Talk:Wuhan Institute of Virology/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Add in foreign scientist's testimony

In Australia, there was an article about a verified aussie researcher, Danielle Anderson who was at the lab in late 2019. She was the only westerner scientist on site and her quotes are very relevant and significant enough to be added in to the (COVID-19 pandemic) section. I noticed today that there is no mention of her in the article.

https://www.newsweek.com/coronavirus-wuhan-lab-leak-theory-danielle-anderson-australian-scientist-1604711 Nvtuil (talk) 01:19, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

The original reporting at Bloomberg is better, though paywalled. (unpaywalled version). Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:29, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Blomberg reporting was clearly spinning her words again. The majority of what she really said was actually that the lab had excellent standards. And that she observed nobody got ill. And that she no longer trusts the mainstream media because of how they distort things out of bias and cherrypicking.

She write this:

“I have worked in this exact laboratory at various times for the past two years. I can personally attest to the strict control and containment measures implemented while working there. The staff at [Wuhan Institute of Virology] are incredibly competent, hard-working, and are excellent scientists with superb track records.”

And as a result she was smeared and abused by angry Hawks. And she went to the media because she believes that the lab was unfairly portrayed.

Dr Anderson – now a senior research fellow at the Peter Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity – being dragged into the global information wars has “shaken” her trust in the way parts of the media industry work.

https://www.smh.com.au/national/eat-a-bat-and-die-vile-threats-against-wuhan-lab-conspiracy-buster-20210701-p5861i.html

Yet I too noticed that media continues to spin her words afterwards. She did indeed say that she wasn't 100 percent sure of lab leak as NOBODY can rule it out completely. Yet the media like Bloomberg or Herald Sun, pounces on it and overly talks it as if it's the biggest subject of her testimony and spin her as if she was very uncertain. Despite the whole point of her testimony was to firmly say that the media was wrong and dishonest. Nvtuil (talk) 22:37, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Maybe I wasn't reading closely, but I think her testimony got the point across that the lab has high safety standards. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:39, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Well you can add bloomberg in if only relying on her testimony on lab standards. Bloomberg cannot spin her exact words. But the paper subtly starts off by emphasising on (she wonders what she could have missed), and focuses heavily on her 'doubts' as if that was her biggest topic and she was feeling strong uncertainty when that's not true. And also bloomberg omits a Fair amount like ie, her reactions to the "secret video" of the lab and also her stated (exact full quotes) of why she is certain the media and politicians don't know what they are talking about.

“My opinion is based on the evidence I have in front of me, and my collective research background. Virology training is my background and I am using that to make my decisions, not a politician saying, ‘This is what we should think.’

Which the SMH article had elaborated on and included. I just feel SMH article shares so much more details that's unusually not even mentioned in the Bloomberg article. And SMH is a relatively trusted source from Australia. Nvtuil (talk) 23:04, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

So.....is that like a yay or nay to add that scientist in? seems to be no clear answer after a week. Honestly I don't really care whether or not you guys add her in but just thought it would be noteworthy addition but wasn't sure if it's signiifcant or relvant enough to be added in. And it would be nice to get a clear consensus here and a decison reached. Nvtuil (talk) 06:30, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@Nvtuil: See the section at the bottom. Some user is suggesting we add US government cables (which say the opposite, and aren't quite as reliable sources). Maybe we could combine the two together and add a few sentences to that effect, i.e. "US government officials wrote cables in 2018, where they expressed concerns with research and safety standards at the laboratory. According to Australian researcher Danielle Anderson, who was at the Institute in late 2019, [relevant quote]." More details about the researcher's sentiments and US government claims could go at the Investigations (in the bottom section, as an additional paragraph after the "divisive nature of the debate" and as a potent example of political pressure) or the misinformation (in the relevant sub-section, COVID-19 misinformation#Gain-of-function research) articles. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:20, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

"Conspiracy theory" not supported by cited sources—is it really necessary to use the term?

I see there has been much debate about the term "conspiracy theory"—and with good reason, as it has a pejorative connotation and carries a presumption that the "theory" is false—in other words, it clearly no longer means a theory which involves people conspiring to hide the truth. For example, we wouldn't call the Watergate investigation based on a "conspiracy theory" despite the fact that it was premised on the possibility of a real conspiracy. Most importantly, I don't see that the cited sources for the "conspiracy theory" label support the use of the term—the sole source to use the term doesn't suggest that the "lab leak hypothesis" involving the WIV is either necessarily untrue or a "conspiracy theory" in the pejorative sense. The paper:

• Claims "believers in conspiracy theories" peddle "misinformation that the virus is not contagious, is the result of laboratory manipulation or is created to gain profit by distributing new vaccines."
• Claims that "there are several arguments supporting the natural emergence of SARS‐CoV‐2" in response to the never-definitively-answered question: "IS SARS‐CoV‐2 GENERATED IN THE LABORATORY?"
• Asserts that "an independent forensic investigation is probably the only course of action to prove or disprove" what's termed the "laboratory release theory"—a far more neutral term.
• Treats actual conspiracy theories—such as Bill Gates financing the virus or that vaccines contain "microchips"—differently than the laboratory-leak hypothesis or the question of whether SARS-Cov-2 could have been manipulated in a laboratory, neither of which it actually describes as a "conspiracy theory".

