Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory/Archive 35

Archive 30

←

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Incorrect to call lab leak theory a claim

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

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

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

Perhaps Wikipedia should be calling them "conspiratorial claims" too, to cleave to the source better? Bon courage (talk) 01:46, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

How individuals learn about this subject is off topic to the article. Article is about the lab leak theory, not whether conspiracy theories are controversial. When smart people read this article the credibility is reduced since the subtle slide from "theory" in the first sentence to "claim" in the second sentence appears as a device to add the word "controversial" which the theory is not. 2603:6011:1C00:C14:A079:D510:B5BC:DEB1 (talk) 12:28, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

But some parts of it are, which is what we say. Slatersteven (talk) 12:33, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

It certainly was a controversial claim, as per the then president's repeated use of anti-Chinese rhetoric (such as "Kung flu") and claims he had docs supporting the origin from a Chinese lab. This resulted in violence against Asians. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:40, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

And is the Chinese version (i.e. that American agents came over with SARS-CoV2 to release it during the Military Games) non-controversial? Incidentally, this article really needs more coverage of the Chinese version of this "theory". Bon courage (talk) 12:55, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Surely. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:12, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

They infiltrated the Wuhan lab and released it on purpose? Senorangel (talk) 04:08, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

No, a lab is the epicentre in the Western LL mythos; in the Chinese mythos "the virus could have been deliberately engineered in the United States and released as an act of sabotage by an American undercover agent during the military games". Science places the epicentre at the wet market. PMID:37697176 Bon courage (talk) 05:12, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

The article is about the theory, not the claim. 2603:6011:1C00:C14:A079:D510:B5BC:DEB1 (talk) 15:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

That is semantics. Slatersteven (talk) 15:40, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

There is a big difference between "claim" and "theory". Claim is off topic. 2603:6011:1C00:C14:A079:D510:B5BC:DEB1 (talk) 15:43, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Is there, is not a theory just a claim someone has made? Slatersteven (talk) 15:49, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

It is a theory that some have claimed to be a fact as opposed to theoretical. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:04, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

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

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

It is not claiming no one has ever worked on related research, only that there is no evidence of an actual copy of the virus in the possession of any lab before the pandemic. Senorangel (talk) 04:08, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Or of a plausible ancestor virus. Bon courage (talk) 05:06, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

And there is no evidence of SAR2 being in any animals before the pandemic either. So why do we have "Available evidence suggests that the SARS-CoV-2 virus was originally harbored by bats, and spread to humans from infected wild animals". There's as much evidence that it was in a lab as there is for that. 185.15.66.47 (talk) 09:39, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

So why do we have "Available evidence suggests that the SARS-CoV-2 virus was originally harbored by bats, and spread to humans from infected wild animals" Because that's what the studies say, as cited in the article. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:30, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

This should be changed to "studies suggest" rather than "available evidence suggests" then. As there is significantly more evidence for a lab leak than zoonosis. 185.15.66.47 (talk) 12:08, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Follow the sources. By them there is no evidence for LL (either in a Chinese or American lab), but abundant evidence for zoonotic origin at the Wuhan wet market. Bon courage (talk) 12:13, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

That's objectively and obviously incorrect though isn't it? This page wouldn't exist if there was no evidence at all for a lab leak. The FBI wouldn't conclude a lab leak is more probable if there was no evidence for it. There is at least some evidence for both theories. 185.15.66.47 (talk) 12:43, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes some, some is not most. Slatersteven (talk) 12:45, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Seems like an odd argument. Wikipedia has articles for many things which have no evidence, like time cube, phantom time hypothesis, and chemtrails. And so here. See for example PMID:3358630, which is cited:

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

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

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

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

It is mentioned, and has been discussed at (extreme) length on this Talk page. Basically Wikipedia's not going to be over-emphasizing this, and what we have is about right. Bon courage (talk) 08:15, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

