Jump to content

Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Tag: Reverted
Line 556: Line 556:


*This is duplicative of the above, to which I have now merged it. And what you are arguing is [[WP:OR]]. As has been already pointed to you multiple times, we don't care whether the scientists are making that conclusion with minimal data, with substantial evidence, or with total disregard for reality, if there are no other scientists who are criticising them for this in sources of similar quality, then, as far as we are concerned, the scientists are right. Again, [[WP:VNT|verifiability, not truth]] and [[WP:MAINSTREAM]] are useful reading. [[User:RandomCanadian|RandomCanadian]] ([[User talk:RandomCanadian|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/RandomCanadian|contribs]]) 00:21, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
*This is duplicative of the above, to which I have now merged it. And what you are arguing is [[WP:OR]]. As has been already pointed to you multiple times, we don't care whether the scientists are making that conclusion with minimal data, with substantial evidence, or with total disregard for reality, if there are no other scientists who are criticising them for this in sources of similar quality, then, as far as we are concerned, the scientists are right. Again, [[WP:VNT|verifiability, not truth]] and [[WP:MAINSTREAM]] are useful reading. [[User:RandomCanadian|RandomCanadian]] ([[User talk:RandomCanadian|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/RandomCanadian|contribs]]) 00:21, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
:I'm sure a conspiracy theorist might assume Shibbolttink and RandomCanadian are CIA agents, or scientist who dont want their lab funding at risk, but they would need reliable source to cover it for it to be added to the wiki article. [[Special:Contributions/2600:1700:8660:E180:DDAB:3CAE:89A4:5D33|2600:1700:8660:E180:DDAB:3CAE:89A4:5D33]] ([[User talk:2600:1700:8660:E180:DDAB:3CAE:89A4:5D33|talk]]) 02:04, 4 October 2021 (UTC)


== David Relman on origins of SARS-CoV-2 & lab leak theory ==
== David Relman on origins of SARS-CoV-2 & lab leak theory ==

Revision as of 02:04, 4 October 2021



Origins of COVID-19: Current consensus

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

Last updated (diff) on 15 March 2024 by Novem Linguae (t · c)


Lab leak theory sources

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

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

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

References

How to represent Chan's specific views

Alina Chan apparently never made this partly paraphrased assertion:

Chan has said that the experiments did not meet the definition of "gain-of-function" as they involved "naturally-occurring viruses"...

Chan said those experiments didn't meet the moratorium's definition — not hers. Further, she specifically attacked the moratorium's definition for having no teeth (check the cited source).

As used in context, this confusingly paraphrased claim might inadvertently hinder Chan's rise to prominence among those opposing the moratorium's definition for its alleged fecklessness. –Dervorguilla (talk) 00:55, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We should say "did not meet the NIH's definition of 'gain-of-function' research..."....etc etc. Adding that the moratorium had "no teeth". This is how we've covered it in the gain-of-function research article.-- — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 01:40, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Shibbolethink: That's how it's been covered there, yes.
I've now tagged some of the material in that passage as having likewise failed verification. –Dervorguilla (talk) 04:23, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If we deem Chan's views worthy of inclusion in the article, I think we should also add some additional context from the FactCheck article—namely, that Chan has published research about the possibility of a lab leak, and said, "But we need to separate this fight about whether a particular project is GOF vs whether it has risk of lab accident + causing an outbreak." Stonkaments (talk) 08:15, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The original text seems like an accurate paraphrase of Chan's comments. But as a compromise, it'd be simple enough to add the word NIH to the sentence to make it pass verification. did not meet the NIH's definition of 'gain-of-function' research. I do also believe the current text to be WP:DUE and not needing additional explanation, as her thoughts about this are mentioned in several articles. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:43, 20 August 2021 (UTC) [reply]

@Novem Linguae: No, Chan's "thoughts" are mentioned in just one other article: Gain-of-function research.
We misquote her there, too. The cited source says:
Chan … said … that the … subgrant wouldn’t fall under the … moratorium because the definition didn’t include testing on naturally occurring viruses “unless the tests are reasonably anticipated to increase….” But the … grant “was testing naturally occurring SARS viruses, without a reasonable expectation that the tests would increase….”
We say:
Chan has argued that these experiments would not have been affected by the … moratorium, because the experiments involved "naturally-occurring viruses" and could not be "reasonably anticipated to increase…."
Chan's apparent point was that these experiments involved naturally occurring "SARS viruses" — and that the definition was accordingly ineffectual.
Chan herself has said (Twitter, May 11, 2021): Not just because there was a loophole in a footnote, but that the GOF definition literally excluded SARS or MERS viruses found in nature. –Dervorguilla (talk) 20:21, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dervorguilla, I think you may be misunderstanding what Novem Linguae wrote above. I'm pretty sure "Article" in that context meant "news article" AKA RS. As an aside, your interpretation of Chan's tweets is WP:OR and does not change what secondary sources gleaned from her statements. It is the secondary sources we rely on, not Chan herself.  — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 20:56, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Shibbolethink: Your understanding of Novem Linguae's comment does surpass mine. But it looks like my "interpretation of Chan's tweets" may be in accord with WP:OR policy: The best practice is to research the most reliable sources on the topic and summarize what they say in your own words... –Dervorguilla (talk) 06:57, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to fix failed verification tag

Okay, I edited to reflect the discussion above; now here's the most up-to-date direct comparison:

Our article text:

Molecular biologist Alina Chan has said that the research did not meet the NIH's definition of "gain-of-function" under a 2014 moratorium as the experiments involved "naturally-occurring SARS viruses" and were not "reasonably anticipated to increase transmissibility and/or pathogenicity." Chan added that the NIH's moratorium had "no teeth."

The source: (emphasis mine)

Alina Chan, a molecular biologist and postdoctoral researcher at the Broad Institute of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard, said in a lengthy Twitter thread that the Wuhan subgrant wouldn’t fall under the gain-of-function moratorium because the definition didn’t include testing on naturally occurring viruses “unless the tests are reasonably anticipated to increase transmissibility and/or pathogenicity.” She said the moratorium had “no teeth.” But the EcoHealth/Wuhan grant “was testing naturally occurring SARS viruses, without a reasonable expectation that the tests would increase transmissibility or pathogenicity. Therefore, it is reasonable that they would have been excluded from the moratorium.”

Is that an accurate paraphrase? — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 21:34, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Almost! This minor revision is nearly 0.3% more accurate, though:
...involved "naturally-occurring SARS viruses" and were... ->
...involved "naturally occurring" SARS viruses and were...
(It also may be a bit easier for lay readers to understand.) –Dervorguilla (talk) 07:43, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks more like scare quotes around naturally-occurring than an improvement. I don't see the need for such a change, though; "naturally-occurring" isn't a particularly obscure expression. The only concern I have about the highlighted bit is maybe that this should be re-worded into "naturally-occurring viruses similar to SARS". And this isn't really an issue of failed verification, its just that there seems to be disagreement over how closely we need to follow the wording of the source. IMHO, less is more, here; if we're doing it well then we should be able to succinctly summarise the main points without having to quote it verbatim. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 11:18, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
RandomCanadian, agreed. I was annoyed at that particular confusion in the source as well. It makes clear in several places that these are not actually SARS, but bat viruses. Our paraphrase should perhaps say, without quotes: naturally-occurring SARS-like viruses.  — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 11:53, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps "SARS-related" with a wl to Severe acute respiratory syndrome–related coronavirus? Bakkster Man (talk) 14:31, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bakkster Man, oooh yeah this is good. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:10, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@RandomCanadian: See Chicago Manual of Style, Compounds and Hyphenation: Adverbs ending in “ly.” Compounds formed by an adverb ending in ly plus an adjective or participle are not hyphenated... –Dervorguilla (talk) 18:50, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not include any personal opinions by Alina Chan in WP pages. She is not a well known expert on the subject. Someone tried to create a page about her, but it appears she is not notable enough for a WP page. There are enough biologists who are experts, and we have pages about them. My very best wishes (talk) 14:21, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely sure I agree with this strategy. We'd end up not being able to use a significant number of other verifiable, attributable quotes from actual experts, and there's a number of characters with articles not because they're reliable experts but because they're the subject of controversy (see: Li-Meng Yan). I think it makes more sense to use the most notable reference we can find, and make sure we're not citing unreliable sources which aren't representative of a commons viewpoint. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:31, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Li-Meng Yan is a subject of the controversy, and we have a page about her. Therefore, the info about her must be included to this page, yes, absolutely. However, Alina Chan is not really a subject of this controversy, just a commentator, arguably not an expert, and we do not have a page about her. "Molecular biologist Alina Chan has said that the research did not meet the NIH's definition of ...". What Fauci or Collins said? That would need to be cited, and it is cited. Ralph S. Baric - yes, sure, and he is cited. And so on. My very best wishes (talk) 14:39, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So, once again, "Alina Chan, a molecular biologist and postdoctoral researcher ... said in a lengthy Twitter thread" (as the cited source say) is definitely undue on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 14:59, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My very best wishes, Where is the rule which says DUE is directly connected to whether someone has a wikipedia page? And that we should not ever quote people who do not have a WP page? An extremely high number of quotes on technical subject articles would like to have a word...  — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:04, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What is the advantage to including Chan's views? We have another, more authoritative source that makes the same point about the NIH moratorium having no teeth and Baric's research being allowed to move forward[5], so why don't we just use that instead of debating the nuances of DUE? Stonkaments (talk) 16:42, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Stonkaments, we're not debating the nuances of due. It appears you would like to remove a voice that is on one side, without replacing it (correct me if I'm wrong). That would make the coverage in that section UNDUE, as it would not cover the opinions of experts in due proportion to their weight in secondary sources. Debating the nuances would be discussing how to include it. We are debating whether to follow DUE at all. I think we should follow it. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:45, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? I literally said we should replace Chan's argument with the very similar point made by the more authoritative MIT Technology Review. I haven't seen anyone argue that we shouldn't follow DUE, but rather debating how DUE applies in this case (hence "debating the nuances"). Stonkaments (talk) 17:07, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Stonkaments, Are you saying we should quote the MIT Technology Review as if it were an expert? Or the journalist as if they were an expert? Neither has a PhD in a relevant subject.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:09, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a strong opinion on the actual wording, but this just seems like a good compromise. Something like: According to the MIT Technology Review, the 2014 NIH moratorium on gain-of-function research was rather toothless, and Baric's research was allowed to move forward under an exception for research deemed "urgently necessary to protect public health or national security". Are you suggesting Technology Review is not a reliable source? Stonkaments (talk) 17:23, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Stonkaments, I'm suggesting we should quote scientists about scientific controversies, in due proportion to what they actually say about the topic. Journalists help us understand the DUE nature of those quotes, but they themselves are not experts and should not be quoted like this in opposition to experts.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:26, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But the issue is that multiple editors have objected to the characterization of Chan as an expert on this subject. If Chan were a recognizable expert in the field, I would be in full agreement with you. But we shouldn't place more importance on the views of a post-doc sourced from a Twitter thread than other reliable sources on the topic. Stonkaments (talk) 17:31, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Stonkaments, 2 editors have said she should not be quoted. Versus 5 saying she should be. And as I said above, it does not matter what the primary source is, what matters is if the secondary source (Factcheck.org) is reliable. And WP:RSN says it is.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:34, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here, a personal opinion by a postdoc, which was originally posted on Twitter, serves to "support" views/comments by Ralph S. Baric, who is indeed a recognized expert. Well, this is just ridiculous. If anything, the opinion/explanations by Ralph S. Baric can/should be cited in more detail[6]:
Studies focused on understanding the cross-species transmission potential of bat coronaviruses like SHC014 have been reviewed by the NIH and by the UNC Institutional Biosafety Committee for potential of gain-of-function research and were deemed not to be gain of function. ... We never introduced mutations into the SHC014 [horseshoe bat coronavirus] spike to enhance growth in human cells, though the work demonstrated that bat SARS-like viruses were intrinsically poised to emerge in the future ... These recombinant clones and viruses were never sent to China. Importantly, independent studies carried out by Italian scientists and others from around the world have confirmed that none of the bat SARS-like viruses studied at UNC were related to SARS-CoV-2, the cause of the COVID-19 pandemic.”
Let's include it. Why on the Earth do you need an opinion by postdoc Alina Chan? Why should we advertise whatever she said? My very best wishes (talk) 17:42, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My very best wishes, Why on the Earth do you need an opinion by postdoc Alina Chan: because it's important to present the views of experts in proportion to their coverage in RSes about this topic. And Chan's opinion is covered a fair amount: [7] [8] [9] [10]. What does DUE mean, if it doesn't mean this? This is quickly becoming a rehash of the above section, where consensus was also in favor of including this material. No one is saying we shouldn't include more opinions, the question is whether we should include Chan. You appear to say "no," but most editors who have responded here (and above) appear to say "yes." — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:47, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, this is just a repetitive content, an excessive citation/quotation of the same view, one that was formulated more precisely by Baric (see above). We do not need to cite every non-expert just because he/she was cited in newspapers. We need to cite only well recognized experts, and only if they tell something of substance/nonredundant.My very best wishes (talk) 17:58, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have one other major concern. Have you read Chan's actual Twitter thread?[11] Because I believe FactCheck is misrepresenting Chan's views rather significantly. Chan highlights multiple issues with the language of the moratorium, including quotes such as 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... and ...government says that this point will be determined for individual grants in discussions between funding officers and researchers. She also says, Basically it had no teeth regarding research that was happening anywhere, including in the US, even if it was funded by federal $. You only needed to get around "reasonably anticipated" and "voluntary" and If you were in a grey area of not knowing if your work could reasonably be anticipated to be GOF, you just needed to confer with your funders. Overall Chan comes across as fairly skeptical of the whole matter, so I don't really think it's fair to say that she uncritically endorsed the view that the experiments were not "reasonably anticipated to increase transmissibility and/or pathogenicity."
All told, we have three sources discussing this[12][13][14], and the three sources share a common conclusion: The NIH eventually concluded that the work was not so risky as to fall under the moratorium. I believe that is what we should say, and remove the rest. Stonkaments (talk) 18:12, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Stonkaments, we don't say that Chan uncritically endorsed the opinion. We say she thinks the moratorium "had no teeth."— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:35, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Let me be more precise: the current text is a grossly inaccurate paraphrase of the view Chan espoused in her Twitter thread. The only conclusion she endorsed was: "The NIH eventually concluded that the work was not so risky as to fall under the moratorium." She made no claims about whether the research was "reasonably anticipated" to increase transmissibility and/or pathogenicity, whether it was a naturally-occurring SARS-related virus, etc. Stonkaments (talk) 18:48, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Stonkaments: Thank you for doing this needed research, per OR policy. (Best practice is to research the most reliable sources on the topic...) You've researched that FactCheck.org work itself (per WP:SOURCE) and found it a comparatively poor source for the purpose of accurately representing Chan's opinions on this topic. (Also, I see that the work's author cites personal correspondence or interviews with seven other subjects, but not Chan.) –Dervorguilla (talk) 20:44, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shall we ask Chan to confirm and approve if our wording accurately represents what she meant to say? She is very accesible on twitter and answers most queries. Forich (talk) 20:48, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, we should not. This is much ado about nothing. As one of experts said [15] "“the work reported in this specific paper definitely did NOT lead to the creation of SARS-CoV-2,” because of differences between the virus studied and SARS-CoV-2." Yes, absolutely. No one ever disputed this. Therefore, if it was a gain of function research (I agree with Richard Ebright) is not so much relevant for this page (COVID-19 lab leak theory), and the opinion by Chan is even less relevant (undue). My very best wishes (talk) 21:06, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My very best wishes, That is undoubtedly WP:OR, because our sources about SARS-CoV-2 also mention Alina Chan. I don't think it was GoFR. I don't think it has anything to do with SARS-CoV-2. But we must report what our sources say. It is not our job to decide when things are or are not connected or relevant to our readers. Our sources do that for us. We just interpret and summarize them.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 22:09, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Forich: You should go ahead and communicate with the subject, in your individual capacity as a "Journeyman Editor Level 4" (or the like)! You'll need to mention WP's policy against removing appropriate material simply because the subject objects to it - see BLP. But you may ask her whether the wording in question seems to fairly represent the balance of perspectives of high-quality, reliable secondary sources. (See POV.) Can she furnish other secondary sources that represent her views more accurately? –Dervorguilla (talk) 23:42, 21 August 2021 (UTC) 00:13, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid her views are indeed distorted (or selectively cited) because she is mostly known for supporting the "theory" [16], so that would need to be described on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 02:02, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My very best wishes, I just added "(a proponent of the natural virus lab leak theory)" to our mention of her views.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 13:46, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alina Chan's clarification

