 2021, WP:NOLABLEAK (frequently cited in discussions))
  5. The March 2021 WHO report on the origins of SARS-CoV-2 should be referred to as the "WHO-convened report" or "WHO-convened study" on first usage in article prose, and may be abbreviated as "WHO report" or "WHO study" thereafter. (RfC, June 2021)
  6. The "manufactured bioweapon" idea should be described as a "conspiracy theory" in wiki-voice. (January 2021, February 2021, May 2021, May 2021, June 2021, June 2021, June 2021, June 2021, July 2021, July 2021, July 2021, August 2021)
  7. The scientific consensus (and the Frutos et al. sources ([1][2]) which support it), which dismisses the lab leak, should not be described as "based in part on Shi [Zhengli]'s emailed answers." (RfC, December 2021)
  8. The American FBI and Department of Energy finding that a lab leak was likely should not be mentioned in the lead of COVID-19 lab leak theory, because it is WP:UNDUE. (RFC, October 2023)
  9. The article COVID-19 lab leak theory may not go through the requested moves process between 4 March 2024 and 3 March 2025. (RM, March 2024)

Last updated (diff) on 30 November 2024 by Shibbolethink (t · c)


Lab leak theory sources

edit
Latest comment: 6 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion

List of good sources with good coverage to help expand. Not necessarily for inclusion but just for consideration. Preferably not articles that just discuss a single quote/press conference. The long-style reporting would be even better. Feel free to edit directly to add to the list. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:39, 18 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Last updated by Julian Brown (talk) 23:43, 12 November 2023 (UTC) Reply

[edit]  ·
Scholarship
For the relevant sourcing guideline, see WP:SCHOLARSHIP. For a database curated by the NCBI, see LitCoVID
[edit]  ·
Journalism
For the relevant sourcing guideline, see WP:NEWSORG.
[edit]  ·
Opinion-based editorials written by scientists/scholars
For the relevant sourcing guideline, see WP:RSOPINION.
[edit]  ·
Opinion-based editorials written by journalists
For the relevant sourcing guideline, see WP:RSOPINION.
[edit]  ·
Government and policy
Keep in mind, these are primary sources and thus should be used with caution!

References

http://lu.china-embassy.gov.cn/fra/zlgx/202111/t20211108_10445665.htm represents the Chinese government position and has some interesting data, like confirmation that the CCDC is feet from the wet market (current article says "within miles", which isn't appropriate. Someone please fix. I see it's not among the sources. There isn't a single .gov.cn source in the article. -RememberOrwell (talk) 20:52, 5 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 5 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The current version of article contains a phrase: "There is no evidence that any genetic manipulation or reverse genetics (a technique required to make chimeric viruses) of SARS-related bat coronaviruses was ever carried out at the WIV."

It is FALSE. There is (at least one) publicly available paper which proves the contrary.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1006698 is an article from 2017 with (among others) authored by Daszak and Zheng-Li Shi (the head of the WIV). "Discovery of a rich gene pool of bat SARS-related coronaviruses provides new insights into the origin of SARS coronavirus".

It contains this passage:

"Construction of recombinant viruses

Recombinant viruses with the S gene of the novel bat SARSr-CoVs and the backbone of the infectious clone of SARSr-CoV WIV1 were constructed using the reverse genetic system described previously [23] (S9 Fig). The fragments E and F were re-amplified with primer pairs (FE, 5’-AGGGCCCACCTGGCACTGGTAAGAGTCATTTTGC-3’, R-EsBsaI, 5’-ACTGGTCTCTTCGTTTAGTTATTAACTAAAATATCACTAGACACC-3’) and (F-FsBsaI, 5’-TGAGGTCTCCGAACTTATGGATTTGTTTATGAG-3’, RF, 5’-AGGTAGGCCTCTAGGGCAGCTAAC-3’), respectively. The products were named as fragment Es and Fs, which leave the spike gene coding region as an independent fragment. BsaI sites (5’-GGTCTCN|NNNN-3’) were introduced into the 3’ terminal of the Es fragment and the 5’ terminal of the Fs fragment, respectively. The spike sequence of Rs4231 was amplified with the primer pair (F-Rs4231-BsmBI, 5’-AGTCGTCTCAACGAACATGTTTATTTTCTTATTCTTTCTCACTCTCAC-3’ and R-Rs4231-BsmBI, 5’-TCACGTCTCAGTTCGTTTATGTGTAATGTAATTTGACACCCTTG-3’). The S gene sequence of Rs7327 was amplified with primer pair (F-Rs7327-BsaI, 5’-AGTGGTCTCAACGAACATGAAATTGTTAGTTTTAGTTTTTGCTAC-3’ and R-Rs7327-BsaI, 5’- TCAGGTCTCAGTTCGTTTATGTGTAATGTAATTTAACACCCTTG-3’). The fragment Es and Fs were both digested with BglI (NEB) and BsaI (NEB). The Rs4231 S gene was digested with BsmBI. The Rs7327 S gene was digested with BsaI. The other fragments and bacterial artificial chromosome (BAC) were prepared as described previously. Then the two prepared spike DNA fragments were separately inserted into BAC with Es, Fs and other fragments. The correct infectious BAC clones were screened. The chimeric viruses were rescued as described previously [23]."

^^^^ This is exactly "genetic manipulation of SARS-related bat coronaviruses". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.165.236.120 (talk • contribs)

Seems like an unambiguous error. It's still there.
Please add [dubious – discuss] after the sentence.
Visual editor doesn't work on this page. Why? RememberOrwell (talk) 20:26, 5 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 18:39, 6 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

If Donald Trump wins the US election

edit
Latest comment: 26 days ago9 comments7 people in discussion

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/31520401/wuhan-lab-leak-trump-election/

  • Classified intelligence on the origins of Covid may finally be released if Donald Trump wins the US election, America's top virologist has said.
  • Dr Redfield said: "We can actually have a real investigation with subpoena power."
  • "I haven't seen really much interest from the current administration - especially when you did a 90-day commission that had virtually no answers and wasn't done very scientifically."

2600:8804:6600:4:112C:6924:5E1D:6D4D (talk) 16:05, 7 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Very much a case of lets wait and see. Slatersteven (talk) 16:13, 7 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Trump’s return raises concerns about funding cuts and politicization at the NIH

For consideration to be included under the Polication, academic and media attention section. 2600:8804:6600:4:757D:D3AF:6C59:A5C6 (talk) 22:55, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Is there any connection to the purpose of this page, the improvement of the article? --Hob Gadling (talk) 22:18, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Paul: ‘Hopeful’ RFK Jr. Will Have a ‘Big Influence’ in the Incoming Trump Administration

  • “We’re very hopeful that whoever will be head of Health and Human Services will now reveal the documents I’ve been trying to get for three years.”
  • “NIH and HHS have refused to turn over the documents as to why Wuhan got this research money and why it wasn’t screened as dangerous research,” the Kentucky lawmaker added. “Those documents exist and they won’t give them to me. I think a friendly Trump administration will. I’m looking forward to getting those, mainly because we need to try to make sure this doesn’t happen again.”

2600:8804:6600:4:757D:D3AF:6C59:A5C6 (talk) 22:53, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

This is an encyclopedia. Can't imagine why we would use Robert R. Redfield or RFK Jr. as sources. In any case, we do not have a WP:CRYSTALBALL and shouldn't pretend that we do. We document what has happened, not what might happen.
O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:21, 9 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Wikipedia routinely users quotes in articles... 184.182.203.105 (talk) 03:53, 9 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Crystalballing, we do not yet know what Trump or RFK will do. Weh they do it we might be able to include it (taking into account wp:undue). |Slatersteven (talk) 10:54, 9 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Major biomedical funder NIH poised for massive reform under Trump 2.0

The COVID-19 Lab Leak Hypothesis is a Minority Scientific Viewpoint

edit
Latest comment: 28 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The lab leak hypothesis, which suggests that the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic may have originated in a laboratory-related incident, remains a minority viewpoint within the scientific community. While the prevailing consensus points to a natural, zoonotic origin for the virus, several experts continue to argue that the lab leak hypothesis is plausible based on correlative evidence and circumstantial factors. For instance, Richard Ebright, a prominent microbiologist, maintains that molecular data over time strengthens the likelihood of a lab leak, pointing to an evolving understanding of the virus’s genetic sequence.[1]

Most virologists say that a lab-leak origin is possible. For example, former National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Dr. Anthony Fauci said he has always been open to the lab leak hypothesis. In testimony before the House Select Committee on the Coronavirus, Fauci stated, “It is inconceivable that anyone who reads this e-mail could conclude that I was trying to cover up the possibility of a laboratory leak”.[2]

All agencies within the US Intelligence Community (IC) continue to assess that both a natural and laboratory-associated origin remain plausible hypotheses to explain the first human infection.[3] The White House has stated there is no consensus within the U.S. government on the virus's origin.[4]

Four IC elements and the National Intelligence Council assess with low confidence that the initial SARS-CoV-2 infection was most likely caused by natural exposure to an animal infected with it or a close progenitor virus.[5][6] 2601:3C4:4300:9A0:F5F6:8F3C:5B24:BA31 (talk) 08:41, 12 November 2024 (UTC) Lardlegwarmers (talk) 04:04, 13 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

References

  1. ^ BMJ (September 9, 2024). "Will we ever know where covid-19 came from?". BMJ. 386 (q1578). doi:10.1136/bmj.q1578.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)
  2. ^ Max Kozlov, Lauren Wolf (June 3, 2024). "Fauci Calls COVID Cover-Up Claim 'Preposterous'". Scientific American. Retrieved 2024-11-12.
  3. ^ "Potential Links Between the Wuhan Institute of Virology and the Origin of the Covid-19 Pandemic" (PDF). Office of the Director of National Intelligence. June 2023. Retrieved 2024-11-12.
  4. ^ "Still no consensus on Covid's origins, White House says". Politico. 2023-02-27. Retrieved 2024-11-12.
  5. ^ "Unclassified Summary of Assessment on COVID-19 Origins" (PDF). Office of the Director of National Intelligence. 2023-02-28. Retrieved 2024-11-12.
  6. ^ "Assessment Covid-19 leaked from Chinese lab is a minority view within US intel community, sources say". CNN. 2023-02-28. Retrieved 2024-11-12.
What's this? An example of how not to follow the WP:BESTSOURCES, and so swerve WP:NPOV? Bon courage (talk) 04:09, 13 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 November 2024

edit
Latest comment: 26 days ago5 comments4 people in discussion

I believe this page has been compromised by China, and needs upgraded protection. The Lab Leak has gained significant revisiting, and now seems to be the 50/50 thought. Just click “covid lab leak news” and multiple, credit newspapers are saying it came from a lab. I suggest updating this page to reflect reality, and to present it in a significantly less biased manner. It’s concerning. 2605:8D80:502:6E1E:AC2C:CA8F:93F3:25FD (talk) 00:53, 15 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. --AntiDionysius (talk) 00:57, 15 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Change the consensus to “lab leak theory is a minority scientific viewpoint” as opposed to a conspiracy theory. There has been ample material provided by credible sources to support this change. 2601:3C4:4300:9A0:F4EB:4C2F:5A64:890D (talk) 08:22, 15 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
New York Times. “Why the Pandemic Probably Started in a Lab, in 5 Key Points”
By Alina Chan
Dr. Chan is a molecular biologist at the Broad Institute of M.I.T. and Harvard, and a co-author of “Viral: The Search for the Origin of Covid-19.” 2601:3C4:4300:9A0:F4EB:4C2F:5A64:890D (talk) 08:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
China actually pushes lab leak ideas, in their "Americans did it" flavor. Those are just as baseless as the "Chinese did it" ones. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:20, 15 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 November 2024

edit
Latest comment: 22 days ago22 comments6 people in discussion

Propose adding in the lead paragraph:

