Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bon courage (talk | contribs) at 17:08, 26 October 2022 (→Ongoing legitimate scientific inquiry into the lab leak theory: simples). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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: 21 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.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. COVID-19 High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject COVID-19, a project to coordinate efforts to improve all COVID-19-related articles. If you would like to help, you are invited to join and to participate in project discussions.COVID-19Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19Template:WikiProject COVID-19COVID-19 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Skepticism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Disaster management Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Medicine: Emergency / Society / Pulmonology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Emergency medicine and EMS task force (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by the Society and Medicine task force (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by the Pulmonology task force (assessed as Mid-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Molecular Biology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Viruses Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Viruses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of viruses on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirusesWikipedia:WikiProject VirusesTemplate:WikiProject Virusesvirus Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Page history

This article was nominated for deletion on July 18, 2021. The result of the discussion was keep. On 26 July 2021, it was proposed that this article be moved from COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis to COVID-19 lab leak claims. The result of the discussion was moved to COVID-19 lab leak theory. This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Jackson Ryan (27 June 2021). "Misplaced Pages is at war over the coronavirus lab leak theory". Cnet. Retrieved 21 February 2022. Rhys Blakely (11 November 2021). "The Covid-19 lab-leak theory: 'I've had death threats'". The Times. Retrieved 21 February 2022. When she first spoke out, the lab-leak theory was dismissed – in public, at least – by senior virologists as a fantasy of populist politicians and internet cranks. Facebook and Misplaced Pages banned any mention of the possibility that the virus had escaped from a Wuhan lab, branding it a conspiracy theory. Renée DiResta (21 July 2021). "Institutional Authority Has Vanished. Misplaced Pages Points to the Answer". The Atlantic. Retrieved 21 February 2021. The "Talk" page linked to the Misplaced Pages entry on the origin of the coronavirus provides visibility into the roiling editing wars. Sock-puppet accounts descended, trying to nudge the coverage of the topic to reflect particular points of view. A separate page was created, dedicated specifically to the "COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis," but site administrators later deleted it—a decision that remains in dispute within the Misplaced Pages community.

• v
• t
• e

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 () which support it), which dismisses the lab leak, should not be described as "based in part on Shi '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)

• v
• e

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)

References

Scientific American piece

This is out : https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-lab-leak-hypothesis-made-it-harder-for-scientists-to-seek-the-truth/ 2803:1800:510E:C5C7:18EE:639:2594:21AF (talk) 16:19, 7 October 2022 (UTC) forgot to sign in Forich (talk) 16:20, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Since March. Bon courage (talk) 16:25, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

source

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.

perhaps there is something interesting for wikipedian english editors here

https://republicans-energycommerce.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/2021.11.30-NAM-Daszak-Letter.pdf

the link for this is in this page https://republicans-energycommerce.house.gov/news/ec-republican-leaders-request-national-academy-of-medicine-investigate-ecohealth-alliance-president-peter-daszak-for-misconduct/ at the bottom "CLICK HERE to read the full letter to NAM Home Secretary Elena Fuentes-Afflick"

Vatadoshu 08:14, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Politicians gonna politicize. Would need some sane secondary coverage. Bon courage (talk) 08:50, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

on the page https://republicans-energycommerce.house.gov/news/ec-republican-leaders-request-national-academy-of-medicine-investigate-ecohealth-alliance-president-peter-daszak-for-misconduct/ there is another link interesting "CLICK HERE to read the Republican Leaders’ April 16, 2021 letter to Daszak." where it is said ""In 2020, Dr. Shi Zhengli of WIV published a genomic sequence for RaTG13. According to available information first published in 2016, RaTG13 is 96.2 percent similar to SARS-CoV- 2 and was gathered in 2012 from bat caves in the Yunnan Province, then. This sequence is the most similar to SARS-CoV2 that is publicly known. " . And another source https://arxiv.org/abs/2111.09469

says it is the closest too. So the closest covid virus was created in 2016 in wuhan. It is not politic it is science. Science history. Vatadoshu 09:12, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