You say "we" like there is some "Grand Council of Lab Leak Theory" that is in charge of the article. This is Wikipedia, everyone gets to input their opinion and consensus can change. The DOE study is in every way a reliable report and one of the most current bits of research that has been on the Virus' origin, and it absolutely deserves a mention in the head. Secondly it seems to me you need to slow your role in trying to control what goes into this topic. SouthernResidentOrca (talk) 08:32, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

It's less than a year since a ginormous RfC on exactly this.[1] and we have better sources now even than then. The WP:BESTSOURCES are describing LL as racism-fuelled political theatre contributing to the anti-science movement (mostly in the US). Wikipedia just has to follow such quality sources. Bon courage (talk) 08:40, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

This has absolutely nothing to do with an anti-science movement. The United States Department of Energy has many of the most accomplished and well respected scientists in the world. Stop trying to drift away the topic into something it's not. This is simply about mentioning the DOE study in the heading and giving it more credence in the article which it absolutely should have. Again neutral point of view is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia, not one point of view. SouthernResidentOrca (talk) 08:50, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

That was settled several months ago in an enormous RfC with 60 participating editors and 200 comments. Trying to re-litigate that, especially given the DOE source is now fading into the past, would probably count as WP:DE. You are aware this is a WP:CTOP. Bon courage (talk) 08:52, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

The responsibilities under the DOE intelligence arm are related to nuclear power and the protection of US energy assets and information, not medical investigations. As Bon courage says, there was a massive discussion on the DOE report resulting in a clear cut conclusion. O3000, Ret. (talk) 10:58, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

We do metion it, and we had an RFC on it. Slatersteven (talk) 11:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

By the way, where do we call it a fringe theory? Slatersteven (talk) 11:04, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

This has been discussed before. USA nuclear scientists are not a very credible source on COVID-19 origins. We have other very credible sources that we can and do use instead. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:12, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Actually, the DOE does not only run only nuclear labs. The Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory is one of the DOE's national security laboratories with a significant focus on biosafety and biosecurity. The Los Alamos National Laboratory is another DOE lab involved in biosafety and biosecurity. In addition to the LLNL and LANL labs, there is also the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Oak Ridge National Laboratory and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, all of which are tasked with conducting biosciences research. The DOE is the most aptly qualified federal agency on Covid origins, as well Covid treatments. The DOE's supercomputing resources aided in vaccine development. 103.164.118.54 (talk) 11:45, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Should probably put a link to this at the top of the article so the argument that DOE has no expertise stops being made. I think the reason the DOE opinion is not much discussed in the article is that, as multiple sources allude to, there is not a lot to say. We can speculate about what evidence they may have had, but other than that what is there to include beyond the content already in the article? fiveby(zero) 17:06, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

DOE used to have some expertise in genomics. GenBank originated there, in 1982. Soon after the start of the Human Genome Project, GenBank went to the then pretty new NCBI. How many workers went along with the move, I don't know at all. After the atomic bombs in Japan, studies of the effects of radiation were done at the then AEC, which then later was renamed to DOE. It isn't that DOE has no expertise, but just not especially more than any other labs. Gah4 (talk) 16:08, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I completely agree that the failure to mention in the introduction the DoE position, or the FBI position - that Covid likely originated via a lab leak in Wuhan - is a major flaw in the page. The Introduction currently reads like the case for zoonosis, and is not an impartial of NPOV assessment of the current science on the subject - nor indeed where the science has been for the last 2 years at least. It should be fixed ASAP. Fig (talk) 15:13, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

That is because that is what most medical experts say. Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

And we do mention it. Slatersteven (talk) 15:27, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Please paste the text from the introduction where you think the DoE and FBI are mentioned. Are you looking at an old cached copy? I've triple-checked and it isn't in my copy. As for "The medical experts" - they have a range of views, and a fair number (still a minority, sure, but growing number) think lab-leak is most likely. In my experience an easy majority of scientists in the bio-sciences now consider lab-leak to be both possible and plausible, though by about 2:1 they still think zoonosis is most likely. Fig (talk) 15:55, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

United States Department of Energy is mentioned in one paragraph and two references. Seems enough for me. Gah4 (talk) 00:52, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

