Wikipedia

Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory

(Redirected from Talk:COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis)
Latest comment: 10 days ago by Slatersteven in topic Assertion regarding racism is unsupported
Learn more about this page


Origins of COVID-19: Current consensus

  1. There is no consensus on whether the lab leak theory is a "conspiracy theory" or a "minority scientific viewpoint". (RfC, February 2021)
  2. There is consensus against defining "disease and pandemic origins" (broadly speaking) as a form of biomedical information for the purpose of WP:MEDRS. However, information that already fits into biomedical information remains classified as such, even if it relates to disease and pandemic origins (e.g. genome sequences, symptom descriptions, phylogenetic trees). (RfC, May 2021)
  3. In multiple prior non-RFC discussions about manuscripts authored by Rossana Segreto and/or Yuri Deigin, editors have found the sources to be unreliable. Specifically, editors were not convinced by the credentials of the authors, and concerns were raised with the editorial oversight of the BioEssays "Problems & Paradigms" series. (Jan 2021, Jan 2021, Jan 2021, Feb 2021, June 2021, ...)
  4. The consensus of scientists is that SARS-CoV-2 is likely of zoonotic origin. (January 2021, May 2021, May 2021, May 2021, June 2021, June 2021, WP:NOLABLEAK (frequently cited in discussions))
  5. The March 2021 WHO report on the origins of SARS-CoV-2 should be referred to as the "WHO-convened report" or "WHO-convened study" on first usage in article prose, and may be abbreviated as "WHO report" or "WHO study" thereafter. (RfC, June 2021)
  6. The "manufactured bioweapon" idea should be described as a "conspiracy theory" in wiki-voice. (January 2021, February 2021, May 2021, May 2021, June 2021, June 2021, June 2021, June 2021, July 2021, July 2021, July 2021, August 2021)
  7. The scientific consensus (and the Frutos et al. sources ([1][2]) which support it), which dismisses the lab leak, should not be described as "based in part on Shi [Zhengli]'s emailed answers." (RfC, December 2021)
  8. The American FBI and Department of Energy finding that a lab leak was likely should not be mentioned in the lead of COVID-19 lab leak theory, because it is WP:UNDUE. (RFC, October 2023)
  9. The article COVID-19 lab leak theory may not go through the requested moves process between 4 March 2024 and 3 March 2025. (RM, March 2024)

Last updated (diff) on 15 March 2024 by Novem Linguae (t · c)


Lab leak theory sources

edit
Latest comment: 8 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

List of good sources with good coverage to help expand. Not necessarily for inclusion but just for consideration. Preferably not articles that just discuss a single quote/press conference. The long-style reporting would be even better. Feel free to edit directly to add to the list. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:39, 18 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Last updated by Julian Brown (talk) 23:43, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

[edit]  ·
Scholarship
For the relevant sourcing guideline, see WP:SCHOLARSHIP. For a database curated by the NCBI, see LitCoVID
[edit]  ·
Journalism
For the relevant sourcing guideline, see WP:NEWSORG.
[edit]  ·
Opinion-based editorials written by scientists/scholars
For the relevant sourcing guideline, see WP:RSOPINION.
[edit]  ·
Opinion-based editorials written by journalists
For the relevant sourcing guideline, see WP:RSOPINION.
[edit]  ·
Government and policy
Keep in mind, these are primary sources and thus should be used with caution!

References

edit

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 [23] (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 [23]."

^^^^ This is exactly "genetic manipulation of SARS-related bat coronaviruses". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.165.236.120 (talk • contribs)

NYT: COVID origin

edit
Latest comment: 17 days ago21 comments17 people in discussion
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)Reply

Please refer to WP:RSOPINION. TarnishedPathtalk 07:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
It's just Alina Chan trotting out all the LL talking points again. Relevant scientists are not impressed (e.g.[5]) and of course it's not a reliable source for Wikipedia's purposes. Bon courage (talk) 12:36, 4 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
Another virologist chipped in [6] - DFlhb (talk) 11:18, 30 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Well their twitter isn’t soaked in partisanship at all! I don’t even see any charged language across any of their posts. They seem very cool headed and incredibly trustworthy due to their calm calculated demeanor 2601:18F:801:1D20:D8DF:FA6C:D2F7:58CA (talk) 23:54, 1 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
As a frequent reader of these talk pages in Wikipedia I can see the slow trend of this talk page slowly turning into the talk page for the duke lacrosse case. Another talk page where it was like pulling teeth.
this is fun though I’ll check back in a few weeks and see how the discussion is going. 2601:18F:801:1D20:D8DF:FA6C:D2F7:58CA (talk) 23:55, 1 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

