Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory

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)

Which pages use this template?

Last updated (diff) on 15 March 2024 by Novem Linguae (t · c)

Lab leak theory sources

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)

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

[]  · Scholarship
For the relevant sourcing guideline, see WP:SCHOLARSHIP. For a database curated by the NCBI, see LitCoVID
Chen, Xin; Kalyar, Fatema; Chughtai, Abrar Ahmad; MacIntyre, Chandini Raina (2024-03-15). "Use of a risk assessment tool to determine the origin of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)". Risk Analysis. doi:10.1111/risa.14291. Redfield, Robert (2023-03-08). "COVID Origins Hearing Wrap Up: Facts, Science, Evidence Point to a Wuhan Lab Leak". House Oversight Comittee. House Oversight Comitee. Retrieved 16 January 2023. Berche, Patrick (2023-06-02). "Gain-of-function and origin of Covid19". Presse Medicale. 52 (1): 104167. doi:10.1016/j.lpm.2023.104167. ISSN 2213-0276. PMC 10234839. PMID 37269978. Domingo, Jose L. (2022-12-01). "An updated review of the scientific literature on the origin of SARS-CoV-2". Environmental Research. 215: 114131. Bibcode:2022ER....215k4131D. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2022.114131. ISSN 0013-9351. PMC 9420317. PMID 36037920. Courtier-Orgogozo, Virginie; de Ribera, Francisco A. (2022-11-01). "SARS-CoV-2 infection at the Huanan seafood market". Environmental Research. 214: 113702. Bibcode:2022ER....214k3702C. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2022.113702. ISSN 0013-9351. PMC 9220909. PMID 35752330. Keusch, Gerald T.; Amuasi, John H.; Anderson, Danielle E.; Daszak, Peter; Eckerle, Isabella; Field, Hume; Koopmans, Marion; Lam, Sai Kit; Das Neves, Carlos G.; Peiris, Malik; Perlman, Stanley; Wacharapluesadee, Supaporn; Yadana, Su; Saif, Linda (2022-10-18). "Pandemic origins and a One Health approach to preparedness and prevention: Solutions based on SARS-CoV-2 and other RNA viruses". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 119 (42): e2202871119. Bibcode:2022PNAS..11902871K. doi:10.1073/pnas.2202871119. ISSN 0027-8424. PMC 9586299. PMID 36215506. Sachs, Jeffrey D.; Karim, Salim S. Abdool; Aknin, Lara; Allen, Joseph; Brosbøl, Kirsten; Colombo, Francesca; Barron, Gabriela Cuevas; Espinosa, María Fernanda; Gaspar, Vitor; Gaviria, Alejandro; Haines, Andy; Hotez, Peter J.; Koundouri, Phoebe; Bascuñán, Felipe Larraín; Lee, Jong-Koo (2022-10-08). "The Lancet Commission on lessons for the future from the COVID-19 pandemic". The Lancet. 400 (10359): 1224–1280. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(22)01585-9. ISSN 0140-6736. PMID 36115368. Thakur, Nagendra; Das, Sayak; Kumar, Swatantra; Maurya, Vimal K.; Dhama, Kuldeep; Paweska, Janusz T.; Abdel‐Moneim, Ahmed S.; Jain, Amita; Tripathi, Anil K.; Puri, Bipin; Saxena, Shailendra K. (2022-09-08). "Tracing the origin of Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus‐2 (SARS‐CoV‐2): A systematic review and narrative synthesis". Journal of Medical Virology. 94 (12): 5766–5779. doi:10.1002/jmv.28060. ISSN 0146-6615. PMC 9538017. PMID 35945190. Worobey, Michael; Levy, Joshua I.; Serrano, Lorena M. Malpica; Crits-Christoph, Alexander; Pekar, Jonathan E.; Goldstein, Stephen A.; Rasmussen, Angela L.; Kraemer, Moritz U. G.; Newman, Chris; Koopmans, Marion P. G.; Suchard, Marc A. (2022-07-26). "The Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market in Wuhan was the early epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic". Science. 377 (6609): 951–959. Bibcode:2022Sci...377..951W. doi:10.1126/science.abp8715. PMC 9348750. PMID 35881010. Pekar, Jonathan E.; Magee, Andrew; Parker, Edyth; Moshiri, Niema; Izhikevich, Katherine; Havens, Jennifer L.; Gangavarapu, Karthik; Malpica Serrano, Lorena Mariana; Crits-Christoph, Alexander; Matteson, Nathaniel L.; Zeller, Mark (2022-07-26). "The molecular epidemiology of multiple zoonotic origins of SARS-CoV-2". Science. 377 (6609): 960–966. Bibcode:2022Sci...377..960P. doi:10.1126/science.abp8337. ISSN 0036-8075. PMC 9348752. PMID 35881005. Isonne, Claudia; De Blasiis, Maria Roberta; Turatto, Federica; Mazzalai, Elena; Marzuillo, Carolina; De Vito, Corrado; Villari, Paolo; Baccolini, Valentina (June 2022). "What Went Wrong with the IMMUNI Contact-Tracing App in Italy? A Cross-Sectional Survey on the Attitudes and Experiences among Healthcare University Students". Life. 12 (6): 871. Bibcode:2022Life...12..871I. doi:10.3390/life12060871. ISSN 2075-1729. PMC 9225335. PMID 35743902. Zhao, Shilei; Hou, Yali; Zhang, Xiaolong; Hughes, Alice; Liu, Na; Peng, Minsheng; Wang, Qihui; Xue, Yongbiao; Chen, Hua (2022-05-24). "Pinpointing the animal origins of SARS-CoV-2: a genomic approach". Journal of Genetics and Genomics. 49 (9): 900–902. doi:10.1016/j.jgg.2022.05.002. ISSN 1673-8527. PMC 9128337. PMID 35623453. Frutos, Roger; Pliez, Olivier; Gavotte, Laurent; Devaux, Christian A. (2022-05-01). "There is no "origin" to SARS-CoV-2". Environmental Research. 207: 112173. Bibcode:2022ER....207k2173F. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2021.112173. ISSN 0013-9351. PMC 8493644. PMID 34626592. Borsetti, Alessandra; Scarpa, Fabio; Maruotti, Antonello; Divino, Fabio; Ceccarelli, Giancarlo; Giovanetti, Marta; Ciccozzi, Massimo (April 2022). "The unresolved question on COVID‐19 virus origin: The three cards game?". Journal of Medical Virology. 