Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory/Archive 13

PNAS article: A call for an independent inquiry into the origin of the SARS-CoV-2 virus May 19, 2022
Attached is the important article "A call for an independent inquiry into the origin of the SARS-CoV-2 virus" that was recently published in PNAS by Jeffry Sachs and Neil L. Harrison. We should discuss and include it. There is also an additional newspaper article "Did US Biotechnology Help to Create COVID-19? "from May 27 that adds various points. These articles are an excellent summary of the current discussion.--Empiricus (talk) 16:23, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Just an opinion piece. We have (and would need) RS for this topic area. Alexbrn (talk) 16:24, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure, but it's an important opinion. The origin question is ultimately not a scientific problem alone, but a huge political and ethical problem. As for the current scientific consensus "more likly" - this explicitly concerns One Health research. Which is largely unregulated and where is little interest in clarification itself - so a carefull investigation is important. This is a socio-political requirement.--Empiricus (talk) 16:37, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure, but it's an important opinion &larr; If so, it will be surely be treated in reliable, peer-reviewed secondary literature. But for our current purposes (editing an encyclopedia), it's useless. Alexbrn (talk) 16:41, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It is not only an simple opinion, but a deeper reflection of the current discussion and the original circumstances (the science-political contexts) and possibilities to clarify them. And because published in PNAS a relevant scientific voice.--Empiricus (talk) 16:52, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but we need reliable sources. An opinion piece is just that. It might be completely wrong for all you know. This is kind of basic. Wikipedia content is based on secondary sources, and for anything biomedical WP:MEDRS is needed. Alexbrn (talk) 17:06, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Then we need to change all content based on the famous and interest-related Lancet article from March 2020 - the Lancet article was also just an opinion (and no reliable sources) and nothing more.--Empiricus (talk) 17:19, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The Andersen et al. article from 2020 is actually cited by literally 1000s of other reliable sources (including plenty of high-quality, secondary literature on the topic - which in fact suggests we should similarly cite it as it obviously contains important information); so individual Wikipedia editor opinion (which is entirely irrelevant, even more than that of random opinion pieces elsewhere) is a poor reason to dismiss it. Even more so when the opinion in question is that it is an opinion piece, and the reason for dismissing it is another opinion piece. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:29, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no scientific evidence (episteme) on the origin question until today - in a strict scientific sense - all statements / sentences, even from reliable sources - are opinions (doxa). Opinions cannot be transformed (by many citations) - without research - into evidence-based knowledge. Jeffry Sachs is not just any voice here, Sachs is chairman of the Lancet Covid-19 Commission. PNAS is the most cited reliable, pre-viewed multi-scientific publication worldwide. Why should this not be citable ? Empiricus (talk) 19:12, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * We don't care whether in a strict epistemic sense all statements, even from reliable sources, are opinions. Wikipedia is concerned with verifiability, not truth. If we lived in Galileo's time, we would have had to report that the Sun went around the Earth, which is what the consensus of existing sources was, even if that is now demonstrably untrue. Neither Sachs nor Harrison (the other author of that letter) are virologists, so in terms of how much weight we need to give to their opinion piece, the answer is "not very much". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:37, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is about verifiable true theses, findings not about subjective opinion control (which we have been experiencing here for 2 years). On the question of the origin of the coronavirus, there is systematic cherry-picking by some authors - based on the Lancet opinion of March 2020. There is no open, neutral content on the laboratory hypothesis in the article. Just one example: "Some versions, particularly those alleging alteration of the SARS-CoV-2 genome, are based on speculation,[7] misinformation,[8] or misrepresentations of scientific evidence.[9][10]". But these are just opinions or moral judgments along the lines of - the earth should not revolve around the sun.
 * As long as there is no proof of the zoonotic origin - such sentences are missinformation for the public opinion. If there would be proof /evidence - then such a sentence would be appropriate - but some authors here see the zoonotic hypothesis implicitly alreadey proven e.g. evident.
 * You don't have to be a virologist to call for a systematic investigation. The article here stands under the topic COVID 19 - an opinion of a scientist leading the COVID 19 Commission of the leading medical journal should not be relevant - is a private opinion. Empiricus (talk) 20:43, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * On the question of the origin of the coronavirus, there is systematic cherry-picking by some authors - based on the Lancet opinion of March 2020. There is no open, neutral content on the laboratory hypothesis in the article. Yeah, of course, "sources which don't promote the hypothesis I like are biased." This is well within the classic and stereotypical "why Wikipedia cannot claim the Earth is not flat" territory.
 * Wikipedia is about verifiable true theses Again, wrong. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which is a summary of knowledge, which is not quite exactly the same thing as "The Truth". Knowledge as determined by knowledgeable people (a.k.a. subject-matter experts) whose views, findings and opinions can be verified in reliable, high-quality sources. What individual Wikipedians think of the matter is irrelevant (since that is not how we determine neutral point of view); and at worst arrogant (since it comes out bluntly as "I know better than the people who are recognised experts on the matter"). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:22, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * "There is no open, neutral content on the laboratory hypothesis in the article." – Really ? Who you know this ? What are the WP citerias for neutral in this context ?
 * “Wikipedia is about verifiable true theses Again, wrong.” You should read the Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth - carefully: "You are allowed and encouraged to add material that is verifiable and true"; otherwise we produce nonsense. My statements are in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines - yours not !
 * "What individual Wikipedians think of the matter is irrelevant". I agree - unbalanced opinions (without evidence) supported by individual Wikipedians are indeed the biggest problem - for two years - in the SARS-CoV 2 origin context.
 * "Findings and opinions can be verified in reliable, high-quality sources". Are the PNAS a reliable, high-quality sources ? Empiricus (talk) 09:35, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:VNT is an essay. Bottom line: we won't be using a letter for exceptional claims. For anything in the field of biomedicine it is an unreliable source. I agree there have been continued problems with what "individual Wikipedians think of the matter" being aired but this "lab leak truther" problem has been getting sorted as the miscreant editors are blocked/banned. Alexbrn (talk) 11:55, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the advice. I don't know what the latest state of discussion is - but the clarification of the original question is not a purely biomedical problem. For example, what does the Chinese government's refusal of transparency have to do with biomedicine? Nothing at all ! It is a big health policy issue. Also, transparent investigations can only be decided by politicians, e.g. Congress. I have already explained this sufficiently in 2021.
 * "The "Lab Leak Truther" problem has been solved, since the offending editors have been banned" - the same must apply to the "Lab Leak Deniers/Negators" - if we want to meet the neutral point of view, according to the latest state of facts. These are also miscreant editors who undermine the trust of Wikipedia. Empiricus (talk) 12:09, 12 June 2022 (UTC)


