Jump to content

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 15 March 2024 by Novem Linguae (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)

No mention of the 2023 Department of Energy report /No longer fringe theory

[edit]

In 2023 the US Department of Energy concluded Covid 19 likely came from a lab in Wuhan. This means the lab leak theory is no longer a fringe theory, and in fact this report by the US DOE seems to be the most recent research of credibility that has been done on the virus' origin. The "consensus" that the virus came from a market comes from research that came out before DOE investigation. This isn't 100% confirmation of the veracity of the lab leak theory but this report should definitely be stated in the head of this article and mentioned further in the body and aspects of it being an unrespected theory should be reduced. SouthernResidentOrca (talk) 08:10, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is mentioned, and has been discussed at (extreme) length on this Talk page. Basically Wikipedia's not going to be over-emphasizing this, and what we have is about right. Bon courage (talk) 08:15, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You say "we" like there is some "Grand Council of Lab Leak Theory" that is in charge of the article. This is Wikipedia, everyone gets to input their opinion and consensus can change. The DOE study is in every way a reliable report and one of the most current bits of research that has been on the Virus' origin, and it absolutely deserves a mention in the head. Secondly it seems to me you need to slow your role in trying to control what goes into this topic. SouthernResidentOrca (talk) 08:32, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's less than a year since a ginormous RfC on exactly this.[5] and we have better sources now even than then. The WP:BESTSOURCES are describing LL as racism-fuelled political theatre contributing to the anti-science movement (mostly in the US). Wikipedia just has to follow such quality sources. Bon courage (talk) 08:40, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This has absolutely nothing to do with an anti-science movement. The United States Department of Energy has many of the most accomplished and well respected scientists in the world. Stop trying to drift away the topic into something it's not. This is simply about mentioning the DOE study in the heading and giving it more credence in the article which it absolutely should have. Again neutral point of view is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia, not one point of view. SouthernResidentOrca (talk) 08:50, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That was settled several months ago in an enormous RfC with 60 participating editors and 200 comments. Trying to re-litigate that, especially given the DOE source is now fading into the past, would probably count as WP:DE. You are aware this is a WP:CTOP. Bon courage (talk) 08:52, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The responsibilities under the DOE intelligence arm are related to nuclear power and the protection of US energy assets and information, not medical investigations. As Bon courage says, there was a massive discussion on the DOE report resulting in a clear cut conclusion. O3000, Ret. (talk) 10:58, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We do metion it, and we had an RFC on it. Slatersteven (talk) 11:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, where do we call it a fringe theory? Slatersteven (talk) 11:04, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This has been discussed before. USA nuclear scientists are not a very credible source on COVID-19 origins. We have other very credible sources that we can and do use instead. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:12, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the DOE does not only run only nuclear labs. The Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory is one of the DOE's national security laboratories with a significant focus on biosafety and biosecurity. The Los Alamos National Laboratory is another DOE lab involved in biosafety and biosecurity. In addition to the LLNL and LANL labs, there is also the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Oak Ridge National Laboratory and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, all of which are tasked with conducting biosciences research. The DOE is the most aptly qualified federal agency on Covid origins, as well Covid treatments. The DOE's supercomputing resources aided in vaccine development. 103.164.118.54 (talk) 11:45, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should probably put a link to this at the top of the article so the argument that DOE has no expertise stops being made. I think the reason the DOE opinion is not much discussed in the article is that, as multiple sources allude to, there is not a lot to say. We can speculate about what evidence they may have had, but other than that what is there to include beyond the content already in the article? fiveby(zero) 17:06, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DOE used to have some expertise in genomics. GenBank originated there, in 1982. Soon after the start of the Human Genome Project, GenBank went to the then pretty new NCBI. How many workers went along with the move, I don't know at all. After the atomic bombs in Japan, studies of the effects of radiation were done at the then AEC, which then later was renamed to DOE. It isn't that DOE has no expertise, but just not especially more than any other labs. Gah4 (talk) 16:08, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree that the failure to mention in the introduction the DoE position, or the FBI position - that Covid likely originated via a lab leak in Wuhan - is a major flaw in the page. The Introduction currently reads like the case for zoonosis, and is not an impartial of NPOV assessment of the current science on the subject - nor indeed where the science has been for the last 2 years at least. It should be fixed ASAP. Fig (talk) 15:13, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is because that is what most medical experts say. Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And we do mention it. Slatersteven (talk) 15:27, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please paste the text from the introduction where you think the DoE and FBI are mentioned. Are you looking at an old cached copy? I've triple-checked and it isn't in my copy. As for "The medical experts" - they have a range of views, and a fair number (still a minority, sure, but growing number) think lab-leak is most likely. In my experience an easy majority of scientists in the bio-sciences now consider lab-leak to be both possible and plausible, though by about 2:1 they still think zoonosis is most likely. Fig (talk) 15:55, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