94 (4): 1257–1260. doi:10.1002/jmv.27519. ISSN 0146-6615. PMID 34897750. S2CID 245171943. Temmam, Sarah; Vongphayloth, Khamsing; Baquero, Eduard; Munier, Sandie; Bonomi, Massimiliano; Regnault, Béatrice; Douangboubpha, Bounsavane; Karami, Yasaman; Chrétien, Delphine; Sanamxay, Daosavanh; Xayaphet, Vilakhan (April 2022). "Bat coronaviruses related to SARS-CoV-2 and infectious for human cells". Nature. 604 (7905): 330–336. Bibcode:2022Natur.604..330T. doi:10.1038/s41586-022-04532-4. ISSN 1476-4687. PMID 35172323. Barker, Hannah; Chen, Chen (March 2022). "Pandemic Outbreaks and the Language of Violence: Discussing the Origins of the Black Death and COVID-19". Chest: S0012369222004433. doi:10.1016/j.chest.2022.03.010. PMC 8925085. PMID 35305972. Zhai, Yida; Yan, Zheng (2022-03-24). "Political Ideology, Ingroup Favoritism, and Conspiratorial Thinking: Patriotism, Nationalism, and COVID-19 Conspiracy Theories". Psychological Reports. 126 (4): 1784–1802. doi:10.1177/00332941221079727. ISSN 0033-2941. PMC 8958302. PMID 35324351. Voskarides, Konstantinos (2022-03-18). "SARS-CoV-2: tracing the origin, tracking the evolution". BMC Medical Genomics. 15 (1): 62. doi:10.1186/s12920-022-01208-w. ISSN 1755-8794. PMC 8931788. PMID 35303887. DiEuliis, Diane; Giordano, James (2022-02-28). "The Need for Modernization of Biosecurity in the Post-COVID World". mSphere. 7 (2): e00025–22. doi:10.1128/msphere.00025-22. ISSN 2379-5042. PMC 9044947. PMID 35224977. Liu, William (2023-04-05). "Surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 at the Huanan Seafood Market". Nature: 1–3. doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06043-2. PMID 37019149. Retrieved 19 July 2023. Lawler, Odette K; Allan, Hannah L; Baxter, Peter W J; Castagnino, Romi; Tor, Marina Corella; Dann, Leah E; Hungerford, Joshua; Karmacharya, Dibesh; Lloyd, Thomas J; López-Jara, María José; Massie, Gloeta N; Novera, Junior; Rogers, Andrew M; Kark, Salit (November 2021). "The COVID-19 pandemic is intricately linked to biodiversity loss and ecosystem health". The Lancet. Planetary Health. 5 (11): e840–e850. doi:10.1016/S2542-5196(21)00258-8. PMC 8580505. PMID 34774124. Primary: Chan, Yujia Alina; Zhan, Shing Hei (November 2021). "The emergence of the spike furin cleavage site in SARS-CoV-2". Molecular Biology and Evolution. PMID 34788836. Rozado, David (September 2021). "Prevalence in News Media of Two Competing Hypotheses about COVID-19 Origins". Social Sciences. 10 (9): 320. doi:10.3390/socsci10090320. ISSN 2076-0760. Holmes, Edward C.; Goldstein, Stephen A.; Rasmussen, Angela L.; Robertson, David L.; Crits-Christoph, Alexander; Wertheim, Joel O.; Anthony, Simon J.; Barclay, Wendy S.; Boni, Maciej F.; Doherty, Peter C.; Farrar, Jeremy; Geoghegan, Jemma L.; Jiang, Xiaowei; Leibowitz, Julian L.; Neil, Stuart J.D.; Skern, Tim; Weiss, Susan R.; Worobey, Michael; Andersen, Kristian G.; Garry, Robert F.; Rambaut, Andrew (August 2021). "The Origins of SARS-CoV-2: A Critical Review". Cell. 184 (19): 4848–4856. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2021.08.017. PMID 34480864. Lytras, Spyros; Xia, Wei; Hughes, Joseph; Jiang, Xiaowei; Robertson, David L. (17 August 2021). "The animal origin of SARS-CoV-2". Science. 373 (6558): 968–970. Bibcode:2021Sci...373..968L. doi:10.1126/science.abh0117. PMID 34404734. Singh, Devika; Yi, Soojin V. (April 2021). "On the origin and evolution of SARS-CoV-2". Experimental & Molecular Medicine. 53 (4): 537–547. doi:10.1038/s12276-021-00604-z. PMC 8050477. PMID 33864026. Frutos, Roger; Gavotte, Laurent; Devaux, Christian A. (March 2021). "Understanding the origin of COVID-19 requires to change the paradigm on zoonotic emergence from the spillover to the circulation model". Infection, Genetics and Evolution. 95: 104812. doi:10.1016/j.meegid.2021.104812. PMC 7969828. PMID 33744401. Sallard, Erwan; Halloy, José; Casane, Didier; Decroly, Etienne; Van Helden, Jacques (February 2021). "Tracing the origins of SARS-COV-2 in coronavirus phylogenies: a review". Environmental Chemistry Letters. 19 (2): 769–785. Bibcode:2021EnvCL..19..769S. doi:10.1007/s10311-020-01151-1. PMID 33558807. Hakim, Mohamad S. (14 February 2021). "SARS‐CoV‐2, Covid‐19, and the debunking of conspiracy theories". Reviews in Medical Virology. 31 (6): e2222. doi:10.1002/rmv.2222. ISSN 1052-9276. PMC 7995093. PMID 33586302. Barh, Debmalya; Silva Andrade, Bruno; Tiwari, Sandeep; Giovanetti, Marta; Góes-Neto, Aristóteles; Alcantara, Luiz Carlos Junior; Azevedo, Vasco; Ghosh, Preetam (1 September 2020). "Natural selection versus creation: a review on the origin of SARS-COV-2". Le Infezioni in Medicina. 28 (3): 302–311. ISSN 1124-9390. PMID 32920565. Graham, Rachel L.; Baric, Ralph S. (19 May 2020). "SARS-CoV-2: Combating Coronavirus Emergence". Immunity. 52 (5): 734–736. doi:10.1016/j.immuni.2020.04.016. ISSN 1074-7613. PMC 7207110. PMID 32392464. Zhang, Yong-Zhen; Holmes, Edward C. (April 2020). "A Genomic Perspective on the Origin and Emergence of SARS-CoV-2". Cell. 181 (2): 223–227. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2020.03.035. PMID 32220310. Primary: Andersen, Kristian G.; Rambaut, Andrew; Lipkin, W. Ian; Holmes, Edward C.; Garry, Robert F. (March 2020). "The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2". Nature Medicine. 26 (4): 450–452. doi:10.1038/s41591-020-0820-9. ISSN 1546-170X. PMC 7095063. PMID 32284615.