 * The relevant policy is WP:RSOPINION and since this opinion piece was peer reviewed and written by two scientists involved Investigations into the origin of COVID-19, it is WP:DUE in all pages on the subject. Virology isn't the only area of expertise needed to investigate covid origins, and that is why the WHO made sure to include many different types of experts in their SAGO team. I'm confident that with enough discussion, editors will be able to agree on how to properly cite these sources in the relevant articles. Francesco espo (talk) 01:25, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:RSOPINION is not policy. It is a guideline. Le Marteau (talk) 02:02, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Meh. I am surprised by the comment above saying that the piece was written by two scientists involved investigations into the origin of COVID-19. One of the authors is Jeffrey Sachs, who is unqualified to talk about such topics as a scholar (he's an economist and a public policy analyst), and even though he indeed chairs the Lancet COVID-19 Commission, he and two other commissioners out of six do not have health policy, much less medical expertise; the other seems to be much more interested in neurology than virology. The only peer-reviewed paper about any aspect of COVID is this one (among the ones he lists on his profile), but there he is mentioned as the last author (even if corresponding) and the paper doesn't speak of the origins, but only of the ion channels, and doesn't even touch on topics which are popular among those advocating the lab leak theory (other COVID papers, also not discussing the origins, are pre-prints).
 * I've listed the PNAS (but not the Project Syndicate) article in the sources above, just as I did with a few other articles that have appeared in the meantime, but apart from some value of assembling the sources typically used to argue for more investigations into the origins, unless it is widely cited, I don't think it will be ever usable. We needn't be restricted to virologists only, but the people we cite should have compelling evidence of expertise in topics related to the matters discussed in the article. These two guys clearly don't have it. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 11:29, 11 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm surprised by the comment above saying Jeffrey Sachs is unqualified to talk about this topic because he is only an economist and public policy analyst. The PNAS piece is largely about public policy, and it calls for a public investigation into US-based research institutes, which The Intercept and other media have previously reported on for lack of transparency. This piece is a continuation of a discussion and RFC RFC:_Proposed_addition_of_sentence_to_the_lead_pertaining_to_early_scientific_support_of_the_theory, which hasn't yet been implemented. I was going to vote in that RFC, but my house was flooded during Typhoon Rai and I didn't have electricity. There are already many opinion pieces in this article and related articles already, so I'm unsure why this one is being singled out as unreliable. ScrumptiousFood (talk) 18:03, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * An economist is unqualified to talk about virology (such as, you know, determining where a virus came from) in the same way a virologist is unqualified to talk about the economy. This shouldn't be that hard to figure out... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:38, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I mean, anyone, me (or a now-topic-banned editor) included, can write a piece calling for whatever they like, including an investigation in the origins (I think there were a lot of them in WSJ or other outlets, often those with a conservative bent), but that doesn't mean that the claims they assemble can be treated on par with opinions by subject-matter experts or scholarly research. This also doesn't mean we even need to mention it because in the same vein we can quote just about any Republican, and this would be more or less equivalent. Is a Republican senator a public policy expert? Sure, he is a biased one but he is - he proposes solutions to the current problems, whether shitty or not; more, he often sets the agenda and even has a material impact on passing it into law (well, if Congress actually bothers to vote laws, but no matter).
 * Does this mean we should quote a senator? Well, only to the extent we need to show the prevalent thoughts of the Republicans about the issue, but for facts, not really. The same goes here, probably with less partisan bias. Neurology or economics are hardly qualifications to speak about genetics, viruses, epidemiology, safety hazards, or bats. A neurologist is a scientist but not the one we need. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 01:45, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Jeffery Sachs is a university professor of Health Policy and Management - so scientifically qualified to make statements on the prevention of pandemics - including the question of origin. In the first part of the PNAS article, he only summarises the state of research on the origin and the current status quo of investigations. The second part is a proposal on how an improved investigation could gain more transparency here. This is explicitly a topic of public health.
 * The question of origin was also a topic of the Lancet COVID 19 Commission. Since there were massive conflicts of interest on the part of Peter Daszak, who headed the working group, this investigation was stopped due to a violation of neutrality and public trust. The reason is simple - the Commission did not want to get involved in a disinformation campaign - Sachs said explicitly in the article that the public has already lost enough trust in science - concerning this issue.
 * The Lancet Commission is one of the TOP 5 most important COVID 19 bodies in the world. That J. Sachs should be not qualified here - is purely a private opinion - that does not count for anything here.If we ignore such opinions, Wikipedia run the risk of supporting the disinformation campaign of the "lab leak deniers/negators" and losing public trust. Empiricus (talk) 10:53, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * We are not quoting a report by the Lancet Commission. We are quoting a random, private opinion piece. That one of its authors happens to sit on said commission does not mean every word which comes out of his mouth about COVID-19 should be treated as the metaphorical Gospel. An opinion piece is still an opinion piece no matter how you wish to spin it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:39, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That is your private opinion. Jeffery Sachs play a very relevant role globally regarding COVID 19 and the origin question. The PNAS article is indirectly related to the Lancet Commission and the manipulation of the global public opinion by Peter Daszak and colleagues, including a desinformation campaign, which had an massive impact on us and many editors. This is well documented. Therefore, Sachs' position as trustfull global leader, is relevant for us - especially because he stands for balanced transparency. The Time for "lab leak deniers/negators" is over - since one year. Empiricus (talk) 17:11, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has WP:PAGs, your personal view (that some guy is a "trustfull global leader"), as well as being obtuse, is irrelevant. If we follow reliable sources, all will be well! Alexbrn (talk) 17:22, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Your statement implies that this person is unknown to you. This "some guy" (nice negative framing) Jeffery Sachs is an internationally recognised person, his CV is 67 pages long, among other things he was longterm Special Advisor for the UN Secretary General, has/had countless international functions for governments, etc. among others 31 honorary doctorates - was listed twice by Time Magazine as one of the 100 most influential people in the world.
 * PNAS is generally (maybe not for you) a reliable source: "PNAS is one of the world's most-cited and comprehensive multidisciplinary scientific journals. The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), a peer reviewed journal of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), is an authoritative source of high-impact, original research that broadly spans the biological, physical, and social sciences." Even if it is only an opinion - this statement, because published in PNAS (an authoritative source) - is of relevance. Empiricus (talk) 18:49, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Since you seem to be ignoring the main issue (Wikipedia has WP:PAGs) this is just a waste of time. Do not mistake any lack of response to your further repetition to indicate anybody agrees with you. Alexbrn (talk) 19:07, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I have been an editor on Wikipedia for over 20 years - I co-developed some of the WP:PAGs. You ignore WP:BLP concerning Jeffery Sachs: "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page"...Jeffery Sachs is not simply "some guy". Empiricus (talk) 20:04, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, in this particular case, yes he is "some guy".
 * Out of the research interests, he lists the following (admittedly an impressive one): the links of health and development, economic geography, globalization, transition to market economies in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, international financial markets, international macroeconomic policy coordination, emerging markets, economic development and growth, global competitiveness, and macroeconomic policies in developing and developed countries. Point to anything that squarely relates to the topic of COVID origins.
 * Also, nobody cares about the length of his CV if none of it is relevant to the topic. Otherwise we can just as well quote Noam Chomsky - hell, a tenured and world-renowned professor with his opinions, and doubtless his CV is just as long, and the list of honorary doctorates, how many are there? 47, which is more than 31. Doesn't mean he's any good for this area. We don't quote guys simply because they seem to be very intelligent. Even in some cases, we should be wary of those people who should know better - read up Linus Pauling - double Nobel Prize, including in chemistry, is no small feat, but he's no good for claims about vitamin C). And just because someone chairs some sort of collective body doesn't mean they immediately acquire experience and expertise upon entering it.
 * PNAS is indeed high-quality for peer-reviewed research; opinion articles do not belong to this category; just in the same way as an opinion piece in WSJ is not equivalent to plain news reporting in the outlet in terms of reliability. As for other things, everything has been already said, I rest my case. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 20:51, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, I love that bragging about the time of being on Wikipedia. You won't win any arguments that way. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 20:54, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * First his academic credentials were questioned, then his role as chair of the Lancet COVID 19 Commission. I understand - for some editors Jeffery Sachs is just "a guy" who has nothing to say about the topic. The PNAS article is simply about better inquiry for more transparency. We have many less reliable sources in the article, also regarding opinions - this for e.g. is a pure opinion article- by a fact-checker without the appropriate qualifications. What supports a certain framing, almost any source (of the "Lab Leak Deniers/Negators) is suitable - everything else is filtered. Funny... Empiricus (talk) 13:42, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Nobody "questioned his academic credentials". The dishonesty and POV-pushing from you is now reaching the point where it is becoming disruptive. Alexbrn (talk) 13:47, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Really ? : "One of the authors is Jeffrey Sachs, who is unqualified to talk about such topics as a scholar (he's an economist and a public policy analyst), and even though he indeed chairs the Lancet COVID-19 Commission, he and two other commissioners out of six do not have health policy, much less medical expertise; the other seems to be much more interested in neurology than virology.....We needn't be restricted to virologists only, but the people we cite should have compelling evidence of expertise in topics related to the matters discussed in the article. These two guys clearly don't have it. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 11:29, 11 June 2022 (UTC) " Empiricus (talk) 14:12, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Because for "virology" Wikipedia requires reliable publications for virology, with some basic features: peer-reviewed, secondary, independent etc. Not some fringey opinion/letter. Just because it's fringe you like, doesn't make the source good any more than the mere "opinion" of Angela Rasmussen (who is at least an actual virologist), which is rather different. Wikipedia does not engage in these disputes, but neutrally reports settled knowledge. You are basically pushing an unreliable source (and with 10 years of claimed editing experience you really should know this) on ONE SIDE of a fringe issue. Alexbrn (talk) 14:48, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Of course, the zoontic origin is a virological question - but the laboratory hypothesis is about biosafety and biosecurity, a multidisciplinary question (see also SAGO REPORT). Finally, as the whole discussion shows, the question of origin is a health policy question - which is decided by policy-makers, e.g. in the form of investigations and transparency. This has only indirectly to do with virology. Without transparency, which politics must decide - no virologist can find anything now - all other options are de facto exhausted. This is where the PNAS article stands for. Empiricus (talk) 20:59, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * If it worked like that, if one of the hypotheses were judged by one group of people and the other by another group, then a choice between them would be impossible. Of course, the lab leak hyp needs virological expertise too, and some economist cannot decide that alone. Multidisciplinarity means that you need people from several disciplines to answer a question, not that any one person from any discipline can answer it. No matter how many peacock feathers he has. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:53, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That is your private opinion Actually, its more up to consensus. And the. consensus in this case is not in favor of calling a single guy's opinion a "reliable source" simply because he served on a commission. We must, instead, rely on secondary sources to tell us whether or not this person is reliable. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 18:43, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Let`s take for e.g. the secondary soure from The Intercept.. This sums up the current discussion and controversy regarding the article. Jeffery Sachs only says - that the virus could have come from a laboratory - not that this is an evident fact. There are also other secondary sources. The Lancet background is written here : BMJ 2021; 375 "Covid-19: Lancet investigation into origin of pandemic shuts down over bias risk". Even this is no reliable source, this video explains the backgrounds - why Jeffery Sachs, even though he believed the zoontic origin thesis for a long time, became doubtful after he realised logical inconsistencies.  Empiricus (talk) 19:25, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I think your comparison of a user essay on Wikipedia with a peer-reviewed letter published in one of the world's most prestigious scientific journals is false equivalence, but I get your point. Since OP suggested we discuss the inclusion of this letter, and since you suggest we consider the relevance of the authors' qualifications to the topic, I think we can use it to cover the public policy positions they advance, for which they are eminently qualified. Per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, the reliability of a source depends on context so I can't agree that this source isn't reliable in any context, on the subject of this page (lab leak). That just sounds like a very extreme exclusionist view. ScrumptiousFood (talk) 16:57, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, as a matter of public policy advocacy, this might be mentioned, but only in that respect. Even though the piece is peer reviewed by one member of NAS, the credentials of original authors do not convince me. If this opinion piece draws enough attention from the outside (+given that the opinion pieces in PNAS are submitted by invitation only, and PNAS is no small deal), we can mention it. But again, simply namedropping them in the article, or mentioning them without showing wider prominence of their argument, is unacceptable. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 17:14, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I believe there are sufficient secondary sources for the PNAS article, just as there were for the Andersen et al and Lancet letters, both of which were also opinion pieces. Perhaps a new article on Academic letters, as well as a supplement to WP:SCHOLARSHIP would clarify how they differ scientific studies and the articles that review them. Academic letters are the normal form of scientific publishing for advancing matters of science policy, which is why I think some editors here are confused about how they should be used. A journal like PNAS would never have invited or approved the authors of this piece if they didn't think their qualifications and opinions were relevant and worthy of publishing. ScrumptiousFood (talk) 17:55, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

