Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory

WIV did perform genetic manipulation of SARS-related bat coronaviruses
The current version of article contains a phrase: "There is no evidence that any genetic manipulation or reverse genetics (a technique required to make chimeric viruses) of SARS-related bat coronaviruses was ever carried out at the WIV."

It is FALSE. There is (at least one) publicly available paper which proves the contrary.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1006698 is an article from 2017 with (among others) authored by Daszak and Zheng-Li Shi (the head of the WIV). "Discovery of a rich gene pool of bat SARS-related coronaviruses provides new insights into the origin of SARS coronavirus".

It contains this passage:

"Construction of recombinant viruses

Recombinant viruses with the S gene of the novel bat SARSr-CoVs and the backbone of the infectious clone of SARSr-CoV WIV1 were constructed using the reverse genetic system described previously [23] (S9 Fig). The fragments E and F were re-amplified with primer pairs (FE, 5’-AGGGCCCACCTGGCACTGGTAAGAGTCATTTTGC-3’, R-EsBsaI, 5’-ACTGGTCTCTTCGTTTAGTTATTAACTAAAATATCACTAGACACC-3’) and (F-FsBsaI, 5’-TGAGGTCTCCGAACTTATGGATTTGTTTATGAG-3’, RF, 5’-AGGTAGGCCTCTAGGGCAGCTAAC-3’), respectively. The products were named as fragment Es and Fs, which leave the spike gene coding region as an independent fragment. BsaI sites (5’-GGTCTCN|NNNN-3’) were introduced into the 3’ terminal of the Es fragment and the 5’ terminal of the Fs fragment, respectively. The spike sequence of Rs4231 was amplified with the primer pair (F-Rs4231-BsmBI, 5’-AGTCGTCTCAACGAACATGTTTATTTTCTTATTCTTTCTCACTCTCAC-3’ and R-Rs4231-BsmBI, 5’-TCACGTCTCAGTTCGTTTATGTGTAATGTAATTTGACACCCTTG-3’). The S gene sequence of Rs7327 was amplified with primer pair (F-Rs7327-BsaI, 5’-AGTGGTCTCAACGAACATGAAATTGTTAGTTTTAGTTTTTGCTAC-3’ and R-Rs7327-BsaI, 5’- TCAGGTCTCAGTTCGTTTATGTGTAATGTAATTTAACACCCTTG-3’). The fragment Es and Fs were both digested with BglI (NEB) and BsaI (NEB). The Rs4231 S gene was digested with BsmBI. The Rs7327 S gene was digested with BsaI. The other fragments and bacterial artificial chromosome (BAC) were prepared as described previously. Then the two prepared spike DNA fragments were separately inserted into BAC with Es, Fs and other fragments. The correct infectious BAC clones were screened. The chimeric viruses were rescued as described previously [23]."

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

NYT: COVID origin
WP:TALKHEADPOV https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/06/03/opinion/covid-lab-leak.html

I think its about time that this article gets some important updates. Jdftba (talk) 06:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Please refer to WP:RSOPINION. TarnishedPathtalk 07:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It's just Alina Chan trotting out all the LL talking points again. Relevant scientists are not impressed (e.g.) and of course it's not a reliable source for Wikipedia's purposes. Bon courage (talk) 12:36, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry who's Ben Pierce? 1000 follows on X and PhD in Chemistry from the University of North Carolina is "relevant"? Thesmallfriendlygiant (talk) 19:41, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Another virologist chipped in - DFlhb (talk) 11:18, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Well their twitter isn’t soaked in partisanship at all! I don’t even see any charged language across any of their posts. They seem very cool headed and incredibly trustworthy due to their calm calculated demeanor 2601:18F:801:1D20:D8DF:FA6C:D2F7:58CA (talk) 23:54, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Alina Chan's preprint on this has not been accepted for publication by any scientific journal. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:05, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Do You care to write here all errors/lies/incorrect facts in her NYT ariticle. It is so easy to eliminate someone without any fact. Disgusting. 95.168.105.14 (talk) 07:59, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That would be OR, we go by what the majority of the sources say, and not just one. Also we go by the best sources (I.E. ones published in peer reviewed journals). Slatersteven (talk) 09:23, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * As a frequent reader of these talk pages in Wikipedia I can see the slow trend of this talk page slowly turning into the talk page for the duke lacrosse case. Another talk page where it was like pulling teeth.
 * this is fun though I’ll check back in a few weeks and see how the discussion is going. 2601:18F:801:1D20:D8DF:FA6C:D2F7:58CA (talk) 23:55, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

