Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

WP:DUE issue in lead

User:Bon_courage claims the following sentence is due as the last sentence of the lead:

The new evidence led a co-author of the two papers, Edward C. Holmes, to declare in The Conversation that "the COVID lab leak theory is dead".

The zoonotic hypothesis is now by far the strongest, but this sentence plainly violates WP:DUE, especially for the lead (but also in the body).

Here's coverage of the paper in repuable outlets, and its implications for the lab leak theory:

In reaction to the papers, [scientists] say the data tips the scales toward wildlife sold at the market. — NPR

The studies don't exclude other hypotheses entirely, but they absolutely are pushing it toward an animal origin. — Jeremy Kamil, virologist quoted by NPR

“I think what they’re arguing could be true, but I don’t think the quality of the data is sufficient to say that any of these scenarios are true with confidence. — Jesse Bloom, virologist quoted by NYT

They are interesting studies, but I don’t think they close the case on what happened with the origins of the virus. — Jesse Bloom again, in Science.org

The virus would have arrived in a person, who then infected other people. And the neighborhood of the market, or the market itself, became a kind of a sustained superspreader event. — David Relman, Stanford microbiologist quoted by NYT

I have been brought closer to the zoonosis side with these preprints — Flo Débarre, evolutionary biologist quoted by Science.org

[These studies] will be taken as a blow [to the lab-leak hypothesis]. They substantially move the needle on the origins in the direction of the market. — William Hanage, evolutionary biologist quoted by Science.org

The consensus is clearly that the lab leak theory is now very unlikely, not that it is dead. I recommend we quote Hanage instead.

I also think the study's main arguments should be (very briefly) mentioned in the lead, not just its findings; the arguments were widely covered and are very much due. DFlhb (talk) 11:40, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Holmes is better: more senior, a virologist, and somebody who has moved from one "side" of the debate to the other. The catchy wording also makes the lede a bit more interesting, encouraging our readers to maybe read on. Because we have no WP:MEDRS for the paper itself I'd oppose trying to comment on the arguments, especially in the lede. Bon courage (talk) 12:57, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

The key problem is that there isn't scientific consensus, and putting his quote in the lead breaks WP:NPOV.

"somebody who has moved from one "side" of the debate to the other"

It seems like that "conversion" happened in February 2020, over the course of days (or weeks at the outmost). He's been a proponent of the zoonotic origin theory since March 2020, and received criticism for discounting the lab leak theory early on.

If you want someone who actually moved from one side to the other, Flo Débarre (cited in Science.org) is a good example, though she unfortunately doesn't give a very usable quote. Hanage does, pointing that the studies "move the needle" and are a "blow". I don't think "catchy" wording that distorts the consensus on a sensitive subject is appropriate, and disagree that it would encourage people to read on. DFlhb (talk) 13:26, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

The whole problem (which has bedevilled this topic) is that as always lay-press publications are hopeless when it comes to scientific topics, and love to amplify stories that are likely to garner clicks. This article only exists because of the clamour of (in my view mostly bad) Wikipedia editors who are similarly out of their depth, but oh-so-vocal. All that can be done now it to try and keep some order by insisting on good sources. And lifestyle magazine for virology content is not a good idea. Basically the lab leak stuff is a conspiracy theory only supported by grifters and loons. Scientists at most would allow it's not rulable-outable. If Wikipedia was a decent encyclopedia that's would it would say too - preferably in just a few paragraphs. Bon courage (talk) 14:25, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I have no interest in WP:RIGHTINGGREATWRONGS. My edit also has nothing whatsoever to do with the merits of the lab leak theory; I'll gently remind you that this talk page is for discussion of the article content, not the merits of the lab leak theory.

Above, I quote virologists, not "Wikipedia editors who are [...] out of their depth" or any "lifestyle magazine". Experts decide what the consensus is, not you or me, and including this sentence in the lead is both WP:UNDUE, and inappropriate per WP:PRIMARY. You have not yet offered counterarguments related to these policies to justify your revert; feel free to do so. DFlhb (talk) 14:34, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

@DFlhb: My comments about the article content as a whole, its genesis, and its sourcing were a general response to the comment[1] I was replying to (which - wtf - has now disappeared), not to you. But as for Holmes - as you say "Experts decide what the consensus is". I'd rather we quote a senior virologist than a more junior epidemiologist. Let's see what others think. Bon courage (talk) 14:54, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree that it's inappropriate to use that quotation from one of the study's authors. I would replace it with the Kamil quote, but am not opposed to the Hanage quote. Poppa shark (talk) 16:49, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:OFFTOPIC; this section is specifically about the last sentence of the lead. — DFlhb (talk) 15:57, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Nonsense? No. Irrelevant? Yes, which is why I deleted it. But I'll just say that I am no stranger to viewing pieces put out by ProPublica as absolute contrived garbage that attempts to confirm a narrative. I thought that my opinion is irrelevant though, as Wikipedia reflects what is published in the broad and mainstream written canon, and my views (and yours) weren't invited to that party. 2600:1012:B017:C2FA:3D71:2EDA:C201:15B1 (talk) 15:26, 1 November 2022 (UTC) I think the point is that is normal scientific discourse propublica, VF, etc. aren't cited. Nor in scientific articles on Wikipedia normally. This article is odd in that respect. Bon courage (talk) 15:44, 1 November 2022 (UTC) That Science piece uses data given out by the Chinese. I don't trust China on this. I could generate a dataset that pinpoints the wet market with an inverse bivariate normal function and a random number generator. The guy calling the lab leak "dead" has a paycheck that is threatened by virology research reform. Furthermore, he isn't an expert in criminal psychology like the FBI would be, as I noted above, so he is absolutely out of his element in some ways. I object to your characterization of people who favor or are simply open to the lab leak theory. 2600:1012:B017:C2FA:3D71:2EDA:C201:15B1 (talk) 14:38, 1 November 2022 (UTC) has a paycheck that is threatened by virology research reform Classic conspiracist reasoning. Climate change denying loons say exactly the same thing about the scientists they want to discredit. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:39, 1 November 2022 (UTC) There is actual scientific debate over the merits of gain-of-function research. See [2] which was put out amid the Obama GOF "crackdown". I think that is a poor analogy. Holmes's paycheck is relevant. Furthermore, unlike with climate denial re: the fossil fuel industry, the "big money" is on the virologists' side, as it would involve the question of China paying a 14-figure sum in reparations. 2600:1012:B017:C2FA:3D71:2EDA:C201:15B1 (talk) 16:12, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Re: whether this is DUE, here's coverage of this exact quotation and position of Holmes, in various major news outlets: Yahoo News  · Hindustan Times  · RACGP  · Australian Broadcasting Corporation  · Unherd Opinion piece responding directly to the quote — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:13, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Those are mostly the same news story, being republished across websites; IIRC Wikipedia policy explicitly treats that as a single source, though I don't remember in which policy, but it seems like common sense. Besides, WP:DUEness for the lead has nothing to do with how many sources cover a single quote, but with whether it's representative of scientific consensus, so I find this argument puzzling. I assume you're arguing that it's due for the article body, and not arguing it's due in the lead? I agree with the quote going in the article body. DFlhb (talk) 16:27, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Haven't we moved beyond the due question, since the OP want to include some guy's words just not Holmes's? Bon courage (talk) 16:31, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Well I'm the OP, but yes. To clarity my thesis: the quote is due, but undue in the lead due to WP:NPOV (and suboptimal due to WP:PRIMARY). My now-struckthrough "but also in the body" comment was confusing; I was saying it would be undue if put in the body on its own, without any other quotes; that's unnecessarily confusing since obviously we do include other quotes; disregard that, I've struck it through. DFlhb (talk) 16:39, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I think that depth of coverage speaks more to notability (it should be cited in the article) than due weight (where and how we cite it), at least as far as an author quote. I think there's a valid concern that the peer reviewed studies, plus the author quote, could be undue double dipping in the lead. That said, some of this also depends on how tight the lead is already, as undue weight depends on comparison to the weight given to other aspects. Looking at our lead, it's possible we're already bloated, and trimming the quote would be best accompanied by trimming another third to half of the text of the lead to avoid touching too many details.