It is not the job of Wikipedia to determine the truth or otherwise of the Lab Leak Hypothesis. However, it is the the job of Wikipedia to present notable arguments and opinions for and against the hypothesis. The Lancet investigation is clearly important, and so that should definitely be mentioned in its own right, with a link to

The question of the Sachs and Harrison article is not whether it is true but whether it is notable. I think that Sachs as chair of the Lancet Commission, plus the publication of the article in a major journal obviously makes it very notable. It also summarizes the arguments nicely.

Now, if editors find that the article contains errors and misrepresentations, then, with references, that should be pointed out. But the article obviously needs to be mentioned. Tuntable (talk) 10:20, 13 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Classic WP:GEVAL fallacy. Wikipedia does not do "for and against", but reflects reliable (not "notable") sources. An opinion piece is not reliable for science. Alexbrn (talk) 10:27, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * And why is this (reference 68) opinion piece reliable for science ? There are even more....pieces ! Empiricus (talk) 14:38, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That source is not reliable for WP:BMI either, and of little weight. But if a poor source has been used, that is not an argument for making the problem worse. Alexbrn (talk) 14:55, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:GEVAL would perhaps be relevant if the proposed changes give equal validity to create false balance. However, what is being proposed here is exactly the opposite. We can draft an RFC to get wider consensus. ScrumptiousFood (talk) 17:02, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * What is being proposed is that an opinion piece is an "important article" to be included. Elevating unreliable sources in this way to advance a fringe position which queries reliable sources is classic WP:GEVAL. Alexbrn (talk) 18:13, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Continually creating RFCs to quibble over minor points is a form of tendentious editing. Just keep that in mind. It's a waste of editor time and slows the project down. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 18:46, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

The Lancet is perhaps the most prestigious medical publication. To say that the Lancet Commission is a "Fringe View" is nonsense. It is obviously a major publication. And as chair of the committee the paper clearly is not "Fringe". WP:GEVAL should not be used as an excuse for censorship. Tuntable (talk) 00:34, 14 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Wrong. Private productions by members of a committee are not the same thing as productions by the committee as a whole. Claims to the contrary are like the opposite of guilt by association ("'truth' by association"?). Of course, claims that insisting on good sourcing and not opinion pieces is censorship makes you look more like you are indeed attempting to advance a non-mainstream position; and looks more like an appeal to emotion than a valid argument as to how an encyclopedic article in a WP:MAINSTREAM encyclopedia should be written. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:41, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * And even so, the "commission" is mostly a marketing stunt by The Lancet. Nobody "commissioned" them (other than the publisher itself). Its output would not be WP:MEDRS either, unless by WP:MEDASSESS in the usual way. Alexbrn (talk) 06:11, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The complement to guilt by association is "honor by association". --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:06, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Implications of the new SAGO Report (WHO) for the article
The Preliminary Report of the Scientific Advisory Group for the Origins of Novel Pathogens (SAGO), 9 June 2022 has some important implications. For example, there is no longer a weighting of the possible origins of the virus. The options are all equally ranked. What is also important is that the laboratory hypothesis is presented under the terms of biosafety and biosecurity. The report is close to Sach's PNAS article in the direction of transparency, neutral point of view and open minded for all possibilities. This is a huge difference to the first report of 2021.