[]  · Journalism
For the relevant sourcing guideline, see WP:NEWSORG.
Michael R. Gordon and Warren P. Strobel (20 June 2023). "U.S.-Funded Scientist Among Three Chinese Researchers Who Fell Ill Amid Early Covid-19 Outbreak". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 21 June 2023. Jonathan Calvert and George Arbuthnott (10 June 2023). "What really went on inside the Wuhan lab weeks before Covid erupted". Archived from the original on 10 June 2023. Retrieved 10 June 2023. Mara Hvistendahl and Benjamin Mueller (23 April 2023). "Chinese Censorship Is Quietly Rewriting the Covid-19 Story". Archived from the original on 24 April 2023. Retrieved 30 April 2023. Sasha Pezenik, Josh Margolin, Kaitlyn Morris, and Terry Moran (18 April 2023). "New report from Senate Republicans doubles down on COVID lab leak theory". ABC news. Retrieved 20 April 2023.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Paun, Carmen; Zeller, Shawn; Reader, Ruth; Leonard, Ben; Scullion, Grace. "Cross-examining the lab-leak theorists". POLITICO. Retrieved 6 December 2022. Max, Tani. "ProPublica scrambles to check translation in COVID origin story". Semafor. Retrieved 2022-11-03. Mueller, Benjamin; Zimmer, Carl (27 October 2022). "G.O.P. Senator's Report on Covid Origins Suggests Lab Leak, but Offers Little New Evidence". The New York Times. Retrieved 6 December 2022. Kao, Katherine; Eban, Jeff. "COVID-19 Origins: Investigating a "Complex and Grave Situation" Inside a Wuhan Lab". ProPublica. Retrieved 2022-11-03. Grim, Ryan. "NIH Awards New Grant to U.S. Organization at Center of Covid-19 Lab Leak Controversy". The Intercept. Retrieved 2022-11-03. Cohen, Jon. "Republican Senate staff tout lab-leak theory of the pandemic's origin". Science. Retrieved 2022-11-03. Cohen, Jon. "From 'open-minded' to 'underwhelming,' mixed reactions greet latest COVID-19 origin report". Science. Retrieved 2022-06-12. "China calls COVID 'lab leak' theory a lie after WHO report". AP NEWS. 2022-06-10. Retrieved 2022-06-14. Schulson, Michael (2022-06-01). "The Challenges of Calculating a Lab Leak Risk". Undark Magazine. Retrieved 2022-06-14. Piper, Kelsey (2022-04-05). "Why experts are terrified of a human-made pandemic — and what we can do to stop it". Vox. Retrieved 2022-04-05. Eban, Katherine (2022-03-31). ""This Shouldn't Happen": Inside the Virus-Hunting Nonprofit at the Center of the Lab-Leak Controversy". Vanity Fair. Retrieved 2022-04-03. Law, Tara (2022-03-29). "Lab Leaks Are a Small But Real Risk in Ukraine. Russian Disinformation Is The True Threat". Time. Retrieved 2022-04-03. Zimmer, Carl (2022-03-21). "'He Goes Where the Fire Is': A Virus Hunter in the Wuhan Market". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2022-03-22. Maxmen, Amy (2022-03-17). "Scientists struggle to probe COVID's origins amid sparse data from China". Nature. doi:10.1038/d41586-022-00732-0. Gallagher, Evangeline (2022-03-09). "This Is How Covid Started. And Here's How We Stop the Next One". The New Republic. ISSN 0028-6583. Retrieved 2022-03-22. Thacker, Paul (2022-03-08). "Is the media still stifling the lab-leak theory?". UnHerd. Retrieved 2022-03-17. Jon, Cohen (2022-02-28). "Do three new studies add up to proof of COVID-19's origin in a Wuhan animal market?". Science. doi:10.1126/science.adb1727. Maxmen, Amy (2022-02-27). "Wuhan market was epicentre of pandemic's start, studies suggest". Nature. doi:10.1038/d41586-022-00584-8. ISSN 0028-0836. Zimmer, Carl; Mueller, Benjamin (26 February 2022). "New Research Points to Wuhan Market as Pandemic Origin". The New York Times. Retrieved 3 April 2022. Knapton, Sarah (2022-02-22). "Wuhan lab leak theory 'accepted as likely behind closed doors at No 10'". The Telegraph. ISSN 0307-1235. Retrieved 2022-02-23. Lerner, Sharon (2022-02-20). "NIH Sent The Intercept 292 Fully Redacted Pages Related to Virus Research in Wuhan". The Intercept. Retrieved 2022-02-20. Qiu, Jane (2022-02-09). "Meet the scientist at the center of the covid lab leak controversy". MIT Technology Review. Retrieved 2022-02-20. Pinkstone, Joe (2022-02-03). "Covid lab leak theories 'have put world at risk of a new pandemic'". The Telegraph. ISSN 0307-1235. Retrieved 2022-02-20. Knapton, Sarah (2022-01-11). "Scientists believed Covid leaked from Wuhan lab - but feared debate could hurt 'international harmony'". The Telegraph. ISSN 0307-1235. Retrieved 2022-02-21. Achenbach, Joel (18 November 2021). "Prominent scientist who said lab-leak theory of covid-19 origin should be probed now believes evidence points to Wuhan market". The Washington Post. Honigsbaum, Mark (15 November 2021). "Viral by Alina Chan and Matt Ridley review – was Covid-19 really made in China?". the Guardian. Rindsberg, Ashley (15 November 2021). "The Lab Leak Fiasco". Tablet. Blakely, Rhys (11 November 2021). "The Covid-19 lab-leak theory: 'I've had death threats'". The Times. Kormann, Carolyn (12 October 2021). "The Mysterious Case of the COVID-19 Lab-Leak Theory". The New Yorker. Federman, Daniel Engber, Adam (25 September 2021). "The Lab-Leak Debate Just Got Even Messier". The Atlantic. Retrieved 25 September 2021.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Cohen, Jon (2021-09-02). "Why many scientists say it's unlikely that SARS-CoV-2 originated from a 'lab leak'". Science. Retrieved 2022-06-11. Oreskes, Naomi (September 2021). "The Lab-Leak Theory of COVID's Origin Is Not Totally Irrational". Scientific American. Dyer, Owen (27 July 2021). "Covid-19: China stymies investigation into pandemic's origins". BMJ. 374. doi:10.1136/bmj.n1890. n1890. Doucleff, Michaeleen (2021-07-19). "New Data Leads To Rethinking (Once More) Where The Pandemic Actually Began". WBUR. Retrieved 2022-02-21. Krishnaswamy, S.; Govindarajan, T. R. (16 July 2021). "The controversy being created about the origins of the virus that causes COVID-19". Frontline. Kasprak, Alex (16 July 2021). "The 'Occam's Razor Argument' Has Not Shifted in Favor of a Lab Leak". Snopes.com. Retrieved 18 July 2021. Thacker, Paul D. (8 July 2021). "The covid-19 lab leak hypothesis: did the media fall victim to a misinformation campaign?". BMJ. 374: n1656. doi:10.1136/bmj.n1656. ISSN 1756-1833. Jacobsen, Rowan (29 June 2021). "Inside the risky bat-virus engineering that links America to Wuhan". MIT Technology Review. McKelvey, Tara (27 June 2021). "Wuhan lab-leak theory fuels Trump comeback rally". BBC News. Fay Cortez, Michelle (27 June 2021). "The Last—And Only—Foreign Scientist in the Wuhan Lab Speaks Out". Bloomberg News. Retrieved 18 July 2021. Regalado, Antonio (25 June 2021). "They called it a conspiracy theory. But Alina Chan tweeted life into the idea that the virus came from a lab". MIT Technology Review. Hvistendahl, Mara (19 June 2021). "I Visited a Chinese Lab at the Center of a Biosafety Debate. What I Learned Helps Explain the Clash Over Covid-19's Origins". The Intercept. Evans, Anna Muldoon, Nicholas G. (18 June 2021). "There Is No Good Way to Even Investigate the Lab Leak Theory". Slate Magazine.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Ling, Justin (15 June 2021). "The Lab Leak Theory Doesn't Hold Up". Foreign Policy. Folmer, Kaitlyn (14 June 2021). "Nature-based or lab leak? Unraveling the debate over the origins of COVID-19". ABC News. Wallace-Wells, David (12 June 2021). "The Implications of the Lab-Leak Hypothesis". Intelligencer. Larson, Christina; Merchant, Nomaan (9 June 2021). "EXPLAINER: The US investigation into COVID-19 origins". AP NEWS. Retrieved 18 July 2021. Maxmen, Amy; Mallapaty, Smriti (8 June 2021). "The COVID lab-leak hypothesis: what scientists do and don't know". Nature. 594 (7863): 313–315. doi:10.1038/d41586-021-01529-3. Irfan, Umair (7 June 2021). "The lab leak hypothesis, explained". Vox. Jacobsen, Rowan (6 June 2021). "How amateur sleuths broke the Wuhan Lab story and embarrassed the media". Newsweek.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link) (The reliability of Newsweek post-2013 is debated and context-specific. One rationale for why this particular source is probably not unreliable is presented here.) "How the 'Wuhan lab leak' went from conspiracy theory to top presidential priority". The Week UK. 4 June 2021. Eban, Katherine (3 June 2021). "The Lab-Leak Theory: Inside the Fight to Uncover COVID-19's Origins". Vanity Fair. Sohn, Rebecca (3 June 2021). "A Very Calm Guide to the Lab Leak Theory". Slate Magazine. Palus, Shannon (29 May 2021). "Just Because We're Talking About the Lab Leak Theory Doesn't Mean It's Come True". Slate Magazine. Brumfiel, Geoff (28 May 2021). "Many Scientists Still Think The Coronavirus Came From Nature". NPR.org. Beaumont, Peter (2021-05-27). "Did Covid come from a Wuhan lab? What we know so far". The Guardian. Zimmer, Carl; Gorman, James; Mueller, Benjamin (27 May 2021). "Scientists Don't Want to Ignore the 'Lab Leak' Theory, Despite No New Evidence". The New York Times. Hinshaw, Drew; Page, Jeremy (27 May 2021). "Time Is Running Out in Covid-19 Origins Inquiry, Say WHO-Led Team Members". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 18 July 2021. Wallace-Wells, Benjamin (27 May 2021). "The Sudden Rise of the Coronavirus Lab-Leak Theory". The New Yorker. Maxmen, Amy (27 May 2021). "Divisive COVID 'lab leak' debate prompts dire warnings from researchers". Nature. 594 (7861): 15–16. doi:10.1038/d41586-021-01383-3. Whipple, Tom (27 May 2021). "Could a Wuhan lab leak really be to blame for Covid?". The Times. Kessler, Glenn (25 May 2021). "Timeline: How the Wuhan lab-leak theory suddenly became credible". The Washington Post. Hinshaw, Michael R. Gordon, Warren P. Strobel and Drew (23 May 2021). "WSJ News Exclusive Intelligence on Sick Staff at Wuhan Lab Fuels Debate on Covid-19 Origin". Wall Street Journal.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Kannan, Saikiran (2021-05-18). "Bat out of hell? Covid is global but questions over Wuhan lab leak won't go away". India Today. Retrieved 2022-02-21. Jacobsen, Rowan (May 13, 2021). "Top researchers are calling for a real investigation into the origin of covid-19". MIT Technology Review. Gorman, James; Barnes, Julian E. (26 March 2021). "The C.D.C.'s ex-director offers no evidence in favoring speculation that the coronavirus originated in a lab". The New York Times. Rogin, Josh (8 March 2021). "In 2018, Diplomats Warned of Risky Coronavirus Experiments in a Wuhan Lab. No One Listened". Politico Magazine. Baker, Nicholson (4 January 2021). "The Lab-Leak Hypothesis". Intelligencer. Jacobsen, Rowan (9 September 2020). "Could COVID-19 Have Escaped from a Lab?". Boston Magazine. Jacobsen, Rowan (14 May 2020). "The non-paranoid person's guide to viruses escaping from labs". Mother Jones.

