Talk:Origin of SARS-CoV-2

Topic code	Area of conflict	Decision linked to
{{Origin of SARS-CoV-2|topic=aa}}	politics, ethnic relations, and conflicts involving Armenia, Azerbaijan, or both	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Armenia and Azerbaijan
{{Origin of SARS-CoV-2|topic=crypto}}	blockchain and cryptocurrencies	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Blockchain and cryptocurrencies
{{Origin of SARS-CoV-2|topic=kurd}}	Kurds and Kurdistan	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Kurds and Kurdistan
{{Origin of SARS-CoV-2|topic=mj}}	Michael Jackson	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Michael Jackson
{{Origin of SARS-CoV-2|topic=pw}}	professional wrestling	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Professional wrestling
{{Origin of SARS-CoV-2|topic=rusukr}}	the Russo-Ukrainian War	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Russo-Ukrainian War
{{Origin of SARS-CoV-2|topic=sasg}}	South Asian social groups	Wikipedia:General sanctions/South Asian social groups
{{Origin of SARS-CoV-2|topic=syria}}	the Syrian Civil War and ISIL	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
{{Origin of SARS-CoV-2|topic=uku}}	measurement units in the United Kingdom	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Units in the United Kingdom
{{Origin of SARS-CoV-2|topic=uyghur}}	Uyghurs, Uyghur genocide, or topics that are related to Uyghurs or Uyghur genocide	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Uyghurs

Wuhan lab leak section

I don't think this section belongs in the article. Right now, the article describes:

1. investigations and findings by scientists,
2. investigations and findings by the WHO,
3. investigations or calls for investigations by governments / other bodies, and
4. the Wuhan lab leak idea.

I moved the Wuhan lab section to the end of the article because one specific type of pseudoscience doesn't belong in the middle of the article. But I have to recognize that no matter where I put the section, it sticks out as incongruous. We should remove it. -Darouet (talk) 15:38, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I added it because there have been serious investigations into a lab leak origin of COVID-19. When the WHO and the US intelligence community are doing years of research into the idea, it is a topic that must be discussed. Coverage of pure speculation should remain in the COVID-19 misinformation, I agree. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 15:42, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

User:力, the problem is that the addition privileges an idea that most biological scientists consider pseudoscience above others. Within the universe of highly likely scenarios describing the origins of the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak, there are dozens of scenarios that could get their own specific section, but we haven't produced those. Similarly, among the universe of "extremely unlikely" scenarios, there are others beyond "lab leak" that could get their own section. I do understand that in the popular media, lab leak is discussed a lot, but among most scientists, it's considered a FRINGE idea. -Darouet (talk) 15:57, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

The US government is investigating it and has said that it is a possibility, David Baltimore, a virologist and Nobel Laureaute recently said that there are some features in the virus that challenge the idea of a natural origin for the virus, the market origin theory has been shown to be untrue, many virologists have said that the theory is plausible. Calling it pseudoscience is strange when even the WHO has launched (albeit very flawed) inquiries into it. -Solid Reign (talk) 13:18, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

{{citation needed}}. What exactly is the psuedoscience here? What are these "dozens" of scenarios? Apart from "came from a bat, probably through some other species", can you provide 2 other scenarios? User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 16:03, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

As in, something close to the original strain evolved in one of many SE Asian bat subpopulations, did or didn't passage through domesticated or semi-domesticated animals of many possible varieties, crossed over into humans in one of innumerable villages, the first person (or people) exposed were farmers/hunters/traders/miners/etc, the route of the virus to a larger city center occurred through trade/work/school, a given number of clusters formed before one was detected at the market in Wuhan... multiplying those possibilities together and you get a sense of the origin mechanisms and scenarios that scientists consider likely. -Darouet (talk) 16:54, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps the section should be titled "Investigations into potential Wuhan lab leak"? User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 16:28, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Whatever we do, it's a complete mess in the current state. It's mostly repeating information which was presented above (in multiple paragraphs). It's calling it a conspiracy theory, but only explicitly discusses the scientific hypothesis the WHO evaluated, and not the conspiracies of a bioweapon. I'm going to be bold and nuke it (WP:BRD), if there's information that isn't duplicated in the other sections of the articles, feel free to add it back there. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:30, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't disagree that it's a mess, but we absolutely must describe what the "lab leak theory" is at some point in the article, we cannot just say it is false/misinformation. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:34, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

We do discuss it, and not as misinformation. So propose or add text in one (or more) of the current sections it's already discussed: the lede, Reservoir and zoonotic origin, World Health Organization investigations, The Lancet COVID-19 Commission task force, and/or Investigations by governments. The WHO section seems like a good starting point. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:42, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I'll add that other users removed the majority of your originally proposed text for various reasons, which left the section in the state that it was unnecessary. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:44, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: Looking for comment on your revert. I envisioned my removal as the Revert of WP:BRD with @力: having made the bold edit. I'd rather see us move any missing info (that isn't conspiracy, which belongs elsewhere) into the above sections, instead of just restoring the section which has major problems (see above). Bakkster Man (talk) 18:31, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

My opinions - this article is about the investigations, not the conspiracies - the investigations have certainly happened and are continuing, and thus it shouldn't be labeled a "conspiracy theory" in the heading. It should be labeled a "hypothesis" because it is a validly crafted hypothesis - even if exceedingly unlikely. This article should cover the different investigations that have been done as well as the results they've had - increasing level of unlikelihood. This article should not repeat what's in COVID-19 misinformation about those who are "hyperbolizing" the hypothesis into more than it is. I do not think it is a good idea to separate by WHO/not-WHO investigations - a chronological timeline is likely to be better. I think Power's suggestion for titles/information are all appropriate and should be considered. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 18:34, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

We should mention the relationship between misinformation and investigation where RS does. The wholesale removal of the section with a false edit summary was not helpful. Alexbrn (talk) 18:41, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

While consensus may differ, I disagree that a full revert is necessarily unhelpful. Often reworking from the start is more effective than trying to make small revisions on something that needs a lot of work. I'd also point out that while my edit comment may have been in error stating it was entirely duplicate info, I did point editors to this talk section where I was able to explain in greater detail. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:58, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

My position is that some article, somewhere on the project, needs a stand-alone section on legitimate scientific inquiries into the hypothesis that COVID originated from a lab leak. There is certainly information to add; I don't see any discussion of the claims that the initial low mutation rate suggests a lab origin (I would want better sourcing than [1] for an article, but it's good enough for a talk page). Have other scientists dismissed that argument for legitimate reasons? Then we should say so. At COVID-19 misinformation, editors have suggested that legitimate scientific inquiries should be discussed elsewhere. I have no strong preference for it being in this article as opposed to some other one (or a stand-alone article). User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:47, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:NOPAGE certain topics, even if notable, are better encompassed in articles of wider scope. Per WP:GEVAL we wouldn't really want to be giving a fringe notion like the "lab leak" a space where it was presented without proper rational context describing how fringe it is, according to decent RS. Alexbrn (talk) 18:51, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Do you have a proposed use case for how a wikilink to a specific section on the topic would be used? That would help me to understand why you feel it was important to include under a standalone heading. I'd suggest that if we did this, a good path to go down would be to include all four WHO-referenced hypotheses (direct zoonosis, zoonosis via intermediary, cold/food chain, and lab leak) in order of evaluated likelihood, rather than only one section for this explanation. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:58, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Dunno. If we want a whole section about the narrative that the virus came from Fort Detrick, or the WIV, or wherever (i.e. the "lab leak hypothesis"), we'd need decent sources on that, and to give a mainstream context that this is likely nonsense, per WP:GEVAL. Alexbrn (talk) 19:06, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I obviously don't want the conspiracies, those belong on the Misinformation article. I think the root information that would be valuable is to explain what is meant by scientists when they evaluate the possibility of a lab leak (ie. gathered from bats, possible gain of function for study, accidental exposure/release). This is probably the article to do that in a DUE manner, as well as for the other potential scenarios (the 'cold/food chain' is unintuitive to the average reader, for instance).

Sounds WP:EXCEPTIONAL. You sources would be ... ? Alexbrn (talk) 19:31, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm referring to something like what is found in the Joint WHO-China report section, under the Explanation of Hypothesis section for each hypothesis.

Introduction through the cold/food chain hypothesis: Food-chain transmission can reflect direct zoonotic transmission, or spillover through an intermediate host. Meanwhile cold chain products may be a vehicle of transmission between humans. This would also refer to food-contamination events in addition to introductions. The focus of this paragraph is on cold/food chain products and their containers as potential route of introduction of SARS-CoV-2. Here, it is important to distinguish between contamination of cold chain products leading to secondary outbreaks in 2020 and the potential for cold chain acting as the entry pathway for the origin of the pandemic in 2019.

Introduction through a laboratory incident 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).

Obviously all needs to be run through DUE and such, but I'm only recommending a summary description of how our cited sources are characterizing the scenarios we're discussing. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:47, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Can't see there's anything substantive there that's not covered. You are of course equally keen for the frozen food narrative - to which the WHO commits more words - to be expanded upon? Alexbrn (talk) 19:53, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you seem to be implying I'm "keen" for any of the hypotheses. I referenced these two because, of the WHO-evaluated hypotheses, they're the least intuitive and thus an explanation on the page would most improve comprehension. I think we both agree that the WHO-evaluated hypothesis is the only one to consider on this page (not the conspiracies), and that the hypothesis is extremely unlikely. It makes sense to me to explain the distinction between the theories considered "unlikely but plausible subjects of legitimate scientific consideration" and "bogus politically motivated conspiracies". Bakkster Man (talk) 20:03, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I fully support Bakkster Man's proposal here. I would like to know more myself about the "frozen food" theory, and having two "other theories considered but rejected" should minimize the implication that we are unduly promoting the lab leak theory. The argument that there may be a shortage of space is ridiculous; you have seen how many articles we have on cricketers, right? User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:16, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Don't read my above comments as complete agreement with subsections. My actual preference is for any necessary explanation of the referenced hypotheses to happen without a subsection. Bakkster Man (talk) 21:00, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

The only part of a "frozen food" section I felt qualified to write was the header, so I did that. I have not read the 2021 WHO report yet. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 21:08, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to understand your reason for subsections first, as I asked above, before I add content to a subsection I don't think should exist. Bakkster Man (talk) 21:26, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Hey User:力, I'm sympathetic to the idea of creating a separate article, but in all likelihood, it will become a dumping ground for all the popular press articles that scientists here at Wikipedia are currently keeping out of articles on COVID-19. There's been discussion on twitter about finding a space on Wikipedia to let this happen - and originally, this article was written as just such a space. -Darouet (talk) 22:33, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Sigh. I'm reverting User:RandomCanadian here in a minute because this shouldn't be controversial. This is an article about investigations. Are people seriously denying that the lab leak has been investigated and saying that it's undue to discuss those investigations here? Obviously the discussion of those investigations shouldn't imply that they were ever considered likely, but this article does need to discuss them and the work power~enwiki is doing is a clear improvement. This is due for this article - obviously investigations, especially those which get a lot of popular news, are due for an article about investigations. And yes, each independent "course of investigation" should be given its own section - there is more than enough reliably sourced information out there about the investigation into the lab leak itself to craft a section describing it. FRINGE/pseudoscience (which don't apply to the investigations, but anyway) don't tell us "never mention them" - they say to not give them credibility - which discussing the investigations doesn't do. In fact, a clear section about the investigations and how they reached the "extremely unlikely" outcomes will actually help us comply with those policies by explaining the reasoning behind and the investigations that have been done. I recommend people stop trying to halt changes and let power, who from what I can see is an uninvolved party, work on this for a while and discuss with them here before just reverting them outright with no comment on the talk page to explain why. Pinging power so they know I commented here. Nothing power edited gives any more credence to the theory than this article did before, and their edits expanded the encyclopedic information about the investigations - and were perfectly fine. Any specific problems with specific edits should be discussed with power here before unilaterally reverting and not saying anything. There's enough disruption and lack of collegiality from new/POV-pushing editors here - let's please not increase the disruption/"fighting" by reverting things before discussion when they aren't egregiously problematic. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:36, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

The information as reported by WP:RS should be incorporated into the article, but the appropriate place to do that is within existing sections not as a massive stand-alone section which is way beyond WP:DUEWEIGHT. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:46, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I've reverted again per WP:BRD - you attempted an edit, it's been reverted, now is the time to discuss. I agree with Horse Eye that a separate section for everyone's favourite (the irony must be obvious, but in any case, since this is the internet) fringe theory would be UNDUE. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:52, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

This isn't about the theory - so good try. This is about the investigations of that theory - investigations are notable, are due, and are not "fringe" as they are simply historical events. Maybe you should read power's edit again - they added nothing about the "theory" but added encyclopedic information about the investigations. Sections help readability - it is much better to have a section with 4-5 paragraphs describing these investigations (which can easily be written and due given how many investigations both WHO and otherwise there have been) than it is to attempt to shove it into another section that already has 4+ paragraphs. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:03, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

UNDUE also comes into play as to "how much weight do we need to give to topics closely related to a fringe hypothesis"? We don't need to go into exruciating details about the investigations into the fringe theory. If the change had only been adding a section header, that wouldn't have been problematic. If you want to propose a section on the topic, feel free to do so and add one here on the talk page up for discussion and wait until there is some form of consensus for it before adding it to the article - that is what WP:BRD means. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:06, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Until the intermediary host or original bat population is found, it's completely asinine to label the lab theory a fringe hypothesis. The circumstantial evidence is pretty staggering. --Edit0r6781 (talk) 07:10, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

First of all, there's no consensus that it's "fringe" - just that it's not the scientific consensus as to the "most likely" at this time. Furthermore, even if there were, FRINGE applies specifically to the theories/hypothesis - you'll note we have an entire article on vaccines and autism for example, even though that's a fringe theory. That article discusses the investigations, and the evidence, and also provides a "here's what they say and why it's wrong" overview. So no, FRINGE does not apply to information about a fringe theory, it applies to claiming the theory itself is valid. There's certainly many FRINGE theories that have gotten so much mainstream attention - not necessarily belief/credibility, but attention - to merit full articles, or at a minimum sections in another article. So yes, I'll propose that below because your reading of FRINGE and DUE seems to be very out of touch with what its goal actually is - which isn't to prevent discussion of a fringe theory at all, it's to prevent it from being placed/discussed in a way that gives it credibility. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:13, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

While I disagree a bit on the minutiae about FRINGE (I'd say between WHO and others conclusions on the likelihood makes the opinion that the lab origin was 'more likely than not' is the minority), I agree completely that FRINGE is about portrayal relative to the mainstream, not complete abolition. Bakkster Man (talk) 01:17, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Specific subsection

This shouldn't be necessary, but here: A specific subsection (likely under the WHO investigations heading or the "further investigations" heading) should be created to discuss the plethora of investigations conducted into the "lab leak" and how they concluded that it is "extremely unlikely". -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:15, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support per comments above. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:15, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

  What I was suggesting was a precise text that we can review and identify flaws in... Something like what's been ongoing at Talk:COVID-19 pandemic recently, but without any of the SPAs obviously. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:19, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

  If text isn't horribly problematic, there shouldn't be any mandate to get consensus on the talk page for the exact text first. There's a reason WP:SOFIXIT redirects to the "be bold" policy. If you find a problem in something, but it's not overall problematic, it's better to work on improving it further than simply revert - or if you're unwilling or unable to do so, to leave it and tag problems for others to fix. Alternatively, you could make a post on the talkpage identifying problems with a recent edit without reverting. There's no mandate in BRD that the R has to happen - if someone makes a bold change that isn't an immense problem, you can always choose to leave it and voice concerns on the talk page anyway. Power is a very experienced editor, and I'm sure they'd respond to your concerns here regardless of you reverting or not. Since you said that a section on the topic should be proposed, I did so - without specific text because there's no rush on deciding on specific text and Wikipedia is a work in progress that will continue to be improved regardless of the initial text in a created section. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:23, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

  This is an article about COVID, so I prefer we be extra cautious especially if it involves controversial information. The empty section on "food chain" transmission is not necessary. The whole section you added seems like a duplicate of the bullet points above (in addition to needing some copy-editing...). Details about the scientific consensus should go to the main COVID-19 pandemic article (where they already mostly are); details about investigations discrediting the lab leak can go in the section to that effect on the misinformation article. We should be wary of the scope of this article and avoid unnecessary duplication - this is about investigations into the origins of the virus, not everything related thereto. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:40, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

  What I don't want us to do is get involved in what's gone on at Donald Trump where most of the lead and quite a few portions of the body are virtually unedited because every time someone wants to make a change a whole RfC is needed on a specific text. Especially with experienced editors such as power~enwiki, we shouldn't need to do that and we should try not to. The investigations are not covered in the misinformation article - there have been many investigations that aren't misinformation - such as the WHO conclusion of "extremely unlikely" - that's not misinformation and is out of scope for that article. It should be covered here - because as you say, this is about investigations into the origins of the virus. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:47, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

  The WHO investigation is already covered here. The content you wanted to add is duplicative and doesn't add anything new or useful here. If you wish to cover other scientific investigations, feel free to do so, but that (in addition to additional content) might need a different header? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

  I tend to agree, especially since there have been two separate WP:BRDs just today. I've seen sandboxes and such work well here, and after BRD has been contentious (like this) seems like the time to try that. Bakkster Man (talk) 01:17, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose since I haven't yet seen a reason (let alone good) why we need a separate sub-heading for any explanations of the investigated theories. Bakkster Man (talk) 01:17, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
• There's a chicken-and-egg problem here; a !vote on a section would be clearer if that section were fully written, but it is impossible to write the section if people keep reverting it out of the article entirely. Additionally, I will only have minimal time for Wikipedia over the next few days, and cannot do more to write the section myself. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:22, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

This is what a sandbox is for, generally. See WP:ABOUTSAND. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:26, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support, inclusion as a subsection or even section is DUE by amount of traction the hypothesis has generated. Admittedly, inclusion requires skillful editing to do proper attributions and avoid politicization, Bakkster and power may be the best editors to initiate such a draft. Forich (talk) 17:22, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to take a stab at better describing the four hypotheses evaluated by the WHO report in paragraph form (which I think is needed), and then we can take a look and decide if it improves the article, and if so whether there should be sub-sections per hypothesis. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:39, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support due to the large amount of quality sourcing that is available.[2][3] Adoring nanny (talk) 18:01, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

  Neither NPR or NYT are MEDRS, so I don't see how these two articles are "quality sourcing" for purposes here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:05, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support in principle, oppose without an actual proposal As I was saying above, you should make a draft of the proposed section (either using {{ctop}} and {{cbot}}, as for ex. at Talk:COVID-19 pandemic, or using a dedicated sandbox page in your userspace). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:05, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support. The lab leak hypothesis has been discussed in high-quality sources, along with credible concerns about the WHO investigation, conflict of interests, etc.[4] Stonkaments (talk) 17:56, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support. As per Stonkaments well articulated points. CutePeach (talk) 13:21, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Sandboxed scenario descriptions

I've sandboxed a description of the four WHO-assessed scenarios at the following location: User:Bakkster Man/Origin Sandbox.

I'm pretty happy with how it looks, with similar character counts for the four scenarios and the commonly agreed to information. Anyone is welcome to continue to refine the wording (I'm sure it needs it).

Almost everything is sourced from the WHO joint report at the moment (if anyone can provide additional citations, it would be much appreciated) with one additional reference to the In Vivo paper, which I'd prefer to replace if possible if someone has a cleaner source. I went with bolding for the scenario names used by the WHO, which could be easily be converted to sub-headings if there's consensus, but I think it's more readable without. I'm also open to ideas where to put such a section. Two options I see would be in the Scientific consensus on origins header (editing the first paragraph of the sandbox to mesh) or in/before/after the World Health Organization investigations (again, with editing to avoid duplicate info). Bakkster Man (talk) 14:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Nice draft, read through it all and will comment on various points. The first is that the intro paragraph "several decades" of genetic distance seems to broad, it could mean anything from 2 to 10 decades. I believe we can use the point estimate (what was it, 25?) with a parenthesis indicating the confidence interval. Or we can include something like "approximately xx years". Forich (talk) 21:09, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Definitely a location that a more specific source would be of benefit, the WHO report kept this broad with "several decades of evolutionary space". I'd be in favor of a more refined estimate if we can provide a solid MEDRS secondary source. Bakkster Man (talk) 21:31, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Nice draft! Wizzy…☎ 16:46, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@Forich: did post your comments on various points? I also have a few comments to improve this excellent draft. CutePeach (talk) 13:19, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@Forich and CutePeach:Don't just comment, be WP:BOLD and edit the sandbox directly. That's what it's there for. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:38, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Its done, thanks for the heads up. Forich (talk) 14:10, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Added to the main page. Thanks especially to Forich for his help, especially digging up some solid supporting sources beyond the WHO report. Please feel free to edit as needed, as always. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:42, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Worth considerng?

Added the following to the main article but was reverted - worth considering? => "On 14 May 2021, scientists reported that "Theories of accidental release from a lab and zoonotic spillover both remain viable.", and urge for an evidence-based clarification of the origin of the COVID-19 virus." - Comments Welcome - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 02:55, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

References

@Drbogdan: It was reverted because there's an entire section about this right above which you somehow managed to miss, including many concerns about FALSEBALANCE and how best to do it :) I've put in a better wording which seems more thorough than just focusing on the lab leak... Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:58, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: - Thanks for your comments, for noting the discussion above and for adding better wording - it's all appreciated - Thanks again - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 03:04, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

FWIW - News (05/19/2021) from "Politico" also seems relevant to the article - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 08:30, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Not too helpful. We can't cite it in the article (WP:MEDPOP), and most of what's being said just echoes what we already have (unsurprising the three 'likely' voices are Chan, Relman, and Ebright). We have better sources for everything said here. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:21, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

References

CDC Director testifies: "Certainly a lab-based origin is one possibility."