Although investigation and debate into the origins of the pandemic are ongoing, and the majority of scientists support the zoonotic origin hypothesis, a small minority of scientists, as well as all of the agencies in the United States Intelligence Community, have suggested that the laboratory leak hypothesis is at least plausible and warrants further consideration.[1][2][3] [4][5][6] Although there is no conclusive proof, significant circumstantial evidence suggests that the initial COVID-19 outbreak may have originated in a laboratory. [7] However, most of the evidence suggests that the SARS-CoV-2 virus was originally harbored by bats, and spread to humans from infected wild animals, functioning as an intermediate host, at the Huanan Seafood Market in Wuhan, Hubei, China, in December 2019. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 05:09, 16 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Not done No consensus for the WP:PROFRINGE effort. Bon courage (talk) 07:50, 16 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
A Talk:Fringe theory is defined as:
“Fringe theories in a nutshell: To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. More extensive treatment should be reserved for an article about the idea, which must meet the test of notability. Additionally, in an article about the minority viewpoint itself, the proper contextual relationship between minority and majority viewpoints must be made clear.”
The statement, in an article about the idea that “a small minority of scientists and the intelligence community consider the lab leak hypothesis to be at least plausible” is not giving “undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea.” and does make clear “the proper contextual relationship between minority and majority viewpoints”
1) COVID-19 lab leak theory is “an article about the idea” itself,
2) The topic meets the test of Notability in the English Wikipedia
3) The statement “a small minority of scientists and the intelligence community consider the lab leak hypothesis to be at least plausible” is well supported by the cited references, and;
4) It clarifies the proper contextual relationship between majority and minority viewpoints.
5) The editors proposing these changes are not Wikipedia:PROFRINGE. The editors proposing these changes are not “the inventors or promoters of that theory”. The lab leak hypothesis is considered to be plausible by a minority of scientists and by the US Intelligence Community. Whereas, the editors proposing these changes are simply trying to improve Wikipedia by correcting the article to include this information, which has been already published in the aforementioned reputable sources. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 17:10, 17 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Again,   Not done. Consensus for inclusion should be established before making an edit request, and that clearly has not happened here. - MrOllie (talk) 17:32, 17 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
OK, to all the editors with a position on this proposed edit: please provide your reasons for supporting or proposing the edit. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 19:37, 17 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Opposed - This gives undue prominence to a fringe viewpoint. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:09, 17 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
WP:UNDUE is defined as: “Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views.”
1)) WP:UNDUE would apply to a proposed edit to the main article (Origin of SARS-CoV-2) that presented the lab leak hypothesis as if it had equal support to the zoonotic hypothesis amongst virologists in the peer-reviewed literature. This is not the focus of the proposed edit. “In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space.”
2) The COVID-19 lab leak theory article is “an article about those specific views”. In particular, it is an article about a Hypothesis (a proposed explanation) that a minority of scientists and all of the US intelligence community consider to be plausible (likely to be true, but not necessarily true).
3) It is appropriate that the article about the idea itself should be clear about the relative weight and support for the idea, and “describe these ideas in their proper context” (see: Wikipedia:neutral point of view#Giving "equal validity" can create a false balance) namely, that the idea is a hypothesis, supported by a small minority of scientists, and considered at least plausible by all of the US Intelligence Community. This claim is extensively supported by reliable references here. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 20:08, 17 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Oppose - Not sure why that would need to be added. Looks to me that info is already present in the intro. At best that just seems completely redundant. --McSly (talk) 22:15, 17 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
That is not true. Any information this article has on the reputable sources that have endorsed the position, and the evidence for it is either missing or buried under copious counterarguments, accusations of being either a total “conspiracy theory””, “misplaced”, or, alternatively, having some ground in science, but not supported by any evidence, or else scant evidence. Nowhere in the first paragraph is there mention that it is a minority scientific hypothesis, nor of the intelligence community’s assessment that all of the US agencies are open to the view, nor of any evidence to support the view whatsoever. The first paragraph contains: one sentence that defines “the lab leak theory”, one sentence that states that the lab leak theory is controversial and describes the majority scientific view about the Origin of SARS-CoV-2, two more sentences that articulate the majority scientific view (zoonotic origin), and a sentence describing two items of evidence against the lab leak. Propose that we clarify further up in the lead that this is a hypothesis that has been endorsed by legitimate scientists and that the IC community assessed that it is plausible, and at least mention some of the circumstantial evidence for the theory. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 02:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
What you've described is called neutrality. Your proposal would WP:GEVAL it. There are plenty of high-quality sources on this topic, as cited by this article. Alina Chan's writings (good grief) are not among them. Bon courage (talk) 04:35, 18 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for your clarifications. I still believe that the lede does not neutrally represent the balance of the material contained in the body of the article. The first paragraph contains not a shred of support for the idea, even though the body itself is replete with instances where reputable authorities have described compelling circumstantial evidence to support the hypothesis, including evidence that counts against the majority view, that they consider the scenario to be a viable possibility, worthy of further investigation by mainstream scientists, or that the lack of a smoking gun is consistent with the scientific investigation being inadequate so far. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 21:46, 18 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
There is no evidence, as the article says, let alone "compelling" evidence. Wikipedia follows sources, not the fancies of editors. Bon courage (talk) 01:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
But there is evidence! It’s not as strong as the majority opinion, but there is enough for it to qualify as a legitimate scientific hypothesis AKA minority scientific view, and as a possible scenario in the eyes of the US government.
1) The initial outbreak occurred close to the Wuhan lab, where they were performing research on coronaviruses.
2) Three researchers there were hospitalized immediately before the outbreak.
3) There were never any bats or any other wild animals found in the area of the initial outbreak to be infected with the same exact virus that causes Covid-19 [5]
3) Regarding a lab leak, “That possibility certainly exists, and I am totally in favour of a full investigation of whether that could have happened," Anthony Fauci, President Biden's chief medical adviser, told a US Senate committee hearing in May 2021. And Dr Fauci said in 2021 he was "not convinced" the virus originated naturally.
4) A full investigation never occurred due to non-cooperation by the host country. “From day one China has been engaged in a massive cover-up," Jamie Metzl, a fellow at the Washington-based Atlantic Council who has been pushing for the lab-leak theory to be looked into, told the BBC in 2021. "We should be demanding the full investigation of all origin hypotheses that's required."
5) A prominent group of scientists criticized the WHO report. "We must take hypotheses about both natural and laboratory spillovers seriously until we have sufficient data," the scientists wrote in Science Magazine.
6) WHO's own director-general, Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, called for a new investigation, saying: "All hypotheses remain open and require further study."
[6] Lardlegwarmers (talk) 04:08, 19 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Have you read this article? It explains the fallacies, conspiracy theories and misinformation you are repeating (alongside irrelevancies). As the article explains there is no evidence SARS-CoV-2 existed prior to the pandemic and no evidence of any laboratory incident. Wikipedia reflects that, to be neutral. Anyway, your request has been answered so we are done. Bon courage (talk) 04:17, 19 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
That’s incorrect. I have provided valid citations to support my evidence. If you disagree, please provide specific, substantive reasons to support your reasons for why you believe my claims are mere “fallacies, conspiracy theories, [] misinformation … [and] irrelevancies,” rather than just referring me to the article. You have repeatedly Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling#Reverting with "discuss first" without discussing, you have not provided any substantive arguments in favor of your position, but have merely thrown out generalizations (e.g., “misinformation”) and links to policies, without explaining substantively how and why those policies apply, and are now apparently “Refusing to continue to discuss”. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 06:20, 19 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
It's not my job to satisfy you; it's yours to achieve consensus for changes you desire. If you read this article the information is there, like the canard about the 'hospitalized researchers' (unrelated to the origins of the outbreak, in fact). As to your stonewalling accusation, well that too is simply untrue. Bon courage (talk) 06:57, 19 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
I looked at your first reason The initial outbreak occurred close to the Wuhan lab, where they were performing research on coronaviruses.
The article says this: this very closeness has made it easy for conspiracy theories to take root suggesting the laboratory must be the virus' origin.[18] However virology labs are often built near potential outbreak areas
So, Bon courage's response Have you read this article? is spot on. If you have a list of reasons that are supposedly "evidence", but the very first reason is already refuted in the article, then what you are doing constitutes chutzpah, not serious encyclopedic work. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:03, 19 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
We are not here to debate the topic, but to determine the correct representation in the article based on material that has already been published by reputable sources. All I am saying is that there is clearly enough material presented by reputable sources —in support of the hypothesis—to warrant a least a tiny nod in the lede to that effect. Right now, the lede is a wholesale dismissal of the hypothesis, followed by a body that contains a ton of information by reputable sources who consider the hypothesis to be a viable minority viewpoint, even if there are also other sources who weigh in against that. It is not 100% zoonotic, 0% lab leak, as the lede would suggest. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 07:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Err, you were the one trumpeting "compelling evidence". Again, read the lede: it already says what most and some scientists think. Bon courage (talk) 07:29, 19 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
I was just doing that to negate what you had broached: “ There is no evidence, as the article says, let alone "compelling" evidence. Wikipedia follows sources, not the fancies of editors. Bon courage (talk) 01:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)”Reply
The claim “there is no evidence” is false. And the article does contain a ton of sources that support the theory. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 08:08, 19 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Within science, "no evidence" is short for "no evidence that is neither ridiculous nor refuted". There is always "evidence" in the loose meaning of the word; there is "evidence" for 2+2=5. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

References

  1. ^ "'Lab-leak' and natural origin proponents face off—civilly—in forum on pandemic origins". www.science.org.
  2. ^ Karel, Daniel (9 October 2021). ""Lab leak" or natural spillover? Leading scientists debate COVID-19 origins". Salon. Retrieved 24 November 2021.
  3. ^ "The Mysterious Case of the COVID-19 Lab-Leak Theory". The New Yorker. 12 October 2021. Retrieved 24 November 2021.
  4. ^ "Why the Pandemic Probably Started in a Lab, in 5 Key Points", The New York Times, 3 June 2024
  5. ^ "Former CDC director believes coronavirus came from lab in China". CNN Video. 26 March 2021. Archived from the original on 25 July 2021. Retrieved 2 August 2021.
  6. ^ "Unclassified Summary of Assessment on COVID-19 Origins" (PDF). Office of the Director of National Intelligence. All agencies assess that two hypotheses are plausible: natural exposure to an infected animal and a laboratory-associated incident
  7. ^ Chan, Alina. "Why the Pandemic Probably Started in a Lab, in 5 Key Points". New York Times.

Request for comment

edit
Latest comment: 4 days ago64 comments18 people in discussion

Is there enough reputable source material—in favor of the lab leak hypothesis—referenced in the body of this page, to justify softening the anti-lab leak tone in the lead paragraph and including some acknowledgement of the hypothesis being viable/legitimate/plausible? Lardlegwarmers (talk) 09:29, 19 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think the article comes across as very biased and dismissive, considering that it claims the issue is "controversial". But take a look at this source: https://oversight.house.gov/release/covid-origins-hearing-wrap-up-facts-science-evidence-point-to-a-wuhan-lab-leak%EF%BF%BC/ 70.65.36.36 (talk) 14:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Here's another article: https://theconversation.com/did-covid-come-from-an-animal-market-heres-what-the-new-evidence-really-tells-us-239533. I'm sure there must be good sources by now in favour of the lab leak hypothesi, or at least ones that don't dismiss it out of hand. 70.65.36.36 (talk) 14:56, 19 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
There is some relevant content in this source that should be added to the article. For example, after “ The original source of viral transmission to humans remains unclear, as does whether the virus became pathogenic(capable of causing disease) before or after a spillover event.” it should be added:
No SARS-CoV-2 was ever detected in live animals in the Wuhan market, nor in the supply chain for wild animals to the market. The closest natural reservoir of similar viruses is over 1,500 km away. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 16:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
No SARS-CoV-2 was ever detected in live animals in the Wuhan market, nor in the supply chain for wild animals to the market
This is disingenuous. A peer-reviewed study has linked the virus to the wet market via sequencing samples recovered from around and within an animal stall, virus RNA commingled with DNA from animals in that stall, at similar levels and locations to known animal-circulating viruses. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 03:24, 25 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
So what's the alleged story here? "SARS-CoV-2 was detected there, but it was detected in the market's air/fixtures/infrastructure, and they didn't test live animals"? or "They tested live animals, but the ones they tested didn't happen to be infected, so that absence of evidence is proof that none of them ever were infected"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:41, 25 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
No live animals were ever tested. The whole market was already thoroughly sanitized and there weren't any live animals left to test by the time the researchers showed up. Thus, as with the lack of direct evidence of a laboratory incident (if any) being apparently non-existent due to delays and a lack of transparency, there is no direct evidence of a spillover from animals, only circumstantial, as no testing of live animals was ever conducted, and the zoonotic hypothesis stands on samples taken from the environment. And they never found SARS-CoV-2 per se in wild bats even when they did look for it. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 19:52, 25 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Let's see: the first known cases was in December 2019, so the spillover event likely would have been at least a month or two before that. The first time anyone thought to ask about testing was probably a couple of months after that. So in a perfect world, with infinite resources, we'd have been testing animals in that market in February or March 2020 and pretending that this told us something definitive about the animals that had been there in October of November 2019. Turnover in a market is going to be hours-to-days, so "Animal Zero" would have been long gone.
Well, that pretty much explains to me why none of the experts seem to be fussed about not testing live animals. Thanks. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:33, 25 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
If a COVID-positive human sneezed on a raccoon cage, you would get the same results. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 08:28, 26 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
No it does not as the bulk of the actual science says (at best) is that some of it is worth further investigation. Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 19 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
I wonder why you are focused on "the lead paragraph" instead of the rest of the article. The lead should reflect the whole article. If you want the lead changed, then the thing to do is to show that the lead doesn't match the rest of the article.
Personally, the content I'd like to see in the future would be about the ordinary/non-expert people who feel drawn to this idea. Do they have more or less of some psychological traits (e.g., disliking people who are different, low sense of control over their lives) compared to ordinary/non-expert people who reject it? Do they overlap with the kind of person susceptible to diseases of despair (e.g., poor job prospects, low education, limited social support)? Do they believe other conspiracy theories (e.g., 9/11 was an inside job, Biden lost the 2020 election) or other false stories (e.g., women have taken over)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:39, 20 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
I believe that the body contains enough reputable source material on the side of the lab leak theory to warrant revising the lead so that it’s not so dismissive of the hypothesis. There are reputable authorities that do not consider the hypothesis a non-starter, and many of them are documented in this article. Therefore, the lead seems awkwardly ill-fitted to the rest of the article, presenting a hard-line POV whereas the information that follows is often depicted as more of a mainstream minority position, for the lack of a better word, rather than just pure pseudoscience.
Your interest in the personal traits of the people who consider the lab leak hypothesis viable is worthy of exploration, at least in the talk pages. Have you encountered any reputable content that hasn’t already been added? Lardlegwarmers (talk) 11:22, 21 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
No, I have seen no sources on this. We have scholarly sources on similar subjects (e.g., people who choose altmed for cancer, or for people who believe conspiracy theories in general), so I am hopeful that these sources will appear at some point in the future. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Check out Fringe science#Responding to fringe science Lardlegwarmers (talk) 04:49, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
I have seen no sources on this "This" means "lab leak", which is obviously not mentioned in that 1995 source. Proponents of fringe ideas talk about general stuff like that all the time (see also Galileo Gambit), because if they talk about the specific fringe idea, they have nothing. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:12, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Slatersteven I think it is relevant to reply to this comment by saying