No - whacky American politicians are not a reliable source for science. Otherwise we'd all be injecting bleach and cowering from Jewish space lasers. I'm sure in time there will be some reliable commentary on this political stunt, and that could well be of interest to us! Bon courage (talk) 09:14, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

note that politiciens have references in there letters too so you could just take sentences and verify with the references of the letters. sentences seems to have good references. I have verified some sentence with the references and sentences does not seems to lie. there is this too: http://www.normalesup.org/~vorgogoz/conferences/21-04-controversies- Vatadoshu 10:06, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

http://www.normalesup.org/~vorgogoz/conferences/21-04-controversies-SARS-CoV-2-part3-Mojiang-pneumonia.pdf Vatadoshu 13:08, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Appears to be a personal file stored on a university website, so similarly unreliable. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:24, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Furin cleavage site update

Garry (2022) says Harrison and Sachs cite work on rat ENaC from UNC(3,4) and suggest that the UNC and WIV coronavirologists may have mimicked human ENaC FCS to make SARS-CoV-2 more infectious for lung epithelia. Garry then inmediately counters this by saying that four extra aminoacids, not eight, were added, and other technical explanations that debunk the hyphotesis. My questions is if all of this already covered in this entry or is it worthy of mentioning? Forich (talk) 20:17, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

It's a letter. Bon courage (talk) 01:40, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Removal of Lancet report's Sep 2022 statement on origins

My edit regarding the September 2022 Lancet Covid commission report as mentioned in a Washington Post editorial was removed by an user being "profringe" and "already covered". The removed passage was about the commission's statement that zoonotic spillover and lab leak hypotheses both remain plausible and that both should be investigated. This was not covered in the 2022 developments section of this article. Is this a controversial statement that needed to be removed? How is something written and published by the editorial board of the Washington Post regarding a Lancet commission report's finding be fringe? Are those reliable mainstream sources or fringe publications? I don't understand.-Zaheen (talk) 08:49, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it is highly controversial, and you misrepresented it by focusing on Wuhan when the report was more leaning into the possibility the virus somehow originated from the USA. We have the reaction of actual experts to this stuff (insofar as there is any as scientists have otherwise ignored it). More would be undue. Bon courage (talk) 08any:53, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I didn't misrepresent anything nor focused on anything particular. The WaPo editorial clearly says: "The panel did not resolve the ongoing dispute about the virus’s origins in China, whether it came from a zoonotic spillover or an inadvertent laboratory leak, saying both are “still plausible.” The report properly calls for “unbiased, independent, transparent, and rigorous work” to investigate the origins, including at laboratories in Wuhan that were engaged in risky research known as “gain of function,” in which viruses similar to the pandemic strain were being genetically manipulated." And the Lancet commission report itself says in its executive summary that "he proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2 remains unknown. There are two leading hypotheses: that the virus emerged as a zoonotic spillover from wildlife or a farm animal, possibly through a wet market, in a location that is still undetermined; or that the virus emerged from a research-related incident, during the field collection of viruses or through a laboratory-associated escape. Commissioners held diverse views about the relative probabilities of the two explanations, and both possibilities require further scientific investigation."

Neither the WaPo Editorial nor the Lancet report's own executive summary talks about the virus originating in the USA. How did I misrepresent anything? I just added the above statements in a rephrased short passage as the latest development as of September 2022. Why does this need to be removed? --Zaheen (talk) 09:23, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Even the WaPo Op-ed does mention it obliquely "Sachs correctly called on the U.S. National Institutes of Health to be more open about its role in funding research in China". The suggestion that the virus is of US origin is emphasized in the report as the other sources we use relay (and multiple sources beside). Better to use actual experts (i.e. virologists) to deliver an assessment, than the inexpert opinion writers of a newspaper - especially the WaPo which as a lab leak cheerleader has unclean hands. The fringe nonsense needs no more exposure in the article. Bon courage (talk) 09:48, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I understand your viewpoint, but I still fail to see how that is related to what I added. I added a short passage (as the latest development in Sep 2022) about WaPo's reporting about the Lancet report which stated in its summary that both origin hypotheses remain feasible and need to be investigated further. Oblique references here and there to the hypothetical possibility of an US involvement in the WaPo editorial or somewhere buried in the 50+ page Lancet report doesn't automatically invalidate that report's summary position or the WaPO reporting of it, or does it? Isn't Lancet considered a leading and serious medical journal? How is the summary position of a Lancet commission report "fringe nonsense"? Is it unreasonable to mention this Lancet report in the 2022 development section (if not lead) and then add any leading/reliable virologists' reaction to it? Wouldn't that be more NPOV and better organized chronologically? I don't have much more to add to this at this point, but I would like to see other wikipedians' opinion on this. --Zaheen (talk) 10:20, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I just read on foreignpolicy dot com the virologist Angela Rasmussen's dismissal of the Lancet commission's viewpoint on lab leak origin being viable, based on her own published research concludig Huanan market to be the epicenter of the (most probably zoonotic) spillover event(s), not WIV. Why not mention both Lancet and Angela's critique to it then? --Zaheen (talk) 13:18, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