From this wiki article's lead: "Most scientists believe the virus spilled into human populations through natural zoonosis..." There is not one qualified scientist who believes this. Not one. Thus I know you don't have the survey data to establish such a statement.--2600:1700:7BE0:1E30:B5DB:E109:BA25:EE59 (talk) 19:24, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Do you even know any scientists? --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * A survey like this one?  Mr leroy playpus (talk) 12:53, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Since it is an article about the lab leak theory, it is not logical to state almost everything in the negative, opposing this theory. For example, instead of "most scientists believe the virus spilled into human populations through natural zoonosis" in the opening paragraph, it would be more logical and objective for that to say something like "while most scientists believe the virus spilled into human populations through natural zoonosis, 1 in 5 experts surveyed reported a 50% or greater a lab leak being the cause." The source of that is the one you just gave, https://gcrinstitute.org/covid-origin/ which gives the link to the main report: https://gcrinstitute.org/papers/069_covid-origin.pdf which states "Overall, one out of five experts reported a 50% or greater chance for an origin other than natural zoonosis." That language sounds softer than it is - the graphic clearly shows 32/168 respondents (just over 19%) giving this belief for "Research-related accident more likely". I.e. lab leak. In fact I think the continual repetition of 'most scientists believe...' should be erased. If this is the only actual survey on this, then the statement should rather read something like 'According to a survey published in February 2024 of 168 experts from around the world in relevant scientific fields, one in 5 reported a 50% or greater chance for the COVID-19 pandemic having originating from a lab leak.' 86.23.186.222 (talk) 23:59, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I hear what you say about phrasing things in the negative. But I think the trouble with saying, "...[20% of] experts reported a 50% or greater chance for an origin other than natural zoonosis," apart from it being very hard for a reader to parse, is that placing this phrasing in the lede would really give undue weight to a single survey. After all, the survey supports the statement that "most scientists believe the virus spilled into human populations through natural zoonosis." I guess it could, maybe, be placed somewhere under "Proposed scenarios," but the scholarly sources still overwhelming seem to favor a "natural zoonosis" (inasmuch as contact with an animal at a market is "natural"). Rather than trying to square two independent ways of identifying a scientific consensus, surveys would probably be better placed in the context of a discussion about the development a scientific consensus (as in Scientific consensus on climate change), if this particular issue lives long enough to produce such a thing. Mr leroy playpus (talk) Mr leroy playpus (talk) 01:33, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Based on this survey, it seems like it would be more accurate to say that most scientists believe a natural zoonotic origin is more likely than a lab leak, but that a lab leak origin is possible, while a significant minority believes the lab leak origin is more likely. Dustinscottc (talk) 23:00, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The issue is that news sources and some editors here seem to think that "natural zoonosis" and "lab leak" are mutually exclusive. They aren't. You can have a 'natural zoonosis' event that happens in a lab. We know that this corona virus originated in bats and we also know that (despite the official denial) that the WIV had a colony of living bats at the institute and they also had the closest related virus in their collection. Saying that scientist belive that it was "natural zoonosis" and implying that this is evidence against a lab leak is disingenuous and has been the entire time that the media was using this line all through the pandemic (mostly through them not understanding either.
 * When they say that it came from zoonosis, that opinion is only against the 'engineered' theory (which is also probably true but not relevant to my point). It can come from bat->human tratransmission and ALSO come from the WIV lab. —  Insertcleverphrasehere(or here) (or here) (or here)  19:49, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The survey used different definitions than you are. says "natural zoonosis" is "an event in which a non-human animal infected a human, and in which the infection did not occur in the course of any form of virological or biomedical research". You can see the exact question on page 15 of  which makes clear that their definition of natural zoonosis doesn't include "the accidental infection of a laboratory worker with a natural coronavirus; the accidental infection of researchers with a natural coronavirus during biomedical fieldwork; or the accidental infection of a laboratory worker with an engineered coronavirus". I'd suggest because of that you retract your claim that people are being disingenous when reporting this survey's results. JaggedHamster (talk) 10:31, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * JaggedHamster is correct that the survey is careful about defining what is meant by "natural zoonosis" (in contrast to a "lab leak" or "research-related-incident"). But, also, this thread is about the lede (see 2600:1700:7BE0:1E30:B5DB:E109:BA25:EE59's contribution above) rather than whether "[some] news sources and some editors here seem to think that "natural zoonosis" and "lab leak" are mutually exclusive." I agree that "natural zoonosis" is a sloppy phrase, particularly given that wildlife farms had been promoted as a means of poverty alleviation (see ); there's nothing particularly "natural" about a spillover that was a foreseeable output of a particular policy. Keeping on topic, though, it might be better said in the lede that " most scientists believe the virus spilled into human populations through natural zoonosis [via the live animal trade] "... Thoughts? Mr leroy playpus (talk) 11:34, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The point was probably that the initial infection came directly from a natural as opposed to artificial source, even though at the policy level, it is difficult to say what is or is not natural. Senorangel (talk) 03:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

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

Assertion regarding racism is unsupported
The following statement is not supported by the cited source: "The lab leak theory and its weaponization by politicians have both leveraged and increased anti-Chinese racism."