Once the head of the CDC testifies under oath that there's a real chance the virus escaped from a lab—"Certainly a lab-based origin is one possibility"—it strikes me the time has come to stop calling it a "conspiracy theory" and quit claiming that there's a "scientific consensus" that it was zoonotic in origin. No science expert here—just using common sense. Elle Kpyros (talk) 16:18, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

The actual CSPAN transcript shows her replies: "THIS HAS BEEN STUDIED BY THE W.H.O." and "I DON'T BELIEVE I'VE SEEN ENOUGH INDIVIDUAL DATA FOR ME TO BE ABLE TO COMMENT ON THAT." So thanks for pointing us to the director of a major public health body putting their confidence in the WHO's origin study, this is why we consider it to be the mainstream consensus.

When pressed by Senator Kennedy (who was obviously fishing for the lab answer), she gave a broad possibility, which basically mirrored what the WHO and most others are saying: inadvertent release from a lab is a possibility (with a variety of assessments of likelihood), deliberate bio-engineering of the virus (the only thing we specifically refer to on this page as a conspiracy theory) has been ruled out and director Walensky didn't address this possibility. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:16, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@Bakkster Man: (and others) re quote: "deliberate bio-engineering of the virus (the only thing we specifically refer to on this page as a conspiracy theory) has been ruled out"
Seems related => Seems Chinese virologists were studying how a bat virus could enter human cells by successfully creating (bio-engineering?) bat virus mutations that apparently were capable of infecting human cells - as early as 2015? - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 17:54, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

The WHO said "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", citing "While the analyses above suggest that SARS-CoV-2 may bind human ACE2 with high affinity, computational analyses predict that the interaction is not ideal7 and that the RBD sequence is different from those shown in SARS-CoV to be optimal for receptor binding7,11. Thus, the high-affinity binding of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein to human ACE2 is most likely the result of natural selection on a human or human-like ACE2 that permits another optimal binding solution to arise. This is strong evidence that SARS-CoV-2 is not the product of purposeful manipulation." [5] Bakkster Man (talk) 18:28, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that there seems to be a pretty significant difference when sources talk about "deliberate bioengineering" and "serial passage". The plausible side of the "inadvertent leak" hypothesis is serial passage while growing the virus in culture. The deliberate bioengineering that's dismissed by reliable sources is generally the "intentional creation of a bioweapon" conspiracy. Bakkster Man (talk) 12:36, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

References

Undisclosed Wuhan lab workers sickened in Nov 2019?

Wuhan lab staff sought hospital care before COVID-19 outbreak disclosed

To avoid duplicate discussions, now that this is centralised at RSN
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/wuhan-lab-staff-sought-hospital-care-before-covid-19-outbreak-disclosed-wsj-2021-05-23/ 205.175.106.86 (talk) 23:18, 23 May 2021 (UTC) Recent News (05/23/2021) re possible Covid virus lab leak reported in The Wall Street Journal - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 00:11, 24 May 2021 (UTC) References See here for some concerns about this. Here might be a better place to mention it, but given that the source says that "A State Department fact sheet released near the end of the Trump administration had said "the U.S. government has reason to believe that several researchers inside the WIV became sick in autumn 2019, before the first identified case of the outbreak, with symptoms consistent with both COVID-19 and common seasonal illnesses."", the best we could add, if it was on-topic, would be "Some researchers at the WIV sought hospital treatment for an illness in late 2019." - putting it in, however, would create a false impression that this is directly related (that the illness is COVID), which isn't quite exact, and would also be a bit NOTNEWSish (we're better off waiting for some time to see if these rumours are more than just rumours; there are some doubts about the strength of the report: "The Journal said current and former officials familiar with the intelligence about the lab researchers expressed a range of views about the strength of the report's supporting evidence, with one unnamed person saying it needed "further investigation and additional corroboration.""). After all, there's WP:NORUSH. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:44, 24 May 2021 (UTC) Give it a rest, guys. If you don't trust the WHO report because of the possibility of Chinese interference, you sure as heck shouldn't trust a "US Intelligence report" for the same risk of interference. Unless and until there's a source indicating it was actually COVID, it shouldn't go here. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:18, 24 May 2021 (UTC) Looking at the recent publications, one should realize that zoonotic diseases (such as that one) can be studied in labs and be easily leaked from labs. But unfortunately, there are no real facts/data, "negative" or "positive". And this is for a very good reason: as was noted by many [6], "One of the challenges in developing any certainty is access to the lab itself. China delayed access to international investigators for months after the initial outbreak, virtually guaranteeing that the lab had been deep-cleaned before any forensic analysis could be done, and investigators were also not allowed to view original data logs that scientists say would be critical to understanding the virus' origins. One critical avenue to finding an answer would be to run genetic sequencing on the original samples that staff at the Wuhan lab were working on. But "the Chinese are never going to allow that," said one person familiar with the underlying intelligence. And that is fact. Can someone reasonably view this almost as a self-admission of guilt? Yes, sure. My very best wishes (talk) 14:06, 24 May 2021 (UTC) FWIW - more recently - Dr. Fauci now "not convinced" the Covid virus occurred naturally? - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 15:06, 24 May 2021 (UTC) Yes, and? Bakkster Man (talk) 15:30, 24 May 2021 (UTC) References @Bakkster Man: (and others) - Thank you for your comment - seems to add weight (professional/academic/insider-level) that the "lab leak orgin" is not "ruled out" (or possibly even "unlikely"), and continues to be a serious concern among those possibly aware of the best relevant information(s) at the moment - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 16:12, 24 May 2021 (UTC) Drbogdan, nobody's said it's been "ruled out" yet, and as I've explained to you before saying "I'm not convinced it was natural" does not imply "not unlikely" as you try and say it does here. Dr. Fauci was never convinced it occurred naturally - and none of us are - because to convince scientists takes proof and lots of evidence/data - which has already been said is going to take years for COVID-19. That doesn't change the fact that all available evidence strongly suggests zoonotic origin, and if we had to pick (which scientists don't like to do regardless) the zoonotic origin is still the most likely. This isn't to mention that the question was leading Fauci to respond that way in the first place - Fauci has never to my knowledge said he was "confident" that it developed naturally - it's the same as saying "are you still beating your wife" - either way you answer, you give credence to the idea that you ever beat your wife. All in all a poor interview that can't overrule his other comments on the issue just based on a loaded question. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 16:17, 24 May 2021 (UTC) @Berchanhimez: Thanks for your comments - and clarifications (well stated imo) - they're *greatly* appreciated - yes - *entirely* agree - no problem whatsoever - Thanks again - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 16:36, 24 May 2021 (UTC) @Drbogdan: First, please reread the article before asking it be rewritten, because it absolutely does not "rule out" the possibility. Failure to do so is disrespectful to the level of care others have taken to improve the article. While articles can always improve and mistakes can be made, such an egregious oversight of content clearly already in the article (with stronger sourcing) is completely unproductive. See also, WP:READFIRST, WP:STEWARDSHIP. Second, the source information discussed in this section (the WSJ published intel report) is neither "professional" nor "academic" in nature. Third, you're advocating that we use narrow sources in order to WP:SYNTH a WP:PROFRINGE argument, which is completely inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Fourth, please be more clear when you share a link how you intend it to improve the article, as this is WP:NOTAFORUM. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:53, 24 May 2021 (UTC) Seems relevant - re current views of Scott Gottlieb - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 18:39, 24 May 2021 (UTC) References Key word circumstantial. If you really want to prove something you can find circumstantial evidence for almost anything - heck, I can find circumstantial evidence that the moon is made of cheese if I wanted to. News reports are not going to ever be relevant for this sort of topic - the origin of the virus is at this point biomedical information that requires MEDRS, and it won't become "historical" information for another 5+ years at least - thus unless there's new MEDRS compliant sources there's no sense accumulating sensationalist news. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 18:42, 24 May 2021 (UTC) Thought for other editors, when does this pattern of editing become WP:PROFRINGE and WP:IDHT that requires warning/sanction? I feel like we're close to that line, if we haven't crossed it already. Particularly given this is immediately after a request to be more clear with 'look at this' type comments. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:22, 24 May 2021 (UTC) Just added some more detail to the Trump admin section. I think it's irresponsible to have that quote from Asher without the context added to it by the WSJ piece. Asher says "you don't normally go to the hospital with influenza" but the WSJ article contextualizes that quote with "It isn’t unusual for people in China to go straight to the hospital when they fall sick, either because they get better care there or lack access to a general practitioner."--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:44, 25 May 2021 (UTC) FWIW - not promoting any particulular viewpoint - and, yes, I get the point - but a possible relevant timeline was recently published (WaPo; 05/25/2021) that may (or may not) be worthy in helping to improve the article - none of the timeline information may be new - nor WP:MEDRS level - but nevertheless may be worthy in helping to clarify (and/or at least to better support) relevant timeline notions in the main article I would think - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 14:50, 25 May 2021 (UTC) References

Now at reliable sources noticeboard

• See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Lab Leak Again. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:08, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

A questionable consensus

The following sentence and the mobillized sources are worth discussing: "The scientific consensus is that it is a zoonotic virus that arose from bats in a natural setting". This sentence is based on Andersen et al. using RaTG13, the closest known virus to SARS-CoV-2, but which has been exclusively studied by the Wuhan Institute of Virology. There is therefore no possibility for the rest of the scientific community to verify the information transmitted about it. Second, for Latinne et al. this is a paper that was primarily written by members of the Wuhan Institute of Virology and the EcoHealth Alliance, which has funded research on bat coronaviruses in that lab. But most importantly, RaTG13, again unverifiable to the rest of the scientific community, is used. So there is a problem in the diversity of sources cited here, but more generally, in the verifiability of the scientific information itself. Hence the calls in the press and Science to be able to verify this information.CyberDiderot (talk) 17:44, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

CyberDiderot, yes, and we accurately describe the hinderance of China into the investigation. The consensus is still that it was a zoonotic origin - there is no current evidence that is widely accepted and agreed with to suggest otherwise. The scientific consensus among all scientists is that it was likely zoonotic - even if there are a few who insist it wasn't based on flimsy evidence and illogical leaps of faith. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 17:47, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

You seem to have misinterpreted the statements regarding RaTG13 as the sole justification either for this sentence, or the majority consensus view. RaTG13 is just the most similar to SARS-CoV-2 of many similar CoVs found in bats. We also don't claim that RaTG13 is the ancestor of SARS-CoV-2, it's also possible the ancestor virus is undetected. If you can point to a particular item you think remains unclear, I can clarify the article. Bakkster Man (talk)

WP:RS/AC says: A statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view.... Stated simply, any statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors. Could you point to where the cited sources make any direct claims about zoonotic origin being the scientific consensus? I have not been able to find that claim supported anywhere in the sources. Stonkaments (talk) 00:04, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOLABLEAK has plenty of MEDRS papers saying that the zoonotic origin is the most likely and that "scientific evidence does not support this accusation of laboratory release". I have not been able to find any MEDRS source which disputes this. Younes et al., Rev Med Virol say that "Researchers proposed two hypotheses for the emergence of SARS‐CoV‐2: (1) Natural selection may have occurred in an animal host before transmission to mankind; and (2) natural selection of viruses may have occurred in humans after zoonotic transmission." Osuchowski et al., Lancet Respir Med similarly say " The most plausible origin of SARS-CoV-2 is natural selection of the virus in an animal host followed by zoonotic transfer." This letter in the Lancet is more explicit, saying "Scientists from multiple countries have published and analysed genomes of the causative agent, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2),1 and they overwhelmingly conclude that this coronavirus originated in wildlife,2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 as have so many other emerging pathogens.11, 12"; although, given the lack of conflicting MEDRS sources, I'm not even sure it's necessary . RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:22, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've just done a big search for further recent papers about COVID origins. There's nothing as in-depth as previously. The few papers I could find only repeat the same things as previously. [7] says "SARS-CoV-2 is thought to have originated in the human population from a zoonotic spillover event."; so that's rather clear that this is the favoured position. This simply says "SARS-CoV-2 was originated from zoonotic coronaviruses and confirmed as a novel beta-coronavirus [...]" as an unequivocal statement of fact (whether we should do that is a bit more questionable - at least it lends more support to the idea). Other relevant articles mention the zoonotic origin as a matter of fact or very high likelihood without explicitly saying that it is "thought" of that it is a consensus. Of about 100 articles I could find running a query "covid AND origin" on Pubmed (limited to MEDLINE journals, reviews and systematic reviews, from 2021 only) - of which I read more than the abstract (or part thereof) for about a tenth of that, only one mentioned anything but the zoonotic origin (and what it did mention was the man-made theory, which it clearly marked as bollocks). As to your WP:OR criticism of papers by Andersen, ..., I'll note that that is entirely beyond our remit. One criteria for determining the reliability of sources is their use by other sources (WP:USEBYOTHERS), and the paper by Andersen et al. which you're referring to seems to be extremely well cited, more than 1000 times. Your claims about conflicts of interests and RaTG13 are all common talking points of lab leak proponents, but they don't change anything as far as MEDRS are concerned. Again, I failed to find any source which disputes that the origin of the virus is anything but zoonotic. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:52, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I’m not seeing an explicit statement that a consensus exists in any of those, most likely =/= consensus. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:34, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

The letter in the Lancet is just that, although of course it needs to be judged as a primary, opinion piece (though it's from subject experts - since we include the letter about "further investigations", we might as well include this one). I'm not seeing any statement that there is a scientific (as opposed to political or otherwise) dispute over this, either. There are the calls for further investigation reported in the press, but that's already mentioned. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:52, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

The Lancet letter was published in February 2020 and was clearly politically motivated (former NY Times science reporter Donald McNeil says that, at that time, "the screaming was so loud that it drowned out serious discussion"[8]). If that's the only source making a direct claim about the scientific consensus, I believe statements regarding a scientific consensus in the article need to be removed/revised. Stonkaments (talk) 14:23, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

That's a WP:SELFPUB piece (on medium, a self-publishing site) from a journalist. Anyway, as said, I still haven't seen a source which says that the preferred hypothesis is not zoonotic origin. If there is a legitimate dispute over which hypothesis is the favoured one, you should be able to cite MEDRS papers which argue that the lab leak is more likely. Otherwise this is just a minor quibble over wording. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:41, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't dispute that most scientists believe zoonotic origin is more likely—I agree with that. But I think calling zoonotic origin the scientific consensus is a step too far (per WP:RS/AC). I would support some variation of the suggestion below ("Most research published up until X has supported the theory that it is a zoonotic virus..."). Stonkaments (talk) 15:28, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Strangely enough I agree... But only that we shouldn’t be saying "scientific consensus” when there doesn’t appear to actually be one yet... The vast majority of work on the subject is still in progress and from what I’ve seen pretty much all sources treat currently published findings as preliminary. We can say something along the lines of “Most research published up until X has supported the theory that it is a zoonotic virus that arose from bats in a natural setting” but we shouldn’t get ahead of our skis. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:29, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

We could remove "consensus" if it really poses problems to use that particular word. Although, given what MEDRS say, we'd need to write something like "The vast majority of scientific research finds the current evidence supports a zoonotic virus that arose from bats in a natural setting." RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:52, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Do we need to split the statement? There does appear to be consensus that there was not 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, as per the WHO-China report. By extension, there appears to be consensus that the virus descends from a natural virus, with the exact pathway for the evolutionary gap and precise point of zoonosis being up for debate. Given this, I'd suggest it's only the "arose from bats in a natural setting" that's not yet fully settled (as growth in lab culture is not a "natural setting"). I suspect we can find a clear, concise way to explain this. For reference, here's the current language in the Investigations section: There are multiple proposed explanations for how SARS-CoV-2 was introduced into, and evolved adaptations suited to, the human population. There is significant evidence and agreement that the most likely original viral reservoir for SARS-CoV-2 is horseshoe bats, with the closest known viral relative being RaTG13. The evolutionary distance between SARS-CoV-2 and RaTG13 is estimated to be between 20 and 90 years, which each origin hypothesis attempts to explain in a different way. These scenarios continue to be investigated in order to identify the definitive origin of the virus. Better synchronizing these two paragraphs should be done. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:47, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm taking a stab at rewriting this, as we have two sentences in the lede which duplicate each other and depend mostly on older references. One thing I'm reconsidering from above is whether a lab leak would be considered zoonosis. The zoonosis article doesn't include lab culture, so I'm hesitant to make that connection now. So I think we need to go more with the 'emerged from an animal-borne virus' or similar. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:14, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Most sources say, without qualification, that COVID is either A) zoonotic or B) very likely zoonotic. We can alter the text to avoid the use of consensus if there are no sources which describe this as such (although many state "it is believed", "it is thought", ...), but we certainly shouldn't sacrifice the factual accuracy of the text because of that. A proper summary of the sources could be the sentence I proposed, "The vast majority of scientific research finds the current evidence supports a zoonotic virus that arose from bats in a natural setting." RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:24, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Take a look at the current wording. Room to improve, I'm sure, but I think it's an improvement from before. We could add a sentence to the first paragraph about "zoonosis as a natural setting", and with the period between it and the sentence about the consensus I think that avoids any confusion about what exactly is uncertain. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:29, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

How about simply removing this sentence: "The scientific consensus is that the virus descends from an animal-borne virus." It essentially repeats the sentence that follows ("SARS-CoV-2 has close genetic similarity to bat coronaviruses, suggesting it emerged from a bat-borne virus."), only with the more fraught wording of "the scientific consensus", and "animal-borne" versus "bat-borne" virus, which is more confusing to my ear. Stonkaments (talk) 15:53, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Strong disagree on changing the wording from "consensus." I think the sources are clear that it's a consensus. Even most of the scientists who wrote the letter to Science arguing for more investigation have admitted they believe zoonosis is the most likely scenario. We are betraying the reality and caving to non-RS if we remove the idea of consensus. There was a consensus early on, and it has not changed because there has been no new data.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:27, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Physiologically, there can no longer be a consensus since the pillars of zoonotic theory have fallen:

1) After 15 months and 80,000 animals tested, no intermediate host was found, SARS1 requested 4 months, MERS 9; 2) Ralph Baric admitted that himself could manipulate a virus with seamless technologies, not allowing anyone to verify if it is artificial; 3) With the last 3 doctoral theses of WIV students coming to light that demonstrate the presence in their archives of various unpublished sars-related backbones and their pioneering works with seamless technologies the same signatories of the letter for Science have revealed that they're no longer able to support natural theory with greater conviction; 4) The Science letter specifies that equal weight must be given to both hypotheses as long as there is no evidence to lean towards one or the other.

Francesco espo (talk) 00:51, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi there, first off this talk page is not the place for these discussions, it's the place for conversations about RS and what merits inclusion in the article. But since you so nicely numbered your points, I want to dispel some of the confusion. There are quite a few things you just said that are not true. I have a PhD in virology and have spent a great deal of time looking into those questions for academic and non academic purposes. But you don't have to listen to me, there are RS that back up my claims. For one, SARS1 took 1.5 years to find in civets and then a further 1 year until 2005 to connect to bats. Secondly, it took them much less time with MERS because the government of Saudia Arabia wanted much more to find the culprit animal so they could restore tourism to the country. They did a massive scale zoological review of every livestock animal, something China has not signaled any interest in doing. We need China to open its borders. But more to the point, there are two things that make the SARS1 and MERS situations distinct from SARS2:

A) Those two viruses have very high penetrance (meaning pretty much everybody who gets the virus gets sick)

B) Those two viruses had initial outbreaks with much lower case counts (which makes it easier to contact trace)

A and B make the epidemiological investigation process much easier. Makes it easier to trace to patient zero and find the suspect animal reservoir. Also worth saying that China hasn't allowed in international investigators to do that kind of sampling. As far as I can tell, no one is actually looking at the moment. Maybe internal Chinese scientists? But still very unclear. The way the Chinese government has locked down this work, and restricted the movements of Shi Zheng-li and other scientists in China, I doubt anyone is looking at the moment. Also worth saying it took 20-odd years to find Ebola (it should be quicker with SARS1) but experts absolutely have not said a natural reservoir should already have been found. That would be wild. Thirdly, I would love to see your sources on point 3, because I don't believe it is true from my knowledge of the subject. They may have had viruses in the freezer they hadn't published yet, but I have seen no evidence that they were conducting gain of function research on those viruses, such as manipulating backbones to make pandemic-potential viruses etc. That would be huge news, if so. Thirdly, several signatories of that letter have come out and said they do not believe equal weight should be given to the two possibilities, that they still believe the zoonotic theory is the most likely, but that they do think further investigation is warranted. I blame shoddy wording in that letter. But the authors do not believe what you've said they believe. To reiterate, this really is not the place for this discussion, but it grinds my gears to leave misinformation unanswered. --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:32, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure it is accurate to say that the intermediate host was found within 4 months with SARS COV 1. Animals infected with the virus were found shortly after that virus began to spread, but an animal was not confirmed to be the host until years later. With respect to SARS-COV-2, a number of animals have been found that have been infected with the virus, but none of them have yet to be confirmed to be an intermediate host. Dhawk790 (talk) 01:27, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment It's true that the scientific consensus is still that SARS-CoV-2 has a natural origin, and RandomCanadian summed this up well:

This letter in the Lancet is more explicit, saying "Scientists from multiple countries have published and analysed genomes of the causative agent, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2),1 and they overwhelmingly conclude that this coronavirus originated in wildlife,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 as have so many other emerging pathogens.11,12"

That consensus is not dubious. -Darouet (talk) 04:59, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

While I agree this remains essentially the consensus (with the WHO report being the item that will be the primary determinant until something significant changes), it would be nice if we could find a more recent source similar to this one from March 2020. I don't want to stop citing this letter without a good replacement, but do find it potentially problematic because it appeared to be part of the chilling effect that limited the legitimate investigations and discussions on the topic. It's partly why, up until the WHO report was released, we made zero mention of the theory as anything but a conspiracy. So our view of the consensus has, at least, changed somewhat since this letter. So again, while I don't disagree with our conclusion on the mainstream view, a more recent source validating the view would be beneficial by being a cleaner, more recent reference. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:08, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• The Science letter specifies that equal weight must be given to both hypotheses as long as there is no evidence to lean towards one or the other. This is not what the letter says. There's a significant difference between there were no findings in clear support of either a natural spillover or a lab accident and "there's no evidence", and between balanced consideration and "equal weight". Particularly the latter, weight in investigation (including access to raw data) is different from wikipedia WP:DUE weight. The Science letter is calling for what we all want, more conclusive data on the topic. But that letter alone doesn't really change the way we can write about the topic given WP:V. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:08, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Bakkster Man, sorry if my paraphrasing is wrong, but i have to disagree with your reading of the Science letter. The letter says two theories were not given balanced consideration, which i have paraphrased to mean that both theories must be given equal weight in an investigation. The main point of the letter is to say that the WHO investigation is not credible if it cannot get an access to the data, and the WHO Mission chief said it was not even an investigation, yet this page is titled investigations. How do you propose that we cover the WHO investigation-not-an-investigation in Wikipedia? Is Wikipedia’ definition of DUE different to the standard English definition? Francesco espo (talk) 22:14, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, your paraphrase is wrong. The Science letter says that further investigation is required, and that the attention given to one theory was not sufficient, not that both theories must be given equal weight (that's wishful thinking). Given that some signatories of that letter came out later to say that while they support further investigations, they still agree that a zoonotic origin is most likely, and that their words have been misinterpreted by groups spreading misinformation, it's no surprise that we should treat this as a WP:PRIMARY source and give it very little weight overall, especially when we have better sources (review papers in prestigious journals) which say otherwise. After all, we follow, not lead, the consensus of sources. If that means we're out of date, that's fine, cause we are more concerned with verifiability rather than truth. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:57, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

References

Inclusion of seroprevalence studies

There have been at least two studies that have shown elevated seroprevalence of antibodies for the COVID-19 virus outside of China in late 2019. I was wondering if there is any justification for the inclusion of these studies as they suggest earlier emergence/potential emergence outside of China.