This has already been discussed to death in multiple locations (including Talk:Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 and WP:BLP/N). The "Lancet" report does not even mention the WIV wrt virus origin: even the lab-leak stans are pissed off about it. The author of this bit (Sachs) sacked all the relevant experts and then "personally oversaw" this content himself. He has no relevant qualifications and has an established record of spouting questionable notions about SVC2 origin and rubbing shoulders with conspiracy theorists. He is apparently fond of suggesting (as in the this report) that the USA was somehow to blame for COVID. Misplaced Pages is not unduly going to elevate this fringe nonsense into some kind of viable position; we merely briefly report it with some sane, mainstream context. Bon courage (talk) 13:46, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

The author of this bit (Sachs) sacked all the relevant experts and then "personally oversaw" this content himself. Was there a source for this that I've missed in the various discussions? Bakkster Man (talk) 13:54, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

The "personally oversaw" detail is cited to the Independent source currently. We don't cover the panel sacking. It might be going into the weeds too much for an article about virus origin, but I'd not strongly object to including it; it's mentioned in that existing source ("He broke up the first task force in the summer of 2021 as worries grew that the group was biased in favour of the idea that the virus had come from the natural world. While the task force never regrouped ...") Bon courage (talk) 14:09, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Maybe Task force chair Jeffrey Sachs, economics professor at Columbia University in New York, told the Wall Street Journal that he had shut down the scientist led investigation into how the covid-19 pandemic started because of concerns about its links to the EcoHealth Alliance, a non-profit organisation run by task force member Peter Daszak --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:10, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Well this is the danger of going into the weeds. I believe in the end he believed every single member of the team was lying to him; it's wasn't just a Daszak issue. Bon courage (talk) 14:13, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

the WaPo which as a lab leak cheerleader has unclean hands This is absolutely risible next to the documented bias and financial conflicts of interest behind the efforts to prematurely shut down lab leak investigations. Zoonotic origin is *likely* and lab-leak is *plausible*. Any other framing is suspect and pro-fringe. To be clear, *denying* lab leak is plausible is pro-fringe. Sennalen (talk) 14:03, 18 October 2022 (UTC) Sennalen (talk) 14:03, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Our article does not quote any scientific reliable source saying that lab-leak is plausible. You seem to know sources that do. Please share them. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:23, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be the original WHO report and the later SAGO report, which are still the most authoritative assessments we have? Bakkster Man (talk) 15:05, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

According to our article, the WHO report assessed introduction through a laboratory incident to be "extremely unlikely" and not supported by any available evidence, although the report stated that this possibility could not be wholly ruled out without further evidence and the SAGO report says the strongest evidence is still around a zoonotic transmission. Both are a long shot from calling a lab leak "plausible". --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:47, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I was considering "plausible" and a "possibility could not be wholly ruled out" to be roughly synonymous. But yes, there's a reason we provide that more complete context, and quote the language of the reports rather than paraphrasing in a way that could give a different impression. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:18, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

References

1. https://www.science.org/content/article/fights-over-confidentiality-pledge-and-conflicts-interest-tore-apart-covid-19-origin-probe

