Talk:Wuhan Institute of Virology/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Problematic sentence

I'm starting a new thread because it seems like I'm not the only one who thinks this sentence "The laboratory has nevertheless been the subject of multiple conspiracy theories about the origin of the virus" should be removed from the article. Newimpartial seems to have reverted that edit from Guest2625. Let's start a new discussion since it was brought up in the MEDRS again thread and probably needs its own space. Feynstein (talk) 22:31, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

This is a sourced statement, does not require MEDRS, and as I stated in my edit summary, I expect that a good deal of the traffic to this page over the last year related to these conspiracy theories, so it seems beneficial to readers for this information to be included prominently. Newimpartial (talk) 22:35, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

There's at least one of those that isn't a conspiracy theory, as per Dr. Lucey's quote "So here we are, 12, 13 months out since the first recognised case of Covid-19 and we haven't found the animal source," he said. "So, to me, it's all the more reason to investigate alternative explanations." Might a Chinese laboratory have had a virus they were working on that was genetically closer to Sars-Cov-2, and would they tell us now if they did? "Not everything that's done is published," Dr Lucey said.[1]. Since the contested sentence is non-MEDRS, I don't see why it shouldn't be deleted, or unpacked using this particular quote. And probably Segreto's paper. Seriously, talking about origin conspiracy theories in that all-encompassing manner doesn't have it's place here. May I remind everyone here that no zoonotical host has been found to date and that it undermines the mainstream idea. It also seems like the mainstream theory is unfalsifiable around here, it holds even if it isn't anything near being empirically proven. I wanted to add that, as I previously said per WP:FRINGE/PS "Alternative theoretical formulations from within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process. They should not be classified as pseudoscience but should still be put into context with respect to the mainstream perspective". Since Segreto's paper is objectively from within the scientific community it should be included as non fringe. Contrary to what Alexbrn thinks, he doesn't get to make up new policies. Where not talking about climate change here, which has been studied since the 70's, we're talking about a virus that emerged not even a year ago. Feynstein (talk) 22:53, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Once again, the sentence you are objecting to would be true (and reliably sourced) even if there were a non-conspiracy theory lab leak hypothesis - which so far, there just isn't. The quasi-publication of one dubiously researched paper in a partially curated section of a semi-relevant journal most certainly does not put the lab-leak hypothesis within the scientific community in the sense of the section of WP:FRINGE you are trying to invoke. That section is intended to cover the accumulation of anomalous results that "don't fit the scientific consensus" prior to a possible shift in the explanatory paradigm, not the announcement of speculative results by non-specialists which this instance represents, and which is reflected most clearly in Climate change denial. Newimpartial (talk) 23:47, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

"The quasi-publication of one dubiously researched paper in a partially curated section of a semi-relevant journal": "Quasi-publication" : not a thing. "Dubiously researched": on what grounds are you making this assertion. Do you have any knowledge in genomics methodology? Or even scientific methodology at all? Or do you have a paper clearly addressing what the author raised in it? "Semi-relevant journal": its impact factor is 4.725. By comparison "Virology" is 2.819. This proves to me the subjectivity of your argument. And finally, for a concensus to be made in science litterature it takes more than a few boldly assertive papers. Or it would require definitive empirical evidence, which there is for climate change. The kind of derogatory language you're using doesn't make your argument better. Unless you have evidence that this peer reviewed paper is bollocks, other than general subjective assertions, you can't qualify it as a conspiracy theory, which you still do for some reason. I wonder why. And then you didn't even consider what Dr. Lucey said, at all. Do you think he's also a conspirationniste? Feynstein (talk) 00:39, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh and to complete my argument. Is there any definition within policy that defines "Scientific Community". I think at this point that the author is at least a member of the "microbiology" community. Unless you have any clear definition within WP:FRINGE That addresses this definition or its extent, it's still your subjective point of view. I say she's part of the relevant scientific community. At this point I would even consider any evolutionary biologist to be qualified enough to have an opinion on the subject. But I'd agree to narrow it down to microbiology, just for you. Feynstein (talk) 00:47, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

One or two mictobiologists' opinions can never be invoked to suggest that an argument is not FRINGE; as I'm saying, that is not what within the scientific community in FRINGE - which you have referred to out of context - means. And I am not saying that paper is participating in a conspiracy theory; I am saying it isn't enough to affect the reliable sources that document the existence of conspiracy theories based on the lab-release hypothesis. That is all. Newimpartial (talk) 01:55, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Do you have any knowledge in genomics methodology? Or even scientific methodology at all? Do you have formal background in genomics? How confident are you that you are properly assessing the quality of the Segreto publication and the credentials of its authors? How many scientific paper review processes have you gone through in bio as either submitter or referee? If you're going to introduce some hierarchy in the weight of individual editors' opinions based on their degree and background or how many papers they've published or whatever, well, all I can say is you are not going to come out on top in this discussion. It's a good thing for you, then, that by and large it doesn't matter what type or level of education editors here have when it comes to following Wikipedia policy. It doesn't take a PhD in genome engineering to recognize the Segreto paper falls far below the sourcing standards used for other scientific claims about the origin. MEDRS insists on secondary sources because it aims to summarize scientific consensus -- and this means consensus of experts in their subfield. These are examples of people who are not experts in viral genetics/engineering, viral evolution, viral epidemiology, or viral structural biology: a post-doc with an h-index of 4 whose only experimental publications are in mycoheterotrophic symbionts; a person with zero scientific publications; a doctoral candidate in genome engineering (regardless of whether they work with coronaviruses); basically, anyone who doesn't run a lab involving one of those four subfields. The Segreto paper literally says they could only find one other paper in the whole SARS-CoV-2 corpus alleging a lab origin scenario (the other BioEssays article, coauthored by this guy)--there is no possible interpretation of this beyond "the lab origin is not covered enough in-depth in scientific literature for Wikipedia to treat it as a mainstream alternative hypothesis". JoelleJay (talk) 05:12, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Newimpartial: A peer reviewed paper is objectively not simply an opinion. There's the scientific method and overall methodology backing up the hypothesis. Would you be willing to tell me how I've taken "within the scientific community" out of context? Do you have an actual definition or precedent backing up your interpretation within Wikipedia? Oh, ok so now you're separating the two concepts, that's progress. Why don't we simply use what you just said conspiracy theories based on the lab-release hypothesis. It would suit me to rephrase it that way. Feynstein (talk) 02:07, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Rephrasing the current sentence so it referred to the lab-release hypothesis rather than The Laboratory would make no appreciable difference in terms of the content of the conspiracy theories. As far as FRINGE is concerned, the passage you are referring to continues, Alternative theoretical formulations may fail to explain some aspect of reality, but, should they succeed in doing so, will usually be rapidly accepted. For instance, continental drift was heavily criticized because there was no known mechanism for continents to move and the proposed mechanisms were implausible. When a mechanism was discovered through plate tectonics, it became mainstream. In other cases an alternative theoretical formulation lacks significant evidence to show its validity, but when such evidence is produced, the theory can become mainstream. Such examples of this are the existence of Troy, the Norse colonization of the Americas, and the Big Bang Theory. None of these examples would have been regarded as alternative theoretical formulations at a time when they were proposed only in single one or two papers and were unaccompanied by plausible alternatives to generally-accepted explanations in their respective fields. WP:TOOSOON represents a principle that also applies in such cases, so even if your deepest suspicious were to turn out to be 100% correct, that still wouldn't be an argument to bend the rest of this article now to allow for a future possibility that is so far outside the professional consensus in the field. Newimpartial (talk) 02:32, 5 February 2021 (UTC) - three words added. Newimpartial (talk) 16:26, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Newimpartial: I'm thinking more about "The laboratory has nevertheless been the subject of multiple conspiracy theories based on the hypothesis that the virus was accidentally leaked from the lab" or something, I'd have to think about phrasing, but you get the idea. Why didn't WP:TOOSOON apply to Anderson's "proximal origin of sars-cov-2" released on March 17th last year? "Basic research involving passage of bat SARS-CoV-like coronaviruses in cell culture and/or animal models has been ongoing for many years in biosafety level 2 laboratories across the world27, and there are documented instances of laboratory escapes of SARS-CoV28. We must therefore examine the possibility of an inadvertent laboratory release of SARS-CoV-2. In theory, it is possible that SARS-CoV-2 acquired RBD mutations (Fig. 1a) during adaptation to passage in cell culture, as has been observed in studies of SARS-CoV11. The finding of SARS-CoV-like coronaviruses from pangolins with nearly identical RBDs, however, provides a much stronger and more parsimonious explanation of how SARS-CoV-2 acquired these via recombination or mutation19.". It's weird how this was used as legit proof that the virus didn't leak but it finally turned out the pangolin samples had only been exposed to the virus in a market instead of being spillover agents. It was the lone opinion of some scientist at the time, yet it was and probably is still around here somewhere. Not to mention the fact that it was first pointed out in this particular paper... Which is definitely MEDRS... Maybe we could use it, knowing the pangolin stuff is wrong, only the first part of his argument remains, which is, surprise surprise, the accidental lab leak. Sniff, do you smell double standards? Feynstein (talk) 03:30, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