[]  · Opinion-based editorials written by scientists/scholars
For the relevant sourcing guideline, see WP:RSOPINION.
Garry, Robert F. (2022-11-22). "The evidence remains clear: SARS-CoV-2 emerged via the wildlife trade". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 119 (47): e2214427119. doi:10.1073/pnas.2214427119. ISSN 0027-8424. PMC 9704731. PMID 36355862.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: PMC format (link) Worobey, Michael; Rasmussen, Angela. "Conspiracy Theories About COVID-19 Help Nobody". Foreign Policy. Retrieved 2022-11-03. Gorski, David (2022-08-01). "The rise and fall of the lab leak hypothesis for the origin of SARS-CoV-2". Science-Based Medicine. Retrieved 2022-08-12. Harrison, Neil L.; Sachs, Jeffrey D. (2022-05-24). "A call for an independent inquiry into the origin of the SARS-CoV-2 virus". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 119 (21): e2202769119. doi:10.1073/pnas.2202769119. ISSN 0027-8424. Frutos, Roger; Pliez, Olivier; Gavotte, Laurent; Devaux, Christian A. (2022-05-01). "There is no "origin" to SARS-CoV-2". Environmental Research. 207: 112173. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2021.112173. ISSN 0013-9351. PMC 8493644. PMID 34626592.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: PMC format (link) Holmes, Edward C. (2022-03-11). "COVID-19—lessons for zoonotic disease". Science. 375 (6585): 1114–1115. doi:10.1126/science.abn2222. ISSN 0036-8075. Lewandowsky, Stephan; Jacobs, Peter; Neil, Stuart (2022-03-01). "The Lab-Leak Hypothesis Made It Harder for Scientists to Seek the Truth". Scientific American. Graner, François; Courtier-Orgogozo, Virginie; Decroly, Etienne; Ebright, Richard H.; Btler, Colin D; Fabien, Colombo; Kaina, Bernd; Rahalkar, Monali C.; Halloy, José; Bahulikar, Rahul A.; Theißen, Günter,; Leitenberg, Milton; Morand, Serge; Kakeya, Hideki; Jean-Michel, Claverie; van Helden, Jacques (December 2021). "Comment of a critical review about the origins of SARS-CoV-2" (PDF). doi:10.1016/j.cell.2021.08.017.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Orent, Wendy (28 October 2021). "Why I Still Believe Covid-19 Could Not Have Originated in a Lab". Undark Magazine. Retrieved 31 October 2021. Wain-Hobson, Simon. "Virology: Dangerous gain of function research has gotten out of hand and needs to be reined in". Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. ISSN 0174-4909. Retrieved 2022-02-21. Muller, Richard; Quay, Steven (5 October 2021). "Science Closes In on Covid's Origins - Four studies—including two from WHO—provide powerful evidence favoring the lab-leak theory". The Wall Street Journal. Redfield, Robert; Sigel, Marc (15 August 2021). "The World Needs to Know What Happened at the Wuhan Lab". Wall Street Journal. Godlee, Fiona (8 July 2021). "Covid 19: We need a full open independent investigation into its origins". The BMJ: n1721. doi:10.1136/bmj.n1721. Baltimore, David (2021-06-22). "The Debate over Origins of SARS-CoV-2". California Institute of Technology. Retrieved 2022-02-21. Sachs, Jeffrey D. (22 June 2021). "Finding the Origins of COVID-19 and Preventing Future Pandemics". Project Syndicate. Knight, Peter (21 June 2021). "COVID-19: why lab-leak theory is back despite little new evidence". The Conversation. Rodrigo, Allen (14 June 2021). "The COVID-19 lab-leak hypothesis is plausible because accidents happen. I should know". The Conversation. Gorman, James; Zimmer, Carl (2021-06-14). "Scientist Opens Up About His Early Email to Fauci on Virus Origins". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2022-02-21. Balaram, P. (10 June 2021). "The murky origins of the coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, the causative agent of the COVID-19 pandemic" (PDF). Current Science. 120 (11): 1663–1666. Seyran, Murat; Pizzol, Damiano; Adadi, Parise; El‐Aziz, Tarek M. A.; Hassan, Sk. Sarif; Soares, Antonio; Kandimalla, Ramesh; Lundstrom, Kenneth; Tambuwala, Murtaza; Aljabali, Alaa A. A.; Lal, Amos; Azad, Gajendra K.; Choudhury, Pabitra P.; Uversky, Vladimir N.; Sherchan, Samendra P.; Uhal, Bruce D.; Rezaei, Nima; Brufsky, Adam M. (March 2021). "Questions concerning the proximal origin of SARS‐CoV‐2". Journal of Medical Virology. 93 (3): 1204–1206. doi:10.1002/jmv.26478. Rasmussen, Angela L. (January 2021). "On the origins of SARS-CoV-2". Nature Medicine. 27 (1): 9–9. doi:10.1038/s41591-020-01205-5. ISSN 1546-170X. Retrieved 18 July 2021. Hayes, Polly (13 July 2020). "Here's how scientists know the coronavirus came from bats and wasn't made in a lab". The Conversation. Talaat, Khaled (6 May 2020). "Wuhan Denialism". Tablet.

