Talk:Origin of COVID-19/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

A questionable consensus

The following sentence and the mobillized sources are worth discussing: "The scientific consensus is that it is a zoonotic virus that arose from bats in a natural setting". This sentence is based on Andersen et al. using RaTG13, the closest known virus to SARS-CoV-2, but which has been exclusively studied by the Wuhan Institute of Virology. There is therefore no possibility for the rest of the scientific community to verify the information transmitted about it. Second, for Latinne et al. this is a paper that was primarily written by members of the Wuhan Institute of Virology and the EcoHealth Alliance, which has funded research on bat coronaviruses in that lab. But most importantly, RaTG13, again unverifiable to the rest of the scientific community, is used. So there is a problem in the diversity of sources cited here, but more generally, in the verifiability of the scientific information itself. Hence the calls in the press and Science to be able to verify this information.CyberDiderot (talk) 17:44, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

CyberDiderot, yes, and we accurately describe the hinderance of China into the investigation. The consensus is still that it was a zoonotic origin - there is no current evidence that is widely accepted and agreed with to suggest otherwise. The scientific consensus among all scientists is that it was likely zoonotic - even if there are a few who insist it wasn't based on flimsy evidence and illogical leaps of faith. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 17:47, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

You seem to have misinterpreted the statements regarding RaTG13 as the sole justification either for this sentence, or the majority consensus view. RaTG13 is just the most similar to SARS-CoV-2 of many similar CoVs found in bats. We also don't claim that RaTG13 is the ancestor of SARS-CoV-2, it's also possible the ancestor virus is undetected. If you can point to a particular item you think remains unclear, I can clarify the article. Bakkster Man (talk)

WP:RS/AC says: A statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view.... Stated simply, any statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors. Could you point to where the cited sources make any direct claims about zoonotic origin being the scientific consensus? I have not been able to find that claim supported anywhere in the sources. Stonkaments (talk) 00:04, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOLABLEAK has plenty of MEDRS papers saying that the zoonotic origin is the most likely and that "scientific evidence does not support this accusation of laboratory release". I have not been able to find any MEDRS source which disputes this. Younes et al., Rev Med Virol say that "Researchers proposed two hypotheses for the emergence of SARS‐CoV‐2: (1) Natural selection may have occurred in an animal host before transmission to mankind; and (2) natural selection of viruses may have occurred in humans after zoonotic transmission." Osuchowski et al., Lancet Respir Med similarly say " The most plausible origin of SARS-CoV-2 is natural selection of the virus in an animal host followed by zoonotic transfer." This letter in the Lancet is more explicit, saying "Scientists from multiple countries have published and analysed genomes of the causative agent, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2),1 and they overwhelmingly conclude that this coronavirus originated in wildlife,2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 as have so many other emerging pathogens.11, 12"; although, given the lack of conflicting MEDRS sources, I'm not even sure it's necessary . RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:22, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've just done a big search for further recent papers about COVID origins. There's nothing as in-depth as previously. The few papers I could find only repeat the same things as previously. [1] says "SARS-CoV-2 is thought to have originated in the human population from a zoonotic spillover event."; so that's rather clear that this is the favoured position. This simply says "SARS-CoV-2 was originated from zoonotic coronaviruses and confirmed as a novel beta-coronavirus [...]" as an unequivocal statement of fact (whether we should do that is a bit more questionable - at least it lends more support to the idea). Other relevant articles mention the zoonotic origin as a matter of fact or very high likelihood without explicitly saying that it is "thought" of that it is a consensus. Of about 100 articles I could find running a query "covid AND origin" on Pubmed (limited to MEDLINE journals, reviews and systematic reviews, from 2021 only) - of which I read more than the abstract (or part thereof) for about a tenth of that, only one mentioned anything but the zoonotic origin (and what it did mention was the man-made theory, which it clearly marked as bollocks). As to your WP:OR criticism of papers by Andersen, ..., I'll note that that is entirely beyond our remit. One criteria for determining the reliability of sources is their use by other sources (WP:USEBYOTHERS), and the paper by Andersen et al. which you're referring to seems to be extremely well cited, more than 1000 times. Your claims about conflicts of interests and RaTG13 are all common talking points of lab leak proponents, but they don't change anything as far as MEDRS are concerned. Again, I failed to find any source which disputes that the origin of the virus is anything but zoonotic. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:52, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I’m not seeing an explicit statement that a consensus exists in any of those, most likely =/= consensus. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:34, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

The letter in the Lancet is just that, although of course it needs to be judged as a primary, opinion piece (though it's from subject experts - since we include the letter about "further investigations", we might as well include this one). I'm not seeing any statement that there is a scientific (as opposed to political or otherwise) dispute over this, either. There are the calls for further investigation reported in the press, but that's already mentioned. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:52, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

The Lancet letter was published in February 2020 and was clearly politically motivated (former NY Times science reporter Donald McNeil says that, at that time, "the screaming was so loud that it drowned out serious discussion"[2]). If that's the only source making a direct claim about the scientific consensus, I believe statements regarding a scientific consensus in the article need to be removed/revised. Stonkaments (talk) 14:23, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

That's a WP:SELFPUB piece (on medium, a self-publishing site) from a journalist. Anyway, as said, I still haven't seen a source which says that the preferred hypothesis is not zoonotic origin. If there is a legitimate dispute over which hypothesis is the favoured one, you should be able to cite MEDRS papers which argue that the lab leak is more likely. Otherwise this is just a minor quibble over wording. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:41, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't dispute that most scientists believe zoonotic origin is more likely—I agree with that. But I think calling zoonotic origin the scientific consensus is a step too far (per WP:RS/AC). I would support some variation of the suggestion below ("Most research published up until X has supported the theory that it is a zoonotic virus..."). Stonkaments (talk) 15:28, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Strangely enough I agree... But only that we shouldn’t be saying "scientific consensus” when there doesn’t appear to actually be one yet... The vast majority of work on the subject is still in progress and from what I’ve seen pretty much all sources treat currently published findings as preliminary. We can say something along the lines of “Most research published up until X has supported the theory that it is a zoonotic virus that arose from bats in a natural setting” but we shouldn’t get ahead of our skis. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:29, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

We could remove "consensus" if it really poses problems to use that particular word. Although, given what MEDRS say, we'd need to write something like "The vast majority of scientific research finds the current evidence supports a zoonotic virus that arose from bats in a natural setting." RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:52, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Do we need to split the statement? There does appear to be consensus that there was not deliberate release or deliberate bioengineering of SARS-CoV-2 for release, the latter has been ruled out by other scientists following analyses of the genome, as per the WHO-China report. By extension, there appears to be consensus that the virus descends from a natural virus, with the exact pathway for the evolutionary gap and precise point of zoonosis being up for debate. Given this, I'd suggest it's only the "arose from bats in a natural setting" that's not yet fully settled (as growth in lab culture is not a "natural setting"). I suspect we can find a clear, concise way to explain this. For reference, here's the current language in the Investigations section: There are multiple proposed explanations for how SARS-CoV-2 was introduced into, and evolved adaptations suited to, the human population. There is significant evidence and agreement that the most likely original viral reservoir for SARS-CoV-2 is horseshoe bats, with the closest known viral relative being RaTG13. The evolutionary distance between SARS-CoV-2 and RaTG13 is estimated to be between 20 and 90 years, which each origin hypothesis attempts to explain in a different way. These scenarios continue to be investigated in order to identify the definitive origin of the virus. Better synchronizing these two paragraphs should be done. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:47, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm taking a stab at rewriting this, as we have two sentences in the lede which duplicate each other and depend mostly on older references. One thing I'm reconsidering from above is whether a lab leak would be considered zoonosis. The zoonosis article doesn't include lab culture, so I'm hesitant to make that connection now. So I think we need to go more with the 'emerged from an animal-borne virus' or similar. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:14, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Most sources say, without qualification, that COVID is either A) zoonotic or B) very likely zoonotic. We can alter the text to avoid the use of consensus if there are no sources which describe this as such (although many state "it is believed", "it is thought", ...), but we certainly shouldn't sacrifice the factual accuracy of the text because of that. A proper summary of the sources could be the sentence I proposed, "The vast majority of scientific research finds the current evidence supports a zoonotic virus that arose from bats in a natural setting." RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:24, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Take a look at the current wording. Room to improve, I'm sure, but I think it's an improvement from before. We could add a sentence to the first paragraph about "zoonosis as a natural setting", and with the period between it and the sentence about the consensus I think that avoids any confusion about what exactly is uncertain. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:29, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

How about simply removing this sentence: "The scientific consensus is that the virus descends from an animal-borne virus." It essentially repeats the sentence that follows ("SARS-CoV-2 has close genetic similarity to bat coronaviruses, suggesting it emerged from a bat-borne virus."), only with the more fraught wording of "the scientific consensus", and "animal-borne" versus "bat-borne" virus, which is more confusing to my ear. Stonkaments (talk) 15:53, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Strong disagree on changing the wording from "consensus." I think the sources are clear that it's a consensus. Even most of the scientists who wrote the letter to Science arguing for more investigation have admitted they believe zoonosis is the most likely scenario. We are betraying the reality and caving to non-RS if we remove the idea of consensus. There was a consensus early on, and it has not changed because there has been no new data.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:27, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Physiologically, there can no longer be a consensus since the pillars of zoonotic theory have fallen:

1) After 15 months and 80,000 animals tested, no intermediate host was found, SARS1 requested 4 months, MERS 9; 2) Ralph Baric admitted that himself could manipulate a virus with seamless technologies, not allowing anyone to verify if it is artificial; 3) With the last 3 doctoral theses of WIV students coming to light that demonstrate the presence in their archives of various unpublished sars-related backbones and their pioneering works with seamless technologies the same signatories of the letter for Science have revealed that they're no longer able to support natural theory with greater conviction; 4) The Science letter specifies that equal weight must be given to both hypotheses as long as there is no evidence to lean towards one or the other.