I asked her to confirm whether the Wikipedia text was an acurate representation of her position. The query and complete response can be found here.

Transcript of Chan's tweets:

Thanks for clarifying with my directly. First, I'm not a proponent of the natural virus lab leak theory. I'm a proponent for an investigation into both natural and lab origin hypotheses. I have not ruled out an engineered origin because there's an absence of data to disprove it and we know that coronaviruses are being engineered quite frequently, including in Wuhan labs. NIH's reviewers and review process judged that the WIV-EHA work did not fall under the 2014 NIH GOFROC moratorium. The moratorium wording allowed for reviewers to decide what was or was not reasonably anticipated to increase transmissibility and/or pathogenicity. In fact, the same type of work continues to be funded by the US because the reviewers/review process continue not to see this type of work as GOFROC. The 2014 moratorium and 2017 framework have "no teeth" because their definition of GOFROC is deliberately narrow to avoid suppressing useful research, and the words "reasonably anticipated" and "voluntary" leave room for interpretation by reviewers. Nonetheless, it's important we acknowledge we are judging the work at the WIV using today's knowledge. Many top experts who call for more regulation of pathogen research continue to say that the term GOF is confusing and not meaningful for assessing risk. If you had asked anti-GOFROC people before 2019 if they thought the US-funded work at the WIV was GOFROC or not, I think you would've gotten a very mixed bag because many didn't see bat coronaviruses as particularly dangerous pathogens back then. However, the work was certainly not banned in the US or being secretly outsourced to China. It was proudly published online, and similar projects still continue to be judged as not GOFROC, funded, and proudly published online. For a much more in-depth discussion, I highly recommend linking from the Wikipedia page to my thread here

(the last link is this one: https://twitter.com/Ayjchan/status/1403704344009191431?s=20). Pinging @Stonkaments:, @Dervorguilla:, @Shibbolethink:, @Bakkster Man:, @My very best wishes:. Forich (talk) 19:49, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The moratorium wording allowed for reviewers to decide what was or was not reasonably anticipated to increase transmissibility and/or pathogenicity. Yes, exactly. If it was covered by the moratorium and if it was a GOF research has been decided subjectively by 3 reviewers with potentially a conflict of interest. That's why we have the controversy. Some say the research was legit because it was approved by reviewers. Yes, it was. Other say that it was a GOF research. Yes, it arguably was GOF research. But I simply think there no need to cite Alina Chan on this page.My very best wishes (talk) 20:32, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly I just think this overall view is way too complex/intricate to fairly represent at this point. I've kind of changed my view in that I think unfairly representing or reducing her opinion and connecting her opinion in the secondary RS to this statement is probably more work than it's worth. I suggest we remove her entirely, and just wait for someone else to comment on it or go find a quote from someone like Angela Rasmussen who we havent' quoted on this yet in this article AFAIK.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 21:47, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Including it just does not improve the page. And a lot of this is just making a mountain out of a molehill. My very best wishes (talk) 01:13, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Her book's getting published by a respected publishing house (HarperCollins). Under WP:V policy, postdoc Chan might be regarded as 'outranking' Representative McCaul, in that she's a creator of a (forthcoming) reliable non-academic source on this topic...
(And for what it's worth, Friday's Vice World News story gives her more than twice as much space as Rasmussen.) –Dervorguilla (talk) 09:56, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So, this Vice News story say: "Alina Chan, a biologist at the Broad Institute in Cambridge, Massachusetts, who has promoted the lab leak hypothesis". If you want to describe how exactly she "has promoted the lab leak hypothesis", that's fine, except that she denied she did it in the message just above (and by looking at her other comments I do not really see she promoted it). My very best wishes (talk) 16:41, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And now this [17], but I do not have subscription, so whatever. My very best wishes (talk) 16:45, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking on the virus being "preadapted" to humans (last NYT article), it seems it is indeed well adapted to migrate between different species (as was proven by transmission of the virus from humans to other species like dogs, etc.), which is just another argument it has the zoonotic origin. My very best wishes (talk) 16:53, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My very best wishes, Yeah I think we actually address this "pre-adaptation" thing quite well in the body of the article. There are many zoonotic reasons for why this could be the case.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 19:23, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the A2A. The question on the definition of GOF is debatable, but the main concern of scientists is the possibility that GOF experiments were conducted on SARS-like viruses at the WIV in BSL2 level conditions, where two or more specimines may have recombined and infected a lab worker. I consider it inaccurate to characterise Chan as non expert in this subject, as she has clearly contributed a lot in this debate. Pre-adaption of SARS-COV-2 to humans is a claim she made in contrast to the evolution of SARS-COV-1 and them mutations that virus gained for human transmissibility in the seven jumps it made between civets and humans, which is well cited in her paper (non peer reviewed). Presumed pre-adaption of SARS2 is also discussed in peer reviewed papers, such as DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-92388-5 and DOI: 10.1038/s41467-020-19818-2 and discussed in related terms, such as single point entry, in other papers. I think Chan can be credited with this claim, and her arguments are more nuanced than those in Petrovsky's paper, which rely on computer modelling. SacrificialPawn (talk) 22:02, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understand we simply do not know how many times SARS-COV-2 has jumped and between which species prior to infecting humans. Hence that point (by Alina Chan?) can be entirely wrong, unless some research proves otherwise. That one [18] does not (using computer modelling to predict the ability of the virus to infect various species is an extremely unreliable and unproved approach at best for a number of reasons, such as lack of reliable methods for protein docking). Yes, the virus is adapted right know, but we do not know how did it happen. My very best wishes (talk) 01:20, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My very best wishes, Yeah...there is a reason we don't cite Petrovsky anymore. I don't think we should cite Chan on this either. If Chan is really saying it made "7 jumps" then both are making pretty expansive claims without extensive evidence. I don't see that in any of the things I've read from her, as an aside.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 03:55, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Chan et al contrasted the early evolutionary history of SARS-COV-2 with SARS-COV-1, where seven jumps occurred, which is a matter of record. Chan and Petrovsky may be wrong in their methods and reasoning, but sources have cited them as experts on the subject of this article and given their publications extensive coverage on the subject of this article, so I do think they should be cited here. If China opens up and Chan and Petrovsky are proven wrong, I am sure reliable sources will ask for their opinions, which we would cite here as well. SacrificialPawn (talk) 23:40, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
When reading this whole thread my impression is that there's some gradual convergence that it's unnecessary and undue, and I tend to agree with this, —PaleoNeonate – 03:08, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@PaleoNeonate: The easier question here is whether it's UNDUE. Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, and such. Here's an imperfect compromise answer: we can simply rewrite that proposed 100-word restatement (to improve its usefulness) and shorten it to 40 or 50 words. Also, we can add another reliable mainstream source. –Dervorguilla (talk) 09:08, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise text re Chan's point about GOFR definition

Proposed placement: in the subsection on "Release of a genetically modified virus". –Dervorguilla (talk) 05:58, 27 August 2021 (UTC) 08:35, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alina Chan, a postdoctoral biologist at the Broad Institute,[1] has said that a 2014 federal funding moratorium wouldn't have stopped funding of a research project that didn't intend to or wasn't "reasonably anticipated to" produce a gain of function, although that could be its end result.[2][3]

References

  1. ^ Regalado, Antonio (25 June 2021). "They called it a conspiracy theory. But Alina Chan tweeted life into the idea that the virus came from a lab". MIT Technology Review. Retrieved 22 August 2021.
  2. ^ Robertson, Lori (21 May 2021). "The Wuhan Lab and the Gain-of-Function Disagreement". FactCheck.org. Retrieved 14 July 2021. She said ... the EcoHealth/Wuhan grant 'was testing naturally occurring SARS viruses, without a reasonable expectation that the tests would increase transmissibility or pathogenicity. Therefore, it is reasonable that they would have been excluded from the moratorium.' Chan ... has published research about the possibility of an accidental lab leak...
  3. ^ "Coronavirus: Was US money used to fund risky research in China?". Reality Check. BBC News. 2 August 2021. It says that it would stop funding research that 'may be reasonably anticipated to confer attributes to ... viruses such that the virus would have enhanced pathogenicity and/or transmissibility in mammals....' This could imply that research on viruses may not intend to produce 'gain-of-function', although that could be the end result of it.

46 words; 2 independent sources, with ref-quotes. (The first ref-quote may not be too helpful and could easily be omitted.) –Dervorguilla (talk) 05:24, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dervorguilla, I do not think this encapsulates the full breadth of Chan's position. For example, it does not cover the fact that Chan doesn't think GoFR is what caused the pandemic. Because her position is so nuanced, it's between a rock and a hard place re: UNDUE and NPOV, and I do not think we can represent it fairly, especially not with fewer words.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 10:38, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Shibbolethink: Here's what Chan told Forich: I have not ruled out an engineered origin. Happily, we needn't represent an opinion she's told us she doesn't have!
It also looks like we can sail past that hard place (NPOV#UNDUE) fairly easily, by placing a longer (60-word?) direct quote down in the references.
Also, should we consider changing Chan has said... to Chan has emphasized... (or highlighted...), per the BBC News Reality Check source? –Dervorguilla (talk) 23:16, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What is with the mass ping? Can't you start an RfC if you want comments from uninvolved editors? Aasim (talk) 17:20, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome Aasim, I think the editor is just trying to respect the bounds of WP:CANVAS. But yes I would agree, 500 edits was an unnecessarily broad net to cast. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:47, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Awesome Aasim: As Shibbolethink points out, I'm trying to respect the WP:CANVAS guideline. See above (about Pinging every editor of this page and GoFR from the last 50 edits: — Shibbolethink). He found 20 of those editors but missed 2. So we needed to get those 2 pinged anyway. Also, it looks like he went back to July 27 at GOFR and August 15 here. As a compromise, I've gone back to July 27 there and August 2 (rather than July 27) here. –Dervorguilla (talk) 20:40, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • All due respect, anybody can have an opinion. WP:ARSEHOLES is rather in agreement with my own thoughts, that writing of the form $SOURCE offered $OPINION on $THING [1] is a terrible idea, and is a terrible way to write an article. I also don't think this is relevant in this article. Whether something qualifies as GoFR or not, some people are arguing that this was the origin of SARS-CoV-2. We should succinctly describe the main claims of this, and put them in context with the views of relevant experts (amongst which, "laboratory engineering (of any kind) isn't likely at all" is a far more common theme than the WP:COATRACK about the GoFR debate). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 11:49, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ $SOURCE offering $OPINION on $THING
@Shibbolethink: @RandomCanadian: That essay concludes: Wikipedia's sourcing trifecta comes to the rescue. Reliable. Independent. Secondary.
FactCheck.org and the BBC News Reality Check are reliable, independent, secondary sources for Chan's opinion. In our References, we cite them as the $SOURCEs, not her. That's really what the essay is advising us to do. –Dervorguilla (talk) 21:22, 27 August 2021 (UTC) 17:27, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dervorguilla, You are responding to RandomCanadian, please tag them in your replies. Thanks.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 06:15, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't address any of the rest of my argument (how the debate about GoFR is COATRACK and misses the forest for the trees regarding what needs to be included here). And still, writing in the form "X has opinion Y on Z" is not particularly helpful if we're going to give an encyclopedic summary. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:13, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@RandomCanadian: Rabin's "Caught in the Crossfire" article in the NYTimes runs to ~1700 words, mostly about Chan's hypothesis.
Chan's particular patch in our topic's "forest" has clearly expanded. It's now larger than many other of our 22 cited scientists'. We don't overlook their opinions on this topic. We needn't overlook hers. –Dervorguilla (talk) 09:01, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If it's "now larger than many others", maybe that's a sign that she actually isn't being overlooked, but, quite to the contrary, over-emphasised? As I said, the debate over whether some research at the WIV was or was not GoFR is not relevant to the question at hand, which is that some people have used this previous research to support claims that the virus was created as a result of such experiments. Focusing on the correct thing also nicely entirely avoids the controversy about the closely-related-but-off-topic one. Less controversy and opinions, and more facts = better article. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:54, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(←) @RandomCanadian: OK, she may be getting "over-emphasised" by the mainstream press in its treatment of the lab leak theory. Maybe these reporters really like interviewing her and getting promoted on Twitter, or something. But we don't even mention her name. –Dervorguilla (talk) 22:59, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you were referring to the article. Anyways, as I was talking about the specific example of the controversy over GoFR - which IMHO doesn't belong in this article - my point that there's no need to include Chan's (or anybody else's) viewpoint on that stands. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:06, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Theory or hypothesis?

