| Revision as of 21:10, 25 June 2024 editLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,292,136 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory/Archive 34) (bot← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:49, 28 June 2024 edit undoInsertcleverphrasehere (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Mass message senders, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers31,826 edits →NYT: COVID origin: "natural zoonosis" and "lab leak" are not mutually exclusive.Tag: ReplyNext edit → | ||
| Line 133: | Line 133: | ||
| :::I hear what you say about phrasing things in the negative. But I think the trouble with saying, "... experts reported a 50% or greater chance for an origin other than natural zoonosis," <em>apart from it being very hard for a reader to parse</em>, is that placing this phrasing in the lede would really give undue weight to a single survey. After all, the survey supports the statement that "most scientists believe the virus spilled into human populations through natural zoonosis." I guess it could, maybe, be placed somewhere under "Proposed scenarios," but the scholarly sources still overwhelming seem to favor a "natural zoonosis" (inasmuch as contact with an animal at a market is "natural"). Rather than trying to square two independent ways of identifying a scientific consensus, surveys would probably be better placed in the context of a discussion <em>about</em> the development a scientific consensus (as in ]), if this particular issue lives long enough to produce such a thing. ] (]) ] (]) 01:33, 15 June 2024 (UTC) | :::I hear what you say about phrasing things in the negative. But I think the trouble with saying, "... experts reported a 50% or greater chance for an origin other than natural zoonosis," <em>apart from it being very hard for a reader to parse</em>, is that placing this phrasing in the lede would really give undue weight to a single survey. After all, the survey supports the statement that "most scientists believe the virus spilled into human populations through natural zoonosis." I guess it could, maybe, be placed somewhere under "Proposed scenarios," but the scholarly sources still overwhelming seem to favor a "natural zoonosis" (inasmuch as contact with an animal at a market is "natural"). Rather than trying to square two independent ways of identifying a scientific consensus, surveys would probably be better placed in the context of a discussion <em>about</em> the development a scientific consensus (as in ]), if this particular issue lives long enough to produce such a thing. ] (]) ] (]) 01:33, 15 June 2024 (UTC) | ||
| ::Based on this survey, it seems like it would be more accurate to say that most scientists believe a natural zoonotic origin is more likely than a lab leak, but that a lab leak origin is possible, while a significant minority believes the lab leak origin is more likely. ] (]) 23:00, 23 June 2024 (UTC) | ::Based on this survey, it seems like it would be more accurate to say that most scientists believe a natural zoonotic origin is more likely than a lab leak, but that a lab leak origin is possible, while a significant minority believes the lab leak origin is more likely. ] (]) 23:00, 23 June 2024 (UTC) | ||
| :::The issue is that news sources and some editors here seem to think that "natural zoonosis" and "lab leak" are mutually exclusive. They aren't. You can have a 'natural zoonosis' event that happens in a lab. We know that this corona virus originated in bats and we also know that (despite the official denial) that the WIV had a colony of living bats at the institute and they also had the closest related virus in their collection. Saying that scientist belive that it was "natural zoonosis" and implying that this is evidence against a lab leak is disingenuous and has been the entire time that the media was using this line all through the pandemic (mostly through them not understanding either. | |||
| :::When they say that it came from zoonosis, that opinion is only against the 'engineered' theory (which is also probably true but not relevant to my point). It can come from bat->human tratransmission and ALSO come from the WIV lab. — '''''<small>]<sup>(])<small><sub>(]<sup>(])</sup></sub></small></sup></small>''''' 19:49, 28 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Assertion regarding racism is unsupported == | == Assertion regarding racism is unsupported == | ||
Revision as of 19:49, 28 June 2024
| Skip to table of contents |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the COVID-19 lab leak theory article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
 | The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to COVID-19, broadly construed, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully. |
 | There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article, in a manner that does not comply with Misplaced Pages's policies. Editors are encouraged to use neutral mechanisms for requesting outside input (e.g. a "request for comment", a third opinion or other noticeboard post, or neutral criteria: "pinging all editors who have edited this page in the last 48 hours"). If someone has asked you to provide your opinion here, examine the arguments, not the editors who have made them. Reminder: disputes are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote. |
 | This page is not a forum for general discussion about COVID-19 lab leak theory. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about COVID-19 lab leak theory at the Reference desk. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
 | This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.