Francesco espo (talk) 00:51, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi there, first off this talk page is not the place for these discussions, it's the place for conversations about RS and what merits inclusion in the article. But since you so nicely numbered your points, I want to dispel some of the confusion. There are quite a few things you just said that are not true. I have a PhD in virology and have spent a great deal of time looking into those questions for academic and non academic purposes. But you don't have to listen to me, there are RS that back up my claims. For one, SARS1 took 1.5 years to find in civets and then a further 1 year until 2005 to connect to bats. Secondly, it took them much less time with MERS because the government of Saudia Arabia wanted much more to find the culprit animal so they could restore tourism to the country. They did a massive scale zoological review of every livestock animal, something China has not signaled any interest in doing. We need China to open its borders. But more to the point, there are two things that make the SARS1 and MERS situations distinct from SARS2:

A) Those two viruses have very high penetrance (meaning pretty much everybody who gets the virus gets sick)

B) Those two viruses had initial outbreaks with much lower case counts (which makes it easier to contact trace)

A and B make the epidemiological investigation process much easier. Makes it easier to trace to patient zero and find the suspect animal reservoir. Also worth saying that China hasn't allowed in international investigators to do that kind of sampling. As far as I can tell, no one is actually looking at the moment. Maybe internal Chinese scientists? But still very unclear. The way the Chinese government has locked down this work, and restricted the movements of Shi Zheng-li and other scientists in China, I doubt anyone is looking at the moment. Also worth saying it took 20-odd years to find Ebola (it should be quicker with SARS1) but experts absolutely have not said a natural reservoir should already have been found. That would be wild. Thirdly, I would love to see your sources on point 3, because I don't believe it is true from my knowledge of the subject. They may have had viruses in the freezer they hadn't published yet, but I have seen no evidence that they were conducting gain of function research on those viruses, such as manipulating backbones to make pandemic-potential viruses etc. That would be huge news, if so. Thirdly, several signatories of that letter have come out and said they do not believe equal weight should be given to the two possibilities, that they still believe the zoonotic theory is the most likely, but that they do think further investigation is warranted. I blame shoddy wording in that letter. But the authors do not believe what you've said they believe. To reiterate, this really is not the place for this discussion, but it grinds my gears to leave misinformation unanswered. --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:32, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Shibbolethink, FE’s point 3 is really two points, 1 which is that there were possible unpublished SARS-related backbones (Clade 7896), and 2 that they did pioneering work with some seamless technologies. These claims are not extraordinary, and are supported by primary and secondary sources, but there may be some WP:SYNTHESIS in putting them together, which he must be made aware of as a new editor. With the right sources, we can give them careful mention with WP:INTEXT attribution where they are WP:DUE, and I see that Bakkster Man has created a Sandbox for that [3].

You made a few good points worth discussing but before that, but please first reread the New York Times article you cited [4] and strike your comments saying several signatories of that letter have come out and said they do not believe equal weight should be given to the two possibilities and the authors do not believe what you've said they believe.. You should also reread the Science letter [5], as it clearly crititizes the WHO report in how the two theories were not given balanced consideration, concluding that We must take hypotheses about both natural and laboratory spillovers seriously until we have sufficient data. As the authors of the New York Times article say, the Science letter did not come down in favor of one scenario or another, and several of the signatories think it is more likely than not that SARS-CoV-2 emerged from an animal reservoir rather than a lab, which they correctly attribute as opinion, rather than fact. These scientists, regardless of their expert opinions, are making a stand for the scientific process, so I agree with CyberDiderot, that regardless of our WP:OPINIONs, we should adhere to WP:V and not proclaim a consensus where there isn’t one.

The only scientists who went back on their position were those who signed The Lancet letter proclaiming the lab leak hypothesis is a conspiracy theory [6], including the eminent lead signatory Charles H. Calisher [7], who it turns out wasn’t even the author and should not have been put as the lead [8] [9], and the renown Bernard Roizman, [10]. There is also W. Ian Lipkin, who didn’t sign The Lancet letter but is listed as a coauthor of the Andersen et al letter in Nature and he made his [new] position very clear in this Spanish language RS [11] and this nonn RS [12] which was covered by the aforementioned WSJ article. The Andersen letter is dated and has lost some support, so it carries less weight than the newer Science letter, which has garnered more support, and represents a shift in consensus. With that said, neither the Science letter nor the Nature later constitute a consensus statement on which origin hypothesis is more or less likely, and we shouldn’t cite them as such. Nor do any other sources, medical or otherwise, constitute a consensus statement on any particular origin hypothesis. The only consensus is that there is no consensus.

What we have here is a scientific controversy which has shaken the entire scientific community to its core [13]. I don’t think Wikipedia editors - even with our PHDs and MSs - should allow our POVs to get in the way of covering this topic with a NPOV. CutePeach (talk) 09:38, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

The only thing that latter showcases is that you should stop interpreting it, in this case not only because of the usual concerns with primary sources but also because both A) some of its signatories later clarified their stance (which, in either case, if you read the letter correctly) was never "lab leak likely" but rather "WHO investigation not thorough enough") and B) your interpretation of it is ostensibly wrong (see this in the Guardian, which says is explicitly; or this and this in Nature - which confirms what "most scientists" still think; or even the recent paper in Lancet Resp Med (cited elsewhere), which shows again that even new publications from after that letter still strongly favour a zoonotic origin. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 11:43, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

@CutePeach: You're conflating "balanced consideration" with "equal weight". The latter incorrectly presumes the request was not to "more thoroughly rule out the unlikely possibility". Bakkster Man (talk) 12:48, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

@CutePeach: What basis do you (or FE) have in saying that the Wuhan institute was doing pioneering work with some seamless technologies? Because I have seen no such evidence. And in particular, many people cite the "No see'm" technology as plausibly used in the virus, but this is not possible given the presence of the very restriction sites that necessarily would have to be absent for such technology to work. I have not seen any paper or evidence that WIV was experimenting with other "seamless" approaches to genetic engineering, or in fact that they were doing any genetic engineering of coronaviruses before the pandemic whatsoever. Please, if you have such evidence, I would love to see it.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:43, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: please put that Guardian article in the sandbox. There may also be articles from other sources with alternative POVs. We want to avoid source bias and WP:POVSOURCING.

@Bakkster Man: can you explain the context of your comment? Where did I conflate "balanced consideration" with "equal weight"?

@Shibbolethink: by pioneering work with seamless technologies, I was referring to PMID: 27170748, and I wasn’t referring to Golden Gate, Gibson Assembly or any other No See’m techniques, because we can’t possibly know what they were doing with the undisclosed viruses the WIV collected over the years. Talking of No See’m techniques, there are Sep 2020 statements from Baric to RAI [14], which were covered by multiple secondary sources that are more reliable than your Reddit post in the context of including what reputed scientists are saying. I don’t mean you any disrespect and I will try to read your Reddit post over the weekend to understand your POV, but we will still need to back it up with reliable sources, not all of which have to be medical. You can see the statements from DGG in this Arbitration thread to that effect [15], and I intend to place my vote soon in the RFC at WP:BMI on the application of MEDRS to this topic, calling for a new RFC in SARS-COV-2. I am in insider in the PH FDA, and I know a few details about the Dengvaxia controversy which are not in the press, and which could make for very significant changes to our article, but I just can’t do it. It's the same for the Ringworm affair and other controversies where science and politics are interwoven. CutePeach (talk) 15:50, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

@CutePeach: I think you'll find I haven't used my reddit post as citation anywhere on wikipedia in article space, as it is not an RS. I like it that way. It's an opinion piece, with lots of RSes linked throughout. But it is still an opinion piece. I also have never suggested it be used in this way. Where in the article you linked do you see any "pioneering work with seamless technologies?" I don't see anything of the kind in that article. Just typical run of the mill virological techniques that everyone was using in 2016. I see basic restriction enzyme cloning, introduction of mutations to avoid early termination, etc. They literally had to insert mutations to make it work in a unidirectional coding, how can that be described as "seamless?" They had to mutate it to insert cloning sites at the point where ligation occurs to make it work. That's a seam. That is something we would notice in the SARS-2 genome if anyone had tried to engineer SARS-2. We would notice unusual cloning sites in places they shouldn't be. And as far as I know, no one has found any such sites in the SARS-2 genome. This method could not have been used. As an aside, Golden Gate cloning is not pioneering. It was invented in 2008 and truly "perfected" in 2012, but it was "pioneered" in 1996. It also is not truly "seamless" (it has certain requirements that make it noticeable in these genomes). It is "quasi seamless" because it still has to be put in between two known restriction sites that are preserved in the process, and it incorporates the overhang sequences of the other plasmids used in the process. This would not work for SARS-CoV-2, and it is not a viable explanation for SARS-2's genome, because the areas that people point to as "engineered" (AKA the furin cleavage site) do not have the restriction sites in the proper locations necessary for such a technique to be used. It also does not have any of the "recognition sequences" we would see if such a technique was used. See this quick check I just did on the earliest known sequence of SARS-2. It only has two of the known Golden Gate enzymes anywhere near where they need to be, and they are in the wrong places. If you tried to use Golden Gate cloning on this, it would do two things that make this extremely difficult: A) chop up the genome into little bits, and B) not insert the intended gene fragment in the proper location. In fact, when a group of scientists used this technique to rebuild SARS-Cov-2 infectious clones from scratch, they had to use specific other plasmids which contained those sites. And it did not create the virus genome, it created pieces of the genome across many different plasmids. That's what you'd have to do. And it's why this technique could not be used to engineer SARS-2 in any way. As an aside, I also don't even see any gain of function work there (unless you consider inserting GFP a GOF worth mentioning, which would be kind of missing the point). Basically, in order for your suppositions here to be correct, you have to believe WIV was inventing whole new methods of genomic engineering, hid it from everyone, and used it to make really dangerous viruses without any oversight, whistleblowers, leakers, etc. That is a conspiracy theory. You're literally alleging that a conspiracy was conducted to perform dangerous research in secret.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:37, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink: I realise you didn’t suggest we use your Reddit post as a source. I do want to read it as I value your opinion and I want us to improve the level of dialogue here in general. I am a public health professional in a developing nation with over 1.2m cases so I will only have time to read it on the weekend. Thanks! CutePeach (talk) 18:13, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

@CutePeach: I appreciate your efforts to elevate the discussion here. And of course, your public health duties come first. Let me know if you have any questions about anything in that post, I'm happy to talk about it. It hasn't been updated to reflect the many new conspiracy theories being formed every day about genetic modification, but most of it holds true. You can trawl through my comment history for more up to date stuff if you're curious... Anyway, thanks for the dialogue and stay safe. I think it's important that we talk about these things in a rational and methodical way. As an aside, several of my closest med school friends have returned to the Philippines recently, and they are very concerned about the vaccination rate and which vaccines have been used. They of course are also concerned about Duterte's campaign to use SinoVac before it was approved by any international agencies. Overall a very unjust state of affairs, and my country is partly to blame. We bought up so many doses of the highest efficacy vaccines, which was truly an unjust move. I feel for every PH citizen (and Indian citizen, for sure) who has to die as a result.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:26, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

@CutePeach: can you explain the context of your comment? Where did I conflate "balanced consideration" with "equal weight"? I can. This is the chain of conversation I saw, with emphasis.

• Francesco espo 4) The Science letter specifies that equal weight must be given to both hypotheses as long as there is no evidence to lean towards one or the other.
• Shibbolethink Thirdly, several signatories of that letter have come out and said they do not believe equal weight should be given to the two possibilities, that they still believe the zoonotic theory is the most likely, but that they do think further investigation is warranted. I blame shoddy wording in that letter. But the authors do not believe what you've said they believe.
• CutePeach You made a few good points worth discussing but before that, but please first reread the New York Times article you cited and strike your comments saying several signatories of that letter have come out and said they do not believe equal weight should be given to the two possibilities and the authors do not believe what you've said they believe.. You should also reread the Science letter, as it clearly crititizes the WHO report in how the two theories were not given balanced consideration, concluding that We must take hypotheses about both natural and laboratory spillovers seriously until we have sufficient data.