• And look what I got here... huh, a second peer-reviewed paper [2] Feynstein (talk) 15:41, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

In the same journal, written by a bioinformatics (i.e., database software) person and his son (no apparent qualifications in any field of biology). BioEssays is apparently publishing articles by people with no expertise in virology (or even biology, in the case of one of the two authors here, as well as on the previous BioEssays paper you linked to), which raises questions about their reliability as a journal. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:08, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Thucydides411: Maybe it should be raised over at WP:RSN. I did a quick search on problems with this journal and the only thing I've found is that Segreto's twitter account has been suspended. And I've also found two mainstream articles that came out today about this... And they don't dismiss the hypothesis, quite the contrary. Wow this is huge. Washington Post and daily telegraph! [3] [4] Feynstein (talk) 15:15, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

The popular press is not reliable for biomedical claims. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:06, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Nevertheless?

It's not clear to me how this sentence:

• The laboratory has nevertheless been the subject of multiple conspiracy theories about the origin of the virus.

flows with the proceeding content. It reads as a hang on sentence. What is this "nevertheless" referring to? As it currently is written the sentence makes no sense and should be removed. --Guest2625 (talk) 05:06, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Actually, the whole paragraph is confusing. What is this "topic of controversy"? Also what are these "conspiracy theories"? Have these things been defined in the article anywhere? I read this article just wanting to know what kind of virus research the institute does and when the lab was built.--Guest2625 (talk) 05:21, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

There's clearly traffic here based on the possibility the WIV is the source of the Pandemic. Read this [5] if you have any doubt about it. Feynstein (talk) 12:21, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

The sentence was written by me as an attempt to reduce the length of content taken on conspiracy theories (before a decision was reached to do some dramatic cutting, nearly half of the article was spent on [presenting, then rebutting] conspiracy theories, which was clearly UNDUE). "Nevertheless" refers to the fact that despite the high safety standards mentioned in the preceding sentence, the conspiracies still abound. It could maybe be rewritten. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:10, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: Thing is, I have a peer-reviewed paper here [6] who says at least one of those "conspiracy theories" is not a conspiracy theory. We still disagree wether it's MEDRS or not, but since it is clearly RS it should be used, as I previously said, to separate the conspiracy theories from the now non-fringe accidental lab leak hypothesis. Feynstein (talk) 15:32, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

• Edit: At least two peer-reviewed paper talk about it[7]. Feynstein (talk) 15:39, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

• Neither of the BioEssays sources are suitable for use. We really want review articles or better (see WP:MEDRS). Alexbrn (talk) 15:56, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: Well then this sentence has no place in the article since it uses RS sources while talking about the origin of the virus.As I said, double standards. Unless we unpack it so that there's a clear difference between bio-weapon conspiracy theories and now RS accidental lab-leak hypothesis (which those two papers + the bbc article constitute legit RS sources) I'm very much against it's current phrasing and will continue to argument until we reach a concensus about how we can achieve that. Again, you don't get to make up policy on the spot and have double standards Alexbrn. Feynstein (talk) 16:20, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

The sentence in question does not talk about the origin of the virus, it talks about conspiracy theories about the origin of the virus. These are two different things, in terms of the required sourcing. Newimpartial (talk) 16:24, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, we don't need MEDRS to note the existence of a conspiracy theory, but to debunk said theory even weaker sources can be used per WP:PARITY. So in fact it's kind of true that Wikipedia has a double standard: WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims (e.g. anything non-trivial in the realm of biomedicine) requires the very best sources. Rational rebuttals of conspiracy theories can be sourced much more liberally. This is a feature, not a bug, and gives us neutral, respectable article - and is why Wikipedia has the reputation it does for keeping misinformation at bay. Alexbrn (talk) 16:29, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Again, it's NOT a conspiracy theory. It's not an exceptional claim in any sense of the term. We have those two peer-reviewed papers, we have Dr. Lucey who says a lab might have been working on an unpublished virus, and we even have this Nature paper: Basic research involving passage of bat SARS-CoV-like coronaviruses in cell culture and/or animal models has been ongoing for many years in biosafety level 2 laboratories across the world27, and there are documented instances of laboratory escapes of SARS-CoV28. We must therefore examine the possibility of an inadvertent laboratory release of SARS-CoV-2.In theory, it is possible that SARS-CoV-2 acquired RBD mutations (Fig. 1a) during adaptation to passage in cell culture, as has been observed in studies of SARS-CoV11. The finding of SARS-CoV-like coronaviruses from pangolins with nearly identical RBDs, however, provides a much stronger and more parsimonious explanation of how SARS-CoV-2 acquired these via recombination or mutation19. [8]. We know now in hindsight that the pangolin samples were exposed post-hoc to the virus and they all came from the same smuggling operation, disproving the pangolin as an intermediary host and going back to bats. Leaving only his first hypothesis on the table. You're WP:GAMING the system here with your appeal to WP:PARITY and WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Feynstein (talk) 16:49, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: I have an idea. As per WP:PARITY you should be able to prove to me that BioEssays is a predatory journal or that it's peer-review process is flawed. If you can manage this I'll leave you all alone. I will require references though, your subjective views aren't worth anything. Feynstein (talk) 16:56, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

It's not a predatory journal and there is no special reason to query its peer review. But the two articles repeatedly being raised are not review articles which, per WP:MEDRS, we need for any claims in the realm of biomedicine. Alexbrn (talk) 16:59, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: "Yes, we don't need MEDRS to note the existence of a conspiracy theory, but to debunk said theory even weaker sources can be used per WP:PARITY.". Ok there seems to be a misunderstanding. What theory are you refering to in this sentence? Feynstein (talk) 17:06, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

No particular theory, it is a general statement. But it applies to the conspiracy theories regarding the construction of SARS-CoV-2 in a Wuhan lab, which is why it is relevant here. Alexbrn (talk) 17:12, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: I just caught up on this reply. Oh so that blanket statement is your personal opinion, good. Let's carry on with the conversation down there then. Feynstein (talk) 17:45, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

The problem I have with it is that the references used are getting old and they're framing the accidental lab leak hypothesis as a conspiracy theory. Which I demonstrated it is not, multiple times. Maybe you could have a go at this article by Michael Shermer[9] in Scientific American in order to get your definitions straight. (Yes, I'm used to dealing with 5G conspiracies and Electrosensitivity with my background). It is, in fact, falsifiable. The problem right now is the mainstream theory is becoming unfalsifiable by the day since Chinese autorities are not releasing anything on the subject, for god knows why. Oh yes, maybe because it's a totalitarian police state. Anyway, still doesn't unpack the "older" view that the accidental lab leak hypothesis is a conspiracy theory. Feynstein (talk) 16:40, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

From good source we assuredly know it is a conspiracy theory. PMID 32945405, which is a review article in a MEDLINE-indexed journal (and so WP:MEDRS), refers to "conspiracy theories regarding the construction of SARS-CoV-2 in a secret laboratory in Wuhan, China", and later says "The genomic and bioinformatic analyses of the aforementioned studies, as well as the results of previous studies, confirm that the virus originated in bats and this way put an end to all conspiracy theories regarding this issue". So in lieu of new sources, as far as content complying with Wikipedia's polices goes, it's: case closed. Alexbrn (talk) 17:05, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: I'll be damned! Look at that, there's no mention of the accidental leak theory. Only the bio-weapon made in a secret lab conspiracy theory, just like I've been telling you all along. "Such expressions deconstruct rational thinking when one tries to identify the causality of a phenomenon, reinforcing conspiracy theories about new biological weapons or secret and uncontrollable forces.". Let's use this paper then and quote it directly. I'm going to have a field day with this one. :-) Feynstein (talk) 17:14, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

* Note: There's an absence of reference on one side AND a reference on the other side, don't try to sophistry your way out of there by invoquing the "lack of negative evidence fallacy". Feynstein (talk) 17:22, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

The bioweapons one is one variant of the "conspiracy theories regarding the construction of SARS-CoV-2 in a secret laboratory in Wuhan" yes, but "all such theories" are debunked. We have other sources on other variations of the conspiracy theory, but these would probably be undue. All we need to say is it came from bats, not a lab, like the conspiracy theories say. This is already covered at the COVID-19 misinformation article, where it is more appropriate in any case.