[]  · Opinion-based editorials written by journalists
For the relevant sourcing guideline, see WP:RSOPINION.
Wade, Nicholas (2022-12-04). "Proximal Orchestrations". City Journal. Retrieved 2022-12-06. Yglesias, Matthew (3 November 2022). "The ProPublica-Vanity Fair report on Covid's origins is explosive. Is it reliable?". the Guardian. Retrieved 6 December 2022. Hiltzik, Michael (1 November 2022). "Column: ProPublica and Vanity Fair are pushing the COVID lab-leak theory, but their exposé is a train wreck". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 6 December 2022. Wade, Nicholas (2022-03-20). "Why Science Writers Don't Report Objectively on Covid's Origins". City Journal. Retrieved 2022-03-22. Beyerstein, Lindsay (2021-12-10). "This Terrible Book Shows Why the Covid-19 Lab Leak Theory Won't Die". The New Republic. ISSN 0028-6583. Retrieved 2022-02-20. Engber, Daniel (2021-11-24). "The Lab-Leak Theory Meets Its Perfect Match". The Atlantic. Retrieved 2022-02-20. Ridley, Matt (20 November 2021). "The Covid lab leak theory just got even stronger". The Spectator. Weissmueller, Zach (18 November 2021). "Was It a Lab Leak? The Mysterious Origin of COVID-19". Reason. Zinberg, Joel (1 November 2021). "The Evidence Mounts". City Journal. Grant, Bob (July 1, 2021). "Labs, Leaks, and Liability". The Scientist. (editorial on how media covers the hypothesis) Beyerstein, Lindsay (2021-06-29). "The Case Against the Covid-19 Lab Leak Theory". The New Republic. ISSN 0028-6583. Retrieved 2022-02-20. Young, Alison (June 17, 2021). "'I remember it very well': Dr. Fauci describes a secret 2020 meeting to talk about COVID origins". USA Today. Bio Soave, Robby (4 June 2021). "The Media's Lab Leak Debacle Shows Why Banning 'Misinformation' Is a Terrible Idea". Reason. Wade, Nicholas (5 May 2021). "The origin of COVID: Did people or nature open Pandora's box at Wuhan?". Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Ridley, Matt; Chan, Alina (April 10, 2021). "Bats, pangolins, wet market, lab? The mystery deepens". The Weekend Australian Magazine. Young, Alison (March 22, 2021). "Could an accident have caused COVID-19? Why the Wuhan lab-leak theory shouldn't be dismissed". USA Today.

