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 Doc James (talk | contribs) at 11:00, 19 March 2024 (→‎Unclear origin but lab leak possible: Reply). 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

"Conspiracy" as of Feb 2024

  1. Many scenarios proposed for a lab leak are characteristic of conspiracy theories.
  2. Scientists and media outlets widely dismissed it as a conspiracy theory.
  3. Although the origin of SARS-CoV-2 is not definitively known, arguments used in support of a laboratory leak are characteristic of conspiratorial thinking
  4. The Wuhan Institute of Virology and the Wuhan Center for Disease Control are located within miles of the original focal point of the pandemic, Wuhan's Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market, and this very closeness has made it easy for conspiracy theories to take root suggesting the laboratory must be the virus' origin.
  5. Prior lab leak incidents and conspiracy theories
  6. Previous novel disease outbreaks, such as AIDS, H1N1/09, SARS, and Ebola have been the subject of conspiracy theories and allegations that the causative agent was created in or escaped from a laboratory.
  7. While the proposed scenarios are theoretically subject to evidence-based investigation, it is not clear than any can be sufficiently falsified to placate lab leak supporters, and they are fed by pseudoscientific and conspiratorial thinking.
  8. By January 2020 some lab leak proponents were promoting a narrative with conspiracist components
  9. In the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, speculation about a laboratory leak was confined to conspiracy-minded portions of the internet
  10. Some proposed that the Chinese government and World Health Organization were operating together in a conspiracy.
  11. One conspiracy theory spread in support a laboratory origin suggests SARS-CoV-2 was developed for gain-of-function research on coronaviruses.
  12. Researchers have said the politicization of the debate is making the process more difficult, and that words are often twisted to become "fodder for conspiracy theories".
  13. Proponents of the lab leak hypothesis reacted by accusing the agencies of conspiring with the Chinese, or of being incompetent.
  14. American laboratory, a notion long-promoted by Sachs, including on the podcast of conspiracy theorist Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
  15. After May 2021, some media organizations softened previous language that described the laboratory leak theory as "debunked" or a "conspiracy theory".
  16. At that time, the media did not distinguish between the accidental lab leak of a natural virus and bio-weapon origin conspiracy theories.
  17. In online discussions, various theories – including the lab leak theory – were combined to form larger, baseless conspiracy plots.
  18. Some members of the Chinese government have promoted a counter-conspiracy theory claiming that SARS‑CoV‑2 originated in the U.S. military installation at Fort Detrick.
  19. According to Paul Thacker (writing for the British Medical Journal), some scientists and reporters said that "objective consideration of COVID-19's origins went awry early in the pandemic, as researchers who were funded to study viruses with pandemic potential launched a campaign labelling the lab leak hypothesis as a 'conspiracy theory.'"
  20. In February 2020, a letter was published in The Lancet authored by 27 scientists and spearheaded by Peter Daszak which described some alternate origin ideas as "conspiracy theories".
  21. Katherine Eban as having had a "chilling effect" on scientific research and the scientific community by implying that scientists who "bring up the lab-leak theory ... are doing the work of conspiracy theorists".

72.203.186.106 (talk) 19:34, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Surely crops up a lot in the sources eh. Wikipedia reflects that to be neutral. Bon courage (talk) 19:43, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should we change the article title back to COVID-19 lab leak conspiracy theory? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8804:6600:4:30ec:97d9:1b0c:3b60 (talk • contribs) 19:46, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you use sources before or after the inflection point regarding the covid origin position? Because for a while researchers faced unscientific pressures to adopt a certain position, even under threat of losing their jobs, reputation, careers. On the other hand, more recently even the FBI has adopted a pro-leak criterion and the WHO has called for research also regarding the lab leak, something it would not do if it was a conspiracy theory. Although it looks you are basing your opinion in some outdated sources. For example, regarding February 20, you need to read the article Lancet letter (COVID-19), letter in which there was a worrying degree of undisclosed conflicts of interest. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 22:54, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are all directly from the wikipedia article. They clearly state this is a conspiracy theory. 2600:8804:6600:4:F2AA:1E57:F936:A127 (talk) 21:51, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it is time to update the article instead. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 03:26, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have sourced information for the start of the spread https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7813667/ 2001:1970:4AE5:A300:5447:C8DA:5C49:E5A8 (talk) 06:36, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • People need to get with the times. The hot take on LL at the moment is that it was a ruse sold to the sheeple, and that those who have truly taken the red pill can see LL for the lie it is (as there was no virus)[5] For Wikipedia's purpose this has not so far been covered in RS, though I expect that will happen; then we may need to call this article COVID-19 lab leak theory conspiracy theory? Bon courage (talk) 05:53, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you clarify if this is sarcasm? 2600:8804:6600:4:F2AA:1E57:F936:A127 (talk) 21:47, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't even know any more. Both the antivaxx and LL communities are splintering as the the more enthusiastic members purity test the others for the most extreme position; I guess we'll need to watch RS. Meanwhile, the most recent development seems to be the Rootclaim stunt gone wrong.[6] Again, this is not covered in good secondary sources yet, though I note Rootclaim itself has been aired[7] on this Talk page a few times as an argument 'for' LL. Bon courage (talk) 09:58, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Formerly"