United States Department of Energy is mentioned in one paragraph and two references. Seems enough for me. Gah4 (talk) 00:52, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The lede is only repeats important parts of our article (read wp:lede) it is not a newspaper-style leder. So we only put in it what the bulk of relevant experts say, not just the opinions of one or two US government agencies (who are not even the only government in the world, nor the only 2 intelligence agencies in the USA). No if you have a source that says most scientists do not think it was of a natural origin please produce it. Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've never said most scientists do not think it was of a natural origin - in fact I very clearly said the opposite. Please read more carefully in future. Fig (talk) 20:34, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But that is what we need to make the change, your wp:or of what you think scientists think is not enough, you need RS supporting your veiw. Slatersteven (talk) 20:39, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. And this sentence citing an unrelated article is misleading: "In the intelligence community, 'low confidence' means the information is sourced to low-quality or otherwise untrustworthy sources." The crucial fact, left out of this article, is that while the DOE considered the sources to be low confidence, they still concluded that a lab leak was the most likely cause. I guess the zoonotic theory had even lower quality sources. And obviously the reason the DOE's report is so significant vs. the scientific consensus is only the DOE has access to classified information. In fact, the report itself is classified. Fnordware (talk) 04:23, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the zoonotic theory had even lower quality sources You are assuming that the people in the DOE who wrote this are competent (for virology), honest, and have no ideology. But it is literally part of the government of a country, and as you say, uses classified information, refuting at least two of those properties. Science can never be based on classified information, and your assumption and conclusion are WP:OR. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:54, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever you think of the DOE and US government, surely their conclusions should be highlighted in the article. The article need not and should not state if the DOE's report is accurate, but should clearly describe its conclusion. Whether or not COVID came out of a lab is not a scientific question so much as a forensic one, so having access to whatever classified information is a big deal, making it more notable. Fnordware (talk) 21:42, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You were trying to insert your opinion ("I guess"). Do not pretend that I am the one who tried that. See WP:NOTBORNYESTERDAY. --Hob Gadling (talk) 01:00, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I never suggested that the article should speculate as to why to DOE thought a lab leak was more credible than zoonotic origin, although I did take the liberty to do so in my comment, yes. Fnordware (talk) 18:51, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
sounds like a few editors here think the prior RFC results aren't reflective of their view of the material. But I have yet to see a substantial secondary source presented which corroborates this viewpoint. WIthout substantial sourcing showing that the view of the experts has actually changed, this is just more of the same original research/editor opinion. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 00:49, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quite so, and more recently the highest quality sources are unequivocal. doi:10.1016/j.lanmic.2024.07.016 for example calls LL "simply wrong". There was an extensive RfC on how to deal with US intelligence material and the article duly reflects that. That material is even less relevant now than when that RfC was held. As ever, Wikipedia leans on the WP:BESTSOURCES and if those don't support editors' favoured views it's not a problem Wikipedia can fix. Bon courage (talk) 05:44, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Lancet is not a dispassionate observer on this issue - it is itself the prime origin of the narrative that the lab leak theory is a "conspiracy theory", and under controversial editor Richard Horton has spent an extraordinary amount of time promoting that amount with the views and output of a Wuhan lab funder, Peter Daszak (e.g: https://www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n1656 ).
The incredibly dismissive, and frankly rather childish language in that most recent - and notably anonymous - opinion slot is un-scientific and contrasts very strongly with more mature and measured opinion pieces in other leading medical journals. Fig (talk) 07:39, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of conspiracist musing there, but The Lancet Microbe is not the same as The Lancet and has different editors in any case. If you want further up-to-date science maybe check-out PMID:39087765. In short LL has become part of an anti-science agenda tangled up with politics, nationalism and racism. Wikipedia will be reflecting that reality, based on the WP:BESTSOURCES. Bon courage (talk) 07:49, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen that sort of logic before: "this is not a reliable source for contradicting my opinion because they have contradicted my opinion". Still funny even if I have heard it dozens of times. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:57, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We had an RFC on it and the consensus was that it would be undue to include in the lead. TarnishedPathtalk 06:02, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New SBM source