The 'Biden lost the 2020 election' was a bunk nonsense before November 5th, but after the election, it's at least reasonable to thoerize how Biden got 8 million votes than Harris. It's still a conspiracy theory, but it become more interesting after November 5th.213.230.87.98 (talk) 15:31, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

What has this to do with anything? Slatersteven (talk) 13:26, 21 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
(I think that 213.230 is talking about the 2024 election, not the 2020 election. The 2020 election is the one that resulted in events like the January 6 United States Capitol attack and Trump phoning the Georgia election officials to ask them to "find" some votes for him. Anyone who believes Trump won the 2020 election instead of Biden was wrong, and most of them believed in some election-related conspiracy theory.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:18, 21 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Still sod all to do with the lab leak theory. Slatersteven (talk) 17:20, 21 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
They're both conspiracy theories from the same time period. They were even promoted by the same groups. It feels like a fair comparison point to me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:23, 21 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
No... One is a conspiracy theory and one we're unsure about. From the top of the page "This article is about the hypothesis proposing SARS-CoV-2 came from a laboratory. For bioweapon conspiracy theories, see COVID-19 misinformation § Bio-weapon." The position that the COVID-19 lab leak theory is overall a conspiracy theory is a fringe one. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:36, 21 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
WAID, this is really out of date.
When the House committee was conducting interviews, one of their standard questions was whether lab leak was a conspiracy theory. Collins, Fauci, and Tabak at NIH, Daszak at EcoHealth, Thorp at Science, Garry and Andersen from the Proximal Origins paper, all stated in congressional testimony that it was not a conspiracy theory. - Palpable (talk) 06:54, 23 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
I agree that it's not just a conspiracy theory. There is a conspiracy theory that says something like "They™ deliberately engineered a worldwide pandemic".
There is also a rational hypothesis that says something like "Biosecurity facilities are not foolproof; if and only if this virus happened to get collected and sent to this lab [anybody's lab, but this is the one we're talking about], if and only if it happened to get handled [instead of simply stored], if and only if it happened to be a kind that could already infect humans, if and only if one of the lab workers happened to get [accidentally] exposed to it [through some everyday violation of standard protocols], if any only if that lab worker happened to be susceptible to infection, if and only if that lab worker was in contact during the infectious period with other people who were also susceptible, if any only if the virus were already in a readily transmissible state – well, if that whole Chain of events (accident analysis) were true, then logically, it could have happened that way."
But what I'm talking about is somewhere between these two stories. It sounds more like this: "They™ are hiding something from me. They™ did not immediately allow people whom I trust to travel into a dangerous city and sequence every single one of the millions of samples stored in multiple facilities to see whether any of them happen to match. They™ did not prove to my satisfaction that the kind of work they do in that lab is all work I would approve of. They™ should have known, several months before the pandemic lockdowns, that the lab's work needed to be suspended and the place stored in amber. I have heard reports that some of those lab workers were sick during cold and flu season! Being sick with anything means they might have had COVID-19, and it is being covered up. If there is nothing being covered up, why have we not seen a complete list of the names of every staff member, detailed logs of their symptoms for the months leading up to the lockdowns, and complete copies of lab work proving that none of them had ever had COVID-19? Surely there's a magic test somewhere that can say, months later, that person has had COVID-19, but it was in March 2020 and not November 2019. Frankly, something this disruptive to my whole life simply could not have been an ordinary zoonosis event. Someone has to deserve the blame. I want to blame someone, preferably someone who is different from me, and I blame Them™. I don't have proof, but it is at least likely that They™ are covering up something. They™ probably caused this accidentally in their lab." WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:26, 23 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
My point again is that people here are unduly obsessed with the conspiracy theory angle given that many of the people involved have testified to Congress that lab leak is not a conspiracy theory.
The evidence for research involvement is circumstantial but goes way beyond the vague suspicions, gut feelings, and resentment in your caricature. The best attempt to quantify it is Weissman's detailed analysis, which looks for probabilities that can be estimated to compare different origin theories. There's a surprising amount known, though both theories are missing the ancestral sequence that would settle it. Weissman is a retired physicist, has taught university statistics, and has a published paper in Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A pointing out a statistical error in Worobey et al. You don't have to agree with his conclusion, but if you think there's no evidence you might want to take a look. - Palpable (talk) 06:26, 24 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
We seem to have the discussion every month. "It" is not a conspiracy theory, and the article doesn't say so if "it" just means entertaining the idea that a lab origin is possible. Pretty much everything else is, however, either a conspiracy theory, irrational, political, racist, or "simply wrong". That's what the WP:BESTSOURCES say and so does Wikipedia. It's not hard. The Weismann stuff is useless to us. Bon courage (talk) 06:32, 24 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
This might amuse some of you: I met someone once who had testified to the US Congress. He was a nice older man telling me about his charitable interests (we were probably at a fundraiser for one of them), and he said one of the big medical charities put his name on a list of "ordinary citizens" to do the congressional lobbying thing. I asked him what the experience was like.
He described the scene, and ended with saying that towards the end, one of the legislators said that, while they were all very nice people and he was duly sympathetic, if the patients ran out of money, their families needed to pay for the rest because he didn't want to raise taxes. So, this very nice older man told me, he testified to Congress that 50% of them didn't have any living family members – a number he told me that he made up on the spot.
I realize that my sample size is n=1, but I would urge you to remember that "testified to Congress" is not a magical truth serum, and that in my own personal experience, 100% of the people I've personally talked to about testifying to Congress knowingly told at least one deliberate lie during their testimony. I accuse none of the specific people of lying; I am willing to hold them as paragons of probity. But you will, I think, understand now why "testified to Congress" is not on my own list of valid evidence for disputed points. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:50, 24 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Good story. I hope you'll take a look at Weissman's writeup sometime. - Palpable (talk) 08:42, 24 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
I have glanced over parts of it. Some of the assumptions, such as assuming that if a 2018 grant application is not funded, the work will happen in 2019 anyway, do not sound convincing to me. That might be true for an established researcher at his former employer, which is one of the largest research universities in the US, but that doesn't mean it's true for a government agency in China, and even if it's true in general, that doesn't mean it was true in this specific case.
Other assumptions, such as treating "A researcher could have been infected while gathering samples" as a case of a lab leak and not a case of zoonosis, make me wonder whether this is an If by whiskey case: If by lab leak, you mean something that was present in a lab and leaks out of it, then... but if by lab leak, you mean something that happens to a human handling a wild animal in a wild setting, then....
Overall, the whole thing makes me think of https://xkcd.com/882/ and the problems of retrospective studies. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:25, 24 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Weissman doesn't assume that the work was done? He just tries to quantify the extraordinary coincidence that a virus matching the proposal (unlike any of the thousand known sarbecoviruses) showed up near one of the sites involved in the proposal (as opposed to in one of the provinces closer to all the known relatives) one year after the proposal (instead of some previous decade). It's also worth knowing that some work was to be done in Wuhan specifically because it could be conducted at a lower biosafety level there.
As for the collection-related accident theory, that's why the term "research related" is generally better than "lab leak". An accident in the collection process wouldn't qualify as natural spillover either. But since we're stuck with the common name it makes more sense to lump a collection accident in the lab bucket, because the important questions going forward are (1) should we keep investigating the possibility of research involvement and (2) how much oversight should be required for this kind of research program.
Certainly it would be nice to have more evidence instead of failing to squeeze answers out of a small and biased sample of data points! We wouldn't be talking about this if anyone had found a close enough ancestor, either in someone's database or during the extensive wildlife surveys that followed the spillover.
That's why Weissman limits the analysis to evidence where the two theories can be compared side to side. You can't just argue that "one theory is improbable, so it must have happened the other way" because both theories are improbable. This Bayesian approach has nothing in common with data dredging, the abuse of frequentist hypothesis testing that is skewered in that xkcd.
The other part of the analysis that I particularly recommend discusses weaknesses in the papers claiming to establish a market spillover. In the surveys of experts, I think 15-20% favored research involvement. But many of the other ~80% cited the 2022 market origin papers as the reason for favoring zoonotic spillover, so it's worth understanding how flimsy those papers are. (Amusingly, the people doing that survey also had a negative control question about familiarity with a fictitious paper, and 1/3 of respondents said they were familiar with that one too.) - Palpable (talk) 00:16, 25 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
I refer to his statement that "Although DEFUSE was not funded by DARPA, anyone who has run a grant-supported research lab knows that work on yet-to-be-funded projects routinely continues", which sounds a lot like assuming that work that is not funded was still performed.
Given WP:NOTFORUM, if you want to talk about this, please leave a note on my talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:02, 25 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
The Weissman article is not peer reviewed, but it cites a few useful pieces of evidence that occur in peer reviewed articles.
Bloom[1] found that for the DNA samples taken in the market "sample-by-sample SC2 RNA correlated negatively with the presence of DNA from possible non-human hosts" (quoting Weissman). In other words, they took a ton of swabs in the sewer pipes, animal cages, etc., at the market, and samples with wild animal DNA were less likely to have evidence of COVID-19 than any random other sample taken from the site.
Crits-Christoph et al.[2] found that (quoting Weissman) "The raccoon dog DNA [taken from the market] seems consistent with the local wild animals, consistent with previous reports that these were the source. Those local populations tested negative for SC2-like viruses. No evidence was reported that any potentially susceptible species was sourced from Yunnan or further south." In other words, the wild animals who were kept at the market and it was suggested that they were the host, they were caught near the market, not in the area over 1,000 miles away where the bat coronavirus reservoir is located, and there was no evidence of COVID-19 in the local raccoon dog population.
Seems like the market itself being the site of the spillover is pretty controversial. And given that the wild animal DNA samples taken from the market and found to contain traces of COVID-19 was considered a prized piece of evidence for a zoonotic spillover, it would stand to reason that these findings would be relevant and reliably sourced. Somebody would have to go through the journal articles and confirm the language. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 08:20, 26 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
@WhatamIdoing brought up 2020 election denialism as an example of a mere conspiracy theory. Maybe a better example would be something uncontroversially false, like the flat earth theory, or the geocentric model of the solar system. But I think the point of the comment is that some people are more inclined to trust established sources and ignore sources that challenge the majority, even if they are backed by expertise and/or evidence. We have seen in the past where authorities have provided misinformation to the public, either intentionally or unintentionally. Thus, it is good that we have some people who are “programmed” to try to poke holes in the majority view. But there is obviously a line somewhere that if you cross it then you are just a total nut. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 11:54, 21 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Neither flat earth nor the geocentric model of the solar system are "uncontroversially false" if you allow people who are clearly incompetent or unhinged. And you have to allow those people if you think that 2020 election denialism is a valid position. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:11, 21 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
I just eyeballed this, and didn’t run a regression analysis. But the total vote count for 2020 being an huge outlier is a data point in favor of that position, so it’s not completely unreasonable. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 17:10, 21 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
WP:NOTFORUM. Go spread your conspiracy theories somewhere else. Someone used an analogy to support another point and now people discuss about which analogy is better instead of how to improve the article. Stop it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:17, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Note as well this RFC is improperly formulated. Slatersteven (talk) 16:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I created a request in Wikipedia:Teahouse (19:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC)) to help me get guidance and sort that out. Feel free to comment there if you have any guidance! Lardlegwarmers (talk) 19:49, 19 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
The Teahouse people gracefully repaired my bad wikitext. Was that what you were referring to, @Slatersteven? If I don’t hear from you about this again, I will assume that the issue is fixed and we are all set to proceed with the RfC as is. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 11:57, 21 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