Good, another place to tackle the WP:STONEWALL. All such theories are not "debunked" as Dr Lucey noted, there's still no animal that was found for spillover. Feynstein (talk) 17:25, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

If the good source says the evidence puts "an end to all conspiracy theories regarding this issue", Wikipedia reflects that. This doesn't have to be complicated. Alexbrn (talk) 17:28, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: Which the accidental lab leak is explicitly and demonstrably not a part of. With Dr. Lucey's comment and both peer-reviewed papers mentioned here. It's really not that complicated in fact. I agree that the bio-weapon one is a conspiracy theory, as mentionned in the last paper. Do you have any evidence that says we should consider the accidental lab leak within the phrase "an end to all conspiracy theories regarding this issue" or is this just your personal opinion? Feynstein (talk) 17:39, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I say, just follow the source. Conspiracy theories have a habit of morphing into new variants to try and evade debunking. The source says lab construction is a conspiracy theory (now debunked), so Wikipedia does too. At the COVID-19 misinformation article there's a bit more on this, for example how some favour the "gain-of-function" story and so on. Alexbrn (talk) 17:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: Good progress, so we both agree that they might have been working on a virus we don't know about, that wasn't part of a gain of function thing (which Segreto is the first paper who attemps to debunk this view with site‐directed mutagenesis) that might have been accidentally released in the city? Knowing that zoonotic spillover doesn't tend to happen in a city of 11M people which limits wildlife interactions. Btw the COVID-19 misinformation only mentions Bio-weapon and Swine stuff. Huh, interesting. So your assertion that this is a conspiracy theory is unwaranted then. Feynstein (talk) 17:52, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't agree with anything, except that we follow the good sources. By them, we know that lab construction is a conspiracy theory, and that has been debunked, and that the virus came from bats. Most of what you're saying bears no relation to the good sources. Alexbrn (talk) 18:00, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Can I just point out, Feynstein, that your presumption of any consensus that the virus hopped the species boundary in the city of Wuhan appears to be a straw man argument? I certainly don't see that stated as fact in this article. Newimpartial (talk) 18:05, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Noted, still weird since there would have been human samples of the virus from when it was not well adapted to human-human transmission. And there would probably be a trace from that from Yunnan province to Wuhan, 1200km away from eachother. Feynstein (talk) 18:09, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: Cough, Cough "Dr Lucey still believes that Sars-Cov-2 is most likely to have a natural origin, but he does not want the alternatives to be so readily ruled out."So here we are, 12, 13 months out since the first recognised case of Covid-19 and we haven't found the animal source," he said. "So, to me, it's all the more reason to investigate alternative explanations." Might a Chinese laboratory have had a virus they were working on that was genetically closer to Sars-Cov-2, and would they tell us now if they did? "Not everything that's done is published," Dr Lucey said.". And then serial passage, which wasn't ruled out by the nature paper "Proximal origin of sars-cov-2" and advanced directly here.[10]. Huh, so it seems like serial passage doesn't fall into conspiracy territory because it's not a "construction". Feynstein (talk) 18:08, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Btw, do you know anything about evolution? Do you know how easy it is to force a natural spillover in a lab? Viruses generate billions of replicates. One small slip in rhibozome RNA reading and it's a done deal buddy... When they're talking about bio-weapon they're talking about stuff like CRISPR. I'm not sure you understand that very well anb it might be the cause of our misunderstanding. Feynstein (talk) 18:22, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I have no idea who "Dr Lucey" is. Sounds like another unreliable source. We don't want unreliable sources here, especially being used to complicate or debunk the good sources we know about. Alexbrn (talk) 18:26, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

What? Well, let me quote him ANOTHER time! "Dr Daniel Lucey is a physician and infectious disease professor at the Georgetown Medical Centre in Washington DC and a veteran of many pandemics - Sars in China, Ebola in Africa, Zika in Brazil." from [11]. Do you need me to copy what he said again or you're good? Feynstein (talk) 18:34, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

So he's a physician whose last publication was 15 years ago and whose expertise is in the immune response side of infectious diseases? He's not (or at best no longer is, it seems he did have some pubs from the 80s and 90s that weren't clinical case reports) a practicing scientist, let alone an expert in viruses. So his opinion on the validity of the serial passage idea is not representative of scientific consensus or even a large-minority perspective, and therefore not DUE. JoelleJay (talk) 20:03, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Wait wait wait... are you telling me you people don't know the difference between "actual" manipulation and serial passage? Do you know anything about genetic algorithms? They work the exact same way. You simply have to infect different animals (like a pangolin or civet) that have the ACE2 receptor and are known spillover animals and you keep the specimens that show the symptoms and caracteristics you want to have. Rince and repeat enough times and you've got yourself a pandemic-ready virus! Feynstein (talk) 18:34, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

That's a news source, not usable here for anything biomedical. Let's stick to the MEDRS and keep it plain and simple. Alexbrn (talk) 18:35, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh, well then, you better make sure the bio-weapon and accidental leak theories are unpacked in this sentence mate if you're into using non-MEDRS to assert that. Otherwise this [12] and this [13] are both legit articles that don't qualify as MEDRS but should be used in the sentence to unpack it. Feynstein (talk) 18:39, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't know why you keep raising unreliable sources. The fine distinction between different grades of conspiracy theory isn't one made by the best sources: to them, all lab construction theories are covered. So let's just keep to the good sources we have, and keep it simple without indulging in the lore of the conspiracists. Alexbrn (talk) 18:47, 5 February 2021 (UTC)\