Apolone, G., Montomoli, E., Manenti, A., Boeri, M., Sabia, F., Hyseni, I., ... & Pastorino, U. (2020). Unexpected detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in the prepandemic period in Italy. Tumori Journal, 0300891620974755. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0300891620974755

Basavaraju, S. V., Patton, M. E., Grimm, K., Rasheed, M. A. U., Lester, S., Mills, L., ... & Stramer, S. L. (2020). Serologic testing of US blood donations to identify severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)–reactive antibodies: December 2019–January 2020. Clinical Infectious Diseases. https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciaa1785/6012472 Dhawk790 (talk) 18:49, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Dhawk790, please see WP:MEDRS for why we don't take the results of single studies and include them in articles - not just limited to COVID-19 but across the medical field. If you can find a systematic review that discusses these studies and provides conclusions, then it can be considered - but until then, this would be undue weight to include at this time. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 18:53, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

The first study had some methodological issues (which is why we usually wait for secondary studies). The WHO was investigating it further to either confirm or dispute the results, but I haven't seen anything on the subject. The second study is probably accurate, but the same issues of confirmation would apply. Even then, it's probably more suited to COVID-19 pandemic in the United States than this article. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:56, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! I think that is a good policy. There is another similar study from France (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10654-020-00716-2?wt_mc=Internal.Event.1.SEM.ArticleAuthorOnlineFirst&ArticleAuthorOnlineFirst_20210207&error=cookies_not_supported&error=cookies_not_supported&code=c90f16eb-0525-4e2e-8741-515ef0dddea6&code=2c4ebc11-3dd8-4b83-ba64-054e72c6714a) so maybe there will start being some deeper digging, like review.

Am I understanding the policy right that it would be potentially acceptable to include these studies with the articles about the pandemic in those countries. Thanks again. Dhawk790 (talk) 19:00, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Potentially yes, but likely not acceptable. On Wikipedia, we tend to do a "follow, not lead" approach to things - and even more so in medical topic areas. Unless a study is "groundbreaking" or extremely huge/well-ran, we tend not to include single studies anywhere within the medical topics on Wikipedia - we wait for reviews, systematic reviews, Cochrane analyses, etc. - secondary sources that examine a large number of sources and come to conclusions based on more than just one study. Yes, this means that we can't always be on the "breaking edge" of things on Wikipedia - but it also means that we don't include potentially harmful/incorrect medical information before it's been fully vetted multiple times and considered to be the scientific consensus. The best thing to do would be to start talk page discussions on the articles for the pandemic in those countries if you really think these studies meet the strict criteria in WP:MEDRS for citing a primary source - and then let people discuss there. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:04, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks again. I will start a discussion in the relevant pages. Dhawk790 (talk) 19:08, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

There's two things going on here. One is that we usually wait for secondary sources. That means, someone taking multiple primary studies like these and summing up the current state of understanding, or a 'meta analysis' which takes multiple primary studies and tries to distill an overall result from them. So what we're waiting on is something like the WHO or other researchers evaluating this and other studies about antibody prevalence on the strength of the data and coming to a more robust conclusion.

If that happens, depending on the conclusion, it might make more sense for the national articles. This article is about the investigations on exactly when and where the virus jumped to humans and spread. Well before it crossed international borders. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:09, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, this makes sense. Finding the human jump point may be complicated by potentially earlier transmission, but it still leaves that question opened. Regardless, need more studies/secondary sources for this article. Dhawk790 (talk) 19:46, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• Primary resources and unreliable for biomedical content. The first source is doubly unreliable given this. Alexbrn (talk) 14:19, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Dr. Anthony Fauci states he is "not convinced" about natural origins hypothesis for SARS-CoV-2

On or about May 25, 2021, in a video interview, the following exchange occurred between Dr. Anthony Fauci and a reporter.

Reporter: There's a lot of cloudiness around the origins of COVID-19 still. Are you still confident that it developed naturally?

Dr. Fauci: No . . . No, I am not convinced about that. I think that we should continue to investigate what went on in China until we find out, to the best of our ability, exactly what happened.

This interview has also been played back and referenced on CNN.

As such, I would suggest a brief update to the Wikipedia article, under the section "United States government", to reflect this apparent position change from the influential Director of the NIAID and chief medical advisor to the US President. 2600:1700:FE20:2390:9008:E887:CAA4:B19B (talk) 04:39, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that Fauci's statement that he favors further investigation into the origins of the virus needs to be mentioned - there are many, many US officials making statements on this topic, and we can describe any investigations that do actually occur. -Darouet (talk) 05:04, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

And, more importantly, it mirrors the WHO report's conclusion: that it can't be ruled out yet. Bakkster Man (talk) 12:50, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

And Most importantly, I don't think Fauci ever actually said he was "100% convinced" of the natural origin. That would be really bad science based on such limited data. It's just the most likely scenario with the limited data we have.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:03, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Fauci has clarified his comments: [9]. He is not 100% sure of a natural origin, but he still believes it is "highly likely", just as he has said before. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:05, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the tone of all the articles related to COVID origins need to be reevaluated based on the changing politics around the issue. Serious questions have emerged related to the natural emergence theory. See articles like this one at The Hill.[10] 2601:844:4000:F910:A91A:960F:5B05:A643 (talk) 14:49, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

The tone of our articles already did change, after the WHO-China report was published the possibility (albeit still unlikely) of a lab origin was added to multiple articles. But as even The Hill said in the article you linked: "Again, most scientists still believe the virus occurred naturally." As such, we continue to follow WP:FRINGELEVEL: Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:25, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

To change the tone of articles about scientific subjects because of political circumstances is a completely crazy idea. Stalin and Trump would have liked it, but those people are not role models for Wikipedia editors. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:32, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that the initial coverage by the "reliable sources" was heavily politicized, to the point of suppressing evidence for a lab origin for the virus. If you want scientific articles, you should stick to scientific journals as sources (which I gather are considered too primary for Wikipedia?). Now that the politics has cooled off, the popular media is wondering why they were so quick to condemn the possibility of a leak as "conspiracy theory." 2601:844:4000:F910:CC2A:6903:DE36:2C66 (talk) 12:43, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

It looks as if you can see only a less reliable part of all sources, namely the non-scientific ones.

Not all scientific articles are primary. Wikipedia's coverage of the subject is, and should be, based on secondary scientific sources. If they are "biased", we cannot do anything about it since they are the least biased thing we can get in principle. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:16, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, this seems to be a confusion around what makes a source good WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Secondary sources are more reliable than primary, peer-reviewed sources have more weight than those without review, etc. I expect this regards the Science letter, which as an unreviewed opinion is citable for this minority opinion is notable for inclusion, not this explanation is more likely. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:49, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Here's a timeline published by Washington Post of what's been going on outside of the popular press on this topic. [11] 2601:844:4000:F910:CC2A:6903:DE36:2C66 (talk) 14:22, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

A timeline we already know to be flawed. XOR'easter (talk) 21:22, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at WikiProject COVID-19

Please join this broad discussion on how we discuss and explain COVID origins. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:52, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

You should include scientific articles from peer-reviewed journals instead of relying on popular media. 2601:844:4000:F910:CC2A:6903:DE36:2C66 (talk) 12:45, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

A bizarre lack of information regarding the lab leak theory

Given the fact that the origin of the virus has not been determined, it is extremely strange that this article focuses primarily on the theory of natural origin. As of right now there is very little evidence regarding a natural origin, and a growing body of circumstantial evidence pointing to an accidental lab leak. An extremely well researched article published in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists https://thebulletin.org/2021/05/the-origin-of-covid-did-people-or-nature-open-pandoras-box-at-wuhan/ should be sourced, together with other material, to expand the section of the article regarding the lab leak theory. To do otherwise is to signal a strong political bias towards a narrative which has next to no supporting evidence. Dmoney1210 (talk) 14:33, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

my apologies, please replace all uses of the word theory with hypothesis Dmoney1210 (talk) 14:45, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists article isn't as strong as other sources, per WP:SCHOLARSHIP. We have (and cite) higher quality sources to explain the theory. We also have many sources indicating it is a minority opinion (even though the minority has good rational reasons for their perspective). As such, WP:GEVAL applies in how we explain the theory (and how much text we use to do so). Bakkster Man (talk) 14:46, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists is led by a board of accomplished science and security leaders which informs their editorial staff. The article I linked was written by Nicholas Wade who was a writer and editor for the journals Nature and Science. Surely the article is just as valid as propaganda publications like the China Morning Post, mainstream news organizations like ABC news, CNN, Yahoo News, and speculative science entertainment magazines like Popular Science, all of which are referenced in the article. Dmoney1210 (talk) 17:01, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Nicholas Wade is known for a dubious book on race and intelligence, and has no relevant expertise in virology. His piece in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, a journal which has no relation to virology and which is not cited much even in its actual field of expertise, is basically an unedited copy of a self-published piece originally on Medium. We have far better sources, like the WHO report and serious academic journals (Nature Medicine and the like) which describe the lab leak as extremely unlikely and not supported by evidence or prior epidemic outbreaks of coronaviruses (SARS, MERS). So no, Wade is not a credible source and we don't WP:FALSEBALANCE. We describe the lab leak for what it is: a minority viewpoint with little backing in academic sources which has gained political attention. See also this recent piece which seems to put the dots on the i's correctly in highlighting the political nature of this. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:10, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I will also add this article from Nature, which provides a good summary. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01383-3 Dhawk790 (talk) 17:19, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

The question is what more do you want there to be said than what is already in the article? The article already details that the lab leak is considered a valid, if less likely, hypothesis, which appears to be the consensus. If the circumstantial evidence in the Bulletin report is included then it would be justified to included the other circumstantial evidence about the virus potentially not even having originated in Wuhan. Above you can see a discussion about the potential of including that evidence and you can see that it was rejected based on the same criteria that is currently being used to justify the exclusion of some sources, like the Bulletin. There is an ongoing discussion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Biomedical_information) about whether the criteria for what is allowed to be included should be expanded. Depending on the conclusion of that discussion, we may see more evidence for and against the lab leak hypothesis and for and against other potential origin points for the virus included.

EDIT: It is also worth noting that South China Morning Post is not state media. It is an English language paper published in Hong Kong. It's founding occured during the Qing dynasty. That is a common mistake, I think because it has China in its name. If you review their articles, you will find that they are frequently critical of the mainland government. Dhawk790 (talk) 17:17, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Comment: SCMP has been bought by the Alibaba Group. With that and recent political climate in Hong Kong, one can see it has turned more and more into a mainland mouthpiece. Sgnpkd (talk) 20:42, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I think the article is missing the following information regarding the lab leak hypothesis:

1) The place of origin. The two closest known relatives of the SARS2 virus were collected from bats living in caves in Yunnan, a province of southern China. If the SARS2 virus had first infected people living around the Yunnan caves, that would strongly support the idea that the virus had spilled over to people naturally. But this isn’t what happened. The pandemic broke out 1,500 kilometers away, in Wuhan. Beta-coronaviruses, the family of bat viruses to which SARS2 belongs, infect the horseshoe bat Rhinolophus affinis, which ranges across southern China. The bats’ range is 50 kilometers, so it’s unlikely that any made it to Wuhan. In any case, the first cases of the COVID-19 pandemic probably occurred in September, when temperatures in Hubei are already cold enough to send bats into hibernation. If the bat viruses had infected some intermediate host, then you would need a longstanding population of bats in frequent proximity with an intermediate host, which in turn must often cross paths with people. All these exchanges of virus must take place somewhere outside Wuhan, a busy metropolis which so far as is known is not a natural habitat of Rhinolophus bat colonies. The infected person (or animal) carrying this highly transmissible virus must have traveled to Wuhan without infecting anyone else. No one in his or her family got sick. If the person jumped on a train to Wuhan, no fellow passengers fell ill.

2) Natural history and evolution. The coronavirus spike protein, adapted to attack bat cells, needs repeated jumps to another species, most of which fail, before it gains a lucky mutation. In the case of SARS1, researchers have documented the successive changes in its spike protein as the virus evolved step by step into a dangerous pathogen. After it had gotten from bats into civets, there were six further changes in its spike protein before it became a mild pathogen in people. After a further 14 changes, the virus was much better adapted to humans, and with a further four, the the epidemic started. But when you look at SARS2, the virus has changed hardly at all, at least until recently. From its very first appearance, it was well adapted to human cells. Researchers led by Alina Chan of the Broad Institute compared SARS2 with late stage SARS1, which by then was well adapted to human cells, and found that the two viruses were similarly well adapted. “By the time SARS-CoV-2 was first detected in late 2019, it was already pre-adapted to human transmission to an extent similar to late epidemic SARS-CoV,”. Even those who think lab origin unlikely agree that SARS2 genomes are remarkably uniform. Baric writes that “early strains identified in Wuhan, China, showed limited genetic diversity, which suggests that the virus may have been introduced from a single source.” A single source would of course be compatible with lab escape, less so with evolution. The uniform structure of SARS2 genomes gives no hint of any passage through an intermediate animal host, and no such host has been identified in nature. The hallmark of lab cultures is uniformity.

3) The furin cleavage site. The furin cleavage site sits in the middle of the SARS2 spike protein. Of all known SARS-related beta-coronaviruses, only SARS2 possesses a furin cleavage site. All the other viruses have their S2 unit cleaved at a different site and by a different mechanism. A string of amino acids like that of the furin cleavage site is much more likely to be acquired all together through a process known as recombination. Recombination is an inadvertent swapping of genomic material that occurs when two viruses happen to invade the same cell, and their progeny are assembled with bits and pieces of RNA belonging to the other. Beta-coronaviruses will only combine with other beta-coronaviruses but can acquire, by recombination, almost any genetic element present in the collective genomic pool. What they cannot acquire is an element the pool does not possess. And no known SARS-related beta-coronavirus, the class to which SARS2 belongs, possesses a furin cleavage site. Bat SARS-related beta-coronaviruses don’t need a furin cleavage site to infect bat cells, so there’s no great likelihood that any in fact possesses one, and indeed none has been found so far. A predecessor of SARS2 could have been circulating in the human population for months or years until at some point it acquired a furin cleavage site from human cells. It would then have been ready to break out as a pandemic. If this is what happened, there should be traces in hospital surveillance records of the people infected by the slowly evolving virus. But none has so far come to light. According to the WHO, the sentinel hospitals in Hubei province, home of Wuhan, routinely monitor influenza-like illnesses and “no evidence to suggest substantial SARSCoV-2 transmission in the months preceding the outbreak in December was observed.” So it’s hard to explain how the SARS2 virus picked up its furin cleavage site naturally, whether by mutation or recombination. That leaves a gain-of-function experiment. For those who think SARS2 may have escaped At least 11 gain-of-function experiments, adding a furin site to make a virus more infective, are published in the open literature, including [by] Dr. Zhengli Shi, head of coronavirus research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

4) Security and safety of the The Wuhan Institute of Virology: The state of readiness of the The Wuhan Institute of Virology considerably alarmed the State Department inspectors who visited it from the Beijing embassy in 2018. “The new lab has a serious shortage of appropriately trained technicians and investigators needed to safely operate this high-containment laboratory,” the inspectors wrote in a cable of January 19, 2018.

5) Dr. Zhengli Shi's experiments on humanized mice: Dr. Zhengli Shi's work was funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), a part of the US National Institutes of Health (NIH). And grant proposals that funded her work, which are a matter of public record, specify that for fiscal years 2018 and 2019. (“CoV” stands for coronavirus and “S protein” refers to the virus’s spike protein.) “Test predictions of CoV inter-species transmission. Predictive models of host range (i.e. emergence potential) will be tested experimentally using reverse genetics, pseudovirus and receptor binding assays, and virus infection experiments across a range of cell cultures from different species and humanized mice." It continues “We will use S protein sequence data, ingectious clone technology, in vitro and in vivo infection experiments and analysis of receptor binding to test the hypothesis that % divergence thresholds in S protein sequences predict spillover potential.” What this means is that Dr. Zhengli Shi set out to create novel coronaviruses with the highest possible infectivity for human cells. Her plan was to take genes that coded for spike proteins possessing a variety of measured affinities for human cells, ranging from high to low. She would insert these spike genes one by one into the backbone of a number of viral genomes (“reverse genetics” and “infectious clone technology”), creating a series of chimeric viruses. These chimeric viruses would then be tested for their ability to attack human cell cultures (“in vitro”) and humanized mice (“in vivo”). And this information would help predict the likelihood of “spillover,” the jump of a coronavirus from bats to people. The methodical approach was designed to find the best combination of coronavirus backbone and spike protein for infecting human cells. The approach could have generated SARS2-like viruses, and indeed may have created the SARS2 virus itself with the right combination of virus backbone and spike protein. It cannot yet be stated that Shi did or did not generate SARS2 in her lab because her records have been sealed, but it seems she was certainly on the right track to have done so. “It is clear that the Wuhan Institute of Virology was systematically constructing novel chimeric coronaviruses and was assessing their ability to infect human cells and human-ACE2-expressing mice,” says Richard H. Ebright, a molecular biologist at Rutgers University and leading expert on biosafety. Dmoney1210 (talk) 19:16, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

The article cites all of its sources. If the credibility of the article us undermined by the fact that Nicholas Wade published a controversial book then the information concerning the lab leak hypothesis can be cited directly from the sources listed in the article. Dmoney1210 (talk) 19:23, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comments:

1 is already presented on this page: The proximity of the laboratory to the initial outbreak has led some to speculate that it may be the entry point. RaTG13 was sampled from bats in Yunnan (located roughly 1,300 km (810 mi) away from Wuhan), and there are relatively few bat coronaviruses from Hubei province.

2 and 3 are not explanations exclusive to the lab theory. The 20-90 year evolutionary gap could be explained by undiscovered animal viruses and as yet undiscovered human adaptation (for instance, in a single immunocompromised individual [12]). Same with the furin cleavage site, lack of detection of a similar furin cleavage site to date in a betacoronavirus does not mean it is impossible to evolve naturally (see: [13]). But these are all reasons why we depend on secondary sources collecting primary studies, instead of listing every single paper that ever comes up with a possibility.

4 depends if you have a reliable source and the change won't give undue weight. Right now, nearly equal text is given to the four hypotheses the WHO evaluated (which is a significant rebalance from the WHO's report, which spent very little time on the lab hypothesis). I'd suggest that it's best to maintain that, meaning either adding additional weight to the other hypotheses, or pulling other potentially relevant info from the lab paragraph. The other three hypotheses have other details which have been summarized for brevity, and WP:NPOV means we should treat all four similarly.

5 is purely speculative, disputed by other sources, and has the same level of detail concerns as #4.