No (with a side of impossibly vague RfC). Ledes summarise bodies and for Wikipedia to say this stuff is "legitimate" (whatever that is meant to mean) that would need to be in the body. In most of its aspects LL is just conspiratorial nonsense. We already say what some scientists think, and what most scientists think. Also, note that this article is about the lab leak idea, not the actual "legitimate" Origin of SARS-CoV-2 which has its own article. Bon courage (talk) 12:05, 21 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Lead not lede, please respect consensus. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:38, 21 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
What consensus? There is a consensus to use your preferred spelling in the MOS:LEAD guideline itself, but AFAIK there has never been a discussion about, much less a consensus for, restricting the spelling choices made by individual editors in their own comments on a talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:51, 21 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
If you don't think that the guideline reflects current consenus you are wecome to challenge it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:56, 21 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Does the MOS affect howe we post on talk pages? Slatersteven (talk) 18:04, 21 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Well, fuck. Editing Wikipedia got me into the habit of using the stupid "lede" spelling and now it's trying to de-programme me. What gives!?? Bon courage (talk) 18:09, 21 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
(It is a bit weird to see you use an Americanism.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:17, 21 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
We beat it into you and by God we will beat it out of you... That lede is the Devil, son. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:13, 21 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section says that the spelling ""lede" is avoided in this guideline". It does not say anything about what does or should happen outside "this guideline". WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:19, 21 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
You have provided the most innovative defense of lede I have seen in the half decade I've adopted "lead not lede" as my pet wiki peeve, it is much more fun to argue alongside you than against you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:13, 21 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • Yes, of course it has to be softened. If the science consensus starts to shift, so should this site.--Ortizesp (talk) 15:52, 21 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    @Ortizesp, where's the evidence that the scientific consensus has shifted compared to, say, a year ago? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:21, 21 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • No if the science shifts we might need to change it, I see no evidence it has. Slatersteven (talk) 15:57, 21 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • No, the sources presented above (a primary link to a house subcommittee hearing and a link to The Conversation) are not remotely high-quality enough to move the needle on a subject that has had massive amounts of high-quality academic coverage. --Aquillion (talk) 17:47, 21 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • No, because in the first place I take issue with the characterization of the lead's tone as anti-lab leak... I think we do a pretty good job all things considered and I don't support a major rewrite of the lead at this time. Obviously its not perfect (nothing on wiki is) but I think that its more productive to address any issues individually. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:00, 21 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • No, as the scientific consensus hasn't shifted, and the lead does a great job of portraying what the scientific consensus is. Additionally, the house oversight committee report linked above is not a reliable source, as it has no peer review, is not published in any scientific journal, and is, in essence, a political document written for political reasons. Such documents are not verifiable for controversial or disputed claims. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 21:36, 24 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • No. WP:NOLABLEAK, WP:PROFRINGE. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:18, 25 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • No,I take issue with the characterization of the lead's tone as anti-lab leak..., the lead simply records that the majority of scientific evidence strongly suggests that (like previous similar viruses), an animal crossover source is much more likely and no concrete evidence exists for the lab-leak theory, certainly not in its more conspiratorial versions. We may never know where the virus came from with certainty, so lab-leak scenarios will remain possible but highly improbable and, with the present available evidence, belief in is based on factors other than available evidence. We don't know with certainty means we don't know with certainty. It doesn't mean any particular theory magically becomes more credible. The sources offered don't imply that scientists have changed their assessment as to the most likely source, which could involve human agency, but probably not.Pincrete (talk) 16:41, 25 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • No - The current wording is not too strong. It doesn't say a lab leak is crazy or impossible, just "controversial" and less likely. The current version calls it a "hypothesis" and not something more emotive like "conspiracy theory". The wording takes the hypothesis seriously, and mentions the controversy in a neutral tone. It's currently good. Industrial Metal Brain (talk) 03:33, 28 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    It says "some of the scenarios" are conspiracy theories, but NOT the overall concept. One of the scenarios was a story China tried to start about it being engineered at a lab the United States. Industrial Metal Brain (talk) 03:38, 28 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    The term "conspiracy theory" is not "emotive", it is a valid, clear and easily-done categorization. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:46, 28 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Agreed. A conspiracy theory is a conclusion reached without sufficient evidence and that in addition requires malfeasance to fill the gaps in the evidence. It is pseudo-science (conclusion first then find supporting evidence, reject or ignore countervailing evidence) but with added paranoia.
    Compare this approach with the consensus of competent scientists: we don't know what caused it. Period. But we what we can say is that corona (and influenza) viruses regularly and frequently jump from animals to humans – especially when handling or consuming bushmeat – and there is no obvious reason why this one should be any different.
    My response to the RFC is also no. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:23, 28 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    (If it doesn't pretend to be scientific, e.g., New World Order conspiracy theory or 9/11 conspiracy theories, then a conspiracy theory is not pseudoscience. Some COVID-19-related conspiracy theories are not pseudoscience because they are about "taking away my rights" or "controlling the economy".) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:35, 28 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • Yes While every sentence in the lead is accurate, it's undue/ not NPOV to only mention evidence against lab leaks while ignoring the many scientific and journalistic sources that says it's a possibility and what evidence they have. Hi! (talk) 10:57, 29 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I note we have no suggestion of how to soften it, so what is it we should change is it not controversial? Do most scientists agree there was a lab leak? Do most scientists disagree that it was spread by bats sold at the market? That there is actual evidence it did in fact exist in the lab prior to the outbreak? Which of these statements is correct? Slatersteven (talk) 14:24, 29 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

References

  1. ^ Association between SARS-CoV-2 and metagenomic content of samples from the Huanan Seafood Market, Jesse D Bloom, Virus Evolution, Volume 9, Issue 2, 2023, vead050. Published: 24 August 2023.
  2. ^ Genetic tracing of market wildlife and viruses at the epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic, Alexander Crits-Christoph et al., Cell, 2024. Published online 2024.

Graphics

edit
Latest comment: 10 days ago27 comments8 people in discussion

Would maps illustrating the locations of early cases, the market, and the Wuhan Institute of Virology be useful? Either annotated OpenStreetMap or images from Creative Commons publications like this one or this one? Are OpenStreetMap maps ok to post on Wikipedia?

Also, regarding the statement "The Wuhan Institute of Virology and the Wuhan Center for Disease Control are located within miles of the original focal point of the pandemic". Is this an apt statement? By car, the distance is 17.6 km (10.9 miles) between The Wuhan Institute of Virology and the market. They're separated by a river. The Wuhan CDC is 4.3 km (2.7 miles) from the market. ScienceFlyer (talk) 18:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Absolutely, and such content has been published already in relevant reputable sources. I support including as much specific detail as possible with citations and maps. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 19:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Seems like OR unless a source is doing this. The article is about a conspiracy theory not the actual Origin of SARS-CoV-2. Bon courage (talk) 14:43, 21 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Botoa Xiao mentioned in his prepint feb-2020 : ( The possible origins of 2019-nCoV coronavirus Preprint · February 2020 DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.21799.29601 CITATIONS 0 2 authors, including: Botao Xiao South China University of Technology 26 PUBLICATIONS 265 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects: National Natural Science Foundation of China (11372116) View project National Natural Science Foundation of China (11772133) View project ) an other laboratorium very near by the market. EilertBorchert (talk) 17:43, 21 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
And of what use is an old unreliable source to the task of building an encyclopedia? Bon courage (talk) 17:46, 21 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
The Chinese researchers themselves mentioned not 1 but 2 labs for investigation origin corona.This fact can be mentioned in reliable encyclopedia 87.208.73.230 (talk) 19:02, 21 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Not without a reliable secondary source. Bon courage (talk) 19:04, 21 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
The WHO rapport 2021 mentioned:Explanation of hypothesis SARS-CoV-2 is introduced through a laboratory incident, reflecting an accidental infection of staff from laboratory activities involving the relevant viruses. We did not consider the hypothesis of deliberate release or deliberate bioengineering of SARS-CoV-2 for release, the latter has been ruled out by other scientists following analyses of the genome (3). 119 Fig. 5. Schema for introduction of SARS-CoV-2 through a laboratory incident. Arrows relevant for this scenario are indicated in red. Arguments in favour Although rare, laboratory accidents do happen, and different laboratories around the world are working with bat CoVs. When working in particular with virus cultures, but also with animal inoculations or clinical samples, humans could become infected in laboratories with limited biosafety, poor laboratory management practice, or following negligence. The closest known CoV RaTG13 strain (96.2%) to SARS-CoV-2 detected in bat anal swabs have been sequenced at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The Wuhan CDC laboratory moved on 2nd December 2019 to a new location near the Huanan market. Such moves can be disruptive for the operations of any laboratory. Arguments agains 87.208.73.230 (talk) 08:31, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Among these list (2020) of lab adresses the WCDC is mentioned :
Professor Zhengli Shi recently stated that she would welcome any kind of visit to her Laboratory in order to clarify the origins of SARS-COV-2 (BBC 2020). In light of this declaration, will the WHO investigation team therefore inspect or organise inspections of the following laboratories in Wuhan: a. WCDC Pathogen BSL-2 at 288 Machang Road b. Wuhan University Institute of Model Animal ABSL-3 at 115 Donghu Road c. Huazhong Agricultural University ABSL-3 d. Hubei CDC BSL-3 and Hubei Animal CDC ABSL-3 (in Wuhan) e. Wuhan Institute of Virology BSL-2 and BSL-3 in Xiaohongshan park f. Wuhan Institute of Virology BSL-2, BSL-3, ABSL-3, BSL-4 at Zhengdian park g. Wuhan Institute of Biological Products (vaccine development & production platform) Zhengdian park and its former location (see map) 46. Will the WHO have access to the laboratory records which are supposed to be exhaustive and kept for 20 years at least? Specifically: 1. Lab notebooks 2. Safety procedures, safety audit reports and safety incident reports, 3. Project proposals, status updates and project reports, 4. Environmental audit reports and environmental incident reports 5. Facility improvement projects and monthly 87.208.73.230 (talk) 10:48, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
What has this to do with adding a map? Slatersteven (talk) 12:34, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
The labs can located with adres on the map 87.208.73.230 (talk) 14:36, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
And the rest, what has that to do with the map? All you had to post was the address (indeed that is all we need to post and let the reader look up its location). Slatersteven (talk) 14:39, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
A good reference would give our visual learner readers a visual aid to comprehend the lab’s close physical proximity to the initial outbreak. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 17:40, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
If you're going to put in a map, you should probably just link to Figures 1 and 2 of Worobey et al. 2022, as it's one of the most robust analyses of early case locations. - Parejkoj (talk) 20:26, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
The graphic masks the Wuhan Institute of Virology under a shroud of secrecy Lardlegwarmers (talk) 03:19, 23 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
That's most likely because it is very far from the center of cases. That said, perhaps you have a reliable sources you'd prefer? - Parejkoj (talk) 17:22, 23 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
A source contains a map with virology labs adjacent to market and initial outbreak:
Worobey, M. (2021). Dissecting the early COVID-19 cases in Wuhan. Science, 374(6572), 1202–1204. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abm4454 Lardlegwarmers (talk) 01:14, 24 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
In the ""Woroby paper ""I can not find a virologisch laboratorium on the map (it is also not mentioned) which is located near the Huanan markert. Maybe a person can put the laboratorium nearby the market on the map. A member of the WHO inspection in 2021 told me that the laboratorium was closed during inspection in 2021 87.208.73.230 (talk) 13:51, 24 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Worobey 2021 depicts the two campuses of Wuhan Institute of Virology within close proximity to the purported initial outbreak site.
[7]https://www.science.org/cms/10.1126/science.abm4454/asset/a71068b5-36dc-4cf5-b1ff-5896a3f0ffb0/assets/graphic/science.abm4454-f1.svg
Worobey, M. (2021). Dissecting the early COVID-19 cases in Wuhan: Elucidating the origin of the pandemic requires understanding of the Wuhan outbreak. Science, 374(6572), 1202–1204. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abm4454 Lardlegwarmers (talk) 20:43, 25 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
The laboratorium of concern is : WCDC Pathogen BSL-2 at 288 Machang Road. Is this laboratorium somewhere mentioned or located on the map? 87.208.73.230 (talk) 09:17, 26 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Can you provide a quality source to cite your statement? @87.298.73.230 Lardlegwarmers (talk) 06:52, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
The Drastic group made a publication named: Wuhan laboratories ,Bat research and Biosafety
https://www.rchgate.net/publication/350887735_3_WUHAN_L
This publication shows the close situation between the virus laboratorium in the 288 Machang Road and the location of the Huanan Seafood market in Wuhan. 87.208.73.230 (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Drastic is kind of the opposite of a reliable source. Honestly, Wikipedia doesn't want to feeding this proximity fallacy. Might as well have a map with the Wuhan Military Games marked to 'show' it wqs Yankee agents who planted the virus. Bon courage (talk) 18:11, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Beside Drastic anyone can measure the smal distance between the Huanan market and the WCDC 288 Machang Road. Therefore it is peculiar that Worobey did not mention this smal distance in his paper and indeed stong sourcing by making a risk analyses of spreading a new diseease in this specific situation does not exist. 87.208.73.230 (talk) 07:57, 28 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Baidu has a map with the "Wuhan Municipal Center for Disease Control and Prevention" and "Wuhan Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market". The distance is approximately 660 meters. [8]https://j.map.baidu.com/2c/bzOi Lardlegwarmers (talk) 02:31, 29 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
If your story above about the grant application, etc. from the Wuhan Institute of Virology is true (or even just sincerely believed), then why are you talking about the location of a different organization? A map showing the significant distance between WIV and the web market would be more relevant, I think. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:24, 30 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
The WCDC 288 Machang Road virological laboratorium is owned and ruled by the same organisation as the WIV. Because this WCDC lab contained in 2019 bats ,mice ,cell line cups for virus growth and dead and living waste products it is a place of danger. By starting of spreading a new virus this location of danger is the place to be for making risk analyses and tracking and tracing this new virus (strong sourcing)) These risk analyses about procedures done at the WCDC on only 600 meters distance of the Wuhan Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market (like risk analyses in other labs) are not done. Because the absence of these risk analyses on the locations of danger, the believe in the natural zoonosis of Covid 19 by most scientists is not of scientific value.
The WHO advice more research. Risk analyses done in virological labs more or less nearby the Wuhan Huanan Market can help to produce evidence of the origin of Covid 19. 87.208.73.230 (talk) 15:08, 1 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