[edit]

A useful up-to-date overview of the state of things. From this, we are fast approaching (maybe past?) the point where this article needs to be renamed "COVID-19 lab leak conspiracy theory". Bon courage (talk) 18:49, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beating a dead horse. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:55, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed it does, but it's probably Wikipedia's duty to report that the horse is dead. For NPOV. Bon courage (talk) 19:00, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thats not what I mean't. You are beating a dead horse. This section should not have been opened, especially based on an editorial. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:03, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In fact a WP:GREL source, especially for fringe topics such as this. See WP:SBM. Wikipedia moves on when the sourcing moves on. Dead horses don't move on. Bon courage (talk) 19:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What does that have to do with it being an editorial? Its clearly written as opinion, yes its expert opinion but its making no attempt at impartiality its arguing a POV (sceptical movement). The horse is dead, you are welcome to continue the beating. I will be elsewhere doing something constructive. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:14, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You've made this mistake before, and been corrected. If you want to overturn the community consensus on what a reliable source is for scientific knowledge, you'll need to attempt it elsewhere. Bon courage (talk) 19:17, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not civil or collegial to make overly personal comments after an editor has said they are leaving a discussion to force them to continue to comment. Good day. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:18, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why shouldn't this section have been opened? Points to "The harms of promoting the lab leak hypothesis for SARS-CoV-2 origins without evidence" in first paragraph, already looks very useful. We can beat up on BC when he cites Gorski in preference to our 40 authors in Journal of Virology. fiveby(zero) 20:17, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unless I am missing something "The harms of promoting the lab leak hypothesis for SARS-CoV-2 origins without evidence" is also commentary. That is besides the point that they don't actually seem to call it a conspiracy theory, the call it the "lab leak theory" or "lab leak hypothesis" so while we could cite Gorski for that we can't cite "our 40 authors in Journal of Virology" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:21, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You seemingly think everything is commentary opinion and nothing is knowledge (even opioids causing constipation IIRC). It's a bizarre, wrong view which is of no use to us here. I suggest it's ignored and we stick to the WP:PAGs. We should certainly cite "our 40 authors in Journal of Virology" - I opened a section on just that source above. Bon courage (talk) 20:49, 9 August 2024 (UTC); change 02:55, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its published in the commentary section... Its labeled commentary... The four sections of the piece are "abstract," "commentary," "acknowledgments," and "references." The section above is called "New Journal of Virology commentary" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:46, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I mean 'opinion' not 'commentary' per youc comments before.[6] The crucial thing is NPOV applies: these secondary sources by experts on a topic a rich sources of knowledge which needs to be asserted if it's not seriously contested (these pieces will contain some opinion too). The non-need to attribute SBM, in general, has already been discussed on this very Talk page. Bon courage (talk) 02:55, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thats not in NPOV... And these are not secondary sources for wikipedia purposes... NPOV builds on V, and V has WP:RSEDITORIAL... Which says "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:41, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If if were true this entire article and most of Wikipedia would need to be re-written. You say it's not NPOV but in fact YESPOV requires: "Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of verifiability. Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested". In academic publishing editorials are often a rich source of knowledge which Wikipedia must assert (and probably some opinion too!). NPOV is not negotiable. WP:RSEDITORIAL is for the material from news organizations, so irrelevant here. Newspaper editorials and scholarly publishing editorials are rather different things. Bon courage (talk) 04:10, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to propose a re-write of V you can, but not here. SBM is a news organization, not a scholarly publishing house and we treat opinion pieces in scientific journals the same as news ones. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 11:05, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Err, it's not a "news organization" and the community has already considered it many times: see WP:SBM. Scientific journals seldom have 'opinion pieces', their commentaries and editorials are often golden secondary sources packed with knowledge we can (and do) happily assert - just as with WP:SBM. You've been told this before[7] but somehow keep popping up to bludgeon discussions with the same fundamentally mistaken understanding of NPOV and source types. As was said (not by me): "Gorski is not an opinion piece, and is WP:GREL. This is clearly supported by WP:RSPSOURCES and the RSN discussions it links". Bon courage (talk) 11:48, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Commentaries and editorials are types of opinion piece. If its not a journal and its not a scientific news organization, what is it? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 12:42, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a society's publication online (the New England Skeptical Society to be precise, a rational-scientific organization). Society publications are common in academia, in the olden days they were often journals.