Covered by the RM on 26 July 2021.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 12:27, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

COVID-19 lab leak theory or COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis? In science, the word theory means something that has not been proven, but generally is accepted as the 'best explanation until proven otherwise'. I don't think wee are at this stage yet. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:13, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, you may have missed the RM from a month ago. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:18, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The "extremely unlikely" assesment of likelihood

We have a situation with the article, which uses a lot the "extremely unlikely" likelihood assigned to the lab leak hypothesis by the WHO mission. Here are the issues:

  • Peter Ben Embarek has not been clear about how the team reached the "extremely unlikely" rating. In February, he said We should not put too much focus on the wording. We were looking at different options. At some point we were thinking: Should we use a ranking, with one being the most unlikely, five the most likely, or should we use colors, or should we find another scale? We ended up with a five-phrase scale: "extremely unlikely," "unlikely," "possible," "likely," and "very likely." It's more an illustration of where these hypotheses are to help us organize our planning of future studies.. Then, in a danish documentary released in August 2021, Embarek allegedly said that Chinese officials pressured investigation to drop lab-leak hypothesis and label it very unfavorably, thus the "extremely unlikely" assesment. Asked to comment on the veracity of this allegations, Ben Embarek initially said the interview had been mistranslated in English-language media coverage. “It is a wrong translation from a Danish article,” he wrote. So, overall, the "extremely unlikely" label was not the strongest point of the WHO report regarding clarity of communication.
  • A more recent MEDRS published in Cell (Holmes et al, 2021), states in its conclusions that the lab leak hypothesis is "highly unlikely". The exact wording is: Although the possibility of a laboratory accident cannot be entirely dismissed, and may be near impossible to falsify, this conduit for emergence is highly unlikely relative to the numerous and repeated humananimal contacts that occur routinely in the wildlife trade. WP:MEDRS does tell us to give more weight to new reviews, so in my opinion Holmes et al is in this regard a superior source than the WHO report
  • The Chair of the Board of Governors of the American Academy of Microbiology, along with two other prominent coauthors, published in August 2 2021 an editorial saying that "The lab escape hypothesis is now a mainstream concern". Made no mistake, they conclude their paper by favoring the zoonotic hypothesis, but the fact that such prominent scientific authors, writing in a scientific journal, dare to elevate the lab leak hypothesis to "mainstream", seems to me incompatible with it being "extremely unlikely".

The suggestion is that we look for the many instances in which we use "extremely unlikely" and replace some of them, where appropiate, with the Holmes et al (2021) more charitable "highly unlikely". Forich (talk) 12:36, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This seems reasonable, particularly considering the criticism of the WHO report that has been widely reported, including from some scientists. I support retaining "extremely unlikely" in discussion of the WHO report and in the lead (because it's discussing the WHO report), but I think the two wikivoice usages (2nd para. of "accidental release of a natural virus" and 3rd para. of "renewed media attention") can be replaced with "highly unlikely". Jr8825 • Talk 13:09, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Jr8825, Yes I think this is a good plan. It's not much of a difference to me, but if it pleases someone else, it's good enough and I think it still accurately represents the scientific consensus evident in our sources.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 15:45, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like hair splitting. "highly unlikely" and "extremely unlikely" basically mean the same thing. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:43, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so sure, to me, "extremely" unlikely implies a vanishingly small chance (dictionary definition = "to a very great degree"), whereas "highly" unlikely implies a degree of uncertainty/plausibility, even if the odds are slim. Jr8825 • Talk 15:15, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Such change makes sense to me. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 03:58, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I made the suggested change to the second wikivoice usage (in para. 3 of "Renewed media attention"). –Dervorguilla (talk) 07:29, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proximity of the Chinese CDC and Wet Market

Can we add to the article that there is a very short distance between 中国疾病预防控制中心 ( Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention ) and 武汉华南海鲜批发市场 (Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market). This source tells about 300 yards: https://www.wsj.com/articles/coronavirus-and-the-laboratories-in-wuhan-11587486996 Google maps shows a bit more: https://www.google.com/maps/dir/%E6%AD%A6%E6%B1%89%E9%93%81%E8%B7%AF%E7%96%BE%E7%97%85%E9%A2%84%E9%98%B2%E6%8E%A7%E5%88%B6%E4%B8%AD%E5%BF%83+China,+Hubei,+Wuhan,+Jianghan+District,+%E9%93%B6%E5%A2%A9%E8%B7%AF/Wuhan+South+China+Seafood+Wholesale+Market,+Jianghan+Qu,+Wuhan+Shi,+Hubei+Sheng,+China/@30.6165951,114.2498213,18z/data=!4m14!4m13!1m5!1m1!1s0x342eaead9401f3a9:0x4cb66b62e4dfa018!2m2!1d114.249637!2d30.615771!1m5!1m1!1s0x342ea94ab99e2bfd:0x5ba9b4b6604c943d!2m2!1d114.2616875!2d30.6177919!3e2?hl=en Can anyone help find more reliable sources? Cambr5 (talk) 14:31, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The answer here is as true as the answer at the other article. The WSJ piece is an opinion editorial, and therefore not suitable for sourcing this fact on wikipedia. See WP:RS. The Google Maps link is a WP:PRIMARY source, and thus doubly so. We already have 2 versions of this sentence: The idea developed from the circumstantial evidence that the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) is close in proximity to the pandemic's early outbreak. I do not think the specific distance measurement is WP:DUE. Especially when asking, as the crow flies? As the dog walks? What about timing? In rush hour? etc etc. It is just unnecessary and undue. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 14:41, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 September 2021

 Fully implemented: with wording furnished in original request
 – Dervorguilla (talk) 03:00, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

About these sentences: “The probe determined, with low confidence, that the Chinese government likely did not have foreknowledge of the outbreak.” and “That same month, an intelligence probe on the origins of COVID-19 requested by President Biden determined, with low confidence, that the Chinese government likely did not have foreknowledge of the outbreak.”

Because the original report by the Office of the DNI doesn’t use the words “low confidence” or “likely” about the above assessment, I request to remove “with low confidence” and “likely”, and request to change “determined” to “assessed”, in these sentences. NCRC543 (talk) 01:10, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: The report may not state it in one sentence as is done in the article, but it does outline that the assessments given were made in low confidence then goes on the expound what those assessments are. So it appears to be an accurate representation of the report. — IVORK Talk 06:19, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree, I think it is a fair encyclopedic summary of the content in question. "likely" is just an element of this confidence. However, they do give various different confidences, and I think the "low confidence" does not appear to apply to the question of whether the government had foreknowledge. I'm going to remove this particular part of the sentence, but keep the "likely." Because they do not state it with any formal certainty, either. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 10:44, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Szmenderowiecki beat me to it. But I think his edits are good and I don't mind missing the "likely" all that much. I also concur having the primary source in external links is probably a good idea. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 10:49, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Note: The report does not outline that this assessment was made in low confidence. I've accordingly tagged the erroneous statements as having Failed verification. –Dervorguilla (talk) 08:29, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@IVORK: All this information is directly found in the source. –Dervorguilla (talk) 04:32, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Newly released documents from The Intercept

Article is here[19]. Should anything be added to the article? The authors' takeaway:

The documents raise additional questions about the theory that the pandemic may have begun in a lab accident, an idea that Daszak has aggressively dismissed.

And our friend Alina Chan gets mentioned again:

Alina Chan, a molecular biologist at the Broad Institute, said the documents show that the EcoHealth Alliance has reason to take the lab leak theory seriously. “In this proposal, they actually point out that they know how risky this work is. They keep talking about people potentially getting bitten — and they kept records of everyone who got bitten,” Chan said. “Does EcoHealth have those records? And if not, how can they possibly rule out a research-related accident?”

Stonkaments (talk) 11:37, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like the typical much ado about nothing new-story. It's all about the grants to EcoHealth, including the one which was first granted in 2014, renewed in 2019, suspended by Trump's administration, ... Does this add anything new about those grants and the political controversy they generated? There is, otherwise, not much that could be useful for the science part of the article, even if this were not a popular press article. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 11:44, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know that there's much to say at this point, but hopefully more RS will analyze the documents and present their findings. The article itself is a bit lean on key takeaways, but those quoted in the story have said more elsewhere. For example, Richard Ebright, quoted in the article, said on Twitter that The materials further reveal for the first time that one of the resulting novel, laboratory-generated SARS-related coronaviruses--one not previously disclosed publicly--was more pathogenic to humanized mice that the starting virus from which it was constructed and thus not only was reasonably anticipated to exhibit enhanced pathogenicity, but, indeed, was *demonstrated* to exhibit enhanced pathogenicity. He went on to say The documents make it clear that assertions made by the NIH Director, Francis Collins, and the NIAID Director, Anthony Fauci, that the NIH did not support gain-of-function research or potential pandemic pathogen enhancement at WIV are untruthful. None of that appears in any RS yet though. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:42, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that would be the meaningful, relevant finding. Not merely "what if we get bit by a collected bat", as that's fundamentally the overlap with natural zoonosis and unrelated to the most common (and notable) claims relating GoFR to the possibility of a lab leak. To put it another way, if it was just a researcher getting infected directly from a bat, then it was only a matter of time before a member of the public got infected by the same natural virus. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:42, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this really says much. e.g. Presumably the intelligence agencies had access to these government records. If it didn't convince the IC... ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:50, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just came here to post about this! Missed it by a day... yeah, no this is definitely a big nothingburger. In fact, perhaps the most interesting thing I'm seeing here is that work everyone assumed was done at BSL-2 was actually done at BSL-3! Where it should have been done! See: The documents contain several critical details about the research in Wuhan, including the fact that key experimental work with humanized mice was conducted at a biosafety level 3 lab at Wuhan University Center for Animal Experiment — and not at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, as was previously assumed. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 19:19, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say the most interesting facts from the article are the "humanized" mice that were being given SARS at the Wuhan University Center for Animal Experiment. And the suggestion that the WIV may not have been the source, but the WU. 2600:8804:6600:9:69DA:EEC9:C186:3467 (talk) 19:50, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We already knew this had happened in a virology lab in Wuhan? They published a paper about it [20]. And no, they did not give the mice SARS, not in these studies anyway. They gave the mice bat coronaviruses. And they didn't passage the virus in the mice, which would have been required to make it a gain of function experiment. Labs in the US have been infecting these humanized mice since at least 2005 [21] [22] [23]. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 20:10, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is this statement in the wiki's lead paragraph still true? "Some versions of the theory, particularly those alleging human intervention in the SARS-CoV-2 genome, are based on misinformation or misrepresentations of scientific evidence." 70.191.102.240 (talk) 20:40, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The first thing we need to answer is whether this sentence implies all versions involving human intervention are based on misinformation/misrepresentation, or just the most common ones. Bakkster Man (talk) 22:19, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
we could say "particularly some of those involving human intervention...." But my argument (and that of many of our sources) is that there is no evidence of any human intervention in the genome whatsoever, and most experts agree it is extremely unlikely. Verging on the impossible. And we now have viruses in nature which contain all the features necessary to evolve SARS-CoV-2.
So on one hand, we have a very plausible evolutionary origin with evidence from extant viruses in nature and known mechanisms of recombination and crossover, and on the other hand, we have an extremely implausible artificial genetic engineering explanation with no evidence... — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 23:52, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A peer-reviewed paper by Segreto and Deigin's reliability has been challenged at "Investigations into the origin of COVID-19"

Please read the discussion on WP:RSN about the reliability for this topic, of the source:

Segreto, R., & Deigin, Y. (2021). The genetic structure of SARS-CoV-2 does not rule out a laboratory origin. BioEssays, 43, e2000240. https://doi.org/10.1002/bies.202000240.