The source appears to be an opinion piece that discusses allegations of racism from proponents of the lab leak theory against proponents of the wet-market theory, but both those statements and the authors response are only opinion. Nothing in the source points to data or even anecdote demonstrating a connection between acts of racism or racist sentiments and the lab leak theory. Dustinscottc (talk) 22:54, 23 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I’m in favor of removing references to “racism”. Seems speculative at best. 2601:18F:801:1D20:D8DF:FA6C:D2F7:58CA (talk) 23:52, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Please refer to the archives for previous discussions on this. Tarnished<b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 02:13, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed, you have to truly REACH to find even passive references to racism by any writer who isn't already utterly programmed to see everything through the lens of race. AKA race-grifters. 24.63.3.107 (talk) 23:38, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Massive anti-Asian incidents related to this subject, what Trump has repeatedly called the Asian flu, are well documented. Please do not use the term "race-grifters" here again. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm in favor of keeping references to "racism." Xenophobic language and anti-Chinese racism were well-documented and the links between these and the lab leak theory were the subject of much public discussion. I would think that the use of the phrase "Kung Flu" and this, this, and etc would be enough supporting evidence for the claim that politicians made unwholesome use of the lab leak theory, but for two more randomly chosen examples, see,  or   Mr leroy playpus (talk) 15:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The opinion that racism was a significant factor is based on circular logic that implies that favoring LL theory is racist because the only reason to favor LL is racism. 2601:547:1903:2200:8BD:A430:2848:DE54 (talk) 18:41, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * No, its weaponisation is. Slatersteven (talk) 18:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Lancet Microbe
Has a new editorial: The idea that SARS-CoV-2 is of unnatrual origin is "simply wrong" it says (among other things). Could usefully be used to update our article to get with the current science ... Bon courage (talk) 12:28, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 July 2024
The information posted on Wikipedia about the origin of Covid 19 is incorrect and outdated and therefore should be updated. Please see below: https://oversight.house.gov/release/covid-origins-hearing-wrap-up-facts-science-evidence-point-to-a-wuhan-lab-leak%EF%BF%BC/ 2601:643:282:90A0:6DCC:6606:9DCF:D8F2 (talk) 21:44, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * ❌. House committee transcripts are WP:PRIMARY. In addition, on this topic politicians often disagree with top quality academic scholarship such as review articles, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses in MEDLINE-indexed journals. In a situation like this, we go with the top quality academic scholarship, and not the politicians. WP:MEDRS, WP:NOLABLEAK. – Novem Linguae (talk) 00:04, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There is a notice at the top of this page clearly stating that Covid origins are not BMI. It's surprising how often senior editors need to be reminded of this. - Palpable (talk) 14:08, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There is? As far as I can see it says there is no consensus on this one way or the other, but this is still primary source, and does not in fact Trump other sources. Slatersteven (talk) 14:11, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:MEDRS applies to WP:BMI, but not to WP:NOTBMI. That is the position, and it has never been otherwise for this topic (or any other). Bon courage (talk) 14:19, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * OK, but what is the claim it does not apply to covid origins true, if it contradicts what BMI's say? Slatersteven (talk) 14:24, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * From the notice: There is consensus against defining "disease and pandemic origins" (broadly speaking) as a form of biomedical information for the purpose of WP:MEDRS.
 * You cannot use MEDRS to dismiss the investigations of the House, Senate, and Intelligence Community, and again it's really surprising how often editors here seem to forget that. I'm just posting a helpful reminder. - Palpable (talk) 15:14, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Err, nor can we use it to overturn BMI claims, that is the point. We can say they have said it, not that its a fact. Which we in fact do. Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * In any case this bonkers political theatre from the US is really irrelevant to a serious article except infsofar as rational sources comment on it - which they do. Bon courage (talk) 15:21, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Nobody is talking about overturning BMI claims.
 * There is no overturning because nobody is suggesting that the Worobey etc. papers not be cited, just that the results (such as they are) of the investigations are also DUE. Other Wikipedia articles seem to be able to handle disagreement between sources just fine.
 * And there are no BMI claims because, again, there is consensus that origins are not BMI.
 * - Palpable (talk) 15:33, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * "The information posted on Wikipedia about the origin of Covid 19 is incorrect and outdated and therefore should be updated.", yes the OP wants us to say this is a fact. And we do mention the reports findings. Slatersteven (talk) 15:35, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The article doesn't seem to have any coverage of the House and Senate hearings from 2024, that does seem outdated to me. Many of them were focused on the DEFUSE proposal which also barely gets a mention.
 * I can see why people have given up trying to update the article. - Palpable (talk) 15:55, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The OPs source is from 2023. Slatersteven (talk) 15:57, 21 July 2024 (UTC)