Commentaries and editorials can have an opinion element, but often contain analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas – which make them secondary sources. Bon courage (talk) 12:53, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The New England Skeptical Society is not an academic or professional society, unless I'm missing something it is not within academia. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:03, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a "news organisation". Whether it's "in academia" is an academic question. For our purposes we know it's WP:GREL and that's what matters for the purposes of writing encyclopedic content. Bon courage (talk) 13:09, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and we know how to handle editorials in GREL sources. The only one arguing against how we do things is you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:12, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By directly asserting anything that's not seriously contested, as NPOV requires. We do it here, we do it throughout Wikipedia. You keep bludgeoning Talk pages with your odd views but it seems you never actually edit articles to follow through with article edits to match. This means the only effect of these arguments is to clog up the Talk page, as here. Forgive me if I now ignore. Bon courage (talk) 13:17, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again this level of personalization is neither civil or collegial. Even on the personal level I have a slighly higher percentage of mainspace edits than you do (and we have roughly the same amount of total edits) and when it comes to actual article creations I have almost an order of magnitude more than you do so your blanket criticism of my editing practices is unfounded. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:36, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Scientific journals seldom have 'opinion pieces', their commentaries and editorials are often golden secondary sources packed with knowledge → this is patently false. Commentaries and editorials are not of the same quality as peer reviewed research, and should be not be treated as such. 103.164.118.54 (talk) 11:50, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, Wikipedia doesn't cite "research" but uses WP:SECONDARY sources, especially for sci/med. A random example of a good editorial would be something like this[8] for a roundup on Dengue fever. If in doubt check at WT:MED where tis is raised from time-to-time. Bon courage (talk) 12:15, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That source, like the drivel from Gorski that you cited above, is an editorial and has limitations on its use. We cannot use an editorial to support your POV that the lab leak theory is a racist conspiracy theory when we have much more qualified experts and organisations who say otherwise. 203.176.178.251 (talk) 12:21, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the sourcing aligns more on saying it is/was fuelled by racism and xenophobia (both anti-Chinese and anti-American depending on which flavour of conspiracy you pick). This is somewhat covered in the article already. There is actually quite a bit of actual research on this topic too, for example doi:10.1177/21533687221125818. Bon courage (talk) 12:30, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And again the ASM piece does not support "this article needs to be renamed "COVID-19 lab leak conspiracy theory"" so not sure why we're quibbling. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 11:07, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SBM does refer to the "scientific hypothesis turned conspiracy theory known as lab leak". Bon courage (talk) 11:51, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So you wish to cite Gorski in preference to our 40 authors in Journal of Virology? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 12:42, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, but maybe alongside. Bon courage (talk) 12:45, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But they don't support the assertion that "this article needs to be renamed "COVID-19 lab leak conspiracy theory"" so how can they be cited alongside Gorski to support that? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 12:47, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They don't directly comment on whether the hypothesis is a conspiracy theory or not. For that, we need sources that consider that aspect of things. The point is, the sourcing is shifting and while there is moratorium on page move requests (i.e. renaming) unit 5 March 2024, it is only something that can be noted and not actioned. Let's see where we end up next Spring! Bon courage (talk) 12:55, 10 August 2024 (UTC); 13:21, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then using them alongside would be a WP:SYNTH issue. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:03, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only if something is synthesized. SBM expands upon (not contradicts) the other sources it cites, and Wikipedia can follow .... Bon courage (talk) 13:06, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Citing both a source and one which explains it for the same bit of info which can not be independently verified from the first source would be synth, in that situation you could only cite the second source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:09, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All SBM articles, except the satirical ones, are pretty much the same. There is no distinction "this is an editorial or commentary, and this is not". Therefore, the WP:SBM decision applies to this article, and this discussion is unnecessary. SBM is a good source, period. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:28, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is the distinction they make for the satirical ones? I've never seen a satire section on the site. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:49, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[9] --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:48, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fascinating... So they do actually have a satire category[10], they just don't put the vast majority of the satire in it. Are you aware that they have a commentary category[11] in which they don't put the vast majority of their commentary? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:55, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will not use this page as a forum. If you think SBM is not reliable, this is the wrong page. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:43, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What makes you think this is an Editorial HEB? All I see is fact based reporting on a recently published expert position statement from many multiple virologists. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 00:54, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect to call lab leak theory a claim