"conspiracy theory" appears throughout the media and is well-sourced, but only up until 2023, when the language changed. Now, even the CDC's Anthony Fauci testified that it was not a "conspiracy theory".[8]

I propose that we add language in an efn, because it will be confusing to readers who see sources discussing a "conspiracy theory" and a normal "theory", both from reputable sources. DenverCoder19 (talk) 21:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't say "it" is a conspiracy theory, because "it" is a huge collection of different things, many of which are conspiracy theories. Like all the bioweapon stuff for example. Bon courage (talk) 21:59, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While "[t]here is no consensus on whether the lab leak theory is a "conspiracy theory" or a "minority scientific viewpoint", it's obvious that there is an abundance of reliable sources which refer to the lab leak theory as a conspiracy theory. TarnishedPathtalk 23:17, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But are those sources still reliable as to what the lab leak currently is considered by relevant subject matter experts or are they outdated? Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 00:41, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We cite the most recent sources, so far as I can find. And (once again) they generally don't say "it" is a conspiracy theory, so much as the idea of LL has proved fertile ground for the racism and conspiracy-mongering which dominate the discourse in the absence of any actual evidence. DOI:10.4324/9781003330769-5 really is essential reading on this (and yes, it covers the US intelligence material). Bon courage (talk) 06:53, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to revisit current consensus, which resulted in no consensus on the question at Talk:COVID-19_misinformation/Archive_9#RFC to fix this once and for all then have at it by starting a RfC. TarnishedPathtalk 07:06, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The way out is through the door, best simply to take it by following the best sources (like Lewandowsky, et al). In a nutshell

much of the argumentation by proponents of the lab leak hypothesis is not normatively optimal and instead exhibits hallmarks of conspiratorial cognition. ... We conclude that although the origin of SARS-CoV-2 is not fully settled, at present the evidence for a lab leak does not withstand scrutiny.

Bon courage (talk) 07:16, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scientists and reporters contacted by The BMJ say that objective consideration of covid-19’s origins went awry early in the pandemic, as researchers who were funded to study viruses with pandemic potential launched a campaign labelling the lab leak hypothesis as a “conspiracy theory.”[1]

Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 07:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An old (wasn't there concern just above about 'outdated' sources) piece by Paul D. Thacker is relevant how? I sometimes wonder if editors here have read our actual article recently. Wikipedia does not say LL is a conspiracy theory; it more complex than that. Embrace the complexity. Bon courage (talk) 08:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is an old piece but what I quoted is not outdated. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 08:22, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A journalist's opinion piece from 2021 will always be what it is. Meanwhile, actual scientists and scholars have advanced and refined knowledge and those sources are now published and useful for Wikipedia. Bon courage (talk) 08:35, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"abundance of reliable sources which refer to the lab leak theory as a conspiracy theory" I believe this statement would be in support of moving this article to the singular name: COVID-19 lab leak conspiracy theory 2600:8804:6600:4:E857:BFEB:7B9A:9779 (talk) 18:43, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"a huge collection of different things" I believe this statement would be in support of moving this article to the plural name: COVID-19 lab leak theories 2600:8804:6600:4:E857:BFEB:7B9A:9779 (talk) 18:36, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If users have a page move request, can they make just one? Slatersteven (talk) 18:56, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a moratorium of a year on this page if Im not mistaken. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 19:41, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then such requests should (and now will be) removed as they waste time. Slatersteven (talk) 14:43, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Thacker, Paul (8 July 2021). "The covid-19 lab leak hypothesis: did the media fall victim to a misinformation campaign?". The BMJ. Retrieved 13 Mar 2024.