While credibility is certainly part of it, giving equal weight to the four hypotheses means we need to be selective about what we present about each of them. That the lab leak has a similar quantity of text (despite the mainstream view being that it's the least likely explanation) should be appreciated as something of a rarity, pushing for greater weight to be given to some theories would likely end up with those the mainstream considers most likely to get more weight (not the lab hypothesis) per WP:GEVAL. As a new editor, you would be well served by reading the policies and guidelines to better understand whether your recommendations are suitable for wikipedia or not. You may also consider editing pages on other topics first, to get a better understanding in a less contentious environment. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:57, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Facebook Ends Ban on Posts Asserting Covid-19 Was Man-Made

[14] even the gatekeeping overlords are walking back on this subject. 205.175.106.86 (talk) 00:02, 28 May 2021 (UTC) + [15]

• Good thing we are not Facebook, because mainstream scientists still consider that the "man-made theory" (unlike the "extremely unlikely" lab leak) is ruled out (WHO report; Immunity. 2020 May 19; 52(5): 734–736.; Infect Genet Evol. 2021 Mar 18 : 104812.). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:45, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

  Here's a good read on how social media groupthink played a role in stifling inquiry into the lab-leak theory. They note that "many leading scientists believe [COVID-19] may well have leaked from a lab", and "There has never been a clear expert consensus on the virus’s origins. There were a handful of scientists with unusually robust social-media profiles expressing strong views". Stonkaments (talk) 01:18, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

  Scientists publishing in peer-reviewed papers have overwhelmingly argued for a natural origin. We favour WP:SCHOLARSHIP and WP:MEDRS over news reports or social media, for all subjects but especially for heavily complex topics such as the origins of a virus. As for group-think, that might just as well be the case for proponents of the lab leak. Also excellent piece here about politics and how the citing of "intelligence reports" to support a claim dismissed by experts is not unprecedented... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:24, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

  I agree that we should try to rely as much as possible on peer-reviewed research, but news reports often cover aspects of the topic that the peer-reviewed research doesn't address. Also, I'm genuinely curious, what is the WP policy for how to handle research if there are credible concerns of bias in the research due to conflicts of interest? For example, Peter Daszak being a member of the WHO investigation team despite having a close relationship (including providing funding) to the Wuhan lab,[16][17] and virologists more generally having a vested interest in maintaining trust, respectability, and funding for gain-of-function research.[18][19] Stonkaments (talk) 01:43, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

  That sounds like the classical conspiracy theory ("the experts and their vested interests don't want you to know about THIS!!!"). We're not here to right great wrongs, and Wikipedia is academically conservative intentionally, because it's a work of reference, not a private investigator or a research paper. If we'd been around in Galileo's time, we would have had to report as the mainstream view that the Sun goes round the Earth, because that is what the reliable sources would have told us. We care for verifiability, not truth. Of course, consensus (academic and on Wikipedia) can change. But as an encyclopedia, we're interested in following that consensus once it's well established in the sources, not leading it. As must have been said multiple times, the burden of proof is on you to show us there are academic sources which contradict the established consensus. Looking on Pubmed, there are plenty of secondary review papers about the origins of Covid, very few of which seem to seriously mention the lab leak (note that this is not an exhaustive search, just an example - conducting a keyword search is much more an involved effort than making one or two queries). There's already this partially annotated bibliography which you're surely aware of; and I'm also personally working on making a full survey of all published papers which match keywords and which seem to be about the relevant topic to see if there is any material that can be found. Until such time that we have solid contradictory sources, we're bound by the existing ones. Also note that it took a whole 14 years before the zoonotic origin of SARS was proven with direct evidence. There's really WP:NORUSH here, and I'd much rather trust the scientists who have spent their whole careers studying this than politicians and pundits who are quick to jump on sensational headlines. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:00, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

  To clarify: we're not a monolithic, static work either. Significant developments can be covered. As far as I can see, the only significant development has been the amount of political noise over it (WaPo; Guardian; the other Guardian article linked previously; plenty of other sources) and the reaction to the WHO report (already in the article). If you can help find a way to cover this more thoroughly, that's helpful. But we must of course remain vigilant and assess sources for what they are. Newspapers covering politics is entirely within their usual scope and expertise. Newspapers making big, bold claims about science is usually prone to MEDPOP and other issues of distortion and lack of thoroughness/expertise from the writer which are much less prevalent in academic literature. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:13, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

  I don't find the "conspiracy theory" dismissal very convincing. These are clear, well-documented conflicts of interest, and many reliable sources argue that the lab-leak theory was dismissed prematurely for political reasons. But we must of course remain vigilant and assess sources for what they are. I agree wholeheartedly with that sentiment. I'd also like to encourage applying WP:NORUSH evenly to both sides―we shouldn't rush to delineate a "scientific consensus" when that hasn't been decided yet. Stonkaments (talk) 02:28, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

  If fellow scientists had reasonable concerns about these "conflicts of interest" (I note that collaboration between experts in the academic world is a common thing), it's unlikely all of these papers (from scientists all over the globe, published in multiple credible journals) would have gotten through peer-review without any mention being made of it. The claim to the contrary, that scientists are not reporting on this because they "have a vested interest in maintaining trust, respectability, and funding for gain-of-function research", is just the classic conspiracy theory. Re. NORUSH - note that nowhere is it written "this is a settled issue". Unlike with SARS, there is no definitive evidence (yet). So we write what sources say, that "The current scientific consensus is that the virus is most likely of zoonotic origin, from bats or another closely-related mammal."; that "Most virologists who have studied coronaviruses consider the possibility very remote," that "the March 2021 WHO report on the joint WHO-China study stated that such an explanation is "extremely unlikely"", and that "Definitively proving or disproving a "lab" related origin of the virus is a difficult and lengthy process, and long investigations are required to provide a definitive proof or disproof of any theory of the virus's origin.[27][47]". Doesn't sound like "this has been definitively ruled out" to me, unless I'm missing something. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:10, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

  I still don't think it's a crazy conspiracy theory to suggest that scientists are influenced by political pressures; see this article, which says: "scientists...in general were cautious about speaking out. There were 'very intense, very subtle pressures' on them not to push on issues of laboratory biohazards." So the matter of scientists facing political pressures has been mentioned in reliable sources, and I think it could be DUE to include if more reliable sources come out highlighting specific conflicts of interest.
  Recent edits to the article introduced claims such as: "The scientific consensus is that it is a zoonotic virus that arose from bats in a natural setting."—that is the type of definitive statement I am cautioning against at this time. I agree that the quotes you highlighted are more carefully constructed and appropriately attributed, with the possible exception of Most virologists who have studied coronaviruses consider the possibility very remote, which strikes me as an overstep, at least based on the two sources cited for that claim (neither of which makes any claim about what "most virologists" think, nor supports the possibility being "very remote", from what I can see). Stonkaments (talk) 04:29, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

  Intelligence reports and statements from politicians are even more obvious examples of political pressure so that doesn't help us much. There are plenty of sources which describe the current position as a "scientific consensus" or in words very similar to the above quoted ("Meanwhile, outside of US intelligence circles, the broad consensus among scientific experts remains that the most likely explanation is that Covid-19 jumped to humans from an animal host in a natural event."; "Despite overwhelming scientific consensus that the novel coronavirus came from nature, various scientific and pseudo-scientific claims have continued to fan the flames of a conspiracy theory that the virus was engineered in a Chinese lab."; "The conspiracy narrative that COVID-19 was created in a Wuhan laboratory is an unsubstantiated narrative that challenges the current scientific consensus on the virus’s origins."). FWIW, that wording has been there nearly unaltered for months and nobody has found a source which challenges this summary.

  It doesn't help that many scientific papers don't mention the lab leak at all (Exp Mol Med 53, 537–547 (2021) doesn't, neither does Acta Trop 214, 105778 (2021 Feb); or Int Rev Immunol 40(1-2), 5-53 (2021).) This only highlights, since many scientists take the zoonotic origin for fact, that the lab leak is very fringe. The few sources that do mention a possible laboratory sequence of events say it's not plausible (Andersen et al., Nat Med); that while it might be hard to disprove, there is no evidence to support it ([20][21]); or that it is a conspiracy theory pure and simple ([22]).

  That puts us at a significant crossroads, because the lab leak has attracted significant attention, and has been promoted very aggressively by some: "Nonetheless, some aggressive proponents of the lab-leak hypothesis interpreted the letter as supporting their ideas. For instance, a neuroscientist belonging to a group that claims to independently investigate COVID-19 [note: I assume this is the DRASTIC group, although I can't be bothered to verify this, mostly because the tweet is likely deleted by now and because I have no interest in Twitter trolls, some of whom came to harass me personally on my talk page] tweeted that the letter is a diluted version of ideas his group posted online last year. That same week on Twitter, the neuroscientist also lashed out at Rasmussen, who has tried to explain studies suggesting a natural origin of SARS-CoV-2 to the public. He called her fat, and then posted a derogatory comment about her sexual anatomy. Rasmussen says, “This debate has moved so far from the evidence that I don’t know if we can dial it back.”" [23]. To the extent that what SCHOLARSHIP is saying, and what MEDPOP is saying, are nearly on opposite ends... ("very likely zoonotic origin, lab leak possible but extremely unlikely" vs "lab leak 'credible' and 'mainstream'")

  All in the midst of a very divisive political global situation (which should put any statement coming from political mouths into even more suspicion). Exceptional claims (that would be enough to throw these "best sources" out) require exceptional evidence. As has been said, collaboration between scientists is common, and calling it a "conflict of interest" and assuming that scientists are dishonest and not bound by standards of academic integrity strikes me as trying to throw the baby out with the bathwater, in support of a fringe position. In any case, it's not a call we as editors are allowed to make. In matters of science, we're still bound by the top sources, and if they don't find fault with the works of their colleagues, it's certainly well beyond our remit to dismiss them on those grounds. The current text isn't inaccurate, and we can seek to improve it's wording if necessary to make ideas clearer. Until and if there is a documentable and apparent shift in what the top sources say (so, as said, when we can follow these sources instead of leading them), however, we can't treat the lab leak as anything but a minority, FRINGE position which cannot be compared to the mainstream position on a one on one basis without lending it undue weight; although it can be mentioned when appropriate to the topic. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:38, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

• @205.175.106.86: This might be more applicable if we prohibited discussion of the hypothesis. We clearly don't. The current dispute is not whether to prohibit mentioning it, it's what level of weight is WP:DUE/WP:UNDUE.

@Stonkaments: Also, I'm genuinely curious, what is the WP policy for how to handle research if there are credible concerns of bias in the research due to conflicts of interest? This should be handled by WP:SCHOLARSHIP and favoring of secondary sources. If secondary sources don't find a COI issue with a primary study, we shouldn't second-guess their conclusions. To do so could be trying to WP:RGW, and we don't do that. That said, we summarize consensus. So long as we're clear in distinguishing (for instance) that the scientific community broadly agrees with a set of conclusions, while there's significant social/political criticisms of those conclusions, then we can address these concerns and still correctly assert that any COI concerns are a minority among scientists. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:19, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Just to add, if there are well-documented reasons to doubt an area of research then a source from it will get extra scrutiny. Hence Wikipedia generally does not use any Chinese-originated research for Traditional Chinese medicine, and Russian neuroscience sources have a poor reputation, for example. Any Chinese-originated research on COVID-19, particularly if it makes exceptional claims, can probably be discounted because of known problems of state interference. Alexbrn (talk) 13:28, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, sure. How are we doing on handling the minor detail that the WHO covid report is not based on raw data? [24] Adoring nanny (talk) 16:44, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, we can do better (I'd suggest this is the second most notable element of Tedros' comments behind what we have quoted currently, far more notable than the passage that keeps coming up about the lab itself since it applies to all four hypotheses). But let's not pretend that a talk page section that started with even the gatekeeping overlords are walking back on this subject (emphasis added) was an earnest attempt to improve the article (let alone this particular phrase). Bakkster Man (talk) 17:08, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

the WHO covid report is not based on raw data - it is certainly based on raw data, since the report relied upon

• "studies from surveillance of morbidity due to respiratory diseases in and around Wuhan in late 2019"
• "national sentinel surveillance data; laboratory confirmations of disease; reports of retail pharmacy purchases for antipyretics, cold and cough medications"
• "a convenience subset of stored samples of more than 4500 research project samples from the second half of 2019 stored at various hospitals in Wuhan, the rest of Hubei Province and other provinces"
• "surveillance data on all-cause mortality and pneumonia-specific mortality from Wuhan city and the rest of Hubei Province"
• "surveillance data and cases reported to the National Notifiable Disease Reporting System (NNDRS) in China"
• "76,253 records of cases of respiratory conditions in the two months of October and November before the outbreak in late 2019"
• "data collected through the China National Centre for Bioinformation integrated database on all available coronaviruses sequences and their metadata"
• "All sequence data from samples collected in December 2019 and January 2020"
• "data from published studies from different countries suggesting early circulation of SARS-CoV-2"
• "More than 80000 wildlife, livestock and poultry [samples] collected from 31 provinces in China"
• "923 environmental samples in Huanan market"

Do you mean that WHO scientists didn't personally generate new data for the report? I'm highly skeptical of that claim, since in addition to all the data sources mentioned above, the WHO scientists interviewed lab workers, managers and directors at three scientific laboratories in Wuhan. The internationaal scientists quoted in that NYT article flatly reject that claim that they didn't have sufficient access to data [25]. -Darouet (talk) 17:55, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Per the more up to date comments (than either the NYT article or Daszak tweet) from the WHO Director General: The team reports that the first detected case had symptom onset on the 8th of December 2019. But to understand the earliest cases, scientists would benefit from full access to data including biological samples from at least September 2019. In my discussions with the team, they expressed the difficulties they encountered in accessing raw data. I expect future collaborative studies to include more timely and comprehensive data sharing. I added part of this quote to the article to clarify that calls for greater access to data (not necessarily 'no data') came from the WHO, in addition to the other cited comments.[26] Bakkster Man (talk) 19:08, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

links to other articles on lab leak

Biosafety level and List of laboratory biosecurity incidents which includes "2019 Brucellosis China an accident in a laboratory at the Lanzhou Veterinary Research Institute [zh] caused 65 workers to become infected with brucellosis, as reported by China's state media.[41] A later report from Reuters indicates that a further 6,620 residents of Lanzhou have been infected as of November 2020, and cites the local government as saying that the outbreak was caused by polluted waste gas from a nearby biopharmaceutical factory, which was carried by wind down to the Veterinary Research Institute, where the first cases were first recorded in November 2019.[42]"

seems to be relevant to if a leak from a Chinese lab is likely or not.

It however does not discuss the mechanism i.e. a. bat to person; b. bat to genetically engineered biowarfare to person; c. bat to ACE receptor transgenic mouse to person. AND then person accidentally infected in lab then infects others OR several accidentally infected. These would be conspiracy theories - even if true. c. is implied by the Wuhan Institute of Virology page "The scientific community was also reassured that many Wuhan lab scientists were trained in safety procedures at a BSL-4 lab in Lyon, France.[3] Scientists such as U.S. molecular biologist Richard H. Ebright, who had expressed concern of previous escapes of the SARS virus at Chinese laboratories in Beijing and had been troubled by the pace and scale of China's plans for expansion into BSL–4 laboratories,[3] called the institute a "world-class research institution that does world-class research in virology and immunology" while he noted that the WIV is a world leader in the study of bat coronaviruses.[9]"

Elsewhere the idea of a transgenic mouse working with the ACE 4 receptor is better discussed https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-11946046 "What about laboratory theory? When scientists inoculate new genes into viruses in the laboratory to give the viruses new properties, this is called a gain of function study. This is exactly the kind of research that was done at the Wuhan Virus Laboratory and with bat coronaviruses. According to Wade's article, this work was funded by the U.S. EcoHealth Alliance , whose director, Peter Daszak , spoke about his work.(you switch to another service) shortly before the pandemic broke out like this:

“Now, after 6-7 years, we have found over a hundred new SARS-like viruses, they are very close to SARS. Some of them enter the human cells in the laboratory, some of them cause SARS in humanized mouse models and cannot be treated with monoclonal antibodies ... ”

The development of the virus in Wuhan was based on inoculating the coronavirus with various genes for peak proteins and looking at the disease they cause in humanized mouse models. “Humanization” of mice means that they had a human version of the ACE2 receptor, the very receptor to which SARS-CoV-2 attaches when it infects humans. (SARS-CoV-2 actually binds to the human ACE2 receptor much more completely than the bat ACE2 receptor.)

Thus, it does not take much imagination to think about how a Furin cleavage taken from another virus could have been added to a coronavirus in the laboratory, thus a gene whose protein binds to the ACE2 receptor. This would have created a new kind of coronavirus, and then it would have escaped the population."

The links to this information and contextualization seems missing from the articles at present. e.g. EcoHealth Alliance has no information about that 2019 interview with Daszak. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.30.115 (talk) 00:27, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

The above is hard to comprehend, since it isn't exactly structured logically, but it appears to be WP:OR (bonus: no reliable source of any kind cited). I fail to see what the suggested changes would be anyway. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:39, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Loss of internet prevented me adding more. There appears also to be evidence of the WIV going to a cave taking a bat coronavirus (which they later published on in nature and is claimed to be the closest wild virus to the covid-19 pandemic causing virus), then testing for antibodies in a nearby village, finding several cases of antibodies in human residents of that village. This suggests the leap is possible from bats to humans, but the virus is easily fought off - it does not adapt well. Once modified (with the ACE receptor better adapted for) it does and did adapt well. Was that modification done by gain of function research in a humanized mouse? / a natural evolution by an intermediate species? a direct leap?

To add this together in certain ways would break wikipedia policy on synthesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material SO I HAVE NOT DONE THAT. There are several reliable sources cited: the Wikipedia articles themselves - which you can look at and read contain those sources. Also the YLE news source (The Science Editor) is cited which then again cites another source https://thebulletin.org/2021/05/the-origin-of-covid-did-people-or-nature-open-pandoras-box-at-wuhan/ which are the sources of information NOT contained in the articles. For example there is no mention of EcoHealth Alliance who supported the research in the WIV article yet the EcoHealth article says "In April 2020 amid the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak, the NIH ordered EcoHealth Alliance to cease spending the remaining $369,819 from its current NIH grant at the request of the Trump administration due to their bat research relationship with the Wuhan Institute of Virology, located near the epicenter of the SARS-CoV-2." - surely there should be a link / mention between the 2??

The post here was for editors to link relevant information better across wikipedia instead of swelling it all in this page. SO for example the link in this page's article to "laboratory leak" was pointing to conspiracy theory - yet in the same sentence there already was the words conspiracy theory pointing as a link to conspiracy theory and instead laboratory link - now changed to Laboratory incident should point to an article about laboratory incidents e.g. Biosafety level or List of laboratory biosecurity incidents IMHO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.30.115 (talk) 06:01, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Still hard to comprehend. Could you please just say in what way you want to change the article? Omit the reasons why you want to do that, omit the reasons why you did not write them at first, omit links you do not want to add to the article, omit free association and general ideas about the subject. All that can come later if needed. If you mix it all together, your cryptic writing style will prevent others from understanding what you actually want to do. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:25, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Re. "There are several reliable sources cited" - other Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources; you need to cite the sources directly. The piece by Wade is not a reliable source for scientific claims (the origin of a virus) since it comes from a non-expert, is published in a topic-unrelated journal, and there's no evidence of peer review as it is basically a repost of a self-published piece on medium. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:43, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

"Lab leak" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Lab leak. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 31#Lab leak until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:58, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Why declare a "consensus" on the origin, given that all options are still open

Pre-break

As a scientific researcher (not a virologist), I feel puzzled to understand the hurry that Wikipedia editors have in declaring the virus to have a zoonotic origin.

Partly, this phenomenon is fueled by the unexplainable hurry that Andersen et al., 2020 had in trying to defend the zootonic origin immediately in March 2020. Then, the dominant segments of the international community (including WHO), arguably and justifiably fearing that a man-made likelihood would ignite racial biases, released bold statements in defending such premature hypotheses of a natural origin.

However, recent investigations by multiple expert bodies raise several questions on the hypotheses by Andersen et al., 2020. Especially, the work based its judgement on a series of assumptions that to date are not validated despite considerable research efforts during the last year (e.g. traces of intermediate hosts, etc).

When we talk about the likelihood of an event, we should be aware of the axioms of probability. Following Bayesian principles, a prior probability (i.e. natural origin hypothesis) should be altered following new observations (i.e. deriving a posterior probability).

My question for the Wiki editors is: one year after the publication by Andersen et al., - are there any new supportive evidences to validate its assumptions, or - are there more evidences to the contrary, i.e. that sampled evidence does not validate its assumptions?

As the question was retorical (it is obvious that researchers have now more questions and doubts given new data), then, at least the article should also alter its pitch. E.g. in the tone: The origin of the virus was initially thought to be zoonotic, but further recent evidences fell short in validating the initial assumptions. As such, the true origin of the virus outbreak remains unknown and diverse investigations are either planned, or ongoing.

In addition, personally I feel the pitch of the current article is a bit childish in essense. Because the virus can be both zoonotic and released from a lab, e.g. one possible likelihood out of many: a researcher taking a sample from a bat violates the safety protocols and gets infected. In that sense, stating the origin as "either zoonotic or conspiracy" seems uncomprehensible. The article does not differentiate a core concept: the biological origin of the virus (hypothesis: a bat virus), from the origin of the outbreak independent on the origin of the virus (hypothesis: a natural bat virus accidentally infecting a lab staff in Wuhan).

2003:C0:6F31:7E57:745F:555:D36D:8B88 (talk) 21:33, 31 May 2021 (UTC) — 2003:C0:6F31:7E57:745F:555:D36D:8B88 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The above is all WP:OR. You can claim to be whoever you want, but here on Wikipedia we rely on reliable sources. Papers published in peer-reviewed journals by virologists and experts in infectious diseases seem to agree that the virus very likely has a zoonotic origin. We report that. That this happens not to be the point of view of some politicians and that it is being promoted unduly (by cherry-picking [circumstantial, at best] "evidence" to fit a conclusion: the anti-scientific method) is misinformation, and you appear to have fallen prey to it. Researchers asking for more thorough investigation (including to more thoroughly determine a likely zoonotic origin, ex. [27]) does not change that. In any case, we follow, not lead, the reliable sources, and so far I haven't found a single credible paper which argues for the lab leak. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:58, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian Why did you revert the statement attributed to Biden, cited to Reuters? Your edit comment makes no sense in this context. It is relevant for the Biden Administration section that he has stated his national security staff does not believe there is sufficient information to assess one theory to be more likely than the other. It is not stated in wikivoice. Terjen (talk) 23:23, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@Terjen: The problem is that while Biden's statement is notable (and I left it there), the reasons behind it make it so that too much text is being spend describing this. See WP:UNDUE, particularly the bit about WP:PROPORTION - we can mention the reports without giving them too much attention. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:17, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian We can condense the sentence to reduce the text while restoring their attributed significant viewpoint that there is insufficient evidence to determine either hypothesis to be more likely. Terjen (talk) 00:58, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian Having addressed your concerns about spending too much text, I suggest reintroducing the sentence as "stating his national security staff says there is insufficient evidence to determine either hypothesis to be more likely." Terjen (talk) 20:12, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done Terjen (talk) 01:58, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

On the other hand, it appears we give this way too little weight given its coverage in WP:RS press. Terjen (talk) 00:59, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@Terjen: The problem with that particular suggestion is that the popular press are reporting a (notable, but political) view which is very much at odds with that of the scientific literature, which is mostly giving short shrift to it. Hence we need to balance the coverage of science vs politics, and ideally not unduly report the view of politicians (who are not qualified to do such things) on scientific matters. We can mention the most significant events (objections to WHO report, letter in Science, Biden) without quoting them for opinions. Note that if we quote Biden saying that there's not enough evidence, we also need to quote scientists saying that the evidence we do have points to a natural origin entirely consistent with previous outbreaks. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:30, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

We could follow with a viewpoint based on e.g. this NYT article on President Biden’s call for a more rigorous investigation, with scientists cautioning against expecting an answer in the three-month time frame, and although becoming more open to expressing uncertainties about the origins of the virus, still noting the lack of direct evidence for a lab leak. Terjen (talk) 01:52, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I am not really sure that you are fully aware of the scientific discourse regarding the origin of the virus. The world's top-most scientific authorities recently sent a letter to the Science Magazine (published May 2021, link https://science.sciencemag.org/content/372/6543/694.1) asking for an investigation on the origin and stating that "Yet more investigation is still needed to determine the origin of the pandemic. Theories of accidental release from a lab and zoonotic spillover both remain viable. Knowing how COVID-19 emerged is critical for informing global strategies to mitigate the risk of future outbreaks.". The authors are leading scientists from MIT, Harvard, Stanford, Cambridge, Yale, including the world's most knowledgeable experts on coronaviruses, and Science is the ultimate scientific venue. Please explain to the readers, what do Wiki editors know better than the experts in the field, given that you jumped into the conclusion of a zoonotic origin? Because, there is NO consensus among the scientific community in 2021 on the origin, contrary to the initial beliefs in 2020. At the current shape, this article is pure POV, unless it is rewritten from scratch to balance its tone in the form of "The scientific community has not reached a consensus on the origin of the virus".