On the other hand, I think only discussing these papers in depth in the final section, sandwiched between the political wrangling of WHO-China and US Republicans, is unduly minimizing it. I suggest removing the quote from the lead, but bringing the body text up from Political and media attention - Developments in 2022 section at the bottom to either the Background - Zoonosis section up top (easiest to implement) or splitting out a Origin science section for this and other peer-reviewed work since the start of the pandemic either before or after the description of the actual leak scenarios (more effort, but perhaps better long-term). Bakkster Man (talk) 17:13, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Re: the lead, I'm not seeing much that is cruft; it gives a solid overview of the lab leak theory and its evolution. I agree with your second paragraph, though I don't think it fits in "background" very well, since it's a recent discovery. I've boldly moved it to a top-level section, above "Political and media attention" since scientific discoveries plainly don't fit there, pending further discussion on where to best put it. However, I've kept the senate report under "Political and media attention", where it belongs. DFlhb (talk) 17:33, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Err, it doesn't look like he actually said that in the article text, that is the title of the article. Did he say this elsewhere? probably should make sure before including as a quote. Anyway in the spirit of making the best of a bad article, there is a missed opportunity in going for the quote rather than looking at the content. There is an explanation of papers for a general audience (which the WP article lacks) and "The lab leak theory stands as an unfalsifiable allegation" should suggest more content per WP:FRINGE (tho if i recall Rasmussen has somewhere been more clear and direct.) fiveby(zero) 17:51, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

That's actually a very good point I had not considered, given WP:HEADLINE. Would be happy to see a different quote there. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:05, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

But "this lays to rest the idea that the virus escaped from a laboratory" is pretty damn close anyway, so don't take me wrong, not a big deal. I just don't like quoting. fiveby(zero) 23:50, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Good point; it's unlikely he picked the headline himself, and attributing it to him would be incorrect. And Rasmussen's comments were about debating with randos on Twitter; not the brightest idea, and not due here. For Holmes, I doubt "unfalsifiable" would represent the consensus; that, too, seems to have been targeted at political proponents, who keep shifting the goal posts, not scientific ones. The theory is pretty clearly falsifiable. I do support detailing his arguments (as noted above), based on Holmes's article and the NYT explainer. DFlhb (talk) 18:14, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, not sure where the "dead" stuff came from. As originally added (by me)[3] it weren't there. Bon courage (talk) 18:40, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

May have been me, I cannot recall. But I see the flaw in the headline, of course. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:59, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't think this is DUE enough to belongs in the lede. It is sensationalist headline making, and doesn't represent the consensus, no matter how you cherry pick it. The lede is quite clear without it where the evidence currently lands on both sides. — Insertcleverphrasehere^{(or here)_{(or here)(or here)}} 20:57, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I think we've moved beyond that. Everybody seems to think something is due. But what? Bon courage (talk) 21:04, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, Hanage is a very highly-cited scientist; many of his most-cited papers were about Covid; and he gives us a quote that closely reflects the wider consensus. Easy choice IMO. I'd also be wary of "picking and choosing our experts" based on "seniority" (which is meaningless). Not letting a primary source have "the last word" is an added bonus. DFlhb (talk) 21:26, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Everybody's view is primary for their view. I disagree about Hanage. Maybe you could think about devising the wording for a RfC if you want to pursue this. Bon courage (talk) 21:31, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Everyone except the studies' authors is secondary for the study's significance; that's a straightforward reading of WP:SECONDARY. I'll let the discussion follow its course; zero need for an RfC at the moment. DFlhb (talk) 21:39, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeah but it's not being asserted as an assessment of the study's significance, it being reported as somebody's view. Everybody's view is primary for their view; but all these guys' views are reported in secondary sources, so we're avoiding the WP:ARSEHOLES problem, We won't be asserting any view about the paper unless it appears in something super strong like a WP:MEDRS review. Bon courage (talk) 21:43, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Added new papers to the template

I remind you about the sticky template above, where a few papers have been added. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 11:44, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your tireless work on this, as always! You are of course correct, we should have added them ourselves — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 12:38, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

"Racist undercurrents" should not be in the lead

It is briefly mentioned deep inside of one of the three sources cited for the claim. That is nowhere near enough for the lead of the article. Therefore, it should be removed per WP:UNDUE. Adoring nanny (talk) 13:58, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

What does "deep inside" mean? It's in the text. We need to be clear this is a racist nonsense and not a respectable position per WP:PSCI, otherwise readers might be misled. I'd be open to beefing up the explication of how this stuff is racist, in accord with the numerous sources on that (see above). Bon courage (talk) 14:42, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Please refrain from abusing Talk pages to espouse fringe, conspiracy theories (like the topic in question being "racist nonsense" when it has been shown support by the likes of the FBI and british intelligence agencies) and focus instead on figuring out how to improve the article. Thank you. - LilySophie (talk) 14:48, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

"Deep inside". If I go to the source[4], hit control-F in my browser, and enter "racis", I get three hits. Two of those are unrelated to racism. The third one is on the word "racist". In my browser, it is about halfway through the article. That's what I mean by "deep inside". Per WP:UNDUE, that's not sufficient for the lead. Adoring nanny (talk) 14:57, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

you must also look for "xenophobia" "prejudice" and "sinophobia" when you do those searches. I would tell you not to cherry pick your verifications to maximize the content you can remove, but rather to WP:STEELMAN these things. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:39, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Furthermore, the source says it is an "opinion" piece. Unclear to me if it's WP:RS or not. In most cases, opinion pieces are not reliable. But I don't know if there is a reason this one is different. Adoring nanny (talk) 15:06, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

It's RS for the purposes we us it. The racism explanation is just a point in the text - the kind of expert knowledge Wikipedia values and seeks to reflect. I've elucidated some more from the Gorski article (he's an expert on conspiracy theories &c.). The racism/xenophobia angle seems to be in quite a few RS. What others should we be using to expand on this aspect do you think? Bon courage (talk) 15:08, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Based on what policy do you say that it is RS? Is there an exception to WP:RS that applies to this particular article? See WP:RSEDITORIAL and WP:RSOPINION. This is not a news article, it's an academic article. So it's possible there is a different policy for academic opinion articles. But a link to a policy page supporting your statement that this piece is WP:RS would be helpful. Can you provide one? Adoring nanny (talk) 15:21, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:RS is a guideline, the relevant policies are WP:V and WP:NPOV. We reflect the knowledge good sources have about things. Are you saying it's somehow wrong that there are racist undercurrents to LL? That would seem to be a personal fringe view. Let's follow the expert knowledge. Bon courage (talk) 15:33, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

If multiple experts agree something is true, we report it as true. WP:ASSERT. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:40, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Quite. What would be needed here to change this is some equally strong source saying there was no racist aspect to LL. Bon courage (talk) 15:45, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Science-Based Medicine

@User:Adoring nanny, you are editing against consensus established at WP:RSP. See WP:SBM: Science-Based Medicine is considered generally reliable, as it has a credible editorial board, publishes a robust set of editorial guidelines, and has been cited by other reliable sources. Editors do not consider Science-Based Medicine a self-published source, but it is also not a peer-reviewed publication with respect to WP:MEDRS. Since it often covers fringe material, parity of sources may be relevant.