Zoonotic origins of COVID-19

Zoonotic origins of COVID-19 has been nominated at Articles for Deletion. Interested editors may participate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zoonotic origins of COVID-19. TarnishedPathtalk 09:46, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DRASTIC

Now that the main phase of the pandemic is in the rear view window, it's clear to me that the lab-leak advocacy group DRASTIC doesn't pass WP:SUSTAINED, and could adequately be covered in a few sentences in this article. Most of the sources in that article don't even mention DRASIC, but merely debunk claims made by its members. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:32, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear origin but lab leak possible

This is a nice review in the BMJ from July 2023 discussing new findings and positions. https://www.bmj.com/content/382/bmj.p1556

We should probably soften our wording here. The cause is unknown and various organizations have various positions on what is most likely. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The current consensus section at top of this page is clear that there is no consensus whether the lab leak theory is considered minority scientific opinion or conspiracy theory. If you want to revisit that then have at it. TarnishedPathtalk 05:52, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I read that. The consensus is based on 3 year old sources and that was a reasonable position 3 years ago. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:10, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We keep going round the same point; "it" is not a conspiracy theory (the plain proposition), but it has given risen to an enormous ecosystem of conspiracy theories as soon as any flesh is put on it. Are are we wanting to say that yes it might have been made by the Americans in Fort Detrick (i.e. the Chinese version of the story)? That BMJ piece also gets suckered in the the 'sick workers' misinformation[9] and commits several of the fallacies actual virologists have subsequently complained about (like the 'too much of a cooincidence' line), so is a poor source.
For an even more up-to-date source on Pubmed, perhaps we could consider PMID:37697176 which has (my emphasis)? :

While the American, Australian, and Chinese claims were all theoretically possible, as mentioned, they have now been discredited as there are no good data to support them, and we have to look elsewhere for the “origins” of the new virus. Luckily, here, the evidence is plentiful. A substantial body of knowledge, supported by a great deal of data, favours the original hypothesis of most informed experts: that the emergence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus occurred, like its predecessors, as a result of the well-documented processes of mutation within animal reservoirs followed by cross-species transmission to humans.

Bon courage (talk) 08:05, 19 March 2024 (UTC); 09:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah the journal you cite has an impact factor of less than 1.[10] and has been only around for 20 years. The BMJ has an impact factor of 107 and been around since 1840.
About the sickness of workers the BMJ says "allegedly sick with signs of a respiratory illness" and "It concluded that, although several researchers were “mildly ill” in autumn 2019, “they experienced a range of symptoms consistent with colds or allergies with accompanying symptoms typically not associated with covid-19, and some of them were confirmed to have been sick with other illnesses unrelated to covid-19.” Two of the three researchers named told Science5 that the accusations were “ridiculous,” with one denying being unwell and another pointing out that they work mainly on bioinformatics and not with live viruses."
Not sure you read the BMJ piece... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:25, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, okay they do go on to disclaim it. But I'm not sure this BMJ editorial adds anything to what we already say. We have scholarly sources going into more depth on the various lab leak narratives. Bon courage (talk) 09:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of the age it's my understanding that new RfCs are required to revisit the results of previous RfCs? TarnishedPathtalk 09:24, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But to do what? We're not going to say "it" is a conspiracy theory (whatever it is), and we already say a leak is a theoretical possibility. We say there is zero evidence. We say that's it's a magnet for conspiracy theorists and racists. We even go into the weeds about the US spooks. What are we not saying? Bon courage (talk) 09:37, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The BMJ supports "Many virologists, epidemiologists, and other infectious disease experts still say that all available evidence points to SARS-COV-2 spilling over to humans from an animal host, most likely at a wet market in Wuhan." rather than most so added that. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:46, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's been some recent research on that. It's "most".[11] ~~ Bon courage (talk) 09:50, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting "77% probability to a zoonosis, 21% to the lab-leak scenario" making this one of the two main hypothesis. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:57, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Doc James, the most scientist bit has been discussed here many, many times before and I believe there is consensus on this. TarnishedPathtalk 10:41, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With Bon courage’s source I agree. The lab leak is viewed as less probable currently. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am unclear, what is the suggested edit. Slatersteven (talk) 10:01, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Proposing toning down "highly controversial" to simply "controversial" based on experts feeling that the lab leak hypothesis has a 21% probability based on Bon courage's source.[12] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:04, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No particular strong feeling on "highly", but the 21% presumably doesn't include the LL proponents who think the virus was a bioweapon, that it was engineered not to affect Jews, or that virologists should be executed for their supposed role in it. The point is LL is a lot more than just entertaining a possibility, it's also a whole morass of some of the most disgusting and stupid ideas possible. Bon courage (talk) 10:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yah definitely. And all those things you mention are full blown conspiracies. But diseases do sometimes escape labs ala Marburg virus outbreak. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:52, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it has happened. The issue here is that in order for this particular virus to have escaped that lab it would have to had been there in the first place and there is zero credible evidence of that. The evidence we have been presented in the past has been along the lines of 'employees of the lab were amongst the first to get infected from the virus' as if it is of some significance that people living in an area in which they work would catch a highly communicable disease that's going around. TarnishedPathtalk 10:57, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The evidence is more that they were known to be working with that family of viruses. The sickness bit had no support. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:00, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory&oldid=1214506152"