Discussions:
|
 | This article was nominated for deletion on July 18, 2021. The result of the discussion was keep. |
 | This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
Origins of COVID-19: Current consensus
- There is no consensus on whether the lab leak theory is a "conspiracy theory" or a "minority scientific viewpoint". (RfC, February 2021)
- 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)
- 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, ...)
- 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))
- 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)
- 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)
- The scientific consensus (and the Frutos et al. sources () which support it), which dismisses the lab leak, should not be described as "
based in part on Shi 's emailed answers.
" (RfC, December 2021) - 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)
- 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 30 November 2024 by Shibbolethink (t · c)
Lab leak theory sources
 | This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived. |
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)
Last updated by Julian Brown (talk) 23:43, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
| · Scholarship |
|---|
| For the relevant sourcing guideline, see WP:SCHOLARSHIP. For a database curated by the NCBI, see LitCoVID |
|
| · Opinion-based editorials written by scientists/scholars |
|---|
| For the relevant sourcing guideline, see WP:RSOPINION. |
|
| · Government and policy |
|---|
| Keep in mind, these are primary sources and thus should be used with caution! |
|
References
WIV did perform genetic manipulation of SARS-related bat coronaviruses
The current version of article contains a phrase: "There is no evidence that any genetic manipulation or reverse genetics (a technique required to make chimeric viruses) of SARS-related bat coronaviruses was ever carried out at the WIV."
It is FALSE. There is (at least one) publicly available paper which proves the contrary.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1006698 is an article from 2017 with (among others) authored by Daszak and Zheng-Li Shi (the head of the WIV). "Discovery of a rich gene pool of bat SARS-related coronaviruses provides new insights into the origin of SARS coronavirus".
It contains this passage:
"Construction of recombinant viruses
Recombinant viruses with the S gene of the novel bat SARSr-CoVs and the backbone of the infectious clone of SARSr-CoV WIV1 were constructed using the reverse genetic system described previously (S9 Fig). The fragments E and F were re-amplified with primer pairs (FE, 5’-AGGGCCCACCTGGCACTGGTAAGAGTCATTTTGC-3’, R-EsBsaI, 5’-ACTGGTCTCTTCGTTTAGTTATTAACTAAAATATCACTAGACACC-3’) and (F-FsBsaI, 5’-TGAGGTCTCCGAACTTATGGATTTGTTTATGAG-3’, RF, 5’-AGGTAGGCCTCTAGGGCAGCTAAC-3’), respectively. The products were named as fragment Es and Fs, which leave the spike gene coding region as an independent fragment. BsaI sites (5’-GGTCTCN|NNNN-3’) were introduced into the 3’ terminal of the Es fragment and the 5’ terminal of the Fs fragment, respectively. The spike sequence of Rs4231 was amplified with the primer pair (F-Rs4231-BsmBI, 5’-AGTCGTCTCAACGAACATGTTTATTTTCTTATTCTTTCTCACTCTCAC-3’ and R-Rs4231-BsmBI, 5’-TCACGTCTCAGTTCGTTTATGTGTAATGTAATTTGACACCCTTG-3’). The S gene sequence of Rs7327 was amplified with primer pair (F-Rs7327-BsaI, 5’-AGTGGTCTCAACGAACATGAAATTGTTAGTTTTAGTTTTTGCTAC-3’ and R-Rs7327-BsaI, 5’- TCAGGTCTCAGTTCGTTTATGTGTAATGTAATTTAACACCCTTG-3’). The fragment Es and Fs were both digested with BglI (NEB) and BsaI (NEB). The Rs4231 S gene was digested with BsmBI. The Rs7327 S gene was digested with BsaI. The other fragments and bacterial artificial chromosome (BAC) were prepared as described previously. Then the two prepared spike DNA fragments were separately inserted into BAC with Es, Fs and other fragments. The correct infectious BAC clones were screened. The chimeric viruses were rescued as described previously ."
^^^^ This is exactly "genetic manipulation of SARS-related bat coronaviruses". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.165.236.120 (talk • contribs)
Characterizing the suspicion regarding the proximity of COVID-19's origin to the Wuhan lab as objectively "misplaced" is not rigorous.