This is not the place to litigate your personal feelings about SBM as a source. The place to do so would be WP:RSN. We of course have had several RFCs about SBM at RSN, and this consensus has not been overturned. Regardless, this is not the place to decide SBM is not reliable. The community at English Wikipedia considers it generally reliable.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:32, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely. For a WP:FRINGE topic such as this, as a WP:GREL, SBM is a golden source for us. We should reflect the knowledge found therein, to ensure we have good & neutral coverage. Bon courage (talk) 15:40, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out the WP:SBM link to me. I hadn't been aware that this site was on WP:RSP. I was not attempting to edit against that consensus; I merely took a look at the site, noticed that it looked like a group blog, and went from there. I may wish to challenge the consensus at some point, but until that time comes, I will obviously accept it. In the meantime, WP:SBM contains some important caveats:

Editors do not consider Science-Based Medicine a self-published source, but it is also not a peer-reviewed publication with respect to WP:MEDRS. Since it often covers fringe material, parity of sources may be relevant.

For our purposes, these caveats do limit the source's quality. Adoring nanny (talk) 15:45, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Not at all, since the racism aspect is not subject to WP:MEDRS. Since this is a fringe topic it is exactly on point. You also accidently left out "Science-Based Medicine is considered generally reliable, as it has a credible editorial board, publishes a robust set of editorial guidelines, and has been cited by other reliable sources." Generally reliable means it's good for assertions of fact. Like that LL has racist undertones. Bon courage (talk) 15:53, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

as far as I understand, we had a pretty large RFC a while ago which had no consensus on whether or not the lab leak was a WP:BMI issue, and therefore not the province of WP:MEDRS. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:00, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Link here: Wikipedia talk:Biomedical information/Archive 2#RFC: Disease / pandemic origins. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:44, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

This article states the lab leak is a conspiracy theory

However the FBI considers most likely the virus came from a lab leak. The report "An Analysis of the Origins of the COVID-19 Pandemic" Interim Report written by "The Senate Committee on Health Education, Labor, Pensions" October 2022 says that the lab theory should be considered currently as the one with more credibility currently. However this Wikipedia article directly states that "lab leak is a conspiracy theory". Even the FBI considers the lab leak to be the most valid theory at the moment. Therefore this Wikipedia article as it currently stands is very biased and is been extremely disrespectful. Obviously, stating that the lab leak was considered a conspiracy theory in the past may be correct, but to call it that directly is wrong, and exactly what Wikipedia does not stand for. 80.29.196.10 (talk) 11:19, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

The article does not state "the lab leak is a conspiracy theory". Bon courage (talk) 12:28, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Neither the phrase "lab leak is a conspiracy theory" nor "is a conspiracy theory" occur in the article. You'll need to provide a direct quote if there is one. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:01, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I think Shibbolethink has pointed to a very good Scientific American article above: "The Lab-Leak Hypothesis Made It Harder for Scientists to Seek the Truth". It's probably a useful exercise to read it side-by-side with this article. Labeling with "is a conspiracy theory" is an easy call to make, but providing a clear presentation and explanation of the conspiratorial and pseudoscience aspects for the reader is much more difficult. Without an attempt at providing that explanation this article is a net negative for the reader. fiveby(zero) 17:08, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

New source

• Garry RF (10 November 2022). "The evidence remains clear: SARS-CoV-2 emerged via the wildlife trade". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 119 (47). doi:10.1073/pnas.2214427119. eISSN 1091-6490. ISSN 0027-8424.

Some good material in here, which will be useful for better contextualizing the fringe/pseudoscientific lab leak claims, I think. Bon courage (talk) 21:00, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

The source is clearly marked as an opinion piece, yet you have transcribed it into wikivoice four times! Revert or add inline attribution. - Palpable (talk) 17:16, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:ASSERT when something's obvious. Bon courage (talk) 17:18, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

No need to attribute the consensus view, that much is clear. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:57, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

You're saying there is no controversy around this topic, so WP:RS doesn't apply? - Palpable (talk) 19:02, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

What particular assertions do you judge "controversial"? You'd need of course to produce good sources showing this, not just your own POV. Bon courage (talk) 19:04, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

No, the burden is yours.

The source is clearly marked as an opinion piece, yet you have transcribed it into wikivoice four times.

Again, you should revert or add inline atttribution. You are well aware of WP:PRIMARY. - Palpable (talk) 19:16, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

You seemed to have missed the previous responses. You don't seem to understand. WP:YESPOV is policy. Bon courage (talk) 20:04, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Just to confirm, you saw that the source is labeled OPINION? - Palpable (talk) 20:33, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Do you have any sources which show that the view in the piece is NOT the consensus?

We have many multiple sources in the article already which show that it is, hence why BURDEN applies to you as the person who wants to change that. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:43, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

That's an odd interpretation. WP:BURDEN says the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material.

Bon Courage added four different claims to the article, in wikivoice, sourced to a piece which is clearly marked as opinion. It sounds like this was intentional rather than a good faith mistake. - Palpable (talk) 21:54, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

It appears that you disagree on interpretation of the consensus view. That's fine. But it does not mean the article will depict your personal view instead. As I said, there are multiple other sources which support the statements:

Nplusone, Andrew Liu. Spring 2022. "Lab-Leak Theory and the “Asiatic” Form":

The lab-leak theory came to legitimacy by a circuitous path. It was first auditioned by Donald Trump and Mike Pompeo shortly after lockdown started, but journalists were quick to distance themselves from its overtones of crude Trumpian racism...the New York Times reported triumphantly that..."Asians have trusted their governments to do the right thing, and they were willing to put the needs of the community over their individual freedoms.” Such examples attempt to repudiate racist stereotypes of Asian disloyalty and backwardness by foregrounding Asian modernity and collectivity backwardness by foregrounding Asian modernity and collectivity.

Columbia Journalism Review. Jon Allsop. June 2021. "The lab-leak mess":

But virologists are generally more credible than Trump, who does lie systematically, and did seek to blame China for the pandemic to distract from his own dismal performance; various actors, meanwhile, have weaponized the lab-leak theory as part of a racist agenda that has had very real consequences. A given theory can be a conspiracy and racist and, at root, true, just as a given theory can be scientifically grounded and not racist and, at root, false; who is propounding it, and why, and based on what, matters. The mistake many in the media made was to cast the lab-leak theory as inherently conspiratorial and racist, and misunderstand the relation between those properties and the immutable underlying facts. It would also be wrong, now, to assume that the lab-leak theory is inherently clean of those taints.