Feel free to participate with your opinion on its reliability, the discussion is not new but I think it needs to be cemented it that avenue.Forich (talk) 22:26, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a new article in The Lancet, arguing that the previous estimates on the likelihood of a lab leak are faulty, and that there is no direct support for a natural origin - Thereisnous (talk) 08:36, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In general, considering the rapidly evolving situation, I would suggest that all claims about the scientific consensus on the lab leak should be accompanied by a date. E.g. "Most scientists..." -> "As of February 2021, most scientists..." Thereisnous (talk) 08:44, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There was a similar "contrarian" letter published in May (if I recall correctly). As an encyclopedia, it is not our job to ride the crest of the breaking news; nor to establish false equivalence between "plausible" and "far more likely". Unless this WP:PRIMARY source gets further attention and leads to additional secondary articles (like the review papers that are being cited for the opposite viewpoint); then it is definitively too soon for us to know what impact it has and we shouldn't lend it an undue impact, especially not since it is at odds with these high quality sources. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:38, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We do not report every time someone comes out and tries to contradict the consensus. We wait until the consensus has changed. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 14:28, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As a courtesy to Van Helden and colleagues, I'm quickly addressing RandomCanadian's description of their view as "contrarian". To me, it looks like they're arguing that theirs may be the majority view within the scientific community. They openly support Tedros's view (that all hypotheses remained on the table including that of a laboratory leak) and reject Calisher and colleagues'.
Calisher et al.: "We have watched as the scientists, public health professionals, and medical professionals of China, in particular, have worked diligently and effectively to . . . share their results transparently with the global health community . . . Scientists . . . overwhelmingly conclude that this coronavirus originated in wildlife2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 . . . We declare no competing interests."
Van Helden et al.: "Among the references cited in the two letters by Calisher and colleagues,1,2 all but one simply show that SARS-CoV-2 is phylogenetically related to other betacoronaviruses."
More scientists concur with their view, they imply. –Dervorguilla (talk) 04:12, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Whether there is any truth to that claim is another question. It is after all a WP:PRIMARY source and certainly shouldn't be used for bold statements of opinion which are not supported by, and which are indeed appearing to be contrary to, further secondary sources. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:16, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@RandomCanadian: Daszak did have competing interests, though. No prominent source questions this. Likewise, Tedros did say what Van Helden and colleagues claim he said. And Shi still hasn't shared her results transparently. So we're already treating these viewpoints as majoritarian, not "contrarian" (which is the issue I was quickly addressing).
Hopefully Thereisnous could help limit editorial conflict on our Talk page by using this work as a secondary source for the (majoritarian) claim that the pangolin hypothesis has since been abandoned.9,10,11,12 The real problem here is that we don't normally cite correspondence. –Dervorguilla (talk) 06:32, 20 September 2021 (UTC) 07:12, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just the very same day, another piece of corresondence appeared on Lancet with some cardinally different summaries in the beginning (natural origin very likely, lab leak very unlikely, though with some really complex origins; pangolins not excluded). A good reason to be conservative in coverage and patient for reviews of literature to come, as otherwise we will be quarreling about whether individual scientists are right or wrong based on their reasoning and not credentials/paper/type of article, which we shouldn't do here.
As for the majoritarian claim about pangolins... in fact, dunno. Correspondence tends to cite more papers suiting the opinion rather than making a birds-eye view on the studies on pangolins and COVID-19 links. Another reason to simply wait. And, besides, we don't really write this article from the perspective of "it's not pangolins, so must be lab leak"; rather, we report on the assessed likelihood and support of the lab leak theory. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 09:33, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Szmenderowiecki: That piece of correspondence speaks (rather plainly) for itself:
"These results suggest that SARS-CoV-2 could plausibly spread across regions through cold-chain transmission . . . Chinese scientists and medical workers have always kept an open and cooperative attitude, working vigorously with the international scientific community in all aspects and offering unreserved accurate data."
No, we don't have to simply wait for more pangolin papers — or cold-chain papers. We can treat this letter's cardinal points as significant-minority viewpoints (mostly contradicting the lab-leak proposition). –Dervorguilla (talk) 20:03, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't buy the notion that the position presented in the opinion piece I cited is merely a significant minority viewpoint. The only one (so far presented) that did suggest so was a piece of correspondence in the OP's post, and the quality of the piece I have provided which arrives at cardinally different conclusions (MEDRS-wise) is about the same. You can assert a lot of things in correspondence, just like in NYT editorials (which we may or may not agree with), and that's exactly the reason we have reviews to hopefully sieve out the bias those who write these letters have, or, if these are unavailable, wait for citations to accrue and see if the piece of correspondence is important enough to merit mention (too little time has passed since the publication, so we can't yet use this substitute for review). Szmenderowiecki (talk) 20:48, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think we could consider and address the broader topic surrounding the More scientists concur with their view, they imply topic. This has been a somewhat consistent undercurrent since the start, namely how much politicization and personal belief/interests affected the willingness of lab origins being discussed. We touch on this briefly with the "chilling effect" discussed in First appearance and the Daszak COI in Renewed media attention. This letter wouldn't be a reliable source to suggest an actual "silent majority", but it may be worth including as part of these claims being made. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:23, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just to reiterate what has already been said above, the main issue is that it's not a peer-reviewed "article", but a "correspondence" letter. Its strength as a source stems solely from the reputations of its authors, not the publication, which has no editorial say over the letter's content, other than minor editing for length (see page 4). If it receives reaction/commentary elsewhere, it might warrant a mention in the timeline section at most, but it's not a good enough source for evaluating scientific consensus. Jr8825 • Talk 11:56, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jr8825: You put it better than I. The reply letter by Calisher's colleagues is worth reading for its own sake, though:
"We need more scientific evidence . . . However, while we need more evidence, the world will remain mired in dispute without full engagement of China . . . This engagement is impossible in an environment of implicit or explicit blame placed on the Wuhan Institute . . ."
Wikipedia may have done its best to keep people from placing such "implicit blame"; if so, we appear to have failed. We can conclude from all this correspondence that the world is likely going to "remain mired in dispute" indefinitely. (Few if any prominent sources in the mainstream scientific community still believe that China really is offering "unreserved accurate data" about the lab.) I can therefore freely support Thereisnous's proposal that claims about the scientific consensus on the lab leak . . . be accompanied by a date. –Dervorguilla (talk) 21:53, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
IMO when people tend to extremes, the entire work reads dubious. While I think our current article is a good summation of the issue, it doesn't tend to get much mention even in circles that refer to Wikipedia articles on contentious topics. I'm not sure if our overall handling of the issue (esp earlier on) was to Wikipedia's credit in its role of summarising available knowledge, but I guess that's something for the historians to determine. It's a difficult issue, as there are a lot of unknowns, as such I don't really strongly lean one way or the other on citing this Lancet correspondence in some way. But I think it lacks the significance to be mentioned explicitly (i.e. it could be ref'd in a sentence saying something like "some in the scientific community have called for more investigations") ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:06, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why would we add dates to the consensus when we have not demonstrated with any reliable source that the consensus has changed? — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 01:51, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Shibbolethink: Excellent question. Here's one (rather generic) answer:
If you suspect that a fact in an article will become dated at some point in the future, and want to ensure that people will update it, include a tag of the form {{As of|year}} or {{As of|year|month}} . . .
WP:AO. –Dervorguilla (talk) 06:13, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This should be used for stuff which has good reason for that suspicion (such as "As of 2021, the Prime Minister of Canada is Justin Trudeau" or "As of September 2021, COVID-19 had caused more than 4 million confirmed deaths worldwide" and not just "it could change" [I mean, if we're into the "it could change" idea, we should write everything 'as of', because if you look far enough in the future, likely everything that exists now will have changed, maybe in as few as a few centuries].) Science changes slowly (like an encyclopedia) and we have no good reason or compelling evidence to be bringing out crystal balls out. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 11:46, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reply, step 1. Check article to see whether it might support RandomCanadian's elegant proposition that "science changes slowly (like an encyclopedia)".
Step 2. Read Background section as showing that the relevant scientific consensus did change (in some ways) over the past 18 months. (It was originally suggested that the virus might have originated from bats or pangolins sold at the market.)
Step 3. Read sources as indicating that scientists generally expect it to continue changing over the upcoming months or years.
Step 4. Read the WP:AO guideline, which gives a somewhat analogous contextual illustration: As of 2008, construction is expected to ... cost US$28 billion.
Step 5. Add phrase "as of July 2021" to the appropriate sentence in the "Renewed media attention" section: However, the prevailing scientific view is that while an accidental leak is possible, it is extremely unlikely. –Dervorguilla (talk) 04:03, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Step 6. Interpret consensus as supporting your position when everyone except you and the OP who has replied so far has opposed the change. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 08:39, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Shibbolethink: One other editor did say he opposed this particular edit. And he expressed a legitimate concern. It's based on policy and common sense about science changing slowly.
So I tried to address that concern. I pointed out that the WP:AO guideline calls for adding "as of" when the information is expected to change within a matter of years.
Are you asking me for sources to support this point (that the relevant scientific consensus is expected to change - one way or another - within a matter of years)? If so, it would surely be a proper request to make. –Dervorguilla (talk) 12:34, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here's one pertinent source: Wales, "Covid povs" (cited in Ryan, "Wikipedia Is at War over the Coronavirus Lab Leak Theory")

The consensus in the mainstream media (which is the relevant media for this, rather than MEDRS sources, as it is a social/geopolitical question, as opposed to a medical question) seems to me to have shifted from "This is highly unlikely, and only conspiracy theorists are pushing this narrative" to "This is one of the plausible hypotheses".

It looks like Wales may, to some degree, have rendered this issue moot (as of June 1).
A consensus about a virological hypothesis may be a proper scientific consensus. But a consensus about a social and geopolitical hypothesis (the lab-leak narrative) really isn't. Not as far as Wikipedia's concerned. In particular, we shouldn't imply that we expect a (reported) scientific consensus to diverge from the shifted mainstream-media consensus indefinitely. Where we do mention it, we ought to qualify it by adding "as of". –Dervorguilla (talk) 04:56, 25 September 2021 (UTC) 05:19, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article in Lancet [24] does not say anything extraordinary, anything that contradicts facts, etc.:
Although considerable evidence supports the natural origins of other outbreaks (eg, Nipah, MERS, and the 2002–04 SARS outbreak) direct evidence for a natural origin for SARS-CoV-2 is missing. After 19 months of investigations, the proximal progenitor of SARS-CoV-2 is still lacking. Neither the host pathway from bats to humans, nor the geographical route from Yunnan (where the viruses most closely related to SARS-CoV-2 have been sampled) to Wuhan (where the pandemic emerged) have been identified. More than 80 000 samples collected from Chinese wildlife sites and animal farms all proved negative. In addition, the international research community has no access to the sites, samples, or raw data. Although the Joint WHO-China Study concluded that the laboratory origin was “extremely unlikely”,WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus declared that all hypotheses remained on the table including that of a laboratory leak.
And so on. Hence their view, ...we hold that there is currently no compelling evidence to choose between a natural origin (ie, a virus that has evolved and been transmitted to humans solely via contact with wild or farmed animals) and a research-related origin (which might have occurred at sampling sites, during transportation or within the laboratory, and might have involved natural, selected, or engineered viruses). What's the problem? Yes, I think this can be used/cited on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 00:27, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that this is a WP:PRIMARY source (basically an opinion letter) and that it is in contradiction with more reliable WP:SECONDARY sources (scholarly review papers); particularly for that "evidence bit" (the quotes at WP:NOLABLEAK are all representative passages; and many of them explicitly state that there is "no evidence" to support such lab origin theories). Per WP:BESTSOURCES (better sources are far more important) and WP:UNDUE, this absolutely shouldn't go in. At best, some time in the future, when there's a secondary source discussing it, it could maybe be cited as an example of dissent within the scientific community on the issue (which will or will not have lead to an actual change), but until then that obviously remains WP:OR so can't go in either. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 11:41, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, WP:RSOPINIONs are entirely valid. The opinion of a set of scholars is relevant, regardless of whether a news source regurgitates their statement in quotation marks. There's no Wikipedia:Reliable sources issue against inclusion, it's just a matter of editorial judgement. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:21, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And the editorial judgement is what gets us to the point where proposals around what we write and where we cite this come into play. Not every opinion is notable, and not every description of the opinion is given due weight. Without concrete proposals, we'll just circle around and around. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:52, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would say the issue is that reliable secondary sources do not support the idea that this is a notable iteration of this opinion, which is in no way novel and I don't think a useful addition to an article which already has this opinion in it in several places. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 08:48, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the most notable iteration in opinion that this Van Helden et al letter marks, is that up till now, the Lancet only published letters in support of the natural origins theory [25] [26], especially that controversial Calisher et al which had to be updated for COI disclosure and clarification. We already cite sources describing how views on the lab leak theory shifted and how the "conspiracy theory" and "extremely unlikely" descriptors seem to have been switched out with "plausible" and "uncertainty" descriptors, so this letter could be included to describe the shift/change in view and the Lancet's role in it. I would say there are even enough sources covering the Lancet's coverage of this topic for a standalone article, like Lancet MMR autism fraud, and other standalone articles on notable Lancet articles. I see Publius In The 21st Century added a section on this saga to The Lancet article, which I updated with this development. 2.96.240.198 (talk) 13:04, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 September 2021

This statement is false -- "Some versions (particularly those alleging human intervention in the SARS-CoV-2 genome) are based on speculation, misinformation, or misrepresentations of scientific evidence."

This is exactly what Wuhan and Peter Daszak said they were doing -- inserting spike proteins into bat coronaviruses to make them pathogenic to humans in order to develop vaccines. How could you not know that?

https://www.algora.com/Algora_blog/2021/06/09/daszak-you-insert-the-spike-proteins-from-those-viruses-see-if-they-bind-to-human-cells 2600:1700:F040:8160:21F7:74A4:B998:8C7A (talk) 16:56, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:00, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Response to request, step 1. Check our (four!) cited sources for the disputed sentence, just to see how well they support its general point that some versions (...) are based on speculation, misinformation, or misrepresentations of scientific evidence.
Step 2. Read Graham and Baric as proposing that some versions are based on reasonable speculation. Notice an unflattering reference to the Institute's operating procedures:
"Speculation about accidental laboratory escape will likely persist, given the large collections of bat virome samples stored in labs in the Wuhan Institute . . . and the operating procedures at the facility (Zeng et al., 2016). . . [F]orensic evidence of natural escape is currently lacking, and other explanations remain reasonable."
Step 3. Read Krishnaswamy and Govindarajan as pointing out that Daszak's email message to Fauci is itself based on a misrepresentation:
"Dr Fauci received an email on April 18, 2020, from the zoologist Peter Daszak thanking him . . . for rejecting the laboratory leak theory. Actually, Dr Fauci did not reject it but only claimed it was less likely compared with the zoonotic origins theory."
Step 4. Read Hakim as apparently supporting the requester's (poorly sourced) info about Daszak.
Step 5. Read Kasprak all the way down to the concluding paragraph:
"‘Is Dr. Shi telling the whole truth? And even if she is, are all her similarly skilled colleagues in Wuhan?’ This is indeed the central crux of the debate."
Step 6. Hasten to reword the disputed sentence, as a courtesy to the cited authors!
Some versions are based on reasonable speculation; some (particularly those alleging human intervention in the SARS-CoV-2 genome), on misinformation or misrepresentations of scientific evidence.
–Dervorguilla (talk) 05:56, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree, I don't read any of those sources as supporting the phrasing "reasonable speculation." Otherwise I think the change is fine. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 08:51, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Shibbolethink: Good point. Graham and Baric, for instance, just say that "other explanations" (than natural escape) remain "reasonable". (The context is "speculation about accidental laboratory escape".) Can we say (citing Graham and Baric) that some versions are speculation based on the published operating procedures at the facility and the large collections of bat virome samples stored in labs there? –Dervorguilla (talk) 10:13, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I think it's too vague. And contradicted by other sources, which describe how the virus bank is stored mostly as RNA in trizol (non-infectious) and how much of the animal work was done at other facilities... Hence why we say what we say about misinformation and misrepresentations of evidence. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 22:16, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Which other sources say animal work was done only at other facilities and which other facilities are these reported to be? 2.96.240.198 (talk) 11:10, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What I said: "much of the animal work was done at other facilities." What you heard: "The animal work was only done at other facilities." I refer to the grant proposals and RSes interpreting those proposals (Intercept, others) which show that animal work was conducted at either Ralph Baric's Lab or at The University of Wuhan in most cases. It didn't happen at the WIV for the most part. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:24, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