Hope that clarifies why I interpreted the comment as conflating the two concepts, regarding 'what the Science letter's authors believe'. Perhaps it's more clear to state that We must take hypotheses about both natural and laboratory spillovers seriously is not the same as equal weight must be given to both hypotheses, nor is until we have sufficient data the same as there is no evidence to lean towards one or the other. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:35, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

@Bakkster Man: I understand you now. My remark to Shibbolethink still stands. Signatories saying they believe the "zoonotic theory" to be the most likely does not support Shibbolethink’s prior claim that they do not believe equal weight should be given to both origin theories in an investigation. There is minimal differentiation between equal weight, and balanced consideration, in the context of the subject of this page. If this page was named simply Origins of COVID-19, then I’d understand why you want to draw the distinction between them, but this page is called Investigations into the origins of COVI-19, and we shouldn’t be describing things the way we are. My comments are in line with other editors in this conversation and others, and we should neither be calling accidental natural origins "zoonotic theory", nor should we be proclaiming a consensus where there isn’t one. Genetically modified crops also have natural origins, and we know better than to confuse them with Heirloom plants. We need to improve the level of dialogue here with proper scientific terms. CutePeach (talk) 18:04, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Now seems like a good time to remind you, CutePeach that "scientific consensus" does not mean (A) "what most scientists think" it means (B) "what is most commonly referenced and written in the consensus of the relevant scientific literature." What most scientists in a relevant discipline think can help us determine B, but it is not a replacement for B. WP:NOLABLEAK has a metric ton of WP:MEDRS that show most virologists, when publishing in peer reviewed journals, write that the zoonotic theory is most likely. It's also supported by several society statements (from WHO, etc) and other consensus-gathering sources. Secondary sources like this recent nature article are clear, the lab leak is a minority view. And, also worth saying, that wp:SCICON is very clear about minority views. They should not be given equal weight, only proportional weight.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:11, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

The reminder that scientific consensus does not mean "what most scientists think" should be kept in mind by all editors of this page. Terjen (talk) 23:09, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

@CutePeach: Signatories saying they believe the "zoonotic theory" to be the most likely does not support Shibbolethink’s prior claim that they do not believe equal weight should be given to both origin theories in an investigation. This seems to be the root of the misunderstanding/miscommunication. I did not read Francesco espo's comment as referring to the investigations being given equal weight, he appeared to be suggesting the Science letter suggested the hypotheses themselves and their likelihood should be given equal weight (the "no evidence" comment notwithstanding). And those are two very different things, which Shibbolethink was trying to clarify: the Science letter's calls for a balanced, open, and thorough investigation are not the same as suggesting the lab origin hypothesis was equally likely. I'm certain the authors differ in their estimates of likelihood, hence why we shouldn't make assumptions.

Looking again at the Science letter, emphasis added: Furthermore, the two theories were not given balanced consideration. Only 4 of the 313 pages of the report and its annexes addressed the possibility of a laboratory accident. This seems to best sum up the intended meaning of 'balanced consideration', a more equal number of pages spent on the topic in the report. Maybe you read the original comment of "The Science letter specifies that equal weight must be given to both hypotheses as long as there is no evidence to lean towards one or the other" differently than I did, but I agree with Shibbolethink that these two statements are different enough so as to be misleading. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:53, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure it is accurate to say that the intermediate host was found within 4 months with SARS COV 1. Animals infected with the virus were found shortly after that virus began to spread, but an animal was not confirmed to be the host until years later. With respect to SARS-COV-2, a number of animals have been found that have been infected with the virus, but none of them have yet to be confirmed to be an intermediate host. Dhawk790 (talk) 01:27, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment It's true that the scientific consensus is still that SARS-CoV-2 has a natural origin, and RandomCanadian summed this up well:

This letter in the Lancet is more explicit, saying "Scientists from multiple countries have published and analysed genomes of the causative agent, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2),1 and they overwhelmingly conclude that this coronavirus originated in wildlife,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 as have so many other emerging pathogens.11,12"

That consensus is not dubious. -Darouet (talk) 04:59, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

While I agree this remains essentially the consensus (with the WHO report being the item that will be the primary determinant until something significant changes), it would be nice if we could find a more recent source similar to this one from March 2020. I don't want to stop citing this letter without a good replacement, but do find it potentially problematic because it appeared to be part of the chilling effect that limited the legitimate investigations and discussions on the topic. It's partly why, up until the WHO report was released, we made zero mention of the theory as anything but a conspiracy. So our view of the consensus has, at least, changed somewhat since this letter. So again, while I don't disagree with our conclusion on the mainstream view, a more recent source validating the view would be beneficial by being a cleaner, more recent reference. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:08, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• The Science letter specifies that equal weight must be given to both hypotheses as long as there is no evidence to lean towards one or the other. This is not what the letter says. There's a significant difference between there were no findings in clear support of either a natural spillover or a lab accident and "there's no evidence", and between balanced consideration and "equal weight". Particularly the latter, weight in investigation (including access to raw data) is different from wikipedia WP:DUE weight. The Science letter is calling for what we all want, more conclusive data on the topic. But that letter alone doesn't really change the way we can write about the topic given WP:V. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:08, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Bakkster Man, sorry if my paraphrasing is wrong, but i have to disagree with your reading of the Science letter. The letter says two theories were not given balanced consideration, which i have paraphrased to mean that both theories must be given equal weight in an investigation. The main point of the letter is to say that the WHO investigation is not credible if it cannot get an access to the data, and the WHO Mission chief said it was not even an investigation, yet this page is titled investigations. How do you propose that we cover the WHO investigation-not-an-investigation in Wikipedia? Is Wikipedia’ definition of DUE different to the standard English definition? Francesco espo (talk) 22:14, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, your paraphrase is wrong. The Science letter says that further investigation is required, and that the attention given to one theory was not sufficient, not that both theories must be given equal weight (that's wishful thinking). Given that some signatories of that letter came out later to say that while they support further investigations, they still agree that a zoonotic origin is most likely, and that their words have been misinterpreted by groups spreading misinformation, it's no surprise that we should treat this as a WP:PRIMARY source and give it very little weight overall, especially when we have better sources (review papers in prestigious journals) which say otherwise. After all, we follow, not lead, the consensus of sources. If that means we're out of date, that's fine, cause we are more concerned with verifiability rather than truth. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:57, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

There is no "scientific consensus" that the virus has zoonotic origin. This notion is patently false. The closest one could argue is that "preliminary conjecture has favored a zoonotic origin".

Most of what needs to be said in this discussion was all covered in CutePeach's first comment above. To add, beyond seamless techniques it's no secret whatsoever that Z Shi, Baric and their collaborators were well-versed in serial passaging. This is discussed in this article in Nature [16] in the methods section, the protocol being described here [17]. And yes these are primary sources, as is to be expected considering the circumstances. So indeed it's not at all difficult to imagine a scenario where human epithelial cell lines could have been used 'in vitro' to get a human-adapted SARS-like CoV to bind to ACE-2, be cleaved by human furin etc. This would have been in line with the other research being done by this group. It may be the less likely, but recognition of this possibility is certainly not "misinformation".KristinaLu (talk) 10:49, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

References

the current "Laboratory incident" section is crap

it says: "A final scenario is the introduction of the virus to humans through a laboratory incident. "A" final scenario? gain of function is one incident/scenario which needs its own clear discussion, and lab-leak is another incident/scenario which needs its own clear discussion, and both may have occurred, and that's not to mention considering military research or intentional release which should be discussed; saying "ruled out" should get a {by whom?} style critique. ... Deliberate bioengineering of the virus for release has been ruled out, with remaining investigations considering the possibility of a collected natural virus what happened to gain of function NOT for release? inadvertently infecting laboratory staff during the course of study." 2603:8001:9500:9E98:0:0:0:9A7 (talk) 07:17, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

You can help improve it. WP:BOLD. EyeTruth (talk) 00:20, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Except that this article is locked to non-registered editors. There is nothing to be bold about when long discussions on this talkpage with widely supported sources leads to nobody actually changing the main text. 2601:602:9200:1310:60E1:7F9E:14BC:FB2B (talk) 11:27, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

my comment above did that, unless you disagree or don't understand it, in which case you can help to improve this discussion 2603:8001:9500:9E98:0:0:0:9A7 (talk) 06:11, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

@2603:8001:9500:9E98:0:0:0:9A7: See relevant discussion above: Talk:Investigations into the origin of COVID-19#Later discussion Bakkster Man (talk) 13:13, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I am un-linking the WHO report from this section, since it is a primary source. It will remain in the citations.KristinaLu (talk) 11:56, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm curious why you think the report's description of what they evaluated is inappropriate for a section describing and delineating the theory being investigated from others? WP:PRIMARY seems to suggest that such a use here is reasonable, and more importantly if you were to challenge its use as a primary source I'd expect the challenge to be over the final evaluation instead of their description of 'we didn't consider these possibilities' (though one of the two excluded possibilities was based on another study, making it secondary for this decision). Bakkster Man (talk) 13:12, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Chinese government investigations

Our entry on the Chinese government here is mostly about false or misleading statements by Chinese officials. However, in China there have been multiple investigations into the virus, starting with the Chinese CDCs early investigation identifying the market as the source of the first major detected outbreak. More recently the Chinese government and Chinese scientists have been working with the WHO.

We should mention false statements etc. by Chinese officials, but our section on this topic should actually educate readers about what investigations the Chinese government has either launched or facilitated. Right now our article gives us little information on its ostensible topic. -Darouet (talk) 21:52, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree this section should be focused on proper investigation and leave the misinformation for that article. But that's all the more reason to keep the "see also:" link you removed. I reverted for that reason, and will look into wording of the section at a later time. Bakkster Man (talk) 21:57, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree on expanding the section of Chinese Investigations, the more information the better. Where are good places to look for that information (in English)? Forich (talk) 22:16, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Biden remarks at G7

As covered by NBC news, Biden said that we haven't had access to the Wuhan lab to conduct an investigation and we still don't know if COVID is a natural development or a lab leak. Shouldn't this be included in the article?[18] 73.120.83.182 (talk) 14:51, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

We already have Biden's opinion on this, from when he called for a new investigation. Should would we include every subsequent thing he's said about it? No, that would go against WP:WEIGHT. Our job is to include his opinion as much as it is relevant to the topic, as shown to us by the most reliable encyclopedic unbiased sources on the topic. And his opinion doesn't hold much weight in those, because it isn't a scientific statement or policy judgment. It represents no new fact-based information or evidence. It is simply a politician saying more of what he has said before. So we only include his position a little bit, when it is extremely news-worthy. We include only the most pertinent times he's said something about it, to represent all the things he's said about it. That's what an encyclopedia is: a summary. Not a warehouse.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:04, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

"We already have Biden's opinion on this, from when he called for a new investigation" it´s a new statement of the G7 - this is a little difference. --Empiricus (talk) 20:23, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

That's also not what the IP was proposing. This is more justifiable for inclusion imo. --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:39, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Statement by the G7, or by Biden while attending the G7? Reads like the latter. I think the bigger question is whether this should replace the previous Biden statement, whether it's actually substantively different from before (arguably, it's not much different than the WHO DG statement months ago: need direct access to know for sure), and how notable tracking every single statement on the topic is. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:43, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

No I think ES is right, this was a joint statement of the G7. This is distinct from what the IP was saying. I added a line in the International politicians' calls for investigations section to reflect. I would argue the G7 is significant enough to put here, although we may want to consider condensing this with the other calls for investigation in that section. i.e. maybe we should put which countries are in the G7, and then remove the individual statements from those countries (Canada, Germany, UK).--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:48, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

See also

I think our SA section needs a little work here. Right now it only has World Health Organization's response to the COVID-19 pandemic. There's definitely more than just that one article that is relevant enough for See also. The relevant guideline is MOS:SEEALSO.