Hardy, Lisa J. (17 September 2020). "Connection, Contagion, and COVID-19". Medical Anthropology. 39 (8): 655–659. doi:10.1080/01459740.2020.1814773. eISSN 1545-5882. ISSN 0145-9740. PMID 32941085.:

People question if scientists and/or political leaders created the virus in a lab and/or intentionally leaked it into the general public. Blame in conspiracies of COVID-19 is distributed differently across beliefs. Some question actions of the Chinese government and/or mention relationships with, for instance, people from Wuhan, China, reflecting xenophobic ideologies.

Beijing Review. Josef Gregory Mahoney. August 2021. "The unscientific surmise that COVID-19 was spread by Wuhan lab is racist"

The "lab leak lie" is racist. To be clear, the unscientific surmise that COVID-19 was spread intentionally or unintentionally by a Chinese government laboratory in Wuhan is racist. From the beginning, this lie was an expression of dog-whistle politics, one that has exploited longstanding racial stereotypes, and that has in turn deepened anti-Asian racism in many countries around the world.

Scientific American. Stephan Lewandowsky, Peter Jacobs, Stuart Neil. March 2022. "The Lab-Leak Hypothesis Made It Harder for Scientists to Seek the Truth"

Motivated reasoning based on blaming an “other” is a powerful force against scientific evidence. Some politicians—most notably former President Donald Trump and his entourage—still push the lab-leak hypothesis and blame China in broad daylight...Ironically the xenophobic instrumentalization of the lab-leak hypothesis may have made it harder for reasonable scientific voices to suggest and explore theories because so much time and effort has gone into containing the fallout from conspiratorial rhetoric.

How do you suggest we depict this view in the article? And what evidence do you have that it is not the consensus, given these sources? — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:17, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Hmm. Makes me think we are underrepresenting discussion of the racism that underpins this stuff. Bon courage (talk) 10:52, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Again, I suggest that you use inline attribution when quoting opinion pieces.

The rant about conspiracies and racists is completely off topic. - Palpable (talk) 15:32, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

How many different opinions is enough to be a consensus of experts? This seems enough to me. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:37, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Garry's opinion piece is the sole source for these two statements and they should not be in wikivoice. Garry did not see fit to provide a footnote for this novel claim.

• Central to the idea of a Chinese leak is the misconception that it is distinctively suspicious that an outbreak should happen to occur in a city with a virology institute (the Wuhan Institute of Virology) nearby; most large Chinese cities have similar institutes
• Proponents of the lab leak theory typically omit to mention that most large Chinese cities have coronavirus research laboratories

In fact, what Garry actually said is that "most major Chinese cities have one or more active coronavirus laboratories". Bon Courage's "have similar institutes" language is synthetic and most likely false.

Now, your wall of quotes is irrelevant to these claims. And frankly, this was a discussion of WP:PRIMARY and inline attribution; the insinuations of racism from out of nowhere seem like simple disruption. - Palpable (talk) 16:47, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

I think my paraphrase is good. The racism thing was fine, but has been double-sealed with the addition of more excellent sourcing (see below). Bon courage (talk) 16:54, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Wow. I think this is an extremely good example of nit-picking. Those statements absolutely verify the included language in my opinion. "similar institutes" would include other laboratories that are active in coronavirus research. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:10, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Racism? Please. Alina Chan, who has repeatedly explained why LL is likely, and has probably been the most effective person to do so, is herself of Asian descent. Adoring nanny (talk) 13:20, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

We follow sources though. Bon courage (talk) 13:40, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

I think this source should be included

https://project-evidence.github.io/

Just because it's written by people who don't like to publish their names doesn't mean it has no credibility, especially if you take the actual time and read through it. Elyos92 (talk) 21:14, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

It's unlikely to meet our criteria for WP:RS. See the linked page. It would need to meet the criteria there. My initial reaction is that's unlikely. That said, some of the pages linked from the page you provided might meet the criteria. Adoring nanny (talk) 23:09, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, our policies explicitly indicate that an anonymous github repo is unreliable. Whether or not one considers that to also mean non-credible, reliability is the threshold. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:47, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Lead - where is the science?

The lead is generally well written, but it only briefly describes the general scientific consensus about the zoonosis of SARS-CoV-2, and really, the most concrete statement on this issue arrives in a short paragraph at the end of the lead.

Readers should be provided with more information, in the first paragraph of the lead, about the scientific consensus concerning the origins of the virus. Without that, it's hard for a reader to really understand why this idea is considered so unlikely by scientists. -Darouet (talk) 16:57, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree, I think we should have some sentences about the recent discoveries of similar viruses in bats, the papers analyzing early cases in Wuhan and how it centers on the Wet Market in network theory and proximity, the samples taken at the market itself which were positive for the virus on surfaces in animal cages, etc. All of this could be summarized in one paragraph and we have lots and lots of secondary sources which talk about it! — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:08, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

So are we done? I think Worobey said somewhere in relation to the new papers something along the lines of "this is the best we are going to get". If zoonosis is the endpoint of the investigations then none of the original aims of investigating the origins have been achieved. Some attention should be paid to those aims because more than lab vs. zoonosis that is the good "science". fiveby(zero) 17:45, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

It would be great to know the animal source[s] coming into the market, and to get closer to the original population of bats harboring something close to the progenitor[s]. But that might not be possible for a variety of reasons. -Darouet (talk) 17:52, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Woops, i am commenting on the wrong article! Thought i was on Talk:Investigations_into_the_origin_of_COVID-19 so ignore the rambling. fiveby(zero) 19:37, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

The issue with regards to the lab leak theory isn't "did it come from zoonosis?" (I think most sources agree that has been established fairly conclusively), the question remains as to where that zoonosis actually occurred, and whether it happened as a result of lab experiments or lab samples gathered from the field. The lab-leak hypothesis and zoonosis are not mutually exclusive. Why are we pretending that they are?

Zoonosis 'in the wild' is suspected by some, due to circumstantial evidence at the Hunnan market, but secondary animal links have not been found (which may not be possible to find at this stage). The other option would be the Chinese govt actually letting investigations look through the Wuhan Lab's records and documents (which may not even exist anymore), but due to a culture of secrecy, that isn't going to happen either.

My point is that just because we can say "this came from animals" doesn't mean that we can say "this didn't happen as a result of a leak from a lab". I think this is why we have sources saying that a large majority of scientists support a zoonotic origin, but yet also say that a lab leak can't be ruled out.

Journalists like to talk as though the two are mutually exclusive, but they aren't, and our article isn't doing much better at making this clear to the reader. — Insertcleverphrasehere^{(or here)_{(or here)(or here)}} 01:20, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

This is an excellent example of the "god of the gaps" argument. The truth is, the more connections epidemiologically to the Wuhan Market, the fewer connections to any laboratory. And that is what the most recent evidence shows. Continuing to say "well it could have gone from the lab to the market" is an excellent example of special pleading. Sure, it can't be ruled out. But it has no supportive evidence.

Aliens visiting earth can't be ruled out, there's just no evidence of it. Bigfoot can't be ruled out, there's just no evidence of it. Ancient martian civilizations can't be ruled out, there's just no evidence of it.