EcoHealth Alliance and Furin Cleavage Site

As new info about the lab leak theory comes out, it seems a lot of the focus has been on the types of work that the EcoHealth people were performing or proposing to perform in Wuhan. Should a new "EcoHealth" wiki subsection under "Release of a genetically modified virus" be added to more explicitly explain how Ecohealth's genetic modification studies could have lead to the existence of genetic code in the lab that were similar to that of Sars-Cov2?

https://nypost.com/2021/09/22/wuhan-scientists-wanted-to-release-coronaviruses-into-bats/

--70.191.102.240 (talk) 21:05, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a more reliable source than the NY Post? Bakkster Man (talk) 21:48, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Telegraph, The Times. fiveby(zero) 22:04, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
EcoHealth didn't do any genetic modification studies... And these sources are not reliable for the claim that they did. If this info were covered by more reputable sources (with reputation for fact checking scientific claims), all it would show is that these projects have been proposed, not that they were undertaken. The WIV did other genetic modification studies, and we already have a section about that. About how unlikely it is that this had anything to do with the pandemic.
In particular, I'd also like to point out there is a flagrantly irresponsible scientific error in how the above sources (NYPost, Telegraph, Times, which themselves are known to be extremely biased news sources) interpret this document. To be fair. The Times reports it better, but not well. They insinuate that the EHA grant would involve releasing live virus into bats in the wild. That is not what EHA proposed.
They wanted to do controlled lab experiments in high level biosafety conditions, and then use that information to create vaccines and then test those vaccines on bats, before putting the most effective vaccine into bats in the wild. How is that not exactly what we would want them to do? To help eradicate the most human-worrisome bat viruses? In my opinion, that's exactly what we want them to be doing.
From this grant, it's clear that they wanted to use a protein-based subunit vaccine [27] (page 3 paragraph 2). Which again, could not cause this pandemic, and in fact is how we are solving it. The vaccine in this case, would be just protein. It cannot recombine, it cannot create novel viruses, it cannot splice in the wild. It's just protein, no RNA. So it can only create antibodies in the bats, and help them avoid becoming infected with coronaviruses. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 22:58, 22 September 2021 (UTC) (edited 08:43, 23 September 2021 (UTC))[reply]
Err...not sure what you're on about. The answer to the question "is there a more reliable source" is yes, The Daily Telegraph and The Times. fiveby(zero) 02:01, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Shibboleth is arguing that these are not appropriate sources for reporting on the scientific aspect of this question; because they make some basic scientific errors. In any case, if the only sources which report this are news sources, it might not be ideal as news sources are fine for politics and news (their usual area of expertise), but not quite for complex science like this. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:03, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is consensus that The Daily Telegraph is generally reliable. Some editors believe that The Daily Telegraph is biased or opinionated for politics. ... The Times is considered generally reliable. (WP:RSPSOURCES.) @Shibbolethink: If you reread those articles, you can see that the authors' motives really aren't that malevolent; at least, they're not seeking to insinuate that the EHA grant would involve releasing live virus into bats in the wild. Nobody wants to harm these cute little sky pups! –Dervorguilla (talk) 08:15, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We already knew the WIV was synthesizing chimeric coronaviruses, as they published about it in at least one manuscript. And as we discuss in this article (correct me if I'm wrong) What else does this add? I'm not opposed to well-sourced inclusion of non-controversial facts from The Times. The only novel element (that they wanted to create vaccines based on the spike protein) is reported explicitly incorrectly in 2/3 of these sources, and so clearly that is probably not what we should include. There might be something novel in them wanting to experiment with the cleavage sites, but as far as I can tell, that isn't described in sufficient detail in any of these sources. Overall this is about a theoretical grant proposal. I would describe it as flimsy and this reporting as sensational. It's grasping at every reason to suspect the WIV, without any actual material evidence of wrongdoing or of having conducted any of the proposed experiments. Many people have proposed many things that they have never done. Elon Musk wants to put dogecoin on the moon and describes himself as "CEO of Dogecoin". We don't mention either of these things in his article. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 08:22, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And I would boot Ebright from the article for this, but that is personal opinion and OR. I think Bakkster Man has the correct approach below. fiveby(zero) 15:50, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do note, generally reliable does not mean every single article is de facto reliable. Not to mention that the political football of a lab leak can reasonably be considered to apply towards why someone would consider the Telegraph to be potentially unreliable here. Nor does source reliability depend on "malevolent motives", see WP:RSBREAKING, WP:SCHOLARSHIP, and WP:SCIRS (particularly Popular press section). While WP:MEDPOP doesn't directly apply here (not biomed information), I think it's also valid to note The popular press is generally not a reliable source for scientific and medical information in articles. All that is to say, if these news sources misrepresent the grant proposal (likely because they author misinterpreted them) per other reliable sources (as Shibboleth says), then the information about the EcoHealth grant proposals in these news articles would be unreliable. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:31, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note, if someone were to read about EcoHealth in anyone of these biased articles and come to wikipedia to see an unbiased version, there would basically be no information here to explain anything about weather of not virus was actually released into the caves. They'd have to rely on the incorrect reporting. 70.191.102.240 (talk) 22:10, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Telegraph made a mistake on a pretty crucial detail, as noted by The Intercept, and the Archive page history shows some corrections have been made. 2.96.240.198 (talk) 18:21, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"They [meaning Whipple and other authors] insinuate that the EHA grant would involve releasing live virus into bats in the wild." Interesting comment. Compare "Gallery of Winners," Society of Editors, 2021:

Winner: Science Journalist of the Year. Tom Whipple, The Times ... ‘Whipple produces essential journalism for the pandemic ...’

–Dervorguilla (talk) 07:55, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I feel this Intercept bears mention in the article (also previously posted by 2.96.240.198). Given there was a proposal to add Furin Cleavage Sites(FCS) to SARS-related coronaviruses. The proposal was not funded, but it clearly demonstrates there was an existing idea to modify viruses in this fashion. It was noted from the beginning of the pandemic how unusual the FCS site was High Tinker (talk) 12:45, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Noted by the popular press and conspiracists, maybe, but the idea has long been dismissed in scientific circles. The very recent Holmes et al. paper ([28]) pretty much puts the nail in the coffin:

The genesis of the polybasic (furin) cleavage site in the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 has been subject to recurrent speculation. Although the furin cleavage site is absent from the closest known relatives of SARS-CoV-2 (Andersen et al., 2020), this is unsurprising because the lineage leading to this virus is poorly sampled and the closest bat viruses have divergent spike proteins due to recombination (Boni et al., 2020; Lytras et al., 2021; Zhou et al., 2021). Furin cleavage sites are commonplace in other coronavirus spike proteins, including some feline alphacoronaviruses, MERS-CoV, most but not all strains of mouse hepatitis virus, as well as in endemic human betacoronaviruses such as HCoV-OC43 and HCoV-HKU1 (Gombold et al., 1993; de Haan et al., 2008; Kirchdoerfer et al., 2016). A near identical nucleotide sequence is found in the spike gene of the bat coronavirus HKU9-1 (Gallaher, 2020), and both SARS-CoV-2 and HKU9-1 contain short palindromic sequences immediately upstream of this sequence that are indicative of natural recombination break-points via template switching (Gallaher, 2020). Hence, simple evolutionary mechanisms can readily explain the evolution of an out-of-frame insertion of a furin cleavage site in SARS-CoV-2 (Figure 2).

  • Now, it's already long agreed that when newspapers and scientific journals disagree, the scientific journals (being written by experts and reviewed by their similarly qualified peers) have priority, since Wikipedia is a mainstream academic work, not a newspaper. If, in time, scientists think there's anything that this changes, then surely we'll find acceptable sources which say so. I don't know why the insistence on citing so many newspapers: I wouldn't write a simple work for university in the topic I'm studying using newspapers as sources; much less for actual hard sciences... Again, WP:BESTSOURCES is the pretty much best advice that can be given; and you're in luck, since most papers on this topic are available free of charge via Pubmed. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:57, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not a nail in a coffin. An WP:OPINION. 2.96.240.198 (talk) 13:06, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, a WP:SECONDARY review paper published by competent scientists in a credible journal. A far cry from the mere opinions of Wade or Deigin. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:09, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We're discussing a story reported by The Telegraph, The Times and The Intercept, not the articles from Wade or Deigin. 2.96.240.198 (talk) 13:12, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever, none of these are scientific journals. (If they were relevant to the topic I write about) I wouldn't cite them in my own work, so why on Wikipedia? You're trying to build up a false equivalence between these and legitimate scientific journals. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:15, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please WP:AGF. I have not seen anyone here try to build up a "false equivalence" between these news organisations and scientific journals. We can include this story from these new sources about the furin cleavage site (FCS), which your Holmes et al paper says is subject to "recurrent speculation", and we can give his explanation as to how it is also consistent with natural origins. The speculation about the FCS go back to Wade and Deigin's articles, which were covered by many secondary sources curiously missing from this article, but these Telegraph, Times and Intercept articles now push it [further] above the threshold of notability and dueness for coverage in this article. 2.96.240.198 (talk) 13:27, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I just added a mention of it in the article? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:29, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Thank you. 2.96.240.198 (talk) 13:32, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, why is this going into the bio-weapon section? The articles from The Telegraph, The Times and The Intercept do not imply the FCS would have been inserted into a CoV backbone to create a bioweapon. 2.96.240.198 (talk) 13:43, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@RandomCanadian: You may have misread Wales's statement that mainstream media are more relevant than mainstream "academic work" here.

Wikipedia already has an article on misinformation as well as one on investigations, that already make clear ... that a lab leak hypothesis was suggested and investigated yet also considered unlikely ... —PaleoNeonate – 22:07, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

This is not entirely clear to me. What I mean is: the consensus in the mainstream media (which is the relevant media for this, rather than MEDRS sources, as it is a social/geopolitical question, as opposed to a medical question) seems to me to have shifted ... --Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:37, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

–Dervorguilla (talk) 06:35, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Jimbo Wales' opinion is no more important on this matter than anyone else's. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:22, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Shibbolethink: Yet Ryan treats Wales as a reputable authority on this question. Which means we can too.
Maybe we could help fix this page's mountain of text problem and the associated brain drain if we stop treating ourselves as reputable authorities. –Dervorguilla (talk) 06:29, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The CNET article only establishes that Wales' opinion is likely DUE for the Wikipedia coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic article. I'm not sure how it would be relevant here in actually establishing what sources are reliable. This CNET reporter's opinion does not make Jimmy Wales an expert on coronaviruses. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 11:54, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Shibbolethink: OK, this is "how it would be relevant here in actually establishing what sources are reliable." Ryan published a video showing that

In May 2021, a request for comment was opened on the MEDRS page to determine if "disease and pandemic origins" are "a form of biomedical information." Around 70% of the respondents opposed the idea.

You supported it (at 0:02/0:18). So did more than one other "expert on coronaviruses." You lost 3:7.
According to Ryan, Wales then weighed in on how the lab leak debate should be covered. He did so by stating:

the consensus in the mainstream media (which is the relevant media for this, rather than MEDRS sources, as it is a social/geopolitical question, as opposed to a medical question) seems to me to have shifted from "This is highly unlikely" ... to "This is one of the plausible hypotheses".

It looks like around 70% of the Wikipedia community would concur with Wales's opinion and 30% would dissent.
Many of the dissenters do seem have a more intense interest in this matter, though, which is wholly understandable. –Dervorguilla (talk) 05:26, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Don't mischaracterize my position. I voted that some aspects of pandemic origins were BMI, and that others were not. In the future, if you ever reference this again, please do so using the actual wikipedia archives instead of a screengrab by a journalist. Thanks.
Wales didn't respond to the RfC. Don't put words in his mouth. You're hypothesizing about how he would have responded.
It appears you may ultimately be misunderstanding the RfC results. One aspect was that many participants acknowledged BMI was an unnecessary angle, as WP:SCHOLARSHIP already preferences scientific publications over the news media over matters of science. So the question became "which are questions of science and which are questions of politics?" and we are still arguing about it to this day. Another aspect was that some parts of pandemic origins would be covered by BMI, while others would not. It was not a simple straw poll and nobody "lost." That's not how wikipedia WP:CONSENSUS works. I would urge you to re-read WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:WIN.
You also appear to misuse WP:DUE here, which actually relies on the overall coverage of the topic in many multiple sources, and asking the question "how often does X appear in articles about Y?" Where X is Jimmy Wales' opinion and Y is the Lab Leak theory. In that context, Ryan's article is one data point, in a non-topic relevant outlet, an article that is wholly focussed on Wikipedia. It's due for the Wikipedia coverage article. It has nothing to do with how we determine source reliability.
Overall, this is straying further and further from the topic at hand, and is veering into WP:FORUM territory about my personal opinions and Wikipedia's overall coverage, which has nothing to do with whether the EHA content is any more DUE here... I'm gonna step back and do something else productive. Please don't tag me any further. Thanks — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 07:50, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do find the Intercept coverage to be more balanced (I'll leave it to others to confirm whether or not it's accurate). I appreciated the context of other scientists pouring cold water on the FCS idea, essentially that if that was the goal of an intentional genetic engineering plan they picked a really poor FCS among the available examples. Which is the context, if/when the information is added to the page, we should be including. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:36, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The "FCS is poor" argument doesn't really stand up to even cursory examination. Why is it so effective at entering human cells? Why is it so highly conserved in all virus variants? do you really think humans make optimal decisions all the time? High Tinker (talk) 17:05, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've re-arranged the sections a bit, because the difference between "accidental release of deliberately engineered virus" and "deliberate release of ..." are meager and usually focus on the same supposed evidence to support the "deliberately engineered virus" section, so it makes sense to merge them together. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:33, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Even if it is authentic, as it appears to be, the DARPA proposal does not prove the lab-leak hypothesis, nor does it come close to changing the consensus view that the pandemic started from a natural source." [29]
    I would say this The Atlantic article is by far the best source to come out about this so far. It would be a good roadmap for inclusion, as this is becoming more and more DUE. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:14, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do they cite their source for claiming no change in consensus? It seems that is just the opinion of a few they have talked to? Is anyone surveying a large pool of scientists? We have quotes from other scientists that have changed position. 2600:1700:8660:E180:B0A0:1C2A:1977:A77F (talk) 22:58, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We also have quotes from scientists who say quite the opposite. So, instead of taking what individual editors think, we just follow the most reliable sources; and these point in one direction - that the consensus has not changed, and that the consensus is that a lab leak was and remains extremely unlikely (even more unlikely given the recent findings noted in the section below, it would seem). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:12, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If we have scientists saying opposite things, then dont we by definition not have consensus? 2600:1700:8660:E180:B0A0:1C2A:1977:A77F (talk) 23:29, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, if the vast majority of scientists are saying one thing (as evidenced by publications in scientific journals), then we do not give equal credence; because, although many statements of fact made in Wikipedia can be reliably sourced as being disputed by somebody somewhere, Wikipedia is written from a mainstream perspective. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:34, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the consensus in science journals before a month ago was a natural origin. Due to recent events many notable scientists have changed to "unsure". So far we have one article in the atlantic claiming to know that the consesus of all science has not changed. They cite no source for this. Was a poll taken? 2600:1700:8660:E180:69CE:BC4:C894:5E63 (talk) 07:27, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The statement you're making to the opposite is not supported by available evidence (you have not provided any scientific paper on the subject). Nor is it consistent with usual Wikipedia practice, which is to wait for evidence that the consensus has changed and not treat this as some form of breaking news story. The best I can do is point to this recently published (less than two weeks ago, which in the realm of scientific publications in medicine/hard sciences is basically like yesterday) review paper on the subject which is still very clearly in line with previous scientific writings on the issue. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:07, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
From that paper: "No epidemic has been caused by the escape of a novel virus, and there is no data to suggest that the WIV—or any other laboratory—was working on SARS-CoV-2, or any virus close enough to be the progenitor, prior to the COVID-19 pandemic." The theorists are claiming that the breaking news DARPA grant (authenticity unproven at this point) demonstrates that the lab had the capability and could have been working on FCSs in CoVs. But I agree that it is worth waiting and keeping an eye out for new publications from Edward C. Holmes et al discussing the DARPA grant. 70.191.102.240 (talk) 18:00, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@RandomCanadian and 70.191.102.240, re: Holmes et al., "Origins of SARS-CoV-2: A Critical Review". This source's lead author had two known potential conflicts of interest:

Declaration of interests
E.C.H. is an honorary visiting professor at Fudan University (Shanghai Public Health Clinical Center) ... and, from 2014–2020, was a guest professor at the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention...

Can't we find a less biased source for this arguable claim? –Dervorguilla (talk) 03:24, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't look like anything disqualifying to me. We don't have much better sources for this, and "potential conflict of interest" does not translate on a 100% basis to "actual conflict of interest", especially when this has undergone peer-review in a reputable journal. As for the source being allegedly biased, one can easily compare to existing similar sources and see that they do not stand out in either tone or language, so that seems like making a hill out of a mole to me. And it isn't a particularly good objection: high-quality sources probably do have their biases, but analysis of the other elements of the source which impact its reliability and suitability for use on Wikipedia (i.e. its coherence with existing research in the field; it being published in a reputable journal and having undergone editorial and peer review; it being published by experts in the field) certainly allow us to cite it without much fuss. In fact, due to being rather recent, and all of the previously listed factors, it probably is one of the best sources we currently have. Claims to the opposite seem like straw grasping at best: what else would you cite, currently available, that is a "better source" than this? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:55, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As the OP here, I'd like to first apologize for this becoming somewhat of a forum/battleground. I'm unfamiliar with wiki guidelines on drafts in talk pages, but I think it would be worthwhile for us to construct a(some) draft(s) of a section or just a paragraph. Then perhaps we can vote on which version is most acceptable for inclusion. If you do not believe there are any notable theories that notably feature EcoHealth Alliance, please directly comment below this comment. I will attempt to start a draft below this comment thread, please feel free to edit or add information. 70.191.102.240 (talk) 22:40, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

EcoHealth's Relations to FCS Insertion Theory - Draft

Some Lab leak theories incorporate information revealed in grants purportedly written and proposed by EcoHealth Alliance as evidence that work to insert and edit furin clevage sites in viruses could have created Sars-Cov-2 in a Wuhan lab. These theories often cite the lack of disclosure of these grants by Peter Daszak early in the investigation of Covid-19 as evidence of an attempted coverup. Scientific consensus of relevant experts, including Peter Daszak, claim this is a conspiracy with no evidence. [1]

Per WP:FRINGE we do not assert things like this that are so woefully without evidence. Not without describing how unlikely/impossible it is for SARS-COV-2 to be made in a lab. We must give the different theories in this article WP:DUE weight based upon the support they have in peer-reviewed scientific literature. Or at the very least based upon the weight of evidence they have in favor, as published in all WP:RSes. Nothing about these grants shows that these techniques could have created SARS-COV-2, and as pointed out in the Atlantic article, there is no known or substantive reason why anyone would have engineered SARS-COV-2 the way it exists. With such a poor cleavage site. Overall, there is zero scientific evidence that SARS-COV-2 could have been made in a lab, and this grant does not change that. The techniques used in this grant could not have been used to make SARS-COV-2. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 23:58, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Im confused why we need to validate the theory here? It is a theory and it has been well covered in the press. Why do we need to explore the intricacies of what is claimed? Why cant we say say that the theory is woefully without evidence? We could model this after 9/11 conspiracy theories? 70.191.102.240 (talk) 00:46, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Adding four generally reliable news sources: [2] [3] [4] [5]
Engber and Federman emphasize that "good-faith investigations of these matters have proceeded in the face of a toxic shroud of secrecy." More mainstream sources support this viewpoint than contradict it. The McKay article adds further support to its being a significant aspect of our topic.
As required by policy (DUE and BALASP), our contributor is fairly representing this specific aspect. –Dervorguilla (talk) 04:54, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That can be added, but not in any way which suggests this is supportive of the idea that the virus was engineered in a lab; since that particular version of the lab leak theory is the sort of unfounded speculation which is rejected unanimously by higher quality sources and that is indeed a conspiracy theory. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:00, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Whether the virus was or wasn't manipulated before being accidentally leaked is just a matter of WP:OPINION at this point. No "high quality" source can determine this definitively, as I and other editors have said in previous discussions. 2.96.240.198 (talk) 15:24, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Even if you are right, if it's a matter of controversial opinion, that still brings us to WP:NPOV, which suggests using WP:BESTSOURCES, which in this case are pretty much WP:SCHOLARSHIP/WP:MEDRS; and that brings us to the same outcome: we should describe the idea that the virus was genetically manipulated (as opposed to the idea the virus could possibly have escaped, unnoticed and unmodified, from a lab) as basically a refuted conspiracy theory. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:53, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Dervorguilla and fiveby that The Telegraph, The Times, The Wall Street Journal and The Atlantic are reliable sources and I concur with Bakkster Man and High Tinker that The Intercept's coverage is the most neutral, and I concur with you and Shibbolethink that contrary WP:OPINIONs should be added for NPOV. I find the Holmes et al argument about which FCS the WIV may have used to be a bit like arguing which weapon OJ may have used, and a very poor rebuttal overall, but I am fine with adding it if that's all we've got. 2.96.240.198 (talk) 17:54, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP considers those sources more reliable than others. I think that The Telegraph was irresponsible and The Intercept is in over it's head. fiveby(zero) 19:55, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Are you okay with "Many Scientists, including Peter Daszak, claim this is a conspiracy with no evidence." covering this? Could this be worded better? 70.191.102.240 (talk) 17:51, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It’s not “many scientists,” it’s the scientific consensus of relevant experts.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 19:52, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.foxnews.com/media/peter-daszak-lab-leak-theory-investigation
  2. ^ Whipple, Tom (22 September 2021). "US 'Rejected Funding for Bat Coronavirus Project at Wuhan Lab'". The Times. London. In describing experiments involving the construction of 'chimeric coronaviruses', as well as the regular sampling of viruses from bat caves, the leaked documents will increase scrutiny on the Wuhan Institute of Virology and the idea that the pandemic may have originated in a laboratory.
  3. ^ McKay, Betsy (25 September 2021). "Covid-19 Panel of Scientists Investigating Origins of Virus Is Disbanded". Wall Street Journal. Columbia University professor Jeffrey Sachs said he has disbanded a task force of scientists probing the origins of Covid-19 in favor of wider biosafety research ... EcoHealth Alliance's president, Peter Daszak, led the task force until recusing himself from that role in June.
  4. ^ Lerner, Sharon; Hibbett, Maia (23 September 2021). "Leaked Grant Proposal Details High-Risk Coronavirus Research". The Intercept. The proposal, rejected by U.S. military research agency DARPA, describes the insertion of human-specific cleavage sites into SARS-related bat coronaviruses ... Peter Daszak and Linfa Wang, two of the researchers who submitted the proposal, did not previously acknowledge it.
  5. ^ Engber, Daniel; Federman, Adam (22 September 2021). "The Lab-Leak Debate Just Got Even Messier". The Atlantic. Even as a natural origin remains the most plausible explanation, these discoveries, taken as a whole, demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that good-faith investigations of these matters have proceeded in the face of a toxic shroud of secrecy.

Accidental vs deliberate release of genetically modified virus

Should we be lumping these two separate theories together in the same subsection? They are two very different claims, and as far as I can tell, sources treat the two theories very differently—accidental release is seen as plausible (albeit unlikely) and generally worthy of further investigation, whereas deliberate release (aka bioweapon) is seen as a completely unfounded conspiracy theory that nobody in the mainstream views as deserving serious consideration. Lumping them together gives the false impression that both theories are equally discredited, especially because only the first paragraph in the section covers claims of deliberate release ("Plandemic" and Li-Meng Yan). I propose restoring my recent edit, which separated the bioweapon theory into its own subsection, with a link to COVID-19 misinformation#Bio-weapon which covers it in more detail. Stonkaments (talk) 17:43, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Doesn't the article already separate the two bits according to their plausibility? i.e. "Accidental release of a natural virus" (possible but unlikely) vs "Release of genetically modified virus" [one way or another] (deemed implausible and in some variants an outright conspiracy theory)? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:17, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • While the wording to distinguish the two is a bit confusing, I think we need to make clear that there really isn't anyone advocating that a laboratory intentionally released the virus in their own backyard. The way the WHO presented it was "intentional engineering for release". Basically, a politically-correct term for a bioweapon (intended to be released on purpose, but not in Wuhan) distinguishing it from traditional laboratory modification (the intent being never to release outside their controlled environment). I suppose the allegations of plans to genetically engineer an inoculating virus to release into bat caves muddies this a bit, and would could require further clarification that wasn't required earlier in the year. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:33, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest that this is really the article about a proposed laboratory origin, with the word "leak" having been chosen because it was the WP:COMMONNAME. I'd rather see us rename the article to be more broadly inclusive of these scenarios (if we think it's a significant enough issue to justify) than to split it further. Bakkster Man (talk) 21:03, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your suggestion, but I would still like to find a new section for the FCS speculation, as bioengineering does not equate to bioweaponry. This is becoming like Counterpart, with one side blaming the other of a deliberate release, and the other side discounting it as a conspiracy theory, without either side knowing what happened (till the end, but I don't want to spoil it for you, or make any inference to this). This controversy should also cover the Chinese side, and how they perceive this interest as "US politicisation" of the scientific method, as reported in numerous reliable sources. Historians will probably call it the "Covid lab origins controversy". 2.96.240.198 (talk) 00:43, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, we shouldn't conflate bioengineering in general with the specific motives of bioweapon development, but on a quick scan of the article I don't see us making that claim. Is there a bit in specific you're concerned about? Bakkster Man (talk) 00:55, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see the section has since been renamed to "Principle Claims", so this is not an issue anymore. I still think the Version section lacks clarity, as even if we agree that this article covers all possible lab origin scenarios, the "Accidental release of a natural virus" vs "Release of a genetically modified virus" presents as a false paradigm. I think this article would benefit from an overhaul, or at least an overhaul discussion. 2.96.240.198 (talk) 01:11, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Word order and redundancy

Stonkaments is insisting on adding what appears to be redundant repetition to the final paragraph of the lead. This seems to me to be bringing both issues of WP:UNDUE and of poor writing (repeating the same information in successive sentences is poor writing) into account. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:34, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RandomCanadian: Thank you for starting this discussion, I was just in the process of doing it myself. Could you clarify what you find redundant or undue about my proposed addition (that most scientists acknowledge that the lab leak theory is possible)?
Again, the source I referenced says: Most say that the virus is very likely natural and that theories around the Wuhan Institute of Virology are a possible explanation, but they’re unlikely.[30] The lead currently fails to accurately convey this information—it mentions that some scientists argue the lab leak theory should be investigated further, but nowhere states that most scientists say it is a possible explanation. This seems especially important to get right given earlier attempts in the scientific community (described as "scientific propaganda and thuggery") to dismiss the lab leak theory as a conspiracy theory. Stonkaments (talk) 13:42, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I see the current text already implies that the theory is possible: if the theory was ruled out by scientists, we'd be saying that exactly, not merely saying that scientists are "skeptical" and that the other theory is "far more likely". In addition, the very next sentence mentions "the possibility of a lab leak" (without qualifying it as being merely the opinion of some scientists), so I think that covers it too. We don't need to paraphrase the sources too closely, especially when we have many high quality sources which say similar things. Holmes et al. have "in contrast to other scenarios there is substantial body of scientific evidence supporting a zoonotic origin. Although the possibility of a laboratory accident cannot be entirely dismissed, and may be near impossible to falsify, this conduit for emergence is highly unlikely". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:53, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A possible compromise wording could be "Most scientists have remained skeptical of the idea, describing that existing evidence supports a zoonotic origin, and that, although the idea cannot be ruled out, there is a lack of such evidence for a laboratory accident." This changes the focus from "possible" (which is implied by the existing text) to "not ruled out" (which is a more accurate reflection of what the higher quality sources are saying) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:57, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "the very next sentence mentions 'the possibility of a lab leak' (without qualifying it as being merely the opinion of some scientists)" – This is simply not true. The sentence in question reads: Some scientists agree that the possibility of a lab leak...
  2. Implying that the theory is possible is very different than a statement that scientists say the theory is possible. Again, given the earlier attempts in the scientific community to shut down any inquiry into the possibility of a lab leak, this should be stated explicitly. Stonkaments (talk) 14:00, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The second sentence is very clear that what "some scientists" agree on is not the "possibility of the lab leak" but the need for further investigations. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:03, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I find the suggested statements redundant and unnecessary. Adding them again feels like an attempt to add more undeserved legitimacy to the theory. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 15:26, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Lard Almighty:See the source above. You have reverted an unrelated edit, can you please self-revert? Stonkaments (talk) 13:46, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

US IC report

  • In August 2021, the results of a US intelligence community probe ordered by president Joe Biden were declassified.