I still don't understand the removal of the bit I added on the summary of Lancet commission report. It says lab leak remains a plausible hypotheses and further investigation is needed. How is this different from the WHO SAGO report which also remains open to the possibility of a "breach" from a "lab incident"? Is WHO SAGO also promoting "fringe nonsense"? Even Peter Daszak cowrote an article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences published 8 days ago (10 Oct 2022) which states that "a laboratory leak cannot be ruled out" even if it is "widely considered less probable". Is that also promoting fringe nonsense? So what is the point of removing the Lancet report bit I added which essentially says the same thing? Zaheen (talk) 16:09, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

We already say the report suggests it could have come from a US lab, so adding that it says it could plausibly have come from a lab in general, adds nothing. What you seem to be missing is the US-origin spin of the Lancet report, maybe because the WaPo op-ed is rather misleading about this. Bon courage (talk) 16:50, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Also, "remaining open" and "cannot be ruled out" are far weaker than calling it "plausible". We "cannot rule out" the virus was planted by aliens either, and "remaining open" is what a scientist says when they are bending over backwards. To call something "plausible" means to embrace it to a certain amount. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:54, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

But the Lancet commision report's main thrust about the origin of Covid is not that it comes from the US, but, as it is clear from its executive summary, that the lab leak hypothesis remains on the table and that further investigation is needed. Why does this article address the US involvment reference buried in the details only? I still think a passage about this summary statement can be included in an article titled "Covid lab leak theory" under the section 2022 developments. If necessary, any reputable virologists' vehement disagreement with such a statement can also be included right after. I mean it was published in Lancet, a reputable medical journal, not some tabloid, and it was picked up by WaPo, a mainstream daily. And it was then criticized vehemently by at least one virologist Angela Rasmussen on foreignpolicy dot com. So why suppress all these recent "developments" in the section titled 2022 development? Why not report it all in a short passage? Is there an implicit ban on mentioning such statements?

Also, why not mention all the differing opinions like Daszak's PNAS article's "cannot be ruled out", Lancet's "plausible", and WHO SAGO's statement that "it remains important...to evaluate the possibility of the introduction of SARSCov2 through a laboratory incident" quoted as is. What is the harm here? Especially in an article dedicated to the lab leak theory? Otherwise, why have this article in the first place? This article's whole raison d'être is to present information about lab leak theory, no? I am genuinely confused. --Zaheen (talk) 18:36, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Why does this article address the US involvment reference buried in the details only? This is probably regional. In the West, most lableakies blame China, while in China, they blame the US. The Chinese Misplaced Pages does have one section on US origin (美国基因武器论反向衍生版本), but it contains only one sentence about it. The China part is pretty extensive.

The China lobbyist Sachs living in the West is a special case; of course he is a US lableaky, while the anti-China hardliners in the US are China lableakies. All this reminds me strongly of the recent SI article Schrödinger’s Bin Laden: The Irrational World of Motivated Reasoning. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:11, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

100% we do not need this mention, it violates WP:HOWEVER, and is additionally quite WP:PROFRINGE. — Shibbolethink 20:04, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

The wp:however can be solved by simply removing the word "however." As for wp:profringe, the Lancet Commission Report and the WaPo editorial about the Lancet report are not fringe publications. Even WHO has a response to the Lancet report. Why would WHO do that if it was a fringe publication? These are considered reputable reliable sources. The bit I added (with inline citation of a WaPo editorial) says that according to the Lancet report, the lab leak theory remains plausible and further investigation is needed. This is in line with WHO SAGO report as well, which says lab leak theory investigation "remains important". I don't see how similar statements published in a reputable medical journal Lancet and WHO SAGO report can be considered profringe? I don't see the point of suppressing these. If we only consider expert virologist opinions to be valid and everything else profringe, as I feel what is happening here, then using that extremely narrow, uncharitable and almost-deletionist criterion, this article will become pointless and almost non-existent, because the virologists who have published so far seem to be overwhelmingly dismissive of a lab leak conjecture. Then the article will be about 3-4 lines. What is the point of having this article then?--Zaheen (talk) 07:45, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