At the end of the day, it's a probability game, and special pleading demonstrates how low the probability is for the lab leak at this point. We aren't saying it's impossible. We aren't saying it 100% didn't happen. No one is saying that. But it is extremely unlikely, in the absence of any supportive evidence, and a mounting weight of necessary conspiracy. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:51, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

excellent example of the "god of the gaps" argument Actually, it is about Shifting the burden of proof, Occam's razor and falsifiability. God of the gaps is "I cannot find a natural explanation, and because I am so smart and should have found one, God (or aliens or psi) must have done it." I think there is no relation to the logic here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:31, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

This post made me check if the article is using wikt:zoonosis and wikt:zoonotic properly. NIC leaned towards zoonosis should be NIC leaned towards a zoonotic origin and classified as a zoonotic disease is redundant and should be classified a zoonosis? fiveby(zero) 04:52, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Insertcleverphrasehere: yes, you can in theory make an argument that SARS-CoV-2 originally came from a wild population, but spread into the community and became a pandemic through research activities. That's not what the vast majority of experts understand to be likely, however. The point of my post is that we should describe their views prominently so that readers learn about the "lab leak theory" while being provided the context of mainstream scientific understanding. -Darouet (talk) 15:57, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

What should be "prominent" is the mainstream view. That's policy. Bon courage (talk) 16:09, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Bon courage - agreed, but it's not being made prominent right now. Will try to fix, stay tuned. -Darouet (talk) 20:43, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Comment - I added two sentences here [5]. Let me know what you think. Shibbolethink, pinging you here since you may have ideas for improved wording. I was trying to keep things concise. -Darouet (talk) 21:14, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Is the virus spilled into human populations through natural zoonosis correct? COVID-19 is a zoonosis—SARS-CoV-2 emerged into the human population through zoonotic pathway(s)/event(s)/transmission(s)—COVID-19 has a zoonotic origin; seem to be the correct phrasings. fiveby(zero) 21:55, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

"zoonosis" is both a process and a type of disease. E.g. "diagnosis" is both a process and a thing someone gives you. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:01, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Usually i see a greater effort at precision in terminology within medicine. Regardless, for this pathosis, if so, rarely. fiveby(zero) 12:02, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

The issue is honestly how few words we have to describe that process. I suppose "transmission" would work here e.g. "natural transmission" or "from a natural animal reervoir". But those are actually even less precise. Zoonosis specifically means "from a wild or domesticated animal to a human, in the course of human-animal interaction". Technically zoonosis might include an animal handler in a lab, but it typically also means in a natural setting. I think for what we're going for, zoonosis is the best available term. Since we're talking about crossover at a wet market from a natural animal reservoir. I would also be okay with "from a natural animal reservoir" but it's just not as succinct. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 12:25, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm worried about conflation of zoonotic origin of SARS-CoV-2, a zoonotic path to emergence in humans, and increasing evidence for at least two crossover events or jumps, with the classification of COVID-19 as a zoonosis. One instance in the article: because no natural reservoir of SARS‑CoV‑2 has yet been found, some scientists have argued the classification is premature citing[6]. Regardless of the quality of that paper it misleads the reader by confusing classification of the disease with emergence of the virus into the human population. It might be reasonable to say that, like HIV, COVID-19 is no longer a zoonosis, i don't know. Anyway, a difficult job in making all this clear for a general audience, so enough said. fiveby(zero) 14:30, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

"some" whereas the majority of scientists call it a zoonosis. We reflect the consensus view of scholars here, right?! The other issue is that it is 100% a zoonosis due to the animals we have infected who can in turn infect us. E.g. minks. Regardless of the origins, it's a zoonosis. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:55, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Maybe i wasn't clear enough, some scientists have argued the classification is premature should be removed from the article as misleading. My no longer a zoonosis, i don't know was referring to how HIV has a zoonotic origin, but is no longer a zoonosis. Another example, we have both zoonotic influenza and seasonal influenza. Not for article content, but an example of confusion in phrasing. fiveby(zero) 16:44, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

oh I see what you mean. Yes I would agree with that. how's this?

It's confusing as something transitions from a zoonosis to an emerging human pathogen to an emerged to a ever-present. Yes I understand, these things are so vague and transitory. Eventually we won't call COVID a zoonosis as the scientists stop calling it one. As the human strain of the virus becomes so distinct as to not be going between us and animals in the One Health model. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:58, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink, 'typically' is an issue here. Technical journals will use Zoonosis to refer to the origin of the virus regardless of whether it happened in a lab, a cave, or a wetmarket. While news sources will use Zoonosis is reference to lab origin vs. not lab origin. How we can make sense of this, as journalists tent to misuse the technical sources, I don't know. — Insertcleverphrasehere^{(or here)_{(or here)(or here)}} 07:36, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't think this is true, the failure is here in the editing process and not in the sources. The WP:BESTSOURCES will use precise language, but they do assume some level of competence in the reader. Look at this writing from Stuart Neil in Scientific American, he does not use the term zoonosis and makes it clear in context when zoonotic origin and zoonotic pathway refer to the virus, its evolution within a host animal to SARS-CoV-2; and the origin and pathway of the disease, its emergence in the human population. Maybe news sources and journalists who do not do so should only be used to tell the story of the lab leak, and should not be used for explaining the underlying science? fiveby(zero) 13:40, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that would be fine with me if we can overall find a better wording for that part of the lead. I think what we have is probably good enough for now. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:58, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, pretty much. We need to look at the sources that journos are using to make sure that they aren't misusing the terms. — Insertcleverphrasehere^{(or here)_{(or here)(or here)}} 22:10, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes @Darouet I think these were both very good! A good summary of what science knows so far. I've only added one thing about the fact that multiple reservoir candidates have been identified even if none have been confirmed. I think overall this is much better towards bringing in the scientific consensus in the most up-to-date reviews. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 03:37, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

"Necessary conspiracy?" We know that Xi Xinping ordered that publication of research be orchestrated "like a game of chess." [7] Adoring nanny (talk) 15:25, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Wild West

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/11/23/uk-experts-helped-shut-covid-lab-leak-theory-weeks-told-might/

Might be worth mentioning that all the experts privately believed it could have come from a lab ...and not just don trump and conspircy theorists on the internet. 172.87.166.242 (talk) 07:20, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

You mean they remained open minded until the research was done? Sounds like what scientists do. Bon courage (talk) 07:47, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

We already say some scientists thought it plausible while most thought it not very likely.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:15, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Vanity fair propublica criticism editors note

saw that you guys had some criticism of vanityfair/propublic in the archives. This came out today, thought i'd share since had been talking about it. https://www.propublica.org/article/editors-note-a-review-of-criticisms-of-a-propublica-vanity-fair-story-on-a-covid-origins-report 2600:8804:6600:45:6886:8992:9F1E:CF7A (talk) 04:35, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Embarrassing. Let's just say other editors in the trade have not been exactly convinced.[8] Bon courage (talk) 04:50, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, wow. Way to undersell an absolute butchering of the Chinese language: We commissioned three Chinese language experts with impeccable credentials who were not involved in the original story to review Reid’s translation. They all agreed that his version was a plausible way to represent the passage, though two also said they would have translated the words to refer to the dangers of day-to-day lab operations.