That's the most polite way to put it. It would probably be more correct to call it an egregious violation of basic logic and wikipedia's policies. The WIV was already known as one of the foremost, if not the foremost, coronavirus research labs in the world. It is blatantly false to imply that it was comparable to labs that could be found in "most cities." The entire lede needs serious work in light of the recent, clear trend toward expert acceptance of the lab leak hypothesis. 2601:547:1903:2200:680A:46ED:B049:96E6 (talk) 16:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- We go with what RS say. Slatersteven (talk) 16:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- At this point there is a near consensus among credible experts that, at the very least, the lab leak hypothesis is worthy of investigation, yet this article links old sources from embarrassed researchers claiming the lab leak hypothesis is a debunked conspiracy theory.
- An MIT researcher in good standing wrote an OPED that the NYT published today giving detailed reasons why she believes the lab leak was the probable source of the pandemic (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/06/03/opinion/covid-lab-leak.html). If the discourse has shifted so dramatically that the NYT is publishing writers that support the lab leak theories, the rhetoric in this wiki article is no longer acceptable.
- A tenured professor and molecular biologist at Rutgers University, Richard Ebright, has been ardently supporting the lab leak hypothesis as almost certainly true. (https://x.com/r_h_ebright?lang=en)
- There are of course many others as well.
- Regarding my specifically mentioned concern about the mischaracterization of the suspicion regarding the WIV proximity to the first outbreaks, the aforementioned NYT article debunks the narrative currently being peddled in this wiki article. Additionally, the following article from a respected expert in computational biology uses statistical methods to thoroughly disproves some of the research used as sources in the wiki article: https://alexwasburne.substack.com/p/the-case-for-a-lab-origin-of-sars. 2601:547:1903:2200:3554:255C:2C98:6B70 (talk) 02:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- This whole article proves that Misplaced Pages peddles misinformation without any accountability. Thesmallfriendlygiant (talk) 03:20, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Conspiracy theories, grift and nonsense on twitter or substack are of no use here, and newspapers are poor sources for anything in the realm of biomedicine. Despite the active ecosystem of fringe 'beliefs' in the USA, high-quality sourcing exists for this topic on which Misplaced Pages can base an article. The proximity argument is based on a basic logic error as they explain. Bon courage (talk) 04:18, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- WP:SELFPUB and WP:RSOPINION sources are generally not good for statements of fact. TarnishedPath 07:20, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- What we say "Many scenarios proposed for a lab leak are characteristic of conspiracy theories." meaning that at least some are reasonable. This article is about all of them. Slatersteven (talk) 09:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Just to be clear: Misplaced Pages is not denying the possibility of a lab leak, such things have happened in the past, could well have happened here, and will happen again. But coronaviruses are not unusual and the infection pathway of many viruses from animal to human is well trodden. ("Bird flu" is the best known recent example.) Unless and until a clear scientific evidence emerges that conclusively identifies one of the many possible routes, Misplaced Pages will continue to recognise that multiple possibilities exist – but give priority to the consensus of reliable scientific sources which still favors the boringly conventional route. You may find Introduction to viruses helpful in understanding the fundamentals. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:06, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Please address the specific claim I've made. Claiming that the proximity to the WIV is not a valid reason for suspicion is indefensible and supported in the article only by the following egregiously misleading claim:
- "Central to many is the misplaced suspicion about the proximity of the outbreak to a virology institute that studies coronaviruses, the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV). Most large Chinese cities have laboratories that study coronaviruses, and virus outbreaks typically begin in rural areas, but are first noticed in large cities. If a coronavirus outbreak occurs in China, there is a high likelihood it will occur near a large city, and therefore near a laboratory studying coronaviruses."
- As I mentioned previously, this is indefensible primarily on the grounds that the WIV is the foremost research lab for SARS-like viruses. It is not comparable to labs you might find in "most large Chinese cities." Additionally, COVID-19's defining feature, the S1/S2 junction FCS, had been proposed by the WIV as a topic of gain of function research in the years leading up to the pandemic. (Already linked the source, which is the NYT article written by an MIT expert, which contains sources for the claims which you guys have failed to address.)