@Alexbrn: Dude! You have absolutely no clue what you're talking about when you're talking about lab construction! Omg I can't believe I actually had an argument with someone who doesn't know the difference between guided natural evolution by serial passage and ACTUAL genetic manipulation of the likes of CRISPR gene editing. Are all of you conspiracy white knights over at fringe noticeboard like that? Holy cow... man that sucks I lost so much time over this gosh. I'll talk to you when I'm done work, I don't have time to deal with you anymore, I'm going straight to the dispute resolution noticeboard and people who actually know at least basic evolutionary biology and are able to make that distinction. Feynstein (talk) 18:56, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: They do serial passage ALL THE TIME. Whenever you have a sample of live viruses you HAVE to move them around the lab and each time you do so and they create new replicates the ones that don't die are usually different from the ones that die. Simply by keeping the "live" viruses from dish to dish you're forcing evolution. And then have you noticed how there was no transmission outside? Maybe it's because the virus evolved inside eh? How's that for a stretch? But you cannot know because evolution has no memory of past iterations. I mean... come on. You really thought I was talking about actual construction? Like bio-weapon style? Is it because you have NO CLUE what we're talking about here? Can you at least admit your mistep here and explain to me how what I just explained to you (basically keeping the virus alive) constitues a "construction"? Feynstein (talk) 19:27, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to point to my earlier comment, which you might have missed. JoelleJay (talk) 20:03, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@JoelleJay: Wrong link Feynstein (talk) 20:10, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Oops, fixed now. JoelleJay (talk) 21:35, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@JoelleJay: I'll answer here if you don't mind. Do you have formal background in genomics? How confident are you that you are properly assessing the quality of the Segreto publication and the credentials of its authors? I don't and never claimed I had. My point was that ad hominems aren't arguments. You don't know what's my background, I don't know what's yours, we shouldn't be discussing papers on the merit of their author. And even their content to a certain extent, as I've been discussing with people who don't know that serial passage isn't "construction" of a virus in the moving nucleotides around meaning of it. I think this particular point has been the root of the misunderstanding here. People don't know you can evolve a living thing that copies itself in the trillions simply by generally choosing the specimens you like repeatedly. How many scientific paper review processes have you gone through in bio as either submitter or referee? Do medical physics count? I used to do dosimetry algorithms. I know about radiobiology if you want to know. Still never claimed anything on that matter. It's a good thing for you, then, that by and large it doesn't matter what type or level of education editors here have when it comes to following Wikipedia policy. It does matter if you're doing the very same thing to the author of a paper, which was the point that people tried to make. They shouldn't unless they can "verify" their credentials to be judging someone, which they can't because it's the internet. And for the rest of your argument you're still going about discrediting her work based on her personal merits. You also talked about referencing: the bibliography is 68 papers long. I think it's longer than my master's thesis at this point XD. I'm going to add on a personal note that I worked on a paper about SEIRS Markov Chain Monte Carlo Simulations based on HIV and SARS modelling in epidemiology. It was aimed at estimating the number of asymptomatic cases by non linear optimization of the transfer matrix on hospitalisations and deaths numbers. I have NO experience in epidemiology. I have extensive experience of system dynamics though. The maths were clear and similar to stuff I do (and pretty easy to be honest) so that I could bring in my knowledge of Monte Carlo Simulations into this field to help. Do you think it's totally out there simply because I'm a physicist or there's a value to this work? You can believe me or not it's irrelevant, my point is that I don't like gatekeepers that say the kind of stuff you say. Do you imagine if we would have told people like me to stop doing this because we're not epidemiologists? We would have run out of people like them that were better off doing more important stuff. Anyway I didn't mean any personal harm to you if this is how you understood it. I just get angry when people erase the experiences of others based on subjective opinions. Feynstein (talk) 01:37, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

we shouldn't be discussing papers on the merit of their author. But we do need to evaluate author credentials. MEDRS specifically emphasizes citing experts in the field, which is a quality that can be largely assessed by any editor just by looking at an author's professional position and publication record. For more nuanced cases, editors with familiarity in the subject may be needed to evaluate how qualified the author is in that subject.

What MEDRS says about experts

Ideal sources for biomedical information include: review articles (especially systematic reviews) published in reputable medical journals; academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant fields and from respected publishers; The Wikipedia community relies on guidance of expert reviews Although significant-minority views are welcome in Wikipedia, such views must be presented in the context of their acceptance by experts in the field. Additionally, the views of tiny minorities need not be reported. A general narrative review of a subject by an expert in the field can make a good secondary source covering various aspects of a subject within a Wikipedia article.

I've been discussing with people who don't know that serial passage isn't "construction" of a virus in the moving nucleotides around meaning of it. I think this particular point has been the root of the misunderstanding here. In order for us to make a distinction between a lab leak where the virus was genetically engineered, underwent guided positive selection for human adaptation via serial passage, gained adaptations through non-guided serial passage, or was wholly WT and just stored without serial passage, we need strong secondary MEDRS explicitly discussing these scenarios and how they are viewed by the majority of experts. Two primary speculative studies claiming any of those are possible are not enough for us to single them out as "not conspiracy theories". If our current MEDRS just use a blanket designation of "conspiracy theory" for "lab leak hypotheses", then that is what we report. If MEDRS say the genetic manipulation theories have been debunked, but don't mention serial passage (or cover it very minimally as an aside), then we report what they say about genetic manipulation without mentioning serial passage at all. Otherwise, it is synthesis and undue to interpret which particular scenarios MEDRS are or are not calling "conspiracy theories". JoelleJay (talk) 03:36, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

break 3

What JoelleJay says; this is the policy-compliant way with the sources that exist. Can we close this now? It's going nowhere. Alexbrn (talk) 05:36, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: @JoelleJay: We can close it after you both look at what I found in the Washington Post [14] and the daily telegraph [15] that came out yesterday and today specifically talking about the WIV and the particular discussion we're having. I think those two are game changing. Now I said to an admin that I will only be replying once to a conversation here per day in order to lower the disruption I brought so if you want to have a quicker discussion I invite you both to my talk page to discuss the implications of this. Everyone is invited of course. It's BYOB of course XD Feynstein (talk) 15:25, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Those are both opinion pieces, so neither is reliable for facts per WP:RSOPINION. I wouldn't call that game changing. Newimpartial (talk) 15:29, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Opinion pieces in the lay press? Sadly, those are not MEDRS compliant. The idea behind MEDRS is to steer our medical articles toward reflecting a scientific consensus. WP:ABIAS states, Scholars and scientists decide what is "true" for Wikipedia. And the way we make sure our articles reflect scientific consensus correctly is by following MEDRS. In a nutshell, MEDRS requires certain types of journal articles (review articles, systematic reviews, meta-analyses), national or international health agencies (CDC, NHS, WHO), or textbooks. Papers on studies/experiments (primary source) are out, and all lay press is out (non-experts cherry picking and interpreting studies). –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:03, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae: The sentence discussed here uses non MEDRS sources to point out "conspiracy theories" about the origin of the virus. It's one of my points. The other point is the MEDRS paper they're using to dismiss all theories in the same manner specifically talks about "virus construction" which refers to stuff like CRISPR gene editing and not Serial passage. A distinction some editors can't make for some reason. The latter can't be dismissed until a host is found because it is basically forcing evolution in the direction you want, leaving no trace in the genome whatsoever. And since we know the virus was already well adapted very early in the Pandemic [16] it could well have been a studied virus that inadvertently infected someone in the lab. Or an infected animal sold to a market by a research assistant or something. Feynstein (talk) 02:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Remove confusing paragraph

This paragraph:

The WIV has been a topic of controversy since the start of reporting of the COVID-19 pandemic. Scientists such as U.S. molecular biologist Richard H. Ebright, who had expressed concern of previous escapes of the SARS virus at Chinese laboratories in Beijing and had been troubled by the pace and scale of China's plans for expansion into BSL–4 laboratories, called the Institute a "world-class research institution that does world-class research in virology and immunology" while he noted that the WIV is a world leader in the study of bat coronaviruses. The laboratory has nevertheless been the subject of multiple conspiracy theories about the origin of the virus.

is not understandable. The "controversy" and "conspiracy theories" have not been defined. Also, it is not clear why the reader is being told that Ebright is "concerned" and why he thinks the lab is "world-class". If this paragraph is about some conspiracy nonsense why waste space on it in this article. The paragraph should be removed. This topic perhaps can go in the misinformation or investigation article. As it stands, this is all incoherent material that is being hung randomly onto this article. Also, removal will halt this endless circular conversation on this talk page. --Guest2625 (talk) 05:58, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't have any trouble understanding that paragraph. It is also not necessary to define precisely what the conspiracy theorists have said about the WIV for it to be DUE to mention that conspiracy theories have in fact been disseminated in relation to it. Newimpartial (talk) 15:31, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

The distinction between man-made virus (a virus made by inserting genomes line by line) and a natural origin virus that evolved artificially is made in this RS source. They call it "not-natural serial passage" and explain why it is a relevant distinction. If this gets traction we should start to see primary sources and reviews covering it in the next months. Forich (talk) 16:11, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Sure, when or if MEDRS review articles come out giving substantial weight to scenarios involving the WIV, we may include that info. JoelleJay (talk) 19:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Are there any good sources that suggest a laboratory recombination event is plausible? The bioweapon "theory" is kind of absurd, but an accident may be plausible. Sloorbeadle (talk) 22:11, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

@Sloorbeadle: Yes there are, it's the whole point of this discussion. It's been getting mainstream traction lately because no intermediate host has been found yet and the WHO's investigation team is riddled with conflict of interests. To be fair it would probably mean defunding to a whole bunch of institutes, it would be in the best interests of big wigs in virology to keep it as it is. But truth always comes out eventually. [17] [18] [19] [20] Feynstein (talk) 02:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Sloorbeadle, note that none of those is actually MEDRS. It's been getting mainstream traction in the lay media, but so far there are no MEDRS sources demonstrating anything more than tiny-minority support for lab passage ideas. That a handful of scientists of varying expertise in virology have been vocal does not override the vast majority who do not consider it plausible or even worth mentioning. JoelleJay (talk) 19:40, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

@JoelleJay: The very same majority that can't do research right eh? Maybe it's because stuff don't go boom when you guys mess up XD. Jk. But really, this is something medicine and biology need to address and quick if they want to keep the public's trust. Feynstein (talk) 01:08, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Ah, wonderful idea! To solve the replication crisis and make science more reliable, let's be less strict! Is this some sort of homeopathy, curing like with like? "This is not reliable enough, let's use less reliable sources, dilute them, and the whole thing will become more reliable!" --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:18, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Crazy idea: let's do like in physics and engineering, when we use a paper for research we take time to replicate the results so that the thing we're building doesn't blow up in our face! Feynstein (talk) 20:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Ah, wonderful idea! I am sure nobody in medical science has thought of that before.