The Sydney Morning Herald

edit
Latest comment: 12 days ago5 comments4 people in discussion

The article claims "or that any suspicious biosecurity incidents happened in any laboratory". A sentence in a sensationalist newspaper article reporting on a US Intelligence report is the only source currently cited for that claim. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 20:02, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Australia's Newspaper of record is not a low-quality source, particularly for a mundane claim such as this. Bon courage (talk) 00:06, 28 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Stating that there is no evidence of a biosecurity event and basing that on a single reporter as a source... that is weak. 2601:340:8200:800:206A:B6BC:5DFA:3705 (talk) 05:47, 28 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
a "suspicious biosecurity event" to be precise. It's the obvious default. On the other hand, Strong sourcing would be needed to deviate from that. None exists. Bon courage (talk) 06:53, 28 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Extraordinary claims need extraordinary sources, as none have been produced we do not need anything but this to refute them. Slatersteven (talk) 12:25, 29 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 December 2024

edit
Latest comment: 4 days ago35 comments10 people in discussion

After referencing potential lab leaks it would be good to cite the 2004 leaks that are well documented and China worked to prevent spreading. This would lend credence to the idea that a leak is more unlikely than natural migration. See: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7096887/ 2605:59C8:83B:8A10:9502:EC29:726D:F2A6 (talk) 19:10, 1 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Not done WP:PROFRINGE and WP:OR. Bon courage (talk) 20:10, 1 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Given the newly released House subcommittee report lending credibility on the lab leak theory, I feel like this article could get an overhaul in the coming weeks, but only if the new revelations are widely reported on the mainstream media. It may be WP:TOOSOON to just put the stuff that's been unearthed Lazesusdasiru (talk) 22:11, 2 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Alas, House subcommittee reports are seriously poor sources. WP:Primary O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:45, 2 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
At a very minimum this report should be mentioned. The fact the report exists is in itself a newsworthy event. Arnies (talk) 23:20, 2 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
I have added one sentence about it to the lead, but I think it is worth some more coverage in the article. Wilh3lmTalk 00:11, 3 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
These are politicians, not virologists. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:04, 3 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
What kind of an argument is this? This is just as much, if not more, of a geopolitical debate as it is a scientific one. How is an education in virology necessary to understand something like this? This is majorly a question of what happened outside of the lab! Jibolba (talk) 10:16, 3 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
House committees have been pushing political points by cherry picking sources and often using just plain bad sources of information. When documenting a scientific subject, we should use reliable secondary sources that do not have a political agenda. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:16, 3 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Of course they're pushing political points. Of course there's a political agenda. It's a political issue! Why do you assume the zoonotic origin argument is somehow divorced entirely from the political realm?
It's a 'scientific subject' insofar as Hiroshima was about quantum physics. I don't understand this line of thinking at all. Documentation of the most major world event of the 21st century is not a subject reserved for a single highly specialized pantheon of virologist sages. That report (and pro-LL argumentation in general) has every reason to be included with impartial treatment. Jibolba (talk) 19:23, 3 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
See WP:PROFRINGE. Bon courage (talk) 19:41, 3 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Mr. Courage, it is nice to hear from you again. Hope all is well with you and yours. From the written response of the COVID subcommittee's Democratic panel, released today:
“Today, a zoonotic origin and lab accident are both plausible, as is a ‘hybrid’ scenario reflecting a mixture of the two. It was repeatedly explained to the Select Subcommittee that all prior epidemics and pandemics, as well as almost all prior outbreaks, have zoonotic origins. At the same time, a lab origin for SARS-CoV-2 also remains plausible". https://oversightdemocrats.house.gov/news/press-releases/ranking-member-ruiz-leads-select-subcommittee-democrats-releasing-final-report
No one regards this as 'fringe' anymore. Jibolba (talk) 01:02, 4 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
For scientific subjects, Wikipedia deals in the knowledge published by scientists not the ignorant bloviation of politicians. Always has done. Bon courage (talk) 01:23, 4 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Bon, please at least pretend to engage with the argument. It's not a scientific subject that is in question here, it is a question of whether or not world governments covered up criminally negligent behavior in a government funded laboratory. It is a political subject. Jibolba (talk) 05:50, 4 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Read Indiana pi bill and Lyssenkoism. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:20, 4 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Watch your tone. We do not go to lawyers pushing an agenda on scientific subjects. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:50, 4 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Politics and political statements don't validate the veracity of an alternative set of facts, at least not on Wikipedia. Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:48, 4 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Specifically, what overwhelming scientific evidence did they hear that led them to make such an unqualified assertion? Surely it must have been widely published and already accepted as undeniable? Or could it just possibly be yet another sling-shot in Cold War 2.0? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 01:26, 3 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
The report provides evidence, if you read it. Pages 1-5 are the most relevant portion. Wilh3lmTalk 10:57, 3 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
I have found a few articles reporting on this, from Fox News, CNN, and some other less well-known outlets. There's also a Ground News page on this, which may be useful to find more secondary sources (though I have always preferred primary sources as they are closer to the original information). Wilh3lmTalk 11:38, 3 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Or any secondary sources. News reporting is primsry. Bon courage (talk) 01:21, 4 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Then what is the report itself? A nullary source??? Wilh3lmTalk 12:00, 4 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Politicians aren't virologists, but a lot of them are lawyers! And the issue of whether or not the lab leak was a cause of the pandemic is a potential case of criminal negligence -- one that affects the entire world. If an answer can be deduced via evidence, it is exactly the job of a lawyer to do so. It would be one thing if the NIAID could produce scientific evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to the contrary, but it cannot and has not.
So the science isn't settled -- granted. This doesn't mean the elected government has to shut up because they're 'out of line'. The DOJ did not give Boeing a pass on the 737's safety failures because they were ignorant of the intricacies of aerospace engineering.
There should be an entire section dealing earnestly with the efforts of investigators into the leak over the past 4 years. Jibolba (talk) 06:48, 5 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
So you think Wikipedia should be giving lots of space to the Chinese proposition that yankee agents brought the virus to the Wuhan Military Games? Bon courage (talk) 06:53, 6 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes?? This is my point exactly: what other scientific subject has precipitated as much political conflict? The politics of the leak is a historical event in its own right, and propaganda has primary source historical relevance. Are you of the mind that acknowledging the existence of propaganda is a direct endorsement of its ideology? Jibolba (talk) 22:01, 6 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
what other scientific subject has precipitated as much political conflict? Rather a large number over the centuries. Certainly AIDS/HIV. We still have folks trying to change the Flat Earth article to claim it is or might be true. Claims about racial genetics. Innumerable religious vs. scientific claims that have entered politics. The US went through a bloody civil war based on religious/scientific claims. We are likely to see an increase with anti-VAX, anti-fluoridated water, and other such claims over the next few years. As with this article, we don't give credence to anti-science. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:31, 6 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
The job of a lawyer is to defend a predefined position, no matter if true. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:33, 6 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes, you're describing debate.
One party defends a proposition, the other places it under scrutiny.
The existence of the legal system (ex. Congress) means that both sides are required to employ the use of evidence (scientific evidence is a kind of evidence! not the only kind!) Thus, the answer to "If true" is determined.
Oddly enough, this is also how peer review works.
Scientists do not have a monopoly on deductive reasoning. It is not a coincidence that lawyers and scientists both use the term "laws"!
Jibolba (talk) 22:36, 6 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Scientists look for the correct answer. Lawyers normally start with a position based upon who their client is, whether their client is a defendant or their voters or their religious beliefs. "Truth" has little to do with this process. We don't use the statements of lawyers in scientific articles. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:50, 6 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
'Lawyers start with a position' you mean a hypothesis?
When a scientist 'starts with a position', then what? How do you turn a hypothesis into the 'correct answer'?
Jibolba (talk) 23:24, 6 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
With evidence. However, this is WP:NOTAFORUM or a place for basic education. Unless there is a specific wording change proposed (with sources of course) then I think we are done. Bon courage (talk) 01:38, 7 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Understood, let me word it as such:
In addition to 'category: biology controversies', this article is categorized under categories '2020(-2023) controversies' and 'controversies in china'. These latter two categories are appropriate, as the LL question is unanimously regarded as controversial in news publications.
Seeing as these are not exclusively scientific/medical categories and, indeed, categories implying a variety of opinion (as regards the social, political, and cultural aspects of a given 'controversy') there should be a section allotted for inclusion of diverse reliable political sources espousing various opinions regardless of endorsement by strictly scientific sources.
It would also be beneficial to categorize the article under categories 'Controversies in the United States' (as the lab leak, in theory, implicates the actions of US govt funded NGOs and scientists) as well as 'Political controversies in the United States' as the LL theory precipitates a notably partisan line in political discourse.
This change is both relevant and necessary, as it allows the reader a more complete picture of a historical world event.
Sources can be provided as necessary to allow for this change. Jibolba (talk) 20:25, 7 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
I don't see how it would be appropriate to include fringe claims unless the article was to be renamed COVID-19 lab leak conspiracy theory. Otherwise this would provide the reader with a distorted picture of historical world event. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:39, 7 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
How do you define fringe then? What is the criteria by which something is no longer regarded fringe?
If you mean scientifically fringe due to a lack of evidence, that's perfectly fine, but it's exactly irrelevant to the point I'm arguing.
A political controversy by definition implies a two-sided discourse along partisan lines -- there is no lack of this in the LL. It should be recorded so that people can understand the issue. Jibolba (talk) 21:00, 7 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
This isn't a left-right partisan debate. It is some politicians and conspiracists against scientists. And the scientists do see evidence of zoonosis. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:09, 7 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