P.s.: The letter of the scientists is not an isolated opinion letter, but came as a consequence of several research papers questioning the virus' origin. For an instance: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/bies.202000240

2003:C0:6F31:7E57:9595:5CD6:5CFE:6A9C (talk) 08:25, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Thought I'd point out this opposing essay, written in response to the one you've cited. [28] Bakkster Man (talk) 12:06, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

A response to a scientific work is fine, and a healthy way of treating disagreements through scientific argumentation. What is not fine, is WP taking a side on the discussion (fanatically supporting the zoonotic version), while the experts have not reached a consensus. I assume there is no sane editor here, independent of his/her seniority that pretends to have the expertise of arguing against the 18 respected scientists from Harvard, MIT, Stanford, etc. (top-most authorities in the field) who leave the leak version on the table, and heavily criticize the WHO investigation as biased. 2003:C0:6F31:7E57:A506:11F9:ECEA:43E4 (talk) 13:11, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps we need to step back and figure out which facets of this question we're discussing, because it's easy to talk past one another. If we're talking about 'fanatical support', specifically meaning going to the extent of stating there has been no meaningful science performed or rational reason to believe the lab leak is possible/likely, then we probably agree. If we're talking about whether the majority of scientists believe that the virus was most likely natural in origin (even if that turns out to be wrong), and whether such a significantly held majority opinion is notable even though inconclusive, then we might disagree.

One of my major concerns (in both directions) is not overstating people's actual opinions, by reading something else into them. We've seen it with the recent Fauci comments, we've seen it with the Tedros comments, and we seem to be seeing it now with Baric and the Science letter: “I really believe that the genetic sequence for sars-CoV-2 really points to a natural-origin event from wildlife”.[29] I've found it better to discuss specifics, like what should actually change on the article, rather than broad strokes like "the Science letter is a monolithic opinion, the signers are the top in their field, and it was based on a particular paper in BioEssays" that don't appear to accurately reflect the sources. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:57, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

The specifics would be: rephrase all sections where the zoonotic origin is qualified as being the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community. Change to a smoother pitch, e.g. "While many scientists believe a zoonotic origin is the most likely outcome, others have declared that both a lab leak and a zoonotic spillover are viable options." 2003:C0:6F31:7E13:6D15:D6AC:83A6:6D0D (talk) 20:36, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The paper by Deigin (from that Twitter group) and Segretto is about a view (possible "genetic manipulation", involving furin cleavage sites [present in many other natural viruses]) widely held to be discredited by most relevant experts (Deigin does not appear to have any valid scientific credentials in any case, and is aslo part of a Twitter group who've been actively promoting misinformation about the origin of COVID...). The paper in Bioessays is, as the journal name implies, an essay and not a review paper, so a rather weak source for an exceptional claim. In addition, the claim it makes, that of genetic manipulation, had already been ruled out before it was even published by Andersen et al. (an influential paper cited by more than 1400 fellow scientists), see this (written by three [micro-]biologists), which explicitly (like many other more recent sources, including the WHO report) states:

In a Nature Medicine study, Kristian Andersen et al. 18 categorically refute the idea that the virus has been engineered, based on the comparative analysis of coronavirus genomic data. [...] Other epidemiologists have also publicly discredited theories that the virus emerged from a laboratory environment, although it cannot be ruled out entirely, highlighted by the active discussion triggered by the Nature Medicine study on PubPeer 20 and elsewhere.

So, the "paper" you cite is not really a credible paper (as I was saying, "there are no credible papers") nor can it be cited to support anything but the opinions of its authors (since it is an essay), whose view is not significant enough and is already discredited anyway. As to the Science letter, you're not giving all of the context behind that one, either (some signatories, such as Baric, support a more thorough investigation [to make all this nonsense distraction stop?] while also agreeing that the origin is most likely zoonotic). Also, per the same FEBS paper I was just citing:

Whether the now-infamous seafood market is the site that ‘patient zero’ or the index case became infected remains inconclusively known, but the scientific consensus on the origin of SARS-CoV-2 is that, like other coronaviruses, it evolved naturally and was transferred to humans via an animal.

This is also in agreement with many more recent reports in the press (scientific or popular), for example:

• Taylor, Adam. "Analysis | The Wuhan lab-leak theory is getting more attention. That's because key evidence is still missing". Washington Post.
• Beaumont, Peter (2021-05-27). "Did Covid come from a Wuhan lab? What we know so far". The Guardian.
• Maxmen, Amy (2021-05-27). "Divisive COVID 'lab leak' debate prompts dire warnings from researchers". Nature. doi:10.1038/d41586-021-01383-3.

So I suggest you go read that (and look for scientific papers on PubMed, not Twitter) before arguing for false balance based on an extremely dubious paper. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:19, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

In addition the whole thing about an "engineered" furin cleavage site (as promoted in that essay you cite) is bollocks, see Talk:Severe_acute_respiratory_syndrome_coronavirus_2#Rarity_of_Furin_Cleavage_Site_is_inaccurately_described_here for some credible sources on that. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:30, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Yet several of those papers claiming the lab leak origin at not peer reviewed, plus their authors are known cranks who advocated against masks and vaccines. See here.--49.195.5.107 (talk) 12:01, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Incorrect, the BioEssays journal is peer-reviewed. Personal allegations against scientists outside their technical work are not an argument we should seriously consider. Especially, given that the Science letter authors are the most respected scientific authorities in the field. 2003:C0:6F31:7E57:A506:11F9:ECEA:43E4 (talk) 13:05, 1 June 2021 (UTC) — 2003:C0:6F31:7E57:A506:11F9:ECEA:43E4 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Reviewed or not, it's an essay which argues for a discredited position. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:19, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

David Gorski has a look at the lab leak idea on Science-Based Medicine [30]. The start of the article is great:

whenever there is a major outbreak, epidemic, or pandemic of infectious disease, one conspiracy theory always—and I do mean always—arises. That conspiracy theory is that the causative microbe was developed in a laboratory and/or escaped a laboratory. HIV, H1N1, the original SARS, Ebola virus, every single one of them gave birth to such conspiracy theories.

Read the whole article. This is how real experts handle that sort of stuff, and this is the attitude Wikipedia should take. Use Gorski as a source, ignore all the ignoramuses, be they named Biden or Wade, and all those people who have nothing except opinions. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:50, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

See also WP:ARSEHOLES - opinions are just that. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:05, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I’m not sure “Here! Just use this relatively obscure blog!” is the appropriate response to this... Science-Based Medicine =/= science based medicine. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:21, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

SBM isn't "obscure" AFAICS. Although, as I've said, we should use better sources if available (recognising that many of them do not waste their time with this shit). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:28, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Thats why I said “relatively obscure.” I don’t mean to hate on them but its just a very odd response to say "Use Gorski as a source, ignore all the ignoramuses, be they named Biden or Wade, and all those people who have nothing except opinions.” I don’t care how great Gorski is thats just not right and not how things are done here. I would also note that the vast majority of what Gorski writes on the blog is explicitly presented as his opinion, its just not on the same level as good peer reviewed work (whether it be by Gorski et al or anyone else). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:32, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I broadly agree. He's presenting the skeptic's point of view, which is not necessarily the same as WP:NPOV or the majority's point of view. And, as I've suggested elsewhere, it can be viewed as being in opposition with the WHO study we have (as of late) cited as indicative of the majority view, not in agreement with it. At least, for the quote it's used for. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:47, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

"From the very beginning, the general scientific hypothesis has been that, while it is possible that SARS-CoV-2 escaped from a lab, it’s far more likely that it had a natural origin." seems to be in broad agreement with the WHO report, at least as a conclusion. Of course, we have better sources than Gorski for that, and the rest goes better in the article about misinformation to debunk the misinformation, as I've said. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:50, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Note that I didn't say it couldn't be used as a source which was WP:NPOV, only that the the two weren't so synonymous that we could pick any quote from the article and claim it was WP:NPOV. Notably the "in essence, a conspiracy theory" quote proposed at COVID-19 misinformation.

Otherwise, I think we agree: we have better sources than Gorski for that. We have good WP:SCHOLARSHIP to cite for most of our claims, and Gorski's debunking is most useful for the context surrounding the who/what/when/where/why of misinformation spread, leaving those strong MEDLINE secondary sources to describe what is actually misinformation. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:01, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

not how things are done here Actually, ignoring laymen's takes (Biden and Wade are laymen) when we have sources written by scientists working in the field the article is about is exactly how things are done here. Of course, if there are sources which are even better than Gorski, we should use those, but we should not use pieces written by people who are not professional medical scientists, since they are worse than Gorski. Science-Based Medicine is categorized as a reliable source in WP:RSP, and they are experts on medical fringe topics, which this is. Wade is just an expert on writing books the scientists he quotes in them disagree with, and Biden is just someone who was more popular than a <accurate but very unencyclopedic expletive deleted> last year. Why anyone would be interested in what they think on this subject is beyond me.

Also, Gorski analyzes exactly those sources that fervent lab-leak proponents, fervent the-lab-leak-idea-is-plausible proponents, fervent the-lab-leak-idea-is-not-fringe proponents and fervent fence-sitting proponents have been pushing here for weeks. What he writes is not just a soundbite, like an out-of-context Fauci quote some journalist decided to amplify. It is a thorough analysis of the most crucial sources on the lab leak idea, and that makes it better than the usual boring, shallow, superficial show-of-hands crap which will tell you only who likes the idea and who does not, and maybe how much they like or dislike it, but ignores the actual reasoning behind the positions. Quoting the reasoning will be useful to those readers who are smart enough to decide based on reasoning instead of just following or opposing whatever the majority says, following or opposing whatever the Republicans say, or whoever else, depending on one's taste.

The "it's just the skeptic POV" reasoning is a trope everybody who edits fringe articles knows well: "homeopathy does not work? that's just what the skeptics say!" Skeptics are just scientists who look at fringe ideas instead of ignoring them. Dismissing them because they can be pigeonholed as skeptics is just a red herring. Reliable source is reliable. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:20, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I believe that we are facing a couple of orthogonal arguments that overlap in the previous posts, which is a good indication of the complexity of the issue. The first reaction I see is avoiding the direct opinion of a large number of scientists that ask for a thorough investigation and state that a leak is a viable option. This reputation of these 18 leading scientists is in my understanding a clear argument in that "there is no clear consensus on the origin of the virus by the scientific community".

The second point I find problematic is trying to give a false sense of "a majority of scientists" supporting the zoonotic nature. The correct statement would be that "initially there were more scientists supporting the zoonotic option compared to those opposing it", however, we are referring to a very small minority of voices compared to the whole spectrum of relevant scientists in the world (few dozens of supporters, fewer opposers, and the absolute majority undeclared). What is interesting to see that the recent trend is for more opposers to raise their questions, given that the arguments of the supporters do not clearly hold as more data coming out.

The third point is asking for "publications" in support of a lab leak. Such a line of reason is flawed because we cannot have a team of virologists drawing conclusions on a potential leak from a lab without access to the site, analyzing local samples, etc., which China is denying access to. Raising questions is the most that doubters can do in the absence of an investigation.

The last point is trying to frame opposers, or doubters, as "discredited" individuals, fools, or crazy conspiracists. The ironic point is that such non-scientific personal allegations are done by the side which fanatically believes to be the "holder of ethics and truth". It is clear that the nervousness arises because the long-believed zoonotic "truth" is being seriously questioned in the last two months, by all stakeholders, scientists, activists, politicians, supranational organizations, etc.

The bottom line is: There is no scientific consensus on the origin of the virus, and to date very little is known on the exact details of the spread of the virus. Wikipedia should reflect this and not fanatically support a zoonotic origin, which unlike in 2020, does not anymore convince the scientific community in 2021.

2003:C0:6F31:7E57:A506:11F9:ECEA:43E4 (talk) 14:34, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

"large number of scientists" - 18 is not a "large number"; and that statement would also be inconsistent with the lack of scientific papers which view the lab leak favourably. "The third point is asking for "publications" in support of a lab leak." - yes, exactly, see WP:V and WP:VNT (and avoid your personal WP:OR criticism). "There is no scientific consensus on the origin of the virus" - outright wrong; again, see the cited sources. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:39, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Could you please share what is your personal threshold for the smallest number of top-scientists that qualify for your definition of a significant cohort? 2003:C0:6F31:7E57:745F:555:D36D:8B88 (talk) 17:57, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on you to show that there is a "significant amount" of scientists who disagree with the consensus statement. That can only be done by presenting verifiable, peer-reviewed papers which show that this is actually seriously disputed within the scientific community, not by making WP:SYNTH as to what is a significant number (especially not when some of the signatories of that letter don't even agree that a lab leak is likely, ex. Baric). As I've said, all of the sources I have found say that the scientific consensus is a natural, zoonotic origin, as with previous CoVs. If this were truly disputed, it should be trivial for you to find credible sources in quality journals which put forward a contrasting view. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:24, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

The 18 scientists among the most respected authorities in the field and the top institutions are in my understanding a "significant amount" of scientists. The letter co-signed by all of them states that "Theories of accidental release from a lab and zoonotic spillover both remain viable.". As a result, either we deduce that there is no consensus on the origin of the virus, as these scientists explicitly claim; or we have to accept they are an irrelevant part of the scientific community (despite being top professors and researchers at Harvard, Stanford, MIT, Yale, etc.). As they further iterate "We must take hypotheses about both natural and laboratory spillovers seriously until we have sufficient data.". I see two options i. you and/or other editors apparently are more informed and knowledgeable than these top scientists and have done a better screening of the related publications, or ii. that the related work does not conclusively support your stance. In any case, it is of paramount importance to highlight the fact that the community has not reached a consensus on the origin of the virus. Attempts to shortcut a conclusion at WP are really hard to comprehend. 2003:C0:6F31:7E57:A506:11F9:ECEA:43E4 (talk) 19:24, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

The alternative conclusions are that A) you are trying to take one (WP:PRIMARY) letter and use it to override all of the other sources on the topic; B) you are disregarding sources which don't fit with your narrative (for example, the documented reactions from some signatories saying that they believe a natural origin to still be the more likely hypothesis, and that their signing of the letter was more a call for further, more thorough investigations); C) you are not able to produce a WP:SECONDARY review paper which agrees with this assessment because it doesn't exist and D) you are full well aware of our policies against soapboxing, and you are doing it nonetheless. Since we, on Wikipedia, are biased, towards academic, peer reviewed litterature, and since you have failed to provide sources which disagree with the fact that a natural origin is still the scientific consensus, well then it is not possible to change the existing article text in that aspect. Again, it should be trivial, if they exist, for you to provide us a peer-reviewed review paper which makes clear that a lab leak is a serious hypothesis and not merely an "extremely unlikely but not ruled out yet" one. Failing that, you can go right back to other sites. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:33, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Ignoring all your personal allegations and moving to the point: Does this letter express the stance of a relevant segment of the scientific community? If yes, then why twist the fact that the scientific community has not reached a consensus? I do not deny the existence of opposing views and publications on all sides (admittedly few more peer-reviewed on the zoonotic side). However, opposing views are at the core of any disputed theory with no consensus and no evidence to support any version. I do not comprehend why should we give you more publications (although I actually gave one above), only because you do not fancy considering the explicit stance of 18 top scientists in the field as relevant. A significant fraction of the scientific community is not accepting the consensus on the zoonotic version anymore in 2021, as these top scientists *explicitly* stated in the Science letter. Should we reason a consensus by our personal and amateur analyses of virology publications, or agree to use directly the explicit statements of a relevant part of the scientific community which explicitly deny that a consensus on the zoonotic origin is reached. 2003:C0:6F31:7E57:A506:11F9:ECEA:43E4 (talk) 19:50, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Take a moment, and read all the previous comments, where the concerns about that letter (including it being a primary source, and so on so forth) are already addressed; and where reliable sources which explicitly state what the scientific consensus is are provided. I'm not going to reply further until your comments show evidence that you've actually done that, rather than being evidence that you're not listening. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:00, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I have already read the above comments, but they do not directly target the point. You and other peers defended the zoonotic origin and cite papers supporting that stance. The existence of zoonotic supporters (scientists and editors) is not the dispute here. What we argue is whether there is only one view (zoonotic) that is shared by the overwhelming majority of the scientific community, or whether there are two, or more. The science letter is a direct primary source by a fraction of the community that categorizes more than one option as viable. It is direct support for the argument that the community (by its own explicit declaration) has not reached a consensus. As it is evident that a consensus has not been reached, I propose rephrasing the article from a one-sided "zoonotic fan-club" pitch, to a more balanced and accurate tone, e.g. "While many scientists believe a zoonotic origin is the most likely outcome, others have declared that both a lab leak and a zoonotic spillover are viable options."

2003:C0:6F31:7E13:6D15:D6AC:83A6:6D0D (talk) 20:51, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Nobody is arguing that there are not two competing views. What is argued is that one of these views falls under WP:FRINGE (i.e., it is a view which significantly departs from the consensus of experts within the relevant field). See this for more details and how we need to handle this. In short: politics = fine, can be mentioned, due to notability; science = care taken to not unduly legitimise a small minority opinion. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:53, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Our disagreement is then rooted in your characterization of 18 top scientists as promoters of WP:FRINGE, by "supporting a view that departs from the consensus of the experts in the relevant field". However, WP:FRINGE is not applicable as there is no consensus in the first place, from which to depart. As these scientists define the notion of "field experts" by virtue of their prestige and expertise, then by definition they cannot depart from themselves. 2003:C0:6F31:7E13:6D15:D6AC:83A6:6D0D (talk) 21:51, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@2003:C0 For what it's worth, I'm also a scientific researcher at a R1 university in the US, and the talk among my friends and colleagues (professors, research scientists, post docs, in a variety of scientific fields; very smart left-leaning people with PhD's, though no virologists) is that the lab leak is plausible. Some think lab leak is more likely, and some think zoonotic is more likely (I'm in the zoonotic camp, but barely). Lab leak is simply not a fringe idea anymore. RandomCanadian, you would be well-served to just go any science department at the nearest university and ask around; I think you would be surprised at what you hear. We see a dichotomy: scientifically minded laypeople tend to dismiss the lab leak because it was outside the overton window until recently, but actual scientists with PhD's are open to the idea, because they know the messy and uncertain way that science and the academic system works. 24.18.126.43 (talk) 22:50, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Then your friends propably also think it plausible that HIV, H1N1, the original SARS, Ebola virus were lab-leaked? It does not matter what your friends believe when they sit in their armchairs. It does not even matter what the people who actually look at the evidence and are actually competent to look at the evidence believe. Only the results of their investigations matter. The better the job they do, the less their beliefs will influence those results. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:28, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

No, professors and research scientists that I know do not find it plausible that those other viruses are lab leaked. They do find it plausible that SARS-COV2 was lab leaked. 24.18.126.43 (talk) 01:13, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

When your friends are finished strutting and boasting their perfectly ordinary and boring academic accomplishments which make them par with a few Wikipedia editors (or maybe it is you who is doing the boasting for them), you can tell them that as soon as they do actual science which shows that the lab leak is plausible, publish it in an academic journal, and get it accepted as mainstream, Wikipedia can use their results. Until then, bye. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:39, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Hob, I know you are doing your best to combat misinformation. That is an admirable goal. There is a lot of misinformation surrounding covid19, and there are a lot of obnoxious anti-science people who latched onto the lab leak theory for the wrong reasons. But you're on the wrong side on this one; currently the scientific consensus is that lab leak is a plausible hypothesis (not certain, not most likely, simply plausible). Now I'm sure you have all sorts of wikipedia policies to counter whatever I say, perhaps by redefining "scientific consensus" in some wikipedia legal manner, or playing games about which sources count in wikipedia and which don't. I'm not equipped to argue with you about this; surely you know more about wikipedia than me and would easily win. But I've been honest with everything I've said here so far. I ask you to take a moment and honestly think about your position in light of all of the new information that has come out over the last several months. 24.18.126.43 (talk) 08:43, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Except that's already what is in the article: the lab leak is possible, but deemed unlikely by scientists. I don't see what else needs to be changed. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:17, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

You mentioned "all sorts of wikipedia policies", but you do not seem to understand that they are there for very good reasons. A scientist's opinion is always based not only on scientific expertise, but also on personal political, religious, and ideological motives and on what the media choose to tell them. Your IP address shows that you are in the US. At the moment, the US media are permanently firing against China, using the lab leak idea as a weapon. (As an aside, I despise authoritarian governments like the Chinese one, but the reasoning used against them should be sound.) So, how can you know that the reason your friends think like that is purely scientific and not influenced by the peculiar US parochialities? Do you know what scientists in other countries think? Scientists' opinions are simply not reliable enough as sources for Wikipedia. Remember, they are something that needs to be filtered out by scientific methods! That is why Wikipedia demands secondary scientific sources instead of just people who are equipped with academic grades, but get the same media-preselected information as everybody else, answering "what is your take on this" questions.