[edit]

The second sentence of the article states that the lab leak theory is a controversial claim. There is no basis for calling the lab leak theory a claim and therefore this sentence needs to be struck. The claim description is in direct contradiction with the first sentence that describes the lab leak theory as a hypothesis or theory. The hypothesis or theory position is not controversial and is backed up with evidence. The second sentence reads as a subtle rhetorical device by inserting the word claim since claim can be paired with the word controversial whereas theory or hypothesis cannot. Since the position that the lab leak theory is a claim is not supported with evidence and the phrase “claim is controversial” reads as rhetorical slight-of-hand, this sentence needs to be deleted. 2603:6011:1C00:C14:42B:C74C:7EE0:D122 (talk) 23:15, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. From the first ref, PMID:38603006 (my underlining):

Individuals may learn about the origins of COVID-19 through exposure to stories that communicate either what most scientists believe (i.e., zoonotic transmission) or through exposure to conspiratorial claims (e.g., the virus was created in a research laboratory in China).

Perhaps Wikipedia should be calling them "conspiratorial claims" too, to cleave to the source better? Bon courage (talk) 01:46, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How individuals learn about this subject is off topic to the article. Article is about the lab leak theory, not whether conspiracy theories are controversial. When smart people read this article the credibility is reduced since the subtle slide from "theory" in the first sentence to "claim" in the second sentence appears as a device to add the word "controversial" which the theory is not. 2603:6011:1C00:C14:A079:D510:B5BC:DEB1 (talk) 12:28, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But some parts of it are, which is what we say. Slatersteven (talk) 12:33, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly was a controversial claim, as per the then president's repeated use of anti-Chinese rhetoric (such as "Kung flu") and claims he had docs supporting the origin from a Chinese lab. This resulted in violence against Asians. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:40, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And is the Chinese version (i.e. that American agents came over with SARS-CoV2 to release it during the Military Games) non-controversial? Incidentally, this article really needs more coverage of the Chinese version of this "theory". Bon courage (talk) 12:55, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Surely. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:12, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They infiltrated the Wuhan lab and released it on purpose? Senorangel (talk) 04:08, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, a lab is the epicentre in the Western LL mythos; in the Chinese mythos "the virus could have been deliberately engineered in the United States and released as an act of sabotage by an American undercover agent during the military games". Science places the epicentre at the wet market. PMID:37697176 Bon courage (talk) 05:12, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article is about the theory, not the claim. 2603:6011:1C00:C14:A079:D510:B5BC:DEB1 (talk) 15:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is semantics. Slatersteven (talk) 15:40, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a big difference between "claim" and "theory". Claim is off topic. 2603:6011:1C00:C14:A079:D510:B5BC:DEB1 (talk) 15:43, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there, is not a theory just a claim someone has made? Slatersteven (talk) 15:49, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is a theory that some have claimed to be a fact as opposed to theoretical. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:04, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistent use of the term "evidence" for each theory.