- These are simply facts. You don't have to agree that they make the lab leak hypothesis more compelling than a zoonotic origin, but that doesn't excuse the misleading nature of the section in question, which implies that there is no reason to consider the proximity of the WIV to the initial outbreak as suspicious in any way. You guys incriminate your inability to objectively evaluate the evidence of my claims when you fail to address this specific objection and instead rely on your faith that the overall lab leak hypothesis is unlikely to be true. 2601:547:1903:2200:3554:255C:2C98:6B70 (talk) 18:36, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- In 2018, researchers proposed to insert a “human-specific” furin cleavage site in a SARS-CoV in Wuhan.
- In 2019, SARS-CoV-2 emerged with a “human-specific” furin cleavage site in Wuhan.
- The definition of conjunction fallacy. Bravo. 195.29.221.242 (talk) 12:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- There are some information consistent with a lab leak, but you need to look at all the information inconsistent with a lab leak as well. It did not help that many lab leak theories were so wild that they undermined the position as a whole. Senorangel (talk) 04:35, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
NYT: COVID origin
- Thread retitled from "NYT: COVID probably started in lab". WP:TALKHEADPOV
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/06/03/opinion/covid-lab-leak.html
I think its about time that this article gets some important updates. Jdftba (talk) 06:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Please refer to WP:RSOPINION. TarnishedPath 07:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- It's just Alina Chan trotting out all the LL talking points again. Relevant scientists are not impressed (e.g.) and of course it's not a reliable source for Misplaced Pages's purposes. Bon courage (talk) 12:36, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry who's Ben Pierce? 1000 follows on X and PhD in Chemistry from the University of North Carolina is "relevant"? Thesmallfriendlygiant (talk) 19:41, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- Alina Chan's preprint on this has not been accepted for publication by any scientific journal. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:05, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- Do You care to write here all errors/lies/incorrect facts in her NYT ariticle. It is so easy to eliminate someone without any fact. Disgusting. 95.168.105.14 (talk) 07:59, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- That would be OR, we go by what the majority of the sources say, and not just one. Also we go by the best sources (I.E. ones published in peer reviewed journals). Slatersteven (talk) 09:23, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- Do You care to write here all errors/lies/incorrect facts in her NYT ariticle. It is so easy to eliminate someone without any fact. Disgusting. 95.168.105.14 (talk) 07:59, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
From this wiki article's lead: "Most scientists believe the virus spilled into human populations through natural zoonosis..." There is not one qualified scientist who believes this. Not one. Thus I know you don't have the survey data to establish such a statement.--2600:1700:7BE0:1E30:B5DB:E109:BA25:EE59 (talk) 19:24, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- Do you even know any scientists? --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- A survey like this one? Gary Ackerman, Brandon Behlendorf, Seth Baum,Hayley Peterson, Anna Wetzel & John Halstead (February 2024). The Origin and Implications of the COVID-19 Pandemic An Expert Survey (Report). Global Catastrophic Risk Institute.
{{cite report}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Mr leroy playpus (talk) 12:53, 14 June 2024 (UTC)- Since it is an article about the lab leak theory, it is not logical to state almost everything in the negative, opposing this theory. For example, instead of "most scientists believe the virus spilled into human populations through natural zoonosis" in the opening paragraph, it would be more logical and objective for that to say something like "while most scientists believe the virus spilled into human populations through natural zoonosis, 1 in 5 experts surveyed reported a 50% or greater a lab leak being the cause." The source of that is the one you just gave, https://gcrinstitute.org/covid-origin/ which gives the link to the main report: https://gcrinstitute.org/papers/069_covid-origin.pdf which states "Overall, one out of five experts reported a 50% or greater chance for an origin other than natural zoonosis." That language sounds softer than it is - the graphic clearly shows 32/168 respondents (just over 19%) giving this belief for "Research-related accident more likely". I.e. lab leak. In fact I think the continual repetition of 'most scientists believe...' should be erased. If this is the only actual survey on this, then the statement should rather read something like 'According to a survey published in February 2024 of 168 experts from around the world in relevant scientific fields, one in 5 reported a 50% or greater chance for the COVID-19 pandemic having originating from a lab leak.' 86.23.186.222 (talk) 23:59, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- I hear what you say about phrasing things in the negative. But I think the trouble with saying, "... experts reported a 50% or greater chance for an origin other than