There is a consensus about anthropogenic global warming. I guess you heard the number 97% at some time. That was one of several studies looking into the question. It was determined not by asking scientists what they think, but by looking at what scientific studies said. This is how scientific consensus is determined. Also, this article is called Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 and not Opinions on the origin of COVID-19.

We have good sources for "possible, but unlikely", but "plausible" is vague. Is something plausible if it is "possible, but unlikely"? Or does it need to be more than a distant possibility? You sounded as if you are using the second definition. The word "plausible" is not good enough to convey an exact meaning. So we will keep the "possible, but unlikely" wording, as RandomCanadian says. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:50, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Your misunderstanding of that letter is still apparent. Supporting further investigations is not fringe. Using a letter, which some of the signatories said themselves is being used for misinformation by people promoting the lab leak, to argue that the lab leak is not "extremely unlikely", is misleading, AND fringe under the sense of the policy. As for your WP:OR of what constitutes consensus and what does not, it is irrelevant, since we do not allow original research. There are sources, from after that letter, given here, from reputable popular and scientific newspapers (Guardian, WaPo, Nature) which explicitly describe the current position as that of a consensus. That you think it isn't one, is, as I have said, irrelevant, since per WP:NPOV, only the opinions of sources matter. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:56, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

We have reliable sources backing that some influential scientists have found the WHO-China report's dismissal of the lab leak hypothesis difficult to accept and have become more willing to voice an undecided position on the origin of the virus. Such as this recent article by Carl Zimmer in New York Times. Terjen (talk) 23:15, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

That brings us back to WP:SCHOLARSHIP, WP:SCIRS (or MEDRS, nearly same thing) and the description given at WP:MEDFAQ ("Why can't I use articles from the popular press?" - replace medical with "scientific" or "biomedical" and the same concerns still apply). There is a tension between academic sources and the popular press. How we deal with that is a difficult question, but policy suggests we should give precedence to academic sources. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:23, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

In this case, it's not really a concern that readers may make incorrect medical decisions based on scientists' assessment of the origin of the virus. New York Times science journalist Carl Zimmer is well qualified to take the pulse on the scientific community. Terjen (talk) 23:53, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

MEDRS sources (in this case, review articles in high-quality journals) are what are needed to determine the scientific consensus. There's no reason to put popular press articles above MEDRS sources, particularly when the popular press is expressing views that are explicitly contradicted by the highest-quality MEDRS sources. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:12, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Please submit your strongest WP:MEDRS source that as required by WP:RS/AC directly says there is a scientific consensus. Terjen (talk) 20:15, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

There are many sources which say that explicitly. The strongest source among those already identified (I haven't found anything so far which contradicts this) would be the article in Nature by Maxmen et al. (a reputable scientific publisher). The alternative would be asking us to prove a negative (that there are no papers which dispute this). Alternatively, we can also make clearer the distinction between scientists and politicians (as reported here - interesting read). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:40, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Hold on: The Maxmen article in Nature does not directly say there is a scientific consensus, as required by WP:RS/AC. It mentions consensus twice, but these refer to consensus in strategies for health management and consensus among powerful countries. For us to state there is a scientific consensus, it should be trivial to provide solid articles explicitly stating it. If not, we shouldn't be among the first to make the claim. Terjen (talk) 21:19, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

A sampling:

• a few scientists believe that SARS-CoV-2 emerged through laboratory manipulations of SARS-CoV-like coronaviruses... Most researchers agree that bats or pangolins are the primary reservoirs of coronaviruses, but the transmission route of SARS-CoV-2 to humans from this primary reservoir is still under study [31]
• All human CoVs have zoonotic origin and are capable of transmission among mammalian hosts; however, most CoVs originate in bats and are transmitted to humans through domestic animals (Forni et al., 2016; Su et al., 2016). Thus, bats are considered the natural host and primary reservoir of human CoVs (Cui et al., 2019). [32]

Worth noting, it appears that most sources simply leave the possibility of a lab origin unmentioned unless specifically countering such claims, suggesting such claims of majority perspective are accurate (as WP:RS/AC suggests). I'd be interested if a similarly strong source contradicting the claim that those favoring the lab hypothesis as likely (not merely 'viable' or 'possible') were a minority could be found. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:56, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

There is no mention of consensus in the samples. Per WP:RS/AC "any statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors." Terjen (talk) 21:28, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

If we interpret that to mean the source must say the word 'consensus' explicitly, then I'm not opposed to "most"/"few". Bakkster Man (talk) 21:53, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

reply to the preceding comment by Terjen

Conspiracy theories and speculations about the origins of SARS-CoV-2 are not quite as innocent as they might seem. In addition to fuelling existing political tensions and racist bigotry, the active promotion of the lab leak by some "aggressive proponents" has lead to the bullying of scientists (including the creation of attack pages, subsequently speedily deleted, here!) and to more difficulties in collaborations (already difficult) with Chinese ones... We ought not to give these people more credence than what they have in academic sources. The article by Zimmer, nevertheless, also makes clear (in it's header, at that) that while scientists support more thorough investigations (which kind of scientist would not?), they also still agree that "the so-called lab leak theory is unlikely". So, we have multiple sources, from a broad spectrum (newspapers to WP:PRIMARY letters to WP:SECONDARY reviews to in-depth investigations like that by the WHO) saying that scientists A) support investigations (the WHO report also supports this!) [not necessarily related to the lab leak, see for ex. [33]) but B) do not consider the lab leak to be likely. I don't know what more we need to make an accurate article which satisfies NPOV - scientists agree that the matter needs further investigation, but that a lab leak is not a likely scenario (hence, it is still fundamentally at odds with the prevailing view within the scientific community - as evidenced by the quotes from many scientists - so gets treated under WP:FRINGE (which is a broader definition than that of the regular meaning of the word "fringe")). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:41, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

The intention of WP:Fringe is to avoid that Wikipedia becomes the validating source for non-significant subjects or a forum for original research, which doesn't restrict us from representing other significant views than what some may consider the "prevailing" one. The Carl Zimmer article substantiates undecided as a significant viewpoint among scientists: "After long steering clear of the debate, some influential scientists have lately become more open to expressing uncertainties about the origins of the virus. If the two most vocal poles of the argument are natural spillover vs. laboratory leak, these new voices have added a third point of view: a resounding undecided." The article documents a range of views rather than a consensus, including quoting Yale immunologist Akiko Iwasaki stating "There’s so little evidence for either of these things, that it’s almost like a tossup." Terjen (talk) 01:49, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

You are proposing to ignore a perspective supported clearly by a significant segment of the scientific community by an explicit letter, and instead propagate a consensus stance, only because it serves a subjectively perceived social good. However, advocating anti-fringe for the sake of a social justice warrior's agenda is not in line with scientific rigors of truth above all. It is very evident and well supported that the community has no consensus on the origin of the virus. Automated dry replies of the form "No, that is not true.", ignoring the explicit content of a letter by 18 top scientists do not help this dicussion. Furthermore, you are misreading the letter at Science, which explicitly states that "We must take hypotheses about both natural and laboratory spillovers seriously until we have sufficient data.". On the contrary, you imply that the letter states a leak is extremely unlikely, which in my reading of the letter is incorrect.

2003:C0:6F31:7E13:9595:5CD6:5CFE:6A9C (talk) 11:52, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

You, on the other hand, look like exactly all of the other lab-leak SPAs, and you are also engaging in WP:OR by interpreting a WP:PRIMARY source (the letter). WP:PRIMARY explicitly says "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.". We prefer WP:SECONDARY sources, and these say that 1) the scientific consensus is still "natural origin" - sources already provided above - and 2) that the letter is being misused by aggressive proponents of the lab leak (such as you and your Twitter friends) - quote: "Nonetheless, some aggressive proponents of the lab-leak hypothesis interpreted the letter as supporting their ideas.". In addition, many note that all of this diplomatic finger-pointing is needless distraction from the actual problem, which is dealing with the virus right here right now (where it came from is actually a purely "academic" debate now - it won't help with fighting it), preventing future zoonotic viral outbreaks (these happen all the time. Recent example: Influenza A virus subtype H10N3), and improving biosecurity rules - all measures which require collaboration. Reliably sourced statements from high-quality secondary sources, and not selective context-less reading of primary sources, is what is required. Until you've demonstrated a willingness to look for better sources and stop engaging in WP:OR, I'm not going to feed into your feedback loop (nor tolerate your ad hominems - calling my a "social justice warrior" implies a lot more things about you than you might think). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:34, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I never supported the lab leak theory in any of my statements or comments (although supporting it is as honorable as opposing it IMHO, as long as it serves the truth), I just insisted that scientists believe it to be a viable hypothesis. However, your expressed opposition to one side of the argument makes you biased and unqualified to treat this topic impartially. I find the remaining personal insults unworthy of any further consideration.

Instead, I have the right to demand (sadly not from you anymore) that the truth about the scientific community's lack of consensus be reflected in this article. The sources on the divide of the scientific opinions are crystal clear. Demanding more sources is pure idiocy and POV. By definition, there can be no consensus after the publicly expressed disagreements of the most respected experts in the field. We cannot re-interpret the meaning of consensus to fit our POV. Please accept it and save our precious time. 2003:C0:6F31:7E13:E5AE:EE25:F808:60 (talk) 14:00, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

By definition, there can be no consensus after the publicly expressed disagreements of the most respected experts in the field. We cannot re-interpret the meaning of consensus to fit our POV. Which viewpoint do you believe is being disagreed with by the letter, and where in the letter was it expressed? The value and necessity of meaningful investigation, the likelihood of the multiple unconfirmed possibilities, or both? On a related note, have you considered creating an account? Bakkster Man (talk) 16:10, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

To clarify my point: There is no consensus in ruling out a lab leak as a fringe theory, or as an extremely unlikely hypothesis that is discredited by scientists. For a segment of the scientific community, it is a viable hypothesis that deserves serious consideration and consequently further investigation. In contrast, the current article version in a bold manner gives the impression of the leak as a discredited fringe theory with no support in terms of its viability from serious scientists.

The letter is not very long (4 paragraphs) and can be read in the blink of an eye

P.s.: I deleted an account years ago when WP started to be time-consuming :( This intervention broke my self-oath of not interfering, to the bad luck of RandomCanadian ;) 2003:C0:6F31:7E13:E5AE:EE25:F808:60 (talk) 18:12, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, then please create a new one, it is simple and it helps communication and warnings to be issued. Forich (talk) 22:57, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

To clarify, when I'm referring to the lab leak being 'fringe', I'm referring to WP:FRINGE/ALT. This doesn't mean it's ruled out, only that it's adherents are a minority. And when I say adherents, I mean those who believe the lab origin is not merely possible, but likely. And not even all the signers of the Science letter even fit that definition of an 'adherent', as Ralph Baric signed specifically regarding the thoroughness of investigation: Baric had also signed Relman’s letter in Science, but he told me that his concerns had been with the W.H.O.’s failure to conduct a thorough, transparent review of biosafety measures at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. “I really believe that the genetic sequence for sars-CoV-2 really points to a natural-origin event from wildlife,” he said.[34]

Of course, that distinction is difficult to get right and make clear. I do think the article is better now than it was a few months ago, but that doesn't mean there isn't still room for improvement. But the first question is, do we agree that belief that the lab leak origin is a likely origin is a minority opinion among scientists? Bakkster Man (talk) 19:02, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

That the lab leak origin is a viable and serious hypothesis is an explicit stance by a "segment" of the scientific community. Whether this "segment" represents the majority, or the minority of "opinions" is for me hard to assess. In particular, as a serious on-site investigation has not been conducted, the lack of empirical evidence in support of the original zoonotic hypothesis (e.g. the failure of finding any intermediate host carrying the exact SARS-COV-2 genetic information despite tens of thousands of sampled animals, etc.) is making the number of doubters increase on a daily basis. My very personal assessment is that while in 2020 most scientists assumed the virus has a natural origin, in 2021 a critical mass of scientists apparently has doubts. 2003:C0:6F31:7E13:E5AE:EE25:F808:60 (talk) 19:56, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

We agree on "viable and serious", so all we disagree on is whether the article as written current does that. If you compare to the start of the year, I'd argue we do a much better job of that (in part because, at the time, it wasn't agreed that an accidental lab leak was "viable and serious"). So now it's the tough job of assessing the sources to verify what we're writing is credible. Like you said, while it's hard to assess prevalence, most credible sources say the opinion that natural origin is more likely is the majority. If that changes, then we will change (like when the WHO published their report giving "viable and serious" investigation into an accidental lab leak).

I'd like to propose an alternate explanation of the change we're seeing publicly in statements. It may not be an increase in 'doubters' of a natural origin, and instead because there's no longer an implied connection to the loudest, most conspiratorial voices in the room (ie. Trump) that had a chilling effect last year. The NYT found some who felt that way: Some scientists attributed the shift in part to the fact that the more extreme proponents of a lab leak hypothesis, like Mr. Navarro, had drowned out the more measured discussions of how lab workers could have accidentally carried the virus outside. And like anything, we need to be able to source it reliably. So the same as I wouldn't ascribe that motivation to all the people speaking out, we also can't ascribe it to failure to find the animal source. Not without a source. Hope that helps clarify things, and let me know if you have any specific items you think could be improved (supported by sources). Bakkster Man (talk) 20:29, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

We don't "interpret" consensus. We "report" what reliable, secondary sources say and what they say about consensus. Recent scientific papers and newspapers, as cited multiple times above, note that the scientific consensus is still a zoonotic origin. Hence we report that, per WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, while leaving a minor mention of alternative scenarios, per WP:FRINGE and WP:DUE. End of. The only arguing that should be there is about the credibility of sources and how to accurately represent the subject based on the credible sources. Everything else is a waste of everyone's time. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:45, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

On a lighter note, RandomCanadian sounds like he would watch the first chapters of the Lost TV series and conclude with a serious face that there is consensus on why those people are in the island.  :) On a serious note, we are witnessing an interesting case in which the scientific sources overstate the confidence of their results and the news sources do the contrary. It is a rare turning of events because normally scientists will say "taking cofee is correlated to health metrics in this tiny sample of people" and news sources will say "Scientists find that consuming cofee extends life". Forich (talk) 21:55, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

watch the first chapters of the Lost TV series and conclude with a serious face that there is consensus on why those people are in the island. Not necessarily problematic, so long as it's reliably sourced and we update if/when the majority opinion changes. Exactly what WP:FRINGE/ALT says, btw: should still be put into context with respect to the mainstream perspective. ;)

Maybe reframing things away from 'scientific consensus' to 'mainstream perspective' will be more palatable, at least for some. Bakkster Man (talk) 22:26, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

WP:RS/AC is very clear on this: "A statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view." Editors' determination that the majority opinion is X, in the absence of sources directly saying "the majority opinion is X", constitutes WP:OR. Stonkaments (talk) 02:50, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

the scientific sources overstate the confidence of their results and the news sources do the contrary By using the word "overstate", you are saying that your own opinion is in between. Put more neutrally and taking you out of the picture: the scientific sources are more confident about the zoonotic origin than the news sources. Wikipedia editors can think what they want, but Wikipedia articles take the position of the more reliable sources. They do not reflect the position of the editors who happen to write the article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:47, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

What is the strongest WP:RS directly substantiating the claim of scientific consensus per WP:RS/AC? Terjen (talk) 04:05, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

This states it directly, as quoted above. There are then reliable newspapers which echo this. If I look through enough academic papers I might find some which make this statement too (but that's a time consuming exercise), but many of them simply don't mention anything but a natural origin scenario so this makes me think of the scenario at WP:FRINGELEVEL where "Fringe theories may be excluded from articles about scientific topics when the scientific community has ignored the ideas." and also WP:FALSEBALANCE ("plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship"). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:35, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

The provided source is from June 2020, while the letter of the 18 renowned scientists, stating that the leak is a viable and serious hypothesis, was released on May 2021. How can a one-year old publication be used as a proof of consensus, while there exist an explicit consensus-disrupting declaration that is less than 1 month old? 2003:C0:6F22:6318:4DC0:7EF:B535:FEB6 (talk) 11:41, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Could we look at removing the term "conspiracy theory" from this article? Saying this implies that some avenues of investigation are inappropriate. Valid hypotheses should treated with more respect. 2601:844:4000:F910:E8E4:1C40:DCB:D45A (talk) 12:37, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

You've been given sources, recent ones at that (in addition to scientific papers), which explicitly state what the scientific consensus is, and some which also explicitly state that some theories, such as the claims the virus is man-made, are conspiracy theories. You are not allowed to interpret primary sources to claim that there is no such thing, per WP:NOR and WP:PRIMARY. The only references to "conspiracy theory" I see in this article are:

1. "A number of conspiracy theories have also been promoted about the origins of the virus.[17][20][21]"
2. "Nonetheless, in the context of global geopolitical tensions,[46] the origin is still hotly debated,[47] and, early in the pandemic, conspiracy theories spread on social media claiming that the virus was bio-engineered by China,[48] amplified by echo chambers in the American far-right.[49] Other conspiracy theories promoted misinformation that the virus is not communicable or was created to profit from new vaccines.[50]"

Both of these seem correct. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:08, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

The consensus claimed by a paper in 2020 does not imply that there is still a consensus in 2021, by pretending that nothing has changed in the scientific opinion between 2020 and 2021. The correct formulation would be that "Until June 2020, existing sources indicated a consensus on the zoonotic origin of the virus among the scientific community. In contrast, recent declarations in 2021 by leading field scientists consider a lab leak to be a viable and serious hypothesis." 2003:C0:6F22:6318:8D4D:4AEF:DE89:7EC3 (talk) 14:38, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

The page does not refer to the possibility of an inadvertent lab leak as a conspiracy. I've cleaned up the one paragraph from 'bio-engineering' to 'bio weapon' specifically to ensure that this is accurately reflected and can't be confused. The conspiracy theories the article refers to (Winnipeg Lab source, biological weapon, non-communicable, designed to sell vaccines) are not the "viable and serious hypothesis" you're referring to. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:42, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

The paper titled "COVID-19 breakthroughs: separating fact from fiction" published 5 June 2020 in the FEBS Journal was proclaimed offered by RandomCanadian in response to a request for the strongest WP:RS directly substantiating the claim of scientific consensus. It explicitly states "the scientific consensus on the origin is SARS-CoV-2 is that, like other coronaviruses, it evolved naturally and was transferred to humans via an animal" but also that the virus emerged from a laboratory environment "cannot be ruled out entirely." Unfortunately, reviewing research related to the origin of the virus is not a primary focus of the paper, but limited to a single section and only a few sources. Instead, the paper discusses a range of topics such as using Ibuprofen to manage symptoms, the protective role of nicotine, whether SARS-CoV-2 linger on surfaces, the effect on ethnic minorities, impact on children, and variation in mortality rate. Is this paper really the best we have to substantiate a scientific consensus? Terjen (talk) 22:12, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@Terjen: I never said it was the strongest, I said it was one source among many, and I've also given many recent newspapers which confirm this. Quote-mining scientific papers isn't my forte, and it's a time consuming process. However, in the absence of sources which explicitly dispute the presence of a consensus, we're stuck with those which do say there is one, personal interpretations of primary sources to the contrary notwithstanding. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:21, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

You responded with this paper upon my request for the strongest WP:RS. If there is a consensus among scientists, it should be trivial to substantiate it. Terjen (talk) 22:33, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Re "in the absence of sources which explicitly dispute the presence of a consensus, we're stuck with those which do say there is one." No, if we only have weak sources suggesting there is a consensus, we're free to ignore them and avoid making claims about a consensus. Terjen (talk) 22:38, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't call the Guardian, NYT, or Nature or scientific journals, "weak sources". WP:FRINGELEVEL says that if scientific sources ignore an hypothesis, it's likely that it isn't the prevalent one. This, very recent paper, in Lancet Resp Med, has "The most plausible origin of SARS-CoV-2 is natural selection of the virus in an animal host followed by zoonotic transfer." This is entirely consistent with the lab leak being a fringe theory, as per the sources (in the post just below) which explicitly say that there is a scientific consensus. If you disagree, start a bloody RfC so we can get stop talking past each other. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:09, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

My primary concern is not the lab-leak hypothesis, but that we shouldn't present the origin question as settled science. However, regarding WP:FRINGELEVEL saying that if scientific sources ignore a hypothesis it may be excluded, even the article you offered upon my request for the strongest WP:RS doesn't ignore the lab-leak hypothesis, but states that it "cannot be ruled out entirely." Terjen (talk) 00:20, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Ok, final reply about the IP's OR definition of "consensus". Free to look at these, recent sources, which say it explicitly:

• Taylor, Adam. "Analysis | The Wuhan lab-leak theory is getting more attention. That's because key evidence is still missing". Washington Post.
• Beaumont, Peter (2021-05-27). "Did Covid come from a Wuhan lab? What we know so far". The Guardian.
• Maxmen, Amy (2021-05-27). "Divisive COVID 'lab leak' debate prompts dire warnings from researchers". Nature. doi:10.1038/d41586-021-01383-3.

