Jump to content

Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lenschulwitz (talk | contribs) at 19:03, 7 September 2023 (→‎primary source). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.




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

most scientists believe the virus spilled into human populations through natural zoonosis

This is a highly biased and controversial statement. By what measure do you count "most scientists"? The link is to a single paper, there has been no general survey on the matter to see what the real dominant opinion is in the sciientific community. I propose changing the above to "some scientists believe that..." to more accurately reflet that it is one opinion of a number that need to be seriously considered. 83.33.197.248 (talk) 12:26, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Read the sources. This has been discussed ad nauseam. Bon courage (talk) 12:34, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that for a while scientists around the world who dared to believe it was not zoonosis was branded conspiracy theorist and could have their grants and jobs in jeopardy... Thinker78 (talk) 04:51, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What a wild concept that people who believe in things which have no evidentiary basis shouldn't work in the field of science. TarnishedPathtalk 05:17, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Read the talk page threads we already have you have brought nothing new to the table. Slatersteven (talk) 12:36, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also the CIA and the FBI have release a summary of intelligence which pretty much says nothing to see here. The way things stand at the moment this page should be renamed COVID-19 lab leak conspiracy. AlanStalk 09:42, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your link is to an opinion article, but it links to a more neutral article[5] about the FBI/CIA's opinion, which is to say: no firm opinion. Wizmut (talk) 01:59, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The list of sources for this preposterous statement is weak. For example, here is one of the top-listed sources cited:
“Cell(Review). 184 (19): 4848–4856. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2021.08.017. PMC 8373617. PMID 34480864. As for the vast majority of human viruses, the most parsimonious explanation for the origin of SARS-CoV-2 is a zoonotic event...There is currently no evidence that SARS-CoV-2 has a laboratory origin. There is no evidence that any early cases had any connection to the WIV, in contrast to the clear epidemiological links to animal markets in Wuhan . . .”
This source is obviously outdated — for instance, the Wall Street Journal published an article in May 2021 stating that three investigators from the WIV became ill in November 2019 and had symptoms similar to those observed in COVID-19. Further, “clear epidemiological links” is a massive stretch — see, e.g., the persistent lack of evidence now years later regarding an intermediate animal host for SARS-CoV-2.
More to the point, flatly claiming to express the view of “most scientists” without citing to a carefully constructed scientific poll of same is inherently unscientific, and should be promptly deleted. 2601:243:CE80:E6F0:640B:F2EA:F1A5:3CD3 (talk) 07:01, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The WSJ is not a peer-reviewed academic paper. Slatersteven (talk) 11:27, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Stating that investigators from the WIV became ill in Nov 2019 is meaningless when the virus is believed to started circulating in Wuhan in late October/early November 2019, when employees of WIV would have been able to catch anything else that the local population of Wuhan would have been able to catch. There is still no evidence of anything occurring in WIV. Evidence is kind of important. Despite FBI/CIA investigations nada, nothing, zilch. Just a bunch of hot hair from conspiracy theorists like Rand Paul et. al. TarnishedPathtalk 11:45, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

primary source

with the mainstream media downplaying and denying it as a valid scientific theory. this cannot be sourced to a primary source such as a US oversight house report which is partisan and not WP:MEDRS Andre🚐 21:53, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think that this NY Mag article or this NPR transcript provides adequate sourcing for that statement? Or do you think that the statement would be better if written simply as media instead of mainstream media? Poppa shark (talk) 23:39, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to say that neither is sufficient sourcing for this to be in the lead section given PRIMARY, MEDRS, etc. The Chait NY Mag piece is practically an opinion column. The NPR transcript even if you assumed it was a reliable source for scientific and medical topics, doesn't even say that. Andre🚐 01:32, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Current consensus is that sources do not need to be MEDRS High Tinker (talk) 09:56, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They do for WP:BMI. However, an interpretation of Chait's opinion is not appropriate for anything (biomedical or not). Bon courage (talk) 10:08, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It seems as though Andrevan is asking for a medical journal to source this claim, but I don't see how a medical journal is required for the claim, and frankly, it doesn't seem to be the right fit. The claim is about the lab leak theory in the eyes of the media, and medical journals don't generally write on how the media perceives something. The US government has been deemed by Wikipedians as a reliable source on Wikipedia. However, with respect to COVID, the reliability of the US government as reliable source is being questioned by some Wikipedians. Is the US government a reliable source for COVID information or not? As Wikipedians, do we get to determine based on our own opinions which US government publications are valid, and which are unreliable? Lenschulwitz (talk) 17:58, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"The US government has been deemed by Wikipedians as a reliable source on Wikipedia" ← shit! when did that happen!? They're reliable for what they said (as everything is), but on myriad topics reliability would depend on context. Bon courage (talk) 18:00, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected. I thought I read once that the U.S. government was a reliable source, perhaps I remembered incorrectly. I expected to find it listed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources as a reliable source. Do you doubt that the U.S. government is reliable with respect to this specific claim? Lenschulwitz (talk) 19:02, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can't source the US house oversight committee for this claim. It doesn't necessarily have to be a medical journal, but the existing sourcing does not suffice. Andre🚐 18:42, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Andrevan, your statements are conclusory, but not explanatory, can you explain your reasoning so that I can better understand your perspective? Lenschulwitz (talk) 18:52, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 15 August 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. No support and withdrawn by nominator. Srnec (talk) 23:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC) (closed by non-admin page mover) Srnec (talk) 23:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