There are a number of points that are important, should be discussed and should be included as a separate chapter in the article. --Empiricus (talk) 19:41, 12 June 2022 (UTC)


 * For now, as summarised in Science, the zoonotic transfer is considered the most likely scenario, though it has gaps, according to chair of the committee, Marietjie Venter. You are right that this report does not feature any ranking, but it doesn't imply any sort of "equal weight of hypotheses". Same summary by CNN. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 20:36, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed that "this preliminary report did not rank the likelihood of possibilities when proposing the required further studies to reach that determination" shouldn't be taken to imply they're all actually equally likely, nor that the previous report's conclusions are to be discarded or have (yet) been superseded. Indeed, in the section titled Possibility of introduction of SARS-CoV-2 to the human population through a laboratory incident, they wrote The SAGO recognizes the work of the joint WHO-China team and the findings presented in their report. Presumably, that would include the "extremely unlikely" conclusion. Though I'm not holding my breath they'll get those answers, as later in the section they say: To support biosafety and biosecurity investigations into the introduction of SARS-CoV-2 into the human population through a laboratory incident; the SAGO notes that there would need to be access to and review of the evidence of all laboratory activities (both in vitro and in vivo studies) with coronaviruses including SARS-CoV-2-related viruses or close ancestors and the laboratory’s approach to implementation and improvement of laboratory biosafety and biosecurity. As it is not common practice to publish the institutional implementation of biosafety and biosecurity practices of individual laboratories in peer-reviewed scientific journals, additional information will need to be obtained and reviewed to make conclusive recommendations. Same limitation as any other study, it depends on the cooperation of the WIV, and they appear unlikely to cooperate as long as they feel like they're being targeted. Who knows, maybe that has changed through the shift to SAGO and other world political changes.
 * From a footnote in that section: It is noted that three members of SAGO (Dr Vladimir Dedkov, Dr Carlos Morel, Professor Yungui Yang) do not agree with the inclusion of further studies evaluating the possibility of introduction of SARS-CoV-2 to the human population through a laboratory incident in this preliminary report due to the fact that from their viewpoint, there is no new scientific evidence to question the conclusion of the WHO-convened global study of origins of SARS-CoV-2: China Part mission report published in March 2021. Out of 27 total members, so not a majority by any means, but I think it's notable they added this specifically as a footnote. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:24, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * And to clarify, I do agree the SAGO report is going to be a notable addition to this article. It's the details on how to word such a section that will prompt some disagreements. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:39, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 3 scientists out of 27? Sure sounds like the consensus of scientists agree that there was no lab leak. 2600:8804:6600:45:DD1:9687:3619:44B8 (talk) 22:24, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 3 out of 27 scientists contributing to a report disagreed with the suggestion of further investigations into it. Any other interpretation of this is at best cloud-chasing. Other scientists writing in peer-reviewed journals have clearly indicated that there is no evidence currently available to support the lab leak allegations even if they haven't yet been proven false. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:16, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * can we deduce that 24 of 27 scientist are suggesting there needs to be further investigations into it? 2600:8804:6600:45:DD1:9687:3619:44B8 (talk) 23:27, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. We cannot conclude that, no. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 01:57, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * So you finally concede that a lack evidence for a lab leak does not prove there was no lab leak? 2600:8804:6600:45:DD1:9687:3619:44B8 (talk) 03:42, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Putting words in people's mouths is not an honest discussion method. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:09, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * There is not a single piece of evidence for any of the hypotheses so far. What we have are indications of possibilities - e.g. that virus outbreaks in the past were zoonotically caused, also that the virus could also be produced in a laboratory (for e.g. PNAS Articel) - but these are only possibilities. They can be weighted and ranked - but this do not constitute proof or evidence. This is basically also the result of the SAGO report.
 * Actually, these sentences in the article (and other WP articles) is based on a conflict of interest - the members from China (50%) were not independent - the weighting "extremely unlikely" is/was Chinese state doctrine (everything else is a lie for China): "The WHO-convened Global Study of the Origins of SARS-CoV-2, written by a joint team of Chinese and international scientists and published in March 2021, assessed introduction through a laboratory incident to be "extremely unlikely" and not supported by any available evidence, although the report stated that this possibility could not be wholly ruled out without further evidence." After what we know now, this sentence is implausible, no NPOV - simply obsolete. The circumstances should be better explained.Empiricus (talk) 10:25, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * "There is not a single piece of evidence for any of the hypotheses so far" this appears to be your opinion, as the section of the SAGO report lists many studies investigating this, and several animals in which the virus has been found. You appear to personally have defined this as not evidence. Further, you are conducting original research into this question, determining what you think is Chinese doctrine, and should therefore be discarded. I am sorry but this discussion is no longer based in either reliable sources or WP:PAGs, and therefore is not suitable for this page. It is now more akin to a WP:SOAPBOX of your beliefs of what should and should not be considered likely. That is not the purpose of wikipedia. I and many others will likely reply only when and if this discussion is based in sources, quotes, and PAGs. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 11:51, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The report mentions over 25 studies - which are still being evaluated by SAGO. From this sentence no evidence can be deduced : "To date, neither the virus progenitors nor the natural/intermediate hosts have been identified. The current available data on the closest related SARS-like viruses and susceptibility of many animal species to SARS-CoV-2 suggest a zoonotic source." SAGO simply speaks of "suggest. For me "suggest" is no evidence - maybe for you ! The fact that there are massive problems regarding the transparency of China is sufficiently documented here in WP and was repeated last week.:Lab leak theory a ‘lie’ cooked up by anti-China forces: FM - Global Times. The purpose of wikipedia is transparency with verified facts. I don't understand when new transparent studies are proposed (for e.g. J. Sachs) - that this end in such a theatre/soapbox for endless discussions -instead of simply inserting a few sentences here. Empiricus (talk) 15:57, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * This seems like a conflation of conclusions and evidence, but understanding the way you've used the terms above helps make your position clearer. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:50, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * No, we can't say for sure that 24/27 are actively in favor. Three of the 27 opposed further studies strongly enough to want it put in a footnote. I think it's most likely that a majority (anywhere between 14-24) are in favor of additional studies, but we don't know for certain how many of the remainder were ambivalent. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:18, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * we must be careful not confuse statements from the presser with the positions of the SAGO report itself. Venter's statements do not imply "equal weight of hypotheses", but both she and the SAGO report stress the need for future studies and more data to reach firmer conclusions, and that is a substantial shift from the last WHO report that was mired in controversy. The SAGO report is a review of all studies, including Holmes et al, which it now supersedes, per WP:MEDASSESS, WP:MEDORG and WP:AGEMATTERS. To answer OP, I think the main implication of the SAGO report is that all views on the weighting of hypotheses be attributed to their source, per WP:NPOV, and that should include Holmes et al, which was our best source up till now. Since this SAGO report is "preliminary" and doesn't give any firm conclusions, pending Chinese government cooperation for further studies and data, WP:CRYSTAL may also be a relevant policy, since we can't know what they will find. ScrumptiousFood (talk) 18:10, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * This entire section appears to be original research, and as such, is not a very useful interpretation for inclusion in the article. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 18:47, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I only read quotes from the report here -with some comments. No sign of original research. There are some important differentiations in the report that are worth to be included in the article.... Empiricus (talk) 20:44, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Any investigation that suggests that the lab leak is real is, by definition, original research. Unless you copy verbatum, in which case it is copyright infringement. :(  Tuntable (talk) 00:43, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * "there is no longer a weighting of the possible origins of the virus. The options are all equally ranked." The absence of weighing the possibilities does not mean that the options are all equally ranked. To suggest as much is original research. That is one among many examples. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 01:56, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Can we change this to this .Forich (talk) 02:09, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see this in the report (emphasis mine): including periodic monitoring of laboratories' internal research activities regarding risky pathogens. I also don't see that this: possibility of lab leaks is now being considered by the WHO and its advisors to be included as standard elements of the investigations on the origins of pandemics is a new thing. As far as I am aware, for many decades even before the 1967 Marburg virus outbreak, it has been standard practice to consider this possibility. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 13:14, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I think might be confusing the SAGO report with a different WHO report released on June 8 about developing a global framework for biorisk management . I think it is also due in this page, but maybe not in the way Forich suggests. ScrumptiousFood (talk) 17:19, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Shibbo its right, the SAGO report is limited to studies on origin, not on the monitoring of research laboratories. I was reading too much between the lines of SAGO's page 14 statement   It does not say periodical nor monitoring.  Maybe SAGO including this review of biosafety programme administration is not related to laboratories, or if it is, is the same regulation in place since decades ago as Shibbolethink suggests, I can not tell.  Thanks to ScrumptiousFood for bringing up the biorisk report, was not aware of it and will read it. Forich (talk) 04:07, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Neutral statement: alteration of genome
The current version of the article states: Some versions, particularly those alleging alteration of the SARS-CoV-2 genome, are based on speculation, misinformation, or misrepresentations of scientific evidence.