I lost a lot of respect for ProPublica today. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 05:01, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

It's another example of some journalists fighting against settled science... and in this case, it seems, the Chinese language. -Darouet (talk) 13:26, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Well don't leave out the next sentence - The third produced a translation that was in line with Reid’s. ProPublica notes they stand behind the story, and given the way it's reputation on Wikipedia (There is a strong consensus that ProPublica is generally reliable for all purposes because it has an excellent reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, is widely cited by reliable sources, and has received multiple Pulitzer Prizes) I'm fine with it. It can and should still be used as a RS to provide context to the lab leak angle. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:24, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Propublica's reputation is no more, and it's not reliable for anything here. Bon courage (talk) 14:28, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I think in context of this reporting and other recent controversies [9] [10] [11][12][13], there may be reason to reconsider that characterization of ProPublica. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:28, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Much like the recent episode with me and WP:SBM, our usage of a source should respect the consensus, not our personal opinions. Adoring nanny (talk) 14:47, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Yep, and if several repeated things make us question that consensus, we can and should revisit it. Not to litigate our own arguments, but to see if recent events (and especially the scholarly consensus) have changed that wikipedia consensus. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:53, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely. We may be in agreement here. What I'm saying is, we don't just drop ProPublica here because some of us have changed our minds. The forum for that is WP:RSN. Adoring nanny (talk) 16:16, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes don't use unreliable sources for exceptional claims. Context matters. WP:RSP has zero policy force but is just a guide (mainly useful for noob editors). Bon courage (talk) 16:38, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

The key is generally reliable, and specific reliability is always subject to consensus. WP:RS/P is more to suggest which direction consensus is required to move away from status quo; in this case there's a specific concern that it might not match the reliability of their past work for us to discuss. That said, it can simultaneously be notable enough article to include in the article, but not reliable enough to wikivoice and require attribution. Being unreliable doesn't necessarily mean it can't be included, see the section on Fort Detrick. The whole article, as of our current sources, is about a topic that most consider to be the less likely explanation, and we're better off citing a ProPublica report (with attribution and notable critique) than the Senate Republicans.

My proposal is that this stay in the Coverage in 2022 section, we note the criticism of the ProPublica translation, and also cite the above editor's note. With this expansion, I think we should also split the paragraph to put the ProPublica article after the Senate Republican report and critiques (a change I'm making now because it's confusing as-is). Bakkster Man (talk) 14:56, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

A little birdie told me y'all are working on an RfC. Which is fine. I'd suggest that it link to this discussion. Adoring nanny (talk) 14:16, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Ignoring the peer-reviewed literature on serial passage and a lab origin

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.

---

This page makes no mention of the two peer-reviewed papers that use serial passage to explain this virus's engineered origins. We now know from FOIAed emails that extensive discussions of serial passaging were specifically redacted from Tony Fauci's email discussions in January and February 2020.

This page is plagiarizing from these peer-reviewed papers, often by attributing others who have already stolen from them. Wikipedia will be sued for the rampant plagiarism here, and misrepresentation of the peer reviewed research linked below if it's not fixed over the coming weeks.

Tens of millions are dead, I tried to get these papers linked when they first came out but was denied by Wikipedia editors who are complicit morons now drenched in the blood of their innocent neighbors.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7435492/

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bies.202100017

Harvard2TheBigHouse (talk) 16:47, 7 December 2022 (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.

New review, Thakur et al (2022)

The source https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jmv.28060 is a recent top MEDRS, includes in the list of coauthors Dr. Kuldeep Dhama, world renowned expert in the fields of Veterinary Microbiology, Immunology, Molecular Biology, Infectious Diseases, Animal & Poultry Health, and Diagnosis, Prevention and Control of Animal Diseases. Their wording of the current state of the art on SARS-CoV-2 origin is:

Based on the currently available data, it remains unclear whether the inception of SARS-CoV-2 is the result of zoonosis caused by a wild viral strain or an accidental escape of experimental strains. It is critical to address this issue to develop preventive and biosafety measures. Indeed, the recent zoonosis can justify the need to obtain samples from natural ecosystems, farms, and breeding facilities to prevent spillover. On the contrary, a laboratory escape would necessitate a thorough re-evaluation of the risk/benefit balance of various laboratory methods and the stringent implementation of biosafety standards. Several theories regarding the origin of SARS-CoV-2 are considered. The critical need to advance biosafety standards at all laboratory levels is paramount as experimental virology research on dangerous pathogens develops to reduce the threat of pandemics to the environment and human civilization. Therefore, in the present study, we have performed a systematic review, followed by meta-analysis to decipher the origin of SARS-CoV-2.

I endorse the use of remains unclear as the best descriptor of current knowledge origin in the lead. Forich (talk) 20:11, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Or from the actual conclusion:

The overwhelming opinion is that this virus entered into a susceptible human host through contact with an infected animal, alternatively through contact with infectious animal tissues.

Bon courage (talk) 20:15, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Worth saying that Dhama is a middle author, not principally responsible for the text or the conclusions, but is a co-author. Does not carry as much weight as OP makes it sound. The last author, though, is worthy of note: [14]. All that said... Overall, given the conclusions they list as Bon courage notes above, this doesn't merit any change in the lead. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:51, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

It's curious that "remains unclear" was the cited takeaway by Forich, rather than this sentence from the abstract: Our data exhibit that zoonotic origin (Z) has higher evidence-based support as compared to laboratory origin (L). So I agree, this is like most mainstream virology sources we've been citing: we can't know for sure, but more likely non-lab zoonosis than a lab escape. It appears there's good discussion on the various laboratory scenarios, and reasons why the authors find them unconvincing, which will likely be useful for providing details going forward.

It is not my fault that their message in the introduction (not cherry-picked because I quoted the whole paragraph) is dissonant with their conclusions. Please, note that the conclusions should be read as a whole, the three paragraphs, since some of them start with "However", and point to nuances and caveats to the quotes used by Bon courage. The abstract is definitely a tie-breaker here, and it is what convinces me that they did favor zoonosis despite choosing a neutral tone in the introduction. Forich (talk) 18:52, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

see WP:NOABSTRACT. Bon courage (talk) 18:57, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

The most relevant sentence from there: the abstract necessarily presents a stripped-down version of the conclusions and omits the background that can be crucial for understanding exactly what the source says, and may not represent the article's actual conclusions. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:46, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

On a related note, the original quote makes me think we have room to improve the article explaining why experimental virology research on dangerous pathogens develops to reduce the threat of pandemics is important in the first place, as critical context for why virology institutes would collect and study coronaviruses in the first place. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:33, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Bakkster Man - agreed. -Darouet (talk) 18:58, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

There are some interesting weasel-words in the "Laboratory-Origin (L)" section of that study, generally citing the lack of existing or extant evidence from WIV into work on SARS-CoV-2: "no existing evidence", "no evidence or mention".

The report also goes into how "insertion of the FCS and RBD was assumed to be induced by site-directed mutagenesis" but that "serial-passaging" was "unlikely" to "produce SARS-CoV-2 progenitors with functional FCS" (L, iv). However labs like the WIV have other techniques at their disposal such as in-vitro gene editing, which is more effective.

Similarly the report states that "early SARS-CoV-2 isolates could not infect wild-type mice." (L, vii). However we know that the WIV uses humanized mice (mice bred with the hACE2 receptor) in their research.