I propose adding the following:

• Zoonosis
• Laboratory-acquired infection

Thoughts? It's an accurate representation of the content of this article to include both, even if I personally think one is less likely than the other.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:00, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I also think adding COVID-19 misinformation would be appropriate, although I understand that may be more contentious. I say this because even if you believe the Lab leak theory is not misinformation, you'd be hard pressed to say that NO misinformation related to the origin has been circulating (videos of people eating bats, conspiracy theories about bioweapons, etc.)--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:04, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I'd agree only with Zoonosis. Let me also propose Emerging_infectious_disease. Forich (talk) 23:28, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Daszak in lede

@Ali mjr: Please note WP:BRD. The addition may violate BLP policies and certainly has NPOV issues. You don't seem to understand what WP:Consensus is either. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:57, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Diff: [19] User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:58, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

The editor trying to add that content to the lede was blocked for edit-warring after removing this section of the talk page. If nobody else is willing to defend these content (which I considered removing as an egregious BLP violation), I will assume there is consensus against that addition. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:51, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Investigations into the origin of COVID-19

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Investigations into the origin of COVID-19's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "who":

• From Immunity passport: ""Immunity passports" in the context of COVID-19". World Health Organization. April 24, 2020. Retrieved May 1, 2020.
• From Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on science and technology: "UN health chief announces global 'solidarity trial' to jumpstart search for COVID-19 treatment". United Nations, World Health Organization. 18 March 2020. Retrieved 2 April 2020.
• From Zoom (software): Vigliarolo, Brandon (April 9, 2020). "Who has banned Zoom? Google, NASA, and more". techPresident. Archived from the original on April 13, 2020. Retrieved April 14, 2020.
• From Covivac (Vietnam COVID-19 vaccine): "Draft landscape and tracker of COVID-19 candidate vaccines". WHO. 30 March 2021.
• From Sotiris Tsiodras: "Κορωνοϊός: Ποιος είναι ο λοιμωξιολόγος Σωτήρης Τσιόδρας που κέρδισε την εμπιστοσύνη των Ελλήνων" [Coronavirus: Who is the Greek infectiologist who has won the trust of Greeks]. I Efimerida (in Greek). Athens. 6 April 2020. Retrieved 11 April 2020.
• From Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on healthcare workers: "How to protect health workers now: WHO Hay COVID-19 briefing". World Economic Forum. Retrieved 13 May 2020.
• From COVID-19 in pregnancy: "Q&A on COVID-19, pregnancy, childbirth and breastfeeding". www.who.int. Retrieved 6 April 2020.
• From Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in Mexico: "México, en Fase 2 de pandemia por Coronavirus: OMS". Forbes México (in Spanish). March 23, 2020.
• From COVID-19 vaccination in Sri Lanka: "First batch of COVID-19 vaccines from the COVAX Facility arrive in Sri Lanka". who.int. Retrieved 2 June 2021.
• From Nanocovax: "Draft landscape and tracker of COVID-19 candidate vaccines". WHO. 26 February 2021.
• From UN COVID-19 Supply Chain Task Force: "WHO Director-General's opening remarks at the media briefing on COVID-19 - 10 April 2020". www.who.int.
• From COVID-19 vaccine: "Draft landscape and tracker of COVID-19 candidate vaccines". World Health Organization (WHO). 26 February 2021.
• From COVID-19 vaccination in Vietnam: "Draft landscape and tracker of COVID-19 candidate vaccines". WHO. 26 February 2021.
• From List of unproven methods against COVID-19: "Falsified medical products, including in vitro diagnostics, that claim to prevent, detect, treat or cure COVID-19" (PDF). World Health Organization. Archived from the original (PDF) on 6 April 2020. Retrieved 3 April 2020.
• From Cluster 5: "WHO | SARS-CoV-2 mink-associated variant strain – Denmark". WHO. Retrieved 6 November 2020.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 10:15, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Pointy edits re: Lab leak

@Forich: I left a warning on your talk page. This edit was WP:POINTY, and that's not appropriate. I'd expect you're aware of this, given your comments on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Normchou. Bakkster Man (talk) 21:24, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I received your message and responded there. I inmediately went to revert the edit as soon as I became aware of it violating WP:Pointy but it was already reverted. Thanks for this second notice. Forich (talk) 21:53, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Related discussion at WP:MFD

See Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion#Draft:China_COVID-19_cover-up Adoring nanny (talk) 22:27, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Delete sections transcluded from Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2

Our entry is growing in size. I suggest we delete the two sections transcluded from the Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 entry, integrating the few paragraphs related to the origin of the virus: 1. Reservoir and origin 2. Phylogenetics and taxonomy Terjen (talk) 22:39, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Two concerns, and an alternate proposal. First is that this page isn't that big relatively speaking. Second is that duplicating content makes it harder to maintain (which is why we transclude in the first place), and makes the text on this page larger.

The good news is we can shrink how much we transclude, without deleting it. The Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2#Phylogenetics and taxonomy already excludes the final two paragraphs (and all the sub-headings) in the transclusion. If there's a place we agree that the transclusion for each section can be trimmed back, we can do that relatively easily. How much are you suggesting we trim? I'm only seeing the last two Phylogenetics and taxonomy paragraphs that would make sense to remove. Maybe the graphics as well? Bakkster Man (talk) 23:37, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

When it comes to integrating the few paragraphs related to the origin of the virus, I don't favor keeping the content in sync between the two pages, but cutting the cord so that each evolves independently, eliminating the maintenance concern. Terjen (talk) 23:46, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Evolving independently means more maintenance (not less), and potentially a less coherent encyclopedia. The SARS-CoV-2 page would continue to maintain their sections, and now this page also needs to maintain a similar section. Bakkster Man (talk) 00:52, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Is any of the content from the Phylogenetics and taxonomy section really essential for a discussion of the origin of COVID? It seems like the whole section can be skipped, so readers can get to the meat of the entry. We're already linking to the Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 page. Terjen (talk) 23:57, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I'd argue that the first three paragraphs (sans image) give some solid context into understanding the origin investigations (even though we don't yet cover the FCS/ACE2 info here). But I'm interested in hearing what others have to say. Bakkster Man (talk) 00:52, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

The origins of COVID are both a scientific and a political issue. Investigations are particularly a political one. Maybe cutting down the amount transcluded would be okay (also in line with WP:SUMMARY); but I don't think removing it entirely does any good. Some scientific matters (FCS/ACE/...) are particularly relevant to the controversy, and readers should be able to have the whole context here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:01, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

The default position should be keeping this material - readers come here seeking to learn the origin of the virus. The worst thing we could do with this article is begin removing the results of scientific investigations into SARS-CoV-2. -Darouet (talk) 07:33, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

We're not talking about deleting material from Wikipedia. You can find exactly the same content at Severe_acute_respiratory_syndrome_coronavirus_2#Reservoir and origin and Severe_acute_respiratory_syndrome_coronavirus_2#Phylogenetics and taxonomy. It's just transcluded here, but could just as well be linked. Terjen (talk) 07:48, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

It’s transcluded so people can read it. And your posts below show that you don’t understand the material you want to remove from this article. -Darouet (talk) 08:06, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

In light of the curse of knowledge consider the readers we may expect coming to the page curious about the origin of the virus, many of them non-scientists. I doubt most of them will get much out of the phylogenetics and taxonomy section. They shouldn't be expected to learn that SARS‑CoV‑2 is a member of the subgenus Sarbecovirus (beta-CoV lineage B); Having an RNA sequence approximately 30,000 bases in length; or that its furin protease recognizes the canonical peptide sequence RX[R/K]R↓X where the cleavage site is indicated by a down arrow and X is any amino acid. Terjen (talk) 00:39, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

That can be fixed with judicious use of noinclude or includeonly tags. Although the genetic lineage of the virus (it being in the same subgenus as SARS-CoV, and in the same lineage as MERS) is a relevant piece of information, me thinks. But the specifics can be worked out with more detail either through a discussion over at SARS-CoV-2 or via the regular editing process. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:51, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I think a case can be made that the subgenus and stuff are only relevant here if we're presenting information about the origin relative to them. Which, at this time, would basically just be to debunk lab origin theories that aren't currently mentioned. But yeah, just more use of the noinclude tags. Bakkster Man (talk) 01:07, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

The scientists have spoken, the pandemic was not a lab accident, an accident made possible by scientists (gain of function is the scientific jargon for such research), because if that was the case how could then the ignorant populations rely on science to get over the pandemic? unsigned comment by 141.255.1.145

• Agree with Terjen’s proposal to remove the transclusion of sections from SARS-COV-2 as it gives the appearance that the scientific investigations have resulted in a scientific consensus on all aspects of the origins of the virus, which is not the case. CutePeach (talk) 05:34, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Not my reason for proposing deleting these sections. Besides, the Phylogenetics and taxonomy section doesn't give any obvious appearance of a scientific consensus on origin. Terjen (talk) 05:52, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Understood. Agree that Phylogenetics and taxonomy are okay. I was referring to the other aspects, and the previous "scientific consensus" title, which was misleading. CutePeach (talk) 23:50, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Although, to be clear about my position: People that come here to learn about the origins of SARS-Cov-2 shouldn't be fed an off-topic review of what research has revealed about the phylogenetics and taxonomy of the virus. Terjen (talk) 03:13, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Phylogenetics and taxonomy are the study of the origins of species in biology. That is exactly what people are coming here for. -Darouet (talk) 07:29, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Not really, it's already covered on the Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 page. Terjen (talk) 07:53, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Not really? What are phylogenetics and taxonomy if not origin? -Darouet (talk) 08:06, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - I strongly oppose reducing transcluded materials. Before those sections were transcluded, this article was just a place to host conspiracies about biological warfare. By adding those sections, people who come here wanting to learn about the origins of SARS-Cov-2 (I think it’s safe to say that’s most readers here) learn what scientific investigations into the virus origins have revealed so far. That’s the greatest service this article can provide.

There are further reasons to keep the transclusions in full. Those transcluded sections are carefully written by many editors and are effectively the strongest and best supported text and material in this article.