The problem with this statement is that scientists are currently divided on whether alteration to the SARS-CoV-2 genome, or (more precisely) its immediate progenitor's genome, can be determined without access to laboratory records 1 2 3 4 5.

Baric Graham 2020 (PMID: 32392464) cites Andersen et al (PMID: 32284615) in light of social media speculation about possible laboratory manipulation and deliberate and/or accidental release of SARS-CoV-2. But as Ralph Baric later told to PresaDiretta, "You can engineer a virus without leaving any trace" [1]. After dampening his "smoking gun" comment about the FCS, David Baltimore told to Caltech "You can't distinguish between the two origins from just looking at the sequence" [2]. And more significantly, after a (unapproved) grant request by EHA about coronavirus GoF experiments was leaked in Sep 2021; Jack Nunberg told to The Intercept "Whether that particular study did or didn’t [lead to the pandemic], it certainly could have" [3] and Alexander Kekulé told to German television "My unease about the possibility that it could have been a laboratory accident has increased" [4]. Simon Wain Hobson wrote in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung about it: "What we do not know - and badly need to know - is whether this proposal was submitted elsewhere, financed and performed." [5].

A neutral statement would reflect the views of these scientists as expressed in these more recent sources, while tempering confidence about facts that scientists can't know without access to key documents at the Wuhan laboratory. The full quote from Baric is "You can engineer a virus without leaving any trace. The answers you are looking for, however, can only be found in the archives of the Wuhan laboratory".

80.107.62.75 (talk) 07:32, 8 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, this has been a problem for a while, and the main reason the POV tag remains on the Gain of function research page. I would support a rewrite of the sentence using better sources and providing some much needed WP:BALANCE on the issue. LondonIP (talk) 02:01, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * We do not treat blatant minority views as always worthy of inclusion. This is what BALANCE tells us as well.. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 10:42, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * After the DARPA proposal leak, a number of reputed scientists commented extensively on this scenario, so it's an open question, not a minority view. There are quotes from Simon Wain-Hobson and Alexander Kukel are very relevant, and the comments from David Baltimore in Caltech are relevant too. Regardless of all that, the use of the Graham Baric paper to call this speculation is a clear case of OR. The paper introduces Andersen et al as a response to speculation, and doesn't call it that itself, qualifying it as "possible". LondonIP (talk) 01:49, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Quotes and comments are opinion, and unless they have been subsequently followed by more serious endeavours which were published in scientific journals, they do not hold nearly the same weight. "Speculation" is well-backed up in sources (Despite these massive online speculations, scientific evidence does not support this accusation of laboratory release theory.; The suspicion that SARS-CoV-2 might have a laboratory origin stems from the coincidence that it was first detected in a city that houses a major virological laboratory that studies coronaviruses.) and rather a mild way to refer to it (I've also seen As a conclusion, there is no evidence to support the Mojiang mine origin of SARS-CoV-2 and any of the laboratory leak theories. ... These narratives are not evidence-based scientific conclusions. ... In a time of geopolitical conflicts characterized by hidden agendas, false information and manipulations, it is essential to rely only on scientific and evidence-based conclusions and to avoid opinion-based narratives. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:09, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The tone of the statement is obviously POV. None of the citations are scientific published papers, and there are numerous other papers that argue strongly (and with good evidence) that it is a lab leak.  It is obviously controversial, and it is not the job of Wikipedia to take sides.  It needs to be replaced with a more balanced statement. Tuntable (talk) 08:14, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Obviously you can't distinguish a crap scientific paper from actual ones. Take a look at WP:NOLABLEAK (from where all of the above is quoted). The "both sides" argument is as utter bollocks here as it would be anywhere else. WP:NPOV does not ever mean that we need to present "both sides" equally. We present them based on what the high-quality sources are saying, and high-quality sources are saying the lab leak is at best "unsupported speculation". You don't like that? Not Wikipedia's problem. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:20, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * there are numerous other papers that argue strongly (and with good evidence) that it is a lab leak -- Could you provide a single secondary review paper published in a reputable topic-relevant journal and peer reviewed by topic experts which supports this claim? I cannot think of a single one. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 21:22, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "a number of reputed scientists commented extensively on this scenario, so it's an open question, not a minority view" - By this logic, whether or not bigfoot exists is also an open question. Whether or not aliens have visited earth. Etc. etc. On wikipedia, it is not in line with the WP:PAGs to determine scientific consensus or prevailing scientific view (and the nature of its majority vs minority opinions) via news reports and quotations. We also don't assess what is "an open question" via these methods. WP:MEDASSESS and WP:RS/AC tell us how to assess such things, and it is not via interpretation or summation of a bunch of individual quotations from individual people. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 04:07, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * If there are so many well published papers then it should be easy to find one that actually states
 * "Some versions, particularly those alleging alteration of the SARS-CoV-2 genome, are based on speculation, misinformation, or misrepresentations of scientific evidence."
 * The citations for the statement in question are clearly not substantial papers.
 * I also object to the tone of your comments. Insulting other editors by saying that they are incompetent is completely against Wikipedia etiquette. It reflects much more upon your own attitude than upon those making constructive comments.  Tuntable (talk) 22:31, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You haven't even bothered to check WP:NOLABLEAK, which was clearly linked, have you? Nor go more in depth and look at the sources in their entirety and see what else they have written? Not going to do your job for you. Currently, there are some fictitious and pseudoscientific claims as well as conspiracy theories associated with the Covid‐19 pandemic. Some people have alleged that SARS‐CoV‐2 is of laboratory origin and the result of deliberate genetic manipulation. According to these conspiracy theories, a novel virus is a human‐made biological weapon, not the result of natural evolution and selection. (Rev Med Virol., 2021 Feb 14) is rather unambiguously clear and there is no need for us to take any half-measures regarding this. Stop wasting people's time. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:12, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:NOLABLEAK is not Wikipolicy, but merely the opinion of some editors. It carries no weight whatsoever.
 * What we are discussing here is a specific sentence which requires a specific citation, from a reputable source, and that is missing. Therefor the sentence should be removed. Tuntable (talk) 04:00, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:NOLABLEAK also contains an extensive bibliography. If you wish to ignore it, and ignore the sources which are already in the article (despite me bothering to quote them, right here), that is entirely your own problem. I'm done wasting my time. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:51, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @Tuntable Hi, where do I say another editor is "incompetent" ? — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 22:57, 22 March 2022 (UTC)