There are others, recent and older, which show that despite the politics this hasn't changed at all in the scientific community. In any case, consider this a final warning about engaging in WP:OR. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:51, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Empty sentimental threats in the absence of arguments, cannot stop anyone from asking the truth to be written impartially. As I repeated multiple times, there is no ultimate consensus on the origin of the virus among the scientific community, because the finest members of the research community (18 elite-most scientists from Harvard, MIT, Stanford, Yale, etc.) have recently openly declared (see cited Science letter) that both a leak and a zoonotic spillover are viable hypotheses. Citing outdated publications from 2020, or random collections of opinion articles at newspapers as a proxy of an alleged consensus, cannot overrule the explicit declaration of scientists themselves. Imagining a consensus of a scientific community, against the explicit declaration of the most important elitary segment of this very same community makes no sense. 2003:C0:6F22:6318:8D4D:4AEF:DE89:7EC3 (talk) 16:17, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm hesitant to join this rather spirited discussion -- but I must say that you seem to be reading what you want to read in that Science letter (which offers opinion only, no evidence). In actual published data, scientists have been saying the same thing all along -- that all evidence to date indicates that SARS-CoV-2 was not purposefully manipulated, and the notion that the pandemic resulted from a laboratory accident is not necessary to explain the pandemic. The media, on the other hand, have followed the opinion pendulum back and forth, from logic to fringe and back again. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 16:39, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment DoctorJoeE and sorry for having to witness emotionally loaded comments. I agree with you that a significant segment of the scientific community has actually expressed opinions, or published articles in favor of a zoonotic origin of the virus. What we disagree is on whether there is a full consensus by the community that the zoonotic origin as the only viable hypothesis, as the article portraits. The letter I cited explicitly state that both hypotheses, zoonotic or lab leak, are viable hypotheses that should be taken seriously and investigated. As a result, the question is whether this explicit declaration of an important segment of the research community, make the consensus argument still hold (i.e. can a community have a consensus if its most notable members publicly disagree)? Why is this important at all: because if a scientific consensus on a zoonotic origin does not exist and the lab leak is now considered as a viable hypothesis (hypothesis means an open option, as long as we know more), it should not be treated at this article as a fringe and discredited theory with links to conspiracy. 2003:C0:6F22:6318:8D4D:4AEF:DE89:7EC3 (talk) 18:04, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

whether there is a full consensus by the community that the zoonotic origin as the only viable hypothesis, as the article portraits Why should anyone take you seriously when you can't even bother to correctly reproduce what the article is saying? It does not say, and did not when you wrote the above, that the lab leak idea is "not viable", it says it is "extremely unlikely". When something is not viable, it cannot be extremely unlikely at the same time, only impossible. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:32, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Are we referring to the same letter. Citing "Theories of accidental release from a lab and zoonotic spillover both remain viable." and "We must take hypotheses about both natural and laboratory spillovers seriously until we have sufficient data.". You are misreading the letter, in the section you refer to the authors criticize the WHO report that deduced a leak as "extremely unlikely" without a thorough consideration. I think you owe me an apology for jumping into aggressive language, instead of investing 60 more seconds to read the letter. 2003:C0:6F1E:B606:A481:48C2:80CC:AF51 (talk) 14:39, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I guess you are talking to me and not to the other IP, and I guess you are the same person as the other IP. Therefore I added one more colon to your indentation to make that clearer.

I was not talking about any letter, I was talking about "the article". By which I mean the Wikipedia article Investigations into the origin of COVID-19, the Talk page of which we are on. You could have inferred this from the fact that I said "the article" and not "the letter". You had written whether there is a full consensus by the community that the zoonotic origin as the only viable hypothesis, as the article portraits. So, you claimed that the Wikipedia article Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 said that the zoonotic origin is the only viable hypothesis, didn't you? I explained to you that it does not, and you can check if by clicking on the link Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 and searching for the word "viable". Now you are talking about some "letter" I was supposed to have been talking about. Well, I wasn't. In case you still have not got it, I was talking about the Wikipedia article Investigations into the origin of COVID-19. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:55, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I implied the Science article, i.e. the letter, assuming that the context was derivable from the previous thread exchanges but sorry about the confusion in case you read only my latest comment in isolation. In that case, unless you have any point against my summarization of the letter, then I believe your concern is addressed. 2003:C0:6F1E:B606:A481:48C2:80CC:AF51 (talk) 17:30, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Still does not make any sense. Is there anybody who says "there is a full consensus by the community that the zoonotic origin as the only viable hypothesis"? The letter doesn't, the Wikipedia article doesn't. None of the editors here does. But you claim that there is disagreement about this question. Where do you get that? The lab leak has always been considered viable, but extremely unlikely, by the consensus. That is still the case. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:38, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

See this ANI thread for further action. @DoctorJoeE: Your sum-up seems about almost an indirect quote of thie first paper I list here, "Other strategies, more speculative than those listed above, have been used to suggest that SARS-CoV-2 came from a laboratory accident at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (Rogin, 2020). The evidence indicates that SARS-CoV-2 was not purposefully manipulated (Andersen et al., 2020). Moreover, the notion that the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic resulted from a laboratory accident at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (Rogin, 2020) is not necessary to explain the pandemic."... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:43, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello; I've been lurking here for a while and find the discussion on consensus interesting, so I decided to create an account. I wanted to note that there have been two very recent articles that explicitly address this, (both from today). As a quote from a prominent scientist: '“We can’t even begin to talk about a consensus other than a consensus that we don’t know,” said David Relman, a Stanford University microbiologist. “We have nothing like the amount of data we need.”' https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/coronavirus-bats-china-wuhan/2021/06/02/772ef984-beb2-11eb-922a-c40c9774bc48_story.html And as a take-away 'The scientific consensus had been smashed to smithereens.' https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/06/the-lab-leak-theory-inside-the-fight-to-uncover-covid-19s-origins Sorry about the formatting. Chvko (talk) 18:26, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Welcome, Chvko! The two relevant quotes (as I see them) from those two articles are as follows:

WaPo: Many scientists say the most likely path is that the virus spread in nature and jumped from animals to humans. But that belief is largely based on how other coronaviruses have originated, not what is known about this case.

VF: There are reasons to doubt the lab-leak hypothesis. There is a long, well-documented history of natural spillovers leading to outbreaks, even when the initial and intermediate host animals have remained a mystery for months and years, and some expert virologists say the supposed oddities of the SARS-CoV-2 sequence have been found in nature.

These aren't the only sources making such evaluations, of course, but it helps to include them here for ease of discussion. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:46, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I believe the most relevant quotes are the ones that Chvko highlighted (welcome!). That is two more solid sources disputing the existence of any scientific consensus at present. The Vanity Fair article also provides additional context for how problematic the notion of scientific consensus has become in this politicized debate: In April 2021, in an editorial in the journal Infectious Diseases & Immunity, Shi resorted to a familiar tactic to contain the cloud of suspicion enveloping her: She invoked scientific consensus, just as the Lancet statement had. Stonkaments (talk) 02:04, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

A big source of confusion is that the word "origin" is an umbrella term. If we break down its components, one can arrange them in order of how fast evidence comes up regarding it, after an epidemic. This is more or less the order:

1. The causative agent is discovered
2. The index case is epidemiologically traced
3. A likely reservoir is discovered by genomic analysis
4. A likely evolutionary history is reconstructed from molecular genetic analyses
5. The intermediate host is discovered
6. The actual animal that hosts the inmediate virus ancestor of the virus is found in the wild

The word consensus can be safely applied to parts 1-3 above. Lots of uncertainty remain for part 4. Parts 5 and 6 are total mysteries, still. But this is normal in most epidemics. What word best summarizes the whole origin? I do not know. Forich (talk) 20:01, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

In addition, the content of the article is confusing because the title refers to the "origin of COVID-19" and the first sentence states the "origin of SARS-CoV-2", which in my understanding are orthogonal concepts: the former questions "how was the first human infected?" and the second "how did the virus evolve?". If such orthogonal questions are raised, even opposing hypotheses can funnily co-exist, e.g. the origin of SARS-CoV-2 can be a natural evolution, while the origin of COVID-19 can be a lab leak from that natural virus? This highlights the need for editing the article from multiple angles. 2003:C0:6F1E:B606:3D8B:135E:DBC:48EA (talk) 21:24, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@Forich: 2. The index case is epidemiologically traced Is it actually the case that there is consensus on this? I was under the impression that one of the major reasons why we don't have a clear resolution to resolve the lab question is the lack of a definitive index case. From the article: The earliest human cases of SARS-CoV-2 were identified in Wuhan, but the index case remains unknown. This doesn't mean particular details can't be evaluated for likelihood or ruled out, but I think it's worthwhile to confirm that there is not yet an index case identified. Bakkster Man (talk) 21:34, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

As far as I can see, 1. is obvious; 2 is not solved yet and likely won't be for a while; there is a rather clear consensus for 3 (likely reservoir = bats); I'm seeing papers about 4 ([35][36][37], so I guess that is also pretty much consensus. So that leaves 5-6. 6 took 14 years for SARS-CoV... Anyway, my two cents is that there will likely be some more time before we get a definitive answer on this, so likely we'll be dealing with disruption related to this, for a while... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:46, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Agree with RandomCanadian, but since the pangolin evidence was found to have holes I would be cautious in calling it consensus. This is my best effort to summarize part 4: According to the WHO report, one of these reconstructed steps was that RaTG13 was found to have 96.2% genetic similarity with SARS-CoV-2. However, they qualify that by saying "Although SARS-CoV-2 is closely related to RaTG13, only one of the six critical amino acids sites [in the RBD of the S protein] is identical between the two viruses. A second step was that pangolin viruses were found to have some of the parts needed to complete the evolution, but the WHO summarizes the results from this line as inconclusive by saying "Although some researchers thought these observations [similar amino acids to the RBDs of pangolins] served as evidence that SARS-CoV-2 may have originated in the recombination of a virus similar to pangolin-CoV with one similar to RaTG13, others argued that the identical functional sites in SARS-CoV-2 and pangolin-CoV-GDC may actually result from coincidental convergent evolution". Andersen summarized the advances on the reconstruction of the evolutionary history of SARS-CoV-2, in this tweet: "The 'natural' version of this actually has a lot of evidence to it by now - we continue to see more and more of the pieces that make up the puzzle of SARS-CoV-2's evolutionary origin. The problem is - it's a big puzzle.". If the puzzle is big and the main reconstructed steps have not been conclusive determined, we should be cautios to say that a lot of progress has been made on this front, in my opinion.. Forich (talk) 22:23, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@Bakkster Man:, good point. I used index case as the first identified patient, which is well-known who he is (dec 8 case according to WHO, or Dec 1 according to primary sources). As far as we know, he is the most likely candidate to have been infected by the animal source. On your point I've seen molecular clock studies that use a "root" case, which is previous than the index case. That would be what you are thinking, in case of a single introduction point, and tracing the clock of the variability observed in december, it is hypothetized that the index case from Dec 8 does not coincide with the root case, which probably happened late November 2019 or a few days earlier. That root would still be unknown, and therefore you are absolutely right. Forich (talk) 22:29, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@Forich: You're right, index case just means first identified in a given population. That could be the first human ever, or just the first for a given localized cluster. But I think we agree, in this case we're talking about the global 'root' case, not just the currently identified Wuhan index case. Bakkster Man (talk) 22:47, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

References

Using curated information from news sources in Investigations into the origin of COVID-19

In this blog post I wrote a proposal of how to curate the information reported by top news outlets on the lab leak hypothesis. Please read and comment. If the RFC on using RS is approved, I will post the selected pieces of information that I believe is realiable and due of inclusion in this entry. Forich (talk) 18:47, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

At the ending the blog post says "When a news sources qualifies the extent of agreement on the scientific community, it can only be used if a) it cites a stronger source or b) it is attributed to the opinion of a particular scientist that represents that position." It is unclear from the writing whether this is your opinion/recommendation or wp policy. Terjen (talk) 20:51, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@Terjen: That is taken from WP:RS/AC. This is the quote:

A statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view. Otherwise, individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources. Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material. Stated simply, any statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors. Review articles, especially those printed in academic review journals that survey the literature, can help clarify academic consensus.

.

As you can see, the rule does not say explicitely that MEDRS are required for Academic Consensus, but in practical terms it does says so, because it first says that "reliable sourcing that directly says..." is required, and at the end it says that "Review articles, especially those printed in academic review journals that survey the literature can help clarify academic consensus". The part in which individual opinions can also be included sourced on plain RS, even if non-MEDRS is my own interpretation of the "Otherwise" connector in the quote. Forich (talk) 22:43, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

The statement in the blog post puts additional requirements on news sources as a special subset of reliable sources, but this doesn't follow from WP:RS/AC. Terjen (talk) 23:01, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

"A statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view." - unless the Guardian, Nature, NYT, and the like are not reliable sources, then your objection holds no water, per the sources already provided. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:14, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Excuse me but I am getting lost on what is the disagreement. Suppose we have three scenarios:

1. "According to Systematic Review A, all virologists hold position X"
2. "According to NYT, all virologists hold position X"
3. "According to NYT, virologist B holds position X"

Which of these do you think is a good execution of Wikipolicy and which isn't? Forich (talk) 04:53, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Assuming the word "all" can stand in for other, similar words:

1. This would be the ideal option - scientists expressing themselves on views that are prevailing within their field of expertise. At that point, I would hope that attribution is not required, especially because I would assume that no. 2 would also be met.
2. In the absence of number 1, this would be the second best option, assuming that the journalists have done their job right (if, for example, a piece being used to support this is simply some random quotes from scientists, pieced together, that could pose problems). Again, depending on how many newspapers are reporting this, but if there are many reputable sources which independently repeat the same thing, it can be taken for an uncontroversial statement and not require attribution.
3. This is trickier. If the source is quoting the scientist directly, we can simply say "Virologist B holds position X". This then becomes an issue of whether mentioning the opinion of one scientist is DUE or not; and what the view specifically is (views held by tiny minorities, or views which are otherwise disputed by the relevant academic community, should not be quote-mined like this: we should instead rely on secondary sources). Of course, this analysis is in respect to this article. If, say, we're writing an article about Virologist B, and his views are prominent enough that they get mentioned in the press, it might be easier to mention them there as notable views of that person. With the grain of salt of WP:ARSEHOLES, i.e. everybody has opinions and we shouldn't cite scientists' own statements for opinions well outside their topic of expertise.

In short, 1>2 (but 2>0 if 1 not available), and 3 is a case-by-case analysis. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:55, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Media coverage section

I've been thinking about this topic, and am currently wondering if we should add a section to the end of (or after) Investigations for something along the lines of press/media. A lot of these conversations/debates are clearly notable, and I think we've mostly been putting off inclusion as part of fighting the broader NPOV/V fight for what gets said in the bulk of the article about the origins themself. Put another way, we've been so focused on why certain sources are unreliable/UNDUE citations for the scientific investigation, we've had a blind spot on their notability relative to the public/press attention itself. I think a section like this would help us in both directions: give DUE weight to notable news coverage, and relieve some of the pressure on covering the sources. The Wade article, WaPo timeline, Vanity Fair's coverage, Gorski, continued skepticism, the overall shift in how the lab was covered, etc. Not as a dumping ground, but addressing the media coverage of investigations and public perception of them that doesn't fit in the SARS-CoV-2 or Misinformation articles. Thoughts? Bakkster Man (talk) 16:02, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I second adding a section that documents the overall shift in media coverage on the origin of the virus, including media criticism/self-reflection on the change. Terjen (talk) 19:52, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Unless we have reliable sources reporting on the media's change of coverage (going from one to the other extreme), I'm afraid such a thing would be WP:OR. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:09, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Obviously. So we base it on WP:RS. Terjen (talk) 23:27, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

@Terjen: Well, as I was subtly hinting at, you're free to either A) propose sources here or B) make some additions yourself based on sources you find RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:45, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

In addition to the sources I linked in my first, there's this meta-look from the New Yorker, and this Nature article might help (and might be a RS for our wording on mainstream scientific opinion). There's also an article from The Hill we use in the Misinformation article used for this purpose.

But I'm also thinking simply making space for these sources, where they're notable without trying to act like they're reliable for the topic overall. And before I write a chunk of text, I'd like at least a thumbs up that it's a reasonable direction. Bakkster Man (talk) 00:58, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I haven’t read Forich’s second blog yet but enjoyed the first one. I agree with Bakkster Man’s proposal to create a press/media section and we could perhaps call it Society and culture similar to what we have in Gain of function research. Here are a few more sources to pick from: [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43]. CutePeach (talk) 05:37, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Interesting proposal, I've seen similar sections of "Controversy" in other articles, it can lead to a healthy "let's agree to disagree" venue. It can include the nuances without a priori condemming them, and every position can be presented without attaching reason or emotion, just observed behavoir: A thinks the sky is blue, B thinks the sky is red, C thinks the sky is yellow Forich (talk) 19:06, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Everyone feel free to participate in a sandbox version here: User:Bakkster Man/COVID Media Sandbox. Bottom section is for basically raw links that might be useful, top section for putting together content to copy into the article. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:37, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Questions about references 1 and 2, general disinterest of authors

Reference 1: Is the WHO report of Spring 2021. Wasn't this report done by 17 Chinese appointed scientists and 13 others? I don't have anything against folks from China, but are they at all free to speak out as scientists? Wasn't this group denied access to the WIV for all but one part of one day? Didn't China, for example, refuse the USAs 3 suggested representatives, to instead get the only USA person who was funding the WIV? I'm not knowledgeable on WP:Policies, but I would think there *should* be something allowing much more explanation of the circumstances behind this report. I'm not saying there is or is not such a policy, but I'm saying there should be, and maybe WP:Ignore Rules should be applied. I do not have personal confidence in this report based upon the circumstances behind how it was conducted.

Reference 2: Is a Scripts Research News Release/Announcement. Once again I'm not an expert on WP:Policies, but this does not appear to be peer reviewed, and I dont see an author cited (sorry if I missed this). I look at the myriad of WP:Policy-Objections thrown up to the numerous articles and users who are merely saying a lab leak was possible (accidental, not definite lab-leak but a possible lab-leak) and don't understand why the policies applied to this reference seem different. Scripts Research includes Kristian Andersen. But I would submit that emails show Mr. Andersen is not a disinterested party. I do not have personal confidence in this reference. Discussion on issues with this reference should be included.

General Disinterest of Virologists: In the past few weeks there have been a large number of primary source documents (mainly emails) released reflecting on how the "scientific consensus" alleged on Wikipedia was reached. These have been widely discussed in the media. I see what to me are clear attempts to game the system. As but one example, emails show the original author of a document discussing with 2 other "scientists" how they should NOT include their signatures so it will appear they were NOT involved. My point is not about one particular quote in an email, but in general many of the individuals involved in the "scientific concensus" certainly seem to not be acting as disinterested parties. As I've said before I'm not an expert in WP:Policies, but I feel there *should* be much more inclusion of this issue.

Application of "peer reviewed research" to "scientific consensus." There was a recent letter in the journal Science (not peer reviewed) from 18 scientists (including Baric who I give a lot of credit to) asking for further research into this area, and much media coverage of it. I do not understand the objections to considering this letter even though it was not "peer reviewed." These are opinions, not allegations of facts that can be "reviewed." (Journal letters alleging specific scientific facts should be questioned more.) This letter shows that "scientific consensus" is a myth. Consensus is done by considering people's opinions and these 18 people's opinions are clear. To the extent there is a WP:Policy that mandates this letter be ignored when considering if their is "consensus", WP:Policy should be changed.

Number of Policies Cited and Users Blocked I read through this Talk page as a whole and feel that it is much more about citing WP:Policies in an effort to shut down disagreement than improving the encyclopedia. I see the same pattern in other pages about this subject. While I agree with some of these policies, they seem to be used in situations where they are not relevant, or used against one position while being ignored for the opposite position. I also see a large number of blocked users along with talk page opinions reverted and unsupported allegations. As but one example, consider the number of users who are referred to as "obvious" sockpuppets."

Overposting by a few users I count the number of posts by one or two particular people on this page and related pages. I know these people are going to object and object again no matter what. Bat woman Shi could defect with a video of lab worker patient zero accidentally needling themselves and the WP:Policies would start flying. I don't know if there is a policy against overposting (although I've seen this type of claim on this very subject) but perhaps there should be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:5C4:4301:217C:79A1:7ADA:52C3:9A7F (talk) 17:48, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Delete sections transcluded from Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2

Our entry is growing in size. I suggest we delete the two sections transcluded from the Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 entry, integrating the few paragraphs related to the origin of the virus: 1. Reservoir and origin 2. Phylogenetics and taxonomy Terjen (talk) 22:39, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Two concerns, and an alternate proposal. First is that this page isn't that big relatively speaking. Second is that duplicating content makes it harder to maintain (which is why we transclude in the first place), and makes the text on this page larger.