[]  · Government and policy
Keep in mind, these are primary sources and thus should be used with caution!
"An Analysis of the Origins of the COVID-19 Pandemic: Interim Report" (PDF). US Senate Committee on Health Education, Labor and Pensions Minority Oversight Staff. October 2022. Retrieved 2022-11-03. Preliminary. "Preliminary Report for the Scientific Advisory Group for the Origins of Novel Pathogens (SAGO)". www.who.int. 2022-06-09. Retrieved 2022-06-12. Updated Assessment on COVID-19 Origins (PDF). Washington, D.C.: Office of the Director of National Intelligence. 27 August 2021. p. 17. Retrieved 29 October 2021. (Executive summary of the report) The Origins of COVID-19: an investigation of the Wuhan Institute of Virology (PDF). US House Foreign Affairs Committee Minority Staff. August 2021. p. 84. Retrieved 7 September 2021. Brief: Origins of the COVID-19 Pandemic (PDF). Congressional Research Service. 11 June 2021. p. 3. Retrieved 7 September 2021. "WHO-convened Global Study of Origins of SARS-CoV-2: China Part. Joint Report" (PDF). World Health Organization. 30 March 2021.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link) Bandeira, Luiza; Aleksejeva, Nika; Knight, Tessa; Le Roux, Jean (February 2021). Weaponized: how rumors about Covid-19's origins led to a narrative arms race (PDF). Atlantic Council. OCLC 1239728647. USA House Oversight Committee (July 2023). "Interim Staff Report – The Proximal Origin of a Cover-Up: Did the "Bethesda Boys" Downplay a Lab Leak?". Retrieved 18 July 2023. Office of the Director of National Intelligence (June 2023). "Potential Links Between the Wuhan Institute of Virology and the Origin of the COVID-19 Pandemic" (PDF). Retrieved 19 July 2023. Testimony of John Radcliffe, US Director of National Intelligence 2020-2021, House Hearing on the Origins of COVID-19, Transcript: [3]; C-Span, 18 April 2024, 16.37mins [4]