 * IP is correct in saying that the paper of a scientist who said we don't know if the virus was engineered should not be cited to say the very opposite. LondonIP is correct in saying the paper only references Andersen et al and doesn't make the claim itself, so our article misinterpretation the author's view and his paper, in wikivoice. In a related discussion on Gain of Function Research, the original author of MEDRS says the question of whether a lab conducting gain-of-function research it not a scientific or biomedical claim but a bog standard human "Well, were you?" question . Yes I read that entire discussion. ScrumptiousFood (talk) 16:50, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This would be covered by "speculation." (i.e. the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence) As you say, we don't know if the virus was engineered. So, by your reasoning, it is speculative. Hence why the only place where that Ralph Baric paper is cited in this sentence is after the word "speculation." — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 22:55, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between speculation and hypothesizing, and makes a similar point in this related discussion, as does  in this related discussion. Editors oppose the statement for one reason (POV), and the citation of Graham et al on the "speculation" epithet for another (misrepresentation of the authors' view expressed in a Presadiretta interview and their Cell paper). Calling the engineered scenario "speculation" is the POV of one group of scientists (Holmes et al) and we certainly shouldn't be attributing it as that to Graham Baric 2020. It is a blatant misrepresentation of a source that editors have protested for over a year. If we cannot agree on this, we should post a RFC on a noticeboard to group all of these discussions. ScrumptiousFood (talk) 15:36, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * "Editors oppose the statement for one reason (POV)" - please do not continue to speak for the opinions of other editors without specific quotations, per the talk page guidelines. Holmes et al is a peer-reviewed secondary review article published in a well-regarded topic-relevant journal, and thus is the best available source for depicting the view of the scientific community about this question. We do not have higher or equivalent quality sources which contradict Holmes on this. The Baric paper also has the quote which even includes the word "speculation". If you believe it fails verification, you should attempt to gather consensus on that view. We have discussed this many times before (stretching all the way back to March of last year  ), and the informal consensus was in favor of including this word with this sourcing. We should not escalate every dispute to an RFC, as this is a fundamental component of tendentious editing and indeed, I would caution you against this. Given the substantial amount of discussions we have had on this, and the accompanying sourcing, I would view this as a substantial waste of editor time and effort. On the other hand, if you do escalate this into an RFC, we could get a firm formal consensus on it, and add it to the consensus banner at the top of this page! —  Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 15:40, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Please WP:FOC and refrain from constantly lecturing editors you disagree with on policies and guidelines. Baric and Graham do not state that alteration of the genome is "speculation", but quote Andersen et al using that epithet, as says above. Our article misrepresents Baric's point of view, and the position of his paper with Graham, so it is WP:OR. Holmes et al is indeed a high quality source, but MEDRS is not the relevant sourcing criteria for determining a scientific consensus on this subject, as the original author of WP:MEDRS said long ago. Scientists are divided on this question and a review article giving one POV does not make it a scientific consensus. An RFC will be necessary if we cannot agree on this. ScrumptiousFood (talk) 16:38, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * If MEDRS papers were "not appropriate sourcing for determining a scientific consensus", random scientists getting quoted in newspapers would be even less so. And you're correct that we shouldn't call the engineering scenarios "speculation": most of those scientific papers (reviewed by their peers, and not by newspapers editors) clearly dismiss that as having no evidence and various other terms, including "speculation" but also "conspiracy theory", "rumour", "opinion-based narratives" which are "in a time of geopolitical conflicts characterized by hidden agendas, false information and manipulations"; so on so forth (all cited and quoted here - see, you don't even have to do the hard work of looking for them). If you want to focus on content, you should stop wasting people's time with your clearly tendentious arguments and own up and start looking for sources (like those that have been presented to you, multiple times now) instead of sealioning and ignoring them. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:09, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Most everyone using the word "conspiracy" has been proven to be conflicted. (eg Daszak) Newspapers using the word are most usually quoting these same people. I believe the only scenario that has no supporting evidence based in fact is "Bioweapon". 2600:1700:8660:E180:8569:1D3F:A66F:E266 (talk) 00:04, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I believe the only scenario that has no supporting evidence based in fact is "Bioweapon". Please support your statements with references to reliable sources. Vague pronouncements do not keep us specific or grounded, and thus do not help the discussion approach consensus. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 00:37, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * COVID-19_lab_leak_theory 2600:1700:8660:E180:E56B:2EFB:3380:FBFC (talk) 04:42, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * the version proposing the virus may have escaped accidentally is more plausible. Plausibility is not synonymous with supporting evidence. It is very plausible that I will go outside right now and my neighbor will be walking across the way and say hello and wave to me. It has never happened before, but it is certainly plausible. I have no evidence to suggest that this will happen. But it remains plausible. Please support your statements with reliable sources, or take your discussion to a platform where such baseless theorizing and invective is permitted. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 21:32, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * An RFC will be necessary if we cannot agree on this - Do you mean you will start an RFC if everyone here does not agree with your position, or are you open to reconsidering if provided any evidence? Or if you fail to find evidence which supports your position, as you have failed to do thus far? refrain from constantly lecturing editors you disagree with on policies and guidelines - The only things that should be discussed on this talk page are 1) policies and guidelines (and their application to this article), 2) article content, and 3) source quality, utility, and verifiability. per WP:TALK. It seems, per that guideline, I am on topic. Holmes et al is indeed a high quality source, but MEDRS is not the relevant sourcing criteria for determining a scientific consensus on this subject - You're right, but WP:SCHOLARSHIP, WP:SOURCETYPES and WP:PARITY are applicable. And as a result, much of the same considerations apply. a review article giving one POV does not make it a scientific consensus - Review articles, especially when viewed in aggregate, depict the consensus of the scientific community, since they are peer-reviewed and editorially reviewed and themselves discuss the relevant literature in a secondary perspective. WP:SOURCETYPES, WP:RS/AC, WP:SCHOLARSHIP, and WP:PARITY tell us this is the type of source we should use here. And we have several which tell us that "speculation" is an appropriate term to use. Scientists are divided on this question - Is what you describe here your personal opinion? What high quality peer reviewed secondary source are you using to determine that scientists are divided on this issue? When viewed in aggregate, our WP:BESTSOURCES (as shown in WP:NOLABLEAK) tell us that there is not much disagreement among scientists, and only a minority consider the lab leak theory a likely scenario. Only a very small minority consider there to be any supporting evidence for the theory. —  Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 23:01, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * In a world where Francis Collins is attacking scientists and Kristian Andersen is proposing to delete papers from pre-print servers, it seems very difficult to use WP:BESTSOURCES in a cut and dry fashion. 2600:1700:8660:E180:8569:1D3F:A66F:E266 (talk) 00:26, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia follows, it does not lead. if our sources are wrong, we are wrong as well. This is the essence of "verifiability, not truth" and it is the guideline that prevents us from inserting our POVs and deciding when to trust which sources. It appears you have disagreement with those policies and guidelines, and you should probably take that to the talk page of those wikipedia-space articles. This is not the place to debate what the policy should be, it is the place to discuss how to apply those policies as they currently exist. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 00:38, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Let the gaslight burn bright! 2600:1700:8660:E180:E56B:2EFB:3380:FBFC (talk) 04:42, 4 April 2022 (UTC)