Why would this report be willfully ignorant of facts such as these when stating their conclusion of "remains unclear"? 173.54.14.196 (talk) 16:37, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

The review clearly finds a natural zoonosis to be very plausible, and a lab leak to be highly unlikely: similar to the conclusions of the WHO report. That is stated plainly in the review's abstract (its summary):

Despite the fact that the zoonotic origin for SARS-CoV-2 has not been conclusively identified to date, our data suggest a zoonotic origin, in contrast to some alternative concepts, including the probability of a laboratory incident or leak. Our data exhibit that zoonotic origin (Z) has higher evidence-based support as compared to laboratory origin (L).

By contrast, Forich, the text you've quoted from derives from the introduction of the review. It's part of the "hook" that gets people to keep reading. It's common, in the hook of a paper, to make potential solutions to the question being asked seem a little more mysterious than they really are. But the review is unequivocal in its conclusions that the lab leak is unlikely. For instance the review plainly states in its "Results and Discussion" section reviewing a potential lab leak,

In 2021, all the available literature suggested that the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 was not due to an accidental escape of a laboratory strain and most likely had a zoonotic origin.

Later, the review concludes,

Based on our keyword searches in PubMed, CINAHL, and MEDLINE library databases, most of the authors favors the zoonotic spillover as the most probable origin of SARS-CoV-2 whereas origin based on laboratory spillover is unlikely as no concrete evidence is being shown to cite.

The review's conclusion is uncharitable towards a lab leak idea:

Nevertheless, this accomplished hardly anything to halt the proliferation of often paradoxical and, at times, completely absurd conspiracy theories that propagated more rapidly than the disease outbreak itself. For example, it has been claimed that SARS-CoV-2 was either the consequence of a laboratory error or was purposefully manufactured or it was produced for GoF investigations, which were previously undertaken with bat SARS-like coronaviruses to investigate the cross-species transmission risk.

The review ultimately favors a spillover, possibly through the market:

the overwhelming opinion is that this virus entered into a susceptible human host through contact with an infected animal, alternatively through contact with infectious animal tissues.

Thanks for finding and posting the review. -Darouet (talk) 17:03, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I would be in favor of adding "overwhelming majority" of scientists to places where we mention the consensus is in favor of the natural zoonotic origin. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:21, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

To respond to Daroet, you are correct in pointing that the different sections could explain part of the dissonance in their message. The conclusions as a whole, or the abstract, DO represent their overall synthesis and should be respected, which brings down the "remains unclear" wording, I concede.Forich (talk) 18:56, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Your quote is from the intro not the abstract. The abstract is:

Abstract

The aim of the study was to trace and understand the origin of Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) through various available literatures and accessible databases. ... Our systematic analysis data proposed three postulated hypotheses concerning the origin of the SARS‐CoV‐2, which include zoonotic origin (Z), laboratory origin (L), and obscure origin (O). Despite the fact that the zoonotic origin for SARS‐CoV‐2 has not been conclusively identified to date, our data suggest a zoonotic origin, in contrast to some alternative concepts, including the probability of a laboratory incident or leak. Our data exhibit that zoonotic origin (Z) has higher evidence‐based support as compared to laboratory origin (L). Importantly, based on all the studies included, we generated the forest plot with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of the risk ratio estimates. Our meta‐analysis further supports the zoonotic origin of SARS/SARS‐CoV‐2 in the included studies

ProcSock (talk) 23:13, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Agree, this whole thing is ridiculous. The "remains unclear" in the intro is setting up the data context for why the paper is being written: the para ends: "Therefore, in the present study, we have performed a systematic review, followed by meta-analysis to decipher the origin of SARS-CoV-2." The whole point of the paper is to clarify the almost certainty of zoonotic origin. It's a question of understanding English. Bon courage (talk) 04:00, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

They didn't seem to cover the backbone synthesis described in the darpa grant. 2600:8804:6600:45:6886:8992:9F1E:CF7A (talk) 04:22, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi all, Forich has backed off this claim, no need to beat the dead horse. -Darouet (talk) 13:17, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

are you replying to me? Did forich mention darpa? I didnt see that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8804:6600:45:44F3:802:5741:ED8C (talk) 04:44, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

"No evidence" again

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.

---

The article currently says "There is no evidence SARS-CoV-2 existed in any laboratory prior to the pandemic." I think that should be rephrased. I suppose that may be true, but it's misleading, because there's also no evidence that it originated naturally. The simple fact is that no one outside of the Chinese government has the evidence either way because China won't allow an independent investigation. The WHO has said several times they have been frustrated by China's stonewalling (which to me would be evidence by itself but that's another issue). Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence.173.73.9.188 (talk) 23:22, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Discussed above. Wikipedia just reflect good sources, not editors' views. Bon courage (talk) 01:00, 14 December 2022 (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.

Richard Huff, Whistleblower

Shall we mention the latest 'whistleblower' (Ecohealth's Dr Richard Huff) story? Not sure if this is a reliable source: https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1705253/covid-news-wuhan-china-lab-leak-latest-whistleblower Pakbelang (talk) 00:12, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

As an attributed claim, it may be notable. Though I think it will require care in how we describe what the allegation is, and what he had direct knowledge of as it relates to reliability (see also: widely dismissed claims by Li-Meng Yan, now known to have been funded by Steve Bannon for political purposes).

From this article, it seems he may have known the types of research occurring, and had concerns about providing WIV with dual-use technologies, but not specific knowledge of a late-2019 leak from the lab of what we now know as SARS-CoV-2. Understanding this will be important for describing how credible the claims are. Bakkster Man (talk) 01:44, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

WP:DAILYEXPRESS is not a reliable source for anything. Bon courage (talk) 07:07, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

True, I always forget to double check with the UK rags. Original claim is from a book, so we have to have to evaluate overall at some point. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:03, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Looks like some fringe book has come out claiming IT CAME FROM THE LAB! (plenty of money to be made from the LL stans eh). Huff has been discussing it on Robert Malone's rumble channel. Pretty much all you need to know. May get some coverage from a scientific/WP:FRIND source in time. Bon courage (talk) 14:22, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

That was kind of my impression as well, using connections to give an air of authority. And yeah, FRIND is what we need to look for before we can include an attributed claim. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:28, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

From initial takes on twitter, it doesn't look good (racist, antivaxx, LL).[15] Bon courage (talk) 14:29, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I think this is libel? But i'm not a lawyer. 2600:8804:6600:45:E874:7E65:493B:5856 (talk) 00:29, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Serial Passage Through Humanized Mice

Its definitely accurate to say that there is no public evidence that SARS-CoV-2 existed in any lab. Making statements about what "could" have been in a lab is probably a different argument to make. 2600:8804:6600:45:E874:7E65:493B:5856 (talk) 00:24, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Are there any news article discussing these? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7435492/ https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bies.202100017 2600:8804:6600:45:2D9D:7FC2:F200:1E97 (talk) 23:27, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

A letter in 2020 in an obscure journal? Doubt it. Bon courage (talk) 01:44, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

B-class

Is there any opposition to assigning B-class status? Article seems well-referenced. DFlhb (talk) 19:04, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

sounds good to me — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 06:25, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Housekeeping

It looks like a subsection called "Developments in 2022" was erroneously created within the "Lab Leak Theories" section. Not sure where that information belongs but it seems kind of out of place? 2600:8804:6600:45:50D9:AFD9:E536:71F5 (talk) 21:25, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

This was intentional, to move important science up from the bottom of the page. Consensus at the time was to leave it as a sub-heading, rather than top-level. Bakkster Man (talk) 21:44, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Gotcha. Just thought I'd point it out bc it makes "developments" sound like it is a "theory". 2600:8804:6600:45:78FF:CBD5:85A4:C357 (talk) 01:21, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

2nd paragraph

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.