References

DRASTIC

Now that the main phase of the pandemic is in the rear view window, it's clear to me that the lab-leak advocacy group DRASTIC doesn't pass WP:SUSTAINED, and could adequately be covered in a few sentences in this article. Most of the sources in that article don't even mention DRASIC, but merely debunk claims made by its members. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:32, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Good points made here. Perhaps we should prune most if not all mentions of this group. 2600:8804:6600:4:4980:DCD1:EEA7:32F2 (talk) 17:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and redirected the article here.[5] The contents of the DRASTIC article are already covered pretty much in their entirety in this article already, so I don't feel there is need to merge content. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:36, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

excellent work, That page was likely set up by one of the member of that group anyway. 2600:8804:6600:4:4980:DCD1:EEA7:32F2 (talk) 22:59, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Agree the DRASTIC article was hugely duplicative. good redirect — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:58, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Removed Kialo link in external links

I removed a link to a Kialo discussion on this topic from the external links. It doesn't seem to meet any of the points under WP:ELYES or WP:ELMAYBE. Also, given it's user-generated content it doesn't seem suitable for linking on a contentious topic link this. Unsurprisingly the weightings given to the arguments on Kialo don't accord with the reliable sources in the article and skew towards promoting a lab leak. JaggedHamster (talk) 14:56, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Looks like that recently-created {{Kialo arguments tree}} is being spammed all over the Project. I have nominated it for deletion. Bon courage (talk) 15:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

It's not being "spammed" but linked at a few places at once where it's likely very useful for many readers and usually more useful than the other external links in that section. I'm not surprised it was removed here; the argument map aims to just neutrally show all the arguments from all sides and in a way that is transparent, overseeable, and scrutinizable. I don't see why it would not be a useful resource here. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:31, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Because it's just a site where any joe-know-nothing can create an account and write whatever ignorant statements they want. It seems to have spammed into multiple articles. Bon courage (talk) 16:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

No, claims need to be accepted by debate moderators. If arguments are coherent, relevant and reasonable, they can get included. This is the antidote to ignorant-statement-making in the conventional linear writing that can't be scrutinized and without their relational structure and context visible. I'm not saying these can be useful resources on all articles, just some such as this one. Are you saying Wikipedia is "just a site where joe-know-nothing can create an account and write whatever ignorant statements they want"? Prototyperspective (talk) 16:41, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia, with its massive number of moderators and 864 admins, is not considered a reliable source by Wikipedia. User-generated sites don't fare well here. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I know but you don't seem to understand that I'm not arguing about whether or not it's a reliable source. It can often be a useful resource. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I fail to see how opinions from people unrelated to SARS-CoV-2, Wuhan Institute of Virology, virology in general, genome engineering, etc. are useful to this article. Wikipedia is very fussy about anything medical WP:MEDRS. If you wish to read those arguments yourself and use them to debate a case on this talk page, that might be OK, assuming you can find RS to back them up. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

These are not opinions but arguments extracted from sources like The New York Times or studies. They are just all integrated into one structured map.