Seriously, the reason why all those papers you wanted us to use are not good enough is, more or less, the same reason why there is this replication crisis. The MEDRS rule takes it into account and demands higher reliability than a mere peer-reviewed study. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:12, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

What is the scientific consensus?

Since the Telegraph article provided by editor Feynstein above is paywalled, I thought out of courtesy to everyone here to provide the following concluding quote:

In a significant change from a year ago, a growing number of top experts – including (ordered alphabetically by last name) Drs Francois Balloux, Ralph S Baric, Trevor Bedford, Jesse Bloom, Bruno Canard, Etienne Decroly, Richard H. Ebright, Michael B. Eisen, Gareth Jones, Filippa Lentzos, Michael Z. Lin, Marc Lipsitch, Stuart A Newman, Rasmus Nielsen, Megan J. Palmer, Nikolai Petrovsky, Angela Rasmussen and David A. Relman – have stated publicly (several in early 2020) that a lab leak remains a plausible scientific hypothesis to be investigated, regardless of how likely or unlikely.

We informed and obtained consent from each expert for their inclusion in this list.

Perhaps things are not the same as a year ago. --Guest2625 (talk) 08:04, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Scientific consensus is reflected by the content in MEDRS review articles, not by lay media listing a small number of scientists (of varying relevant expertise) whose "support" sometimes amounts to the standard hedging statements made about everything in science. JoelleJay (talk) 19:48, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

@JoelleJay: I will use what I wrote on Alexbrn's talk page to show you how one of the MEDRS sources was misrepresented by editors. Quote starts now --- Let me do a rundown for you of the 4 papers you guys selected for MEDRS, it might take a bit of time because biology lingo is absurdly complex. This article [21] says "Furthermore, a few important points related to the “conspiracy theories” such as “laboratory engineering” or “bioweapon” aspects of SARS-CoV-2 are also reviewed." and "The authors, taking the references of published articles on zoonotic origins of SARS-CoV-2 and based on their own analysis, suggested that the SARS-CoV-2 could have originated either through “natural selection in an animal host before zoonotic transfer” or “natural selection in humans following zoonotic transfer”. They rejected the possibility of “laboratory release” or the “SARS-CoV-2 acquired RBD mutations during adaptation to passage in cell culture” [40]. Nevertheless, it was claimed that the mutations in RBD are possible during adaptation to passage in cell culture [41]. However, Andersen et al. suggested that, nearly identical Spike-RBD of Pangolin-CoV with the SARS-CoV-2 supports a recombination or mutation event in the development of SARS-CoV-2 Spike-RBD probably from Pangolin-CoV [40]. It was previously reported that, insertions and deletions near the S1/S2 of Coronavirus Spike can occur due to natural evolutionary process (or prolonged passage or sub-culturing) [42-44]. However, in order to generate such virus through passage, a “progenitor virus with very high genetic similarity” needs “prior isolation” [40]. Introduction of a polybasic cleavage site specific to hACE2 requires repeated sub-culturing of this virus in cell culture or animals with hACE2. But neither such progenitor virus nor sub-culturing based polybasic cleavage to hACE2 has “previously been described”. Hence, Andersen and colleagues concluded that SARS-CoV-2 is not generated or released/escaped from laboratory [40]. Thus, according to these authors, without prior knowledge in public domain, we may not precisely identify the origin of SARSCoV-2. The authors finally concluded that “although the evidence shows that SARS-CoV-2 is not a purposefully manipulated virus, it is currently impossible to prove or disprove the other theories of its origin described here” (Figure 1B).". Clear as day here, prolonged passage or sub-culturing. In this particular case, for this particular subject, I think editors should read the papers carefully. Feynstein (talk) 16:26, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

The same considerations I brought up in my earlier comment apply here: namely, that it doesn't matter whether editors understand the nuances between different lab origin scenarios if the RS we use for discussing the conspiracy theories don't explicitly make that distinction. If our RS for the label broadly treat "lab origin" hypotheses as conspiracy theories without saying anything about/separating out serial passage, then we just leave the label at the broad definition and don't mention serial passage at all. It is synthesis to take a label weakly defined as including "bioweapons" and "lab construction" (especially when it doesn't say ideas that aren't in either of those categories are not conspiracies) and then apply it to a distinction made elsewhere (serial passage vs construction) to conclude "not-lab-construction" equals "not a conspiracy theory". The article you cite here does not classify passage as "not a conspiracy theory" and in fact should be interpreted as if it is categorizing the idea as conspiratorial, given that it is a review of the origin conspiracy theories, and their discussion of Andersen's rebuttal of the lab passage scenario is literally in a section titled "The "conspiracy theories" and their rebuttals by the scientific community". JoelleJay (talk) 19:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I'd suggest replacing "conspiracy theories" with "minority hypotheses," which conveys the information without derogating it. JoshuaNeilRubin (talk) 18:29, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

@JoshuaNeilRubin: To be fair there were actual conspiracy theories regarding the bioweapon stuff, Bill Gates and the great reset and whatnot. The chosing of words in the articles is kinda weird though, you don't see that often to use such strong words so early about a thing we have no clue about. Any thesis supervisor would hit you with a ruler for writing like that. Anyway I agree that we must at least unpack the sentence for it to express the legit minority view discussed in the paper above. Feynstein (talk) 00:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Problems with safety at the lab

Hi again all, since you don't seem to like other users adding stuff about safety concerns, I'd like you to write your reasons for reverting edits, here. Btw one of you should have opened a new section here for courtesy. Feynstein (talk) 15:10, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I haven't seen any reliable source documenting problems with safety at the lab. There was an opinion piece by Josh Rogin that claimed, based on snippets of US diplomatic cables, that there were safety problems. Rogin refused to publish the context of these snippets, but the full cables were obtained through a FOIA request and showed that Rogin's characterization of them was misleading. A general request by US diplomats for continued support for a US training program for staff at the WIV was misconstrued as a statement about safety problems at the lab. In any case, Rogin's opinion piece is not an RS for statements about the safety of the lab, and I don't think this conspiracy-theory material should be included in the article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:45, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

@Thucydides411: I think this one is[22]. It quotes both cables directly, and Washington Post's piece, meaning it's a secondary source. Which gives it more weight. I saw on WP:RSP that most editors consider it a partisan source, I will check if the claims of partisan source is about international stuff or not. If the concern is mostly about internal US politics I honestly can't see any problems with it. It's actually pretty solid. Feynstein (talk) 16:49, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

*Quick complement: it has indeed been used in the context of the pandemic regarding Iran's response, it seems like it's reliable in that case.Feynstein (talk) 16:56, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

The National Review is nowhere near being a reliable source for anything related to the origins of SARS-CoV-2, or for assessing the safety of BSL-4 labs (in China or anywhere else). Jim Geraghty, in particular, has been writing conspiracy-theory articles sourced to things like YouTube videos: [23]. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:27, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

@Thucydides411: From your article "There’s no proof the coronavirus accidentally escaped from a laboratory, but we can’t take the Chinese government’s denials at face value" which seems about right. Then he goes on reporting on the video itself. Btw your article has nothing to do with what I gave you, he's literally quoting the cables and WaPo's opinion. This is a legit secondary source buddy, whatever you say about it. You told me the cables did not report about safety, but they actually did. Did you lie to me? Would you prefer me to quote the cables directly then if Jim Geraghty is a problem to you? We can verifiably say that he's not lying in this article, what do you want more? Feynstein (talk) 22:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Geraghty "goes on reporting" about a conspiracy-theory video on YouTube that's full of utter nonsense. That should raise a million red flags about using the National Review for any claims about the origins of SARS-CoV-2.