We cover the Lancet report accurately already. The novel ideas Sachs contributed to the it are WP:FRINGE, yes. This article could be deleted and any usable content merged to Investigations into the origin of COVID-19. Bon courage (talk) 07:58, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Firstly, I don't think we cover the Lancet report accurately in this article, because the Lancet report's summary position on the origin is not accurately represented in the article, rather a certain apparently controversial assertion buried somewhere in the detail has been amplified and given the most attention. We cannot pretend to read minds; we don't know whether it was Sachs or whether it was the entire commission reading signing off on the final version. That's not our job here. What we can do is to accurately represent the summary position as it was reported in a mainstream daily such as WaPo, which more or less coincides with the summary position of the report, and I quoted both of them above. Secondly, if you think this article could be deleted, then why don't you start a deletion request? I think that would be a better course of action to go for the jugular than the micromanaging and gatekeeping stance currently adopted. Obviously I didn't get the memo that we cannot add non-virologist assertions published by a reputable medical journal and covered by a mainstream American daily because they are considered "fringe" and by extension that much of this article can also be considered fringe, hence worthy of deletion, by a certain user. Mea culpa. --Zaheen (talk) 18:42, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Much of your logic does not work.

• Why would WHO do that if it was a fringe publication? Not being answered by the WHO is not a characteristic of fringe ideas. "How to respond to vocal vaccine deniers in public" (for some reason I cannot include the link) is one example of a response by the WHO to fringe claims.
• This is in line with WHO SAGO report as well, which says lab leak theory investigation "remains important" How does that translate into "lab leak is plausible"? I also think the investigation remains important, because, although it will not shut up the reality-resistant core of lableakers, it will reduce the support they receive from fence-sitters. And I definitely do not think a lab leak is plausible.
• If we only consider expert virologist opinions to be valid then that means we are following the WP:FRINGE guideline. Invalid opinions by ignorant and ideologically biased laymen can be used but have to be balanced by actual knowledge. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:58, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

So if I understand correctly, you agree with WHO SAGO report that a lab leak investigation remains "important" to "evaluate the possibility of the introduction of SARS-CoV-2 into the human population through a laboratory incident", but at the same time you want to draw a line in the sand when it comes to using the specific word "plausible" as it was used in the Lancet Commission Report? But if we are really splitting hair about the semantics of it all, then the term "plausibility" (seemingly reasonable and appears likely on the surface) used in the Lancet report is actually weaker than the term "possibility" (a term which has the connotation of referring to something potentially real, which might or might not happen) used in the WHO SAGO report. And also, we can keep content about the media coverage on the tweet by some random twitter user, or the coverage of an assertion by "ignorant and ideologically biased laymen" such as TV's political commentator Tucker Carlson in this article, but we cannot add a relevant passage about the Lancet Commission Report published by a reputable medical journal in 2022 and include it in the 2022 development section without it getting removed? I seriously don't understand the logic in this. --Zaheen (talk) 18:42, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

The stuff about the relevant portion of the Lancet report is already included. Time to drop the WP:STICK methinks. Bon courage (talk) 18:56, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. But I also think I have exhausted everything I wanted to say. No point in pursuing this.--Zaheen (talk) 19:48, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

David Gorski's opinions are stated in wikivoice. Sennalen (talk) 21:21, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Because it represents a consensus of experts, whereas the Lancet report does not.— Shibbolethink 13:29, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Use of the word conspiracy

The Fort Detrick theory is called a conspiracy theory however the term is not used for the rest of the article despite the introduction saying the Chinese lab leak theory has no supporting evidence. I propose adding the word conspiracy to the introduction of the article. If it has no supporting evidence than it falls under conspiracy theory.

In the alternative take out the word conspiracy from the Fort Detrick section to remain consistent. 2603:8081:4A00:B792:943B:5930:8B33:7DE4 (talk) 15:40, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

sounds good to remove conspiracy from Fort Detrick theory. 2600:1700:8660:E180:5016:B632:8AD1:4513 (talk) 04:34, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Keep Fort Detrick, would be okay with adding that language for the original lab leak theory. It's come up before on this page and there was basically no consensus. I think there is extremely good evidence that Fort Detrick is a conspiracy theory in precisely that language. — Shibbolethink 19:41, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

"the COVID lab leak theory is dead".