Furthermore, this one particular Wikipedia page, more than any other, comes the closest to giving credence to conspiracy theories about the virus’ origins. This article has been the target of nonstop IP and sock puppet editing. By removing transcluded text we’re just sliding this article further away from scientific knowledge of the origins of this virus.

We need to keep these transcluded sections. -Darouet (talk) 01:55, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

• I agree with colleagues Bakkster Man and Darouet. WP:AINTBROKE. Ain92 (talk) 10:34, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

@Ain92: please can you explain your reasoning based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines? CutePeach (talk) 13:20, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

• Eh, I believe there's no evidence of transcluding relevant content from another article being a problem, what is not clear to you? Ain92 (talk) 14:57, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support keeping these sections per Darouet, Bakkster Man, and Ain92. They provide valuable context to this article and are duly weighted and positioned. I explicitly oppose putting any such section at the top of the article, where it would have undue weight per WP:RSUW and its parent PAG, WP:NPOV.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:37, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Revert on added WSJ article to lab leak section

@Shibbolethink just because it is mentioned earlier do you think it does not belong in the section about the lab leak theory? The "why?" section of your profile shows you hold strong personal beliefs against this theory. Can we trust you to be WP:NPOV in your editing? As a virologist defending other virologists of wrong-doing, you have a possible WP:COI. Wqwt (talk) 21:34, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

As to this ad hominem attack, my "POV" is that we should trust the scientific consensus. Which, in this case, is that the lab leak theory is unlikely. If that consensus changes, my "POV" very likely will as well, because such a change will likely only occur in the face of very convincing new evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Ask basically any academically-trained virologist, and they will say something similar. Does that mean we don't want people who know things about viruses to edit on Wikipedia? Wikipedia has a bias for science-based facts. I would urge you, in the future, to assume good faith and avoid personal attacks like this.

It is not just that it is mentioned elsewhere, it is mostly an issue of WP:WEIGHT. We must give due weight (not equal weight) to these theories based upon the amount of coverage in secondary peer-reviewed sources in the scientific literature. In this case, the Wall Street Journal does not have expertise in science and they are not experts on this topic. The relevant experts almost unanimously agree that the lab leak is possible, but extremely unlikely. So we give one mention of the WSJ evidence in this article, but give more coverage to content from peer-reviewed sources. This is as it should be, given WP:WEIGHT.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:52, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink: I removed this on the other article, so let's chime in here to avoid duplicate discussions. The claim that scientists have a COI is blatantly WP:FLAT and needs no further entertainment (see here). And, yes, we are biased towards science. See WP:Academic bias and then look up WP:BESTSOURCES and WP:SCHOLARSHIP for why the WaPo and the WSJ are not suitable sources for scientific topics. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:54, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

This is not my argument. See my reply to Novem Linguae below. Wqwt (talk) 03:51, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

So do you discount the WSJ article on a US intelligence investigation because it is not a scientific outlet? It does not make sense to expect a scientific outlet to break the news on a US intelligence investigation. Wqwt (talk) 04:02, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Wqwt. This argument seems weak when expanded to its natural conclusion. Should virologists stop editing articles on viruses? Should historians stop editing articles on history? Arguing that a person's profession gives them COI for the entire topic is too strict an interpretation of COI. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:45, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I did not say virologists have COI on editing about viruses, I said they may have COI when editing articles concerning investigations into fellow virologists, the kind that would be damaging to their whole profession (which is not that populous to begin with). This is not specific to the profession: I would be similarly mindful of COI of lawyers editing investigations into fellow lawyers, or historians editing investigations into fellow historians. Wqwt (talk) 03:50, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

If you have a problem with my editing in this or other related articles, why don't you bring it up to the appropriate noticeboard? I have nothing to hide. But let me tell you the thing that has always been said to me any time I thought about escalating my policy disputes... Be careful it does not WP:BACKFIRE.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 04:16, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I see the "threatening Wikipedia:BOOMERANG" "advice" is still well and alive. Wqwt (talk) 05:29, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Wqwt, I am another editor that thinks this COI argument is nonsense, and that if it weren't, this isn't the appropriate venue to discuss it. If you feel you have points about the WSJ content discussion that haven't been addressed, you may want to start again below with less conduct dispute mixed in. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:47, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Wqwt, what I would like to communicate to you, in the most civil possible terms, is that I appreciate your passion to change this article to what you believe to be a NPOV.

However, I also want to be clear that a pattern of casting WP:ASPERSIONS without evidence, or the more particular case of any user who displays a pattern of casting WP:ASPERSIONS without intending to follow through on any actual substantive evidence-based process, is on the wrong side of wiki policy. The most relevant policy I would cite to you is this: (1) COI accusations are not a trump card that can be used to WP:WIN arguments, and (2) Wiki has clear and rational guidelines on how to cite yourself if you're an expert on a topic. Why would that exist if it were an obvious COI to be an expert editing articles about topics in your area of expertise?

I'm an expert on high-level biosafety work conducted on highly pathogenic viruses, editing articles about the same. Also relevant to say that while my PhD was earned studying high-level biocontainment virology, my current area of research is brain tumors, and how we can use low-level biocontainment viruses to treat/cure them. So very unclear to me how editing these articles in the way I have been could provide me any financial or professional gain, except in an extremely roundabout and indirect way that would be far too broad to be fair. I have cited a paper I authored once in the section on ADE in COVID-19 misinformation, that's the only instance in recent memory I've been able to do that. But my PhD was 1/3 about ADE, and the paper is extremely relevant to its cited sentence, so I don't believe that was inappropriate in any way. As always, I am welcome to evidence-based and policy-relevant criticism.

Now, do I have any reason to believe that you, in particular, have a pattern of the aforementioned WP:ASPERSIONS behavior? No. Only this one instance, and you very well could go through the ropes and stake a claim at COIN. Frankly, I hope you do, because I personally believe it would clear me of any wrongdoing and I'd be able to cite that COIN entry in any future instances.

However, all in all, my friendly suggestion to you is to avoid the trouble, take this as a lesson in civility, and start over on the clean slate we're offering. You are very much welcome to make a policy-based, content-relevant argument, and I promise you I will examine it on its merits.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:05, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Fine. I will take your word for WP:WEIGHT and not having COI. Let's leave it at that. Wqwt (talk) 00:17, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

• Wqwt I too was concerned about Shibbolethink flashing his PHD around when he first joined this discussion, but I’ve come to realise he’s a good editor and we can work together. The WSJ article may be considered WP:UNDUE fo the section you put it in, but it can go in a new Media Coverage section under development in Bakkster Man’s sandbox [20], or it can go into Dream_Focus draft on a COVID-19 lab origins hypothesis [21], which I would suggest should be renamed to COVID-19 lab origins controversy, similar to other medical/political scandals like Dengvaxia controversy and Ringworm affair. CutePeach (talk) 14:36, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

  "Controversy" is usually a shit title for almost everything, and would also unhelpfully limit the scope (there is far more than just "controversy"), and I don't see why you would want to make it specifically about the political-but-non-scientific mainstream theory (it is hard to justify making such an article unless it is specifically to put a non-mainstream view into context because it could not be covered in enough details at the parent article - compare with Moon landing and Moon landing conspiracy theories) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:44, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

• Since it was mentioned, the link to my draft is User:Dream Focus/Draft:Covid-19 lab leak theory. I didn't think there was enough valid information yet to make an article for it. Listing every thing mentioned in multiple reliable sources, and the reasons why some believe it, and a counter argument, I think could make a good article. Dream Focus 15:10, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

@Dream Focus: I saw comments from editors Goszei and 力 in support of a page, but I think it should be a collaborative effort. I saw some mistakes in your draft which would become the focus of a deletion discussion instead of the main subject. Is it okay for others to edit your draft? CutePeach (talk) 12:41, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Of course. We should all work together to get the article ready for main space. Dream Focus 13:07, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Background reading regarding potential zoonotic spillover

A few papers I've come across. I want to help improve the article. Let me know if the below is usable. I'll post some notes.

Here's what I found:

2019 (notably, before first COVID-19 cases were reported): "Human-animal interactions and bat coronavirus spillover potential among rural residents in Southern China"

They surveyed many residents in rural China, and found that nine (0.6%) of them tested positive for bat coronaviruses (among other signs of apparent spillover such as SARS-like symptoms). They also examined how frequently residents were coming into contact with various animals, including bats. 8 out of 9 of those who tested positive for such viruses were working in crop production, i.e. farming. This background information may be helpful to understand what sort of environment that SARS-CoV-2 probably crossed over from, or at least other novel viruses related to it.

A 2020 paper cited the above. It included two of the same researchers.

2020: "A strategy to prevent future epidemics similar to the 2019-nCoV outbreak"

2021: Timing the SARS-CoV-2 index case in Hubei province

For that I'll just leave a choice quote:

Our results highlight the unpredictable dynamics that characterized the earliest days of the COVID-19 pandemic. The successful establishment of SARS-CoV-2 postzoonosis was far from certain, as more than two-thirds of simulated epidemics quickly went extinct. It is highly probable that SARS-CoV-2 was circulating in Hubei province at low levels in November 2019 and possibly as early as October 2019, but not earlier. Nonetheless, the inferred prevalence of this virus was too low to permit its discovery and characterization for weeks or months. By the time that COVID-19 was first identified, the virus had firmly established itself in Wuhan. This delay highlights the difficulty in surveillance for novel zoonotic pathogens with high transmissibility and moderate mortality rates.

The high extinction rates we inferred suggest that spillover of SARS-CoV-2like viruses may be frequent, even if pandemics are rare. Furthermore, the same dynamics that characterized the establishment of SARS-CoV-2 in Hubei province may have played out all over the world, as the virus was repeatedly introduced but only occasionally took hold. The reports of cases in December 2019 and January 2020 in France and California that did not establish sustained transmission fit this pattern.