natural zoonosis," apart from it being very hard for a reader to parse, is that placing this phrasing in the lede would really give undue weight to a single survey. After all, the survey supports the statement that "most scientists believe the virus spilled into human populations through natural zoonosis." I guess it could, maybe, be placed somewhere under "Proposed scenarios," but the scholarly sources still overwhelming seem to favor a "natural zoonosis" (inasmuch as contact with an animal at a market is "natural"). Rather than trying to square two independent ways of identifying a scientific consensus, surveys would probably be better placed in the context of a discussion about the development a scientific consensus (as in Scientific consensus on climate change), if this particular issue lives long enough to produce such a thing. Mr leroy playpus (talk) Mr leroy playpus (talk) 01:33, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- Based on this survey, it seems like it would be more accurate to say that most scientists believe a natural zoonotic origin is more likely than a lab leak, but that a lab leak origin is possible, while a significant minority believes the lab leak origin is more likely. Dustinscottc (talk) 23:00, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- The issue is that news sources and some editors here seem to think that "natural zoonosis" and "lab leak" are mutually exclusive. They aren't. You can have a 'natural zoonosis' event that happens in a lab. We know that this corona virus originated in bats and we also know that (despite the official denial) that the WIV had a colony of living bats at the institute and they also had the closest related virus in their collection. Saying that scientist belive that it was "natural zoonosis" and implying that this is evidence against a lab leak is disingenuous and has been the entire time that the media was using this line all through the pandemic (mostly through them not understanding either.
- When they say that it came from zoonosis, that opinion is only against the 'engineered' theory (which is also probably true but not relevant to my point). It can come from bat->human tratransmission and ALSO come from the WIV lab. — Insertcleverphrasehere 19:49, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
- Since it is an article about the lab leak theory, it is not logical to state almost everything in the negative, opposing this theory. For example, instead of "most scientists believe the virus spilled into human populations through natural zoonosis" in the opening paragraph, it would be more logical and objective for that to say something like "while most scientists believe the virus spilled into human populations through natural zoonosis, 1 in 5 experts surveyed reported a 50% or greater a lab leak being the cause." The source of that is the one you just gave, https://gcrinstitute.org/covid-origin/ which gives the link to the main report: https://gcrinstitute.org/papers/069_covid-origin.pdf which states "Overall, one out of five experts reported a 50% or greater chance for an origin other than natural zoonosis." That language sounds softer than it is - the graphic clearly shows 32/168 respondents (just over 19%) giving this belief for "Research-related accident more likely". I.e. lab leak. In fact I think the continual repetition of 'most scientists believe...' should be erased. If this is the only actual survey on this, then the statement should rather read something like 'According to a survey published in February 2024 of 168 experts from around the world in relevant scientific fields, one in 5 reported a 50% or greater chance for the COVID-19 pandemic having originating from a lab leak.' 86.23.186.222 (talk) 23:59, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Assertion regarding racism is unsupported
The following statement is not supported by the cited source: "The lab leak theory and its weaponization by politicians have both leveraged and increased anti-Chinese racism."
The source appears to be an opinion piece that discusses allegations of racism from proponents of the lab leak theory against proponents of the wet-market theory, but both those statements and the authors response are only opinion. Nothing in the source points to data or even anecdote demonstrating a connection between acts of racism or racist sentiments and the lab leak theory. Dustinscottc (talk) 22:54, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Categories:- Misplaced Pages controversial topics
- C-Class COVID-19 articles
- High-importance COVID-19 articles
- WikiProject COVID-19 articles
- C-Class Skepticism articles
- High-importance Skepticism articles
- WikiProject Skepticism articles
- C-Class Disaster management articles
- Low-importance Disaster management articles
- C-Class medicine articles
- Mid-importance medicine articles
- C-Class emergency medicine and EMS articles
- Low-importance emergency medicine and EMS articles
- Emergency medicine and EMS task force articles
- C-Class society and medicine articles
- Mid-importance society and medicine articles
- Society and medicine task force articles
- C-Class pulmonology articles
- Mid-importance pulmonology articles
- Pulmonology task force articles
- All WikiProject Medicine pages
- C-Class Molecular Biology articles
- Low-importance Molecular Biology articles
- All WikiProject Molecular Biology pages
- C-Class virus articles
- Low-importance virus articles
- WikiProject Viruses articles
- Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press