The good news is we can shrink how much we transclude, without deleting it. The Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2#Phylogenetics and taxonomy already excludes the final two paragraphs (and all the sub-headings) in the transclusion. If there's a place we agree that the transclusion for each section can be trimmed back, we can do that relatively easily. How much are you suggesting we trim? I'm only seeing the last two Phylogenetics and taxonomy paragraphs that would make sense to remove. Maybe the graphics as well? Bakkster Man (talk) 23:37, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

When it comes to integrating the few paragraphs related to the origin of the virus, I don't favor keeping the content in sync between the two pages, but cutting the cord so that each evolves independently, eliminating the maintenance concern. Terjen (talk) 23:46, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Evolving independently means more maintenance (not less), and potentially a less coherent encyclopedia. The SARS-CoV-2 page would continue to maintain their sections, and now this page also needs to maintain a similar section. Bakkster Man (talk) 00:52, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Is any of the content from the Phylogenetics and taxonomy section really essential for a discussion of the origin of COVID? It seems like the whole section can be skipped, so readers can get to the meat of the entry. We're already linking to the Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 page. Terjen (talk) 23:57, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I'd argue that the first three paragraphs (sans image) give some solid context into understanding the origin investigations (even though we don't yet cover the FCS/ACE2 info here). But I'm interested in hearing what others have to say. Bakkster Man (talk) 00:52, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

The origins of COVID are both a scientific and a political issue. Investigations are particularly a political one. Maybe cutting down the amount transcluded would be okay (also in line with WP:SUMMARY); but I don't think removing it entirely does any good. Some scientific matters (FCS/ACE/...) are particularly relevant to the controversy, and readers should be able to have the whole context here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:01, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

The default position should be keeping this material - readers come here seeking to learn the origin of the virus. The worst thing we could do with this article is begin removing the results of scientific investigations into SARS-CoV-2. -Darouet (talk) 07:33, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

We're not talking about deleting material from Wikipedia. You can find exactly the same content at Severe_acute_respiratory_syndrome_coronavirus_2#Reservoir and origin and Severe_acute_respiratory_syndrome_coronavirus_2#Phylogenetics and taxonomy. It's just transcluded here, but could just as well be linked. Terjen (talk) 07:48, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

It’s transcluded so people can read it. And your posts below show that you don’t understand the material you want to remove from this article. -Darouet (talk) 08:06, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

In light of the curse of knowledge consider the readers we may expect coming to the page curious about the origin of the virus, many of them non-scientists. I doubt most of them will get much out of the phylogenetics and taxonomy section. They shouldn't be expected to learn that SARS‑CoV‑2 is a member of the subgenus Sarbecovirus (beta-CoV lineage B); Having an RNA sequence approximately 30,000 bases in length; or that its furin protease recognizes the canonical peptide sequence RX[R/K]R↓X where the cleavage site is indicated by a down arrow and X is any amino acid. Terjen (talk) 00:39, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

That can be fixed with judicious use of noinclude or includeonly tags. Although the genetic lineage of the virus (it being in the same subgenus as SARS-CoV, and in the same lineage as MERS) is a relevant piece of information, me thinks. But the specifics can be worked out with more detail either through a discussion over at SARS-CoV-2 or via the regular editing process. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:51, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I think a case can be made that the subgenus and stuff are only relevant here if we're presenting information about the origin relative to them. Which, at this time, would basically just be to debunk lab origin theories that aren't currently mentioned. But yeah, just more use of the noinclude tags. Bakkster Man (talk) 01:07, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

The scientists have spoken, the pandemic was not a lab accident, an accident made possible by scientists (gain of function is the scientific jargon for such research), because if that was the case how could then the ignorant populations rely on science to get over the pandemic? unsigned comment by 141.255.1.145

• Agree with Terjen’s proposal to remove the transclusion of sections from SARS-COV-2 as it gives the appearance that the scientific investigations have resulted in a scientific consensus on all aspects of the origins of the virus, which is not the case. CutePeach (talk) 05:34, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Not my reason for proposing deleting these sections. Besides, the Phylogenetics and taxonomy section doesn't give any obvious appearance of a scientific consensus on origin. Terjen (talk) 05:52, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Understood. Agree that Phylogenetics and taxonomy are okay. I was referring to the other aspects, and the previous "scientific consensus" title, which was misleading. CutePeach (talk) 23:50, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Although, to be clear about my position: People that come here to learn about the origins of SARS-Cov-2 shouldn't be fed an off-topic review of what research has revealed about the phylogenetics and taxonomy of the virus. Terjen (talk) 03:13, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Phylogenetics and taxonomy are the study of the origins of species in biology. That is exactly what people are coming here for. -Darouet (talk) 07:29, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Not really, it's already covered on the Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 page. Terjen (talk) 07:53, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Not really? What are phylogenetics and taxonomy if not origin? -Darouet (talk) 08:06, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - I strongly oppose reducing transcluded materials. Before those sections were transcluded, this article was just a place to host conspiracies about biological warfare. By adding those sections, people who come here wanting to learn about the origins of SARS-Cov-2 (I think it’s safe to say that’s most readers here) learn what scientific investigations into the virus origins have revealed so far. That’s the greatest service this article can provide.

There are further reasons to keep the transclusions in full. Those transcluded sections are carefully written by many editors and are effectively the strongest and best supported text and material in this article.

Furthermore, this one particular Wikipedia page, more than any other, comes the closest to giving credence to conspiracy theories about the virus’ origins. This article has been the target of nonstop IP and sock puppet editing. By removing transcluded text we’re just sliding this article further away from scientific knowledge of the origins of this virus.

We need to keep these transcluded sections. -Darouet (talk) 01:55, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

• I agree with colleagues Bakkster Man and Darouet. WP:AINTBROKE. Ain92 (talk) 10:34, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Recent news (06/06/2021) worth considering?

FWIW - seems recent news (06/06/2021) may be worth considering - and may help improve the article by better supporting (or otherwise) some of the current content in the main article - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 22:59, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Please explain the improvement you think this opinion piece would make (especially since it's behind a paywall), and then provide a reliable source we could actually cite. Bakkster Man (talk) 01:01, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@Bakkster Man: (and others) - Thank you for your comment - and suggestion - seems the article supports text in the main article concerning gain of function studies (ie, "intentionally supercharging viruses to increase lethality", in the words of the WSJ article) conducted by virologists at the Wuhan Virology Laboratories - apparently - a consequence of this genetic manipulation is a unique genetic sequence (ie, a "rare double CGG" segment that is not known to occur naturally) - according to the WSJ article, this genetic sequence appears in the February 2020 research papers published by virologists from the Wuhan Laboratory, detailing the genome of the coronavirus, but not clearly noted - afterwards - this genetic sequence was discovered in the published research of the Wuhan virologists by other virologists who have published their observations - seems this news information supports the "lab-leak" notion - whether this information can be used in the main article may be another matter - after all - the WSJ is behind a paywall, and is not WP:MEDRS - hope this helps in some way - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 02:26, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Why we would want to source this red-flag claim to the WSJ when we have far better scientific sources which say time and time again how there is no evidence of laboratory manipulation is beyond me. The scientific sources take precedence per WP:SCHOLARSHIP and/or MEDRS. Ex. of a relatively recent one which specifically addresses this claim [44]: "Some linked the presence of the least preferred CGG codons in the SRAS-CoV-2 furin cleavage sites as a “proof” of engineering. A codon being least preferred does not mean it should never exist and this CGG codon present in SARS-CoV-2 is for instance present at a higher rate in MERS-CoV. The lower presence of CpG (intrachain Cytosine-Guanosine dinucleotide linked by a phosphate bond) in human pathogens has been shown to be a selective process. [...]" RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:56, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you *very much* for all the comments, including the cited reference (new to me, and very interesting of course) - they're *greatly* appreciated - no problem whatsoever - Thanks again - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 11:25, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

The linked opinion piece [45] is a litany of conspiracy theories that might be publishable in the opinion section of a newspaper, but never in a scientific journal article. Drbogdan, please only bring higher-quality sources for discussion here. -Darouet (talk) 15:29, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

References

Later discussion

@Bakkster Man: See my edit summary and also the related subsection at Talk:Severe_acute_respiratory_syndrome_coronavirus_2#Nucleotide_skewness_of_SARS-CoV-2. As I've also said, I'm not convinced the "lab leak via GOFR" is included in the "accidental lab leak" (I've added a short description, based on the given source, here, for what appears to be the lab leak scenario that "hasn't been ruled out") - the language in other sources isn't quite precise enough (since it doesn't mention GoFR directly), but they seem to agree that deliberate manipulation has been ruled out, and GOFR appears to me to be clearly "deliberate manipulation". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:49, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, a topic totally worth hashing out. I'd like to break it down into three parts:

1. Is GoFR a widely accepted contributor in the lab leak hypothesis? First off, I think a big issue is that "gain of function" appears to be a charged term, which the two sides of the discussion phrase differently depending how it suits their point of view. An old news article in Nature describes the current US moratorium on GoFR: The US government surprised many researchers on 17 October when it announced that it will temporarily stop funding new research that makes certain viruses more deadly or transmissible. The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy is also asking researchers who conduct such ‘gain-of-function’ experiments on influenza, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) to stop their work until a risk assessment is completed — leaving many unsure of how to proceed. But there seems to be a question around whether virus studies incidentally or intentionally result in a gain-of-function: Some researchers are confused by the moratorium’s wording. Viruses are always mutating, and Casadevall says that it is difficult to determine how much mutation deliberately created by scientists might be “reasonably anticipated” to make a virus more dangerous — the point at which the White House states research must stop. The government says that this point will be determined for individual grants in discussions between funding officers and researchers. This makes it harder for us, because it means many sources avoid the term altogether (WHO-China report, most notably), and when they do it's hard to discern which use they meant: research with the intentional result being gain-of-function, or research where an inadvertent gain-of-function may occur. I usually prefer to avoid the term if possible, and might reword the content differently if that's the only remaining concern.
2. What did the WHO say? The WHO statement describing the scenario says: 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. Distinctly lacking much detail ("laboratory activities involving the relevant viruses" can be construed narrowly or broadly very differently), only explicitly ruling out intentional development of a bioweapon. Their Figure 5 on page 119 (Schema for introduction of SARS-CoV-2 through a laboratory incident) and includes the icon for "Evolution" in the laboratory, but not "Adaptation, transmissibility increase". My read is that the WHO didn't explicitly rule out recombination and evolution in the lab, though the diagram makes things a bit more confusing. Did they intend to communicate that they ruled out and/or didn't consider any adaptation in the lab environment as a possibility, or did they leave it out so as not to give an unintended impression that such gains were intended in WIV research? It would be helpful if we had another source confirming the WHO study's intentions, rather than just another researcher's impression. I'm hesitant to jump straight to firm conclusions without that.
3. Is this a minority view that's not mainstream accepted, but notable for inclusion here? This is where WP:PARITY comes in. Given that this is one of the few locations (only one?) on the encyclopedia discussing the minority view, there is room to describe adherents' view per their own sources even if they're weaker than the mainstream sources (as expected), so long as we follow the other guidelines of WP:FRINGE (placed in context with mainstream, etc). WP:PARITY even goes as far as to say articles about fringe topics needn't even be peer-reviewed (though only this peer reviewed source was proposed by me, both because this article is on Investigations broadly rather than the lab leak specifically, and because PARITY suggests not suddenly jumping from peer-reviewed sources to non-reviewed (especially where reviewed sources exist). The Kaina source is clearly weaker than Frutos, but that doesn't necessarily mean excluding Kaina when speaking in sufficient depth on the topic to place its limited acceptance in context relative to mainstream. This is the direction I would prefer we go, rather than outright removal. Place Frutos immediately following Kaina, and possibly following up with the WHO's finding of no serological evidence for infection of researchers.

I'd be interested to get some outside expertise on some of these details, perhaps through WP:VIRUS, if you think they'd be helpful. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:18, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

If you're interested you can leave a message for Shibbolethink. I tried running a search through PubMed specifically for GoFR in the context of COVID ([46]), but once I filter out the unrelated items and/or bollocks sources, I only have this (whatever you want to call it - it's not a review paper) and this editorial (both in journals from the American Society for Microbiology). The first one has this interesting bit:

The second hurdle may be even more daunting. The United States, in particular but not exclusively, is experiencing a resurgence in conspiracy theories and extremist behavior in the context of COVID-19. [...] Some may verge on the unbelievable, such as the conspiracy theory that gain-of-function research conducted on severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-like coronaviruses in 2015 is connected to the emergence of COVID-19 that made it to British tabloids (17),

The other has this:

In recent months, the argument was raised that SARS-CoV-2 may have accidentally escaped from a high-containment laboratory in Wuhan, China (10). At this time, the scientific consensus is that the virus emerged as a zoonosis whereby it jumped from an animal host, possibly bats or pangolins, to humans (11), and arguments about a laboratory origin for SARS-CoV-2 are more akin to a conspiracy theory than to a scientifically credible hypothesis. In the very unlikely event that SARS-Cov-2 had emerged by accidental escape from a lab, however, that would be a great cause for concern because the Wuhan facility was state of the art and presumably operating with a high degree of care.

Not too helpful for gain of function, but it does say what the scientific consensus is, in case any body had doubts about that. Are these citeable in the article? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:26, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

The only other non-bullshit source I could find through google scholar (same query) was a piece by Rasmussen in Nature Medicine, [47], but that's already cited at COVID-19_misinformation#Wuhan_lab_theories (where the ideas now seem to be correctly separated). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:46, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

My primary hesitance on each of these three sources (at least, as far as using them to support completely excluding the Kaina paper) is their being prior to the WHO report, which I think we agree changed how willing at least some scientists were to talk about even the possibility (however unlikely) of a lab origin. The first one especially was pretty closely in the shadow of the Nature letter that seemed indicative of the apparent trend of not wanting to give it even a bit of air (lest it be seized on by others to drive a narrative), which the WHO report and change in US administration seems to have changed (not the evidence or likelihood, just willingness to discuss). The gold standard would be either the WHO, one of the involved authors, or a systemic review coming through with a definitive "this is ruled out because...", but I'm not expecting that soon.

I will give a ping to @Shibbolethink: to check our work above. I know just enough about the topic to know that I'm beyond my capability to interpret with high certainty, so additional input will be useful. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:56, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I'll add a quick clarification. I think each of the three sources you linked would have uses, particularly for providing context around GoF and the like. Especially the dual-use nature, with past WIV research helping to mitigate the pandemic's effects through increased early understanding. It's only complete exclusion of Kaina (on this page where the lab leak is discussed in enough detail to give that context, unless we add a specific lab leak page...) that I disagree with. Bakkster Man (talk) 21:05, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

That was also my concern. The few papers we have that expressly address these are mostly from before, with only Frutos et al. being more recent than the WHO report. The lack of more papers on the subject does speak volumes, but there's not much we can do with that... I don't know how we can frame Kaina in respect to Frutos, because I'm afraid simply comparing the positions of the two would be false balance. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:07, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, my original thought on the four possibility descriptions was to basically give the overview of the rationale behind each. And this one was always the one most likely to have fringe sources to explain the arguments in favor (natch). It does bring up the opposing pulls of false equivalence and fringe notability. I think a big part is just the problem of how we phrase acceptance, assuming GoF is 'notable enough'. And, more importantly, it's affected by whether we have a standalone article on the leak theory, or limit it to this one. I don't think it's NPOV to both oppose the standalone article and oppose the inclusion of notable (and peer-reviewed) claims by adherents in this article as well. I know which of the two sides I'd rather bend regarding a standalone article, too. Bakkster Man (talk) 21:18, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi (@Bakkster Man: @RandomCanadian:) yes completely agree GoFR is mutually exclusive with "Accidental lab leak." And more specifically, that gain of function research must be intentional. Could phrase it as "Accidental leak after deliberate manipulation" but all of those theories (as espoused by Yuri Deign and Nicholas Wade et al) involve arguments about making the virus more human-tropic or transmissible. That's why it's become a moving goalposts game full of no-true-scotsman. One conspiracy theorist will say the manipulation was to create a bioweapon, another will say it was just scientists "playing god." But they both mean the same thing: deliberate genetic engineering.

And that, specifically, is what has been so thoroughly debunked by publications by Rasmussen, Andersen, and others as detailed in WP:NOLABLEAK. Suffice it to say, you cannot, as a virologist, "accidentally" cause gain of function in the course of an experiment. You control the variables, so how would that happen? Either you are introducing random mutagenesis (via radiation or chemicals or just passaging) to alter the viral genome, hoping to see a change in function (gain or loss), or you are deliberately mutating it in specific areas to cause same. Either way there is a deliberate act, and specifically a deliberate "selection" of which mutants will be allowed to survive from that mutagenesis. The selection and the mutagenesis both require deliberate intervention that alters the course of nature. If it were happening without any scientific intervention (or intention) whatsoever, then it is more apt to call it a natural mutation that would have occurred without any experimentation involved, and therefore it isn't GoF, because it's a natural change. Does that make sense? This is based on the National Research Council and NIH definition, which is what is important re: scientific funding:

any selection process involving an alteration of genotypes and their resulting phenotypes is considered a type of Gain-of-Function (GoF) research, even if the U.S. policy is intended to apply to only a small subset of such work.

More specifically, if we are including any deliberate alteration of the virus, then we are absolutely beholden to the consensus among scientists that it is extremely extremely unlikely if not close to impossible. Because of the viral genome, its' synonymous/non-synonymous ratio, molecular clock findings, codon usage, poor quality protease site usage, etc. As detailed in the article above. If we are talking about accidental leak of a wild natural virus, then the argument becomes about probabilities: who is more likely to contract the virus, a group of scientists with PPE who visit a cave once a year, or the guano harvesters, farmers, etc. who interact with the zoonotic reservoir without any protection every day of their lives? And if it is the former, then how is the coverup possible, without any notable leak? And so on with the dual sequencing, etc etc. There are a lot of holes in this theory anyway, but they are all inductive reasoning. Especially given the fact that the virus is just as, if not more, likely to have emerged outside of Wuhan rather than within the city. Those arguments are what are convincing to virologists, but not convincing enough to make an investigation unnecessary. As I said, they are "inductive" rather than "deductive."

And to be clear, the only people who are saying "the virus was engineered" are the fringe sources who, per my reading of MEDRS and UNDUE and FRINGE, should not be included outside of the Misinformation article. Whereas "it is possible (though unlikely) the virus was a natural virus that leaked accidentally" is a more mainstream minority view, in my reading of the situation. I believe that is also what RSes are saying from what you've linked and what our articles currently say. I have yet to find a MEDRS of high quality that has any sort of notable virology consensus or plurality saying the virus was engineered. Just old nobel winners who've always been contrarians, and modern day contrarians who are not virologists.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:51, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink: I appreciate that context, specifically that 'gain-of-function' refers specifically to intent. To make sure I understand, your read on the WHO report would be that their path in the figure did not consider GoF in the lab pathway, with the mutations referring only to very limited mutations unavoidable while grown in culture (presumably independent of all other viruses, no recombination)? And thus, the explanation of the WHO hypothesis should not include the Kaina paper because it would conflate two very different explanations? Bakkster Man (talk) 23:32, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

@Bakkster Man: ahhhh, so I understand where the confusion is. My reading of that figure on page 119 and the overall report is that they were including any acts of "passaging" or "adaptation" or "facilitated evolution" in their description of the lab theory, but specifically not intentional "genetic engineering."

They do use the red arrow instead of the blue arrow there in that figure, which I think is just meant to denote "facilitated" evolution and adaptation inside cell culture. But their use of "adaptation" vs "evolution" is fraught because, molecularly speaking, those are the same thing. One cannot be differentiated from the other.

I suppose, in summary, I would agree with you that they specifically excluded GoFR from their analysis given its extreme improbability based on the genomic evidence. They are specifically using the GoFR definition of "deliberate engineering" which would exclude the mutations that occur as a part of any cell culture adaptation.

See that's what we call it: "Cell culture adaptation" when we take a wild virus and grow it on cells in a dish in the lab, even though we are doing nothing other than growing it, without any (intentional) selection pressures. That would not be GoFR, since it isn't intentionally altering a genotype or putting the virus inside an animal it doesn't normally infect, it just happens as part of the process of growing the virus in cells it would infect anyway. But it is blurry, because you could theoretically adapt the virus to a cell line in another species which would make it transmit better in that species, and then you are doing GoFR. But that's not what they're talking about here. I would say they excluded GoFR, but included lab leak involving a cell-culture-adapted virus. (And to be clear, this virus has no such adaptations, hence why that is also extremely unlikely as the origin).--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:50, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink and Bakkster Man: This in Nature could be used for mentioning some of the theories (depending on how much detail is really needed here) without having to cite a dubious publication. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:04, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

References

Broken list-defined citations

There were a bunch of broken references in this article, because something is apparently up with the list-defined references that should be being included from Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 to go along with the section that is excerpted from there. My attempt to fix it didn't work, so I've manually copied the refs over as a stopgap (diff), but if someone better with excerpting could fix it properly that'd be great. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:08, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Malicious leak?

Why isn't there an item in the proposed explanations relating to a possible malicious leak from the Chinese government? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:13F0:8110:3848:EB59:6F01:1760 (talk) 21:58, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Because it's ruled out, per WP:RS. Bakkster Man (talk) 23:02, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

if WP:RS sources rule it out, where are the citations? there are none here. cuz I'll bet if we look at them they'll just be opinion. 2603:8001:9500:9E98:0:0:0:9A7 (talk) 07:06, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Daszak conflict of interest

Is not clearly stated in the Lancet section. Regardless of whichever the truth is, if a certain taskforce is led by someone with conflict of interests, the coverage of that taskforce SHOULD be mentioned clearly in the text. 205.175.106.86 (talk) 03:06, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Daszak's position is already clearly mentioned. Whether some want to infer a conflict of interest from that is entirely up to the reader, but without solid sources to back this up (and with the concerns of WP:BLP in mind), I'm not sure there's much to be done here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:44, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Only if one is willfully ignorant of widely published sources on conflict of interest can the current section on Lancet be interpreted as adequate. The original dismissal of the lab leak theory was spearheaded by himself without clearly disclosing his conflict of interest - as had become the norm lately in highest tier journals. And the current section on the Lancet team pretty much implies his preconcieved conclusion, again without clearly stating his own conflict of interests. 205.175.106.86 (talk) 04:46, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

“I have no conflicts of interest,” said Peter Daszak, president of the EcoHealth alliance, which has worked with Shi’s team since 2003, in an email. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.175.106.86 (talk) 04:55, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

We already spent over 100 words on Daszak's conflict of interest higher up in the article, in the World Health Organization section, at the end of the fourth paragraph. I do not see a need to repeat it further down below. starship.paint (exalt) 05:44, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

The inclusion of Peter Daszak in the team stirred controversy. Daszak is the head of EcoHealth Alliance, a nonprofit that studies spillover events, and has been a longtime collaborator of over 15 years with Shi Zhengli, Wuhan Institute of Virology's director of the Center for Emerging Infectious Diseases. While Daszak is highly knowledgeable about Chinese laboratories and the emergence of diseases in the area, his close connection with the WIV was seen by many as a conflict of interest in the WHO's investigation. When a BBC News journalist asked about his relationship with the WIV, Daszak said, "We file our papers, it's all there for everyone to see."

References

See above. starship.paint (exalt) 05:46, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

"U.S. Report Found It Plausible Covid-19 Leaked From Wuhan Lab"

>The study was prepared in May 2020 by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-report-concluded-covid-19-may-have-leaked-from-wuhan-lab-11623106982

https://www.reuters.com/world/china/us-report-concluded-covid-19-may-have-leaked-wuhan-lab-wsj-2021-06-07/

205.175.106.86 (talk) 03:10, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Nature: "The COVID lab-leak hypothesis: what scientists do and don’t know"

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01529-3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.175.106.86 (talk) 03:19, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Mention in the lede that the joing WHO-China investigation has been criticized by other countries.

Currently, the page cites the joint WHO-China investigation's founding in the lede uncritically, and in my opinion presents its finding as the truth, without mentioning that they gave been heavily criticized by many other countries, including the EU, the US, the UK, Australia, New Zeland and others. It should be removed from the lede or the qualifications added, something along the line of "the investigation has been criticized by several other countries for its incompleteness and lack of access to data and samples."Eccekevin (talk) 06:33, 9 June 2021 (UTC)