house committee

edit
Latest comment: 1 hour ago31 comments14 people in discussion

https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20241202-us-lawmakers-back-covid-chinese-lab-leak-theory-after-two-year-probe 205.220.129.246 (talk) 01:36, 4 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it would appear Wikipedia has been fully debunked once again. Wiki is considered just silly propaganda at this point which is why the world has moved on. Here's the final word on the matter:
“By nearly all measures of science, if there was evidence of a natural origin it would have already surfaced.”
https://oversight.house.gov/release/final-report-covid-select-concludes-2-year-investigation-issues-500-page-final-report-on-lessons-learned-and-the-path-forward/ 2600:1700:7BE0:1E30:653E:8FA3:A6B:F468 (talk) 03:54, 4 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
A political comittee as the final word? Their words are less valuable than toilet paper. Dimadick (talk) 08:47, 4 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
They are at least worth mentioning as a word. You and several other editors seem determined to entirely quash any point of view with which you disagree, rather than presenting multiple possibilities fairly and letting the read draw his own conclusions. Whether you agree or disagree with it, whether you agree or disagree with their methodologies, whether you think they are reliable or not, a two year investigation from a governmental body is certainly worth mentioning and is most definitely not fringe. Wilh3lmTalk 12:03, 4 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
That's because Wikipedia policy is to omit bullshit unless there are some good sources analysing it. Bon courage (talk) 12:06, 4 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Read WP:AGF. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:10, 4 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
A committee of random people from a randomly selected country decides what is true? When was this way of deciding such questions introduced? --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:17, 4 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
The report contains the sources and methodology from which they arrived at the conclusion that a lab leak was likely. They didn't just declare it, they had a two year investigation. Also, I wouldn't call one of the largest and most powerful and influential countries "randomly selected". Wilh3lmTalk 12:18, 4 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
So? I can say The House is full of morons, providing copious sources and methodology (such as examining their pronouncements on issues, that would not make it scientific. They are not qualified to make such judgments. Slatersteven (talk) 12:23, 4 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, this is a junk source. Maybe try conservapedia for somewhere where this sort of stuff passes muster? Bon courage (talk) 12:23, 4 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
A two year investigation conducted by a bunch of political hacks? Yeah, nah that's not what we consider to be a reliable source around here. TarnishedPathtalk 00:23, 11 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes it is. I could give hundreds of other examples of house committee reports being cited as a source without any issue.
You can't say house committee reports are, by nature, unreliable, because they are cited thoroughly throughout hundreds of articles. So you are in effect just saying this particular report you don't like because [no reason given, except calling them morons].
You are applying a double-standard here. There has to be a specific reason THIS PARTICULAR house report is not reliable. Otherwise you're just saying you'll let in whatever house report you like and not let in whatever house report you don't like based on your opinion of it. BabbleOnto (talk) 00:52, 11 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Reliability is subject-specific. Politicians do not get to decide scientific questions. See Indiana Pi Bill, Lyssenkoism and Climate change denial. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:50, 11 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
A committee of random people
Not random people, sitting U.S. Congressmen and Congresswomen.
from a randomly selected country
Not randomly selected, seeing as the US is at least alleged to be the ones funding gain-of-function research at Wuhan. I think that's extremely relevant. Don't know why you think that's "random."
decides what is true
I think their 2 years of official evidence and investigation at least must be shown to be incorrect, not presumed to be.
When was this way of deciding such questions
When did groups of people studying, researching, and presenting evidence of a phenomenon become the way we decide such questions? I don't know, since at least Aristotle? BabbleOnto (talk) 04:32, 10 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
When they're inexpert and politically-motivated. Wikipedia has well-established WP:PAGs for sources and they're not going to get relaxed to admit this latest nonsense from a certain country. Bon courage (talk) 04:43, 10 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Exactly. Stalin got away with Lyssenkoism and with jailing scientists who disagreed with his favorite quack, but hopefully the US has enough brains and enough democratic attitude left to rebuff this ridiculous "The Supreme Leadership said it, it therefore it is true" crap. Wikipedia definitely has. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Perhaps that would be relevant if the report were just "our opinions on the matter of covid." But instead of is a compilation of testimony from experts and objective evidence exhibits, such as photographs, records, and emails.
If you're accusing the House of being an unreliable source because they're somehow fabricating evidence and secretly manipulating witnesses to perpetuate some grand conspiracy, then I don't know how you can ever call me the "fringe" opinion. BabbleOnto (talk) 18:04, 10 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Read WP:RS. Groups of politicians are not in there. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:29, 10 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Would you find it acceptable if I instead cited to a news article from a reliable news organization regarding this report, then? This would seemingly quell your problem with it being directly from the US House.
Science (the journal)
CNN reporting
Al Jazeera BabbleOnto (talk) 20:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
No, quality WP:SECONDARY sourcing is needed to establish due weight and put the fringeiness in proper context/ Bon courage (talk) 20:13, 10 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
The report is not "fringe" it is an official report of the United States Government. Even if you disagree with it personally, it is not "fringe," almost by definition. Committees of Congress are not "fringe sources." That argument is invalid. BabbleOnto (talk) 21:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
For the purposes of understanding a complex scientific phenomena, the opinions of politicians (especially those with an antagonistic relationship with the other nation involved) can very much be considered "fringe". Lostsandwich (talk) 22:07, 10 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
This is not "The opinions of politicians." This is not a citation to a politician's twitter account. This is an official report generated by a bipartisan committee. This is the collective evidence from dozens of hearings and subpoenas on the issue, and is the collective work of a dozen US congressmen and congresswomen. It at no time is or purports to be the mere "Opinion of politicians." It at all times both purports to be and is factual in nature. By your logic all scientific papers could just be defined "The opinions of some scientists" and summarily dismissed. That is a nonsense argument.
So far all arguments against this source have been semantic in nature and attempts redefine the report as something it is not, or attach adjectives to it that are not appropriate which would thereby automatically disqualify it. No one has presented a substantive issue with the inclusion of this report as a source. BabbleOnto (talk) 23:24, 10 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
This is an official report generated by a bipartisan committee.
So... Politicians.
. This is the collective evidence from dozens of hearings and subpoenas on the issue, and is the collective work of a dozen US congressmen and congresswomen
So... Politicians.
By your logic all scientific papers could just be defined "The opinions of some scientists" and summarily dismissed. That is a nonsense argument
Well, since the issue is scientific in nature, one wouldn't go dismissing the opinions of experts on the matter.
So far all arguments against this source have been semantic in nature and attempts redefine the report as something it is not,
So was it politicians or? Lostsandwich (talk) 23:03, 11 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
So was it politicians or?
The point being not that Congress is not full of politicians, as you're facetiously implying, but that reports of the US government are not generally considered "opinions" of the various officeholders who submit them.
Much in the same way that we don't say "It is the opinion of some US politicians that JFK was assassinated" or "It is the opinion of some US politicians that Nixon was responsible for the Watergate scandal." We would say "A US Congressional investigation report found that Nixon was responsible for the Watergate scandal." BabbleOnto (talk) 02:08, 12 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
When scientifically incompetent people collect stuff from competent ones, the result is not reliable because the incompetent people get to choose what to include and what to omit. When the incompetent people are also biased, it gets worse. See Cherry picking. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:29, 10 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
I don't feel comfortable taking as a role model a man who proclaimed that females have fewer teeth than males. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 13:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Why can we easily reject house committee reports like this when they're about scientific topics? Because they're very often done by people without any understanding of science, for a purely political purpose, with no regard for accuracy or truth. Examples of this abound. - Parejkoj (talk) 15:14, 4 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
A politicised committee report. Oh nooos, what will we ever do. TarnishedPathtalk 00:17, 11 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
have you read the sources you're linking? Look at Science: The Republican-led Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic conducted more than 30 interviews, held numerous hearings, often fiery and partisan ... The committee’s 520-page report, released on 2 December, offers no new direct evidence of a lab leak, but summarizes a circumstantial case ... Democrats on the panel released their own report challenging many of their colleagues’ conclusions about COVID-19 origins ... The Republicans’ report, led by committee chair Representative Brad Wenstrup (R–OH), extended far beyond the origin controversy, etc. Science isn't endorsing any of the views in its own voice. It expressly denotes the report as being partisan, against prevailing scientific viewpoints, and offering nothing new to the discussion, except potentially that [the DOJ is looking into] unspecified potential crimes related to the origin of COVID-19. Aside from that, to call it a bipartisan committee is completely misleading. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:55, 11 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Science isn't endorsing any of the views in its own voice.
Yeah, because that's not what journalists OR scientific journals report on. Journalists do not only report things that they personally agree with. And for scientific journals, have you never seen the disclaimer that the opinions and theories expressed by the authors are solely theirs alone?
I don't know of any requirement that "The editorial board of the magazine must personally agree with the subject matter of the topic" in order to use it as a source.
And I don't know why you seem to bring up the fact that there is opposition to this report as if it would change my opinion as to whether the report should be included. Opposing and critical views of the report should be included. When have I suggested otherwise? BabbleOnto (talk) 02:13, 12 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

gain of function

edit
Latest comment: 1 day ago6 comments6 people in discussion

Should gain of function be called a conspiracy theory now that it is confirmed that the USA funded gain of function research in Wuhan? "One conspiracy theory spread in support a laboratory origin suggests SARS-CoV-2 was developed for gain-of-function research on coronaviruses." 205.220.129.246 (talk) 02:11, 4 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

No, the sources explain why this is a conspiracy theory. Bon courage (talk) 02:15, 4 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
That's not an answer. Care to try again? 2600:1700:7BE0:1E30:A041:A72E:3486:5AF5 (talk) 00:09, 5 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes it is, thus is not a wp:forum, You have been told why, because RS do not support it. Slatersteven (talk) 11:25, 6 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Probably because no such thing occurred. Lostsandwich (talk) 22:08, 10 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Zero evidence of SARS-CoV-2 ever being in the WIV. TarnishedPathtalk 00:26, 11 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Follow the Science

edit
Latest comment: 7 days ago5 comments5 people in discussion

I just stumbled upon this Wiki page and it looks like something out of the Twilight Zone. Shouldn't the lead paragraph say that an unnatural origin (i.e., lab leak) is the most probable cause according to the science: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/risa.14291 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:7BE0:1E30:653E:8FA3:A6B:F468 (talk) 06:13, 4 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

NO, as most sources disagree it is. Slatersteven (talk) 12:07, 4 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Such as...? 2600:1700:7BE0:1E30:A041:A72E:3486:5AF5 (talk) 00:06, 5 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
We could add a sentence somewhere in the body of the article to the effect of:
"A March 2024 risk assessment study using the modified Grunow–Finke epidemiological assessment tool (mGFT) scored SARS-CoV-2 with a 68% likelihood of an unnatural origin, although it does not provide conclusive evidence." Lardlegwarmers (talk) 03:09, 5 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Source is primary research failing WP:MEDRS. Bon courage (talk) 03:18, 5 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Bipartisan consensus on select subcommittee

edit
Latest comment: 1 day ago35 comments11 people in discussion

Some elements of the select subcommittee report here: [[9]] have bipartisan consensus, in particular that the lab leak hypothesis is “not a conspiracy theory“. We should reflect that consensus in the overall tone and content of this article. should reflect that consensus in the overall tone and content of this article. Springnuts (talk) 14:46, 4 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

We do, as we do not say that all aspects of it are. Also they are not scientist, either so how can this be used to change, what we say scientists say? Slatersteven (talk) 14:48, 4 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
The main source for "what the scientists say" is the paper "Proximal Origins". The subcommittee report has as one of its findings "“The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2” Was “Prompted” by Dr. Anthony Fauci to “Disprove” the Lab Leak Theory". If true, this means that the scientific basis WP relies on vanishes. The members of the subcommittee interviewed many scientists at length, and collected emails and other documents. I would guess that this report is more reliable than the current (extremely biased) WP page. Hiuk12 (talk) 19:23, 4 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
"The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2” Was “Prompted” by Dr. Anthony Fauci to “Disprove” the Lab Leak Theory". That statement itself displays the ridiculous bias of the House politicians. We don't use politically charged reports for scientific bases. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:42, 4 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yup, that was a string of false statements. And even if it true, we're not going to use moronic guff from politicians to override reputably-published peer-reviewed science from relevant experts. Bon courage (talk) 19:43, 4 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
"Ridiculous", "moronic". I see that you are not thoughtful WP editors, but are more the shouting types. Pity. Have you read the report? Hiuk12 (talk) 23:34, 4 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Maybe, but it is not good science to come up with an idea and then look for evidence to prove it. Slatersteven (talk) 11:35, 5 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
This guy never has any evidence to support his claims, just ad hominems. 2600:1700:7BE0:1E30:A041:A72E:3486:5AF5 (talk) 00:08, 5 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, at the end of the day, the US Congress is (by definition) a political body, and US politics is not exactly the most neutral country on this matter (a report by the European Commission would be more convincing). Their views and consensus are reliable for a statement attributed to them (assuming that's WP:DUE), they aren't a good source to decide what the tone and content of this article should be. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:49, 4 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
lol nevermind, it's not even really a bipartisan report. Here's what the Democrats on the same committee had to say about it: [10] So basically the report parrots the Republican views on the pandemic, including criticism of Biden and New York's government, and some deep praise of Trump. It's not exactly the most useful of sources... ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:06, 5 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Wow, that' a lot of opinions you have there. The reality is every body is political and your opinions on such do. not. matter. 2600:1700:7BE0:1E30:A041:A72E:3486:5AF5 (talk) 00:13, 5 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Regarding WP:DUE. The policy states that "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views."
This article IS the "see also" article about this specific view where the minority views get a detailed description. It's fine to put the information in context (e.g., the Congressional report was condemned by the committee's Democratic members as being. e.g., partisan, etc.) but to exclude it altogether is not justified by WP:DUE Lardlegwarmers (talk) 03:17, 5 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
This is not in fact the "see also articles on minority views". This is the article about general views on the lab leak theory, if you want to create an article on "minority views of the lab leak theory" or "house republican views on the theory" you are free to do that, but I suspect you would not be able to find secondary sources on the same. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:56, 5 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
As far as I can tell the article already reflects the consensus that it is "not a conspiracy theory" in general. "Not being a conspiracy theory" is a rather low bar, that is pretty far from having any significant likelihood of being true (for example, "the air is full of worms", "you had ice cream for lunch today" or "there is a dragon in my garage" would also not be a conspiracy theory, however, they too would also not be supported by any evidence, though with different prior probabilities). Are there any parts of the article that have been identified in said overall tone and content of the article that is in any way inconsistent with that? Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:54, 5 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
The article uses the phrase 'conspiracy theory' 30 times and is categorized alongside 'COVID-19 misinformation'. It states that there is 'no evidence' for the lab leak. By what standard is this true of the lab leak and not also true of the zoonotic origin theory? 'Most likely cause' is not a definitive scientific statement. This is the opposite of an unbiased article and absolutely maintains that it is a debunked fringe conspiracy theory. Jibolba (talk) 07:03, 5 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
It's because of the quality sources. They discuss and analyse this stuff in the light of conspiracism and misinformation; they say there is no evidence for LL. They also say here is an accumulation of evidence for natural zoonosis, but that is off-topic for this article which is not some kind of sporting event where nonsense plays science. Bon courage (talk) 07:09, 5 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Counting the times an article mentions a phrase is not a substitute for actually reading the article. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:11, 5 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Alpha, you're right. Thats exactly what I'm getting at. A casual Wiki reader does not do the mental calculus it would take to decode the word salad of plausibly deniable faux-objectivity surrounding every use of 'conspiracy theory'. I would say 30 times is enough to give the reader a misguided impression of what the consensus actually is. The tone matters and it is so obviously skewed.
Bon, 'nonsense plays as science'? Scientists have been calling for further investigation into the origin for years. No one has ruled out LL because it has thus far been proven impossible to definitively do so with any conclusive evidence.
This article is politically captured. It is simply not reflective of the reality of the discourse. Jibolba (talk) 09:45, 5 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
It may play big in the "discourse" of the media, but Wikipedia is interested in actual knowledge, not the rubbish that gets the masses excited or serves the interests of the anti-science movement. For some insight into that (and a recent take on the scientific knowledge of experts) maybe see PMID:39087765. Bon courage (talk) 11:08, 5 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
No, it is science captured, the politics was this report, not made by scientists. if 1 scientist says X and 1000000 politicians say Y, the science says X, and so do we.Slatersteven (talk) 11:37, 5 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Someone interested in actually reading the article instead of sealioning would read the sentences that contain those phrases, and see the parts for about half of them where in the same sentence it is made exceedingly clear what is being referred to, such as For bioweapon conspiracy theories, see [other article] (the bioweapons thing) and At that time, the media did not distinguish between the accidental lab leak of a natural virus and bio-weapon origin conspiracy theories (i.e., the media is being imprecise) and Some members of the Chinese government have promoted a counter-conspiracy theory claiming that SARS‑CoV‑2 originated in the U.S. military (incidentally, adding some variant of "not a conspiracy theory", assuming we find some suitable secondary source specifying exactly what it is that's not a conspiracy theory would add yet another mention to that count).
They would not be looking at the dozen or so mentions in the references unless they needed to go check a reference for some reason (and I doubt anyone sane would go through all 250 on a lark, unless they have all too much time on their hands) and they would have no reason to assume a reference is something in our voice rather than a transcription of the title or a quotation from a source.
The will, of course, also see things like the politicization of the debate is making the process more difficult, and that words are often twisted to become "fodder for conspiracy theories". on the other hand, they will also see a quarter of the mentions in article prose in the section titled "Chilling effects", which can more or less be summed up as "the crackpots are making it really hard for us to do actual research", and quite frankly, the political attempt to invent an alternative set of facts is going to make it more difficult, not less, to actually find and publish evidence about the theory... so, you know, I really do see their point there.
Of course, you are not the reader, which is perfectly fine, after all, this page is for discussing changes to the article, not for reader comments. However, what is not fine is the tendentious refusal to listen to what people have been saying about what is or is not possible here. You are welcome to argue for a particular point of view, but once you are beyond the range of possible changes to the article, as has been repeatedly explained to you, this page is no longer the forum for it. This page is not about the politicisation of the lab leak theory. You are welcome to consider whether there are the sources to create a page for that instead. Otherwise, you are welcome to find another place to discuss said politicisation. Alpha3031 (t • c) 16:45, 5 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
I should qualify things by saying, as regards to whether I personally think it was an unnatural origin, I am largely agnostic. However, I see the state of this article in the year of grace 2024 and it subscribes to a zealous ideology that the rest of society (scientists included) has moved on from over the past 4 years.
The rhetoric is as blatantly partisan as it was in March 2020. Compare the tone of this article to the header in 'Zoonotic origins of COVID-19':
SARS-CoV-2, the causative agent of COVID-19, was first introduced to humans through zoonosis (transmission of a pathogen to a human from an animal), and a zoonotic spillover event is the origin of COVID-19 that is considered most plausible by the scientific community.[a] Human coronaviruses including SARS-CoV-2 are zoonotic diseases that are often acquired through spillover infection from animals.[2]
Is this serious? This clearly suggests that it is a settled issue. Who is 'the scientific community'? Are the countless researchers that favor the LL or at least have reservations about natural origin no longer card carrying members of the 'scientific community'? Not once is it referred to as a theory in the same way LL is labeled as such, but it is! Neither the LL nor Zoonotic origin has been proved through experimentation and replication. They are, by definition, theories! As for their likelihoods, there is a wide range of educated opinions. But you all know that the scientific method does not deal in likelihood. No serious scientist draws conclusions based on 'odds', but Wikipedia seems to do just that. Jibolba (talk) 20:00, 5 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