 * since you mentioned scientist qualifications in the discussion below, what do you think of this strange case where one of the world's top coronavirus experts says we wouldn't be able know if one was manipulated in a lab, when we assert the very opposite of that in Wikivoice and even cite him to support it? Would you like to close this discussion as an uninvolved editor? I think this is the worst case of WP:OR in the lab leak debate on Wikipedia. ScrumptiousFood (talk) 17:07, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I was involved in the respect of a conduct warning to RandomCanadian and 2600:1700:... IP during this discussion., , where I partially weighed on the merits of the arguments. If you want my opinion, point me to the specific source, because I'm lost, and then I may say what I have in mind. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 17:22, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Please can you read this entire thread and comment so that we can avoid an RFC or WP:ORN discussion? The last sentence of our article puts the claim that the possibility of engineering is "speculation", citing Graham Baric, whereas the paper makes no such claim. Graham Baric reviews Andersen et al (incidentally, also an opinion piece) which makes that claim, and as the Greek IP explained, Baric himself has countered that position (he actually invented "no-see'm" engineering methods that leave no trace). There is really no scientific consensus that bioengineering is anything of the things we describe it as in Wikivoice, and newer and far better sources say engineering is absolutely a possibility as far as the lab leak theory is concerned. The PNAS letter also introduces new information (the DEFUSE proposal), which came out after the Holmes et all review paper, which is the best source so far. ScrumptiousFood (talk) 17:42, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * As I said, I am not the person who can definitively settle the question, but I think I will maintain a consistent line by answering this this way:
 * The only reference actually being discussed is the Graham part, linked to "speculation", so I don't discuss the other two parts, as these have not been really challenged as to their soundness. In my view, all of the refs are reliable and cited correctly, without distorting whatever the authors wanted to convey. Using this definition of "speculation" and having in mind the limitations of merging sources in an original research manner, my conclusions regards the sources above are the following:
 * (1) and (2) don't really yield anything, because if what they say is true, than any hypothesis, whether lab leak or zoonotic, is speculative until we have access to the lab records in Wuhan, so they do not contradict what is already in the article (that some of the lab leak hypotheses, including mentioning genome alteration, are based on speculation), and the fact that under that logic some of the zoonotic hypotheses are also speculative is outside the scope of this article, as we are speaking of the lab leak theory, not of zoonosis (just like the article on GOP doesn't explain the positions of the Democrats); (3) is covered by the definition of "speculation": "I don't know if it happened, but why couldn't it?"; (4) is an opinion of a reputable researcher who reflects on the event but, as rightly noted, statements from research articles published in scholarly journals trump statements of specialists on shows like Good Morning America or the like, and if they have a wide following among relevant experts, they would then very likely be published in scholarly research and widely cited anyway (like e.g. Andersen et al. is). (5) doesn't yield anything, as it is just a generic request for inquiry which doesn't stand out among others, even if made by a relevant expert. This can be summed up somewhere as "some scientists have requested more research on this topic" if this is not already in the article.
 * The only thing we can mention among this heap of links (looking for a relevant place and more as a passing mention rather than a focus of a paragraph) is the suggestion about untraceable viruses (NOT IN THE LEAD), though I am sure relevant literature already exists on the topic and by this time we should be able to find at least one or two scholarly articles linking these facts. Since we are squarely within BIOMED territory (genetic engineering of viruses), we should stick to MEDRS to write about that.
 * In short, I see no reason for change, as the passage remains accurate. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 18:45, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * "Some versions", particularly those alleging alteration of the SARS-CoV-2 genome, are based on speculation, misinformation, or misrepresentations of scientific evidence. What is meant by "versions"? Hypotheses, publications, opions or conjectures ?   The term "versions" leads to a generalisation and to a negative framing (of all approaches) - which is in strong contrast to the necessary of transparency.
 * If we are dealing with hypotheses of scientists, and should these be disproved by other scientists - does this not mean that they should be framed negatively (= as an implicit conspiracy theory) as misinformation, speculation or misinformation. This is untypical in science. Hypotheses can also be falsified - that is the normal scientific process. No reason for discrimination.
 * Of course there were speculations, misinformation, or misrepresentations by many non-scientists, e.g. journalists - but we should differentiate between them. Empiricus (talk) 20:15, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Of course there were speculations, misinformation, or misrepresentations by many non-scientists, e.g. journalists, and that's enough for determining the accuracy of that statement. Note that the lede does not say "scientists have made speculations, misinformation etc.", it says "some versions" (by unspecified people) seeded the speculations etc. I rest my case. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 20:27, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * "some versions" (by unspecified people) - can also mean scientists ans science. The sources also address, criticise or even discriminate scientists, who had the courage to take a different position here. Better and neutral would be "In the public and media". I am not convinced that we should generally discriminate  scientists with other positions concerning the Labor-Hypotheses (even if they are wrong) in the Wikipedia. Empiricus (talk) 20:45, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * please allow me to make this simple. Do you think the Baric Graham paper supports the assertions of the sentence it is cited in? As a follow on question, are you aware of the newer sources that counter these unattributed assertions? ScrumptiousFood (talk) 18:19, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Answer to the first question, yes. Answer to the second one, the sources presented do not seem to counter what has been said in that paper. As far as my compilation of resources in the template above goes since I effectively took it over in late 2021, I am not aware of any source of similar quality, or in fact of any resource that might be used for facts (whether MEDRS or plain RS) that would disprove that notion, i.e. say "no versions of the lab leak theory have ever been about speculation/no version of the lab leak theory ever misinformed anyone/no version of the lab leak theory misrepresented (deliberately or not so) available evidence". I am also yet to find the same sources with the word "no" substituted with "few". Szmenderowiecki (talk) 20:15, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * And thank you for taking it over :) I started my surgical sub-internships in school, and as you might imagine, have less and less time for these things. My work day is approximately 3:30a-9p with ~1 day off/week. So I'm glad you were willing to put in that work as it passed from ProcrastinatingReader to me to you! — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 15:36, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * please can you quote the exact text of Graham Baric 2020 that you say supports the Wikivoice statement that versions of the theory alleging alteration of the SARS-CoV-2 genome are based on speculation, misinformation, or misrepresentations of scientific evidence. The only part of the statement it supports is that some scientists (Andersen e tal) have said that alteration of the genome and deliberate/accidental and is "social media speculation", but that paper is no less controversial than the Lancet letter, which I am writing an article about. The NPOV concern here is that we are not representing all significant (expert) views published in (newer) reliable sources, and my OR concern is that we are misrepresenting Baric's view, as published in RAI. Reputed scientists in RS and MEDRS have commented on evidence of possible genome alteration (the DEFUSE proposal), so putting it down so firmly as speculation and misinformation is POV. ScrumptiousFood (talk) 16:31, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * "laboratory manipulation" cannot be made otherwise than due to "alteration of SARS-CoV-2 genome". As for other parts, they are cited to other sources which Baric does not cover. As I said, just because some accounts have been based on manipulation/misinformation does not mean that others are not more plausible, but this does not invalidate the original point of that letter - that some are based on, in this particular case, speculation - this point has not seemed to be controversial. The "speculation" part is answered by that source fairly well. Even if the consensus seemed to have shifted from "lab leak not plausible" to "lab leak plausible but less likely than zoonotic transfer" (which would pretty much make that source outdated in its conclusions), the other parts are still usable.
 * As to Baric's opinion on Italian TV, it doesn't invalidate his opinion, either, because he only said that the viruses could be engineered without a trace, but did not claim they were. Since he said in that interview that only a visit to Wuhan would clarify everything, since there has been no such visit, it is impossible to tell, hence any theoretising is speculation. The statements are mutually consistent. As for NPOV concerns, I have explained myself with respect to the sources presented, but I may consider others. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 22:46, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * he actually invented "no-see'm" engineering methods that leave no trace This is a misunderstanding of no-see'm and most of all, the ability to actually use that technology on SARS-CoV-2. It could not be used to alter the FCS, for example. The necessary base pairs are not present in the necessary locations.newer and far better sources say engineering is absolutely a possibility as far as the lab leak theory is concerned Which sources are those? — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 00:15, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The necessary base pairs are not present in the necessary locations. What Baric said on RAI is that there are a few methods that would leave no trace. I mentioned no-see'm, which is just one method, without claiming it was the method used.
 * Which sources are those? By sources, I am referring to the above mentioned experts, like Baltimore, who said the genome cannot reveal origins, and Waine-Hobson and Kekulé, who reacted to the DEFUSE proposal, that was released a week AFTER Holmes et al was published. Despite being a review article, Holmes et al cannot answer the question of whether the WIV was doing what might be considered gain-of-function research on a virus that subsequently infected a laboratory worker . As the PNAS piece says, this question is a matter for further investigation, both in China and the United States, and that's why I think the sentence we are discussing is POV. ScrumptiousFood (talk) 18:12, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

"Reversal of stance"
@Le Marteau

1) We follow scholarly sources for matters of science (e.g. epidemiology) (and prefer them for everything else) The AP does not trump the literature. 2) We avoid using news sources for our understanding of scientific papers for this exact reason. See WP:RECENTISM. 3) We have sources and quotations in THIS VERY ARTICLE which describe how the WHO has always thought "more investigation is necessary." They said this exact thing in the first report.