…are useful to this article Yes, agree – that's why it is not and cannot be a reference here but is just a useful resource in the EL (that by the way nearly nobody looks at anyway and is contextualized as providing insights about what arguments there have been in the public debate, not as providing information from a select authoritative source). Prototyperspective (talk) 17:17, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

These are not opinions but arguments. Arguments are presentations of opinions. sources like The New York Times. I just looked and very little is sourced to anywhere. Some is sourced to this article. Citogenesis O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

If the majority of lab leak theories are conspiracies, why is MEDRS relevant to this article? 2600:8804:6600:4:2012:A971:5473:A6A4 (talk) 14:37, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

To make sure we reflect reality? Slatersteven (talk) 14:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Adding submission date for Project DEFUSE.

I think it would be relevant to add the submission date for Project DEFUSE which is 3/27/18 [6]? 牢记使命 (talk) 14:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Why? Bon courage (talk) 14:57, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

This addition would provide historical context and improve clarity for readers especially those looking into chronological development of events. 牢记使命 (talk) 15:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

This article is not about it, and what would it tell us (as it was rejected)? Slatersteven (talk) 15:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

While Project DEFUSE was indeed rejected, the submission date still adds important context to the timeline of events. It helps readers understand when these ideas were first proposed in relation to other developments in the COVID-19 story. The aim is not to emphasize the importance of this specific project but rather ensure a comprehensive and chronological overview. 牢记使命 (talk) 15:31, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

But what has this to do with COVID? As it was rejected it has no link to subsequent events. 15:40, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I think the timeline for mentioned events in the article is still important. Do you think it's not? 牢记使命 (talk) 15:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

A time line of events that helped spread the virus, yes, a time line of events that might have had an impact, yes, even a time line of accusations about the lab leak. This is none of those as a rejected idea can't have had any impact, it was rejected. There really is no more to say. Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't refute the point about the project being rejected or argue for it having any connection to COVID-19, I just think it would be relevant and useful to add the submission date. Does it make sense to you? Maybe it would make more sense to remove the section with the project DEFUSE completely, if adding information such as submission date is considered to be irrelevant. 牢记使命 (talk) 16:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Looks like this would not have a reliable secondary-source demonstrating it's a WP:DUE factoid. So I am opposed. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:56, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Are you saying that document in the link haven't been confirmed by DARPA etc and could be fabricated, so it would mean that submission date could be wrong? If that's the case, then I retract my edit proposal. 牢记使命 (talk) 17:03, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Sure, that's certainly part of it. But also no.
Read WP:RSUW to understand the concept of "Due" and "Undue" information. We need secondary reliable sources to tell us which information is pertinent to our readers. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:03, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Actually I checked the article and Project DEFUSE had this source [7]. Maybe the whole section about Project DEFUSE is "undue" information and should be removed? 牢记使命 (talk) 17:19, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

The DEFUSE proposal was real. DARPA's public statement just said that they didn't fund it.

Also Shibbolethink is conflating DUE with RS, as a senior editor he should know better.

The timing of DEFUSE so close to the pandemic is obviously suspicious, and Weissman goes so far as to quantify just how much of a coincidence it is. It would obviously be DUE for any article that was trying to explain lab leak theories. - Palpable (talk) 16:37, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

The timing of DEFUSE so close to the pandemic is obviously suspicious ← that smells ripely fringey. What's the source for that? How can a abortive proposal affect a pandemic? Bon courage (talk) 16:50, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

To sum it up information about Project DEFUSE is due enough to be on the page and have some details for example "One proposed alteration was to modify bat coronaviruses to insert a cleavage site for the Furin protease at the S1/S2 junction of the spike (S) viral protein" which is from document, but not due enough to have the detail about submission date of the project. This feels unreasonable to me, but I guess I'm not understanding something. 牢记使命 (talk) 08:18, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Request for additional Admin

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Reading the talk threads, it seems to me that editor @Bon courage has disproportionate impact on this talk page. Others have commented on the tone used by @Bon courage when speaking to other editors as antagonistic. I agree. It's my suggestion that an additional admin who has not yet contributed would be more helpful for improving this article. The professionalism of @Bon courage, at least on this talk page, seems to be hampered by their ambiguous, unnecessary references to popular opinion, such as in comments like " The hot take on LL at the moment is that it was a ruse sold to the sheeple, and that those who have truly taken the red pill can see LL for the lie it is (as there was no virus)." This type of engagement would not be tolerated in less senior editors or admins, and suggests an abuse of privilege. There are minor editors here trying in earnest to inform the public's encyclopedic search for whether sars-cov-2 and similar viruses may have been tied to laboratory research, and whether it may have accidentally escaped. Thus is a subject which has been given better consideration in the wiki pages covering the earlier SARS outbreaks. We may not like the conclusions the public draws on the information presented, but, for example, if there is a source that can substantiate that any research on sars like viruses was being done on animal vectors in laboratories in Wuhan, that is relevant information and should be provided, if not here then in the pertinent articles. UserSwamp (talk) 13:34, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.