Do you even know any scientists? --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
I hear what you say about phrasing things in the negative. But I think the trouble with saying, "...[20% of] 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)Reply
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)Reply
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(or here)(or here)(or here) 19:49, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
The survey used different definitions than you are. [7] says "natural zoonosis" is "an event in which a non-human animal infected a human, and in which the infection did not occur in the course of any form of virological or biomedical research". You can see the exact question on page 15 of [8] which makes clear that their definition of natural zoonosis doesn't include "the accidental infection of a laboratory worker with a natural coronavirus; the accidental infection of researchers with a natural coronavirus during biomedical fieldwork; or the accidental infection of a laboratory worker with an engineered coronavirus". I'd suggest because of that you retract your claim that people are being disingenous when reporting this survey's results. JaggedHamster (talk) 10:31, 29 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
JaggedHamster is correct that the survey is careful about defining what is meant by "natural zoonosis" (in contrast to a "lab leak" or "research-related-incident"). But, also, this thread is about the lede (see 2600:1700:7BE0:1E30:B5DB:E109:BA25:EE59's contribution above) rather than whether "[some] news sources and some editors here seem to think that "natural zoonosis" and "lab leak" are mutually exclusive." I agree that "natural zoonosis" is a sloppy phrase, particularly given that wildlife farms had been promoted as a means of poverty alleviation (see Kormann, Carolyn (October 12, 2021). "The Mysterious Case of the COVID-19 Lab-Leak Theory". The New Yorker.); there's nothing particularly "natural" about a spillover that was a foreseeable output of a particular policy. Keeping on topic, though, it might be better said in the lede that " most scientists believe the virus spilled into human populations through natural zoonosis [via the live animal trade] "... Thoughts? Mr leroy playpus (talk) 11:34, 29 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
The point was probably that the initial infection came directly from a natural as opposed to artificial source, even though at the policy level, it is difficult to say what is or is not natural. Senorangel (talk) 03:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Paul Offit destroys the NYT piece: [9] --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:11, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Assertion regarding racism is unsupported

edit
Latest comment: 10 days ago8 comments8 people in discussion

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)Reply

I’m in favor of removing references to “racism”. Seems speculative at best. 2601:18F:801:1D20:D8DF:FA6C:D2F7:58CA (talk) 23:52, 1 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Please refer to the archives for previous discussions on this. TarnishedPathtalk 02:13, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Agreed, you have to truly REACH to find even passive references to racism by any writer who isn't already utterly programmed to see everything through the lens of race. AKA race-grifters. 24.63.3.107 (talk) 23:38, 4 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Massive anti-Asian incidents related to this subject, what Trump has repeatedly called the Asian flu, are well documented. Please do not use the term "race-grifters" here again. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'm in favor of keeping references to "racism." Xenophobic language and anti-Chinese racism were well-documented and the links between these and the lab leak theory were the subject of much public discussion. I would think that the use of the phrase "Kung Flu" and this, this, and etc would be enough supporting evidence for the claim that politicians made unwholesome use of the lab leak theory, but for two more randomly chosen examples, see, Eric Feigl-Ding, Yuh-Line Niou, and Victor Shi (May 24, 2023). "Stopping Asian American Hate Stemming From the COVID-19 Pandemic - Opinion". Newsweek.{{cite magazine}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) or Liu, Andrew (2022). "Lab-Leak Theory and the "Asiatic" Form". N+1. Mr leroy playpus (talk) 15:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
The opinion that racism was a significant factor is based on circular logic that implies that favoring LL theory is racist because the only reason to favor LL is racism. 2601:547:1903:2200:8BD:A430:2848:DE54 (talk) 18:41, 8 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
No, its weaponisation is. Slatersteven (talk) 18:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory&oldid=1235079950"