COVID-19 lab leak theory → COVID-19 lab leak conspiracy – The US Intelligence agencies, despite appearing to some to remain divided, recently released a summary of intelligence in which they admitted “We do not know of a specific biosafety incident at the WIV that spurred the pandemic,”. Pushers of the lab leak conspiracy have yet to deliver any evidence for their assertions after more than 3 years. As such it should be time to face the facts that this is in fact a conspiracy theory. A quick google search finds the following results supporting the proposition that the lab leak theory is a conspiracy:

  • Oppose per WP:NPOV. There are reliable sources that have looked at this as a serious theory about the origins of the virus, and have not simply dismissed it as a conspiracy theory. It is not Wikipedia's job to make a judgment call on this. Using "theory" in the title is the neutral term, as it can be interpreted either as a serious theory or as a "conspiracy theory". Rreagan007 (talk) 02:12, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There are plenty of WP:RS that say it's a conspiracy. The only reason this has ever been considered a "serious theory" is because of Rand Paul, the exceedingly unhinged US senator pushing it for three years, and yes men in US intelligence bureaucracy thinking they should take him seriously. TarnishedPathtalk 02:46, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are reliable sources that call it a conspiracy theory and other reliable sources that do not. When reliable sources differ, Wikipedia must remain neutral, particularly with the article title. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:37, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Rreagan007 Germartin1 (talk) 03:08, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Taking a look at the "current consensus" tab on this talk page, consensus established in February 2021 (perhaps due for a revisit) says: "There is no consensus on whether the lab leak theory is a 'conspiracy theory' or a 'minority scientific viewpoint'." I believe the two would receive very different WP:FRINGE considerations. You are effectively looking to revisit this consensus. I'm not certain how that works, but I wonder if you would need another RfC, since that was established by RfC. Personally I'm inclined to view it as a minority scientific viewpoint based on statements from scientific institutions like major journals and the WHO (by comparison your sources are unconvincing; the intelligence community didn't rule out a lab leak either just said it was unproven), and that leads me to oppose, though given what I mentioned I'm uncertain whether this discussion should be reformatted. VintageVernacular (talk) 03:38, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, per Rreagan007. The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. Alaexis¿question? 08:14, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Not all theories are conspiracies. Whether it's correct or not (and we still honestly don't know for sure what caused the pandemic), it's a valid theory considered by rational people, unlike most conspiracy theories. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:02, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Rreagan007 and Necrothesp. I see no compelling reason for taking this stance in the title. Draken Bowser (talk) 16:10, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It is far more effective to present readers with the scientific evidence and let the facts speak for themselves. It is counterproductive to present conclusion first, evidence afterwards. That is the pseudoscience approach. -- 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:20, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Either you did not try reading relevant portions of this Wikipedia page about your claims or you need to revisit WP:NPOV.
    • "In June 2022, the WHO's Scientific Advisory Group for Origins of Novel Pathogens (SAGO) published a preliminary report urged a deeper investigation into the possibility of a laboratory leak.[1]"
    • "In February 2023, The Wall Street Journal reported that the US Energy Department, based on new intelligence, had shifted its view from "undecided" to "low confidence" that the pandemic originated with a lab leak.[2][3][4] "
    • "White House National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan responded to the report saying "some elements of the intelligence community have reached conclusions on one side, some on the other. A number of them have said they just don't have enough information to be sure", and there was still "no definitive answer" to the pandemic origins' question.[3][5]"
Also, read the page Lancet letter (COVID-19).
In addition, I have to point out that in your first reference that you included to back your position (the Scientific American article) the COVID-19 lab leak theory is called "The Lab-Leak Hypothesis" throughout.[6] Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 18:22, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Scientific American article uses the word "conspiracy" 16 times throughout the article. In addition it point blank writes "The ostensible lab-leak hypothesis is not a single identifiable theory but a loose constellation of diverse possibilities held together by the common theme that Chinese science institutions—be it the WIV or some other arm of the Chinese government—are to blame for the pandemic. At one end is the straightforward possibility of WIV lab personnel being infected during fieldwork or while culturing viruses in the lab. Scientifically, this possibility is challenging to disentangle from a zoonotic origin that followed other pathways and is therefore difficult to rule out or confirm. At the other extreme are the assertions that SARS-CoV-2 was designed and engineered by the WIV, perhaps as a bioweapon, and was released either accidentally or as a biological attack. This possibility necessarily entails a conspiracy among WIV scientists—and potentially many others—to first engineer a virus and then cover up its release. Scientific investigation of the genomic and phylogenetic evidence can help us determine whether SARS-CoV-2 was genetically engineered." So at one end of the spectrum it is saying the hypothesis is verging on being unfalsifiable, that is unscientific and at the other end of the spectrum it is straight up conspiracy theory. TarnishedPathtalk 23:51, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Also, said reference uses the word hypothesis even as the title of the article. I just noticed that in said article of Scientific American, at the end of it, you can read a note that states that the title was actually changed from ""Conspiracy Theories Made It Harder for Scientists to Seek the Truth" to its current title, "The Lab-Leak Hypothesis Made It Harder for Scientists to Seek the Truth".[7]
There are some conspiracy theories regarding a lab leak but that doesn't mean all the scientific hypothesis, brainstorming, investigations, and leads about a lab leak are conspiracy theories as you mistakenly want to implicitly claim with your proposed move. Also, apparently you ignored the other info I added in my reply.
Conspiracy is not the same as conspiracy theory though. Besides, the notion that possible wrongdoing shouldn't be investigated is the realm of ideology not science. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 19:33, 16 August 2023 (UTC) Edited 19:43, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose; at this point, "lab leak theory" is the WP:COMMONNAME, so the bar to rename should be quite high. Like JMF said, it's better to let the facts speak for themselves. We also shouldn't try to supersede an RfC in a move discussion. DFlhb (talk) 19:03, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It's not a conspiracy, no RS supports that. It might be a conspiracy theory but that's another question. Bon courage (talk) 19:14, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There are conspiracy theories linked to this, but the basic idea just doesn't make the bar. There are major international and national medical institutons that don't rule it out though they say the market theory has much better evidence and is far more probable. If or when they do this can be revisited. It just does not fit in yet with List of conspiracy theories. NadVolum (talk) 21:18, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Rreagan007. Absurd nomination that if implemented would grossly violate NPOV. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:30, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per others. Saying it is a "conspiracy" is an accusation. And I would oppose a move to "conspiracy theory" either. No one has said it is impossible, just that it cannot be proven. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:08, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You're in effect saying that it's unfalsifiable, that is that it is not scientific. If it's not scientific, it can't be a theory. A theory is a well-substantiated explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can incorporate laws, hypotheses and facts. TarnishedPathtalk 09:23, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Things can absolutely be theories without being scientific. The word theory has multiple definitions, with only some pertaining to scientific research. The definition of theory that we are using here is #3 B: "an unproved assumption (conjecture)". When you say "I don't know where they went, but I have a theory", you haven't made an entire scientific paper on the topic, you're just using the word as shorthand for "I suspect". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:24, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose. I also agree with Rreagan007 and the others here. David A (talk) 22:39, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think it's obvious this is a case of WP:SNOW. I'll withdraw this if someone wants to close it off. TarnishedPathtalk 09:23, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Maybe it would be useful to have an article about the scientific discussion about the possiblity of a lab leak, and another one on the socio-culture phenomenon around the lab leak theory. One is a minority scientific view and the other is made up of conspiracy theories and culture wars content, both would seem notable though. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:44, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we need to follow the sources. There's isn't really any "scientific discussion" (in RS), and the emerging scholarship seems to be placing the whole thing within the context of conspiracy theories and the psychosocial phenomena which make certain people (mostly in the USA) "want to believe" BS. No doubt the article will shift to conform to the sourcing as the scholarship solidifies. Bon courage (talk) 15:21, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "conspiracies" and "conspiracy theories" are rare, which is why "conspiracy theory" is a common way to mislabel accusations of wrongdoing in order to discredit the allegation of wrong doing. Plus there is confusion in the RFC itself. Read literally, it is purporting that the lab leak itself is a conspiracy. But some respondents have reading it as (mis) labeling the accusations as being a "conspiracy theory". Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:53, 17 August 2023 (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.