If none of the above is suitable to improve the page, I hope I've at least introduced editors to some interesting information concerning the origins, or maybe invited somebody to point me somewhere better for it... good day. --Chillabit (talk) 21:16, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Please propose a specific phrase to be added, the quote you provide is too long. It could also pose a problem since it seems to be primary source instead of a review. Forich (talk) 19:32, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Fanatically shoving the zoonotic origin as if it is the forgone scientific consensus

Pretty much the above subtitle. This WP article does exactly what WP articles shouldn't do. As it stands, this article deserves an Outdated template until it has been cleaned up. EyeTruth (talk) 00:34, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

You're free to take a look at the talk page archives and see that this has already been discussed a few times. You're also free to take a look at what high-quality sources (also other good sources not included there: [22]; [23]) are saying about this. You're also free to look for such similar sources so that the content can be updated if necessary. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:49, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not here to argue whether it was a lab leak or not. WP should reflect the scientific consensus. If institutions are calling for investigations into the lab leak theory, then WP should reflect that ambiguity. The zoonotic origin is currently not a forgone conclusion, even though it's widely accepted as the more likely. There are ongoing investigations. There are enough bread crumbles for the lab leak theory to be a valid line of inquiry, regardless of whatever really happened. The article should reflect that ambiguity in its lede. This recent Nature article sums it up nicely: although the current evidence are iffy, they are enough to motivate serious inquiry. Also, the link you provided is just a whole lot of primary sources (or is that the preferred in this corner of WP?). On a side note, please leave my subtitle be, and I've shortened it. EyeTruth (talk) 01:35, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

The link is a list of secondary, review papers in academic journals. See WP:SCHOLARSHIP "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a paper reviewing existing research, a review article, [...]". The Nature article I've already linked to (if you didn't notice), and what it does say is "Most scientists say SARS-CoV-2 probably has a natural origin, and was transmitted from an animal to humans." (before going in more detail on this) - sounds like a consensus to me. It then goes on to describe some of the common lab leak arguments and provides balanced scientific thinking on the matter. In short, as the article is saying, the lab leak is "possible but unsubstantiated and unlikely". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:43, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't become scientific consensus just by most scientists having an opinion. Scientific consensus is predicated on evidence, which so far is lacking. We should wait for the scientists to declare a consensus, rather than base it on our own analysis. Terjen (talk) 22:52, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Let's not duplicate the discussion with the previous thread about consensus. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:32, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

No need to go down that path. Just avoid opinionating that "Most scientists say" sounds like a consensus to you. Terjen (talk) 00:03, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I think the article is clear from the beginning that zoonotic origin is not a foregone conclusion. Are there parts of the article I missed that state it as inescapable fact? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:34, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Brilliantly said. There are now so many scientists - Fauci, Rees, Redfield and many others - who agree on the possibility of a lab leak. On the other hand this wiki seems to be still stuck in 2020, because a handful of holdout editors still keep the lab leak scenario portrayed as unlikely. 183.83.147.38 (talk) 10:29, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Where does Fauci say the lab leak theory is anything but "possible, but unlikely" ? I have seen no such statement. And that is the stance we portray in this article.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:08, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Guys don't bother fighting wikiactivists here. Giving them primary scientific sources are not enough for them to bother updating this article from the conflict-of-interest driven narrative. You aren't going to change anybody's of these activists opinions if they can't even be bothered to read Nature articles directly on this subject. 2601:602:9200:1310:60E1:7F9E:14BC:FB2B (talk) 11:26, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Talk page warning issued to 2601:602:9200:1310:60E1:7F9E:14BC:FB2B for the above comment. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:55, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

That the scientific community does not have a consensus is evident by the explicit statements of the leading scientists in their Nature letter. There is a confusion that is used by promoters of the zoonotic origin, in using secondary sources that state a scientific consensus. The problem there is identifying "a consensus". Is the consensus a matter of self-declaration (i.e. the Nature letter), or is the consensus a majority vote on publications. For the latter, an apple to apple comparison is not possible, because it is hard to believe within limits of human intelligence that scientists could write articles proving a lab leak without an investigation on site. All the mess is caused from the now-debunked original paper by Andersen et al. which prematurely supported a zoonotic origin with rather "childish" assumptions of the type "if the virus would have engineered than it MUST have been engineered this way". The others reasonable scientists who apparently had questions were marginalized in expressing their feelings under the fear of being framed as racists. As a result, we see a pattern, on one hand the zoonotic promoters publishing and creating a premature hypothesis which has serious gaps, while the other majority of serious scientists raising questions, yet not publishing papers supporting a leak given no investigation and data. In my assessment, the second is the right scientific stance: you do not publish conclusions without data based on vague assumptions as Andersen et al., or the WHO report with a COI authorship. WP is stuck in between, supporting the premature zoonotic conclusion, and blindly rejecting any reasonable voices that claim the leak to be a viable hypothesis. It might end up being incorrect, but at the moment is a viable hypothesis. It is not a discredited fringe theory by no standard and very serious people (top scientists at the Nature letter) are calling it a hypothesis. Few WP editors can continue to push for the article to be in the current state of misery with regards to the equal treatment of the matter, but I think that is changing. (Redacted) Intelligible.Machine (talk) 22:42, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

"Viable" or "possible" does not mean "likely". Your characterisations are obviously and quite clearly deliberately economical with the truth, and you obviously haven't read the article, since nowhere does it say the lab leak is impossible. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:18, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Viable means likely by all definitions. Notice the term likely is not a synonym for a probability higher than 0.5. The current article does not treat the lab leak as a viable/likely hypothesis, instead clearly implies that hypotheses outside the zoonotic one are fringe conspiracies, see first paragraph. The truth is that although a large number of scientists "firmly assume" a zoonotic origin to be likely, there are yet no scientific evidences clearly proving it. That is echoed by the Science magazine letter (cited above) by the leading coronavirus scientists that supports a lab leak as a viable hypothesis in a direct and unambigous manner. Why would the best scientists support the likelihood of a lab leak hypothesis if a scientific consensus (or evidences) was as clear as the WP article implies? Another issue arises when WP editors, who in 2020 expressed opinions in calling a lab leak a fringe and discredited theory with conspiracy links, resist in 2021 to accept the leak as viable. I believe the dilemma is: scientific consensus vs. editor consensus for interpreting a dynamically-paced stream of reliable sources which are quickly diverting from the original "firm assumptions" on a zoonotic origin. Unless editors unite in rejecting a characterization of the lab leak as a conspiracy, and alter the article accordingly, I suspect the objections at the talk page will steadily increase. Intelligible.Machine (talk) 22:04, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Whatever "viable" means, there are plenty of (secondary, peer-reviewed) sources (as opposed to primary opinion letters) which attest to scientists (even Fauci et al., despite cherrypicking to the contrary) saying it's unlikely, so we have no reason to start looking for dictionary definitions. Again, where in the article does it say that a lab leak is a conspiracy theory? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:52, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

We should stop treating the lab leak as a conspiracy theory. It has been called a viable hypothesis by many prominent scientists (Science letter and Anthony Fauci the most notable) and is being taken seriously by many government agencies and the WHO. At this point, those that keep trying to call is a conspiracy theory blatantly have an agenda. You, RandomCanadian, have kept calling it a conspiracy theory many times.Eccekevin (talk) 00:41, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Where did I call the particular "accidental lab leak of a natural virus" a conspiracy theory? Where in the article is it being described as such? We should treat it as a "plausible but currently unaccepted theory". If you keep insisting that the article says its a conspiracy theory, without being able to substantiate this, I'll have a hard time believing that there's an actual problem. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:47, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

My recent change from "consensus among virologists" echoes the Nature article quite nicely. "Most scientists say SARS-CoV-2 probably has a natural origin" is what Nature said. My recent change used the phrase "most virologists". Nature used the word "most", not "consensus". We shouldn't exaggerate what they said. Adoring nanny (talk) 17:20, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I truly do think that is a fine change, that's why I reinstated it. To me, the difference between these two versions of that clause is so narrow that it is meaningless, but I understand that it means something to you, and that's why I restored. Wiki consensus is about compromise, and especially where one side thinks it doesn't really matter, and the other side thinks it matters a lot, I think compromise makes sense. Of course we can only get to a consensus/compromise if everybody's willing to discuss!--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:43, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Rename into "Investigations into the origin of SARS-CoV-2"

The current label is not correct, because the article is not about the origin of the disease (COVID-19), but about the origin of the virus SAR-CoV-2. It is also not about the etiology of COVID-19, but about the genesis of SARS-CoV-2. The article should sail under the correct flag. What are the opinions here ?--Empiricus (talk) 19:54, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Agree with this fully, thanks Empiricus. -Darouet (talk) 20:03, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I propose "Investigations into the origin of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19" to include the fact that the origin of the initial outbreak of COVID-19 in Wuhan is also a significant component of what a reader associates with the origin. Forich (talk) 21:27, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't think any change is necessary, both for consistency with the main article (COVID-19 pandemic) and for the fact that this isn't really a necessary improvement (the current title is both unambiguous, naturally flowing English, precise, and concise. See WP:CRITERIA and also bear in mind the well known "if it ain't broken don't fix it". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:50, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi RandomCanadian - unless the scope of this article changes, I think we’re going to have to change the title, either now, or eventually. The reason is that, simply put, this article is about the origin of the virus, not the disease. Of course those two things are closely linked, but they’re also very different. The origin of the disease, specifically, would be a discussion of pathophysiology and epidemiology. -Darouet (talk) 21:32, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

"into the origins of the' COVID-19 pandemic" is all the change that's truly constructive if you really insist, although it's not actually necessary because the title as is is clear enough, and long enough too. The suggested solution is one to a non-existent problem. I don't think any reader would be surprised to find the information about this under the current title. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:12, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I prefer the current title. SARS-CoV-2 is not as succinct as COVID-19. A reader looking for this article is unlikely to type that and is not as likely to know what that is. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:18, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose name change, I think the current title is applicable since it's the most encyclopedic summary of the contents of the article. Would it be one iota more accurate scientifically if we used the proposed wording? Yes, but at the loss of many many readers. To me, keeping the current title is pragmatism. And my experience of science and naming conventions in the viral taxonomy usually involves a lot of pragmatism. Let's keep that tradition alive!--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:45, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Recent news (06/06/2021) worth considering?

FWIW - seems recent news (06/06/2021) may be worth considering - and may help improve the article by better supporting (or otherwise) some of the current content in the main article - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 22:59, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Please explain the improvement you think this opinion piece would make (especially since it's behind a paywall), and then provide a reliable source we could actually cite. Bakkster Man (talk) 01:01, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@Bakkster Man: (and others) - Thank you for your comment - and suggestion - seems the article supports text in the main article concerning gain of function studies (ie, "intentionally supercharging viruses to increase lethality", in the words of the WSJ article) conducted by virologists at the Wuhan Virology Laboratories - apparently - a consequence of this genetic manipulation is a unique genetic sequence (ie, a "rare double CGG" segment that is not known to occur naturally) - according to the WSJ article, this genetic sequence appears in the February 2020 research papers published by virologists from the Wuhan Laboratory, detailing the genome of the coronavirus, but not clearly noted - afterwards - this genetic sequence was discovered in the published research of the Wuhan virologists by other virologists who have published their observations - seems this news information supports the "lab-leak" notion - whether this information can be used in the main article may be another matter - after all - the WSJ is behind a paywall, and is not WP:MEDRS - hope this helps in some way - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 02:26, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Why we would want to source this red-flag claim to the WSJ when we have far better scientific sources which say time and time again how there is no evidence of laboratory manipulation is beyond me. The scientific sources take precedence per WP:SCHOLARSHIP and/or MEDRS. Ex. of a relatively recent one which specifically addresses this claim [24]: "Some linked the presence of the least preferred CGG codons in the SRAS-CoV-2 furin cleavage sites as a “proof” of engineering. A codon being least preferred does not mean it should never exist and this CGG codon present in SARS-CoV-2 is for instance present at a higher rate in MERS-CoV. The lower presence of CpG (intrachain Cytosine-Guanosine dinucleotide linked by a phosphate bond) in human pathogens has been shown to be a selective process. [...]" RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:56, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you *very much* for all the comments, including the cited reference (new to me, and very interesting of course) - they're *greatly* appreciated - no problem whatsoever - Thanks again - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 11:25, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