[edit]

The article claims "There is no evidence SARS-CoV-2 existed in any laboratory prior to the pandemic" but at the same time: "Available evidence suggests that the SARS-CoV-2 virus was originally harbored by bats, and spread to humans from infected wild animals". This seems completely and obviously inconsistent. Sure no database has ever shown a SARS2 existing in a lab prior to the pandemic - although given that nobody has actually looked that's not really saying a lot. But likewise no animal has ever tested positive for SARS2 prior to human transmission either. Overall there is no hard evidence for either theory, but considerably more circumstantial evidence for a lab leak scenario. 185.15.66.47 (talk) 00:47, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not claiming no one has ever worked on related research, only that there is no evidence of an actual copy of the virus in the possession of any lab before the pandemic. Senorangel (talk) 04:08, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or of a plausible ancestor virus. Bon courage (talk) 05:06, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And there is no evidence of SAR2 being in any animals before the pandemic either. So why do we have "Available evidence suggests that the SARS-CoV-2 virus was originally harbored by bats, and spread to humans from infected wild animals". There's as much evidence that it was in a lab as there is for that. 185.15.66.47 (talk) 09:39, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So why do we have "Available evidence suggests that the SARS-CoV-2 virus was originally harbored by bats, and spread to humans from infected wild animals" Because that's what the studies say, as cited in the article. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:30, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This should be changed to "studies suggest" rather than "available evidence suggests" then. As there is significantly more evidence for a lab leak than zoonosis. 185.15.66.47 (talk) 12:08, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Follow the sources. By them there is no evidence for LL (either in a Chinese or American lab), but abundant evidence for zoonotic origin at the Wuhan wet market. Bon courage (talk) 12:13, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's objectively and obviously incorrect though isn't it? This page wouldn't exist if there was no evidence at all for a lab leak. The FBI wouldn't conclude a lab leak is more probable if there was no evidence for it. There is at least some evidence for both theories. 185.15.66.47 (talk) 12:43, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes some, some is not most. Slatersteven (talk) 12:45, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like an odd argument. Wikipedia has articles for many things which have no evidence, like time cube, phantom time hypothesis, and chemtrails. And so here. See for example PMID:3358630, which is cited:

Despite these massive online speculations, scientific evidence does not support this accusation of laboratory release theory.

Speculation on social media does not count as "scientific evidence", as this source delineates. Bon courage (talk) 12:53, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Cell paper

[edit]

The new Cell study [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] definitively proves COVID-19 originated from wildlife, via raccoon dogs at the Wuhan market, and exposes the lab leak theory as a racist conspiracy aimed at blaming the scientific community, scaremongering about gain of function research and vilifying Chinese people. The evidence is conclusive, and it’s essential we update this article now to reflect this consensus and eliminate any mention of lab leak claims as serious science. There are a lot of papers in the top science journals dispelling the myth that this virus 'leaked' from a lab GoF experiment via an infected lab worker. It's molecularly impossible. 103.120.115.2 (talk) 12:43, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it "definitively proves" it, but it moves the science closer to certainty. The thing is though, this new research is really about the (actual) origin of SCV2, and does not bother with any nonsense about lab leaks. We'd really need some decent secondary source (i.e. not just news) making the connection for it to be worth mentioning here. Bon courage (talk) 12:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, this looks like synthesis, we can't say it has been proven until RS say so. Slatersteven (talk) 13:08, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed if it did say "proved", we would immediately have to tag it as pseudoscience. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:48, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No it's just the latest red herring pumped out to keep everyone's scent off the trail. The lab leak is all but proven. Scientists initial reaction to COVID was the Furin Cleavage Site looked inserted. And since then we've learned that Ecohealth Alliance had an interest in inserting cleavage sites into Coronaviruses.
That likelihood that that is a coincidence is very close to zero. 212.58.121.54 (talk) 17:47, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your belief is bolstered by rumours spread by conspiracy theorists, but it is still a belief. Wikipedia prefers reliable sources instead. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:59, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a belief. We have factual and reliable reliable FOI'd sources showing scientists initial reaction to the sequence...
"I really can’t think of a plausible natural scenario where you get from the bat virus or one very similar to it to nCoV where you insert exactly 4 amino acids 12 nucleotide that all have to be added at the exact same time to gain this function—that and you don’t change any other amino acid in S2? I just can’t figure out how this gets accomplished in nature."
The DEFUSE proposal was a factual and reliable source...
"We will analyze all SARSr-CoV S gene sequences for appropriately conserved proteolytic cleavage sites in S2 and for the presence of potential furin cleavage sites’””°. SARSrCoV S with mismatches in proteolytic cleavage sites can be activated by exogenous trypsin or cathepsin L. Where clear mismatches occur, we will introduce appropriate human-specific cleavage sites and evaluate growth potential in Vero cells and HAE cultures."
It doesn't take much theorising to put those 2 things together. This is damning evidence supporting the lab leak and should be highlighted in the article. 212.58.121.54 (talk) 20:27, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"doesn't take much theorising" ← just the classic conspiracy theorising that multiple sources detail. Scientists considered LL; scientists changed their mind in the light of evidence; science moves on. Wikipedia reflects that as relayed in the best quality sources. Meanwhile both the US and Chinese versions of LL have become calcified into the racist/conspiracists tropes among the believers in their respective nations. We reflect what sources say about that too. Bon courage (talk) 20:32, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No they didn't change their mind in light of evidence. They have offered no plausible reason for changing their mind so dramatically. 212.58.121.54 (talk) 21:42, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any point to this? There are plenty of reliable sources setting out what happened and Wikipedia relays them. This is WP:NOTAFORUM for airing conspiracy theories. Bon courage (talk) 21:44, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My point was here in case you missed it... "This is damning evidence supporting the lab leak and should be highlighted in the article" 212.58.121.54 (talk) 10:55, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's just LL conspiracist lore, unless of course you have some good RS (of equivalent quality to the sources we already use) stating otherwise. Scientists make mistakes and change their minds all the time. It's called science. For LL however, in contrast ...