It seems to me that the question of whether SARS-Cov-2 leaked from the WIV isn't a "conspiracy theory" in the commonly used sense of a bizarre and wildly improbable claim, such as Bill Gates funding Covid or the lunar landing being faked. So how is it helpful to the understanding of the article—and to maintaining NPOV—to insist on describing it as one? Why is it necessary to use that particular term—and what would be lost if the article were to use a more neutral description? People with enormous expertise and credibility have urged that a proper investigation be undertaken—whether or not they believe a lab leak was the most likely cause—which suggests that the unanswered questions themself do not deserve to be labeled "conspiracy theories". Thanks! Elle Kpyros (talk) 18:10, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

The bioweapon claims are certainly conspiracy theories, even if the hypothesis of a laboratory leak is not. Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:52, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Page 118 of the joint WHO-China report[1] addresses the deliberate bioengineering of the virus as being ruled out. I've reworded the section to align this article to others on Wikipedia based on community consensus. Aeonx (talk) 13:44, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Did you ask this on the Fort Detrick page too? Devgirl (talk) 00:42, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Missing important topics: diplomatic cables; military involvement

Why is it that this article seems to lack some of the most important and most widely reported facts about the lab?

• US diplomats sent cables warning of safety issues at the lab.
• US intelligence reports suggest the lab may have used US funds for Chinese military research—obviously a big deal if true.

Is there a reason these aren't included in the article? Thanks! Elle Kpyros (talk) 18:39, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Cables from US government agencies are WP:PRIMARY sources about the position of their authors. I also note the fact most of the coverage of this seems to come from Josh Rogin. There are conflicting sources, including a report from an international scientist who had actually gone to the Wuhan lab prior to the start of the pandemic, which contradict these political claims. The Fauci-Rand Paul spat about US-government funding of, allegedly, gain of function research (documented here), with mutual accusations of lying, is not a particularly edifying source, nor is it relevant to the WIV - it is relevant (like the US government cables) to the political (mostly in the US, as you can see) and diplomatic (not limited to the US) incident COVID has caused (which is out of scope of this article - try Investigations into the origins of COVID-19). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:41, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

References

WSJ article

Interesting opinion article today on WSJ, The World Needs to Know What Happened at the Wuhan Lab, from noteworthy authors. However, I don't know if this fits into this article. 46.7.85.200 (talk) 12:54, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Wuhan University Center for Animal Experiment

The Intercept describes a level 3 lab at the Wuhan University Center for Animal Experiment. Should there be a link to Wuhan_University? https://theintercept.com/2021/09/06/new-details-emerge-about-coronavirus-research-at-chinese-lab/ --2600:8804:6600:9:69DA:EEC9:C186:3467 (talk) 19:34, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Why does it fall within the scope of this article, if it is a completely separate institution? — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:42, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Please create a Wikipedia article for the Wuhan University Center for Animal Experiment. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 02:59, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 January 2022

change "collaborated in gain of function research on coronaviruses" to "collaborated in research that included creation of chimeric strains of coronavirus, which some researchers believe falls under the definition of gain of function research". The only prominent biologist to call this gain of function (Dr Richard Ebright) is an expert on biosafety, not an experienced virologist. Experienced virologists do not consider this approach to be gain of function research. See this article, which can be cited in addition to the current reference. https://www.factcheck.org/2021/05/the-wuhan-lab-and-the-gain-of-function-disagreement/ SpxB fan (talk) 20:10, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Sure thing, will change. I agree its a distinction worth making. I will probably wordsmith it a bit to be more succinct. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:06, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 March 2022

Reference 22, "Reply to Science Magazine", leads to a 404 page. Although the PDF has been archived, the file is still hosted on science.org, at the URL "https://www.science.org/pb-assets/PDF/News%20PDFs/Shi%20Zhengli%20Q&A-1630433861.pdf". This file is byte-for-byte identical to the archived version. I don't know if it's Wikipedia's policy to fix link rot of already archived references, but especially considering the controversy surrounding the WIV I don't think it is a bad idea to repair any dead links. Julianbl (talk) 13:37, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

That's actually the reason for the "Archived" link. so you can still find it and we avoid the overall link-rot. But yes I will fix the original URL if it helps! — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:44, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 June 2022

Monkeypox

No, monkeypox didn’t leak from Wuhan. A study (submitted last August) has come to light suggesting experiments may have been carried out in Wuhan on a monkeypox virus. The paper, ‘Efficient assembly of a large fragment of monkeypox virus genome as a PCR template using dual-selection based transformation-associated recombination’, was published in the journal Virologica Sinica (the Wuhan lab’s own journal). It looked to create a monkeypox virus that could be identified on PCR tests. The researchers successfully produced a ‘genomic fragment of monkeypox virus’.

[Ref. 62]] Gyorwarth (talk) 19:46, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

What exactly is being suggested here? This paragraph? It is not exactly encyclopedic or relevant or WP:DUE to the topic at hand.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:37, 13 June 2022 (UTC)