Should we mention that Eddie Holmes was one of the first to suggest an artificial origin of sars2? " Eddie , Bob , Mike , and myself all find the genome inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory" 2600:1700:8660:E180:5016:B632:8AD1:4513 (talk) 04:53, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Are there independent, reliable, secondary sources which support this being relevant? AKA WP:DUE — Shibbolethink 19:42, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

"After the coronavirus genome was sequenced, Dr. Holmes was puzzled to see some bits of genetic material that looked like they might have been put there through genetic engineering." https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/21/health/covid-lab-leak-eddie-holmes.html 2600:1700:8660:E180:D045:5F80:2A52:F1BC (talk) 18:17, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Dr. Holmes very recently participated in a podcast called This Week in Virology on 28 September 2022, and he himself says very clearly about the Proximal Origins paper (probably the first ever origins paper put out by virologists) that he co-authored back in early 2020 about the origins of SARS-CoV-2 (a paper which strongly argues in favor of the natural spillover hypothesis: "we do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible") that "it's just a paper... not a decree...not a government order....you can disagree with it.... it's been given this some sort of elevated status like this means that you can't talk about anything else...it's bizarre..."(it's on youtube v=5u94foNmpKE at 37:26). So on one hand, he just wrote that lab leak theory is "dead". On the other, he just said on a podcast that there is no restriction on "talking about anything else". I don't think even Dr. Holmes is in favor of suppressing any assertions about lab leak theory. He seems to be very confident in his expert opinion as a virologist and at the same time respectful to differing opinions (e.g. lab leak theory?) --Zaheen (talk) 19:22, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

This is WP:NOTAFORUM for general discussion. Bon courage (talk) 19:27, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Any Evidence for the Natural Origin Theory?

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.

I see this article claims in the lead that there's no evidence for the lab leak theory, although it's beyond abundant and conclusive at this point. On the other other hand, is there even a scintilla of evidence for the natural origin theory? --2600:1700:B020:1490:9427:D713:7A5:2990 (talk) 12:59, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

From the cited source:

Under any laboratory escape scenario, SARS-CoV-2 would have to have been present in a laboratory prior to the pandemic, yet no evidence exists to support such a notion and no sequence has been identified that could have served as a precursor.

This article is not about "the natural origin theory". Bon courage (talk) 13:07, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Ongoing legitimate scientific inquiry into the lab leak theory

The topic has always been plagued with nationalistic and financial motivations to prematurely spin lab leak theories as illegitimate. Such pressures have only intensified amid a deficit of skepticism about this year's wet market statistical analyses. What is the best phrasing to use in the lede to explain that lab leak theories are not only misinformation or conspiracy theories, but also the the subject of ongoing legitimate scientific research? Sennalen (talk) 21:08, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Having a sentence which says "there is no evidence to support this" has absolutely nothing to do with future research. It is the most accurate and reserved statement that can be made about this topic at present. It does not forestall future evidence from existing, it does not prevent anyone from inquiring further. There are already plenty of sentences in the lead which portray the fact that it is currently being investigated. (despite the fact that most relevant experts agree it is extremely unlikely, with one saying it is "dead"). — Shibbolethink 21:17, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

e.g. "Some scientists agree that the possibility of a lab leak origin should be examined as part of ongoing investigations," — Shibbolethink 21:20, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Quite, and as for "The topic has always been plagued with nationalistic and financial motivations" the OP needs to drop such conspiracy theories. Misplaced Pages has long-established norms for dealing with WP:FRINGE stuff of all stripes. Bon courage (talk) 00:26, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

It's not a conspiracy theory. Whether or not it has enough sourcing to go into Misplaced Pages is another matter. But it's not helpful to accuse someone of pushing a "conspiracy theory" when there is plenty of circumstantial evidence to support what they are saying. Adoring nanny (talk) 11:58, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

@Adoring nanny there is plenty of circumstantial evidence to support many conspiracy theories. E.g.

• Moon landing conspiracy theories § Hoax claims and rebuttals
• John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories § Circumstantial evidence of a cover-up
• September 11 attacks advance-knowledge conspiracy theories § Using planes as missiles
• September 11 attacks advance-knowledge conspiracy theories § Insider trading

Circumstantial evidence is basically the origin of most conspiracy theories. Let me ask you this:

At what point would you accept that the lab leak is a conspiracy theory? What level of evidence in favor of other explanations (or against the theory itself) would be enough for that label to be justified?