This sentence is false. We do not know which of "the results' were unclassified, and which remain classified. 2.96.240.198 (talk) 18:13, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We are summarizing what others have said about the events. And those reliable sources indicate the results have been declassified. Could there be other hidden still-classified results? I suppose. That's true of anything in the US government. And we don't add qualifiers and weasel words to all of those other events. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:20, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources are we summarising that gave us this sentence? 2.96.240.198 (talk) 18:24, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Check the sources that are already on the article. Nobody says "all of the results have been declassified" and that's also not what we say. We just say "the results." We could change it to "an executive summary" if you like. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:27, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Published an unclassified..." would be the way I would phrase it, whether we call it a report, results, conclusions, or a summary. Bakkster Man (talk) 02:03, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The inline citation says The intelligence community plans to review the report with an eye to releasing a declassified version at some future date, Assistant Director of National Intelligence Timothy Barrett said Friday. Statement worded as-is fails verification. Maybe some of the four at the end of the paragraph verify but I'm not going to go hunting on a whim if the citations aren't properly placed. It goes back to my earlier concern about verifiability. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:38, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I reworded it a bit but it could probably do with a better sentence structure still. I do think it's important to emphasise that only a two-page declassified summary was released. People cannot judge the evidence for themselves, they just have the summary conclusions of the IC. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:46, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More viruses that are even closer to SARS-CoV-2 discovered in bats

Not yet peer-reviewed, so probably not ready for inclusion. But keep an eye on this, it will probably be a good thing to include at some point: [31]

Choice quotes:

Particularly concerning is that the new viruses contain receptor binding domains that are almost identical to that of SARS-CoV-2, and can therefore infect human cells. The receptor binding domain allows SARS-CoV-2 to attach to a receptor called ACE2 on the surface of human cells to enter them.

“When SARS-CoV-2 was first sequenced, the receptor binding domain didn’t really look like anything we’d seen before,” says Edward Holmes, a virologist at the University of Sydney in Australia. This caused some people to speculate that the virus had been created in a laboratory. But the Laos coronaviruses confirm these parts of SARS-CoV-2 exist in nature, he says. “I am more convinced than ever that SARS-CoV-2 has a natural origin,” agrees Linfa Wang, a virologist at Duke–NUS Medical School in Singapore.

— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 20:32, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did they address the possibility of backspill from humans to bats in 2020? Have you seen if anyone has done a phylogenetic tree for Banal back to pre-2019 samples? Lots of studies to be done on Laos! 2600:1700:8660:E180:B0A0:1C2A:1977:A77F (talk) 22:45, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Viruses swap chunks of RNA with one another through a process called recombination, and one section in BANAL-103 and BANAL-52 could have shared an ancestor with sections of SARS-CoV-2 less than a decade ago, says Spyros Lytras, an evolutionary virologist at the University of Glasgow. “These viruses recombine so much that different bits of the genome have different evolutionary histories,” he says.
On one hand, good to hear we're possibly getting closer to putting this possibility to bed. On the other, get ready for more pandemic coronaviruses in the future... Bakkster Man (talk) 01:44, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, not sure why this would be relevant to the lab leak wiki page unless youre suggesting this belongs in "accidental leak of a natural virus" section? 2600:1700:8660:E180:69CE:BC4:C894:5E63 (talk) 07:43, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One of the primary arguments made in favor of the genetic engineering origin was that the genetic distance from known bat coronaviruses to SARS-CoV-2, making any discovery of similar viruses in the wild directly relevant. Bakkster Man (talk) 11:51, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Isnt the primary argument for "accidental leak of a natural virus" based on a close match found somewhere else besides china? If this was found in a cave near wuhan in 2018 it would have helped non lab leak theory. 2600:1700:8660:E180:69CE:BC4:C894:5E63 (talk) 14:07, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some of these bat-resident coronaviruses related to SARS-CoV-2 were found in Hubei province caves (same province as Wuhan) in the fall of 2020 (after the pandemic): [32] and in the spring of 2019 (before): [33]. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 14:19, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Origin task force disbandment

WSJ reporting disbandment of task force bc of ties to ecohealth. Doesnt report much on lab leak details, not sure where this belongs or if at all here. I'll just note that EcoHealth Alliance is only mentioned once on this wikipedia article, even though it is now at the ceneter of many theories. And has directly disrupted this panel's work to find the origins of sars2. https://www.wsj.com/articles/covid-19-panel-of-scientists-investigating-origins-of-virus-is-disbanded-11632571202 2600:1700:8660:E180:69CE:BC4:C894:5E63 (talk) 08:15, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I would estimate that this is WP:DUE for the Investigations into the origin of COVID-19, Peter Daszak, and The Lancet articles, but not this one. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 11:59, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, maybe could add this sept26th article to the WHO section also. Unfortunately the Investigation article and talk page are locked. Thank you. https://www.wsj.com/articles/who-seeks-to-revive-stalled-inquiry-into-origins-of-covid-19-with-new-team-11632657603 2600:1700:8660:E180:E530:2D26:1F5D:84BF (talk) 18:03, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you're interested in contributing, consider creating an account. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:21, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
About the mentions of EcoHealth: there's a lot of speculation surrounding EcoHealth but nothing really substantiated or concrete, last I checked. I'm guessing not much has changed other than more noise. For the purposes of this article, it's important to distinguish between (and exclude as necessary) the 'speculation' (to use a euphemism) and the legitimate science, especially when we get into BLP implications wrt Daszak. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:55, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd argue the NIH grant has the most concrete backing. Came directly from federal government freedom of information act request. The Darpa leak is definitely weak. Either way many argue ecohealths involvement should have been made more clear at the beginning. 2600:1700:8660:E180:E530:2D26:1F5D:84BF (talk) 18:13, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
and what's wrong with or notable about the NIH grant? If having a grant with someone gives you a COI then essentially 50+% the community cannot review each other's proposals. It's a very interconnected and small field. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:20, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion doest really matter, but if ecohealth funding is being voted on in the US congress, I'd argue it is self-evident that is notable, at least in the United States. I am not a scientist but I read the news. It seems conflicts of interest are influencing not only official investigations but also the maintenance of this article 2600:1700:8660:E180:E530:2D26:1F5D:84BF (talk) 19:13, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You've read news about apparent conflicts of interest ... influencing ... the maintenance of this article?
WP:BLPCOI policy:

Experience has shown that misusing Wikipedia to perpetuate legal, political, social, literary, scholarly, or other disputes is harmful ... to Wikipedia itself. Therefore, an editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with another individual ... should not edit ... material about that person, given the potential conflict of interest.

WP:APPARENTCOI guideline:

Example: Editors have an apparent COI if they edit an article about a business, and for some reason they appear to be in communication with the business owner, although they may actually have no such connection. Apparent COI raises concern within the community and should be resolved through discussion...

–Dervorguilla (talk) 02:01, 27 September 2021 (UTC) 04:34, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Shibbolethink: Having a grant is OK; you do need to disclose it in your manuscript, though:
In all scientific disciplines ... authors must disclose activities and relationships that, if known to others, might be viewed as potential conflicts of interest—for example, financial agreements ... with ... any ... service ... discussed in [their] paper. APA, Publication Manual, 7th ed.
Otherwise that information may eventually find its way to any WP article mentioning that paper. –Dervorguilla (talk) 05:27, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Full Disclosure of Interests" form, APA:

In ... scientific disciplines, professional communications are presumed to be based on ... unbiased interpretations of fact. An author’s economic and commercial interests ... may color such objectivity ... The integrity of the field requires disclosure of the possibilities of such potentially distorting influences ...
Holdings in a company through a mutual fund are not ordinarily sufficient to warrant disclosure, whereas salaries, research grants, [and] consulting fees ... would be.

–Dervorguilla (talk) 02:38, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're confused about the context of that research grants COI matter. Having a grant with someone else where you are both being paid by a third party, is not typically considered a COI. However, having a research grant where you are being paid by someone (e.g. a pharma company) typically is. That's what that COI disclosure is usually about. I've had to take like 5 or 6 COI courses over the past few years.
When someone is paying you, you may not want to speak badly about them. When the NIH is paying both of you independently, that's typically a different thing... The incentives are directed differently. It doesn't matter if EHA were contracting with the WIV or with some other lab in Southeast Asian (and they have many collaborators). They would still be able to do much of the same work.
What you've said about the law of unintended consequences is a very fair point. And we should not overlook the fact that popular and political pressure makes it an issue, even if there may not be an overt COI. Daszak should have known that greater scrutiny would be placed upon this, and acted accordingly. But I think many people would agree to disagree on whether this is an actual factual COI. And if this were any other Op-Ed, in any other matter, without this much scrutiny, it probably would never have become an issue. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 14:04, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[channeling Fauci] If anybody is "confused" here, Shibbolethink, it is you!
All three of us (you, Daszak, and me) have taken numerous "COI courses". So we all understand that authors with no known conflict of interest must state this explicitly. (APA, "Disclosure".) And Daszak did explicitly state just that, says the Lancet. It ultimately had him "re-evaluate [his] competing interests" — whereupon he made a fuller disclosure:

EcoHealth Alliance's work in China ... includes the production of a small number of recombinant bat coronaviruses to analyse cell entry...

Sachs disbanded his task force because its ties to EcoHealth risked perception of bias, he told the Journal (McKay). Cf. APA Publication Manual:

The integrity of the field ... requires ... [that] an author ... disclose ... activities and relationships that, if known to others, might be viewed as a conflict of interest, even if the author does not believe that any conflict or bias exists.

Analogously, our safest ... course of action here is to disclose Daszak's possible influences that might have led him to support certain findings. Our encyclopedia can thereby carry out its (minor) part in maintaining the integrity of that field. –Dervorguilla (talk) 08:04, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I don't know how this is in any way incompatible with my position as stated above. It seems you are attempting to make our opinions more contraposed than they actually are. It is the overall perception of the public and of the field which turns this relationship into a possible COI. I would urge you, in the future, to not make every discussion into winners and losers. I would describe your comment here as verging on WP:BATTLEGROUND. Attack the argument, not the arguer.
The question of whether it should be included in this article, however, is a different question. One governed by Wikipedia policy and not by COI disclosure guidelines written by professional bodies or journals. That is a question of WP:DUE. And my opinion on that would be case-by-case, I'd want to know what the text would look like to have an opinion of whether or not it's A) WP:DUE, B) WP:NPOV, and C) appropriately sourced.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 08:07, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Categorically denying your (groundless) accusation of WP:BATTLEGROUND... Moving on, let's see whether we can compose some (WP:DUE) text together. Would you have an idea for a line or two about EcoHealth? –Dervorguilla (talk) 08:44, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here are a couple of relevant passages from the McKay article →
paras. 1–3

Columbia University professor Jeffrey Sachs said he has disbanded a task force of scientists probing the origins of Covid-19 in favor of wider biosafety research.
Dr. Sachs, chairman of a Covid-19 commission affiliated with the Lancet scientific journals, said he closed the task force because he was concerned about its links to EcoHealth Alliance. The New York-based nonprofit has been under scrutiny from some scientists, members of Congress and other officials since 2020 for using U.S. funds for studies on bat coronaviruses with the Wuhan Institute of Virology, a research facility...
EcoHealth Alliance’s president, Peter Daszak, led the task force until recusing himself from that role in June...

paras. 11–12

An expert on searching for emerging viruses in animals that could threaten humans, Dr. Daszak has been a vocal opponent of the hypothesis that the virus might have spread from a laboratory accident. He was a member of a World Health Organization-led team that visited Wuhan earlier this year and concluded that a laboratory leak was extremely unlikely.
Five task-force members joined Dr. Daszak in signing letters in the Lancet in February 2020 denouncing what they called conspiracy theories that the new coronavirus had been bioengineered and in July 2021 saying more evidence supported a natural origin of the virus...

– and a reference.[1] Dervorguilla (talk) 06:11, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ McKay, Betsy (25 September 2021). "Covid-19 Panel of Scientists Investigating Origins of Virus Is Disbanded". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 26 September 2021.