If scholarship said all humans are born with a belly button, and a news report came out this morning saying "This just in! Humans no longer need belly buttons!" then we would wait to change the belly button article until a secondary scholarly review article had been published to that effect. See also WP:PARITY. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 18:41, 19 June 2022 (UTC)


 * At a minimum, any mention should be attributed, and the attribution should be after a more neutral description of the report rather than ahead of it. Per WP:UNDUE, placing the attributed claim first implies that should be the primary interpretation, rather than one possible interpretation. Particularly since we're talking about a WP:NEWSORG about a scientific topic. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:03, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Can anyone please look up John Ehrenreich's The Making of a Pandemic: Social, Political, and Psychological Perspectives on Covid-19 (Springer, 2022, ISBN 978-3-031-04964-4 in ebook)? He's not exactly a subject-matter expert, but apparently that book might be relevant for the article as a summary (I've only seen a snippet). Szmenderowiecki (talk) 20:53, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't believe inclusion that the WHO is perceived to have changed course should be handled as a "matter of science" by us. The WHO is advocating increased research into the matter... this is not "scientific information" any more than would news that Bellview Hospital hired twenty new doctors to treat cancer would be...this is more along the lines of a resources and logistics thing. Le Marteau (talk) 21:17, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * There's a bit of a danger in picking any one primary "reaction" as the reaction (especially if it's US News, which is parochial as anything). Maybe better to use a survey of reactions such as this. Alexbrn (talk) 21:27, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, presenting it as a reaction is one thing. But the diff in question presented it as the only reaction, and ahead of the rest of the description of the report, presenting it as the de facto interpretation. That's where it becomes problematic. Bakkster Man (talk) 22:14, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * One of the few pieces of fresh information in the report came from Chinese researchers, who responded to a request from SAGO and provided new data on blood samples taken from 40,000 people in Wuhan before the first COVID-19 cases surfaced in December 2019. Although 200 tested positive for antibodies to SARS-CoV-2, those antibodies could not neutralize the virus in a confirmatory test, suggesting these were false positives. A dozen studies from Europe and the United States have offered evidence of SARS-CoV-2 or antibodies in biological or sewage samples taken before December 2019. Independent attempts to validate these studies so far have failed, but Chinese officials have highlighted them to suggest the pandemic originated elsewhere, and SAGO is still reviewing those data. Its report only notes that “the significance of these findings remains unclear.” Should we include info on the status of the analysis of antibodies in pre-Dec 2019 blood samples? 2600:8804:6600:45:D02D:6DB0:9EFD:BC61 (talk) 23:51, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The Chinese providing blood samples from before December, none of which had neutralizing antibodies, would be reasonable to mention in one of the origins articles (Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 is probably a better location, as the antibody presence doesn't really weigh on a lab origin specifically) as Chinese participation in the investigations is a notable element. The Chinese assertion that this means the origin was outside of China shouldn't be included, not unless SAGO can confirm those studies outside China weren't also false positives (which many have suggested they might be, as none of them used validated test methods to my knowledge). Bakkster Man (talk) 13:30, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Just as an aside, "Although 200 tested positive for antibodies to SARS-CoV-2, those antibodies could not neutralize the virus in a confirmatory test, suggesting these were false positives" is nonsense. I did my PhD on neutralizing vs non-neutralizing serum and antibody responses, and concluding that these are false positives from that fact alone is ridiculous and unscientific. We would need relative titers, analysis of epitopes, etc. You can't just say "non neutralizing = false positive." There is such a thing as a non-neutralizing but protective polyclonal or monoclonal antibody response. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 17:27, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe better to use a survey of reactions That works for me. Besides the "WHO did a reversal" reaction, what other reactions do you think should be included? Le Marteau (talk) 06:38, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd start with just summarizing the paper in wikivoice: what the report said about the lab. AP can be one reaction, Science collected more reactions here and called them 'mixed' (also note, they quote the SAGO chair at the press conference “But at this stage, the strongest evidence is still around a zoonotic transmission”, probably notable here as well), and I suspect we can give the attributed Chinese response as well. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:46, 22 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I think Le Marteau's edit is good. If AP describes it as a reversal of stance, we should describe it as that. Going from "extremely unlikely" to "possible" represents a substantial shift in the WHO's investigatory position, denying the Chinese government's earlier demand to drop the lab theory from future investigations. The WHO must now investigate this possibility with the Chinese government's cooperation. ScrumptiousFood (talk) 17:00, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Just for clarity, why start with the AP's position, instead of the SAGO chair's quote that the strongest evidence is still around a zoonotic transmission? Would help explain why you think there aren't PAG concerns (DUE, etc) with the original edit, or allow for clarification on improved wording to avoid those issues. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:06, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, a POV-push it seems. Alexbrn (talk) 18:14, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The AP's position is the position of most good sources     . Le Marteau's edit accurately reflected how source report this as a significant change in the WHO's "investigatory position" which some editors here insist is not huge. Since most RS claim that the SAGO report made no assessments and focus on the lack of data from China, the Venter quote shouldn't be used to challenge how the AP reports the turn of events. Instead we should also highlight the fact that China reacted angrily to the WHO's back-track  . We have enough unused space on this article to cover all these details. Francesco espo (talk) 20:41, 23 June 2022 (UTC)


 * We have not much literature about the new SAGO report due to its recentness. For now, we should prioritize the statements of the scholars themselves involved in the report, so we should state Venter's summary of that report so far, and the Science article is a brilliant source in that respect. We can also mention, though, that the second report is much different from the first one ("sharp reversal" per AP, "in stark distinction" [of the first one] per Science) in its recommendations. This comes with a caveat, though, as even WHO did not fully accept the first report, i.a. due to the opposition of its chief, so to say that WHO's position reversed isn't entirely accurate, because the initial position was sort of contradictory due to the declarations of WHO's chief. But we can definitely compare reports themselves, which are very different.
 * We already mention the Chinese reaction ("a lie concocted by anti-China forces for political purposes, which has nothing to do with science"), and they do not oppose the report's reversal itself but any suggestion of the lab leak theory at all, as this would implicate China, so in that respect no need for further emphasis. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 23:11, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Define DRASTIC earlier
DRASTIC is first mentioned in the "Mojiang copper mine" section and is not described until much later in the "Continuing coverage" section. Can we edit the article so that DRASTIC is described where they are first mentioned? Poppa shark (talk) 23:49, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 July 2022
In July 2022, Nick Paterson, a well-respected scientific writer, changed his mind and now "believes that COVID-19 originated as a leak from the Wuhan Institute of Virology" following the publication of "Viral: The Search for the Origin of COVID-19" by Mat Riddley and Alina Chan.

https://npatterson.substack.com/p/more-regulation-please KeithDud (talk) 13:12, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. This needs secondary coverage in reliable sources to demonstrate that it is noteworthy. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:19, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * And to clarify, no a blog on substack is not a reliable source. WP:SPS. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:46, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Define the organization DRASTIC earlier

 * Describe the organization DRASTIC when it is first mentioned in the "Mojiang copper mine" section.:
 * DRASTIC is first mentioned in the "Mojiang copper mine" section and is not described until much later in the "Continuing coverage" section.:

Poppa shark (talk) 16:38, 22 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Please write your description of the organization DRASTIC that you would want to see included. RFZYN SPY  talk 07:18, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ the request wanted the summary of DRASTIC to be moved to the first mention, rather than the last mention. The reader of the article wouldn't know wtf DRASTIC is since it was both unlinked and not mentioned previously. SWinxy (talk) 21:24, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Gotcha, I didn't realize a description already existed so I responded but left the request unanswered. Thanks for taking care of this. RFZYN SPY  talk 22:11, 23 July 2022 (UTC)