We have sourcing for it in RSes. That sourcing has only grown stronger over time. Not all versions are explicitly conspiracy theories, but certainly some are (e.g. intentional leak, bioweapon, genetic engineering of a hidden virus, etc). These are literally theories which propose a conspiracy of motivated actors engaged in a cover-up. And we have sources which back-up this characterization. — Shibbolethink 13:28, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

I would accept LL is incorrect if someone finds a close natural ancestor of COVID-19, infecting a wild animal species. At that time, further belief in LL would become a conspiracy theory. However, such discovery would not make it conspiracy to believe LL today, any more than it was conspiracy to believe, prior to exploration of the Antarctic, that the Southern Ocean extended all the way to the South Pole. Adoring nanny (talk) 13:53, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Belief that the Southern Ocean extends all the way to the south pole did not, at any point in history, require one to believe in a conspiracy of people acting in secret. Lab leak does, right at this very moment, require that belief. — Shibbolethink 14:52, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, sure, if that's your definition. But if that's your definition, true conspiracy theories happen all the time, so much that a lot of countries have conspiracy (criminal) as a defined criminal offense. And if that's your definition, it's not sensible to ask people to drop pushing something because it's a conspiracy theory. I would also note that your definition is weaker than the definition adopted at Conspiracy Theory. So it's misleading to say that "LL is a conspiracy theory", then when challenged, to fall back on a weaker definition. Adoring nanny (talk) 15:34, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

It's not my definition, it's the definition widely accepted and exactly the same one as at conspiracy theory: A conspiracy theory is an explanation for an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy by sinister and powerful groups, often political in motivation, when other explanations are more probable. Unless you take issue with "when other explanations are more probable" which, if so, then there are quite a few places in this article I'd expect you'd want to omit. Namely all the parts where we say there is no evidence in favor, that it is less likely, etc. As to what you say here: And if that's your definition, it's not sensible to ask people to drop pushing something because it's a conspiracy theory I don't believe I have said that or requested that. I want, in general, for us to push towards NPOV. Or perhaps you take issue with this other part of the definition: A conspiracy theory is not the same as a conspiracy; instead, it refers to a hypothesized conspiracy with specific characteristics, such as an opposition to the mainstream consensus among those people (such as scientists or historians) who are qualified to evaluate its accuracy. But we have that as well. The consensus is that the zoonotic theory is the most likely. Perhaps it is time for a new RFC. — Shibbolethink 15:52, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Not quite yet, but soon. Bon courage (talk) 15:53, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes I think I would agree, we aren't there yet. It's definitely been building as scientific evidence in favor of zoonosis has mounted. — Shibbolethink 16:14, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Now you've expanded the definition again. The key phrase is "when other explanations are more probable." Your post "proving" that LL is a "literal conspiracy theory" didn't prove that part, nor could it have. Adoring nanny (talk) 16:15, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, where did I claim to prove anything? Please refrain from putting words in my mouth or taking this conversation off-topic and remain civil. Thanks. As to "when other explanations are more probable" we have the following in the article already, well-sourced:

• The hypothesis is not supported by any evidence.
• Some versions, particularly those alleging alteration of the SARS-CoV-2 genome, are based on misinformation, or misrepresentations of scientific evidence.
• Most scientists have remained skeptical of the idea, citing a lack of supporting evidence, while a minority of scientists regard both a lab leak and natural origin as equally valid
• There is no evidence that any laboratory had samples of SARS-CoV-2, or an plausible ancestor virus, prior to the start of the COVID-19 pandemic

etc. etc. — Shibbolethink 16:17, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, now we are getting into Misplaced Pages-truth versus actual truth again. You've given some excellent arguments in favor of Z from a standpoint of Misplaced Pages-truth. But the definition of "conspiracy theory" is about actual truth, and that's where LL shines. Adoring nanny (talk) 17:00, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

What the fuck does that even mean? Pursuit of The Truth™ is just a recipe for POV. To cut to the chase, we shall simply follow the WP:BESTSOURCES. They already tell us the "theory" is becoming increasingly conspiracist, as we relay. When good new sources come along, those can be reflected too. Simple. Bon courage (talk) 17:08, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• All unassessed articles
• 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