While the proposed scenarios are theoretically subject to evidence-based investigation, it is not clear that any can be sufficiently falsified to placate lab leak supporters, and they are fed by pseudoscientific and conspiratorial thinking.

We make this point already. Bon courage (talk) 11:09, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again in what way is a FOI release lacking in quality? 212.58.121.54 (talk) 19:01, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I struggle to understand how the theory that a virus leaking from a lab specializing in gain of function virus research with international government funding is somehow more racist and vilifying of the people of China than the theory that it leaked out of a filthy wet market selling all variety of esoteric wild animal meats. "Chinese people spread the virus because they eat raccoons and bats" is perfectly acceptable for polite society but "Transnational conglomerates were not transparent about the research they were funding" is a racist attack on the Han people? I'm not even trying to relitigate the page's claims against the theory, I'm just dubious of how the race angle is being leveraged, especially considering the fact that the Western notion of the Chinese eating dogs et. al has always been commonly understood as "racist stereotypes 101". 2601:246:4A80:FE0:BC75:12E7:5EF6:3BC7 (talk) 04:58, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia reflects reliable sources, and this is WP:NOTAFORUM. Bon courage (talk) 06:46, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand this and appreciate the immediate edit ban, but reliable sources are privileged in cases of reporting material fact, not opinions or moralizing:
such narratives were often supported using "racist tropes that suggest that epidemiological, genetic, or other scientific data had been purposefully withheld or altered to obscure the origin of the virus".[19] David Gorski refers to "the blatant anti-Chinese racism and xenophobia behind lab leak, whose proponents often ascribe a nefarious coverup to the Chinese government".[23] The use of xenophobic rhetoric also caused a rise in anti-Chinese sentiment.
The wiki page simply parrots this as definitive reality, but how is this a remotely logical conclusion? How is it racist to suggest that a government altered scientific data? Is scientific integrity an inherent ethnic/cultural trait of the Chinese? Both of these sources, Gorkin and Garry, are biologists -- not journalists or post-structural theorists. There is no reason to include these assertions except as a way to characterize calls for government transparency (both US AND China) as villainous based on fallatious personal opinions. If we must keep it, at the very least give some form of qualifying statement: "Some media outlets/biologists have characterized the claim as ____". This is a clear case of non-NPOV. 50.249.232.209 (talk) 20:10, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory&oldid=1248308231"