We have high standards for sourcing here - specifically, MEDRS. We've been through this many times. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:19, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Of course we have high standards, especially if we know what is said in the article is true. We could probably reference both the national review article and the cable itself[24] it's pretty clear at this point there were safety concerns. Or, if you object, we could only reference the cable itself from the FOIA website, the one from january 2018 goes into more detail. I wonder though, why did you tell me "FOIA request and showed that Rogin's characterization of them was misleading" when in full context it says (I can't copy paste for some reason) that "While the lab is ostensibly fully accredited, its utilization is limited by lack of access to specific organisms and opaque government review and approval processes. As long as this sitution continues, Beijing's commitment to ... infectious disease control ... especially in relation to highly pathogenic viruses remains in doubt." and then "... noted that the new lab has a serious shortage of appropriately trained technicians and investigators needed to safely operate this high-containment laboratory" (safety explicitely named here) and continues saying "... the ability to undertake productive research despite limitations on the use of the new BSL-4 facility is demonstrated by ..." and then goes on talking about the ACE2 protein study they were doing. You know, the one that made the virus fully adapted to human transmission as soon as it took off in Wuhan. Anyway these are quotes we could easily add to the article, keep me in touch of what you think. Also, can you put into context your interpretation of the "misrepresentation" you claimed so that I know it wasn't a bad faith lie? Thanks! Feynstein (talk) 16:15, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

The National Review is not reliable at all for this claim, and no, we're not going to cite primary documents. You give your own analysis of the memo, which is neither here nor there. My own reading of it is very different. The reason the memo argues that "Beijing's commitment to ... infectious disease control ... especially in relation to highly pathogenic viruses remains in doubt" is because Chinese regulators are being overly strict, not allowing the lab to work on Ebola, for example. This is exactly opposite to how it was portrayed by Rogin and the National Review - as if the worries were about lax safety standards, not overly strict standards. The statement that they have a shortage of technicians is used to explain why they are not running the lab at full capacity. The memo does not claim that the lab is running unsafely. This memo was written two years before the BSL-4 lab actually opened, so the lack of technicians to run the lab at full capacity is not surprising. But regardless, neither Rogin nor Geraghty is qualified to analyze BSL-4 lab safety, and Wikipedia editors such as you and I are also not presumed to be qualified. We would need strong sourcing to make any claims about the safety of the lab. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:25, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry but this is the same country that produced the first illegally genetically engineered humans (the twins). If you think there are no reasons to doubt the competency of the lab technicians, or any other lab for that matter then you are sorely mistaken and will likely suffer for your poor judgement. There is no limit to human incompetence and arrogance for which we will see the consequences first hand eventually. If not us then our progeny.

The culture in China is not conducive to transparency and that should be an impetus to be all the more skeptical regarding the evolution of sars-cov-2.

You should not cherry-pick sources and rely on "strength" of a source simply by virtue of it's endorsement by profit-seeking mainstream views. This is completely absurd, when there are independent researchers raising legitimate questions and reaching different conclusions.

At the risk of being deemed to be appealing to emotion, I feel like I'm living in soviet russia and it's not pleasant. Sloorbeadle (talk) 11:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

This isn't the place for soapboxing about China. -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:44, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Removal

Removed Since I don't think there is anything in it that is particularly about this lab, and since clearly the addition is being contested on this talk page (and the claims are, per the discussion above, apparently contested). If you wish to include it, then please gain consensus for this change and include material which is within the WP:SCOPE of this article, which does not deal with BSL-4 facilities in China in general, but only the WIV. If there's nothing in the source specifically about the WIV, then including it here, especially in light of it being contested, is WP:SYNTH and probably falls foul of WP:NPOV (and having a "party X says A, party Y says B" digression would just be needless verbosity over what is a minor point) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC).

The content that the editor RandomCanadian wishes to remove is the following:

Some worries were raised in the construction of the lab. Molecular biologist Richard Ebright was worried about the rapid pace and scale of China's expansion into BSL–4 laboratories. Tim Trevan, founder of a biosafety and biosecurity consulting firm, noted that an open culture was necessary for keeping a BSL-4 lab safe, and it was not clear to him if such a culture existed in China.

This content directly deals with the Wuhan lab. It provides a proper balance to the discussion of the biosafety and biosecurity of the new facility being built for the Wuhan Institute of Virology. This content balances the previous paragraph and reflects the structure of the Nature article. Also, below is the Nature article's content from which the above sentences is derived:

But worries surround the Chinese lab, too. The SARS virus has escaped from high-level containment facilities in Beijing multiple times, notes Richard Ebright, a molecular biologist at Rutgers University in Piscataway, New Jersey. Tim Trevan, founder of CHROME Biosafety and Biosecurity Consulting in Damascus, Maryland, says that an open culture is important to keeping BSL-4 labs safe, and he questions how easy this will be in China, where society emphasizes hierarchy. “Diversity of viewpoint, flat structures where everyone feels free to speak up and openness of information are important,” he says. Nature 542, 399–400 (23 February 2017)

Note that the above quote says the singular "the Chinese lab" not the plural "the Chinese labs". This paragraph is in reference to the new facility being constructed for the Wuhan Institute of Technology. --Guest2625 (talk) 05:59, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Then why is it referring to "high level containment facilities in Beijing'"??? Anyway, with the WHO team saying that the lab leak is "unlikely" and that what they are actually investigating is much more mundane "theories including virus jumping from animal to human or via frozen food", this whole discussion becomes moot since it was based on the fact that the WHO was investigating the lab for what some editors WP:SYNTH-ed to be about this lab leak bollocks. Also, I'm noting for the benefit of everybody, that the discussions above are very hard to follow - i.e., WP:TLDR, which I did mention in my edit summary. Trying to keep it more structured and short might help. Failing that, a proper RfC to solve this once and for all should be launched. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:55, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Using the Nature article with the explicit notice on top "Editors’ note, January 2020: Many stories have promoted an unverified theory that the Wuhan lab discussed in this article played a role in the coronavirus outbreak that began in December 2019. Nature knows of no evidence that this is true; scientists believe the most likely source of the coronavirus to be an animal market." to support issues of "lab security" or "lab leak" is also rather disingenuous (you can't cherry pick parts from a source just to support you viewpoint)... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:17, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Note on procedure

• Note per Wikipedia:General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019#Application notes, material removed from COVID-19-related articles for credible reasons should not be replaced without consensus. Alexbrn (talk) 06:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

  Not that I disagree with the principle, but where is the community discussion establishing that section has any legitimacy in consensus? Special:Diff/957951138 does not link. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 06:36, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

  Here. Alexbrn (talk) 06:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

  No, not that but the subsection. Anyway, found it here. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 06:48, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

  That said, Editors are reminded that the onus is on the editor seeking to include disputed content to achieve consensus for its inclusion. Any content or source removed in good faith and citing a credible policy-based rationale should not be reinstated without prior consensus on the article's talk page. is effectively a topic-wide consensus required restriction. I don't think any admin is actually enforcing that, it's certainly not mentioned on any notices, so I'm not sure any of that has any de facto effects. Seems to have been policy carved out and forgotten about. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 07:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

  I think if an admin came across what's been going on in this article recently, a lot of sanctioning could happen. Alexbrn (talk) 08:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

  I'm trying to keep my stress levels down but am available to investigate any issues if they are explained (briefly). I left some messages at a couple of user talk pages recently. My strategy would be to warn and only sanction if problems are repeated. Johnuniq (talk) 08:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