The linked opinion piece [25] is a litany of conspiracy theories that might be publishable in the opinion section of a newspaper, but never in a scientific journal article. Drbogdan, please only bring higher-quality sources for discussion here. -Darouet (talk) 15:29, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@Darouet: - Thank you for your comments - Yes - I fully understand your point - and *entirely* agree with you in this day, time and purpose of course - nonetheless - being open-minded to some extent may be worthy at times - I'm reminded of the classic example that may have turned the notion on its head - some years ago, thousands (maybe millions) wrongly believed the sun revolved around the Earth, based on the official "higher-quality" sources of the day afaik - seems only a very few, in unofficial "lesser quality" sources, correctly thought otherwise - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 16:45, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

@Drbogdan: Wikipedia is not a [[WP:CRYSTALBALL]. Stop trying to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Bakkster Man (talk) 01:39, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

@Bakkster Man: Thank you for your comments - Yes - I *entirely* agree with the points you may be suggesting as well - your suggested points, however, were not my original intentions - I agree with you that presenting text in the main article supported by the very best available reliable sources, regardless of any particular WP:POV, may be the better road in this instance of course - iac - Thanks again - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 12:25, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

References

Later discussion

@Bakkster Man: See my edit summary and also the related subsection at Talk:Severe_acute_respiratory_syndrome_coronavirus_2#Nucleotide_skewness_of_SARS-CoV-2. As I've also said, I'm not convinced the "lab leak via GOFR" is included in the "accidental lab leak" (I've added a short description, based on the given source, here, for what appears to be the lab leak scenario that "hasn't been ruled out") - the language in other sources isn't quite precise enough (since it doesn't mention GoFR directly), but they seem to agree that deliberate manipulation has been ruled out, and GOFR appears to me to be clearly "deliberate manipulation". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:49, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, a topic totally worth hashing out. I'd like to break it down into three parts:

1. Is GoFR a widely accepted contributor in the lab leak hypothesis? First off, I think a big issue is that "gain of function" appears to be a charged term, which the two sides of the discussion phrase differently depending how it suits their point of view. An old news article in Nature describes the current US moratorium on GoFR: The US government surprised many researchers on 17 October when it announced that it will temporarily stop funding new research that makes certain viruses more deadly or transmissible. The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy is also asking researchers who conduct such ‘gain-of-function’ experiments on influenza, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) to stop their work until a risk assessment is completed — leaving many unsure of how to proceed. But there seems to be a question around whether virus studies incidentally or intentionally result in a gain-of-function: Some researchers are confused by the moratorium’s wording. Viruses are always mutating, and Casadevall says that it is difficult to determine how much mutation deliberately created by scientists might be “reasonably anticipated” to make a virus more dangerous — the point at which the White House states research must stop. The government says that this point will be determined for individual grants in discussions between funding officers and researchers. This makes it harder for us, because it means many sources avoid the term altogether (WHO-China report, most notably), and when they do it's hard to discern which use they meant: research with the intentional result being gain-of-function, or research where an inadvertent gain-of-function may occur. I usually prefer to avoid the term if possible, and might reword the content differently if that's the only remaining concern.
2. What did the WHO say? The WHO statement describing the scenario says: SARS-CoV-2 is introduced through a laboratory incident, reflecting an accidental infection of staff from laboratory activities involving the relevant viruses. We did not consider the hypothesis of deliberate release or deliberate bioengineering of SARS-CoV-2 for release, the latter has been ruled out by other scientists following analyses of the genome. Distinctly lacking much detail ("laboratory activities involving the relevant viruses" can be construed narrowly or broadly very differently), only explicitly ruling out intentional development of a bioweapon. Their Figure 5 on page 119 (Schema for introduction of SARS-CoV-2 through a laboratory incident) and includes the icon for "Evolution" in the laboratory, but not "Adaptation, transmissibility increase". My read is that the WHO didn't explicitly rule out recombination and evolution in the lab, though the diagram makes things a bit more confusing. Did they intend to communicate that they ruled out and/or didn't consider any adaptation in the lab environment as a possibility, or did they leave it out so as not to give an unintended impression that such gains were intended in WIV research? It would be helpful if we had another source confirming the WHO study's intentions, rather than just another researcher's impression. I'm hesitant to jump straight to firm conclusions without that.
3. Is this a minority view that's not mainstream accepted, but notable for inclusion here? This is where WP:PARITY comes in. Given that this is one of the few locations (only one?) on the encyclopedia discussing the minority view, there is room to describe adherents' view per their own sources even if they're weaker than the mainstream sources (as expected), so long as we follow the other guidelines of WP:FRINGE (placed in context with mainstream, etc). WP:PARITY even goes as far as to say articles about fringe topics needn't even be peer-reviewed (though only this peer reviewed source was proposed by me, both because this article is on Investigations broadly rather than the lab leak specifically, and because PARITY suggests not suddenly jumping from peer-reviewed sources to non-reviewed (especially where reviewed sources exist). The Kaina source is clearly weaker than Frutos, but that doesn't necessarily mean excluding Kaina when speaking in sufficient depth on the topic to place its limited acceptance in context relative to mainstream. This is the direction I would prefer we go, rather than outright removal. Place Frutos immediately following Kaina, and possibly following up with the WHO's finding of no serological evidence for infection of researchers.

I'd be interested to get some outside expertise on some of these details, perhaps through WP:VIRUS, if you think they'd be helpful. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:18, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

If you're interested you can leave a message for Shibbolethink. I tried running a search through PubMed specifically for GoFR in the context of COVID ([26]), but once I filter out the unrelated items and/or bollocks sources, I only have this (whatever you want to call it - it's not a review paper) and this editorial (both in journals from the American Society for Microbiology). The first one has this interesting bit:

The second hurdle may be even more daunting. The United States, in particular but not exclusively, is experiencing a resurgence in conspiracy theories and extremist behavior in the context of COVID-19. [...] Some may verge on the unbelievable, such as the conspiracy theory that gain-of-function research conducted on severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-like coronaviruses in 2015 is connected to the emergence of COVID-19 that made it to British tabloids (17),

The other has this:

In recent months, the argument was raised that SARS-CoV-2 may have accidentally escaped from a high-containment laboratory in Wuhan, China (10). At this time, the scientific consensus is that the virus emerged as a zoonosis whereby it jumped from an animal host, possibly bats or pangolins, to humans (11), and arguments about a laboratory origin for SARS-CoV-2 are more akin to a conspiracy theory than to a scientifically credible hypothesis. In the very unlikely event that SARS-Cov-2 had emerged by accidental escape from a lab, however, that would be a great cause for concern because the Wuhan facility was state of the art and presumably operating with a high degree of care.

Not too helpful for gain of function, but it does say what the scientific consensus is, in case any body had doubts about that. Are these citeable in the article? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:26, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

The only other non-bullshit source I could find through google scholar (same query) was a piece by Rasmussen in Nature Medicine, [27], but that's already cited at COVID-19_misinformation#Wuhan_lab_theories (where the ideas now seem to be correctly separated). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:46, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

My primary hesitance on each of these three sources (at least, as far as using them to support completely excluding the Kaina paper) is their being prior to the WHO report, which I think we agree changed how willing at least some scientists were to talk about even the possibility (however unlikely) of a lab origin. The first one especially was pretty closely in the shadow of the Nature letter that seemed indicative of the apparent trend of not wanting to give it even a bit of air (lest it be seized on by others to drive a narrative), which the WHO report and change in US administration seems to have changed (not the evidence or likelihood, just willingness to discuss). The gold standard would be either the WHO, one of the involved authors, or a systemic review coming through with a definitive "this is ruled out because...", but I'm not expecting that soon.

I will give a ping to @Shibbolethink: to check our work above. I know just enough about the topic to know that I'm beyond my capability to interpret with high certainty, so additional input will be useful. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:56, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I'll add a quick clarification. I think each of the three sources you linked would have uses, particularly for providing context around GoF and the like. Especially the dual-use nature, with past WIV research helping to mitigate the pandemic's effects through increased early understanding. It's only complete exclusion of Kaina (on this page where the lab leak is discussed in enough detail to give that context, unless we add a specific lab leak page...) that I disagree with. Bakkster Man (talk) 21:05, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

That was also my concern. The few papers we have that expressly address these are mostly from before, with only Frutos et al. being more recent than the WHO report. The lack of more papers on the subject does speak volumes, but there's not much we can do with that... I don't know how we can frame Kaina in respect to Frutos, because I'm afraid simply comparing the positions of the two would be false balance. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:07, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, my original thought on the four possibility descriptions was to basically give the overview of the rationale behind each. And this one was always the one most likely to have fringe sources to explain the arguments in favor (natch). It does bring up the opposing pulls of false equivalence and fringe notability. I think a big part is just the problem of how we phrase acceptance, assuming GoF is 'notable enough'. And, more importantly, it's affected by whether we have a standalone article on the leak theory, or limit it to this one. I don't think it's NPOV to both oppose the standalone article and oppose the inclusion of notable (and peer-reviewed) claims by adherents in this article as well. I know which of the two sides I'd rather bend regarding a standalone article, too. Bakkster Man (talk) 21:18, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi (@Bakkster Man: @RandomCanadian:) yes completely agree GoFR is mutually exclusive with "Accidental lab leak." And more specifically, that gain of function research must be intentional. Could phrase it as "Accidental leak after deliberate manipulation" but all of those theories (as espoused by Yuri Deign and Nicholas Wade et al) involve arguments about making the virus more human-tropic or transmissible. That's why it's become a moving goalposts game full of no-true-scotsman. One conspiracy theorist will say the manipulation was to create a bioweapon, another will say it was just scientists "playing god." But they both mean the same thing: deliberate genetic engineering.

And that, specifically, is what has been so thoroughly debunked by publications by Rasmussen, Andersen, and others as detailed in WP:NOLABLEAK. Suffice it to say, you cannot, as a virologist, "accidentally" cause gain of function in the course of an experiment. You control the variables, so how would that happen? Either you are introducing random mutagenesis (via radiation or chemicals or just passaging) to alter the viral genome, hoping to see a change in function (gain or loss), or you are deliberately mutating it in specific areas to cause same. Either way there is a deliberate act, and specifically a deliberate "selection" of which mutants will be allowed to survive from that mutagenesis. The selection and the mutagenesis both require deliberate intervention that alters the course of nature. If it were happening without any scientific intervention (or intention) whatsoever, then it is more apt to call it a natural mutation that would have occurred without any experimentation involved, and therefore it isn't GoF, because it's a natural change. Does that make sense? This is based on the National Research Council and NIH definition, which is what is important re: scientific funding:

any selection process involving an alteration of genotypes and their resulting phenotypes is considered a type of Gain-of-Function (GoF) research, even if the U.S. policy is intended to apply to only a small subset of such work.