---

Is using the word "misconception" too strong when refering to it being "suspicious that an outbreak should happen to occur in a city with a virology institute" because other cities have similar labs? Doesnt seem wikivoice to say the conclusion is flatly incorrect. 2600:8804:6600:45:9D05:79F3:4210:944A (talk) 18:03, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

You left out the word "distinctively", which is all important. If you read in properly, it accurately summarizes the cited source. Bon courage (talk) 18:11, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

It seems any city with a lab would have its lab highly scrutinized when a virus is discovered in that city? I don't see how that is a misconception, even if viruses don't always show up where one would think. 2600:8804:6600:45:99D7:B855:8CA6:9EE1 (talk) 23:22, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Scrutiny would follow, sure. But we're referring to the misconception that WIV is unique in researching coronaviruses, and thus the first detected cases being in Wuhan would not be even circumstantial evidence of a lab origin. Not that proximity is good evidence alone either, our source references the conspiracies of a lab origin for an Ebola outbreak because their lab was 'just' 50 miles away... working on Lassa instead.

To put it another way, if the outbreak had happened in another city with a virology lab working on coronaviruses, would that have been interpreted as evidence it had a natural origin because it was further away from WIV, or would the suggested source be that city's lab instead? If it's the latter, then the presence of a lab is not "distinctively suspicious". Bakkster Man (talk) 14:21, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Does this also hold true for wet markets? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8804:6600:45:94F9:E124:B820:5060 (talk) 03:58, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

All else being equal, yes. The presence of a wet market in the same urban area is not by itself "distinctively suspicious".

However, the wet market here is not equivalent. The Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market has a direct epidemiological link to the early outbreak, so we have specific evidence that it was the early epicenter. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:17, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

so it could have started in a laos wet market? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎2600:8804:6600:45:94f9:e124:b820:5060 (talk • contribs)

Please read my above comment again to answer that. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:58, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes? BANAL is a direct epidemological link to laos? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8804:6600:45:3DF4:4E4A:6070:F682 (talk) 21:26, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Not according to the study identifying these viruses in Laos: the epidemiological link between these bat viruses and the first human cases remains to be established. Bakkster Man (talk) 22:09, 10 January 2023 (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.

Beijing Review

@Shibbolethink:@Bon courage: perhaps you two can explain why an opinion piece in the Beijing Review is a WP:RS in this context? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:28, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

happy to remove it, truly do not care much about this piece when we have so many other RSes which verify this claim. Did so shortly after seeing others had removed it from the refn. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:42, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean "many other RSes"? Beijing Review is not a WP:RS at all. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:48, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I truly do not care what it is, as we have so many sources for this claim. I removed it, this argument is pointless. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:50, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

You are required to care about the sources you use on wikipedia WP:CIR. We are required to follow WP:V, that isn't an optional policy. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:56, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

All I'm saying here is that I am unaware of any discussion or place where consensus has established that Beijing Review is unreliable. Either in WP:RSP or RSN. If you know of such a discussion, I would happily agree with you right away.

I understand why you think it would be unreliable, since it's published by the CCP. I make no claim either way, as I haven't fully examined the issue. I would rather just remove it and forego the discussion altogether (as I have already done).

Continuing to litigate this seems to me to just be wiki-lawyering or gotcha-arguments to WP:WIN. I don't think that's very productive or helpful to actually building an encyclopedia here. If you think I've done something wrong, you are free to take me to ANI or whatever, but I don't think either of us has violated policy. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:02, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense. It was an opinion piece, even if the Beijing Review was generally reliable you could not use that piece like that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:05, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

MERS

New racist preprint about MERS: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.02.12.528210v2 2600:8804:6600:45:C0E0:1322:4B9C:2850 (talk) 22:39, 27 February 2023 (UTC) It seems relevant to the discussion of chimeric viruses? The wiki article discusses this in multiple places. 2600:8804:6600:45:B510:9995:E387:8878 (talk) 16:41, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

It won't be a reliable source until it's peer reviewed by a reliable journal. Until then, we don't discuss topics without reliable sourcing (per WP:V). Bakkster Man (talk) 16:49, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Here is a previous article discussing MERS, https://theintercept.com/2021/10/21/virus-mers-wuhan-experiments/ 2600:8804:6600:45:B510:9995:E387:8878 (talk) 17:13, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

MERS and SARS-CoV-2 are very different viruses, that have small changes throughout the entire virus, accumulating to about 20% of their genomes. One is so distant from the other that it is functionally impossible to create one from the other. This is irrelevant to the question of SARS-CoV-2 being generated in a laboratory.

In another way, this source is irrelevant to this article: It is a WP:PREPRINT and therefore not a reliable source. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:28, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

My understanding is that this information demonstrates in general the type of chimeric experiments being performed? In the article it is asserted that WIV did not produce chimeric viruses? Others (including Ralph Baric) have disputed the characterization, pointing out that the experiments in question (involving chimeric viruses) were not conducted at the WIV, but at UNC Chapel Hill, whose institutional biosafety committee assessed the experiments as not "gain-of-function". 2600:8804:6600:45:B510:9995:E387:8878 (talk) 17:35, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Applying this reasoning to this article appears to be original research. Which is not allowed on wikipedia. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:52, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Be mindful of the NPOV policy

The origins of covid and the lab leak theory, at least in the US, is a highly partisan issue. Therefore, try to analyze sources impartially without an ideological objective, per the WP:NPOV policy. This talk page already reflects trying to impose information from an ideological, political, or partisan perspective. ‘It’s just gotten crazy’: how the origins of Covid became a toxic US political debate Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 00:06, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

@Thinker78 if the subject is highly partisan the article should reflect that. Just like the article on Hitler is mostly negative in tone as he is considered a mostly negative person the article on the origin of covid should neutrally but fiercely present both sides as that is how it is reported and debated in the media and by the public. it's not wikipedia's job to decide what is and isn't controversial. If the origin of covid is reported to be controversial then the article should not pretend like there's a calm and serene ongoing debate about the origin. News reporting on the origin of covid is highly divided and fiercely ideological. the article should reflect that. I expect the article to present both theories, the supporting facts and circumstantial evidence, and the opposing facts and evidence. 95.246.59.34 (talk) 02:17, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Although some bias is ok within limits, editors should refrain from ideological editing in violation of NPOV. Wikipedia reflects what reliable sources state, it is not a free for all propaganda platform. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 05:43, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 March 2023

Citation 181: Stolberg, Sheryl Gay (8 February 2022). "N.I.H. Leader Rebuts Covid Lab Leak Theory at House Hearing". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 9 February 2022. Retrieved 11 February 2023.

Both instances of "2022" need to be changed to "2023" RedPandaEdits (talk) 04:40, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done Nice catch! Lizthegrey (talk) 04:51, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I tried and may have succeeded. But if not I'm sure someone more competent will come around. Oh yay I was too slow anyway. Thank you Liz! Arkon (talk) 04:52, 16 March 2023 (UTC)