that the rest of society (scientists included) has moved on from over the past 4 years.

I believe you have been more than adequately informed as to what is required to verify that kind of thing in a Wikipedia article (i.e., a reliable secondary source)

As for their likelihoods, there is a wide range of educated opinions. But you all know that the scientific method does not deal in likelihood. No serious scientist draws conclusions based on 'odds', but Wikipedia seems to do just that.

All science is based on likelihoods. p-values are likelihoods, five-sigma significance is a likelihood. Literally every hard science since statistical hypothesis testing has been a thing has been founded on the statistical likelihood of a given observation under the null hypothesis, and this is something that highschoolers should know. Gravity is a damn theory. Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:30, 6 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Did we just reach peak Wikipedia? Bon courage (talk) 06:50, 6 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
There haven't been any reliable secondary source reviews of the literature published in peer-reviewed journals that would give support to the lab leak hypothesis. This means that Wikipedia admins are capable of suppressing that point of view, even though there are a ton of individual studies by credentialed scientists that lend the hypothesis support. Yet, the administrators here rule these sources as inadmissible due to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine), which allows them to suppress a wide range of information that might risk misleading the reader about their own important personal medical decisions. But the probability of a biosafety incident at a lab in 2019 bears only a tenuous relationship with our readers' medical decision-making, which means that the application of that policy is over-broad and is being used to suppress a dissenting point of view, not to protect the reader.
But the question remains as to, given the abundant primary source material in peer-reviewed journals that have offered empirical support for the hypothesis, why hasn't any peer-reviewed journal published a review of this "pro-lab leak literature"? Consider that a former CDC director who is a virologist in favor of LL stated that he had received death threats from other scientists, which is not surprising given the acerbic tone used here to enforce the party line, including ad hominems, but the admins here have another editorial policy to even suppress even those allegations.
Regarding an article on Politicization of the Lab Leak Theory. Given the abundance of reliable sources in support of this topic and its significant impact on public discourse, it would very likely meet Wikipedia’s notability and verifiability guidelines, and because it is very squarely in the domain of politics, media and history, the full expression of the topic cannot be artificially throttled by the over-broad application of editorial policies. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 01:17, 6 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
That is an explicit statement you want make a WP:POVFORK. The way to do it would be to create a section here on politicisation (based, as it must be, on good secondary sources) and if it gets too big it can be split out. A good source on this would be doi:10.4324/9781003330769-5 (which we already cite for some things), and doi:10.1177/21533687221125818 is good on how LL has been instrumentalised to rile up anti-immigant feeling in the US. There cannot be a review of "pro lab-leak literature" because there is no evidence and no such literature beyond the fringe. Bon courage (talk) 02:29, 6 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Bon, you prove his point exactly with that last sentence, but a section on politicization of the issue would absolutely be a step in the right direction. There is an almost uniform party line that was baked in to media coverage of the virus' origins from the start and has (clearly) yet to be broken. This is not organic and ought to be acknowledged by Wiki. Jibolba (talk) 05:00, 6 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

There haven't been any reliable secondary source reviews of the literature published in peer-reviewed journals that would give support to the lab leak hypothesis.

And what exactly do you think we're able to do about that? We're not a secondary source. We don't do original research here. We don't do a headcount on Wikipedia and say, oh hey, this guy, this guy and this guy supports it, this must be the new thing now because quite frankly, people making the arguments like you do make it quite difficult to attempt to do so systematically even were we to have the resources to do so in the first place. If there really were so many primary papers in support of the lab leak hypothesis in mainstream literature, there should be exactly zero issue getting a review article saying so published in those same mainstream journals.
Hell, such a massive change in consensus, if backed up by actual evidence, would have even the top journals begging you to publish with them, so, you know... go write one, or get one of the credentialed authors you think is good to write one, and they can be cited a few thousand times. If they fail to do so, I'm sure we can learn something from that.

But the question remains as to, given the abundant primary source material in peer-reviewed journals that have offered empirical support for the hypothesis, why hasn't any peer-reviewed journal published a review of this "pro-lab leak literature"?

We don't do "just asking questions" on Wikipedia. You might be thinking of some debate site where people can go get the opinions of Randy on the primary literature they cherrypicked. Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:08, 6 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
The problem is this article has been strictly defined as dealing only with scientific knowledge that conforms to the strict standards of the established scientific bureaucratic process.
There is nothing wrong with this standard in 99% of cases. This article is a case in which the standard is exactly insufficient. The counter argument (LL) is, in and of itself, one that calls into question the political nature of this process -- the massive economic incentive structure, the lack of transparency as concerns governments' role in it, suppression of viewpoints, etc. These are not questions that can be investigated in the lab, they are questions about the lab. The way it has been defined creates a controlled straw man neutered of its vast geopolitical and economic context. Again, it is like if the only sources allowed for citation in the Atomic Bomb article came from US physics journals published prior to the end of WW2.
The article should be partitioned, one section dealing with the available experiments and conclusions published in prestige journals, another dealing in the political, legal, and journalistic investigations into the larger structures implicated by the LL theory, as well as dissenting opinions by accredited researchers not endorsed by a government funded scientific body. Unbiased documentation is impossible without the two afforded equal weight. No one is saying the sources currently cited need to be removed or that the info provided is 'incorrect'. But for God's sake it needs to acknowledge the actual political context of the matter and not just the heavily curated information provided under a national state of emergency in 2020. Jibolba (talk) 20:45, 6 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Or (as this is about a medical issue), go with the science. Slatersteven (talk) 20:53, 6 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
A medical issue with global geopolitical implications. Jibolba (talk) 21:55, 6 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Which is why we are allowed to use other nations scientists as well as sources. Slatersteven (talk) 10:57, 7 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
If you have secondary sources covering the science published since 2023, please present them. Otherwise, this is not the place to air your political grievances, and you should stop and go somewhere else to do that. Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:56, 7 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
There most certainly is not "a ton of individual studies by credentialed scientists that lend the hypothesis support", and when there are instances of such a thing, it has zero bearing on wikipedia because wikipedia is not a scientific literature review.
why hasn't any peer-reviewed journal published a review of this "pro-lab leak literature"?
Probably for the same reason why credible peer-reviewed journals tend not to review things like flat earth or mole people hypotheses. Lostsandwich (talk) 22:15, 10 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Please read wp:talk. Slatersteven (talk) 11:24, 6 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Redfield's alleged death threats

edit
Latest comment: 22 hours ago10 comments5 people in discussion

Propose a new paragraph, perhaps adding to the section on "Attacks on scientists" or "Chilling effects" after paragraph 3:

"In June 2021, former CDC Director Robert Redfield told Vanity Fair that he received death threats after suggesting that COVID-19 may have originated from a lab in Wuhan, China. He stated that he was targeted by fellow scientists and ostracized for offering this alternative hypothesis, despite lacking evidence, and highlighted the rising tensions surrounding the virus's origins."[1] Lardlegwarmers (talk) 03:38, 5 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

WP:ARSEHOLES applies. Would need some secondary coverage. Bon courage (talk) 03:44, 5 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
WP:ARSEHOLES is about pundits expressing an opinion on a general topic (e.g., Sean Hannity or Noam Chomsky talking about the economy) not whether to include a person's specific allegations. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 04:26, 5 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
He's saying something happened an offering a novel take to explain it. Primary news relaying dubious opinions in a weak source is not encyclopedic; we are meant to be relaying accepted knowledge as relayed in the WP:BESTSOURCES. Bon courage (talk) 04:35, 5 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
First, this is not the article on The Origins of COVID-19. This is the "see also" page specifically about the lab leak hypothesis. This page exists in order to document information about the topic, just as the article Flat Earth has a thorough description of everything pertaining to that. Second, the information I am proposing to add is not even about the opinions of Dr. Redfield, which are already documented in the article. I am proposing to add information about the experience of a prominent advocate of the hypothesis. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 05:28, 5 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Wikipedia deals in knowledge, not "information". Some political/dubious pronouncements ain't that. Maybe due in his bio, but even that's dubious. Bon courage (talk) 05:36, 5 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
The article already states that Former CDC director Robert R. Redfield said in March 2021 that in his opinion the most likely cause of the virus was a laboratory escape, which "doesn't imply any intentionality", and that as a virologist, he did not believe it made "biological sense" for the virus to be so "efficient in human to human transmission" from the early outbreak.. We can add that we know:
"In June 2021, Redfield claimed to have received death threats from scientists who disagreed with his view on COVID-19's origins, but he provided no evidence to verify the claims, and no one else publicly supported them." Lardlegwarmers (talk) 06:32, 8 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
nah, I don't think it's particularly WP:DUE with such poor sourcing. We don't tend ot include stuff on wikipedia and then say "but also there's no verification of this". instead, we wait for it to be verified before including it. There's WP:NODEADLINE. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 07:54, 8 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
wp:blp may come into play. Slatersteven (talk) 11:33, 5 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Lardlegwarmers don't feel bad about being bullied off of Wikipedia, the cabal has a tight grip on the truth here. 84.237.216.154 (talk) 05:20, 11 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

References

  1. ^ Hutzler, Alexandra (June 3, 2021). "Ex-CDC Director Robert Redfield Says He Got Death Threats for Saying He Thought COVID Leaked From China Lab". Newsweek. Retrieved December 4, 2024.