More specifically, if we are including any deliberate alteration of the virus, then we are absolutely beholden to the consensus among scientists that it is extremely extremely unlikely if not close to impossible. Because of the viral genome, its' synonymous/non-synonymous ratio, molecular clock findings, codon usage, poor quality protease site usage, etc. As detailed in the article above. If we are talking about accidental leak of a wild natural virus, then the argument becomes about probabilities: who is more likely to contract the virus, a group of scientists with PPE who visit a cave once a year, or the guano harvesters, farmers, etc. who interact with the zoonotic reservoir without any protection every day of their lives? And if it is the former, then how is the coverup possible, without any notable leak? And so on with the dual sequencing, etc etc. There are a lot of holes in this theory anyway, but they are all inductive reasoning. Especially given the fact that the virus is just as, if not more, likely to have emerged outside of Wuhan rather than within the city. Those arguments are what are convincing to virologists, but not convincing enough to make an investigation unnecessary. As I said, they are "inductive" rather than "deductive."

And to be clear, the only people who are saying "the virus was engineered" are the fringe sources who, per my reading of MEDRS and UNDUE and FRINGE, should not be included outside of the Misinformation article. Whereas "it is possible (though unlikely) the virus was a natural virus that leaked accidentally" is a more mainstream minority view, in my reading of the situation. I believe that is also what RSes are saying from what you've linked and what our articles currently say. I have yet to find a MEDRS of high quality that has any sort of notable virology consensus or plurality saying the virus was engineered. Just old nobel winners who've always been contrarians, and modern day contrarians who are not virologists.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:51, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink: I appreciate that context, specifically that 'gain-of-function' refers specifically to intent. To make sure I understand, your read on the WHO report would be that their path in the figure did not consider GoF in the lab pathway, with the mutations referring only to very limited mutations unavoidable while grown in culture (presumably independent of all other viruses, no recombination)? And thus, the explanation of the WHO hypothesis should not include the Kaina paper because it would conflate two very different explanations? Bakkster Man (talk) 23:32, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

@Bakkster Man: ahhhh, so I understand where the confusion is. My reading of that figure on page 119 and the overall report is that they were including any acts of "passaging" or "adaptation" or "facilitated evolution" in their description of the lab theory, but specifically not intentional "genetic engineering."

They do use the red arrow instead of the blue arrow there in that figure, which I think is just meant to denote "facilitated" evolution and adaptation inside cell culture. But their use of "adaptation" vs "evolution" is fraught because, molecularly speaking, those are the same thing. One cannot be differentiated from the other.

I suppose, in summary, I would agree with you that they specifically excluded GoFR from their analysis given its extreme improbability based on the genomic evidence. They are specifically using the GoFR definition of "deliberate engineering" which would exclude the mutations that occur as a part of any cell culture adaptation.

See that's what we call it: "Cell culture adaptation" when we take a wild virus and grow it on cells in a dish in the lab, even though we are doing nothing other than growing it, without any (intentional) selection pressures. That would not be GoFR, since it isn't intentionally altering a genotype or putting the virus inside an animal it doesn't normally infect, it just happens as part of the process of growing the virus in cells it would infect anyway. But it is blurry, because you could theoretically adapt the virus to a cell line in another species which would make it transmit better in that species, and then you are doing GoFR. But that's not what they're talking about here. I would say they excluded GoFR, but included lab leak involving a cell-culture-adapted virus. (And to be clear, this virus has no such adaptations, hence why that is also extremely unlikely as the origin).--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:50, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink and Bakkster Man: This in Nature could be used for mentioning some of the theories (depending on how much detail is really needed here) without having to cite a dubious publication. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:04, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, this article very accurately represents the state of the field, in my humble opinion! As usual, even though Nature News and Science News are not peer-reviewed, they are a better summary of the state of things than typical news sources. I've found their "News Explainer"s to be extremely trustworthy and usually worth the read.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:49, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Very good source, nice finding RC. It is so good we can use it in its entirety to write a "Lab leak hypothesis" page based on it. Forich (talk) 22:27, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

References

There are a confusing variety of uses of " engineered. The original weird right wing theory was that it was deliberately engineered to be used for biological warfare and the release was a deliberate event. The reason I call this weird or fringe is not biological, but political--no nation would deliberately try to harm an enemy by using an uncontrollable agent which the would release first in their own territory with a susceptible unprotected population. I don't think anyone has ever waged warfare in this fashion. It's like spreading smallpox among the natives by releasing a supply of germ-laden blankets in one's own country in the hope that it would spread to the outsiders. The subsequent, still unusual theory is that they had engineered it for germ warfare, and intended to use it or germ warfare, but had by some mishap released it in the wrong country. This is conceivable. That the Chinese government would deliberately decide to engage in germ warfare is within the range of possibilities. That they would have dones o now seems unlikely.-- there's no such emergency. I can imagine them wanting to use it to destroy the Uighurs, but they seem to be doing so without using such untested methods. That the Chinese government would deliberately it to be used for possible biological warfare someday just in case is very possible: I see no reason why they wouldn't be trying to prepare some such agents (tho tI'd think the uncontrollable spread of flu viruses would make them a poor choice when there are so many other possibilities); many other nations, including the major English speaking countries, have prepared such weapons. In that case it could have been a lab leak from a weapons lab.

But the lab leak theory in its usual form is that they were deliberately engaging in gain of function research with flu viruss, and this one escaped control. This is a reckless thing to do, but all countries with the capability have probably done such experiments, and lab accidents do happen.

There's also a variant, in that they had isolated a strain, either a mutant from another lab strain or a strain form the wild, and were maintaining it for routine study or storage, and an accident happened. This is not an inherently reckless thing to do--it's part of their necessary function But it is a known very dangerous thing to do such work, and whatever precautions they were taking might have failed. Their precautions might have been the best possible, or sub-standard. This could have happened anywhere, and in the nature of human error will probably happen again somewhere (even tho this event wlll undoubtedly increase the level of precautionary measures everywhere). DGG ( talk ) 21:18, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

The WSJ is a reliable source regarding scientific matters only insofar as you can rely on this: if the WSJ holds a position on a scientific question, that position being held by many people is good for the Dow-Jones in the short term. It does not matter to them at all if the position is supported by evidence or accepted by scientists. Climate change is a case in point. The WSJ should never be used as a source for scientific matters. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:22, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

"Consensus among virologists"

What source describes the situation among virologists as a "consensus"? Adoring nanny (talk) 15:38, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Here are 4 discussions on this very talk page about that:

• Talk:Investigations_into_the_origin_of_COVID-19#A_questionable_consensus

• Talk:Investigations_into_the_origin_of_COVID-19#"deliberate_bioengineering_of_the_virus_has_been_ruled_out"

• Talk:Investigations_into_the_origin_of_COVID-19#Fanatically_shoving_the_zoonotic_origin_as_if_it_is_the_forgone_scientific_consensus

• Talk:Investigations_into_the_origin_of_COVID-19#Why_declare_a_"consensus"_on_the_origin,_given_that_all_options_are_still_open

Why not re-engage in any of those instead of making this new section? We want to avoid WP:BADGER, it becomes very time consuming.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:55, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Ok, re-engaged with the "fantically shoving" one. Adoring nanny (talk) 17:57, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

You're free, as ever, to present peer-reviewed journal articles which argue that the lab leak is more than unlikely or (to quote a recent one) "unnecessary to explain the pandemic". Until then, it's likely that this is just going to be a big time sink, especially if the quality of sources used to support the assertion that there is no consensus is nothing better than news reports. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:01, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

My source is the Nature ref you brought to the table. See the other section. Adoring nanny (talk) 21:50, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

@Adoring nanny: The Nature piece (this one, I presume) does not support that the lab leak is anything but a minority opinion. Here, clearly: "Most scientists say SARS-CoV-2 probably has a natural origin, and was transmitted from an animal to humans. However, a lab leak has not been ruled out, [...]". In addition, it's a "news explainer", not a peer-reviewed review paper, so while it is useful for many things, I don't see why we would use it to dispute a claim which it does not dispute, especially when we have a better source (such as the Frutos paper, quoted at a couple of places already) which makes the distinction quite clear enough... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:49, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Just going through some other refs in the lead: A pneumonia outbreak associated with a new coronavirus of probable bat origin [28]. "Probable" is not a consensus. Similarly, Benvenuto [29]: "probably trasmitted from bats after mutation conferring ability to infect humans." Again, "probably". A statement that something is "probably" true is not the same as a statement that it is true . . . and is certainly not the same as a consensus that it is true. Adoring nanny (talk) 20:04, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I think you may be confused about what the article currently says. All we ever say is that the lab theory is "unlikely" and that the natural zoonosis theory is "likely." We never say that one or the other is "true." The 'consensus' is the same, it's an agreement of probabilities. Not an agreement on what is "true" and what is "false." If you can find a place where we do say that, I would love to change it as well, because I agree that would be wrong.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:32, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm confused about how anyone can consider it unlikely. Dr. Redfield, one of the few people in the world to head a BSL-4 lab, has pretty much said the contrary, that it's not unusual for respiratory pathogens to infect the worker. In fact, we have proof of this from the original SARS leak from a Beijing lab, twice. It's only logical to assume if that virus had the transmission ability of this one, it very well could've caused a pandemic. Furthermore, if you look at the totality of events, from China's lack of transparency, lack of an intermediate host, the unusual prowess of the virus' transmission rate, and the fact that it started in a city with a lab that just so happened to be studying the exact species of virus that we know had a history of questionable safety protocols. It's almost against logic to dismiss the theory as "extremely unlikely", and continues to baffle me. Edit0r6781 (talk) 00:18, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello! Our job at wikipedia is to summarize the best available sources, not to make our own calls on likelihood. THat's why we say "extremely unlikely." It's what the sources say. I would urge you to look at WP:5P and, in particular, WP:V. But welcome to wiki!--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:28, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Edit0r6781 You might also want to take a look at this for an in-depth-but-not-technical-tone review of the subject. Also addresses the concerns about China: Both forms of the lab leak hypothesis share one element, namely constant finger pointing at the Chinese for being less than enthusiastic and cooperative about letting investigators into the Wuhan Institute of Virology to try to determine if a lab leak happened. This is, of course, not surprising and not in and of itself evidence for a lab leak. China is an authoritarian regime, and such regimes tend to be secretive. As for the fact it "started" in a city, that's dubious: see sources cited here under the "Wuhan was likely not the origin" bulletpoint). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:55, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia defines Scientific consensus as Consensus generally implies agreement of the supermajority, though not necessarily unanimity.. This means that in a survey of 100 scientists, if 51 agree on A and 49 agree on B, the phrase "most scientist agree on A" is TRUE but the phrase "there is consensus on A" is FALSE. Forich (talk) 19:40, 21 June 2021 (UTC)