WHO Press Conference with preliminary results of Origin probe

The WHO just did a press conference to brief the press about the preliminary results of their probe into the origins of SARS-CoV-2 in Wuhan. The link is here. Since official positions from the WHO count as MEDRS, I propose we extract the relevant quotes regarding the Wuhan Institute of Virology and the Lab Leak theory to guide us into editing this entry appropiately. Or should we wait for the final written report? Please discuss. Forich (talk) 14:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I think that the current sentence as it stands, "On February 9 2021, after investigations in Wuhan, the WHO said a laboratory "leak" origin for COVID-19 was "extremely unlikely" and the scenario did not merit further investigation." is perfectly fine, no need to make it too long, for the same reasons we shouldn't take up half the article on the conspiracy theories. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with RandomCanadian. From the NYT [25], apparently the team thinks that in terms of the pandemic origin, it's "'extremely unlikely' to have been the result of a lab accident." Which is what scientists have been telling us since the pandemic began, and is consistent with what virus ecologists have been warning of for years. -Darouet (talk) 15:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Yup. Should put an end to conspiracy theory tittle-tattle thankfully (unless, as is likely, the story morphs to imagine WHO cover-up/incompetence/whatever). In time, a retrospective of this could be useful in the misinformation article, when quality historical overviews appear. Alexbrn (talk) 15:09, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

It's also what has been argued here since well too long, so a massive waste of everybody's time ends with what was the expected result. See WP:CGTW no. 2 and 11. If we have to deal with further bollocks, CGTW no. 3 is probably a very valid suggestion. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

No, it won't put an end to the conspiracy theories because they're about politics, not science. As far as the scientific work is concerned, they have a lot of sampling to do to figure out the precise phylogeny and most likely natural reservoir. -Darouet (talk) 15:16, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

"Politics, not science" : ergo, very likely not within the scope of this article as there's a better place for those (the misinformation article, which is already linked as a see also from the appropriate place). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, —PaleoNeonate – 11:24, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

USA Today article and citation used in "unfounded speculation" sentence

The article still takes an editorial line that the lab leak hypothesis is "unfounded speculation", and treats the WHO investigation was the final word. This article in USA Today [26] clearly shows that there remain serious concerns about that investigation, both in the scientific community[27], and from the Biden administration (and, apparently even WHO head Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus); and that these sorts of accidents are too common to dismiss out-of-hand. Moreover the "conspiracy theory and unfounded speculation" WP:MEDRS citation on this page also specifically states that a lab release cannot be ruled out without an independent forensic investigation:

However, an independent forensic investigation is probably the only course of action to prove or disprove this speculation. Finally, we can always learn from the previous SARS‐CoV accidents that the best biosafety practices must be implemented to prevent any accidents in the future

[28] Park3r (talk) 09:11, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Journalism again. Please can we stick to the many quality sources that exist. Alexbrn (talk) 09:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I specifically quoted the WP:MEDRS that is used as a citation, which doesn't support the "conspiracy theories and unfounded speculation" sentence in this article.Park3r (talk) 09:31, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

The source is explicit that despite the massive online speculation, scientific evidence does not support the laboratory leak idea. It's true, yes, that the speculation will only be quelled by a conclusive investigation: it's like that for all conspiracy theories. We make that point in the Misinformation article, but it's a little tangential for an article which is meant to be focused on a laboratory! Alexbrn (talk) 10:22, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Just to quote the section of the review article that Alexbrn is referencing, here it is:

Despite these massive online speculations, scientific evidence does not support this accusation of laboratory release theory. Yet, it is difficult and time‐consuming to rule out the laboratories as the original source completely. It is highly unlikely that SARS‐CoV‐2 was accidentally released from a laboratory since no direct ancestral virus is identified in the current database.

-Thucydides411 (talk) 15:22, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Read the whole document. You are quoting from the ambiguous introduction of the paper. The paper concludes that only a forensic investigation can ascertain whether the virus leaked from a lab. Spyreguy (talk) 17:08, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Politico article (excerpt from book) about potential leak from lab

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 article [29]] details how the lab was involved with gain-of-function research and gives circumstantial evidence that a lab leak is a real possibility. Being as Politico is considered generally reliable, I would think a sentence summarizing this reference would be justified. ---Avatar317^(talk) 00:28, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

This is NOT about Bio-medical info, this is news, similar to the NYT, Bloomberg, Guardian news sources already in this article. ---Avatar317^(talk) 01:03, 24 March 2021 (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.

Where is this consensus about WP:MEDRS sources being the only acceptable ones for this article, because I don't see it here.

I have read the page, and I don't see the claimed consensus. ---Avatar317^(talk) 01:05, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

This discussion seemed fairly conclusive, if you read between the lines. Newimpartial (talk) 01:13, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You used a Politico article to support that "gives circumstantial evidence that a lab leak is a real possibility". That is a medical/scientific claim about the origin of a virus. Ipso facto, requires WP:MEDRS. As for gain of function; you can search for it through the archives (using the box at the top; both variants - with or without hyphens). Already discussed. It's already stated in the article that the lab conducts research on coronaviruses. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:15, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Avatar317, you are correct that this is not a MEDRS domain, per [30] and [31]. For what that's worth. Geogene (talk) 01:35, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

My first comment was about the biomedical claim; which seemed to be the main topic of the comment. As for gain of function; including it here might place UNDUE weight on this particular form of research amongst all the others (we already had to trim all the bit about conspiracy theories - putting this in will just invite more of the same nonsense already discussed on the article talk pages of so many COVID pages). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:47, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

UNDUE is a valid objection. A huge swath of the scientific community is and has been researching COVID-19, if there were positive evidence (not just a hypothetical possibility) that it came about from a lab escape, it seems pretty likely that much better sources than POLITICO would be available. Geogene (talk) 01:56, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you all for discussing this. When I put this here, I did understand the difference between MEDRS sources for virology discussions/claims and news/political claims. I would have crafted any addition with attribution to the author as to his allegations. I understand and agree with the UNDUE concern regarding more conspiracy theory stuff, and have seen the trouble dealing with that type of content pushing in other areas. I agree that if this story has any accurate claims, than others should fairly shortly start reporting on those as well, so we can leave it out for now. Again, thanks for the discussion. ---Avatar317^(talk) 04:14, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

It depends whether there is any biomedical aspect to the content. A statement like "Politician X said country Y had a history of covering-up embarrassing information" has no biomedical component; a statement like "There is a real possibility that the origin of the Sars CoV 2 virus that has swept the world was a coronavirus that had been collected from bats", is. Alexbrn (talk) 06:53, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

No scientific paper can ascertain whether the virus leaked from a lab, just like no scientific study can ascertain what happened in the cockpit of a plane before it crashes. Only a forensic investigation can ascertain what happened, and scientists are calling for a forensic investigation. . Spyreguy (talk) 17:09, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Forensic science gets published in quality peer-reviewed sources too. If/when it appears, that would be a useful source indeed. Tittle-tattle journalism, not so much. Alexbrn (talk) 17:38, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Unless there is a forensic investigation, there won’t ever be such a paper published in any peer reviewed source. In the meantime, USA Today and Politico are sufficient as reliable sources and their articles do not make any exceptional claims. Spyreguy (talk) 19:34, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

We have several scholarly peer-reviewed publications, so no need for weak journalistic sources. From them we know the lab origin idea is unfounded and/or conspiracism, pushed hard on the internet for ideological reasons. In any case, this article is meant to be about an institute so sources on that would be useful. There is a separate article for the "investigations". Alexbrn (talk) 20:29, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Also, WP:NORUSH applies. We can just wait until there is such a forensic investigation and report on it at that moment, instead of basing ourselves on speculations from the popular press. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:47, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Neither do I. Forget WP:RS (which are increasingly carrying the lab leak hypothesis[32] [33]), the WP:MEDRS by an Indonesian virologist used in the last paragraph isn't accurately used.Park3r (talk) 23:45, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

isn't accurately used You stopped talking just before the interesting part: the justification for that claim. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:31, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I addressed it previously, and it was wiped from the talk page. [34]Park3r (talk) 07:35, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

So, the justification for using a MEDRS source differently can be found somewhere in articles in the popular press, or somewhere in some open letter, or somewhere in some government publication. That is not very convincing. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:31, 1 April 2021 (UTC)I

No, there were two separate parts to the paragraph in that edit separated by the word "moreover". The second part of that paragraph was about the journal article. I specifically referred to the journal article above. Park3r (talk) 08:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

It is better to point to the exact item you are talking about, rather than sending people on a wild goose chase and pointing to an edit with two paragraphs which contains the item and lots of other stuff. In that spirit of clear communication, I will replace "MEDRS source" by "Hakim source" in the following.