References

  1. ^ "WHO 'open' to probing 'new evidence' of COVID-19 lab leak origin theory, accepts 'key pieces of data' still missing". CBS News. Associated Press. 10 June 2022. Archived from the original on 11 June 2022. Retrieved 19 June 2022.
  2. ^ Gordon, Michael R.; Strobel, Warren P. (February 26, 2023). "Lab Leak Most Likely Origin of Covid-19 Pandemic, Energy Department Now Says". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved February 26, 2023.
  3. ^ a b Mueller, Julia (26 February 2023). "National security adviser: No 'definitive answer' on COVID lab leak". The Hill. Retrieved 26 February 2023.
  4. ^ Barnes, Julian E. (26 February 2023). "Lab Leak Most Likely Caused Pandemic, Energy Dept. Says". The New York Times. Retrieved 27 February 2023.
  5. ^ LeBlanc, Paul (27 February 2023). "New assessment on the origins of Covid-19 adds to the confusion". CNN. Retrieved 27 February 2023.
  6. ^ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-lab-leak-hypothesis-made-it-harder-for-scientists-to-seek-the-truth/ The Lab-Leak Hypothesis Made It Harder for Scientists to Seek the Truth
  7. ^ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-lab-leak-hypothesis-made-it-harder-for-scientists-to-seek-the-truth/ The Lab-Leak Hypothesis Made It Harder for Scientists to Seek the Truth
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory&oldid=1174324602"