The lede is only repeats important parts of our article (read wp:lede) it is not a newspaper-style leder. So we only put in it what the bulk of relevant experts say, not just the opinions of one or two US government agencies (who are not even the only government in the world, nor the only 2 intelligence agencies in the USA). No if you have a source that says most scientists do not think it was of a natural origin please produce it. Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I've never said most scientists do not think it was of a natural origin - in fact I very clearly said the opposite. Please read more carefully in future. Fig (talk) 20:34, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

But that is what we need to make the change, your wp:or of what you think scientists think is not enough, you need RS supporting your veiw. Slatersteven (talk) 20:39, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. And this sentence citing an unrelated article is misleading: "In the intelligence community, 'low confidence' means the information is sourced to low-quality or otherwise untrustworthy sources." The crucial fact, left out of this article, is that while the DOE considered the sources to be low confidence, they still concluded that a lab leak was the most likely cause. I guess the zoonotic theory had even lower quality sources. And obviously the reason the DOE's report is so significant vs. the scientific consensus is only the DOE has access to classified information. In fact, the report itself is classified. Fnordware (talk) 04:23, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I guess the zoonotic theory had even lower quality sources You are assuming that the people in the DOE who wrote this are competent (for virology), honest, and have no ideology. But it is literally part of the government of a country, and as you say, uses classified information, refuting at least two of those properties. Science can never be based on classified information, and your assumption and conclusion are WP:OR. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:54, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Whatever you think of the DOE and US government, surely their conclusions should be highlighted in the article. The article need not and should not state if the DOE's report is accurate, but should clearly describe its conclusion. Whether or not COVID came out of a lab is not a scientific question so much as a forensic one, so having access to whatever classified information is a big deal, making it more notable. Fnordware (talk) 21:42, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

You were trying to insert your opinion ("I guess"). Do not pretend that I am the one who tried that. See WP:NOTBORNYESTERDAY. --Hob Gadling (talk) 01:00, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I never suggested that the article should speculate as to why to DOE thought a lab leak was more credible than zoonotic origin, although I did take the liberty to do so in my comment, yes. Fnordware (talk) 18:51, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

sounds like a few editors here think the prior RFC results aren't reflective of their view of the material. But I have yet to see a substantial secondary source presented which corroborates this viewpoint. WIthout substantial sourcing showing that the view of the experts has actually changed, this is just more of the same original research/editor opinion. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:49, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Quite so, and more recently the highest quality sources are unequivocal. doi:10.1016/j.lanmic.2024.07.016 for example calls LL "simply wrong". There was an extensive RfC on how to deal with US intelligence material and the article duly reflects that. That material is even less relevant now than when that RfC was held. As ever, Wikipedia leans on the WP:BESTSOURCES and if those don't support editors' favoured views it's not a problem Wikipedia can fix. Bon courage (talk) 05:44, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

The Lancet is not a dispassionate observer on this issue - it is itself the prime origin of the narrative that the lab leak theory is a "conspiracy theory", and under controversial editor Richard Horton has spent an extraordinary amount of time promoting that amount with the views and output of a Wuhan lab funder, Peter Daszak (e.g: https://www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n1656 ).

The incredibly dismissive, and frankly rather childish language in that most recent - and notably anonymous - opinion slot is un-scientific and contrasts very strongly with more mature and measured opinion pieces in other leading medical journals. Fig (talk) 07:39, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Lots of conspiracist musing there, but The Lancet Microbe is not the same as The Lancet and has different editors in any case. If you want further up-to-date science maybe check-out PMID:39087765. In short LL has become part of an anti-science agenda tangled up with politics, nationalism and racism. Wikipedia will be reflecting that reality, based on the WP:BESTSOURCES. Bon courage (talk) 07:49, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I have seen that sort of logic before: "this is not a reliable source for contradicting my opinion because they have contradicted my opinion". Still funny even if I have heard it dozens of times. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:57, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

We had an RFC on it and the consensus was that it would be undue to include in the lead. TarnishedPath^talk 06:02, 28 September 2024 (UTC)