So, the gist is that the Hakim source says "an independent forensic investigation is probably the only course of action to prove or disprove this speculation", and in your opinion, this means that the lab thing "cannot be ruled out without an independent forensic investigation."

And you believe for some reason that this contradicts the text in the article which is sourced to Hakim, the laboratory has been the focus of conspiracy theories and unfounded speculation about the origin of the virus in some way? But Hakim says, Despite these massive online speculations, scientific evidence does not support this accusation of laboratory release theory, which is similar enough, so I do not see the problem. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:30, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Park3r, you are misrepresenting reliable sources, which is unwise. The BBC actually said "...although a lab leak was the least likely cause, more research was needed", which is a far cry from an endorsement of a lab leak as an actually viable or likely theory, as your increasingly carrying the lab leak hypothesis line suggested. ValarianB (talk) 11:58, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

The citation doesn't support the text "undue speculation". Nonetheless, I have no further interest in pursing this. Cheers.Park3r (talk) 12:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 March 2021

At the end of the Covid-19 pandemic section:

"unfounded speculation" language is biased. Just "Speculation" is accurate and unbiased.

"confirming what experts already expected about the likely origins and early transmission."

At least two "experts" do not appear to be in agreement with that and the statement should be removed entirely as it is biased. Recent interviews supporting my statement are below.

Jamie Metzl -- former NSC official in the Clinton administration and member of a WHO advisory committee on genetic engineering - was interviewed by 60 minutes and raised questions about the WHO investigation stating the lab leak was unlikely. It was not at all comprehensive according to him, and a lab leak was not ruled. Additionally the former CDC director Dr. Robert Redfield also recently expressed his belief that the virus may be a lab leak in a CNN interview. 104.159.170.181 (talk) 03:16, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

We are not coddling with conspiracy theorists, "unfounded" is proper and supported by sources. ValarianB (talk) 03:22, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

This isn't a conspiracy theory, a conspiracy requires conspirators. What is being suggested is an accidental lab leak, something that has certainly happened at various labs in the past. Your comment is overly emotional and subjective Valarian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:a601:ac2c:8300:19cd:a151:554e:f28 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Be that as it may, "unfounded" is still proper and supported by sources, and we are still not coddling people spreading unfounded speculation. Come back when you have WP:MEDRS sources. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:34, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Not emotional in the slightest, Mr. Anonymous IP. One of the numerous unfounded, alleged conspiracy theories revolves around the cover-up of the supposed "accidental release". Things read on Parler and other places where such people congregate are not reliable sources. ValarianB (talk) 19:48, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

@ValarianB: This already been like argued some many different times; and POV pushers have been rebutted each time. So the best thing we can do is to correctly reject these contentious and incorrect requests and thereafter apply DFTT... Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:53, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian The Director-General of WHO has released a statement regarding the need for further investigation of the the possibility of a lab leak. It can be found on the WHO website. I believe it would meet WP:MEDSCI. 73.96.133.189 (talk) 16:51, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

The WHO director said it needed further investigation so they could get more robust conclusions; not to legitimise the theory. This article in Nature lays out this, from a source which is more reliable on scientific topics than usual popular press publications. Note also "The WHO report also concludes that it’s highly unlikely that the coronavirus escaped from a lab at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Most scientists say that evidence overwhelmingly favours SARS-CoV-2 having spilled over from animals into humans, but a few have backed the idea that the virus was intentionally or accidentally leaked from a lab." This places the lab leak idea squarely in the area of "minority opinion which would be unduly legitimised by being compared to the existing consensus." And all of this doesn't go here; anyway. WP:COATRACK - we can mention that the lab was subject to claims of conspiracy theories et al. without having to go into off-topic detail about that. As stated in that article; “The only evidence that people have for a lab leak is that there is a lab in Wuhan,” ... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:23, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

What a reader might ask

Do scientists mutate viruses in the lab? Would the government fund such research? Are the labs safe?

In 1986, the NIH funded the mutagenesis of the antigenic determinants of a human pathogen virus in a BSL-2 laboratory. Grants were funded and continued for many years:

https://grantome.com/grant/NIH/R01-AI022627-03

Fellow users, you can lookup such grants on https://grantome.com

Charles Juvon (talk) 11:16, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Please don't delete talk page comments - see history. This is intended to set up a lead sentence and to provide other resources for finding Wuhan publications and grants. Charles Juvon (talk) 14:53, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

What specific text are you proposing be added to the article. ValarianB (talk) 15:25, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

See WP:NOTFORUM - this is not related to this article: I was going to make an in-depth answer about this being COATRACK and being about a discredited conspiracy theory. But the grant is not even to this lab. So this has no bearing on this, except for a WP:OR argument. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:48, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I'll be able to answer your questions after I track some publications and grants. Charles Juvon (talk) 16:07, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

It was a very simple question, and the fact an answer is not forthcoming indicates it would have been better if you had that answer before creating this talk page discussion. In this premature state, what it appears to be is you setting up the question ("Do scientists mutate viruses in the lab? Would the government fund such research? Are the labs safe?"), followed by a link to where grants can be searched, and inviting the reader and editors to suppose something nefarious if there is an entry for the Wuhan lab and mutagenesis in the database. ValarianB (talk) 16:36, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

That implication is exactly the reason this is likely to bear no fruit whatsoever for this article (and hence why I had removed it under NOTFORUM), because the lab manipulation theory has been discredited explicitly by multiple MEDRS analysis, and further mention is unlikely to be anything but WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:52, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

This is an enormous amount of work, and I was hoping we could divide it up. For starters, the WayBackMachine has saved the WIV website: "1,902 times between October 7, 2009 and April 5, 2021." In addition, this would be my first big effort on WP, so please don't bite me.Charles Juvon (talk) 17:00, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not trying to bite, I'm just saying that details of individual grants are unlikely to be warranted here, and further details about conspiracy theories are likely to be WP:UNDUE here (i.e. we'd have a hard time fitting them without it going into too much detail and occupying a too large part of the article). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:03, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Juvon, this is what I was afraid of; what you're engaging in is original research. If an actual, reliable source has discussed the matter of grants and the lab and a possible link to something, that would be what would be usable in an article. You yourself deep-diving (or soliciting others to do so) into grantome.com looking for connections is not allowed here. ValarianB (talk) 17:09, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I will take your advice and no longer suggest that we work as a team. I will read up on OR and obey the rules. I am saddened to see the word "nefarious" when I am trying to be sincerely helpful. It's probably not everyday that you have a user that volunteers to work and can also tell the difference between BW, anti-BW, and medical research from running such labs (2/3). Charles Juvon (talk) 18:17, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

• Charles Juvon Don't take it personally....we've got some activists acting in bad faith by the looks of it. Sounds like an interesting and important project- one that you should absolutely look into if you've got the time and the skill! It's important to know as much as we can about the topic. Thank you for helping! CatDamon (talk) 00:46, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

  • WP:NOTAFORUM, WP:NPA, WP:Fringe - may want to read and stick to discussing article content rather than interjecting with bad faith comments. Slywriter (talk) 00:57, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

    • Given that comments continue, I will resign from Wikipedia. Charles Juvon (talk) 11:23, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
      • You do what's best for you, though I do wish to point out that my comment was not directed at you Slywriter (talk) 12:57, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

but WHO OWNS THE LAB?

this article talks around ownership but never addresses the subject and leaves the question unanswered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mother1ship (talk • contribs) 16:13, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@Mother1ship: According to Reuters, "is part of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) [...], which is in turn governed by the State Council of the People’s Republic of China", and also that "In 2019, a CAS member wrote an open letter maintaining that it was not run or financed independently from the Chinese government". So, basically, it's owned and operated by the Chinese state. -- The Anome (talk) 16:23, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

"Ownership" is a bourgeois concept, comrade. Alexbrn (talk) 17:27, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Gain of Function addition

If they participated with US Universities and Obama placed a moratorium in 2014, shouldn't this section be placed chronologically in the middle of history not tacked on the end? Slywriter (talk) 02:52, 28 April 2021 (UTC)