A few proposals

edit
Latest comment: 3 days ago6 comments4 people in discussion

1) In the lead paragraph, add the following sources to support the existing claim that ...some scientists agree a lab leak should be examined as part of ongoing investigations...:

Segreto, R., & Deigin, Y. (2021). The genetic structure of SARS-CoV-2 does not rule out a laboratory origin. BioEssays, 43, e2000240. https://doi.org/10.1002/bies.202000240.
Deigin, Y., & Segreto, R. (2021). The genetic structure of SARS-CoV-2 is consistent with both natural or laboratory origin: Response to Tyshkovskiy and Panchin (10.1002/bies.202000325). BioEssays, 43, e2100137. https://doi.org/10.1002/bies.202100137
Goyal, V. K., & Sharma, C. (2020). The novel coronavirus 2019: A naturally occurring disaster or a biological weapon against humanity: A critical review of tracing the origin of novel coronavirus 2019. Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies, 8(2), 01-05. E-ISSN: 2320-7078, P-ISSN: 2349-6800.
Zapatero Gaviria, A., & Barba Martin, R. (2023). What do we know about the origin of COVID-19 three years later? Revista Clínica Española (English Edition), 223(4), 240-243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rceng.2023.02.010. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2254887423000395
Graner, F., Courtier-Orgogozo, V., Decroly, E., Ebright, R. H., Butler, C. D., Colombo, F., Kaina, B., Rahalkar, M. C., Halloy, J., Bahulikar, R. A., Theißen, G., Leitenberg, M., Morand, S., Kakeya, H., Claverie, J.-M., & van Helden, J. (2021). Comment of a critical review about the origins of SARS-CoV-2. Letter to the Editor. Retrieved from https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/107885435/Cell_response-to-Holmes_2021-10-31b_to-editors-libre.pdf?1701056828

2) Insert within the first three paragraphs of the section on Zoonosis:

A) However, there have not been any documented instances of SARS-CoV-2 or its direct predecessor found in wild animals in their natural habitats.[1][2]
B) The specific animal host that carried the virus and the circumstances and mechanism of viral transmission to humans are still uncertain.[3][4][5][6]

3) Insert within the section on Accidental release of a genetically modified virus :

A) Over the past 20 years, researchers have frequently synthesized new viruses by combining genetic material from different sources in order to study the potential of bat coronaviruses to infect humans.[7]
B) More cooperation by the Chinese authorities would be necessary in order to definitively prove or rule out the lab leak scenario.[8]

4) Finally, I suggest that we all stay focused on bringing reputable sources to bolster our statements instead of making ad hominem attacks against people with a different POV. Please remember the guidelines in this space, including:

Wikipedia:Civility -- which incolves not using a "condescending, patronizing, sarcastic and insulting tone" in discussions.
Wikipedia:POV railroad -- hostility that is intended to discourage other editors from participating
Wikipedia:WTF? OMG! TMD TLA. ARG! --excessive use of jargon meant to discourage other editors
Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers

Lardlegwarmers (talk) 06:27, 8 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

NACK 1. There are two sources cited already and style guidelines (MOS:LEADCITE) prescribe the use of the minimal necessary number of citations. It is inappropriate to add more citations without a compelling reason. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:28, 8 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

References

  1. ^ Ruiz-Medina, B. E., Varela-Ramirez, A., Kirken, R. A., & Robles-Escajeda, E. (2022). "The SARS-CoV-2 origin dilemma: Zoonotic transfer or laboratory leak?". BioEssays. 44: e2100189. doi:10.1002/bies.202100189. Retrieved 6 December 2024.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  2. ^ Zapatero Gaviria, A., Barba Martin, R. (2023). "What do we know about the origin of COVID-19 three years later?". Revista Clínica Española (English Edition). 223 (4): 240–243. doi:10.1016/j.rceng.2023.02.010. ISSN 2254-8874.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  3. ^ "A Comparative Study on Covid-19 Coronavirus Variants" (PDF). International Journal for Research in Applied Science and Engineering Technology (IJRASET). Retrieved 6 December 2024.
  4. ^ K. Sirotkin, D. Sirotkin (2020). "Might SARS-CoV-2 Have Arisen via Serial Passage through an Animal Host or Cell Culture?". BioEssays. 42: 2000091. doi:10.1002/bies.202000091. Retrieved 6 December 2024.
  5. ^ Zapatero Gaviria, A., Barba Martin, R. (2023). "What do we know about the origin of COVID-19 three years later?". Revista Clínica Española (English Edition). 223 (4): 240–243. doi:10.1016/j.rceng.2023.02.010. ISSN 2254-8874.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  6. ^ Thakur N, Das S, Kumar S, et al. Tracing the origin of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2): a systematic review and narrative synthesis. J Med Virol. 2022; 94: 5766-5779. doi:10.1002/jmv.28060
  7. ^ Segreto, R., Deigin, Y. (2021). "The genetic structure of SARS-CoV-2 does not rule out a laboratory origin". BioEssays. 43: e2000240. doi:10.1002/bies.202000240. Retrieved 6 December 2024.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  8. ^ Zapatero Gaviria, A., Barba Martin, R. (2023). "What do we know about the origin of COVID-19 three years later?". Revista Clínica Española (English Edition). 223 (4): 240–243. doi:10.1016/j.rceng.2023.02.010. Retrieved 6 December 2024.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

SAR2 confirmed did not come from lab

edit
Latest comment: 3 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-03982-2 87.119.188.165 (talk) 03:23, 9 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Use of "misplaced suspicion" in lead

edit
Latest comment: 2 days ago16 comments3 people in discussion

TarnishedPath, you are insisting here on the word "misplaced" before "suspicion", which is not in the source relied on in the lead and is treating the whole question as settled and certain – although taken as a whole the page does not do that. I can't find a reliable source in the article for "misplaced suspicion" could you please give it here? Even if the claim is cited somewhere else, given the lack of any certainty any such source must be POV. Moonraker (talk) 05:41, 9 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Moonraker, the word misplaced was placed in at Special:Diff/1262010139 by @Bon courage. My edit prior to yours was in relation to updating a link target and nothing else. TarnishedPathtalk 05:49, 9 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
You are right, TarnishedPath, I have pinged the wrong user. Bon courage, the question is for you. And you say in your edit summary "The lede summarized the body, which explains this is a fallacy" – what is a fallacy? I do not see one. Moonraker (talk) 05:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
You can search for the word "fallacy" with a browser's search functionality. This is the "too much of a coincidence" line of argument and we need to call it out as faulty for reasons of neutrality. Bon courage (talk) 05:57, 9 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for the reply, Bon courage. What I find is this:

Stephan Lewandowsky and colleagues write that the location of the Institute near the outbreak site is "literally a coincidence" and using that coincidence as a priori evidence for a lab leak typifies a kind of conjunction fallacy.

The link to the source given for this is dead. We can agree on what is said about evidence, but if it did state any certainty, that would be highly unscientific, so I doubt that it does. Can you give us the exact quotation, please? In any event, it is surely the word "misplaced" which offends against neutrality, taking the article as a whole, and I see nothing about "misplaced suspicion". Moonraker (talk) 06:20, 9 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
No, for WP:FRINGESUBJECTS we are obliged to call fringe notions what they are (such as the "too much of a coincidence" middle-brow reckon). I'm not sure why you call this correction from well-published actual experts in their field "highly unscientific" - surely the opposite is true. I have no issue replacing "misplaced suspicion" with "fallacious reasoning"; both seem a fair summary of our good sources. T&F seem to be having technical issues; I'm sure they'll be back soon. Bon courage (talk) 06:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Moonraker, I've updated the DOI for the reference. You can find an open access version of the book at https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/oa-edit/10.4324/9781003330769/covid-conspiracy-theories-global-perspective-michael-butter-peter-knight, although the links to the chapter PDFs seem not be working. The book is listed on Google at https://www.google.com.au/books/edition/Covid_Conspiracy_Theories_in_Global_Pers/NASqEAAAQBAJ?hl=en and you can probably see a lot of it from there. TarnishedPathtalk 06:58, 9 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
This seems to come up a lot so I wonder if we should expand on it. One source (can't remember which) posited a scenario where COVID started in Beijing, and how the argument would then be "Beijing has more virology labs than any city in China, so it stands to reason a lab origin in likely". Bon courage (talk) 07:01, 9 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
If that quote is from the book, I think that would clarify why reasoning that there's a connection, between a lab being in Wuhan and the outbreak seemingly staring from there, is faulty/misplaced/fallacious/whatever other synonyms there are. TarnishedPathtalk 07:32, 9 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
I don't think it's in this source, though it does explain why you'd expect outbreaks to coincide with where virology labs are, for perfectly innocent reasons. Bon courage (talk) 07:44, 9 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Agreed, it's perfectly understandable reasoning, however as is clear to anyone who's done the tiniest amount of study in formal logic it's completely misplaced/fallacious/etc. Unfortunately we need sources to cover that sort of stuff or we're engaging in WP:OR TarnishedPathtalk 07:49, 9 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yup. Fortunately the Lewandowsky et al source has it covered in sufficient detail (though not enough for there to be constant questions about this, it seems). Bon courage (talk) 08:06, 9 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Anyway I've added both a correct DOI and a link to the book from Google Books, to the reference. Moonraker should read the chapter if he wants to dispute this further. TarnishedPathtalk 08:17, 9 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Moonraker, I've just had a look at google books at it seems the whole book (a the very least the first two chapters are, which is when I stopped scrolling) is available from https://www.google.com.au/books/edition/Covid_Conspiracy_Theories_in_Global_Pers/NASqEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1, which is no surprise I guess given that Francis & Taylor have released it under a free license. TarnishedPathtalk 07:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • Thank you, TarnishedPath, but I still can't get through to it. And even if I could, reading the whole chapter is unlikely to take us anywhere. What is claimed (rightly or wrongly) on our page to be in the source makes sense, and it says nothing about a "misplaced suspicion" – nor can what it is claimed to say infer one. So that term is not cited. You say "reasoning that there's a connection, between a lab being in Wuhan and the outbreak seemingly starting from there, is faulty/misplaced/fallacious" - agreed. And what the source is claimed to say ("the location of the Institute near the outbreak site... using that coincidence as a priori evidence for a lab leak typifies a kind of conjunction fallacy") is fine too. But no one here or anywhere else is trying to use it as hard evidence for anything. It's circumstantial and feeble, all that comes from it is a suspicion. To go on from that to say that the suspicion is "misplaced" is to judge the whole question in a way that the page does not, based on no citation and no evidence. That is also fallacious, which is why the word "misplaced" needs to come out. Do you not agree? Moonraker (talk) 02:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
    @Moonraker, if you click on the link for the DOI from the reference that takes you to Taylor & Frances page for the book. After discussions here last night I was successfully able to download chapters. I read the 2nd chapter last night and I believe more than adequately supports the material in the article. TarnishedPathtalk 02:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Edit protected -- (adding wiki-links and Tabak's name)

edit
Latest comment: 6 hours ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Change On 8 February 2023, the acting director of the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) testified before a Republican-led House committee that the viruses studied in the Wuhan lab "bear no relationship" to SARS-CoV-2 and that suggesting equivalency would be akin to "saying that a human is equivalent to a cow". to: "On 8 February 2023, acting director of the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) Lawrence A. Tabak testified before a Republican-led House committee that the viruses studied in the Wuhan lab "bear no relationship" to SARS-CoV-2 and that suggesting equivalency would be akin to "saying that a human is equivalent to a cow".

Since there are articles for Tabak and for the committee, we should link to them. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 21:46, 11 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Page needs drastic changes especially after House Subcommittee’s findings

edit
Latest comment: 5 hours ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In the opening paragraphs this page says, “There is no evidence SARS-CoV-2 existed in any laboratory prior to the pandemic” which is a lie as the committee found researchers at the lab "were sick with a COVID-like virus in the fall of 2019, months before COVID-19 was discovered at the wet market." The Subcommittee also found the virus had a biological characteristic that is not found in nature and that data showed all COVID-19 cases stemming from a single introduction to humans an "By nearly all measures of science, if there was evidence of a natural origin it would have already surfaced," the report says. This page paints anyone supporting the Lab Leak theory as quote “conspiracy theorists” plenty of sources have covered the new findings and the page still being locked further shows that this website is beyond far left and is an has been ignoring credible sources to promote the propaganda spewed by the current administration the last four years.

SOURCES: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/covid-most-likely-leaked-from-wuhan-lab-social-distancing-not-based-science-select-committee-finds.amp


https://oversight.house.gov/release/final-report-covid-select-concludes-2-year-investigation-issues-500-page-final-report-on-lessons-learned-and-the-path-forward/

https://www.sciencefocus.com/news/covid-19-unnatural-origin-theory Dreadpirate43 (talk) 22:12, 11 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory&oldid=1262570418"