Investigation by Sky News Ausralia

SPECIAL INVESTIGATION: What Really Happened in Wuhan, Sky News Australia I think this is a valid external link, they having all the information there. China lied about having bats at the lab, video footage shows they had plenty of bats there. Various other things. Should this not be in the article? Also claiming a news source is unreliable simply because you don't like it, is pointless. The covid investigation page had most agreeing it was a reliable source. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Investigations_into_the_origin_of_COVID-19/Archive_2 Dream Focus 00:27, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weasel word

I agree with Yodabyte's removal of the WP:WEASEL word "far". If some scientists believe this theory is "far" less likely than another, then their WP:OPINIONs should be attributed to them, and not made as a statement of fact in the WP:VOICE of Wikipedia. Alternatively, we can use the WHO report's "extremely unlikely" descriptor, and give the whole story behind that. 2.96.240.198 (talk) 18:34, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need to attribute what is the consensus position among relevant scientists. Too much attribution is a sign of bad NPOV writing; and in this case it would be putting the position of qualified scientists into WP:UNDUE doubt based on false equivalence with that of journalists and non-experts. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:40, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are many qualified scientists, various experts across different fields, and mainstream journalists who believe the origin of SARS-CoV-2 is likely a lab leak, or at least 50/50 origin came from a laboratory. Regarding the removal of the word "far", it obviously should not be included in the lead. The WIV article includes the following phrase "scientific opinion [is] that an accidental leak is possible, but unlikely", so these two related articles have an obvious discrepancy and the word "far" should not be included in the text. Yodabyte (talk) 08:07, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are many many qualified scientists, various experts across different fields, and mainstream journalists who believe the moon landing was faked and that vaccines cause autism. But in both leads, we communicate the scientific consensus in appropriate language, which describes these as not very likely. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 09:15, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with RandomCanadian. It’s NPOV and in compliance with FRINGE to include “far.” — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 19:44, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Remove "far" is my vote. 70.191.102.240 (talk) 16:39, 30 September 2021 (UTC) [34] 70.191.102.240 (talk) 16:39, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there was support for including the word "far" throughout 2020 and the first half of 2021. However with new information and data published (much of it from scientists) since May/June 20221, the word "far" should not be included in the lead. Also, as another user User:Aeonx has pointed out, "most scientists" is inconsistent with cited references and unlike "many" implies an unambiguous polled majority. The word "most" should be altered and changed in the lead to "many" for purposes of accuracy and in line with reliable sources. More evidence is needed that the virus had a natural origin due to inadequate data. China has unfortunately been very secretive and hasn't cooperated with legitimate investigations (including WHO) so an accurate determination of origin cannot be made as of October 2021. Yodabyte (talk) 04:39, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To quote @RandomCanadianfrom another talk page: ""There is consensus within the scientific community to consider that SARS-CoV-2 has not been engineered and is a naturally occurring virus." (Frutos et al., 2021 - or even the Nature article, which is indeed a reliable source; or this recent article which is unequivocal: "To be clear, most scientists think animal spillover is the most likely explanation because that's where most new diseases come from.") and in the excellent sources template, which I think is at the top of this talk page or at least most related ones. We don't need a poll (a primary source) if we have secondary sources which tell us otherwise, nor do we second guess reliable sources because the scientific mainstream is different from the popular opinion mainstream. As the last page I link explain, this is not a popularity contest. If you think that "most" is inappropriate, you're free to present an actual acceptable source which contradicts this." "far more" is consistent with the state of the consensus of relevant experts. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 10:59, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the question at the heart of this is how are scientists able to conclude that a natural origin is more likely (or for that matter much more likely) when they are working with a scarcity of data due to China being very secretive and hiding data and not cooperating with legitimate investigations (including WHO, etc.)? Yodabyte (talk) 19:49, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And the answer is "not our problem", since criticising scientists is not the job of Wikipedia editors. See WP:VNT, or if you want something more eloquent, WP:FLAT. China being secretive is not evidence of anything: Hussein' regime was also secretive, and, yet, there were no WMDs in Iraq... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:00, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
First, you completely ignored my relevant question. Second, to compare WP:FLAT with a scenario that has a lot of circumstantial evidence pointing in that direction (i.e. accidental lab leak), is completely absurd. Third, I don't really understand the WMD comparison - yes there were no WMD found but there was also no evidence supporting WMD in Iraq besides CIA/U.S. propaganda and false claims made by Hussein himself because he wanted to make enemies believe he had them. Regarding the origin of COVID-19 there is actually a lot of circumstantial evidence that points to an actual accidental lab leak. Yodabyte (talk) 20:35, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
According to scientists who have relevant qualifications, there is not "a lot of evidence", there's only the fact that the virus was first detected in a city where there was a virology lab. We follow the scientific mainstream, as per the pages I already linked, and thus your questions don't matter because scientists don't take them seriously. Whatever you or I think is irrelevant if it is not substantiated in quality sources. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:40, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Many "scientists who have relevant qualifications" disagree. Here are two from a NYT article (there are many others including Richard Ebright and David Relman):

Akiko Iwasaki: In March 2021, the W.H.O.-China team released a report that dedicated only four out of 313 pages to the possibility of a lab leak, without any substantial data to back up their conclusion that it was highly unlikely...Dr. Iwasaki said “There’s so little evidence for either of these things, that it’s almost like a tossup.”...Dr. Ian Lipkin said he was dismayed to learn of two coronavirus studies from the Wuhan Institute of Virology that had been carried out with only a modest level of safety measures, known as BSL-2. In an interview with The Times, Dr. Lipkin said this fact wasn’t proof in itself that SARS-CoV-2 spread from the lab. “But it certainly does raise the possibility that must be considered” he said.[35] Yodabyte (talk) 22:01, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • And did those same "scientists with relevant qualifications" bother to get their words published in peer-reviewed publications, similar to those I've already listed (Frutos et al.; Holmes et al. mentioned by Shibboleth; the other ones listed at WP:NOLABLEAK)? We grant more weight to secondary sources, especially review papers which are more likely to reflect the consensus of other sources, than to random doctors quoted in the press (who are in effect primary sources in this instance). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:25, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:FLAT. A few detractors does not shift a consensus. Plus many have said the recent developments of more similar coronaviruses found in nature than RATG-13 pretty convincing evidence of a natural origin... Plus it's not like anyone is calling it "solved," they're just saying what is and is not more likely. Finally, the existence of a possibility of something being hidden is not enough to disregard the consensus opinion. If that were the case, then we would need to re-write the entirety of the JFK conspiracies article as there may be some information the CIA isn't telling us yet, even though they released troves of documents. Something could still be out there! — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 22:28, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is a poor comparison, has the Chinese government released troves of documents? Yodabyte (talk) 00:33, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is supposed to be a summary of the best sources on the topic; not a place for editors to substitute their original hypotheses on the topic to those of high-quality sources. If you can't substantiate your arguments with reliable, peer-reviewed scientific papers (or other similar high-quality sources), then you're wasting everyone's time, and should stop before it reaches the point where you might be accused of ignoring it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:35, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't ask you, I posed the question to Shibbolethink who made a comparison to JFK conspiracy theories, which didn't make sense. Just like your Iraqi WMD comparison earlier also made no sense. Yodabyte (talk) 01:16, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the WMD comparison isn't mine; it's present in this source (scroll to the bottom) from back in May. And it makes perfect sense: absence of evidence is not evidence of wrongdoing; and you simply contradicting all of our comments without good supporting sources or reasoning is rather a bad argument in the pyramid of disagreement..., and really suggests you should WP:DROPTHESTICK and move on. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:39, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can we trust the assessment of scientists given the small amount of data available?

A few editors here are very insistent that "mainstream" scientists believe the origin of SARS-CoV-2 is probably natural, but if those scientists are making that conclusion with minimal data and substantial circumstantial evidence points to an accidental laboratory leak, isn't this an issue? What am I missing here, I am genuinely confused. Yodabyte (talk) 22:07, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would say you are missing the fact that it is not our job to peer review scientists' assessments and disregard them based on our own opinions of the evidence. It is only our job to figure out what type of source it is, what it says, and whether it is the mainstream or minority viewpoint (or WP:FRINGE). That is the extent of our job. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 00:21, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is duplicative of the above, to which I have now merged it. And what you are arguing is WP:OR. As has been already pointed to you multiple times, we don't care whether the scientists are making that conclusion with minimal data, with substantial evidence, or with total disregard for reality, if there are no other scientists who are criticising them for this in sources of similar quality, then, as far as we are concerned, the scientists are right. Again, verifiability, not truth and WP:MAINSTREAM are useful reading. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:21, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure a conspiracy theorist might assume Shibbolttink and RandomCanadian are CIA agents, or scientist who dont want their lab funding at risk, but they would need reliable source to cover it for it to be added to the wiki article. 2600:1700:8660:E180:DDAB:3CAE:89A4:5D33 (talk) 02:04, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David Relman on origins of SARS-CoV-2 & lab leak theory

This [36] is extremely informative, can anything be used in this article?

Few important things (David Relman says the following regarding the origins of SARS-CoV-2):

We know very little about its origins. The virus’s closest known relatives were discovered in bats in Yunnan Province, China, yet the first known cases of COVID-19 were detected in Wuhan (about 1,000 miles away).

Maybe someone became infected after contact with an infected animal in or near Yunnan, and moved on to Wuhan. But then, because of the high transmissibility of this virus, you’d have expected to see other infected people at or near the site of this initial encounter, whether through similar animal exposure or because of transmission from this person.

All scientists need to acknowledge a simple fact: Humans are fallible, and laboratory accidents happen — far more often than we care to admit. Several years ago, an investigative reporter uncovered evidence of hundreds of lab accidents across the United States involving dangerous, disease-causing microbes in academic institutions and government centers of excellence alike — including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health. SARS-CoV-2 might have been lurking in a sample collected from a bat or other infected animal, brought to a laboratory, perhaps stored in a freezer, then propagated in the laboratory as part of an effort to resurrect and study bat-associated viruses. The materials might have been discarded as a failed experiment. Or SARS-CoV-2 could have been created through commonly used laboratory techniques to study novel viruses, starting with closely related coronaviruses that have not yet been revealed to the public. Either way, SARS-CoV-2 could have easily infected an unsuspecting lab worker and then caused a mild or asymptomatic infection that was carried out of the laboratory.

There’s a glaring paucity of data. The SARS-CoV-2 genome sequence, and those of a handful of not-so-closely-related bat coronaviruses, have been analyzed ad nauseam. But the near ancestors of SARS-CoV-2 remain missing in action. Absent that knowledge, it’s impossible to discern the origins of this virus from its genome sequence alone. SARS-CoV-2 hasn’t been reliably detected anywhere prior to the first reported cases of disease in humans in Wuhan at the end of 2019. The whole enterprise has been made even more difficult by the Chinese national authorities’ efforts to control and limit the release of public health records and data pertaining to laboratory research on coronaviruses.

The recently released final report from the WHO concluded — despite the absence of dispositive evidence for either scenario — that a natural origin was “likely to very likely” and a laboratory accident “extremely unlikely.” The report dedicated only 4 of its 313 pages to the possibility of a laboratory scenario, much of it under a header entitled “conspiracy theories.” Multiple statements by one of the investigators lambasted any discussion of a laboratory origin as the work of dark conspiracy theorists. Notably, that investigator — Peter Daszak — has a pronounced conflict of interest.

Yodabyte (talk) 08:21, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In this article we cite Relman explicitly once, and implicitly 3 more times that I just found. In Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 we cite him explicitly 3 times that I can find. I believe there are a few more. Regardless, any time we use relman we should attribute his statements to him, as an opinion. Because, despite being an expert on coronaviruses, he is not in line with mainstream consensus established in scientific journal articles. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 09:19, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is all old news and has been superseded by more recent sources than the WHO report which re-affirm the same thing about the lab leak and the origins of SARS-CoV-2 based on additional evidence. As per WP:MAINSTREAM, which seems a decent summary, "Many statements of fact made in Wikipedia can be reliably sourced as being disputed by somebody somewhere. This is irrelevant to our task of writing a mainstream encyclopedia, and should not be used as justification to create an article that differs from that of a mainstream encyclopedia." Also waste of time since this has already been discussed ad nauseam. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:02, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
First, the Relman article is from May 2021, the WHO report was released in Feb 2021, so it's not old news. Second, many scientists, microbiologists, and respected mainstream journalsits believe a lab leak is POSSIBLE (not definite, but possible). Unfortunately a few editors here want to stick their heads in the sand and appear to be stuck on the natural origin theory, and claim that is what mainstream science and consensus says. This is false, just read this from Relman "There’s a glaring paucity of data. The SARS-CoV-2 genome sequence, and those of a handful of not-so-closely-related bat coronaviruses, have been analyzed ad nauseam. But the near ancestors of SARS-CoV-2 remain missing in action. Absent that knowledge, it’s impossible to discern the origins of this virus from its genome sequence alone. SARS-CoV-2 hasn’t been reliably detected anywhere prior to the first reported cases of disease in humans in Wuhan at the end of 2019. The whole enterprise has been made even more difficult by the Chinese national authorities’ efforts to control and limit the release of public health records and data pertaining to laboratory research on coronaviruses." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yodabyte (talk • contribs) 21:33, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
you seem to be misunderstanding, RC is citing the many sources that have occurred since May, given that it is almost October. Look at the top of this page at the sources list to see what we mean. There is at least one extremely high quality review which helps establish the scientific consensus. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 22:39, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 September 2021

In the Chronology section that should be removed is: "with Mikovits going further and stating, in Plandemic, a 2020 conspiracy theory film, that the virus was both deliberately engineered and deliberately released." The statement is incorrect since Dr. Mikovits did not say in Plandemic that it was deliberately released -- the author David Gorski (from the reference) misrepresented what was said. What was actually stated by Dr. Mikovits, taken from the transcript of Plandemic http://stateofthenation.co/?p=13864, is: "It’s very clear this virus was manipulated, this family of viruses was manipulated, and studied in a laboratory where the animals were taken into the laboratory, and this is what was released whether deliberate or not." Viktorikona (talk) 19:10, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Gorski (the cited secondary source) is rather unambiguously explicit about this. I'm not sure whether selective quoting from transcripts (which may or may not be accurate, and where maybe important parts were missed) is an acceptable source, either. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:25, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Following SBM's links, it looks like the Mikovits material they are citing was other video besides Plandemic. They associate her view with "the 'plandemic' conspiracy theory'. Could we just remove or move the Plandemic subclause? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:37, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If there's a contradictory (potentially more accurate) secondary source, that could be cited instead. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:38, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you to all for your comments. There is the original source the Plandemic documentary (https://plandemicvideo.com/plandemic/) that could be used, if it is a better source. I have listened to it fully (26 minutes) and the only mention of "release" by Dr. Judy Mikovits is the one comment at 10:48 which is: "whether deliberate or not". With reference to David Gorski, his phrase in the cited article "intentionally released" links to another article by him specifically about the Plandemic Documentary, rather than a generalization of a conspiracy theory.
David Gorski articles: https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-origin-of-sars-cov-2-revisited/ https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/plandemic-judy-mikovits-and-the-mother-of-all-covid-19-conspiracy-theories/ Viktorikona (talk) 21:53, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Gorski's link goes to an article that's about more than just the Plandemic documentary. That's what I was getting at above. Also, I marked this request as "answered" again, since it's clear this isn't an uncontroversial, specific request. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 21:58, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would say let's just replace the mention of Plandemic with a straight up mention of Mikovitz. The documentary is irrelevant to the point we're making imo. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 22:37, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like there are two Plandemics, maybe looking at the wrong one? There could be additional material from Mikovits in full-length version.Also ran across this from today while searching, if watching Plandemic is not to your taste. fiveby(zero) 22:34, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 1, 2020 Teleconference

It seems a lot of people changed their views after this meeting. Might be interesting to mention improtant people like Kristian Anderson that changed their mind following it. [37] 2600:1700:8660:E180:DDAB:3CAE:89A4:5D33 (talk) 15:18, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily Mail is not a reliable source, see Wikipedia:DAILYMAIL. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 15:35, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How about USA Today High Tinker (talk) 20:34, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's an opinion piece, not a news article. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:53, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory&oldid=1048064551"